In Pursuit of a Modern Day Reformation

CONFORMITY TO THE WORLD by the Rev. CHARLES G. FINNEY

2008-10-25T14:31:00.000-07:00

Read the following very slowly. As I feel it is what holds alot of Christians down in there daily walk with Christ. Rev. Charles J. Paul

TEXT.-- Be not conformed to this world.--Romans xii. 2

IT will be recollected by some who are present, that some time since I made use of this text in preaching in this place, but the object of this evening's discourse is so far different that it is not improper to employ the same text again. The following is the order in which I design to discuss the subject of

CONFORMITY TO THE WORLD.
I. To show what is not meant by the command in the text.
II. Show what is meant by the command, "Be not conformed to this world."
III. To mention some of the reasons why this requirement is made upon all who will live a godly life.
IV. To answer some objections that are made to the principles laid down.

I. I am to show what is not meant by the requirement, "Be not conformed to this world."
I suppose it is not meant, that Christians should refuse to benefit by the useful arts, improvements and discoveries of the world. It is not only the privilege but the duty of the friends of God to avail themselves of these, and to use for God all the really useful arts and improvements that arise among mankind.
II. I am to show what is meant by the requirement.
It is meant that Christians are bound not to conform to the world in the three following things. I mention only these three, not because there are not many other things in which conformity to the world is forbidden, but because these three classes are all that I have time to examine to-night, and further, because these three are peculiarly necessary to be discussed at the present time. The three things are three departments of life, in which it is required that you be not conformed to this world. They are
BUSINESS--FASHION--POLITICS.
In all these departments it is required that Christians should not do as the world do, they should neither receive the maxims, nor adopt the principles, nor follow the practices of the world.
III. I am to mention some reasons for the command, "Be not conformed to this world."
You are by no means to act on the same principles, nor from the same motives, nor pursue your object in the same manner that the world do, either in the pursuits of business, or of fashion, or of politics. I shall examine these several departments separate.

First.--OF BUSINESS.
1. The first reason why you are not to be conformed to this world in business, is that the principle of the world is that of supreme selfishness. This is true universally, in the pursuit of business. The whole course of business in the world is governed and regulated by the maxims of supreme and unmixed selfishness. It is regulated without the least regard to the commands of God, or the glory of God, or the welfare of their fellow men. The maxims of business generally current among business men, and the habits and usages of business men, are all based upon supreme selfishness. Who does not know, that in making bargains, the business-men of the world consult their own interest, and seek their own benefit, and not the benefit of those they deal with? Who has ever heard of a worldly man of business making bargains, and doing business for the benefit of those he dealt with? No, it is always for their own benefit. And are Christians to do so? They are required to act on the very opposite principle to this; "Let no man seek his own, but every man another's wealth." They are required to copy the example of Jesus Christ. Did he ever make bargains for his own advantage?--And may his followers adopt the principle of the world--a principle that contains in it the seeds of hell? If Christians are to do this, is it not the most visionary thing on earth to suppose the world is ever going to be converted to the gospel.
2. They are required not to conform to the world, because conformity to the world is totally inconsistent with the love of God or man.
The whole system recognizes only the love of self. Go through all the ranks of business-men, from the man that sells candy on the sidewalk at the corner of the street, to the greatest wholesale merchant or importer in the United States, and you will find that one maxim runs through the whole--to BUY AS CHEAP AS YOU CAN, AND SELL AS DEAR AS YOU CAN--to LOOK OUT FOR NUMBER ONE--and to do always, as far as the rules of honesty will allow, all that will advance your own interest, let what will become of the interest of others. Ungodly men will not deny that these are the maxims on which business is done in the world. The man who pursues this course is universally regarded as doing business on business principles. Now, are these maxims consistent with holiness, with the love of God or the love of man, with the spirit of the gospel or the example of Jesus Christ? Can a man conform to the world in these principles, and yet love God? Impossible! No two things can be more unlike. Then Christians are by no means to conform to the business maxims of the world.
3. These maxims, and the rules by which business is done in the world, are directly opposite to the gospel of Jesus Christ, and the spirit he exhibited, and the maxims he inculcated, and the rules which he enjoined that all his followers should obey, on pain of hell.
What was the spirit Jesus Christ exemplified on earth? It was the spirit of self-denial, of benevolence, of sacrificing himself to do good to others. He exhibited the same spirit that God does, who enjoys his infinite happiness in going out of himself to gratify his benevolent heart in doing good to others. This is the religion of the gospel, to be like God, not only doing good, but enjoying it, joyfully going out of self to do good. This is the gospel maxim; "IT IS MORE BLESSED TO GIVE THAN TO RECEIVE." And again, "Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others." What says the business man of the world? "Look out for number one." These very maxims were made by men who knew and cared no more for the gospel, than the heathen do. Why should Christians conform to such maxims as these?
4. To conform to the world in the pursuits of business is a flat contradiction of the engagements that Christians make when they enter the church.
What is the engagement that you make when you enter the church? Is it not, to renounce the world and live for God, and to be actuated by the Spirit of Jesus Christ, and to possess supreme love to God, and to renounce self, and to give yourself to glorify God, and do good to men? You profess not to love the world, its honors or its riches. Around the communion table, with your hand on the broken body of your Savior, you avouch these to be your principles, and pledge yourself to live by these maxims. And then what do you do? Go away, and follow maxims and rules gotten up by men, whose avowed principle is the love of the world, and whose avowed object is to get the world? Is this your way? Then, unless you repent, let me tell you, you will be damned. It is no more certain, that any infidel or any profligate wretch will go to hell, than that all such professing Christians will go there, who conform to the world. They have double guilt. They are sworn before God to a different course, and when they pursue the business principles of the world, they show that they are perjured wretches.
5. Conformity to the world is such a manifest contradiction of the principles of the gospel, that sinners, when they see it, do not and cannot understand from it the true nature and object of the gospel itself.
How can they understand that the object of the gospel is to raise men above the love of the world, and above the influence of the world, and place them on higher ground, to live on totally different principles? When they see professing Christians acting on the same principles with other men, how can they understand the true principles of the gospel, or know what it means by heavenly mindedness, self-denial, benevolence, and so on?
6. It is this spirit of conformity to the world, that has already eaten out the love of God from the church.
Show me a young convert, while his heart is warm, and the love of God glows out from his lips. What does he care for the world? Call up his attention to it, point him to its riches, its pleasures or its honors, and try to engage him in their pursuit, and he loathes the thought. But let him now go into business, and do business on the principles of the world one year, and you no longer find the love of God glowing in his heart, and his religion has become the religion of conscience, dry, meagre[sic.], uninfluential--any thing but the glowing love of God, moving in him to acts of benevolence. I appeal to every man in this house, and if my voice was loud enough I would appeal to every professor of religion in this city, if it is not. And if any one should say, "No, it is not so," I should regard it as proof that he never knew what it was to feel the glow of a convert's first love.
7. This conformity to the world in business is one of the greatest stumbling blocks in the way of the conversion of sinners.
What do wicked men think, when they see professing Christians, with such professions on their lips, and pretending to believe what the Bible teaches, and yet driving after the world, as eager as any body, making the best bargains, and dealing as hard as the most worldly?--What do they think? I can tell you what they say. They say "I do not see but these Christians do just as the rest of us do, they act on the same principles, look out as sharp for number one, drive as hard bargains, and get as high interest as any body." And it must be said that these are not things of which the world accuse Christians slanderously. It is a notorious fact that most of the members of the church pursue the world, so far as appears in the same spirit, by the same maxims, and to the same degree, that the ungodly do who maintain a character for uprightness and humanity. The world say, "Look at the church, I don't see as they are any better than I am; they go to the full length that I do after the world." If professing Christians act on the same principles with worldly men, as the Lord liveth, they shall have the same reward. They are set down in God's book of remembrance as black hypocrites, pretending to be the friends of God while they love the world. For whoso loveth the world is the enemy of God. They profess to be governed by principles directly opposite to the world, and if they do the same things with the world, they are hypocrites.
8. Another reason for the requirement, "Be not conformed to this world," is the immense, salutary and instantaneous influence it would have if every body would do business on the principles of the gospel.
Just turn the tables over, and let Christians do business one year on gospel principles. It would shake the world. It would ring louder than thunder. Let the ungodly see professing Christians, in every bargain, consulting the good of the person they are trading with--seeking not their own wealth, but every man another's wealth--living above the world--setting no value on the world any farther than it can be a means of glorifying God--what do you think would be the effect? What effect did it have in Jerusalem, when the whole body of Christians gave up their business, and turned out en masse to pursue the salvation of the world? They were only a few ignorant fishermen, and a few humble women, but they turned the world upside down. Let the church live so now, and it would cover the world with confusion of face, and overwhelm them with convictions of sin. Only let them see the church living above the world, and doing business on gospel principles, seeking not their own interests but the interests of their fellow men, and infidelity would hide its head, heresy would be driven from church, and this charming, blessed spirit of love, would go over the world like the waves of the sea.
Secondly.--OF FASHIONS.
Why are Christians required not to follow the fashions of the world?
1. Because it is directly at war with the spirit of the gospel, and is minding earthly things.
What is minding earthly things, if it is not to follow the fashions of the world, that like a tide are continually setting to and fro, and fluctuating in their forms, and keeping the world continually changing? There are many men of large business in the world, and men of wealth, who think they care nothing for the fashions. They are occupied with something else, and they trust the fashions altogether with their tailor, taking it for granted that he will make all right. But mind, if he should make a garment unfashionable, you would see that they do care about the fashions, and they never would employ that tailor again. Still, at present their thoughts are not much on the fashions. They have a higher object in view. And they think it beneath the dignity of a minister to preach about fashions. They overlook the fact, that with the greater part of mankind fashion is every thing. The greater part of the community are not rich, and never expect to be, but they look to the world to enable them to make a respectable appearance, and to bring up their families in a respectable manner; that is, to follow the fashions. Nine-tenths of the population never look at any thing higher, than to do as the world does, or to follow the fashions. For this they strain every nerve. And this is what they set their hearts on, and what they live for.
The merchant and the rich man deceives himself, therefore, if he supposes that fashion is a little thing. The great body of the people mind this, their minds are set upon it, the thing which they look for in life is to have their dress, equipage, furniture, and so on, like other people, in the fashion, or respectable as they call it.
2. To conform to the world is contrary to their profession.
When people join the church, they profess to give up the spirit that gives rise to the fashions. They profess to renounce the pomps and vanities of the world, to repent of their pride, to follow the meek and lowly Savior, to live for God. And now what do they do? You often see professors of religion go to the extreme of the fashion. Nothing will satisfy them that is not in the height of fashion. And a Christian female dress-maker, who is conscientiously opposed to the following of fashions, cannot get her bread. She cannot get employment even among professing Christian ladies, unless she follows the fashions in all their countless changes. God knows it is so, and they must give up their business if their conscience will not permit them to follow the changes of fashion.
3. This conformity is a broad and complete approval of the spirit of the world.
What is it that lies at the bottom of all this shifting scenery? What is the cause that produces all this gaudy show and dash, and display? It is the love of applause. And when Christians follow the changes of fashion, they pronounce all this innocent. All this waste of money and time and thought, all this feeding and cherishing of vanity and the love of applause, the church sets her seal to, when she conforms to the world.
4. Nay, further, another reason is, that following the fashions of the world, professing Christians show that they do in fact love the world.
They show it by their conduct, just as the ungodly show it by the same conduct. As they act alike they give evidence that they are actuated by one principle, the love of fashion.
5. When Christian professors do this, they show most clearly that they love the praise of men.
It is evident that they love admiration and flattery, just as sinners do. Is not this inconsistent with Christian principle, to go right into the very things that are set up by the pride and fashion and lust of the ungodly?
6. Conforming to the world in fashion, you show that you do not hold yourself accountable to God for the manner in which you lay out money.
You practically disown your stewardship of the wealth that is in your possession. By laying out money to gratify your own vanity and lust, you take off the keen edge of that truth, which ought to cut that sinner in two, who is living to himself. It is practically denying that the earth is the Lord's, with the cattle on a thousand hills, and all to be employed for his glory.
7. You show that reputation is your idol.
When the cry comes to your ears on every wind, from the ignorant and the lost of all nations, "Come over and help us, come over and help us," and every week brings some call to send the gospel, to send tracts and Bibles, and missionaries to those who are perishing for lack of knowledge, if you choose to expend money in following the fashions, it is demonstration that reputation is your idol.--Suppose now, for the sake of argument, that it is not prohibited in the word of God to follow the fashions, and that professing Christians, if they will, may innocently follow the fashions, (I deny that it is innocent, but suppose it were,) does not the fact that they do follow them when there are such calls for money, and time, and thought, and labor to save souls, prove conclusively that they do not love God nor the souls of men?
Take the case of a woman, whose husband is in slavery, and she is trying to raise money enough for his redemption. There she is, toiling and saving, rising up early and sitting up late, and eating the bread of carefulness, because her husband, the father of her children, the friend of her youth, is in slavery. Now go to that woman and tell her that it is innocent for her to follow the fashions, and dress and display like her neighbors--will she do it? Why not? She does not desire to do it. She will scarcely buy a pair of shoes for her feet, she grudges almost the bread she eats, so intent is she on her great object.
Now suppose a person loved God and the souls of men and the kingdom of Christ, does he need an express prohibition from God to prevent him from spending his money and his life in following the fashion? No, indeed, he will rather need a positive injunction to take what is needful for his own comfort and the support of his own life. Take the case of Timothy. Did he need a prohibition to prevent him from indulging in the use of wine? So far from it, he was so cautious that it required an express injunction from God to make him drink a little as a medicine. Although he was sick, he would not drink it till he had the word of God for it, he saw the evils of it so clearly. Now, show me a man or woman, I care not what their professions are, that follows the fashions of the world, and I will show you what spirit they are of.
Now, don't ask me why Abraham, and David, and Solomon, who were so rich, did not lay out their money in spreading the kingdom of God. Ah, tell me, did they enjoy the light that professors now enjoy? Did they even know so much as this, that the world can be converted, as Christians now see clearly that it can? But suppose it were as allowable in you as it was in Abraham or David to be rich, and to lay out the property you possess in display and pomp and fashion. Suppose it were perfectly innocent, who that loves the Lord Jesus Christ would wish to lay out money in fashion when they could lay it out to gratify the ALL-ABSORBING passion, to do good to the souls of men?
8. By conforming to the world in fashion, you show that you differ not at all from ungodly sinners.
Ungodly sinners say, "I don't see but that these Christian men and women love to follow the fashions as well as I do." Who does not know, that this leads many to infidelity.
9. By following the fashions you are tempting God to give you up to a worldly spirit.
There are many now that have followed the world, and followed the fashions, till God seems to have given them over to the devil for the destruction of the flesh. They have little or no religious feeling, no spirit of prayer, no zeal for the glory of God or the conversion of sinners, the Holy Spirit seems to have withdrawn from them.
10. You tempt the church to follow the fashions.
Where the principal members, the elders and leaders in the church, and their wives and families, are fashionable Christians, they drag the whole church along with them into the train of fashion, and every one apes them as far as they can, down to the lowest servant. Only let a rich Christian lady come out to the house of God in full fashion, and the whole church are set agog to follow as far as they can, and it is a chance if they do not run in debt to do it.
11. You tempt yourself to pride and folly and a worldly spirit.
Suppose a man that had been intemperate and was reformed, should go and surround himself with wine and brandy and every seductive liquor, keeping the provocatives of appetite always under his eye, and from time to time tasting a little; does he not tempt himself?-- Now see that woman that has been brought up in the spirit of pride and show, and that has been reformed and professed to abandon them all. Let her keep all these trappings, and continue to follow the fashions, and pride will drag her backwards as sure as she lives. She tempts herself to sin and folly.
12. You are tempting the world.
You are setting the world into a more fierce and hot pursuit of these things. The very things that the world love, and that they are sure to have scruples about their being right, professing Christians fall in with and follow, and thus tempt the world to continue in the pursuit of what will destroy their souls in hell.
13. By following the fashions, you are tempting the devil to tempt you.
When you follow the fashions, you open your heart to him. You keep it for him, empty, swept, and garnished. Every woman that suffers herself to follow the fashions may rely upon it, she is helping Satan to tempt her to pride and sin.
14. You lay a great stumbling block before the greatest part of mankind.
There are a few persons who are pursuing greater objects than fashion. They are engaged in the scramble for political power, or they are eager for literary distinction, or they are striving for wealth. And they do not know that their hearts are set on fashion at all. They are following selfishness on a larger scale. But the great mass of the community are influenced mostly by these fluctuating fashions. To this class of persons it is a great and sore stumbling block, when they see professing Christians just as prompt and as eager to follow the changings of fashion as themselves. They see, and say, "What does their profession amount to, when they follow the fashions as much as any body?" or, "Certainly it is right to follow the fashions, for see, the professing Christians do it as much as we."
15. Another reason why professing Christians are required not to be conformed to the world in fashion is, the great influence their disregarding fashion would have on the world.
If professing Christians would show their contempt for these things, and not pretend to follow them or regard them, how it would shame the world, and convince the world that they were living for another object, for God and for eternity! How irresistible it would be! What an overwhelming testimony in favor of our religion! Even the apparent renunciation of the world, by many orders of monks, has doubtless done more than any thing else to put down the opposition to their religion, and give it currency and influence in the world. Now suppose all this was hearty and sincere, and coupled with all that is consistent and lovely in Christian character, and all that is zealous and bold in labors for the conversion of the world from sin to holiness. What an influence it would have! What thunders it would pour into the ears of the world, to wake them up to follow after God!
Thirdly.--IN POLITICS.
I will show why professing Christians are required not to be conformed to the world in politics.
1. Because the politics of the world are perfectly dishonest.
Who does not know this? Who does not know that it is the purposed policy of every party to cover up the defects of their own candidate, and the good qualities of the opposing candidate? And is not this dishonest? Every party holds up its candidate as a piece of perfection, and then aims to ride him into office by any means, fair or foul. No man can be an honest man, that is committed to a party, to go with them, let them do what they may. And can a Christian do it, and keep a conscience void of offense?
2. To conform to the world in politics is to tempt God.
By falling in with the world in politics, Christians are guilty of setting up rulers over them by their own vote, who do not fear nor love God, and who set the law of God at defiance, break the Sabbath, and gamble, and commit adultery, and fight duels, and swear profanely, and leave the laws unexecuted at their pleasure, and that care not for the weal or wo[e] of their country, so long as they can keep their office. I say Christians do this. For it is plain that where parties are divided, as they are in this country, there are Christians enough to turn the scale in any election. Now let Christians take the ground that they will not vote for a dishonest man, or a Sabbath breaker, or gambler, or whoremonger, or duellist, for any office, and no party could ever nominate such a character with any hope of success. But on the present system, where men will let the laws go unexecuted, and give full swing to mobs, or lynch-murders, or robbing the mails, or any thing else, so they can run in their own candidate who will give them the offices, any man is a dishonest man that will do it, be he professor or non-professor. And can a Christian do this and be blameless?
3. By engaging with the world in politics, Christians grieve the Spirit of God.
Ask any Christian politician if he ever carried the Spirit of God with him into a political campaign? Never. I would by no means be understood to say that Christians should refuse to vote, and to exercise their lawful influence in public affairs. But they ought not to follow a party.
4. By following the present course of politics, you are contributing your aid to undermine all government and order in the land.
Who does not know that this great nation now rocks and reels, because the laws are broken and trampled under foot, and the executive power refuses or dare not act? Either the magistrate does not wish to put down disorder, or he temporizes and lets the devil rule. And so it is in all parts of the country, and all parties. And can a Christian be consistent with his profession, and vote for such men to office?
5. You lay a stumbling-block in the way of sinners.
What do sinners think, when they see professing Christians acting with them in their political measures, which they themselves know to be dishonest and corrupt? They say, "We understand what we are about, we are after office, we are determined to carry our party into power, we are pursuing our own interest; but these Christians profess to live for another and a higher end, and yet here they come, and join with us, as eager for the loaves and fishes as the rest of us." What greater stumbling-block can they have?
6. You prove to the ungodly that professing Christians are actuated by the same spirit with themselves.
Who can wonder that the world is incredulous as to the reality of religion? If they do not look for themselves into the scriptures, and there learn what religion is, if they are governed by the rules of evidence from what they see in the lives of professing Christians, they ought to be incredulous. They ought to infer, so far as this evidence goes, that professors of religion do not themselves believe in it. It is the fact. I doubt, myself, whether the great mass of professors believe the Bible.
7. They show, so far as their evidence can go, that there is no change of heart.
What is it? Is it going to the communion table once in a month or two, and sometimes to prayer meeting? Is that a change of heart, when they are just as eager in the scramble for office as any others? The world must be fools to believe in a change of heart on such evidence.
8. Christians ought to cease from conformity to the world in politics, from the influence which such a course would have on the world.
Suppose Christians were to act perfectly conscientious and consistent in this matter, and to say, "We will not vote for any man to office, unless he fears God and will rule the people in righteousness." Ungodly men would not set men as candidates, who themselves set the laws at defiance. No. Every candidate would be obliged to show that he was prepared to act from higher motives, and that he would lay himself out to make the country prosperous, and to promote virtue, and to put down vice and oppression and disorder, and to do all he can to make the people happy and HOLY! It would shame the dishonest politicians, to show that the love of God and man is the motive that Christians have in view. And a blessed influence would go over the land like a wave.
IV. I am to answer some objections that are made against the principles here advanced.
1. In regard to business.
OBJECTION. "If we do not transact business on the same principles on which ungodly men do it, we cannot compete with them, and all the business of the world will fall into the hands of the ungodly. If we pursue our business for the good of others, if we buy and sell on the principle of not seeking our own wealth, but the wealth of those we do business with, we cannot sustain a competition with worldly men, and they will get all the business."
Let them have it, then. You can support yourself by your industry in some humbler calling, and let worldly men do all the business.
OBJECTION. "But then, how should we get money to spread the gospel?"
A holy church, that would act on the principles of the gospel, would spread the gospel faster than all the money that ever was in New York, or that ever will be. Give me a holy church, that would live above the world, and the work of salvation would roll on faster than with all the money in Christendom.
OBJECTION. "But we must spend a great deal of money to bring forward an educated ministry."
Ah! if we had a holy ministry, it would be far more important than an educated ministry. If the ministry were holy enough, they would do without so much education. God forbid that I should undervalue an educated ministry. Let ministers be educated as well as they can, the more the better, if they are only holy enough. But it is all a farce to suppose that a literary ministry can convert the world. Let the ministry have the spirit of prayer, let the baptism of the Holy Ghost be upon them, and they will spread the gospel. Only let Christians live as they ought, and the church would shake the world. If Christians in New York would do it, the report would soon fill every ship that leaves the port, and waft the news on every wind, till the earth was full of excitement and inquiry, and conversions would multiply like the drops of morning dew.
Suppose you were to give up your business, and devote yourselves entirely to the work of extending the gospel. The church once did so, and you know what followed. When that little band in Jerusalem gave up their business and spent their time in the work of God, salvation spread like a wave. And, I believe, if the whole Christian church were to turn right out, and convert the world, it would be done in a very short time.
And further, the fact is, that you would not be required to give up your business. If Christians would do business in the spirit of the gospel, they would soon engross the business of the world. Only let the world see, that if they go to a Christian to do business, he will not only deal honestly, but benevolently, that he will actually consult the interest of the person he deals with, as if it were his own interest, and who would deal with any body else? What merchant would go to an ungodly man to trade, who he knew would try to get the advantage of him, and cheat him, while he knew that there were Christian merchants to deal with that would consult his interests as much as they do their own? Indeed, it is a known fact, that there are now Christian merchants in this city, who regulate the prices of the articles they deal in. Merchants come in from the country, and inquire around to see how they can buy goods, and they go to these men to know exactly what articles are worth at a fair price, and govern themselves accordingly.
The advantage, then, is all on one side. The church can make it for the interest of the ungodly to do business on right principles. The church can regulate the business of the world, and wo[e] to them if they do not.
2. In regard to Fashion.
OBJECTION. "Is it best for Christians to be singular?"
Certainly, Christians are bound to be singular. They are called to be peculiar people, that is, a singular people, essentially different from the rest of mankind. To maintain that we are not to be singular, is the same as to maintain that we are to be conformed to the world. "Be not singular," that is, Be like the world. In other words, "Be ye conformed to the world." This is the direct opposite to the command in the text.
But the question now regards fashion, in dress, equipage, and so on. And here I will confess that I was formerly myself in error. I believed, and I taught, that the best way for Christians to pursue, was to dress so as not to be noticed, to follow the fashions and changes so as not to appear singular, and that nobody would be led to think of their being different from others in these particulars. But I have seen my error, and now wonder very much at my former blindness. It is your duty to dress so plain as to show to the world that you place no sort of reliance in the things of fashion, and set no value at all on them, but despise and neglect them altogether. But unless you are singular, unless you separate yourselves from the fashions of the world, you show that you do value them. There is no way in which you can bear a proper testimony by your lives against the fashions of the world but by dressing plain. I do not mean that you should study singularity, but that you should consult convenience and economy, although it may be singular.
OBJECTION. "But if we dress plain, the attention of people will be taken with it."
The reason of it is this, so few do it that it is a novelty, and every body stares when they see a professing Christian so strict as to disregard the fashions. Let them all do it, and the only thing you show by it is that you are a Christian, and do not wish to be confounded with the ungodly. Would it not tell on the pride of the world, if all the Christians in it were united in bearing a practical testimony against its vain show.
OBJECTION. "But in this way you carry religion too far away from the multitude. It is better not to set up an artificial distinction between the church and the world."
The direct reverse of this is true. The nearer you bring the church to the world, the more you annihilate the reasons that ought to stand out in view of the world, for their changing sides and coming over to the church. Unless you go right out from them, and show that you are not of them in any respect, and carry the church so far as to have a broad interval between saints and sinners, how can you make the ungodly feel that so great a change is necessary.
OBJECTION. "But this change which is necessary is a change of heart."
True; but will not a change of heart produce a change of life?
OBJECTION. "You will throw obstacles in the way of persons becoming Christians. Many respectable people will become disgusted with religion, and if they cannot be allowed to dress and be Christians, they will take to the world altogether."
This is just about as reasonable as it would be for a temperance man to think he must get drunk now and then, to avoid disgusting the intemperate, and to retain his influence over them. The truth is, that persons ought to know, and ought to see in the lives of professing Christians, that if they embrace religion, they must be weaned from the world, and must give up the love of the world, and its pride and show and folly, and live a holy life, in watchfulness and self-denial and active benevolence.
OBJECTION. "Is it not better for us to disregard this altogether, and not pay any attention to such little things, and let them take their course; let the milliner and mantua-maker do as they please, and follow the usages of society in which we live, and the circle in which we move?"
Is this the way to show contempt for the fashions of the world? Do people ordinarily take this course of showing contempt for a thing, to practise it? Why, the way to show your abhorrence of ardent spirit is to drink it! And so the way to show your abhorrence of the world is to follow along in the customs and the fashions of the world! Precious reasoning, this.
OBJECTION. "No matter how we dress, if our hearts are right?"
Your heart right! Then your heart may be right when your conduct is all wrong. Just as well might the profane swearer say, "No matter what words I speak, if my heart is right." No, your heart is not right, unless your conduct is right. What is outward conduct, but the acting out of the heart? If your heart was right, you would not wish to follow the fashions of the world.
OBJECTION. "What is the standard of dress? I do not see the use of all your preaching, and laying down rules about plain dress, unless you give us a standard."
This is a mighty stumbling block with many. But to my mind the matter is extremely simple. The whole can be comprised in two simple rules. One is, Be sure in all your equipage and dress and furniture to show that you have no fellowship with the designs and principles of those who are aiming to set off themselves, and to gain the applause of men. The other is, Let economy be first consulted, and then convenience. Follow Christian economy, that is, save all you can for Christ's service. And then let things be as convenient as Christian economy will admit.
OBJECTION. "Would you have us to turn all Quakers, and put on their plain dress?"
Who does not know, that the plain dress of the Quakers has won for them the respect of all the thinking part of the ungodly in the community? Now, if they had coupled with this the zeal for God, and the weanedness from the world, and the contempt for riches, and the self-denying labor for the conversion of sinners to Christ, which the gospel enjoins, and the clear views of the plan of salvation which the gospel inculcates, they would long since have converted the world. And if all Christians would imitate them in their plain dress, (I do not mean the precise cut and fashion of their dress, but in a plain dress, throwing contempt upon the fashions of the world,) who can doubt that the conversion of the world would hasten on apace?
OBJECTION. "Would you make us all Methodists?"
Who does not know that the Methodists, when they were noted for their plain dress, and for renouncing the fashions and show of the world, used to have power with God in prayer? And that they had the universal respect of the world as sincere Christians. And who does not know that since they have laid aside this peculiarity, and conformed to the world in dress and other things, and seemed to be trying to lift themselves up as a denomination, and gain influence with the world, they are losing the power of prayer? Would to God they had never thrown down this wall. It was one of the leading excellences of Wesley's system, to have his followers distinguished from others by a plain dress.
OBJECTION. "We may be proud of a plain dress as well as of a fashionable dress. The Quakers are as proud as we are."
So may any good thing be abused. But that is no reason why it should not be used, if it can be shown to be good. I put it back to the objector; Is that any reason why a Christian female, who fears God and loves the souls of men, should neglect the means which may make an impression that she is separated from the world, and pour contempt on the fashions of the ungodly, in which they are dancing their way to hell?
OBJECTION. "This is a small thing, and ought not to take up so much of a minister's time in the pulpit."
This is an objection often heard from worldly professors. But the minister that fears God will not be deterred by it. He will pursue the subject, until such professing Christians are cut off from their conformity to the world or cut off from the church. It is not merely the dress, as dress, but it is the conformity to the world in dress and fashion, that is the great stumblingblock in the way of sinners. How can the world be converted, while professing Christians are conformed to the world? What good will it do to give money to send the gospel to the heathen, when Christians live so at home? Well might the heathen ask, "What profit will it be to become Christians, when those who are Christians are pursuing the world with all the hot-haste of the ungodly?" The great thing necessary for the church is to break off from conformity to the world, and then they will have power with God in prayer, and the Holy Ghost will descend and bless their efforts, and the world will be converted.
OBJECTION. "But if we dress so, we shall be called fanatics."
Whatever the ungodly may call you, fanatics, Methodists, or any thing, you will be known as Christians, and in the secret consciences of men will be acknowledged as such. It is not in the power of unbelievers to pour contempt on a holy church, that are separated from the world. How was it with the early Christians? They lived separate from the world, and it made such an impression, that even infidel writers say of them, "These men win the hearts of the mass of the people, because they give themselves up to deeds of charity, and pour contempt on the world." Depend upon it, if Christians would live so now, the last effort of hell would soon be expended in vain to defeat the spread of the gospel. Wave after wave would flow abroad, till the highest mountain tops were covered with the waters of life.
3. In regard to politics.
OBJECTION. "In this way, by acting on these principles, and refusing to unite with the world in politics, we could have no influence in government and national affairs."
I answer, first, It is so now. Christians, as such, have no influence. There is not a Christian principle adopted because it is Christian, or because it is according to the law of God.
I answer, secondly, If there is no other way for Christians to have an influence in the government, but by becoming conformed to the world in their habitual principles and parties, then let the ungodly take the government and manage it in their own way, and do you go and serve God.
I answer, thirdly, No such result would follow. Directly the reverse of this would be the fact. Only let it be known that Christian citizens will on no account assist bad men into office; only let it be known that the church will go only for men that will aim at the public good, and both parties will be sure to set up such men. And in this way, the church could legitimately exert an influence, by compelling all parties to bring forward only men who are worthy of an honest man's support.
OBJECTION. "In this way the church and the world will be arrayed against each other."
The world is too selfish for this. You cannot make parties so. Such a line can never be a permanent division. For one year, the ungodly might unite against the church, and leave Christians in a small minority. But in the end, the others would form two parties, each courting the suffrages of Christians, by offering candidates such as Christians can conscientiously vote for.
REMARKS.
1. By non-conformity to the world, you may save much money for doing good.
In one year a greater fund might be saved by the church, than all that has ever been raised for the spread of the gospel.
2. By non-conformity to the world, a great deal of time may be saved for doing good, that is now consumed and wasted in following the fashions, and obeying the maxims, and joining in the pursuits of the world.
3. At the same time, Christians in this way would preserve their peace of conscience, would enjoy communion with God, would have the spirit of prayer, and would possess far greater usefulness.
Is it not time something was done? Is it not time that some church struck out a path, that should be not conformed to the world, but should be according to the example and Spirit of Christ?
You profess that you want to have sinners converted. But what avails it, if they sink right back again into conformity with the world? Brethren, I confess, I am filled with pain in view of the conduct of the church. Where are the proper results of the glorious revivals we have had? I believe they were genuine revivals of religion and outpourings of the Holy Ghost, that the church has enjoyed the last ten years. I believe the converts of the last ten years are among the best Christians in the land. Yet, after all, the great body of them are a disgrace to religion. Of what use would it be to have a thousand members added to the church, to be just such as are now in it? Would religion be any more honored by it, in the estimation of ungodly men? One holy church, that are really crucified to the world, and the world crucified to them, would do more to recommend Christianity, than all the churches in the country, living as they now do. O, if I had strength of body, to go through the churches again, instead of preaching to convert sinners, I would preach to bring up the churches to the gospel standard of holy living. Of what use is it to convert sinners, and make them such Christians as these? Of what use is it to try to convert sinners, and make them feel there is something in religion, and then when they go to trade with you, or meet you in the street, have you contradict it all, and tell them, by your conformity to the world, that there is nothing in it?
Where shall I look, where shall the Lord look for a church like the first church, that will come out from the world and be separate, and give themselves up to serve God? O, if this church would do so. But it is of little use to make Christians, if they are not better. Do not understand me as saying that the converts made in our revivals are spurious conversions. But they live so as to be a disgrace to religion. They are so stumbled by old professors that many of them do more hurt than good. The more there are of them, the more occasion infidelity seems to find for her jeers and scoffs.
Now do you believe, that God commands you not to be conformed to the world? Do you believe it? And DARE YOU obey it, let people say what they will about you? Dare you now separate yourselves from the world, and never again be controlled by its maxims, and never again copy its practices, and never again be whiffled here and there by its fashions? I know a man that lives so, I can mention his name, he pays no attention to the customs of the world in this respect. And what is the result? Wherever that man goes, he leaves the impression behind that he is a Christian. O, if one church would do so, and would engage in it with all the energy that men of the world engage in their business, they would turn the world upside down. Will you do so? Will you break off from the world now, and enter into covenant with God, and declare that you will dare to be singular enough to be separate from the world, and from this time set your faces as a flint to obey God, let the world say what they will? Dare you do it? Will you do it?

Going Back To Go Forward........ By Charles J. Paul

2008-10-19T04:30:00.000-07:00

The Christian life is journey; I think all of us who are truly walking with the Lord would agree with that statement. It is my heart felt desire to see God’s people come to the light of His truth. But in our modern day world today the church has taken on a different look and gone in a different direction. For the last month I have been fellowshipping with a church that is Anabaptist. As all of you know it is my heart felt prayer to see a modern-day reformation take place in the church today. In saying all that I want to take you on a journey back in time in order that we can get a clear picture of moving forward.

Let me lay out some basic points that I see missing from most churches today before I begin giving the history of the Anabaptist.

1- The church today needs to take God’s Word at His Word
2- The church must not function in disorder.
3- There must be discipline
4- Our conduct must be held to the Word not the world.

This would be just to name a few points. The point I am making is that we must not think that it is legalism to live a life of discipline and rules that are for our own good. What good is it for us to know that we must cast off every weight that hinders us in our walk? Yet we never really cast any of them off... you see that’s why we never really experience true freedom in the Lord because we are still in bondage to the weights of the world. Read 1 John 2 15-17

So let let’s go back in time now and get a foundation for moving forward.

The Birth of Anabaptism
On a crisp October night in 1517, the thirty-first to be exact, a black- garbed Augustinian monk made his way undetected to the castle church. The place was an insignificant medieval German town named Wittenberg. With swift, determined strokes he nailed one of the most inflammable documents of the age to the church door, which served as the village bulletin board. Within a fortnight all Europe was echoing the sound of the inauspicious hammer. A month later the hardly-audible taps had become sledge hammer blows assailing the very citadel of the roman Catholic Church. For the Austin friar of that October night was Martin Luther and the apparently innocent Latin manuscript was his first fusillade against Rome, the Ninety-five Theses.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The Zurich Reformer
In that eventful year, 1517, another German-speaking priest was wrestling with the tantalizing new Greek text. Born high in the Toggenburg Valley of the Swiss Alps seven weeds after the birth of Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli had already become a thoroughgoing humanist and a great admirer of Erasmus. At Einsiedeln, where he was then serving as people's priest, Zwingli first began to apply himself seriously to the study of the New Testament. The young priest found it increasingly difficult to resist its truth. By the time Zwingli had accepted the call to Zurich as people's priest of the Grossmünster, he had resolved to preach nothing but the gospel. By 1522 the Reformation in Zurich had quickened its pace. Zwingli was indisputably in control. This came in spite of his admitted immorality before coming to Zurich and the open opposition of some Zurichers to his call. During the brief span of three years he succeeded in overcoming opposition and endearing the people to himself and his cause.

Zwingli's Leadership
The Reformation in Zurich was not a haphazard development. Rather, under Zwingli's guidance, it proceeded along clearly defined lines. The Swiss reformer well knew that pulpit eloquence alone could not accomplish the task of reform. Thus, to preaching he added teaching and the disputation. Finally, he sought legal support from the ruling authorities of Zurich, the city council.
In Zwingli, the scholar, the humanist, and the evangelical reformer where blended into an attractive and forceful personality. Consequently, there were drawn to him a number of gifted young humanists, primarily interested in study of the Greek classics. Into this group by November, 1521, had come a youthful vagabond scholar by the name of Conrad Grebel. Grebel's father was a member of the Great Council of the city of Zurich. This new association gave Grebel an opportunity to continue his studies of the Greek language and literature into which he had been initiated a few years before in Paris.
Love of learning and admiration for Erasmus characterized the young humanists. Taking advantage of this, Zwingli soon introduced them to the Greek New Testament. By 1522 they, too, had become zealous for reform, particularly Grebel. But less than three years later their convictions had driven them far beyond Zwingli. The public break between Zwingli and his erstwhile disciples came with evident finality at a fateful disputation in January, 1525. The council proclaimed Zwingli the victor and denounced the radicals. The alternatives were quite clear. The little group could conform, leave Zurich, or face imprisonment. It chose the last.

The Birth of Anabaptism
A few days later, January 21, 1525, a dozen or so men slowly trudged through the snow. Quietly but resolutely, singly or in pairs, they came by night to the home of Felix Manz, near the Grossmünster. The chill of the winter wind blowing off the lake did not match the chill of disappointment that gripped the little band that fateful night.
The dramatic events of the unforgettable gathering have been preserved in The Large Chronicle of the Hutterian Brethren. The account bears the earmarks of an eyewitness, who was probably George Blaurock, a priest who had recently come to Zurich from Chur.
And it came to pass that they were together until anxiety came upon them, yes, they were so pressed in their hearts. Thereupon they began to bow their knees to the Most High God in heaven and called upon him as the Informer of Hearts, and they prayed that he would give to them his divine will and that he would show his mercy unto them. For flesh and blood and human forwardness did not drive them, since they well knew what they would have to suffer on account of it.
After the prayer, George of the House of Jacob stood up and besought Conrad Grebel for God's sake to baptize him with the true Christian baptism upon his faith and knowledge. And when he knelt down with such a request and desire, Conrad baptized him, since at that time there was no ordained minister to perform such work. After his baptism at the hands of Grebel, Blaurock proceeded to baptize all the others present. The newly baptized then pledged themselves as true disciples of Christ to live lives separated from the world and to teach the gospel and hold the faith.
Anabaptism was born, With this first baptism, the earliest church of the Swiss Brethren was constituted. This was clearly the most revolutionary act of the Reformation. No other event so completely symbolized the break with Rome. Here, for the first time in the course of the Reformation, a group of Christians dared to form a church after what was conceived to be the New Testament pattern. The Brethren emphasized the absolute necessity of a personal commitment to Christ as essential to salvation and a prerequisite to baptism.
The introduction of believer's baptism was not an unpremeditated act. Even though is revolutionary character might well have struck the hearts of those assembled on that January night with fear, it was no spur-of-the-moment decision. Rather, it was a culmination of earnest searching of the Scriptures and a corresponding dissatisfaction with Zwingli and his state-supported program of reformation.

Pastor Chuck to Take Some Time for Rest & Refreshment

2008-08-29T19:09:00.000-07:00

Pastor Chuck, whom you probably know posts the majority of articles on this blog site has taken a much needed Sabbatical so that he can have a time of uninterrupted physical rest and refreshment. During this time, he will not be posting to the blog site.

Please keep Pastor Chuck in your prayers during this time of Sabbatical, and know that he will return to his normal routine of education and edification sometime in mid-October.

The Biblical Portrait of Women: Setting the Record Straight By John MacArthur

2008-08-12T16:09:00.000-07:00

The Bible is, and has always been, a revolutionary book. It stands like a coastal rock cliff to resist the surging, crashing waves of cultural change. And there may be no clearer demonstration of the Bible's immutable word than what it teaches about genuine femininity. The Bible rightly exalts women against cultures that distort, degrade, and debase them. Many in our society tout the sexual and reproductive liberation of women against the supposed oppressive, outmoded strictures of the Bible. I have to ask, "In what way are women truly free? In what way does our culture honor them?" Sure they can vote; sure they have opportunities to compete in the marketplace. But are they really free? Is their dignity and honor intact? I contend that women are used and abused more today than at any time in history. Pornography turns women into objects and victims of dirty, cowardly Peeping Toms who leer at them with greedy eyes. Throughout the world, women are traded like animals for sexual slavery. In more "civilized" places, men routinely use women for no-consequence, no-commitment sex only to leave them pregnant, without care and support. Abortion rights groups aid and abet male selfishness and irresponsibility, and they "free" women to murder their unborn children. Women are left alone, emotionally scarred, financially destitute, and experientially guilty, ashamed, and abandoned. Where's the freedom, dignity, and honor in that? Modern technological advances have enabled the culture to mainstream the degradation of women like never before; but ancient cultures were no better. Women in pagan societies during biblical times were often treated with little more dignity than animals. Some of the best-known Greek philosophers--considered the brightest minds of their era--taught that women are inferior creatures by nature. Even in the Roman Empire (perhaps the very pinnacle of pre-Christian civilization) women were usually regarded as mere chattel--personal possessions of their husbands or fathers, with hardly any better standing than household slaves. That was vastly different from the Hebrew (and biblical) concepts of marriage as a joint inheritance, and parenthood as a partnership where both father and mother are to be revered and obeyed by the children (Leviticus 19:3). Pagan religion tended to fuel and encourage the devaluation of women even more. Of course, Greek and Roman mythology had its goddesses (such as Diana and Aphrodite). But don't imagine for a moment that goddess-worship in any way raised the status of women in society. The opposite was true. Most temples devoted to goddesses were served by sacred prostitutes--priestesses who sold themselves for money, supposing they were performing a religious sacrament. Both the mythology and the practice of pagan religion have usually been overtly demeaning to women. Male pagan deities were capricious and sometimes wantonly misogynistic. Religious ceremonies were often blatantly obscene--including such things as erotic fertility rites, drunken temple orgies, perverted homosexual practices, and in the very worst cases, even human sacrifices. Contrast all of that, ancient and contemporary, with the Bible. From cover to cover, the Bible exalts women. In fact, it often seems to go out of the way to pay homage to them, to ennoble their roles in society and family, to acknowledge the importance of their influence, and to exalt the virtues of women who were particularly godly examples. From the very first chapter of the Bible, we are taught that women, like men, bear the stamp of God's own image (Genesis 1:27; 5:1-2)--men and women were created equal. Women play prominent roles in many key biblical narratives. Wives are seen as venerated partners and cherished companions to their husbands, not merely slaves or pieces of household furniture (Genesis 2:20-24; Proverbs 19:14; Ecclesiastes 9:9). At Sinai, God commanded children to honor both father and mother (Exodus 20:12). Of course, the Bible teaches divinely ordained role distinctions between men and women--many of which are perfectly evident from the circumstances of creation alone. For example, women have a unique and vital role in childbearing and the nurture of little ones. Women themselves also have a particular need for support and protection, because physically, they are "weaker vessels" (1 Peter 3:7 NKJV). Scripture establishes the proper order in the family and in the church accordingly, assigning the duties of headship and protection in the home to husbands (Ephesians 5:23) and appointing men in the church to the teaching and leadership roles (1 Timothy 2:11-15). Yet women are by no means marginalized or relegated to any second-class status. The Bible teaches women are not only equals with men (Galatians 3:28), but are also set apart for special honor (1 Peter 3:7). Husbands are commanded to love their wives sacrificially, as Christ loves the church--even, if necessary, at the cost of their own lives (Ephesians 5:25-31). The Bible acknowledges and celebrates the priceless value of a virtuous woman (Proverbs 12:4; 31:10; 1 Corinthians 11:7). Christianity, born at the intersection of East and West, elevated the status of women to an unprecedented height. Jesus' disciples included several women (Luke 8:1-3), a practice almost unheard of among the rabbis of His day. Not only that, He encouraged their discipleship by portraying it as something more needful than domestic service (Luke 10:38-42). In fact, Christ's first recorded, explicit disclosure of His own identity as the true Messiah was made to a Samaritan woman (John 4:25-26). He always treated women with the utmost dignity--even women who might otherwise be regarded as outcasts (Matthew 9:20-22; Luke 7:37-50; John 4:7-27). He blessed their children (Luke 18:15-16), raised their dead (Luke 7:12-15), forgave their sin (Luke 7:44-48), and restored their virtue and honor (John 8:4-11). Thus He exalted the position of womanhood itself. It is no surprise therefore that women became prominent in the ministry of the early church (Acts 12:12-15; 1 Corinthians 11:11-15). On the day of Pentecost, when the New Testament church was born, women were there with the chief disciples, praying (Acts 1:12-14). Some were renowned for their good deeds (Acts 9:36); others for their hospitality (Acts 12:12; 16:14-15); still others for their understanding of sound doctrine and their spiritual giftedness (Acts 18:26; 21:8-9). John's second epistle was addressed to a prominent woman in one of the churches under his oversight. Even the apostle Paul, sometimes falsely caricatured by critics of Scripture as a male chauvinist, regularly ministered alongside women (Philippians 4:3). He recognized and applauded their faithfulness and their giftedness (Romans 16:1-6; 2 Timothy 1:5). Naturally, as Christianity began to influence Western society, the status of women was dramatically improved. One of the early church fathers, Tertullian, wrote a work titled On the Apparel of Women, sometime near the end of the second century. He said pagan women who wore elaborate hair ornaments, immodest clothing, and body decorations had actually been forced by society and fashion to abandon the superior splendor of true femininity. He noted by way of contrast that as the church had grown and the gospel had borne fruit, one of the visible results was the rise of a trend toward modesty in women's dress and a corresponding elevation of the status of women. He acknowledged that pagan men commonly complained, "Ever since she became a Christian, she walks in poorer garb!" Christian women even became known as "modesty's priestesses." But, Tertullian said, as believers who lived under the lordship of Christ, women were spiritually wealthier, more pure, and thus more glorious than the most extravagant women in pagan society. Clothed "with the silk of uprightness, the fine linen of holiness, the purple of modesty," they elevated feminine virtue to an unprecedented height. Even the pagans recognized that. Chrysostom, perhaps the most eloquent preacher of the fourth century, recorded that one of his teachers, a pagan philosopher named Libanius, once said: "Heavens! What women you Christians have!" What prompted Libanius's outburst was hearing how Chrysostom's mother had remained chaste for more than two decades since becoming a widow at age twenty. As the influence of Christianity was felt more and more, women were less and less vilified or mistreated as objects for the amusement of men. Instead, women began to be honored for their virtue and faith. In fact, Christian women converted out of pagan society were automatically freed from a host of demeaning practices. Emancipated from the public debauchery of temples and theaters (where women were systematically dishonored and devalued), they rose to prominence in home and church, where they were honored and admired for feminine virtues like hospitality, ministry to the sick, the care and nurture of their own families, and the loving labor of their hands (Acts 9:39). That's always been the trend. Wherever the gospel has spread, the social, legal, and spiritual status of women has, as a rule, been elevated. When the gospel has been eclipsed (whether by repression, false religion, secularism, humanistic philosophy, or spiritual decay within the church), the status of women has declined accordingly. Even when secular movements have arisen claiming to be concerned with women's rights, their efforts have generally been detrimental to the status of women. The feminist movement of our generation, for example, is a case in point. Feminism has devalued and defamed femininity. Natural gender distinctions are usually downplayed, dismissed, despised, or denied. As a result, women are now being sent into combat situations, subjected to grueling physical labor once reserved for men, exposed to all kinds of indignities in the workplace, and otherwise encouraged to act and talk like men. Meanwhile, modern feminists heap scorn on women who want family and household to be their first priorities; in so doing they disparage the role of motherhood, the one calling that is most uniquely and exclusively feminine. The whole message of feminist egalitarianism is that there is really nothing extraordinary about women. That is certainly not the message of Scripture. Scripture honors women as women, and it encourages them to seek honor in a uniquely feminine way (Proverbs 31:10-30). Scripture never discounts the female intellect, downplays the talents and abilities of women, or discourages the right use of women's spiritual gifts. But whenever the Bible expressly talks about the marks of an excellent woman, the stress is always on feminine virtue. The most significant women in Scripture were influential not because of their careers, but because of their character. The message these women collectively give is not about "gender equality"; it's about true feminine excellence. And that is always exemplified in moral and spiritual qualities rather than by social standing, wealth, or physical appearance. And that's setting the record straight. Far from denigrating women, the Bible promotes feminine freedom, dignity, and honor. Scripture paints for every culture the portrait of a truly beautiful woman. True feminine beauty is not about external adornment, "arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel"; real beauty is manifest instead in "the hidden person of the heart ... the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God" (1 Peter 3:3-4 NKJV).

Can women serve as elders in the church? Rev. Charles J. Paul

2008-08-12T16:07:00.000-07:00

I don't believe there's a place for women elders in the church. When the apostle Paul said that a woman should not "teach or exercise authority over a man" (1 Timothy 2:12), he did not follow that statement with a cultural argument. Rather he went all the way back to creation to show that women weren't intended to dominate men (vv. 13-14). The reasons he gave are that the woman was created after the man, and that she was deceived when acting independently of his leadership.
Paul goes on to say in 1 Timothy 2:15 that "women shall be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint." That verse is not talking about women's eternal destiny, but means that they are saved from being second-class citizens through the privilege of rearing children. God designed a woman to fulfill a role in the home that no man ever can (Proverbs 31:10-31; Titus 2:4-5).
Our society's current thinking on the woman's role is contrary to the priorities revealed in the Bible. Genesis 3 explains why that conflict exists. After the Fall, God told the woman, "Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you" (Genesis 3:16). Genesis 4:7 helps us to understand what that verse means. There God told Cain, "Sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it." Exactly the same phrase is used in both passages.
So in the same way sin tries to dominate us all, fallen women desire to overpower their husbands, and fallen men tend to oppress them in the same way sin oppresses the sinner. The intended balance, of course, is achieved when men and women lead and submit in a godly manner (Ephesians 5:22-33).

WORD OF THE DAY From The Pastor's Study

2008-08-09T04:53:00.000-07:00

ordo salutis

(Latin, “order of salvation”)

Refers to the successive order of events in the process or event of salvation. This order includes necessities such as predestination, regeneration, faith, justification, repentance, atonement, and glorification. Depending on ones particular stance on theological issues having to do with salvation, he or she will see these events in differing successions. For example, the Calvinist would normally place regeneration before faith in their ordo, while the Arminian would see regeneration as a result of faith. The Roman Catholic would see justification as an event and a process that takes place throughout the Christian’s life, while Protestants would see justification as a definite event resulting from faith. Therefore, the Roman Catholic and Protestant ordo would differ respectively.

This We Believe By Dr Carl R. Trueman

2008-08-09T04:49:00.000-07:00

Many evangelical Christians are instinctively suspicious of the whole idea of creeds and confessions, those set forms of words that certain churches have used throughout the ages to give concise expression to the Christian faith. For such people, the very idea of such extra-scriptural authoritative statements of faith seems to strike at the very heart of their belief that the Bible is the unique revelation of God, the all-sufficient basis for our knowledge of Him, and the supreme authority in matters of religion.
Certainly, creeds and confessions can be used in a way that undermines the orthodox Protestant view of scripture. Both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches invest such authority in the declaration of the institutional church that the church creeds can seem to carry an authority that is derived from the church's approval rather than conformity with the teaching of Scripture. Evangelicals are right to want to avoid anything that smacks of such an attitude. Yet I would like to argue that creeds and confessions should fulfill a useful function in the life of the church and in the lives of individual believers.
First, Christians with no creed simply do not exist. To declare that one has "no creed but the Bible" is a creed, for the Bible nowhere expresses itself in such a fashion. It is an extra-biblical formulation. There are really only two types of Christian: those who are honest about the fact they have a creed and those who deny they have a creed yet possess one nonetheless. Ask any Christian what they believe, and, if they are at all thoughtful, they will not simply recite Bible texts to you; they will rather offer a summary account of what they see to be the Bible's teaching in a form of words which are, to a greater or lesser extent, extra-biblical. All Christians have creeds -- forms of words -- that attempt to express in short compass great swathes of biblical teaching. And no one should ever see creeds and confessions as independent of Scripture; they were formulated in the context of elaborate biblical exegesis and were self-consciously dependent upon God's unique revelation in and through Scripture.
Given this fact, the second point is that some Christians have creeds that have been tried and tested by the church over the centuries, while others have those that their pastor made up, or that they put together themselves. Now, there is no necessary reason why the latter should be inferior to the former; but, on the basis that there is no need to reinvent the wheel, there is surely no virtue in turning our backs on those forms of sound words that have done a good job for hundreds of years in articulating aspects of the Christian faith and facilitating its transmission from place to place and generation to generation. If you want to, say, reject the Nicene Creed, you are of course free to do so; but you should at least try to replace it with a formula that will do the job just as effectively for so many people for the next 1,500 years. If you cannot do so, perhaps modesty and gratitude, rather than iconoclasm, are the appropriate responses to the ancient creed.
Third, the creeds and confessions of the church offer us points of continuity with the church of the past. As I noted above, there is no need to reinvent Christianity every Sunday, and in an anti-historical, future-oriented age like ours, what more counter-cultural move can we as Christians make than to self-consciously identify with so many brothers and sisters who have gone before? Furthermore, while Protestants take justifiable pride in the fact that every believer has the right to read the Scriptures and has direct access to God in Christ, we should still acknowledge that Christianity is first and foremost a corporate religion. God's means of working in history has been the church; the contributions of individual Christians have been great, but these all pale in comparison with God's great work in and through the church as a whole. This holds good for theology as for any other area. The insights of individual teachers and theologians over the centuries have been profound, but nothing quite matches the corporate wisdom of the godly when gathered together in the great councils and assemblies in the history of the church.
This brings me to my fourth point: Creeds and confessions generally focus on what is significant. The early creeds, such as the Apostles' and the Nicene are very brief and deal with the absolute essentials. Yet this is true even of the more elaborate statements of faith, such as the Lutheran Augsburg Confession or the Westminster Confession of Faith. Indeed, when you look at the points of doctrine that these various documents cover, it is difficult to see what could be left out without abandoning something central and significant. Far from being exhaustive statements of faith, they are summaries of the bare essentials. As such, they are singularly useful.
Evangelicals should love the great creeds and confessions for all of the above reasons. Yet we should ultimately follow them only so far as they make sense of Scripture, but it is surely foolish and curmudgeonly to reject one of the primary ways in which the church has painstakingly transmitted her faith from age to age.

Making Atheism Enchanting by Gene Edward Veith

2008-08-06T15:40:00.000-07:00

The old atheists maintained that belief in God is not true. The new atheists maintain that belief in God is not good. The atheists' problem, though, is that however much they attack belief in God, their own worldview lacks all appeal. They get hung up on the last remaining absolute: Atheism is not beautiful. It is so depressing.

If there is no God and this physical realm is all there is, life is pretty much pointless. A person might believe such a bleak worldview, but no one is going to like it. The old atheists, to their great credit, usually faced up to the implications of their disbelief. Walter Berns, writing in The Weekly Standard (February 4, 2008), sums up the worldview of Albert Camus, as expressed in his novel The Stranger:
Meursault, its hero (actually, its antihero), is a murderer, but a different kind of murderer. What is different about him is that he murdered for no reason -- he did it because the sun got in his eyes, à cause du solei -- and because he neither loves nor hates, and unlike the other people who inhabit his world, does not pretend to love or hate. ...As he said, the universe "is benignly indifferent" to how he lives. It is a bleak picture, and Camus was criticized for painting it, but as he wrote in reply, "there is no other life possible for a man deprived of God, and all men are [now] in that position.
But although Camus may have anticipated the mindless, non-reflective godlessness of our culture, his world-view has little to commend it. By his own admission, throwing out God also throws out meaning, joy, and everything that makes life worth living.
Enter Philip Pullman, the British author of children's stories. Out of his hatred for C. S. Lewis' "Chronicles of Narnia," Pullman resolved to write a fantasy series that would do for atheism what Lewis' fantasy series did for Christianity. Thus was born the trilogy "His Dark Materials."
The first volume, The Golden Compass, was recently made into a movie, which, despite its elaborate and expensive special effects, bombed at the box office, illustrating what he is up against. But the trilogy is enormously popular, especially among teenagers and young adults, having sold some fifteen million copies.
The story has to do with multiple worlds, marvelous adventures, and an epic conflict between good and evil. Except that, in line with the new atheism, God is the evil one and Satan is the good guy.
Pullman, as in the old Gnostic texts, portrays God the creator as a cruel, tyrannical "Authority"; Satan is the liberator; and Adam and Eve were right to eat the forbidden fruit. In Pullman's fantasy, the church, headed by Pope John Calvin, is all about black-robed clerics sneaking around establishing inquisitions and spoiling everyone's fun.
The books, though, are imaginatively stimulating. The fantasy is exciting, well-written, and pleasurable. And, as with other fantasies, the story is idealistic and even inspiring.
Here, in a quote from the second volume of the trilogy, The Subtle Knife, is how Pullman portrays the virtue of Satan's rebellion and of the cosmic struggle against the Authority:
There are two great powers...and they've been fighting since time began. Every advance in human life, every scrap of knowledge and wisdom and decency we have has been torn by one side from the teeth of the other. Every little increase in human freedom has been fought over ferociously between those who want us to know more and be wiser and stronger, and those who want us to obey and be humble and submit.
The prose evokes a stirring heroism -- again, like traditional fantasies -- but the enemy of knowledge, wisdom, and decency in this anti-Narnia is God and His evil minions in the church!
The central image of the Pullman books is the "dark materials," a term taken from Milton, whose Paradise Lost the author turns upside down. This "dust" is the stuff of love and consciousness. In fact, it turns out that everything is made out of this dust, which is the essence of both spiritual and physical existence. This is true even of the Authority, who turns out to be just another physical being, an old, senile relic who dissolves back into dust once he is dragged into the light.
This is nothing more than classic materialism, of course, which insists that matter is all there is, so that everything that exists is made out of particular tiny bits of matter called atoms. Pullman glorifies and mystifies this "dust." How wonderful it is to have evolved into so many wonderful things! And when we die, we go back to dust. As Pullman puts it in the last volume, The Amber Spyglass, when people die "all the atoms that were them, they've gone into the air and the wind and the trees and the earth and all the living things. They'll never vanish. They're just part of everything. And that's exactly what'll happen to you."
Pullman mystifies materialism and turns atheism into an actual religion. In doing so, however, he does what the old atheists have always falsely accused believers of doing: indulging in irrational wish-fulfillment and constructing an escapist fantasy.

Science, Faith, & the Creator By Nathan Busenitz

2008-08-04T16:26:00.000-07:00

Today’s post is adapted from Nathan’s new book, Reasons We Believe: Fifty Lines of Evidence that Confirm the Christian Faith (Crossway, 2008). This article was adapted from part of reason no. 2, discussing the existence of God from the standpoint of His Creation. We will be running excerpts from the book each day this week.

Why do evolutionary scientists deny the existence of God? The answer is found in what they believe (namely, that nothing outside of the material universe exists), and has little if anything to do with true science. As much as any religion, atheistic naturalism is built on faith. “Evolution has deep religious connections,” explains Notre Dame philosophy professor Alvin Plantinga. “A good deal more than reason goes into the acceptance of such a theory at the Grand Evolutionary Story.”[1] Former NASA scientist Robert Jastrow agrees:
There is a kind of religion in science. . . . The religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover.[2]
Because of its prior “faith” commitment to a materialistic worldview, naturalism denies the existence of God even in the face of contrary evidence. Speaking candidly, Richard Lewontin, former professor of zoology and biology at Harvard admits:
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes . . . no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door.[3]
More succinctly, immunologist Scott Todd notes, “Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not materialistic.”[4] Such admissions confirm that evolution, in actuality, “isn’t science. [It] is dogmatism.”[5]
When the “faith” of evolution, and the faith of biblical Christianity are compared, only one can adequately answer the question of origins. There is “a possible explanation of equal intellectual respectability [to naturalism]—and to my mind, greater elegance,” notes theoretical physicist John Polkinghorne, former president of Queen’s College, Cambridge. It is “that this one world is the way it is because it is the creation of the will of a Creator who purposes that it should be so.” [6]
Thus, the existence of our universe points to God, because without a Creator there can be no creation. In the words of eminent British philosopher Richard Swinburne, longtime professor at Oxford University: “Why believe that there is a God at all? My answer is that to suppose that there is a God explains why there is a world at all . . . and so much else. In fact, the hypothesis of the existence of God makes sense of the whole of our experience, and it does better than any other explanation which can be put forward, and that is the grounds for believing it to be true.”[7]

No Compromise By John MacArthur

2008-08-03T09:47:00.000-07:00

It was Martin Luther who said:

“The world at the present time is sagaciously discussing how to quell the controversy and strife over doctrine and faith, and how to effect a compromise between the Church and the Papacy. Let the learned, the wise, it is said, bishops, emperor and princes, arbitrate. Each side can easily yield something, and it is better to concede some things which can be construed according to individual interpretation, than that so much persecution, bloodshed, war, and terrible, endless dissension and destruction be permitted.

“Here is lack of understanding, for understanding proves by the Word that such patchwork is not according to God’s will, but that doctrine, faith and worship must be preserved pure and unadulterated; there must be no mingling with human nonsense, human opinions or wisdom.

“The Scriptures give us this rule: ‘We must obey God rather than men’ (Acts 5:29).”
It is interesting to speculate what the church would be like today if Martin Luther had been prone to compromise. The pressure was heavy on him to tone down his teaching, soften his message, stop poking his finger in the eye of the papacy. Even many of his friends and supporters urged Luther to come to terms with Rome for the sake of harmony in the church. Luther himself prayed earnestly that the effect of his teaching would not be divisive.

When he nailed his 95 Theses to the door, the last thing he wanted to do was split the church.
Yet sometimes division is fitting, even healthy, for the church. Especially in times like Luther’s—and like ours—when the visible church seems full of counterfeit Christians, it is right for the true people of God to declare themselves. Compromise is sometimes a worse evil than division. Second Corinthians 6:14-17 isn’t speaking only of marriage when it says,

Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, “I will dwell in them and walk among them; And I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
Therefore, come out from their midst and be separate,” says the Lord.

WORD OF THE DAY From The Pastor's Study

2008-07-30T15:56:00.000-07:00

extra ecclesiam nulla salus

(Latin, “outside the church, no salvation”)

This phrase has a long theological history, being coined by Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, in third century, but its meaning today is debated among scholars. While it expresses the belief that the church is necessary for salvation, this does not speak to the issues raised by the multiple divisions within the church that followed through the Middle Ages and into the Reformation and what is meant, in light of such, by the word “church.” All traditions of Christianity - Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox - can claim this phrase as substantially correct, but all three traditions would define it with a particular nuance which would be rejected by the others. Protestants would define “church” as the universal or invisible body of Christ that is not necessarily represented by one visible expression, tradition, or denomination. Both Catholics and Orthodox would claim that their tradition is the true representation of the “church” today, outside of which there is no salvation. However, one might find themselves within this “church” without knowledge of his or her membership.

God’s Purpose or Mine? By Oswald Chambers

2008-07-27T23:12:00.000-07:00

He made His disciples get into the boat and go before Him to the other side . . . —Mark 6:45

We tend to think that if Jesus Christ compels us to do something and we are obedient to Him, He will lead us to great success. We should never have the thought that our dreams of success are God’s purpose for us. In fact, His purpose may be exactly the opposite. We have the idea that God is leading us toward a particular end or a desired goal, but He is not. The question of whether or not we arrive at a particular goal is of little importance, and reaching it becomes merely an episode along the way. What we see as only the process of reaching a particular end, God sees as the goal itself.
What is my vision of God’s purpose for me? Whatever it may be, His purpose is for me to depend on Him and on His power now. If I can stay calm, faithful, and unconfused while in the middle of the turmoil of life, the goal of the purpose of God is being accomplished in me. God is not working toward a particular finish— His purpose is the process itself. What He desires for me is that I see "Him walking on the sea" with no shore, no success, nor goal in sight, but simply having the absolute certainty that everything is all right because I see "Him walking on the sea" ( Mark 6:49 ). It is the process, not the outcome, that is glorifying to God.
God’s training is for now, not later. His purpose is for this very minute, not for sometime in the future. We have nothing to do with what will follow our obedience, and we are wrong to concern ourselves with it. What people call preparation, God sees as the goal itself.
God’s purpose is to enable me to see that He can walk on the storms of my life right now. If we have a further goal in mind, we are not paying enough attention to the present time. However, if we realize that moment-by-moment obedience is the goal, then each moment as it comes is precious.

What difference is there between the Lord's Supper and the Roman Catholic Mass?

2008-07-27T15:37:00.000-07:00

Q80: What difference is there between the Lord's Supper and the Pope's Mass?

A80: The Lord's Supper testifies to us that we have full forgiveness of all our sins by the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which He Himself once accomplished on the cross;[1] and that by the Holy Ghost we are ingrafted into Christ,[2] who, with His true body, is now in heaven at the right hand of the Father,[3] and is there to be worshiped.[4] But the Mass teaches that the living and the dead do not have forgiveness of sins through the sufferings of Christ, unless Christ is still daily offered for them by the priests, and that Christ is bodily under the form of bread and wine, and is therefore to be worshiped in them. And thus the Mass at bottom is nothing else than a denial of the one sacrifice and suffering of Jesus Christ,[5] and an accursed idolatry.
1. Heb. 7:27; 9:12, 25-28; 10:10, 12, 14; 19:302. I Cor. 6:173. Heb. 1:3; 8:14. John 4:21-24; 20:17; Luke 24:52; Acts 7:55; Col. 3:1; Phil. 3:20-21; I Thess. 1:9-105. Heb. ch. 9-10

Q81: Who are to come to the table of the Lord?

A81: Those who are displeased with themselves for their sins, yet trust that these are forgiven them, and that their remaining infirmity is covered by the suffering and death of Christ; who also desire more and more to strengthen their faith and to amend their life. But the impenitent and hypocrites eat and drink judgment to themselves.[1]
1. I Cor. 10:19-22; 11:28-29; Psa. 51:3; 103:1-4; John 7:37-38; Matt. 5:6

Q82: Are they, then, also to be admitted to this Supper who show themselves by their confession and life to be unbelieving and ungodly?

A82: No, for thereby the covenant of God is profaned and His wrath provoked against the whole congregation;[1] therefore, the Christian Church is bound, according to the order of Christ and His Apostles, to exclude such persons by the Office of the Keys until they amend their lives.
1. I Cor. 11:20, 30-32, 34a; Isa. 1:11-15; 66:3; Jer. 7:21-23; Psa. 50:16-17; Matt. 7:6; Titus 3:10-11; II Thess. 3:6

He Descended into Hell by Mark Johnston

2008-07-26T03:19:00.000-07:00

There is nothing more central to the Christian message than the cross of Christ. It is there in the shadows of the Old Testament. It explodes to the fore in the New, dominating the landscape of the Gospel records. And from the very first sermon preached by Peter on the Day of Pentecost it becomes the hallmark of authentic apostolic ministry. As Paul tells the church in Corinth: 'For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified' (1Co 2.2).Paradoxically, as church history unfolds in the post-apostolic era, it is the cross that is chosen as the emblem of the Christian Faith. In an age when death by crucifixion was still commonplace and the very shape of the cross was enough to send a chill down anyone's spine, the church opted, not for a dove, or an image of the empty tomb; but for the cross to be its corporate logo.

That perhaps more than anything is an indicator not only of its significance, but also its centrality to all that the gospel says.We see the scale of its significance reflected in the Apostles' Creed in the way that it skips immediately from confessing the incarnation of Christ to confessing his death upon the cross: He suffered under Pontius Pilate,Was crucified, died and was buried;He descended into hell.Without so much as the blink of an eye, the architects of the Creed gloss over 33 years of Jesus' life on earth and three years of his earthly ministry almost as though they were of no consequence! In so doing they signal the cross as being the defining moment of salvation history and therefore also the keynote of the good news of redemption we preach to the world.That said we cannot help but wonder at what seems like an unusual choice of words in this particular clause: 'He descended into hell'. It is made all the more intriguing when we realise that this third line of the triplet was a much later addition to the Creed - most likely in the latter part of the Fourth Century AD. Not surprisingly it is an addition that has sparked no small measure of controversy and debate as to its precise meaning.Some have argued that it simply signifies Jesus' burial; but that has little merit since it would represent a redundancy of language given the previous clause. Others have argued cogently on the basis of its Greek form as being 'Hades' that it speaks of his descent into the realm of the dead for the period between his death and resurrection.

This view is argued by a shining galaxy of theologians and preachers and cannot be dismissed lightly. But the problem with that interpretation is that it does not reflect the weight and balance of the biblical exposition of the cross and all that it accomplished. So, given the economy of words employed in the Creed, it seems odd to include a statement that reflects something of a mere footnote in the biblical account and its explanation.It seems more sensible to follow John Calvin (as he in turn followed expositors of the Creed before him) and see its inclusion in the Creed as a summary of the two clauses about the death of Christ that precede it. So on the one hand it sums up the full horror of what is stated almost in a matter-of-fact way in those lines; but on the other hand it provides us with the key to seeing all that the cross accomplished for God's people.

Nowhere is the saving significance of Calvary more dramatically expressed than in the words of John the Baptist at as Jesus began his earthly ministry. Pointing the crowds to Jesus he says, 'Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world' (Jn 1.29). Indeed, it bears noting that, in a way that is reflected in the emphasis of the Creed, John the Evangelist skips from confessing the incarnation of Christ to proclaiming his death! On these two great truths the gospel hangs. Three things are worth highlighting in relation to what the two Johns say as a means of explicating what is said in the Creed about the death of Christ.The Innocent Suffering in the Place of the GuiltyJohn the Baptist's ministry as the forerunner of the Christ was geared to expose human sin and guilt and the need for both pardon and cleansing. Its limitation was the fact that he could expose this need, but he could do nothing to deal with it. So, when pressed by a delegation from the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem to say who he was, responded by saying: 'I am not the Christ' (Jn 1.20). Indeed he systematically denied that he was to be identified with any of the messianic figures bound up with the hope of salvation in the Old Testament. His only message was that they should be looking to the One 'who comes after me' (Jn 1.19-28).However, when Jesus appeared among the crowds, without any prompting or collusion between himself and John, John declared, 'Behold the Lamb!' In language that spoke unmistakably of death, the Evangelist uses the testimony of the Baptist to introduce the ministry of Jesus at its inception by pointing to its climax and conclusion. In other words, both Johns are saying that the entire purpose of Jesus' coming was to do for guilty sinners what they could not do for themselves - die to take their sin away!By introducing Jesus in this way, John was not only pointing to the fact that he was destined to die, but also explaining in advance the significance of his death: it would be death as a sacrifice. His language is drawn unmistakably from the world of Old Testament ceremonial practice in which an innocent and unblemished creature (that did not deserve to die) was taken and ritually slaughtered in the place of guilty sinners. God was willing to accept - albeit in symbolic fashion - the death of the innocent in order to preserve the life of the guilty. In that sense it was more than merely the language of some arcane ritual; but rather the language of divine justice. On the one hand it speaks of death as the just consequence of sin. To the ears of our present generation, that sounds harsh, but that is only because today's generation has little or no appreciation of the seriousness of sin. But when we realise that sin is in its very essence defying the authority of God as Lord of the Universe and disrupting the entire equilibrium of the universe he has made, then it makes perfect sense that grand treason on that scale demands the ultimate sanction. The God of the Bible is the Lord of Righteousness whose justice is not to be mocked.The glory of the gospel is that this very same God has instituted a judicial measure by which sin and guilt can be transferred to a third party so that the guilty individual can be pardoned - the entire Old Testament system of sacrifices is built around this fact. God wanted it ingrained into the very psyche of his people that he was simultaneously the Judge of all the Earth and the Saviour of the World without any contradiction.The question for any Jew and indeed for any serious reader of the Old Testament was, 'Where, when and how does the symbol become reality?' God makes it clear repeatedly in the Hebrew Bible that the blood of bulls and goats can never actually atone for the sins of men and women, boys and girls because there is no equivalence between them. Indeed, even if God had sanctioned human sacrifice as a means of making atonement, even then it could be no more than the life of one individual for that of another. So where is the fulfilment? The answer can only be found in one Person and one place: Jesus the God-man providing the only sacrifice with the capacity to atone as one for many and the cross of Calvary as the place where that supreme transaction is made.The judicial element of that transaction is highlighted by Jesus' trial before Pilate. In what in so many ways seems a complete travesty of justice and the ultimate blemish on the judicial system of the Roman Empire, a drama of infinitely deeper significance was unfolding. We have a breathtaking hint of it in the words of Caiaphas the High Priest when he told the Sanhedrin, 'It is better for you that one man should die for the people than that the whole nation perish' (Jn 12.50). Then we see it plainly, as Calvin points out, in the fact that the two charges on which Jesus is convicted before the court of Pilate are treason and blasphemy - the very crimes of which the entire human race is guilty before the court of heaven. The proceedings of the court then climax in what becomes a living allegory in what happens to Barabbas - the criminal convicted of insurrection and murder - when he is released in order that the innocent Jesus might die. The justice being transacted that day as Jesus 'suffered under Pontius Pilate' was the justice of God himself. The innocent suffered so that the guilty might go free.The Blessed One Cursed that the Cursed might be BlessedIf it was true that Jesus' trial before Pilate indicated that there was more going on that day than met the eye, then the manner of Jesus' death made that even more clear.Many people (preachers included) are inclined to look at the fact that Christ died on a cross merely from the perspective of its being a hideous form of the death penalty. If that is all there was to it, then Mel Gibson was entirely justified in doing what he did in The Passion of the Christ. More than that, the atheist who got into trouble recently for saying that by the standard of crucifixions generally Jesus got off pretty lightly, was actually right. The physical torment of crucifixion was undeniably horrendous, but other evil empires have found even more hideous ways to extinguish human life. So physical suffering cannot be the sum total of the anguish Jesus went through that day.The real anguish of the cross can only be understood against the Old Testament backdrop to all that was taking place. In particular, the fact that God had said, '...anyone who is hung on a tree is under God's curse' (Dt 21.23). That statement probably needs a little unpacking for it to make sense to 21st Century Western minds. In the first place it should be borne in mind that 'hanging' in the ancient Near East meant impalement and not suspension by a rope. So for Jesus to be impaled on a Roman gibbet, meant that this sobering anathema settled on him like a cloud - to the horror of those who loved him and the delight of those who wanted him dead. And in the second place, the idea of cursing in the Old Testament was not some primitive version of what is practiced by witch doctors or Voodoo practitioners today; but rather the judicial element of God's holy covenant. While on the one hand God promises blessing to all who believe the promises of his covenant and submit to its stipulations; on the other hand he warns of cursing for all who spurn his overtures of covenant grace and who refuse to bow to his rule. If the essence of blessing is happiness and harmony as the expression of divine favour, then the essence of cursing is unhappiness and chaos as the expression of divine displeasure.So, when Jesus was put to death on a cross that Friday morning, to all the Jews who were watching, he was seen as accursed. And it wasn't just that there was chaos, confusion and disorder all around in the scene at Golgotha; but that smell of divine displeasure filled the air. It was a scene that was made all the more incongruous because the One on the cross exposed to God's curse was the very one of whom the Father had said just three years previously, 'This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased' (Mt 3.17). But the greatest of all disruptions that day came, not in the turmoil that surrounded Jesus, but in the disruption of body and spirit that brought his earthly life to an end - the dis-integration that is the supreme anathema of death.It falls to the apostle Paul to explain the sheer bewilderment of this scene when he tells the Galatians: 'Christ redeems us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree"' (Ga 3.13). The Blessed One is cursed so that those who deserve cursing will be blessed!The Supreme Judge facing the Final JudgmentIt is only when we put these pieces of jigsaw into place as we try to understand what the cross meant that we then appreciate final clause in the Creed's statement about Christ's passion. What could otherwise be seen as something bland and, though tragic, still somewhat innocuous, is in fact utterly extraordinary.'He descended into hell' is the starkest and yet most accurate way of summing up what happened on cross that there is. The Blessed One who, for all eternity had known nothing but the highest heaven of intimacy with God, on the cross plumbed deepest depths of the anguish of hell in order to secure salvation for all his people. The intensity of what that meant is distilled into the words that pierced darkness when Jesus cried out, 'My God, why have you forsaken me?' (Mt 27.46).There was a magnitude to the events played out that day in the drama of Calvary that had eternal proportions. This was nothing less than the drama of Day of Judgment being played out in human history to show where sin ultimately leads. Christ's cry of abandonment is the preview of the final and eternal alienation of hell - permanent separation from God.It stands as a sobering warning to all who think that keeping God at a distance in this life is a choice worth making. But at the same time it is proof of God's promise to save all those who dare to put their hope and trust in his grace and mercy. God has not only made a promise, but has fulfilled its own requirements by satisfying the demands of his perfect justice to the full, so that he can justly throw open floodgates of his love.The cross means that God is able to save with clean conscience! It is nothing less than the One who will one day be the Judge of all mankind taking full force of final judgment so that sinners might be spared.'He descended into hell' may be the most controversial clause in the Apostles' Creed, but when seen this way, it becomes the most glorious, because it speaks most eloquently about the justice and grace of God's salvation!

Mark Johnston is the Senior Minister of Grove Chapel in Camberwell, London

Fully Man and Fully God By Dr. John MacArthur

2008-07-23T16:09:00.000-07:00

Did Jesus really claim to be God incarnate in human flesh? Or, as skeptics argue, did His followers later invent those claims and attribute them to Him? Thankfully, the biblical account of His life and ministry leaves no doubt about who Jesus declared Himself to be.

Jesus frequently spoke of His unique, otherworldly origin, of having preexisted in heaven before coming into this world. To the hostile Jews He declared, “You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world” (John 8:23). “What then,” He asked, “if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?” (John 6:62). In His high-priestly prayer Jesus spoke of the glory which He had with the Father before the world existed (John 17:5). In John 16:28 He told His disciples, “I came forth from the Father and have come into the world; I am leaving the world again and going to the Father.” Thus, John described Jesus in the prologue of his gospel with these words: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1).
Amazingly, Jesus assumed the prerogatives of deity. He claimed to have control over the eternal destinies of people (John 8:24; cf. Luke 12:8–9; John 5:22, 27–29), to have authority over the divinely-ordained institution of the Sabbath (Matt. 12:8; Mark 2:28; Luke 6:5), to have the power to answer prayer (John 14:13–14; cf. Acts 7:59; 9:10–17), and to have the right to receive worship and faith due to God alone (Matt. 21:16; John 14:1; cf. John 5:23). He also assumed the ability to forgive sins (Mark 2:5–11)—something which, as His shocked opponents correctly understood, only God can do (v. 7).
Jesus also called God’s angels (Gen. 28:12; Luke 12:8–9; 15:10; John 1:51) His angels (Matt. 13:41; 24:30–31); God’s elect (Luke 18:7; Rom. 8:33) His elect (Matt. 24:30–31); and God’s kingdom (Matt. 12:28; 19:24; 21:31; Mark 1:15; Luke 4:43; John 3:3) His kingdom (Matt. 13:41; 16:28; cf. Luke 1:33; 2 Tim. 4:1).
When a Samaritan woman said to Him, “I know that Messiah is coming (He who is called Christ); when that One comes, He will declare all things to us” (John 4:25) Jesus replied, “I who speak to you am He” (v. 26). In His high-priestly prayer to the Father, He referred to Himself as “Jesus Christ whom You have sent” (John 17:3); “Christ” is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word translated “Messiah.” When asked at His trial by the high priest, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” (Mark 14:61) Jesus replied simply, “I am” (v. 62). He also accepted, without correction or amendment, the testimonies of Peter (Matt. 16:16–17), Martha (John 11:27), and others (e.g., Matt. 9:27; 20:30–31) that He was the Messiah. He was the One of whom Isaiah prophesied, “His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6).
The Lord’s favorite description of Himself was “Son of Man” (cf. Matt. 8:20; Mark 2:28; Luke 6:22; John 9:35–37, etc.). Although that title seems to stress His humanity, it also speaks of His deity. Jesus’ use of the term derives from Daniel 7:13–14, where the Son of Man is on equal terms with God the Father, the Ancient of Days.
The Jews viewed themselves collectively as sons of God. Jesus, however, claimed to be God’s Son in a unique sense. “All things have been handed over to Me by My Father,” Jesus affirmed, “and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him” (Matt. 11:27). In John 5:25–26 He said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself.” After receiving word that Lazarus was ill Jesus said to the disciples, “This sickness is not to end in death, but for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified by it” (John 11:4). When asked at His trial, “Are You the Son of God, then?” Jesus replied, “Yes, I am” (Luke 22:70; cf. Mark 14:61–62). Instead of rejecting the title, the Lord embraced it without apology or embarrassment (Matt. 4:3, 6; 8:29; Mark 3:11–12; Luke 4:41; John 1:49–50; 11:27).
The hostile authorities clearly understood that Jesus’ use of the title Son of God was a claim to deity. Otherwise, they would not have accused Him of blasphemy (cf. John 10:46). In fact, it was Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God that led the Jews to demand His death: “The Jews answered [Pilate], ‘We have a law, and by that law He ought to die because He made Himself out to be the Son of God’” (John 19:7). And in John 5:18 — “The Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.” Even while He was on the cross, some mocked Him, sneering, “He trusts in God; let God rescue Him now, if He delights in Him; for He said, ‘I am the Son of God’” (Matt. 27:43).
Jesus further outraged the unbelieving Jews by taking for Himself the covenant name of God, “I am” (Yahweh). That name was so sacred to the Jews that they refused to even pronounce it, lest they take it vain (cf. Exod. 20:7). In John 8:24 Jesus warned that those who refuse to believe He is Yahweh will perish eternally: “Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” (The word “He” is not in the original Greek.) Later in that chapter “Jesus said to [His hearers], ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am’” (v. 58). Unlike many modern deniers of His deity, the Jews knew exactly what He was claiming, as their subsequent attempt to stone Him for blasphemy makes clear (v. 59). In John 13:19 Jesus told His disciples that when what He predicted came to pass, they would believe that He is Yahweh. Even His enemies, coming to arrest Him in Gethsemane, were overwhelmed by His divine power and fell to the ground when Jesus said “I am” (John 18:5–8).
All of the above lines of evidence converge on one inescapable point: Jesus Christ claimed absolute equality with God. Thus He could say, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30); “He who sees Me sees the One who sent Me” (John 12:45); and “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (14:9–10). And thus we can conclude that “in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (Col. 2:9), and we can worship Him accordingly as “our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus” (Titus 2:13).

Jesus, Made in America Review by Nathan Williams

2008-07-23T16:05:00.001-07:00

“So it may be argued . . . that America has its own quest for Jesus, its own reshaping of the Son of God, fashioning Him into something more palatable to American tastes and acceptable to American sensibilities.” (p. 10)
The above quote accurately captures the main idea proposed by Stephen Nichols in his new book, Jesus, Made in America. In this book, Nichols guides the reader chronologically through American history, beginning with the Puritans, and ending with the current evangelical obsession with political activism. With every new era in American history comes a new transformation of the Son of God by the surrounding culture.
Essentially, Jesus, Made in America, provides a study of the way in which the church’s perception and teaching about Christ have been shaped by the culture. Nichols begins with the era of the Puritans in America. Although not perfect, in many ways the early American Puritans were the apex of the American perception and teaching about Christ. They welded together deep personal piety and a theological precision that the church today is severely lacking.
After the Puritans, the American perception of Jesus has been in severe decline and this is the story told throughout the rest of this book.
This decline began with the influence of the founding fathers on the national idea of Christ. Men such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were eager to strip Jesus of divinity and reduce Christianity to a set of good moral teachings. Next, through the 19th century Jesus was first a masculine frontiersmen and next a feminized Victorian depending on the bent of the culture. As the 20th century dawned it brought the fundamentalist/modernist controversy and with it another period of emphasis on the character and lifestyle of Jesus rather than the truth of who Jesus is.
Nichols spends the second half of the book all in the 20th and 21st century. These 4 chapters provide some of the most bizarre ways in which culture has influenced teaching on Jesus including the WWJD? craze, the book Jesus in Blue Jeans and the (often) shallow and money-driven Contemporary Christian Music industry.
Worldliness continues to plague the church and always will. I believe one of the major problems for Christians is identifying exactly what worldliness means and how to apply biblical commands to not be conformed to the world. Perhaps we make it more difficult than it should be. As I read through this book, I felt like the veil was being pulled back and I was getting an inside look at exactly how worldly the church has become. All throughout the history of America, we have allowed the surrounding culture to influence how we think of our Savior. Having a Jesus who has been molded by the fad of the moment has become such a “normal” part of evangelicalism that we can’t even see it anymore. It’s almost as if we believe Jesus should reflect the societal obsession of the moment.
One of the major reasons for the malleable Jesus we have created is the complex nature of Christ presented in the gospels. More often than not, problems arise when one generation focuses on one aspect of the character of Christ to the exclusion or at least minimization of the other facets of who He is. We must remember that Jesus is not only human but divine, He is loving and at the same time so angry over sin that He will send many to Hell for eternity. We must balance the tensions of the complex character of Christ. When we get out of balance in our perception of who He is, we create massive problems. This book is a clear and accurate description of the history of those problems in America.
The value of understanding history cannot be overstated. Many of the modern currents of evangelicalism make perfect sense when seen from the vantage point of the bridge overlooking the entire river. In other words, through the historical study of the misconceptions of Jesus, many of the problems in the church today become easily identifiable.
My favorite chapter and the one I found to be most helpful was the chapter dealing with Jesus and politics. Obviously we are in the middle of an election year and the political system has captured the mind of the country. Nichols offers insightful analysis of the way the “right” and the “left” have claimed Jesus as one of their own. Then he briefly offers a helpful strategy for Christian political engagement without cheapening the gospel or Jesus as so much Christian political activism does today.
Overall, this is a book that is enjoyable to read and one full of fascinating wisdom on the way American culture has shaped Jesus.

Justification by Faith (pt. 2) by John H. Gerstner

2008-07-22T17:19:00.000-07:00

The epistle to the Romans has already shown us that man is guilty before God. Their sins have incurred the wrath of God: "The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness" (Romans 1:18). And this wrath is further intensified by every sin that is committed: "thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up wrath against the day of wrath and the revelation of the righteous judgment of God" (Romans 2:5).
Later, the same epistle tells us that "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). Death refers to eternal death in hell because it is set in contrast with eternal life. Did not Christ Himself say the same thing? "The Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many" (Matthew 20:28). He said, "This is My body which is given for you" (Luke 22:19). Did He not say that like "as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up" (John 3:14)? Why would the Son of man be lifted up as a vile serpent, the symbol of sin, to become sin and cry out in His desolation, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" (Matthew 27:46) except that, as Paul says, God "made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" (2 Corinthians 5:21). Christ Himself did not say so much about His death. He was making the sacrifice, so He left to others the privilege of explaining it. For 2000 years now the church has been glorying in His cross and exploring its wondrous meaning.
The positive element, making sinners just or righteous, is really the central aspect of justification, though it is commonly less noticed. But, as we have said, if Christ did not procure our righteousness as well as secure our remission, the latter would have been of no avail to us, for we would still be outside paradise and exposed to the recurrence of sin and ultimate damnation. God could not bestow righteousness on us, to be sure, without removing our filthy guilt. But on the other hand, it would have been no use to remove our guilt if He did not bestow a new righteousness on us. This is what the first Adam failed to do. He was never asked to die for the remission of sin, but he was placed on probation to fulfill the law and secure the perpetual favor of God upon all whom he represented--and he failed in this. The second Adam, the man Christ Jesus, both washed us from our sins by His blood and clothed us in the white raiment of His righteousness, justified.
In order to do this great thing, Christ had first to be justified Himself so that those whom He represented might share in His justification; and this He did. He fulfilled the law perfectly, not for Himself alone, but for His people. He was holy and undefiled, a Lamb without blemish. He was the only one who could say, "The prince of this world cometh, and he hath nothing in Me." He was the Son in whom the Father was well-pleased, made in all points like as we are, but without sin. Therefore God vindicated the second Adam, as we read in 1 Peter 3:18: "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened in the Spirit." And 1 Timothy 3:16: "Without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." Here we see that the man Christ Jesus was justified by His own keeping of the law; but in Romans 4:25 we see that this justification was not for Himself alone, but representatively for His people; "Who was delivered up for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification." So 1 Timothy tells us that He was raised again for His own justification, and Romans 4:25 shows that He was raised again for our justification.
In justification, as in all other works as a Mediator, Christ does not act as a private person, but as a public one; not for Himself alone, but for all of His own; not for the Head only, but for the members of the body as well. So that we are quickened, raised up, and made to sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus. You are Christ's, and Christ is God's. Again, Romans 8:34: "Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea, rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us." So, being justified, being endowed with a title to life as well as a reprieve from death, "we have peace with God . . .access into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice [triumphantly] in hope of the glory of God."
That these two elements together constitute justification is shown in Acts 26:18: "that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and an inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in Me." And John 5:24: "He that heareth My word, and believeth on Him that sent Me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation."
You may ask, "Why is faith the means of justification? Is it a kind of good work?"
I answer, no; the Bible is very plain in teaching that salvation is not by works of any kind. If it were, we would have something to glory about; we could not boast that we did this or that, but we could glory in our belief. We could alter Toplady's hymn like this: "Nothing in my hands I bring, except my faith!" No other work could avail, only the work of believing. If faith were a kind of good work, we would be back again at the old heresy of salvation by works--and the work that saves would be the work of faith. Romans 4:5 makes it clear that we are not saved by faith as a good work; for that text says that we are justified while still ungodly in ourselves. God "justifieth the ungodly." So, at the moment of justification, we are still ungodly. If we are still ungodly then, our faith cannot be a good work.
But if you ask why faith is the means of justification, it is simply because it is the act of union with Jesus Christ. Faith is our coming to Him, our trusting Him, our resting in Him. The moment we are united to Him, we are immediately endowed with all that He has secured for us. We are immediately justified before we have done a single good deed, because we are His and He is God's. A very poor woman is a very poor woman until the very moment that she marries a wealthy man; but at the moment that she becomes his wife, she becomes a wealthy woman. It is by means of her acceptance that she becomes a wealthy woman; but her acceptance does not make her wealthy--it is her husband's wealth that makes her so. And faith does not justify, Christ does--but faith unites us to Christ.

Justification by Faith (pt. 1) by John H. Gerstner

2008-07-22T17:17:00.000-07:00

From Romans 1:18 to 3:20, the Apostle Paul seeks to demonstrate the universal sinfulness of men. He shows the wrath of God revealed against the heathen because they would not have God in their thinking. He shows that the nominally religious people of Israel, by their condemning other persons for sins of which they were also guilty, were treasuring up "wrath against the day of wrath." In chapter 3 Paul shows that all have gone astray: "There is none that doeth good." With or without the law, men have sinned. Every mouth is stopped; the whole world is shut up under judgment. Then and only then does the apostle come back to this theme:
Now the righteousness of God without [or apart from] the law is manifested [revealed], being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe; for there is no difference, for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God; being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood, to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God--to declare, I say, at this time His righteousness, that He might be just and the Justifier of him which believeth in Jesus (Romans 3:21-26).
Having shown most plainly that no man can be saved by the works of the law, Paul proceeds to show just as plainly that men may be saved by the faith that is in Christ Jesus. Now that he has shown men why they should not trust in themselves, he will show them how suitable it is to trust in Christ. Since their own works only condemn them, he will tell them of one whose works can save them. Furthermore, he says that this is no new or novel way of salvation; it is the only way of salvation in all ages. Abraham was saved in this way, and so was David.
In the beginning of chapter 4, Paul points out that "if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory, but not before God. For what saith the Scripture? 'Abraham believed God and it was counted unto him for righteousness.' " Then in verse 5 he gives us a classic statement of justification by faith alone: "To him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." Justification is by faith alone without works.
The Westminster Shorter Catechism has well summarized the abundance of biblical data on this great theme: "Justification is an act of God's grace wherein He pardoneth all our sins and accepteth us as righteous in His sight only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us and received by faith alone."
Justification has a positive and a negative element. It consists at once in the removal of guilt and the imputation [or granting] of righteousness. It rescues the sinner as a brand from the burning, and at the same time gives him a title to heaven. If it failed to do either of these, it would fail to do anything; for man, as a sinner against God, must have that enormous guilt somehow removed. But, at the same time, if he had the guilt removed he would still be devoid of positive righteousness and with no title to heaven, and would also be certain to fall again into sin and condemnation. If Christ only canceled our guilt, He would merely return the sinner to Adam's original state without Adam's original perfection of nature. There must be a "double cure" then, as Augustus Toplady wrote in his beloved hymn, "Rock of Ages":
Rock of Ages, cleft for me, Let me hide myself in Thee; Let the water and the blood, From Thy riven side which flowed, Be of sin the double cure, Cleanse me from its guilt and power.

Oswald Chambers Story

2008-07-20T06:04:00.000-07:00

Oswald Chambers (1874-1917) was born July 24, 1874, in Aberdeen, Scotland. Converted in his teen years under the ministry of Charles Haddon Spurgeon, he studied art and archaeology at the University of Edinburgh before answering a call from God to the Christian ministry. He then studied theology at Dunoon College. From 1906-1910 he conducted an itinerant Bible-teaching ministry in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Japan.
In 1910, Chambers married Gertrude Hobbs. They had one daughter, Kathleen.
In 1911 he founded and became principal of the Bible Training College in Clapham, London, where he lectured until the school was closed in 1915 because of World War I. In October 1915 he sailed for Zeitoun, Egypt (near Cairo), where he ministered to troops from Australia and New Zealand as a YMCA chaplain. He died there November 15, 1917, following surgery for a ruptured appendix.
Although Oswald Chambers wrote only one book, Baffled to Fight Better, more than thirty titles bear his name. With this one exception, published works were compiled by Mrs. Chambers, a court stenographer, from her verbatim shorthand notes of his messages taken during their seven years of marriage. For half a century following her husband's death she labored to give his words to the world.
My Utmost For His Highest, his best-known book, has been continuously in print in the United States since 1935 and remains in the top ten titles of the religious book bestseller list with millions of copies in print. It has become a Christian classic.

Dependent on God’s Presence By Oswald Chambers

2008-07-20T06:00:00.000-07:00

There is no thrill for us in walking, yet it is the test for all of our steady and enduring qualities. To "walk and not faint" is the highest stretch possible as a measure of strength. The word walk is used in the Bible to express the character of a person— ". . . John . . . looking at Jesus as He walked. . . said, ’Behold the Lamb of God!’ " ( John 1:35-36 ). There is nothing abstract or obscure in the Bible; everything is vivid and real. God does not say, "Be spiritual," but He says, "Walk before Me. . ." ( Genesis 17:1 ).
When we are in an unhealthy condition either physically or emotionally, we always look for thrills in life. In our physical life this leads to our efforts to counterfeit the work of the Holy Spirit; in our emotional life it leads to obsessions and to the destruction of our morality; and in our spiritual life, if we insist on pursuing only thrills, on mounting up "with wings like eagles" ( Isaiah 40:31 ), it will result in the destruction of our spirituality.
Having the reality of God’s presence is not dependent on our being in a particular circumstance or place, but is only dependent on our determination to keep the Lord before us continually. Our problems arise when we refuse to place our trust in the reality of His presence. The experience the psalmist speaks of— "We will not fear, even though . . ." ( Psalm 46:2 )— will be ours once we are grounded on the truth of the reality of God’s presence, not just a simple awareness of it, but an understanding of the reality of it. Then we will exclaim, "He has been here all the time!" At critical moments in our lives it is necessary to ask God for guidance, but it should be unnecessary to be constantly saying, "Oh, Lord, direct me in this, and in that." Of course He will, and in fact, He is doing it already! If our everyday decisions are not according to His will, He will press through them, bringing restraint to our spirit. Then we must be quiet and wait for the direction of His presence.

What Does Jesus Demand From Us? By Paul Washer

2008-07-19T08:28:00.000-07:00

CLICK HERE TO SEE VIDEO............http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBAcrDiITJ0&eurl=http://bloodtippedears.blogspot.com/2008/07/paul-washer-what-does-jesus-demand-from.html

Lakeland Healing Revival

2008-07-17T22:47:00.000-07:00

Beware another false "prophet" is on the loose and his name is Todd Bentley and he's in the middle of 'healing revival' in Lakeland Florida. This man is nothing more than a new TBN type false prophet and minister. He blathers on about seeing angels and seeing Jesus and receiving personal revelations directly from Jesus. This man is dangerous and deceptive. When he's done with you, your wallet will be empty and your soul will be without Christ.

click for video.....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbBUMv0V-ZU&eurl=http://www.alittleleaven.com/

Todd Bentley - Forget Preaching About Jesus...Get People to "Believe in the Angel"

2008-07-17T22:43:00.000-07:00

Apparently "God" isn't interested in the church hearing about Jesus any more. Todd Bentley claims that God wants people to believe in the angel named "winds of change" that supposedly visited Bentley at the beginning of the Lakeland "revival".
Bentley's 'god' told him, "Todd, you’ve got to get people to believe in the angel”

click for video........ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIjO4wMLjBk&eurl=http://www.alittleleaven.com/

Galatians 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!
1 Cor. 2:1 And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. 2 For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.

A THOUGHT FOR TODAYS PREACHERS By Oswald Chambers

2008-07-16T23:02:00.000-07:00

My speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom . . . —1 Corinthians 2:4

Paul was a scholar and an orator of the highest degree; he was not speaking here out of a deep sense of humility, but was saying that when he preached the gospel, he would veil the power of God if he impressed people with the excellency of his speech. Belief in Jesus is a miracle produced only by the effectiveness of redemption, not by impressive speech, nor by wooing and persuading, but only by the sheer unaided power of God. The creative power of redemption comes through the preaching of the gospel, but never because of the personality of the preacher.

Real and effective fasting by a preacher is not fasting from food, but fasting from eloquence, from impressive diction, and from everything else that might hinder the gospel of God being presented. The preacher is there as the representative of God— ". . . as though God were pleading through us . . ." (2 Corinthians 5:20). He is there to present the gospel of God. If it is only because of my preaching that people desire to be better, they will never get close to Jesus Christ. Anything that flatters me in my preaching of the gospel will result in making me a traitor to Jesus, and I prevent the creative power of His redemption from doing its work.
"And I, if I am lifted up. . . , will draw all peoples to Myself" (John 12:32).

Modernity, Madness, and Morals by Dr Al Mohler

2008-07-15T04:29:00.000-07:00

Why do you do what is right, rather than what is wrong? That is hardly a new question. It troubled the minds of the ancients. Some felt that humans are naturally drawn to virtue, but they were hard-pressed to explain why some individuals seemed to resist this impulse. Others argued that society had to make a firm impression upon the young, inculcating a desire for virtue and character that was more external than internal.
Fast forward and the Victorians in Britain were convinced that a lack of virtue could be traced to either heredity or deprivation. Assuming the British middle class as normative, the Victorians offered the advice famously advocated by Jiminy Cricket to Pinocchio -- "Let your conscience be your guide."
Experience indicates, consistent with what the Bible teaches, that this advice has limited value. The conscience is a human capacity for sure, part of the moral sense that testifies of the imago Dei, but it is just as deformed by the Fall as any other capacity. Conscience alone explains nothing. Many of the most heinous acts in human history have been done by individuals with a clear conscience. The conscience can lie, rationalize, and deceive.
More recently, moral philosophers have settled on a more clearly secular theory of morality -- rational choice theory. According to rational choice theory, people tend to settle on a moral code that fits their needs and leads, or is likely to lead, to their desired outcomes. In other words, individuals make a rational choice. A young woman might make a rational choice not to engage in premarital sex because she does not want to harm her reputation or opportunities or marriage. A young man might not shoplift because it would harm his chances of advancement. Rational choice theorists argue that their theory can explain virtually any human behavior, including moral choice.
We must admit that there is ample evidence to support this theory, at least in many cases of moral choice. This is a very significant insight for Christian theology, for it reminds us that when people make a choice to do good, it does not follow that they are good.
Take the example of two ten-year-old boys. One is considered a "good" boy because he is pleasant, respectful, obedient, and rarely breaks rules. The other boy is a "bad" boy who is markedly unpleasant, disrespectful, disobedient, and regularly flaunts his breaking of rules. Without doubt, we would rather that our own 10-year-old son, if we had one, would sit next to the first boy in class, rather than the second. But is the first boy really a "good" boy, and s the second really "bad?"
In reality, the first boy may have decided that being "good" works for him. His parents expect it of him. He is rewarded when he obeys (even if the reward is what merely comes his way with parental pleasure) and he is punished when he disobeys. He may have learned to play the game -- a game with far larger rewards later in life. Life goes much easier for this lad when he behaves well and is seen to do so -- so he does.
The second boy has no experience of similar controls. He does not expect life to go better for him if he behaves well. He may lack parents who would even teach him how to behave, much less reward him when he obeys and punish him when he disobeys. Instead, he learns that cutting corners, breaking rules, flaunting his misbehavior, and playing the part of the "bad" boy works for him. He gets more attention (even if negative attention) and gains the respect of his peer structure by misbehavior.
As twentieth century authors like Joseph Heller and Kurt Vonnegut understood so well, standing upside-down works rather well when the world is upside-down.
Minette Marrin raises many of these issues in her insightful report on Britain's problem of criminal youth -- boys and young man who have rejected the social contract and are seemingly beyond the reach of those who would reform them. In other words, these are young males who have made a rational choice to be criminals, she argues.
Her report was published in the July 13, 2008 edition of The Times [London]. As she makes her case, she also offers some important insights into how Britain negotiated away its common moral commitments.
She writes:
No one disagrees any longer that Britain is in parts and in places broken; Gallowgate [in Glascow] is a horrifying microcosm of broken families, broken spirits, broken health and broken schools; it is a dark place of chronic unemployment, violence and crime, of disorder and fear –- a disgrace to the supposedly developed world.
It's also true that at long last people of all persuasions are beginning to recognise that this social breakdown is due in part to the abdication both of authority and of personal responsibility that began some time after the war. Some are inclined to emphasise the demoralising paternalism of the welfare state, others the permissiveness of the 1960s, but few now question this abdication, at all levels. Not only that –- taking personal responsibility is sometimes forbidden, or punished, as when misguided adults try to control delinquent children in the street.
However, while personal responsibility and shared morality are essential to a good society and the only glue for a broken one, neither can be had just by whistling for them. Both depend on an instinctive sense of a social contract. Conventional morality is meaningless to a boy who has nothing whatsoever to gain by good behaviour. Personal responsibility means nothing if you have grown up neglected, abused and powerless among adults who hardly know what it is and feel powerless themselves.
Those paragraphs contain crucial moral insights and social observations. Many of those insights and observations would fit just as well with reference to American cities and American youth. One important difference is that a smaller percentage of American boys and young men seem yet to have abandoned the entire social contract.
Then comes Marrin's key paragraph:
Morality depends on having something to lose. It isn't just a matter of learning right from wrong, least of all in a post-religious society. Morality is socially constructed. I will respect your property and your person because I want you to respect mine. We both have something to lose. One does not have to be educated in political philosophy to understand that ancient deal. But if I have neither property nor respect from anyone, what's in the deal for me?
With this paragraph she articulates rational choice theory in all of its plausibility and all its inherent limitations. We must admit that much of what we call morality is indeed socially constructed -- matters of cultural context and custom. But we fool ourselves if we believe that all morality is socially constructed. Rational choice theory must assume that it is, but a bit of serious reflection is enough to throw all that into doubt. The Christian worldview insists that morality depends ultimately upon the character of God.
God's own righteousness is the ground of authentic morality and His revelation of what is right and what is wrong (as Paul reminds us, in nature, in conscience, in the law, in the Scripture, and in Christ) is our only sure guide.
Minette Marrin offers frightening insights in her important report. These insights should humble the proud, and make us all a bit more aware of just why we "behave" when others do not. A good dose of rational choice theory is humbling indeed. But, at the same time, we must be thankful that this is not where we are left.
The rational choice theorist has little or nothing to say to the boys and young men of Minette Marrin's concern. The Christian church does have something to say -- the liberating truth of the Gospel. But in order to be heard, we had better first be humbled by the honest recognition that we are not as "good" as we like to think. We are all delinquents -- every last one of us.

The Will to Debate by Keith A. Mathison

2008-07-12T13:04:00.000-07:00

When Dutch Calvinists and Arminians squared off against one another in the early part of the seventeenth century, the Calvinists won the opening battle. The controversy, however, soon spread beyond the borders of the Netherlands. Now, four hundred years later, the conflict continues, and in terms of numbers alone, Arminianism is clearly winning the war for the hearts and minds of professing Christians. Today, Calvinists are a small minority. But why the debate in the first place? Is it really that important?

Many professing Christians today would say that the debate between Calvinism and Arminianism should be put to rest, that we have more important things to think about. Robert A. Peterson and Michael D. Williams disagree. In their book, Why I Am Not an Arminian (IVP, 2004), these two authors not only explain what Arminianism is, they demonstrate how it is biblically, theologically, and philosophically unsound and why it must be rejected by those concerned to be faithful to the teaching of Scripture.

Peterson and Williams begin by providing some historical context to the debate. They look first at the fourth-century debate between Augustine and Pelagius over the nature of sin. The importance of our understanding of this doctrine can hardly be overstated, because what a person understands about sin will inevitably affect his understanding of grace and redemption. The authors show that Pelagius' underestimation of the power of sin and his overestimation of the power of human ability destroys the Gospel.

Two topics that have been debated from the fourth century on are predestination and perseverance, and Robertson and Williams devote the next two chapters to an examination of each. Generally speaking, Arminians teach that election to salvation is conditioned upon foreseen faith. Calvinists, on the other hand, believe that the Scriptures teach unconditional election, namely, that election is based on God's sovereign will. Arminians also reject what Calvinists refer to as the "perseverance of the saints." According to Arminian theology, true Christians can and do apostatize from the faith. Peterson and Williams devote considerable space to showing why the Arminian doctrines are false and to demonstrating the biblical foundation of the Calvinist doctrines.

In chapter 5, the authors provide a historical and theological overview of the Calvinist-Arminian controversy that led to the Synod of Dort in 1618-19. In the remaining four chapters, Peterson and Williams compare Calvinist and Arminian teaching on four crucial topics. They look first at the different views of human freedom. Arminianism generally teaches that human freedom and divine sovereignty are logically incompatible. Calvinists, on the other hand, argue that human freedom and divine sovereignty are compatible because the Bible affirms both. The final three chapters examine the differences between Calvinists and Arminians on the subjects of depravity, grace, and the atonement. In each case, Peterson and Williams set forth the biblical case for the Calvinist position. They argue that the Bible clearly teaches total depravity, irresistible grace, and substitutionary atonement.

Unlike many books on the subject (from both sides), Peterson and Williams counter the claims of Arminians with both clarity and charity. They do not understate serious differences, but they take particular care to make sure the views of those with whom they differ are presented accurately. This is important because critiquing views that are held by no one in order to score debating points with those who do not know any better is both dishonest and a waste of time.
Peterson and Williams' book is important because the issues involved are important. The issues at the heart of the Calvinist-Arminian controversy are intimately related to the Gospel. The controversy deals with the nature of God's sovereignty and human free will, the impact of sin upon human beings, the meaning of the atonement, the definition and power of God's grace, the possibility of assurance, and much more. Clearly, such doctrines lie at the heart of the Christian faith.
The Calvinist-Arminian debate is not a debate that Christians can afford to ignore. It is vitally important. If you have been a Christian for any amount of time, you likely know people who are Arminian or who have been influenced by Arminian teaching. It is important to be ready to give an answer when challenged by such teaching. For those who want to be ready, Why I Am Not an Arminian is a good place to start.

WORD OF THE DAY From The Pastor's Study

2008-07-10T15:32:00.000-07:00

perichoresis

[pehr’-ih-koe-ree‘-sis]

(Greek peri, “around” + Greek choreio, “dance”)

Refers to the mutual indwelling and relationship of the members of the Trinity. This concept is emphasized more by Eastern Christianity, but is affirmed by all orthodox branches of Trinitarian Christianity. St John of Damascus defines it such: “The subsistences [i.e., the three Persons] dwell and are established firmly in one another. For they are inseparable and cannot part from one another, but keep to their separate courses within one another, without coalescing or mingling, but cleaving to each other. For the Son is in the Father and the Spirit: and the Spirit in the Father and the Son: and the Father in the Son and the Spirit, but there is no coalescence or commingling or confusion. And there is one and the same motion: for there is one impulse and one motion of the three subsistences, which is not to be observed in any created nature” (The Orthodox Faith, 1.14).

All Truth Is God's Truth by Dr. R.C. Sproul

2008-07-08T15:45:00.000-07:00

During the nineteenth-century potato famine in Ireland, my great-grandfather, Charles Sproul, fled his native land to seek refuge in America. He left his thatched roof and mud floor cottage in a northern Ireland village and made his way barefoot to Dublin -- to the wharf from which he sailed to New York. After registering as an immigrant at Ellis Island, he made his way west to Pittsburgh, where a large colony of Scots-Irish people had settled. They were drawn to that site by the industrial steel mills led by the Scot, Andrew Carnegie.

My great-grandfather died in Pittsburgh in 1910, but not until he instilled a profound love for the tradition and yore of Ireland in his sons and grandsons. Thirty years ago, one of my cousins made a pilgrimage to north Ireland to seek his roots in the town from which our great-grandfather came. As he inquired about the whereabouts of any Sprouls, he was told by an elderly gentleman that the last surviving member of our family had perished when he stumbled on his way home from the local pub in a profound state of inebriation. He fell into a canal and drowned.

This leaves us with the stereotype of the Irish as hard-drinking, two-fisted men, who consider bricks to be "Irish confetti." This caricature of the Irish, however, obscures some very important dimensions of Irish history. In the eighth century, missionary settlers to Ireland were very important to the Christianization of the British Isles that had been inhabited largely by pagans and barbarians. The monasteries in Ireland were noted for their devotion to scholarship, for copying biblical texts, and especially for adorning the biblical texts with magnificent illuminations. Their passion for scholarship and art quickly spread to Great Britain where the codification of ancient law was established, which has made an impact even on our land to this day.

One of the most important scholars of this period was a man called Bede, known as the "Venerable." He resided in England and is considered to be the first great European historian. The Irish also produced a masterpiece that combined scholarship and beauty in the famous Book of Kells.

But it was in the second part of the eighth century that the great impetus for a revival of scholarship took place. It was under the reign of Charles the Great (Charlemagne), crowned as the first holy Roman emperor, that a new revival of arts and sciences took place. This revival, called the "Carolingian Renaissance," foreshadowed the great Renaissance that would sweep through Europe in the late Middle Ages, beginning chiefly with the work of the Medici patrons in Italy, which found its zenith in the labors of Lorenzo the Magnificent.
In the Holy Roman Empire of the eighth century, Charlemagne was determined to recover the best of classical and biblical learning. He became a patron of scholarship and appointed as his chief intellectual assistant Alcuin, who was from Great Britain. Charlemagne was one of the most illustrious members of the Carolingian dynasty that began with his father, Pepin the Short, and lasted until the tenth century. The Renaissance was a recovery of classical language and biblical truth.

The later Renaissance at the time of the sixteenth century with its most famous personage, Erasmus of Rotterdam, found its motto in the words ad fontes, that is, "to the sources." The motto declared the intent of the scholars of that day to return to the wellspring -- "to the sources" of ancient philosophy, culture, and especially the biblical languages. So a renewed study of the Greek philosophers, Plato and Aristotle, coupled with a zeal for the recovery of the biblical languages, spearheaded both the later Renaissance as well as the Carolingian Renaissance that came about under the leadership of Charlemagne.

Before the Carolingian period, Augustine, in his passion for scholarship, was convinced that it was the duty of the Christian to learn as much as possible about as many things as possible. Since all truth is God's truth, all aspects of scientific inquiry are to be within the province of biblical and Christian learning. It was not by accident that the great discoveries of Western science were spearheaded by Christians who took seriously their responsibilities to exercise dominion over the earth in service to God. Rather than seeing learning, scholarship, and the pursuit of beauty as being ideas foreign to the Christian enterprise, the eighth-century revival, following the earlier lead of Augustine, saw a pursuit of God Himself in the pursuit of knowledge and of beauty.

They saw that God is the source of all truth and of all beauty.
Throughout the centuries, Christian influences dominated the world of art as well as the world of scholarship. The legacy of this period has enriched the whole scope of Western history even to this day. It is imperative that we in the twenty-first century learn from the pioneers of the past who did not despise classical scholarship, but saw it as something to be harnessed in the service of the kingdom of God.

Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation? By Dr.John MacArthur

2008-07-07T16:04:00.000-07:00

No. Let's examine what the Scriptures teach on this issue:

First, it is quite clear from such passages as Acts 15 and Romans 4 that no external act is necessary for salvation. Salvation is by divine grace through faith alone (Romans 3:22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30; 4:5; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; Philippians 3:9, etc.).
If water baptism were necessary for salvation, we would expect to find it stressed whenever the gospel is presented in Scripture. That is not the case, however. Peter mentioned baptism in his sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38). However, in his sermon from Solomon's portico in the Temple (Acts 3:12-26), Peter makes no reference to baptism, but links forgiveness of sin to repentance (3:19). If baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sin, why didn't Peter say so in Acts 3?
Paul never made water baptism any part of his gospel presentations. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul gives a concise summary of the gospel message he preached. There is no mention of baptism. In 1 Corinthians 1:17, Paul states that "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel," thus clearly differentiating the gospel from baptism.
Those passages are difficult to understand if water baptism is necessary for salvation. If baptism were part of the gospel itself, necessary for salvation, what good would it have done Paul to preach the gospel, but not baptize? No one would have been saved. Paul clearly understood water baptism to be separate from the gospel, and hence in no way efficacious for salvation.
Perhaps the most convincing refutation of the view that baptism is necessary for salvation are those who were saved apart from baptism. The penitent woman (Luke 7:37-50), the paralytic man (Matthew 9:2), the publican (Luke 18:13-14), and the thief on the cross (Luke 23:39-43) all experienced forgiveness of sins apart from baptism. For that matter, we have no record of the apostles' being baptized, yet Jesus pronounced them clean of their sins (John 15:3--note that the Word of God, not baptism, is what cleansed them).
The Bible also gives us an example of people who were saved before being baptized. In Acts 10:44-48, Cornelius and those with him were converted through Peter's message. That they were saved before being baptized is evident from their reception of the Holy Spirit (v. 44) and the gifts of the Spirit (v. 46) before their baptism. Indeed, it is the fact that they had received the Holy Spirit (and hence were saved) that led Peter to baptize them (cf. v. 47).
One of the basic principles of biblical interpretation is the analogia scriptura, the analogy of Scripture--we must compare Scripture with Scripture in order to understand its full and proper sense. Since the Bible doesn't contradict itself, any interpretation of a specific passage that contradicts the general teaching of the Bible is to be rejected.
Since the general teaching of the Bible is, as we have seen, that baptism and other forms of ritual are not necessary for salvation, no individual passage could teach otherwise. Thus we must look for interpretations of those passages that will be in harmony with the general teaching of Scripture.
With that in mind, let's look briefly at some passages that appear to teach that baptism is required for salvation.
In Acts 2:38, Peter appears to link forgiveness of sins to baptism. But there are several plausible interpretations of this verse that do not connect forgiveness of sin with baptism. It is possible to translate the Greek preposition eis--"because of," or "on the basis of," instead of "for." It is used in that sense in Matthew 3:11; 12:41; and Luke 11:32.
It is also possible to take the clause "and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ" as parenthetical. Support for that interpretation comes from that fact that "repent" and "your" are plural, while "be baptized" is singular, thus setting it off from the rest of the sentence. If that interpretation is correct, the verse would read "Repent (and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ) for the forgiveness of your sins." Forgiveness is thus connected with repentance, not baptism, in keeping with the consistent teaching of the New Testament (cf. Luke 24:47; John 3:18; Acts 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18; Ephesians 5:26).
A third possibility exists, as Wallace explains in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics:
It is possible that to a first-century Jewish audience (as well as to Peter), the idea of baptism might incorporate both the spiritual reality and the physical symbol. In other words, when one spoke of baptism, he usually meant both ideas--the reality and the ritual. Peter is shown to make the strong connection between these two in chapters 10 and 11. In 11:15-16 he recounts the conversion of Cornelius and friends, pointing out that at the point of their conversion they were baptized by the Holy Spirit. After he had seen this, he declared, "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit..." (10:47).
The point seems to be that if they have had the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit via spiritual baptism, there ought to be a public testimony/acknowledgment via water baptism as well. This may not only explain Acts 2:38 (viz., that Peter spoke of both reality and picture, though only the reality removes sins), but also why the NT speaks of only baptized believers (as far as we can tell): Water baptism is not a cause of salvation, but a picture; and as such it serves both as a public acknowledgment (by those present) and a public confession (by the convert) that one has been Spirit-baptized.
Mark 16:16, a verse often quoted to prove baptism is necessary for salvation, is actually a proof of the opposite. Notice that the basis for condemnation in that verse is not the failure to be baptized, but only the failure to believe. Baptism is mentioned in the first part of the verse because it was the outward symbol that always accompanied the inward belief.
I might also mention that many textual scholars think it unlikely that vv. 9-20 are an authentic part of Mark's gospel. We can't discuss here all the textual evidence that has caused many New Testament scholars to reject the passage. But you can find a thorough discussion in Bruce Metzger, et al., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, pp. 122-128, and William Hendriksen, The Gospel of Mark, pp. 682-687.
Water baptism does not seem to be what Peter has in view in 1 Peter 3:21. The English word "baptism" is simply a transliteration of the Greek word baptizo, which means "to immerse." Baptizo does not always refer to water baptism in the New Testament (cf. Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; 7:4; 10:38-39; Luke 3:16; 11:38; 12:50; John 1:33; Acts 1:5; 11:16; 1 Corinthians 10:2; 12:13).
So Peter is not talking about immersion in water, as the phrase "not the removal of dirt from the flesh" indicates. He is referring to immersion in Christ's death and resurrection through "an appeal to God for a good conscience," or repentance. Again, it is not the outward act that saves, but the internal reality of the Spirit's regenerating work (cf. Titus 3:4-8).
I also do not believe water baptism is in view in Romans 6 or Galatians 3. I see in those passages a reference to the baptism in the Holy Spirit (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:13). For a detailed exposition of those passages, I refer you to my commentaries on Galatians and Romans, or the transcripts my sermons on Galatians 3 and Romans 6.
In Acts 22:16, Paul recounts the words of Ananias to him following his experience on the Damascus road: "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name." It is best to connect the phrase "wash away your sins" with "calling on His name." If we connect it with "be baptized," the Greek participle epikalesamenos ("calling") would have no antecedent. Paul's sins were washed away not by baptism, but by calling on His name.
Water baptism is certainly important, and required of every believer. However, the New Testament does not teach that baptism is necessary for salvation.

Dr. Martin Luther On Infant Baptism

2008-07-07T15:57:00.000-07:00

Here a question occurs by which the devil through his sects, confuses the world, namely, Of Infant Baptism, whether children also believe, and are justly baptized. Concerning this we say briefly: Let the simple dismiss this question from their minds, and refer it to the learned. But if you wish to answer then answer thus: --

That the Baptism of infants is pleasing to Christ is sufficiently proved from His own work, namely, that God sanctifies many of them who have been thus baptized, and has given them the Holy Ghost; and that there are yet many even to-day in whom we perceive that they have the Holy Ghost both because of their doctrine and life; as it is also given to us by the grace of God that we can explain the Scriptures and come to the knowledge of Christ, which is impossible without the Holy Ghost. But if God did not accept the baptism of infants, He would not give the Holy Ghost nor any of His gifts to any of them; in short, during this long time unto this day no man upon earth could have been a Christian. Now, since God confirms Baptism by the gifts of His Holy Ghost as is plainly perceptible in some of the church fathers, as St. Bernard, Gerson, John Hus, and others, who were baptized in infancy, and since the holy Christian Church cannot perish until the end of the world, they must acknowledge that such infant baptism is pleasing to God. For He can never be opposed to Himself, or support falsehood and wickedness, or for its promotion impart His grace and Spirit. This is indeed the best and strongest proof for the simple-minded and unlearned. For they shall not take from us or overthrow this article: I believe a holy Christian Church, the communion of saints.
Further, we say that we are not so much concerned to know whether the person baptized believes or not; for on that account Baptism does not become invalid; but everything depends upon the Word and command of God. This now is perhaps somewhat acute but it rests entirely upon what I have said, that Baptism is nothing else than water and the Word of God in and with each other, that is when the Word is added to the water, Baptism is valid, even though faith be wanting. For my faith does not make Baptism, but receives it. Now, Baptism does not become invalid even though it be wrongly received or employed; since it is not bound (as stated) to our faith, but to the Word.
For even though a Jew should to-day come dishonestly and with evil purpose, and we should baptize him in all good faith, we must say that his baptism is nevertheless genuine. For here is the water together with the Word of God. even though he does not receive it as he should, just as those who unworthily go to the Sacrament receive the true Sacrament even though they do not believe.
Thus you see that the objection of the sectarians is vain. For (as we have said) even though infants did not believe, which however, is not the case, yet their baptism as now shown would be valid, and no one should rebaptize them; just as nothing is detracted from the Sacrament though some one approach it with evil purpose, and he could not be allowed on account of his abuse to take it a second time the selfsame hour, as though he had not received the true Sacrament at first; for that would mean to blaspheme and profane the Sacrament in the worst manner. How dare we think that God's Word and ordinance should be wrong and invalid because we make a wrong use of it?
Therefore I say, if you did not believe then believe now and say thus: The baptism indeed was right, but I, alas! did not receive it aright. For I myself also, and all who are baptized, must speak thus before God: I come hither in my faith and in that of others, yet I cannot rest in this, that I believe, and that many people pray for me; but in this I rest, that it is Thy Word and command. Just as I go to the Sacrament trusting not in my faith, but in the Word of Christ; whether I am strong or weak, that I commit to God. But this I know, that He bids me go, eat and drink, etc., and gives me His body and blood; that will not deceive me or prove false to me.
Thus we do also in infant baptism. We bring the child in the conviction and hope that it believes, and we pray that God may grant it faith; but we do not baptize it upon that, but solely upon the command of God. Why so? Because we know that God does not lie. I and my neighbor and, in short, all men, may err and deceive, but the Word of God cannot err.
Therefore they are presumptuous, clumsy minds that draw such inferences and conclusions as these: Where there is not the true faith, there also can be no true Baptism. Just as if I would infer: If I do not believe, then Christ is nothing; or thus: If I am not obedient, then father, mother, and government are nothing. Is that a correct conclusion, that whenever any one does not do what he ought, the thing in itself shall be nothing and of no value? My dear, just invert the argument and rather draw this inference: For this very reason Baptism is something and is right, because it has been wrongly received. For if it were not right and true in itself, it could not be misused nor sinned against. The saying is: Abusus non tollit, sed confirmat substantiam, Abuse does not destroy the essence but confirms it. For gold is not the less gold though a harlot wear it in sin and shame.
Therefore let it be decided that Baptism always remains true, retains its full essence, even though a single person should be baptized, and he, in addition, should not believe truly. For God's ordinance and Word cannot be made variable or be altered by men. But these people, the fanatics, are so blinded that they do not see the Word and command of God, and regard Baptism and the magistrates only as they regard water in the brook or in pots, or as any other man; and because they do not see faith nor obedience, they conclude that they are to be regarded as invalid. Here lurks a concealed seditious devil, who would like to tear the crown from the head of authority and then trample it under foot, and, in addition, pervert and bring to naught all the works and ordinances of God. Therefore we must be watchful and well armed, and not allow ourselves to be directed nor turned away from the Word, in order that we may not regard Baptism as a mere empty sign, as the fanatics dream.
Lastly, we must also know what Baptism signifies, and why God has ordained just such external sign and ceremony for the Sacrament by which we are first received into the Christian Church. But the act or ceremony is this, that we are sunk under the water, which passes over us, and afterwards are drawn out again. These two parts, to be sunk under the water and drawn out again, signify the power and operation of Baptism, which is nothing else than putting to death the old Adam, and after that the resurrection of the new man, both of which must take place in us all our lives, so that a truly Christian life is nothing else than a daily baptism, once begun and ever to be continued. For this must be practised without ceasing, that we ever keep purging away whatever is of the old Adam, and that that which belongs to the new man come forth. But what is the old man? It is that which is born in us from Adam, angry, hateful, envious, unchaste, stingy, lazy, haughty, yea, unbelieving, infected with all vices, and having by nature nothing good in it. Now, when we are come into the kingdom of Christ, these things must daily decrease, that the longer we live we become more gentle, more patient more meek, and ever withdraw more and more from unbelief, avarice, hatred, envy, haughtiness.
This is the true use of Baptism among Christians, as signified by baptizing with water. Where this, therefore, is not practised but the old man is left unbridled, so as to continually become stronger, that is not using Baptism, but striving against Baptism. For those who are without Christ cannot but daily become worse, according to the proverb which expresses the truth, "Worse and worse -- the longer, the worse." If a year ago one was proud and avaricious, then he is much prouder and more avaricious this year, so that the vice grows and increases with him from his youth up. A young child has no special vice; but when it grows up, it becomes unchaste and impure, and when it reaches maturity real vices begin to prevail the longer, the more.
Therefore the old man goes unrestrained in his nature if he is not checked and suppressed by the power of Baptism. On the other hand where men have become Christians, he daily decreases until he finally perishes. That is truly to be buried in Baptism, and daily to come forth again. Therefore the external sign is appointed not only for a powerful effect, but also for a signification. Where, therefore, faith flourishes with its fruits, there it has no empty signification, but the work [of mortifying the flesh] accompanies it; but where faith is wanting, it remains a mere unfruitful sign.
And here you see that Baptism, both in its power and signification, comprehends also the third Sacrament, which has been called repentance, as it is really nothing else than Baptism. For what else is repentance but an earnest attack upon the old man [that his lusts be restrained] and entering upon a new life? Therefore, if you live in repentance, you walk in Baptism, which not only signifies such a new life, but also produces, begins, and exercises it. For therein are given grace, the Spirit, and power to suppress the old man, so that the new man may come forth and become strong.
Therefore our Baptism abides forever; and even though some one should fall from it and sin, nevertheless we always have access thereto, that we may again subdue the old man. But we need not again be sprinkled with water; for though we were put under the water a hundred times, it would nevertheless be only one Baptism, although the operation and signification continue and remain. Repentance, therefore, is nothing else than a return and approach to Baptism, that we repeat and practise what we began before, but abandoned.
This I say lest we fall into the opinion in which we were for a long time, imagining that our Baptism is something past, which we can no longer use after we have fallen again into sin. The reason is, that it is regarded only according to the external act once performed [and completed]. And this arose from the fact that St. Jerome wrote that repentance is the second plank by which we must swim forth and cross over after the ship is broken, on which we step and are carried across when we come into the Christian Church. Thereby the use of Baptism has been abolished so that it can profit us no longer. Therefore the statement is not correct, or at any rate not rightly understood. For the ship never breaks because (as we have said) it is the ordinance of God, and not a work of ours; but it happens, indeed, that we slip and fall out of the ship. Yet if any one fall out, let him see to it that he swim up and cling to it till he again come into it and live in it, as he had formerly begun.
Thus it appears what a great, excellent thing Baptism is, which delivers us from the jaws of the devil and makes us God's own, suppresses and takes away sin, and then daily strengthens the new man, and is and remains ever efficacious until we pass from this estate of misery to eternal glory.
For this reason let every one esteem his Baptism as a daily dress in which he is to walk constantly, that he may ever be found in the faith and its fruits, that he suppress the old man and grow up in the new. For if we would be Christians, we must practise the work whereby we are Christians. But if any one fall away from it, let him again come into it. For just as Christ, the Mercy-seat does not recede from us or forbid us to come to Him again, even though we sin, so all His treasure and gifts also remain. If, therefore we have once in Baptism obtained forgiveness of sin, it will remain every day, as long as we live, that is, as long as we carry the old man about our neck.

WORD OF THE DAY From The Pastor's Study

2008-07-06T03:43:00.000-07:00

Protestantism

A tradition in Christianity which found its self-identity as “Protestant” in the sixteenth-century Reformation. Protestantism began when the church, according to Protestants, lost the Gospel during the middle to late middle ages and reformers began to “protest” this loss. Martin Luther, often seen as the father of Protestantism, rejected the Pope’s claims to infallible authority, believed that the Gospel was being lost to a system of works-based salvation, and confessed the Bible alone was the only infallible and ultimate source of authority for the Christian. Protestantism is not a church, but a tradition which claims to have restored or reformed the Gospel, and hence, the church. Protestantism is made up of thousands of denominations (various expressions of the Protestant faith) and claims nearly four hundred million members world-wide.

Roman Catholicism

A tradition in the Christian faith that distinguishes itself as the “one true church.” The primary distinctives of Roman Catholicism from other traditions of Christianity are 1) the bishop of Rome who claims apostolic succession, infallibility, and the authority of Peter the Apostle, 2) its claims to absolute and infallible authority in matters of faith and practice, 3) its claim to doctrinal fidelity with both the history of the church and biblical interpretation, and 4) the unity that is produced by such fidelity. Other major Christian traditions that would deny such claims are Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Roman Catholicism boasts of over one billion members.

God's Truth Abideth Still by Rev. Burk Parsons

2008-07-04T16:31:00.000-07:00

One could perhaps make the argument that the history of the church consists of one division after another. Nevertheless, while history is replete with ecclesiastical divisions, there is a unity that transcends all the worldly clamor and devilish confusion surrounding the history of God's people. This unity is not the result of ecumenical doctrinal compromise. It is just the opposite. It is a unity that transcends all heresies on account of the fact that it is a unity established in God Himself.

For God sees not as man sees, and His story of the unfolding covenant of redemption brings God-governed, God-centered, and God-glorifying unity to all of history. Just as God has one purpose for all of history, God is in all of history; thus, there is an overarching unity in all of history precisely because God is sovereign over all events in history, by right and by necessity.
In eighth-century pagan Germany, a Gospel- preaching, English Augustinian monk named Boniface was martyred because he constructed a place for Christian worship using the wood of an oak tree dedicated to the god of thunder. Boniface did not physically endure the socioreligious divisions of the eighth-century; however, the truth of God did endure.

Eight centuries later, a German Augustinian monk from the town of Wittenberg named Luther heard the same Gospel that Boniface had preached. His message of Gospel-centered reform earned him the right to receive the title "heretic" in the papal bull Exsurge Domine issued on June 15, 1520, by Pope Leo X. It was that same papal bull that Luther burned on December 10, 1520, by the Elster Gate in Wittenberg, where to this day stands a giant oak tree that was dedicated to him on that historic occasion.

In turn, the same Gospel that Luther proclaimed ignited a flame that set the world on fire, spreading from Germany to England, where the flames of burning wood ignited the bodies of many Gospel-preaching English martyrs, whose voices, along with the voices of Boniface and Luther, sing as they bow before the throne of Almighty God, coram Deo: "The body they may kill: God's truth abideth still, His kingdom is forever."

Spurgeon on The Doctrines of Grace

2008-07-04T16:24:00.001-07:00

“I believe nothing merely because Calvin taught it, but because I have found his teaching in the Word of God.”

True Freedom For the 4th of July 2008

2008-07-04T16:19:00.000-07:00

READ Romans 6:11-18

In New York Harbor stands the Statue of Liberty. This world-renowned icon symbolizes the freedom that Americans cherish. We seek to spread this freedom to the oppressed around the globe. Yet even in the “land of the free,” many individuals are held captive by sinful habits and mind-sets.
A country’s liberty usually depends upon military might and governmental decrees. However, personal freedom has to do with a decision to protect the heart, mind, and body from evil influences.In a nation built upon independence, we call ourselves “free” as long as we aren’t in jail or somehow prevented from pursuing our interests. But is the man bent upon revenge “liberated”? Is the woman addicted to painkillers “free”?

The Enemy’s arsenal contains all kinds of temptations to occupy one’s time and attention. The need to attend to these habits, substances, and attitudes consumes a person. It draws his or her focus away from God. Then, as the Devil distracts, he also employs one of his greatest deceptions. Satan convinces people that their chains don’t really exist. He teaches them how to rationalize that “Just a little won’t hurt”. Or you begin to outright deny things saying “I can stop anytime I want”.

According to the Bible, men and women are either slaves of God or slaves to sin. There is no middle ground. Those serve Satan feeding their selfish impulses. Meanwhile, the “slaves of God” enjoy true freedom. They honor the Lord by keeping away from those things that imprison the body, emotions, or thoughts.

Q&A With Dr R.C Sproul

2008-07-02T16:02:00.000-07:00

Help me understand the doctrine of election.

To try to answer that question in this short format would almost do more damage than good. I could put in a commercial here that Tyndale House published a book I wrote titled Chosen by God, which devotes itself entirely to a study of this very difficult biblical doctrine of election. When we discuss the question of election, better known as predestination, so often that word is associated with Presbyterian theology or Calvinism. The apostle Paul tells us in Ephesians that we have been predestined in Christ to be his craftsmanship and also follows that theme very closely in the book of Romans. So as Christians we have to struggle with the concept of divine sovereign election. I think, again, that we have to understand the basic point of election—that God considers the human race in its fallenness and he sees all of us in a state of rebellion against him. If he were to exercise his justice totally and completely toward the whole world, then all of us would certainly perish. The Scriptures tell us that in our natural, fallen state, we are in a state of moral bondage. We still have the ability to make choices, but those choices follow the desires of our hearts, and what we lack as fallen creatures is a built-in desire for God. So Jesus said, for example, “No man can come to me unless it is given to him by the Father.” I think that what election is all about is that God sovereignly and graciously gives the desire for Christ to those whom he calls out of the world. The difficulty and the great mystery is that apparently he doesn’t do that for everyone. He reserves the right, as he told Moses and as Paul reiterates in the New Testament, to have mercy upon whom he will have mercy—just as he chose Abraham and not Hammurabi, just as Christ appeared on the road to Damascus to Paul in a way that he didn’t appear to Pontius Pilate. That is to say, God doesn’t treat everyone the same. He never treats anyone unjustly. Some receive justice and some receive mercy, and God reserves the right eternally to give his executive clemency, if you will, to those whom he chooses. There’s a great debate on this, as you know, but I believe that the choice God makes is not based on my righteousness or on your righteousness but is based on his grace.

Answering your questions By Rev. Charles J. Paul

2008-06-29T11:19:00.000-07:00

Joe,
Thank you for your questions. I pray that the questions are a blessing to everyone. Let’s take them one at a time.

1) You said that we sometimes question God. What do you mean by the term "question" God? What are some of the ways that we question God? The term question God was used to illustrate the way we sometimes view God. Our view of God can sometimes get so small that we find ourselves questioning His very majesty and Holiness. This will lead us to also look at our own personal and families spiritual growth as not the main focus that it must be.

2) We have clearly been given a great privilege as mankind has been created a little lower than God. Do we have responsibilities with this authority? What might be some of our responsibilities? First of all we must know that we are not God. But Stewarts of what God Himself has placed before us. Each of us has a very real responsibility to this call in our life. We are to daily conform to the image of the one True God who created us. And who also redeemed us from our fallen state of sin.

3) How do we keep the majesty of God in our minds and in our lives on an on-going, daily basis? Discipline. For me to tell you that this is easy would be false. It is hard work we must daily stay before Him in prayer and in the reading and studying of His Word. Also through the fellowship of other believers we will see our witness shine to this lost world. Remember it is a Holy Holy Holy God we serve.

Some questions from the sermon Man and God

2008-06-29T09:44:00.001-07:00

preached by Rev. Charles J. Paul
Sunday, June 29, 2008 / Psalm 8

Pastor Chuck,

During your sermon this morning you made some statements that raised serveral questions in my mind, and perhaps in others' minds as well. I am hopeful you can clarify the following questions:

1) You said that we sometimes question God. What do you mean by the term "question" God? What are some of the ways that we question God?

2) We have clearly been given a great privilege as mankind has been created a little lower than God. Do we have responsibilities with this authority? What might be some of our responsibilities?

3) How do we keep the majesty of God in our minds and in our lives on an on-going, daily basis?

When to Leave Your Church By John MacArthur

2008-06-28T00:16:00.000-07:00

Leaving a church is not something that should be done lightly. Too many people abandon churches for petty reasons. Disagreements over simple matters of preference are never a good reason to withdraw from a sound, Bible-believing church. Christians are commanded to respect, honor, and obey those whom God has placed in positions of leadership in the church (Heb.13:7, 17). However, there are times when it becomes necessary to leave a church for the sake of one’s own conscience, or out of a duty to obey God rather than men. Such circumstances would include:

If heresy on some fundamental truth is being taught from the pulpit (Gal. 1:7-9).

If the leaders of the church tolerate seriously errant doctrine from any who are given teaching authority in the fellowship (Rom. 16:17).

If the church is characterized by a wanton disregard for Scripture, such as a refusal to discipline members who are sinning blatantly (1 Cor. 5:1-7).

If unholy living is tolerated in the church (1 Cor. 5:9-11).

If the church is seriously out of step with the biblical pattern for the church (2 Thess. 3:6, 14).

If the church is marked by gross hypocrisy, giving lip service to biblical Christianity but refusing to acknowledge its true power (2 Tim. 3:5).

This is not to suggest that these are the only circumstances under which people are permitted to leave a church. There is certainly nothing wrong with moving one’s membership just because another church offers better teaching or more opportunities for growth and service. But those who transfer their membership for such reasons ought to take extreme care not to sow discord or division in the church they are leaving. And such moves ought to be made sparingly. Membership in a church is a commitment that ought to be taken seriously.

WORD OF THE DAY From The Pastor's Study

2008-06-25T14:48:00.000-07:00

ad hominem

(Latin, “to the man”)

An argumentative tactic where a person fails to engage the substance of an argument, choosing instead to opt for a personal attack on the character of the one making the argument. A popular and humorous extreme of this would be to respond to someone by saying “Your a monkey’s uncle.” Another example might be saying “Your just a right-winged fundamentalist. How could you know what you are talking about?”

Sin Makes No Racial Distinctions (pt. 3) by John H. Gerstner

2008-06-23T22:45:00.000-07:00

Let us now apply this doctrine to ourselves. First, let me apply it to myself. This doctrine means that, though I am a minister of the gospel, I am by nature a child of wrath. Even Paul, the greatest of ministers and apostles, included himself. "We also," he said. No privilege or opportunity can blind us to this sober fact. Indeed, a true minister is one who preaches as a dying man to dying men, telling them of a Savior who can save both him and them.
Second, as professing Christians we need to take warning. We have already shown that we too are "by nature children of wrath even as the rest." Let us not say to ourselves, "Abraham is our father." Nor let us say that we are Presbyterians, Lutherans, or Baptists. Let us not say that we come to church regularly, give our tithes, teach our class, and visit the sick. We are by nature children of wrath, just like the rest of this perishing world. If we have a hope of salvation, it must be on some other basis than what we are. By nature we are lost. Let us not say, "Lord, I thank Thee that I am not like other men. I am not like people who play golf on Sundays, or those who give less than a nickel a week to charity, or those who read licentious materials or tell dirty stories." We are by nature children of wrath, just like the rest.
There is no hope for us, no matter what we join or what we do or what we say unless we acknowledge that we are in ourselves reeking with corruption and in a lost condition by nature, a dwelling place for the devil, an enemy of God, a hypocrite, and a criminal. What has made the matter worse is that you have thought well of yourself all this time. You resent having anyone, even God, calling you names because you consider yourself a decent person, one who dwells among decent people.
But the Bible tells you that you are no saint. You must recognize yourself to be a sinner by both birth and by nature (Luke 18:13-14). Only one who recognizes that he is a sinner can ever be a saint. Sinners deny that they are sinners--for the sin of lying is part of their sin. Saints admit they are sinners by nature, for as saints they now tell the truth.
Third, those persons outside the church need to be warned. Professing Christians are presumably repentant (though by no means necessarily so, as we have already seen). Those outside the church are presumably impenitent (though there may be very rare exceptions). Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God (Romans 10:17). Generally, those outside the church do not hear the Word of God by which faith and salvation comes. That is, they do not hear it unless you tell them. Unless they hear it, they who, like you, are by nature children of wrath will most certainly perish under the judgment of God. The wrath of God is upon them now (John 3:36). His fury burns hot against them. Their life hangs by a thin thread and, when that thread is broken, they will go to their everlasting home of suffering. How shall they hear without a preacher? You, as a Christian, are their preacher. Do not worry only about what will happen to people who never hear the gospel. Worry about what will happen to you if you never tell them the gospel. They will perish, but you will be held responsible by God for your failure to give them the gospel.
There is positively no way by which they can escape the wrath which is to come, and that which is now, except through the only name given under heaven whereby men may be saved--the name of Jesus. You have that name; and if you truly believe in it and are trusting in Christ's grace for salvation, you will most certainly try, as opportunity affords, to win some. "Knowing the terror of the Lord we persuade men," Paul said. And, knowing the love of the Lord, we should persuade men too. "We thus judge that if one died for all, then were all dead; and that He died for all, that they which live should no longer live unto themselves, but unto Him which died for them and rose again" (2 Corinthians 5:14-15). The love of Christ constrains men; the terror of Christ constrains men.
Fourth, nothing less than a change of nature is needed. If we are by nature children of wrath we can only become children of grace by a new nature. When we read that a very religious man of great influence and reputation came to Jesus and was told, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see [or enter] the kingdom of God," we realize that a radical change is necessary. This religious man had to be born from above; he had to be born again. He had to be born twice; he had to have a radical transformation of soul. The ruling disposition of his life had to be changed. Until that happened there was no hope for him. He was by nature a child of wrath just like the rest. He was a perishing sinner. Every moment that he lived he was odious to God. Every moment that he continued his impenitent way, he was storing up wrath against the day of wrath. Every mo¬ment that he lived, he was making the fires of hell that much hotter for himself. The time would come when he would wish that he had never been born. It would be better for that man if he had never been born, or if a millstone had been tied around his neck and he had been thrown into the sea. Being a child of wrath is as dreadful as being a child of God is wonderful.

Sin Makes No Racial Distinctions (pt. 2) by John H. Gerstner

2008-06-22T04:25:00.000-07:00

Reinhold Niebuhr, America's distinguished neo-orthodox theologian, lectured to the students and faculty of Harvard Divinity School in 1940. He was discussing original sin and gave this domestic illustration. He son, who was then seven, had been in a neighborhood brawl. Niebuhr was inclined to finish what the boys had begun, but the maid interceded. "Professor Niebuhr," she said, "it is not your son's fault. It is the company he keeps." The father replied, "It is not the company he keeps. It is his own little black heart."
What shows the iniquity of man most clearly of all is that infants themselves are contaminated with sin. Before babies learn how to think, speak, or act responsibly, they are by nature children of wrath. The Bible shows this first of all inferentially; that is, it teaches clearly that the wages of sin is death. Where there is no sin, there would be no death. If there were no sin, there would be no suffering; yet babies both suffer and die. Sometimes they suffer dreadfully and sometimes they die in agony. And John Wesley said, "Therefore children themselves are not innocent before God. They suffer, therefore they deserve to suffer." Or as the Lutheran theologian Sohnius put it, "Since infants die, as universal experience teaches, it is evident that they must be chargeable with sin; for Paul clearly represents sin as the cause of death--of the death of all men. 'For the wages of sin is death.' " John Calvin said, "We are by nature the children of wrath. But God does not condemn the innocent. Therefore, . . . ." And so Calvin argues that God's calling our natures guiltily corrupt proves that we are corrupt and, at the same time, responsible for our native corruption.
Some moderns have jumped to the conclusion that there is no necessary connection between sin and suffering and death. They do this because our Lord has told us that there is no necessary connection between a particular sin and a particular suffering. A calamity coming upon a particular person is no proof that the person is a greater sinner than one on whom that particular calamity did not come. But Christ nowhere says that suffering is unconnected with sin, or that there would be death where there was no sin.
Continuing with the sinfulness of infants, we call attention to the divinely commanded execution of some Midianite children, mentioned in Numbers 31:17. Moses there commanded the Israelites to slay all of the male children, as Saul was commanded on a later occasion to slay all the infants of the Amalekites in 1 Samuel 15:3. In Psalm 137:9 we read, "Happy shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." In his Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin, Jonathan Edwards said, "I proceed to take notice of something remarkable concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, represented in Ezekiel 9, when command was given [to them that had charge over the city] to destroy the inhabitants (verses 1-8). And this reason is given for it, that their iniquity required it, and it was a just recompense of their sin (verses 9-10). God, at the same time, was most particular and exact in His care that such as had proved by their behavior that they were not partakers in the abominations of the city should by no means be involved in the slaughter. Command was given to the angel to go through the city and set a mark upon their foreheads, and the destroying angel had a strict charge not to come near any man on whom was the mark; yet the infants were not marked nor a word said of sparing them. On the contrary, infants were expressly mentioned as those that should be utterly destroyed, without pity (verses 5-6). 'Go through the city and smite; let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity. Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children; but come not near any man upon whom is the mark.' "
Sodom would have been spared by God if there had been ten righteous; since there must have been ten infants, these could not have been righteous. We read in Proverbs 22:15: "Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him." Matthew 18:11 says that the Son of man came "to save that which is lost." If therefore children who die are saved, as many believe, it is from a lost condition by nature.
Not only do the above passages teach us that any unconverted person is exposed to wrath, but they also teach that it is absolutely certain to come upon him. The expression "children of wrath" was a Hebrew idiom. It meant that the person so described was inevitably liable to wrath. It was an idiomatic way of saying what Paul says more conventionally in Romans 9, where he speaks of "vessels of wrath fitted to destruction." The expression "son of stripes" in Deuteronomy 25:2 is used to signify one who is to be beaten. The expression "son of death" in 2 Samuel 12:5 is used of one who is certain to die. Remember that Christ referred to Judas as "the son of perdition," the heir of hell, the one certain to receive that dread destiny. In Ephesians 2:2 Paul shows that the unconverted person is already under the "prince of the power of the air." Every soul is the habitation of unclean spirits, precisely because by nature he is a child of wrath.
So we have seen from the Ephesians text, from other statements of Scripture, from biblical references to "man" as being virtually synonymous with "sinner" and worse than an animal and more like a devil, from the lost condition even of babies, and from the inevitability of punishment that the unconverted are by nature--not by environment, and without respect to persons of distinction of race--children of wrath.

Sin Makes No Racial Distinctions (pt. 1) by John H. Gerstner

2008-06-22T04:22:00.000-07:00

Speaking of God's providence we noticed sin incidentally. We now bring it into focus. One cannot think of God's holy ways without thinking of our unholy ones. We cannot think of ourselves without thinking of our sin. Sin is the most important conviction any man can have. It is a bad theology which thinks man is good. Any good theology must start with man as bad.
In the opening verses of Ephesians 2, Paul describes unconverted persons by many different expressions. They are called "dead through trespasses and sins." They are seen as walking in the "course of this world," walking "according to the prince of the power of the air," fulfilling "the lusts of the flesh and of the mind," and "by nature" they are "children of wrath." The former terms refer to the expressions of their character. The last expression, "children of wrath," is the root cause of their character. It is because the unconverted or unregenerate person is by nature a child of wrath that he is dead in trespasses and sin and walks according to the will of the world, the devil, and the flesh. These evil works re¬veal him as naturally liable to wrath--the wrath of God, His abiding fury. In other words, the unconverted person, whoever he may be, is by nature doomed to destruction; for sin is no respecter of persons. Whether he is a Gentile, like those to whom Paul wrote, or a Jew, like Paul himself, he is a child of wrath. Sin makes no racial distinctions.
All people, in and out of the church, are by nature children of wrath. Paul begins his description of the unconverted by referring to the Gentiles, the Ephesians, who were outside the commonwealth of Israel, strangers to the promises of God, and so on. However, before he finishes his description, he includes Israel as well in the indictment, saying, "Among whom also we [we Israelites also] had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others." Paul thereby teaches that al-though Israelites had received circumcision, which was "the seal of righteousness by faith," they were not thereby changed in nature. Because they had been en-grafted into the visible church, they were not thereby necessarily engrafted into the invisible body of Christ. They, just like the Gentiles ("pagans"), whom they de-spised as being outside the law, needed to be born again. Though they were heirs of the promises, they still remained by nature children of wrath, even as the others. It was a Jew--and a Jewish ruler at that, Nicodemus--to whom Jesus had said, "Ye must be born again" (John 3:3).
What Ephesians says about the universal sinfulness of man permeates the entire Bible's teaching. It is corroborated everywhere in Scripture. David says in Psalm 51, "I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." In Psalm 58:3 we read: "The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies." Eliphaz, one of Job's three friends, is very emphatic: "What is man, that he should be clean? And he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous? Behold, he putteth no trust in His saints; yea, the heavens are not clean in His sight. How much more abominable and filthy is man, which drinketh iniquity like water?" (Job 15:14-16). In Job 14:14 Job asks, "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?" Job is here speaking expressly of man being born of a woman, as spoken of in verse 1. This is given as a reason for man's not being clean; that is, being a human creature, proceeding by ordinary generation, man is naturally polluted.
The Bible sees man so constantly and universally associated with sin that it virtually uses the term "man" as being synonymous with "sinner." For example, "Cursed is he that trusteth in man," the Lord said in Jeremiah 17:5. Christ said to Peter, "Get thee behind me, Satan . . .for thou savorest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men" (Matthew 16:23). This plainly signifies that to be carnal and vain, as opposed to what is spiritual and divine, is what properly belongs to men in their sinful state. Compare also 1 Corinthians 3:3; 1 Peter 4:2; Job 15:6.
That man is more wicked and destructive than even voracious and wild animals is clear from a somber re-mark our Lord made when He sent forth His disciples into the world to bear witness of Him: "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves . . . but beware of men." It was as if He had said, "I send you forth as sheep among wolves. Why do I call them wolves? Because I am sending you forth into the wide world of men, who are far more dangerous than wolves."
Jonathan Edwards was justified in saying, "There is no one lust in the heart of the devil that is not in the heart of man. Natural men are in the image of the devil. The image of God is razed out and the image of the devil is stamped upon them" (from the sermon "Natural Men Are In a Dreadful Condition").
One writer tells of a Christian who in prayer cited the words of Jeremiah: "The heart is deceitful and desperately wicked," and then continued by saying, "O Lord, Thou knowest we no longer accept this interpretation." This amounts to saying that we no longer accept the Bible's interpretation of sin. But for us to reject the verdict of the Word of God about sin is a dreadful act of sin, is it not? So if we deny the sin which the Bible says is in our hearts, we prove that it is there, do we not? Perhaps the very best proof of the sin of our hearts is that we deny the sin of our hearts!
In or out of the church, then, the unconverted person's liability to eternal destruction is not occasioned by his environment, but by his inherited nature. "We are by nature children of wrath." It is not by what we do that we are children of wrath, but by what we are. We do not become children of wrath by doing evil things, but we do evil things because we are children of wrath. Of course, doing evil makes us more and more the children of wrath. As Christ said, the proselytes of the Pharisees became twofold more the children of hell than they were (Matthew 23:15). We are not the children of wrath by our environment, but by our nature. It is our nature which makes our environment evil, not the other way around. This is the startling thing that the inspired apostle taught in Ephesians 2:3.

How Does God Convert the Human Soul?

2008-06-19T11:20:00.000-07:00

A group of interested believers met recently at Truth Chapel to look at this very question. We did so via a Cross TV video. What we learned came in the form of two questions and two statements:

1) Who is Vitally Necessary for All Men to Be Found in Christ?
2) What Prevents Men From Having this Vital Union With Christ?
3) The New Birth: It is a Work of God, Not Man
4) A History of Error

The following video is a good overview of this first segment, which we are reviewing at Truth Chapel every Wednesday evening at 7:00 pm from June 18-Aug 6th. We hope you will watch the clip below, and then join us next week for the continuation of this series at 3417 Main Street, Morgantown, PA 19543.

John Owen - How The Holy Spirit Prepares The Soul For His Work of Regeneration

2008-06-18T15:40:00.000-07:00

It is impossible for us to regenerate ourselves. But this does not excuse us from our spiritual responsibility.We can go and hear the Word of God being preached (Rom 10:17). We can go determined to understand and receive the things revealed to us to be clearly from God.Many souls are eternally ruined because they simply will not let God speak to them and teach them from His Word. It is true that no man can regenerate himself, even although he hears and receives God's Word. But God is prepared to come to those who come to Him by the way He has told them. He meets souls where He says He will meet them.As the Word of God is preached, certain things begin to happen in the hearers as the Holy Spirit brings the Word home to them personally. These things usually happen to the person before he is 'born-again'.The first thing that happens is that the Holy Spirit illuminates or enlightens the understanding, enabling the person to know and to understand spiritually the spiritual truths revealed (1 Cor 2:9,11). This is quite different from a natural understanding of what is being preached by the use of reason only.The Spirit's work of illumination makes the Word clear to the mind (2 Pet 2:21). The Gospel is understood, not only as true, but as God's way of righteousness (Rom 1:17;10:3,4). Illumination helps the mind to agree to the truth (Acts 8:13; John 2:23; 12:42). Illumination brings a momentary joy (Luke 8:13; John 5:35). Along with illumination a person may receive some spiritual gifts (Matt 7:22).Illumination is not regeneration, nor does regeneration infallibly take place after illumination. When light is shone on God's saving grace, then the soul sees clearly what is being offered. So illumination prepares the soul for regeneration.The second thing that happens is that the Holy Spirit brings conviction of sin. This is also brought about by the preaching of the Word (1 Cor 14:24,25). The soul begins to feel a disturbing sense of its guilt as it is brought to face the righteous demands of God's law. It begins to feel a sense of sorrow or grief for the sins it has done (2 Cor 7:10). They are now past and can no longer be put right (Rom 8:15). This leaves the soul to feel humbled for its sinfulness (1 Kings 21:29). Now, unless the soul is swallowed up in despair, it begins to look for a way out of its present state of misery (Acts 2:37; 16:30). Often the person begins to reform his life and great a change of attitude follows (Matt 13:20; 12:44; 2 Pet 2:20).Some neglect this light and conviction or seek to stifle it. Some are overwhelmed by the power and strength of their lusts, the love of sin and the power of temptations. Some think that being enlightened is quite enough and that this is all that God intends to do with them.All these things which are brought on people by the preaching of the Word are in fact the actions of the Holy Spirit working along with that preaching (Isa 49:4; Jer 15:20; Ezek 33:31,32; John 8:59; Acts 13:41,45,46). Those 'enlightened' are said to be made 'partakers of the Holy Spirit' (Heb 6:4).Objection: If this preparatory work of the Holy Spirit does not lead to regeneration, does the Holy Spirit intend only to do a weak and imperfect work in that soul, or is He unable to bring that soul to 'New Birth'?Answer: In some, real conversion does take place. This initial work of the Holy Spirit is neither weak nor imperfect, but it can be willfully and stubbornly resisted. In the 'elect' the Holy Spirit, of His own sovereign grace, removes this wilful stubbornness. The rest He leaves to suffer the righteous rewards of their evil deeds. The Holy Spirit is perfectly free to do what He wants to do. He does what pleases Him, when it pleases Him and how it pleases Him. However, His works are always good and holy. He fully and perfectly accomplishes what He freely planned and purposed to accomplished.Illumination No Guarantee of Salvation.There is an 'illumination' which does not lead to salvation. It does not change man's will and does not give the mind a delight and satisfaction in spiritual things. The mind does not delight in God (Rom 6:17; 12:2; 1 Cor 2:13-15; 2 Cor 3:18; 4:6). It gives no spiritual insight into the glory of God's grace.Neither does this illumination purge the conscience from dead works to serve the Living God (Heb 9:14). It only convicts the soul of sin and rouses it to condemn many things of which before it heartily approved. Such illumination works on the feelings, arousing fear, sorrow, joy and delight. But it does not fix them on heavenly things (Col 3:1,2). Nor does it tear out evil desires and fill the heart with heavenly joys. It often leads to a major reformation in lifestyle, even producing the appearance of godliness. But there are three great defects in this illumination.The first is that it allows raging and reigning sins of ignorance to continue, as it did in Paul before his conversion.The second is that the reformation of life it stimulates the person to attain seldom leads to getting rid of all know sins, unless for a while the soul is engaged in a flagrant pursuit of self-righteousness.The third is that this reformation of life, although it may be strong at first, soon fades and decays. Eventually it leaves people as spiritual skeletons.Taken from The Holy Spirit by John Owen, Abridged, pp52-55.

Tips for Self-Discipline

2008-06-18T15:31:00.000-07:00

Here are some things that have helped me through the years:

1. Start Small. Start with your room. Clean it, then keep it clean. When something is out of place, train yourself to put it where it belongs. Then extend the discipline of neatness to the rest of your home.
2. Be on time. That may not seem very spiritual, but it’s important. If you’re supposed to be somewhere at a specific time, be there on time. Develop the ability to discipline your desires, activities, and demands so that you can arrive on time.
3. Do the hardest job first. When you do that, you will find it easier to do the simpler tasks.
4. Organize your life. Plan the use of your time; don’t just react to circumstances. Use a calendar and make a daily list of things you need to accomplish. If you don’t control your time, everything else will.
5. Accept correction. Correction helps make you more disciplined because it shows you what you need to avoid. Don’t avoid criticism; accept it gladly.
6. Practice self-denial. Learn to say no to your feelings. Learn to do what you know to be right even if you don’t feel like doing it. Sometimes it’s even beneficial to deny yourself things that are acceptable to have, like a doughnut in the morning or dessert after dinner. Exercising such self-restraint helps you develop the habit of keeping other things under control. Cultivating discipline in the physical realm will help you become disciplined in your spiritual life.
7. Welcome responsibility. When you have an opportunity to do something that needs to be done, volunteer for it if you have talent in that area. Accepting responsibility can force you to organize yourself.

Kiss the Son by R.C. Sproul Jr.

2008-06-17T15:44:00.000-07:00

There is no such thing as the "More Party." They do not run campaigns seeking to unseat sitting officials of the "Less Party." Both "more" and "less" need more context and less ambiguity. We need to know what we are getting more or less of. In like manner, the question of pluralism begs a previous question -- plural what? What is it the pluralists want more of? On the surface it might seem that what they want more of is religions. One religion isn't enough. We need to construct, according to these people, a world with plenty of room for Hindus and Hottentots, for Muslims and Mormons, for Buddhists and Baptists. When we look deeper, however, we run headlong into an inescapable spiritual reality, that every religion in the end is all about authority. What they want is multiple authorities. If there is, in the end, only one authority, and I am not that authority, then I am under authority. But, if there are lots of authorities, which is another way of saying there is no authority, then I am free to rule my own world. Then there is not only room for Shintoism, but for Sheila-ism. There is not only room for Roman Catholicism, but for R.C. Sproulicism.When the apostle Paul writes in Romans 1 that the natural man suppresses the knowledge of God in unrighteousness, that he denies what he knows, we understand that he does this so that he might continue to sin without fear of reprisal. The natural man constructs a view of the world wherein he never need fear facing the judgment of God. This construct not only will actually require the facing of the judgment of God, but is in fact already a judgment of God. It is the very foolishness that God gives their minds over to.But what about us? Pluralism isn't the exclusive province of the unbeliever. We who profess the lordship of Christ, more often than not, in turn find pluralism appealing. We who have been given new hearts presumably are about the business of putting to death our desire for self-rule. We ought, it would seem, to be of the "Less Party." I fear our motives are scarcely more honorable than our unbelieving friends' motives. It is a different twist on the question of authority. They will not affirm the lordship of Christ over them because they fear that Christ will reign over them. We are fearful of affirming the lordship of Christ over all things, including our neighbors, because we are afraid of our neighbors ruling over us. Pluralism is a half-hearted attempt at a compromise of convenience -- we won't condemn you if you won't condemn us. We won't say you are wrong, if you won't say that we are wrong. We won't find your views backwards and repugnant, if you won't find our views backwards and repugnant. What a deal? And all it costs us is the central and first affirmation of our own faith: Jesus is Lord. All we have to give up to win peace with our neighbors is the proclamation of the Gospel.Jesus is all too aware of our fears. He knows how painful it is to be scorned by the broader culture. He knows what its like to have a single dominant religion find your religion to be foolish and superstitious. He has experience in suffering under a single monolithic power. He's entered into this reality and conquered it. And He commands of us that we seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness. He commands that we put our worries away, and trust in Him. We evangelicals make the foolish mistake of thinking that when enough souls decide to make Jesus the Lord of their lives, that He will become the Lord of all things. The reality is that Jesus is already Lord over all things. His kingdom, strictly speaking, does not expand, for even now it knows no borders. He does not, therefore, engage in some sort of power sharing arrangement with other pretenders to His throne, whether they be false deities, or those who falsely worship them. His lordship is not something we accomplish. It is something we recognize and submit to. It is not something we negotiate; it is something we proclaim.That Jesus is Lord, however, is not some grim reality that we proclaim with all the grace of a desert prophet. It is something we proclaim with all the grace of joy. It was our Lord Himself, after all, who commanded us to "Take heart; I have overcome the world" (John 16:33). It's over. The kingdom is here, and Jesus has won. What fools we are to rush off to negotiate with the enemy to save our skins. His victory, of course, does not mean that we rush off to kill all our enemies. It means instead that we are to love them. Our love for them must be strong enough, however, to tell them with both passion and compassion, that their hopes are in vain, that their gods are mute and dumb, and that there is only one name under heaven by which a man must be saved. Our love for them does not present the Christian Gospel as an option. It does not lead us to argue that it's a good option that has worked well for us. Our love instead commands all men everywhere to repent and believe the Gospel, lest they perish. Our love calls on all our enemies to kiss the Son, lest He be angry and they perish along the way (Ps. 2:12).

In a Father’s Footsteps

2008-06-15T05:13:00.003-07:00

READ John 13:14-17
Motivating our children to pursue the path of godliness isn’t always easy, but the rewards are great. It involves several things including commitment to love God with our entire heart. We should teach our children about His loving care.The path of godliness for our children also involves sacrifice. We should give up those pleasures and habits that interfere with raising godly sons and daughters. We also need to show our children courage. We need to admit we’re wrong and ask for forgiveness when we make mistakes. Our family, who already know our weaknesses, will see Christ’s power as we adjust our behavior.The path of godliness also involves perseverance. We should show our children how to stay the course and not lose heart. It takes time for children to develop godly habits.Prayer is another important aspect of godly parenting. Pray that your children will grow in understanding the Lord’s character, plans, and purposes, and His love. Faithfully practice the spiritual disciplines of prayer and Bible study. The path of godliness for our children means we must learn to live by faith. We should trust in God and please Him. Recognize our bodies are a temple of the Holy Spirit. We should return to the Lord a portion of our children’s time, talents, and treasure. And, we should speak to others about Jesus.
Give your children the gift of a godly role model. As they follow in your footsteps, you’ll experience the joy of watching them grow in holiness.

In a Father’s Footsteps

2008-06-15T05:13:00.001-07:00

How to Be a Christian Father

2008-06-15T03:37:00.000-07:00

It is hard enough to be a good father in today's society. It is even more difficult to be a Christian father. Even though it is hard to do facing the things the world throws at us, it is not impossible. Here are a few tips on being a Christian father.

Give the television a rest and reconnect with the kids. Get to know your kids and what they are up to. You will find playing games and other non-television related activities you will develop a closer personal relationship with your kids.

Discipline with love and not with anger." My son, do not despise the Lord's discipline and do not resent his rebuke, because the Lord disciplines those he loves, as a father the son he delights in." - Proverbs 3: 11-12Discipline is no doubt the hardest thing in parenting for a father. Work with your children to establish boundaries and appropriate punishments for crossing the line. Consistency is the key to discipline, so make sure your punishment is consistent with the action.
Make a good impression - lead by example. Your children whether you realize it or not observe your daily behavior. Before you expect godly behavior from your children you have to set an example your self.

Teach your children the ways of the Lord. God holds each parent accountable to teach their children His ways. As a father and head of the family, it is your responsibility to make sure your family is God-centered. Children need to learn to apply godly principles to their lives at an early age. This I not only in church-related matters, but also in every aspect of daily life.

Treat your children's mother with respect. Your relationship with your wife is where children first learn about relationships between men and women. When your son sees how you treat your wife with respect, it sets the tone in how he will treat women in the future. Your daughters it will set the standard for future relationships with men and will settle for nothing less than respect in a relationship.

Do not be afraid to show affection. Your kids' need a hug and an "I love you" just as your wife does. "Filled with love and compassion, he ran to his son, embraced him, and kissed him." - Luke 15: 17-24

Learn patience and forgiveness. Despite your love and guidance, your children will make mistakes. Your children need to know that you will be patient and forgiving. " The mark of a loving parent is the willingness to forgive." - Luke 15: 17-24

When your children speak, make sure you listen. You need to understand before trying to be understood. Many fathers do the wrong thing by laying down the law before listening to their children and trying to understand why their child is acting up. This is especially true in teenagers. You need to carefully listen to your children to understand from their point of view.
Combine your church family and your family. Instead of purchasing, the latest parenting book, talk to other parents in your church. There is a good chance they have been where you are now.

The most important thing is to love your children. Make sure you tell your children you love them and show them through your godly character. "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, and it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, and always perseveres." - I Corinthians 13: 4-7God gives us the miracle of having children. Do not waste this gift by rushing through life on things of less importance. As it has been said before, "anyone can be a father, it takes a special person to be a daddy."

Pluralistic Worship by Terry L. Johnson

2008-06-12T16:16:00.000-07:00

During the Reformation era, debates raged over what things must be considered crucial to Christian faith and practice, and what could be considered adiaphora (Latin for "things indifferent"). All sides agreed that the doctrines of the Trinity, the atonement, and justification were central. But what about worship issues? What about the elements of worship, sacramental theology, church architecture, and furnishings?Theological considerations drove the Reformers to insist upon biblical preaching, congregational singing, vernacular Bible readings and services, and sacramental practices that were consistent with their rejection of a sacrificial understanding of the Eucharist. The Reformers did not always agree on the details, but the principle was clear: "Let us, therefore, repudiate everything that smacks of sacrifice," said Luther in his Formula Missae (1523). One could argue (I wouldn't, but one could) that there is nothing wrong with a minister standing in front of the table, with turning his back on the people as he mumbles the words of institution, with elevating the host, with fencing the altar with a rail that keeps the laity at a distance, with serving a communion wafer that won't crumble. All of these could perhaps be justified with reference to reverence for the eucharistic service, with the aim of maintaining dignity and order. One could argue that they are adiaphora. However, to many Protestants they were not adiaphora, because, they argued, these practices grew out of the doctrine of transubstantiation and implied a sacrificial understanding of the mass. Is the sacramental host a sacrificial offering of Christ's flesh and blood placed by a priest on an altar that satisfies, even propitiates a holy God? Yes, said the medieval church, Tridentine, and even post-Vatican II (1960s) Roman Catholicism. If so, then of course one should perform the miracle of the mass at a distance from carnal curiosity seekers; of course the host should be elevated and adored -- it is, after all, the actual body of Christ; of course great pains should be taken to prevent clumsy or careless lay people from spilling the wine (so deny them the cup) or dropping crumbs of Christ's flesh (hence wafers). But since (in a Protestant understanding of things) none of these things is true, language, gestures, and furnishings that imply that they are true cannot be regarded as adiaphora. They must be purged from the church's eucharistic practices. Priests must be called "ministers" or "pastors," and altars must be replaced with tables. As Luther put it: "everything that smacks of sacrifice" must be repudiated. Everything that implies sacrifice must be removed. Calvin summarized: "[The Lord] has given us a table at which to feast, not an altar on which a victim is to be offered; he has not consecrated priests to make sacrifice, but servants [ministros] to distribute the sacred feast" (Institutes, 4.18.12). Neo-medievalists in conservative evangelical circles would do well to learn the language of church architecture, furnishings, and gestures, and not naively reinstate that which we theologically reject.But the real point of this article is not the Lord's Supper. We regard as axiomatic the principle that worship cannot be entertainment. Worship as entertainment is idolatry. By definition worship must be about God, not my amusement. Here is where disagreement exists: stages, theater-lighting, bands, dancers, dramatists, hand-held microphones, all up front, the service performed on behalf of an audience relaxing in theater-style seating. Is this adiaphora? Normally, issues of seating, lighting, placement of musicians, style of platform might have qualified as things indifferent, just as the elevation and adoration of the host might have been considered adiaphora. But a line has been crossed in our generation. Much of what passes for worship today is nothing more than lightly baptized entertainment, and therefore is idolatrous. It is idolatry from which serious churches must distance themselves. Our principle must be (with apologies to Luther): "Let us, therefore, repudiate everything that smacks of entertainment."Has the time come when the sanctuaries of evangelical Protestantism must be cleansed of everything that reflects the world of entertainment? Our Reformed forefathers took axes to the altars, and they whitewashed the walls of medieval churches. If our analysis of worship that entertains is correct, similar iconoclastic fury must be shown, and soon, in our houses of worship lest they become houses of mirth: theater seats pulled out; stages broken up; dancers and actors banished; musicians' and choirs' roles redefined as that of simply supporting and enhancing congregational singing; pulpit, table, and font restored to their proper places; pastors moved back behind pulpits; and simple services of the Word read, preached, sung, prayed, and seen (in the sacraments) reestablished. What was once indifferent can be considered indifferent no more, not if Reformed Protestantism is to continue to practice purity in its worship and avoid idolatry. "Little children," says the apostle John, "keep yourselves from idols" (1 John 5:21).

God's Providence: A Two-edged Sword (pt. 3) by John H. Gerstner

2008-06-08T14:50:00.000-07:00

Positive Providence
When considering the definition of negative providence, we used Ed Wynn's comic parody of the poet. Now, considering positive providence, we consider the poet himself:
There is a destiny which shapes our ends, Rough hew them though we may.
The "rough hew" needs explanation. If the poet means "sin as we please," if he suggests that a positive providence comes about irrespective of our behavior, if things are going to work out well although we always behave badly--then he errs in the opposite direction. Just as there is no destiny that shapes our ends rough, hew them how we may, neither is there any destiny which shapes our ends well, hew them how we may. The shaping and the hewing are integrally related. God shapes as we hew; we hew as God shapes. So, then, the definition of positive providence is: The divine appointment of good and beneficial events, but not apart from (rather, through) the willing determinations of men.
Again, there are two forms of positive providence, and the first is external. "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to His purpose" (Romans 8:28). That includes external and temporal events as well as the internal and eternal. "Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations; that the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honor and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 1:6-7). "We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter," but nothing "shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 8:36, 39). "In the world ye shall have tribulation, but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world" (John 16:33). "Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. And, not only so, but we glory in tribulations also, knowing that tribulation worketh patience" (Romans 5:1-3).
So these adversities are transformed by divine grace and wisdom into blessings. The same event which is negative providence for the wicked is positive providence for the children of God. The meek, Jesus said, shall inherit the earth. Righteousness exalts a nation. The wicked may appear to prosper, but their way perishes while he who meditates on the law of God day and night shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water (Psalm 1:2).
Honesty may work a temporary, temporal disadvantage, but in the long run, even in this evil world, honesty pays. Crime may be a temporary, temporal advantage, but in the long run, even in this evil world, crime does not pay. They who take the sword shall perish with the sword, while the peacemakers shall be called, even in this world, "the children of God."
The second form of positive providence is internal. If there is no rest for the wicked even in this world, there is rest for the righteous even in this world. They have peace with God, access to grace, and hope of glory. For them to live is Christ and for them to die is gain, only because they will then have even more of Christ. For the Christian it is all this and heaven too.
Note how this internal joy transforms even the temporal bodily pain to which Christians are subject in this life. A former president of Colgate University was stricken and suffered almost incessantly. His son could not refrain from saying, "Father, I wish I could bear some of your pain for you." To which this man replied, "Son, I do not have a pain to spare."
A woman in a congregation where this story was told said, "That man must never have had gall bladder trouble!" But, seriously, a Christian has no pain to spare.
What shall it be for you? A positive or negative providence? Do you wish divine destiny to shape things rough or smooth? In this world and that which is to come?
Remember that providence is not fatalism. Your hewing is related to God's shaping, and God's shaping is related to your hewing.

God's Providence: A Two-edged Sword (pt. 2) by John H. Gerstner

2008-06-08T14:48:00.000-07:00

Negative Providence
What do we mean by negative providence? Suppose we begin with the late comedian Ed Wynn's definition based on a slight alteration of some famous lines:
There is a destiny that shapes our ends rough; Hew them how we may.
This is negative enough, but is it providence? No, this is Greek fatalism rather than Christian providence. Why? Because human behavior is disregarded. "Hew them how we may"--that makes no difference. Compare, for an example of this type of thinking, the great Greek tragedian Sophocles' Oedipus Rex. This king, Oedipus, is destined to kill his father and marry his mother. No matter how innocent of either he may try to be, he unknowingly and inevitably does both. Though he consciously strives to avoid these sins, he does them nonetheless and is held guilty for them. So his mother commits suicide, and he gouges out his eyes and goes into solitary and hopeless exile.
The certainty of the end is present in this tragic definition of negative providence. In the Wynn satire the man "hews"; in Sophocles' tragedy Oedipus does all in his power to avoid fate. Neither actor is a puppet; each one strives, though to no avail. But what is lacking in these two accounts? It is the connection between the end and the means. There is no connection between end and means, between destiny and striving. The end comes to pass regardless of striving; indeed, it comes in spite of striving against it. The destiny shapes ends rough, hew them how we may--that is, though we hew to the moral line in an endeavor to make our destiny smooth, it remains rough. Oedipus is essentially a moral person, generally admired by his family and subjects. But all this means nothing for he is destined to commit the accursed crimes of patricide and incest (and accursed crimes they remain although he intends neither of them).
What a contrast to all of this is the negative providence of Scripture! Compare Acts 2:23: "Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken and by wicked men's hands have crucified and slain." Judas and others indeed delivered Christ up according to the eternal counsel and foreknowledge of God, but they did so by "wicked hands." Their "hands" were not inactive; they were certainly not opposed to this dreadful deed. On the contrary, they willfully chose to do the awful deed, for they were denominated "wicked hands." This illustrates the constant Bible teaching about negative providence, namely that the doers are always voluntary doers, willing actors, guilty men.
Putting the picture together, this is what we find: Negative providence is the divine appointment even of wicked and calamitous events, but not apart from--rather, through--the willing, though wicked, determinations of men.
There are two forms of negative providence. The first is external.
Providence applies to the totality of things. Since we are here concerned only with the human creature, we note that providence applies to the total person. The total human person is a composite one. Thomas Aquinas observed that man, in possessing a spirit, resembles angels; in possessing a body, he resembles animals. Furthermore, in addition to man's having two parts to his personality, body and spirit, he has two periods, time and eternity. Providence relates to both the temporal and the eternal.
So we consider first that form of negative providence which affects the external, bodily, and temporal aspects of the human personality. Christ referred to temporal providence when He spoke of the hairs of our head being numbered. Both our temporal lives and our environment are part of providence, but the tragic as well as the beneficent elements of the external and temporal are part of providence. For example, Christ said that He must go as it was written of Him, that He must be killed at Jerusalem, and that the Shepherd would be smitten, and the like. All of these evil events concerning death are therefore of divine foreordination.
There is a time coming, the Bible says, when God will reveal more fully the displeasure which He now feels. Meanwhile, it appears to the psalmist as if God is slumbering and needs to be aroused. But God is waiting until the "cup of iniquity" is full. Thus He withholds His judgment against the Amorites: "But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full" (Genesis 15:16). But though it might seem that God's judgments are delayed, Moses warned the Israelites, "Be sure your sins will find you out" (Numbers 32:23). He told them in his farewell address, as well as on other occasions, of the curses which were sure to overtake those who turned away from Jehovah.
We have impressive illustrations of this negative providence pertaining to the externals here and now. Consider, for example, the fall of Jerusalem. Christ was crucified and nothing happened--then. Later, in the lifetime of the same generation, the city was besieged, and civil war, famine, butchery, and indescribable suffering took place. Mothers devoured their own children as the wrath of God came upon the city that crucified His Son.
Nor are visitations of wrath only in the form of military woes and desolations. Roger Babson once made an investigation of bankruptcies in the United States during a certain number of years. Some of these business collapses were traceable to a lack of competence, but only a few. The majority were owing to a lack of integrity and honesty.
The eminent historian of the American scene, Charles Beard, said that one of the lessons he learned from his studies was that the mills of the gods grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine. Still another scholar said in a class that if he were intimately familiar with the condition of a community, he could predict its downfall within a hundred years. Then he revised that statement, claiming that he could predict the downfall within the space of ten years.
Not only do the scholars recognize the temporal judgments which come on mankind, and the brimstone which is scattered over all the possessions of wicked men, but even the man on the street knows it and even jokes about it sometimes. For example, I used to go bowling with my church people one night a week. Occasionally I would bowl the ball in the corner properly and it would move over to center as it ought and a strike appeared certain. I would start to walk back to the bench. But, alas, all the pins would not fall down--the two farthest apart still stood! My men should have said, "You were robbed, pastor," or, "You should have had a strike, pastor," or even, "Too bad, pastor." Instead they said, "You don't live right, pastor."
The second form of negative providence is internal. "Your sins will find you out," Moses said. However, not all visitation is upon the bodies of sinners; it comes upon their souls also. God may wait to pour out wrath upon the external world until the cup of iniquity is full, but apparently He pours out this invisible cup on the soul as soon as it sins. He may seem to slumber as He delays external punishment, but not so in the administration of internal suffering. A person may sin and retribution upon his body not be forthcoming, but his conscience is immediately afflicted. He may, indeed, get away with it, but he never gets away from it. "The wicked flee when no man pursueth," that is, their consciences are alarmed when there is no outward apprehension. "God is angry with the wicked every day" (Psalm 7:11). That is, though the wicked prosper outwardly as the green bay tree, they are inwardly blighted. The wicked are as the surging of the sea (Isaiah 57:20). That is, however tranquil his situation may appear to be, he has no true peace within. John Calvin says the sinner sometimes has tranquillity because he is too "thick" to understand the judgment of God against him. But he is not tranquil about his tranquillity. That is, he is disturbed about his peace of mind. There is no rest for the wicked even when they are resting because they still vaguely and apprehensively wonder whether they should rest, whether all is well with their soul.

God's Providence: A Two-edged Sword (pt. 1) by John H. Gerstner

2008-06-08T14:45:00.000-07:00

According to the Westminster Shorter Catechism, "God's works of providence are His most holy, wise, powerful preserving and governing all His creatures and all their actions." This comprehensive statement says that God's providence encompasses all, and not merely some, of the acts of His creatures. Such a definition would include big events and trifles as well--good things, but also evil ones too. Does not Jeremiah teach the same doctrine? "Who is he that saith and it cometh to pass, when the Lord commandeth it not?" (Lamentations 3:37). Is Acts 15:18 any different? "Known unto God are all His works from the beginning of the world." If all His deeds are known to God from the beginning, there is nothing not known to Him. Nothing escapes His purposes, not a single hair or a falling sparrow.
Neither you nor I would be here to discuss providence if Providence had not brought us together in this fashion, if God had not done His will in the earth. How conscious we are of all the little details on which our lives to this point have turned. I do not know the trifles in your life, but I do know those in my own. Let me mention one. If a child had dropped a marble one inch more to the left, or if for some reason I had put my foot down one inch more to the right as I went down a fire escape, I would not now, perhaps, be writing about providence at all.
Not only in your life and mine, but in the lives of historic public figures the same significance of detail is apparent. A.H. Strong, in his Systematic Theology, reminds us that Mohammed's life was once suspended by a literal thread. The prophet, fleeing his enemies, hid in a cave across which a spider quickly spun a web. When his pursuers saw it, they were convinced that there was no one in the cave and went on. Mohammed was spared, and his religion today numbers more than three-hundred million adherents.
But if trifles are vital parts of divine providence, what about evil? Evil is often vastly significant. The most important event which ever occurred was, in one aspect, horrible evil. The crucifixion of Jesus, from the standpoint of the crucifiers, was grotesquely wicked. Yet, even though the killing of Christ was an atrocity itself, what event was so vital, and its effects so beneficial, as the death of Christ? If God's providence does not include evil, it does not include the most important event which ever took place.
So we say providence is a two-edged sword. It cuts both ways bringing both the good and the evil (differently, to be sure, but bringing them nonetheless). If we deny either, we deny providence. If we deny providence, we deny God. If we deny the benign, we deny the goodness of God. If we deny the evil, we deny the severity of God. The Bible denies neither, but affirms each. "Behold, therefore, the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in His goodness--otherwise thou also shalt be cut off" (Romans 11:22).
Let us consider, then, these two aspects of divine providence. But first we will examine what I will call "negative providence."

Generation to Generation by Niel Nielson

2008-06-07T12:57:00.000-07:00

Recently, an acquaintance of mine gathered these statistics on the choices available today: 200 cable channels; 255 ways to order a Big Mac; 19,000 possible combinations for coffee at Starbucks and 78,998 for ice cream and toppings at Cold Stone Creamery; and more than 500,000 mathematical possibilities for pizza in America.Now add the amazing variety of cultures around the world, each with its own wide range of choices and traditions and practices, and it is clear that we live in a pluralistic world gone crazy -- a world awash in choices, options, alternatives, and which calls to us, "Come, follow me." One of our long-time philosophy professors at Covenant College speaks of the "recommendations" that come at us from all directions, recommendations about what to like, what to think, what to buy, what to believe, and how to live. Some of these recommendations are relatively innocuous, like "buy Adidas"; some are more important, like "vote for me rather than my opponent"; and some are deadly serious and carry huge consequences, like "follow my religion" or "believe this about sex."At the heart of true education is learning to hear these voices clearly, to recognize their sources, and to respond in godly ways, whether in school, at work, at church, in a recreational context, in a relationship, or in those moments of utter personal privacy when no one is watching.While our choices today may far outnumber those in previous generations, this challenge of discerning and responding biblically has been around since creation. Our first human parents faced it: a choice between two recommendations, as it were -- one from the God who had created them and expected them to obey Him, and the other from the enemy of God who wooed them into doubting God's words and choosing their own way in place of His.This is the focus of Jude's short letter, which he tells us isn't the letter he first intended to write: "Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints" (v. 3). Jude is compelled to address the very problem we are discussing here: recommendations coming to his readers from "certain people" who "have crept in unnoticed" and "who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ" (v. 4). Notice that Jude isn't writing to them about voices calling from outside the visible fellowship of faith. These people have "crept in unnoticed," that is, they are inside the congregation of God's people. In other words, the problem of pluralism is not just "out there" in the world; it's also "in here" even among those who call themselves Christians. In fact, the deadliest recommendations may come from those who claim to be fellow believers, because they masquerade as people of the light, they use "Christian" vocabulary, and they assert that their views are faithful to our most holy faith.Jude directs some of the harshest language in all the Bible at such people: they are blasphemers, children of Cain, waterless clouds and fruitless trees, ungodly and loud-mouthed boasters. God has already designated their condemnation. And yet Jude's burden for his readers is to urge them to contend -- to fight earnestly -- for the faith once for all delivered to the saints -- to reject recommendations that would lead them away into unbelief and unholiness.What is this faith once for all delivered? For Jude's readers and for us, it is clearly a reference to our faith laid out in the Word of God written in ages past and now faithfully delivered to us. It is "once for all" revelation from God, gloriously complete in providing all we need to know about God and His plan, purpose, and expectations for His creation.Jude gives his readers two clues for recognizing these false teachers and their recommendations: they pervert the grace of our God into sensuality, and they deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ (v. 4). While this short list is not exhaustive, it provides very helpful tests.First, does a particular viewpoint rationalize sexual sin, in this case by co-opting the very grace of God? Beware, Jude is saying, of any teaching or perspective that would use the grace and love of God as the means for justifying sexual sin, whether heterosexual or homosexual.Second, does a particular viewpoint diminish the exclusive glory and truth of Jesus Christ as the only King and Savior? Beware, Jude is saying, of any teaching or perspective that undermines His deity, diminishes His uniqueness, doubts His kingly claims over the creation, or adds or subtracts from His Gospel.For the Tabletalk readers of my three sons' generation -- your choices are many, and recommendations are coming continually at you for what to think, to love, to look at, to believe, and to hope for. With joy and tears I urge you to contend for the faith once for all delivered to the saints, written for us in the Holy Scriptures and able to sustain and strengthen you until the day of our Lord's return.

WORD OF THE DAY From The Pastor's Study

2008-06-07T12:52:00.000-07:00

Metaphysics

[meh’-tuh-fiz‘-uh-kul]

(Greek meta, “after” + Greek phusika, “physics”)

The branch of philosophy that is concerned with the study of ultimate reality, often referring to those things that transcend the physical (mind, essence, time, meaning, God, etc.). The term “physical” was originally pre-fixed by “meta” with regards to the works of Aristotle, specifically those chapters that came “after” those on the physical (”meta-physical”). Most commonly today, metaphysics refers to those matters of knowledge that are by nature non-empirical.

Praying for Church Leaders by Robert M. Norris

2008-06-04T15:40:00.000-07:00

I am not used to being considered a heretic. Yet recently, when a colleague and I visited a friend who teaches theology at a famous British university, we found ourselves faced with this charge! In a conversation that had quickly turned to the subject of theology, we found ourselves defending the idea that the death of Jesus Christ was that of a penal substitution in which He in our place bore the wrath of God that rightfully should have been visited upon us. This understanding is both biblical and the historic confession of the church, yet it was this that earned for us the charge of heresy from one who is a self-confessed evangelical theologian. Subsequently, I have realized that this doctrine of penal substitution is increasingly being challenged both by theologians and preachers as an example of "cosmic child-abuse" with no part in an authentic proclamation of the Christian Gospel. This situation provides insight as to why it is important to pray for church leaders. Yet it is symptomatic of a sad truth. If praying for church leaders seems to have gone out of style, perhaps an underlying reason for this is that the church often adopts the standards and ideas of the world. In our pursuit of success where the obvious mark of that success is size, influence, power, and money, church leaders are under constant pressure to produce evidence of growth, and technique and program are the obvious means by which this is achieved. In this framework there is no place given for prayer, which speaks of a supernatural framework of thought that is alien to the modern world.In order to be successful, congregations look to their leaders to be endowed with entrepreneurial spirits and the necessary charisma to meet all expectations. Superstars are exalted and those who do not have that magnetism nor share in those gifts are compared unfavorably with those who can generate success. Thus, criticism, not prayer, becomes the norm for congregations. Nor is the blame to lie solely with congregations because often their leaders are the very ones who have reduced Christian ministry to techniques and programs, and have substituted methodology for the ministry of the Holy Spirit, looking to human plans rather than divine guidance and blessing. As a consequence, they do not look for prayer as the vital need for their ministries. Divine blessing is seen only in terms of human success.This is a very different picture than the one offered by the apostle Paul who understood that the nature of his ministry was essentially spiritual. It was because of this understanding that he sought the prayers of the congregations to which he ministered.His requests were marked by urgency because he knew that he both wanted and needed the prayers of God's people. The apostle was well aware that the work in which he was engaged was spiritual and had eternal consequences. He was aware that entrusted to his care was the proclamation of the Gospel, the careful unfolding of God's truth, and the diligent defense of that Gospel against all distortion. He recognized that such a ministry required more than human ability and could not be undertaken without prayer. The partnership with the congregations to whom he ministered was vital: "I appeal to you, brothers, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to strive together with me in your prayers to God on my behalf" (Rom. 15:30).Paul was aware that he needed the prayers of the congregations that he served because he was a sinner and was aware that he could be tempted and could easily give in to those temptations. Clearly Paul knew that he faced intimidation and the ever-present temptation to compromise the nature of the Gospel message in the interests of peace and tolerance, which is why he requested and needed the prayers of God's people. He saw the role of those he served to support him with their prayers. In fact, when writing to the church at Ephesus he was clear that the role of prayerful support created a partnership in the work of the Gospel ministry. As such, he clearly regarded it as a high privilege that involved "striving," and, far from being passive, was an active and vital ministry: "[pray] also for me, that words may be given to me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel" (Eph. 6:19).He saw that the work of the Gospel is an essentially spiritual work. Paul knew nothing of being dependent upon technique or program to accomplish his work, and his appeal was for spiritual support because he knew that he was battling spiritual powers that were arrayed against Him and were hostile to God and His purpose. Today it is easy to be seduced by the secular mindset into dismissing the spiritual nature of Christian ministry and fail to see that there is a combating of dark and hostile spiritual forces that can be met only with humble dependence upon God, diligence in the study of His Word, and devotion to the Gospel of Christ.It is the role of the church leader to keep watch over the souls of God's people. And to be effective in this role, as in all the other aspects of ministry, he needs the prayers of God's people.

Don't Be So Open-minded by Burk Parsons

2008-06-03T16:12:00.000-07:00

Our enemy's supreme deception is in his attempt to convince us that he doesn't exist. Toward that end, he has launched his assault against us with every weapon in his carefully fashioned arsenal. Perhaps his greatest success is in persuading us that being open-minded is a good thing. For it is precisely when we accept the notion that open-mindedness is a Christian virtue that we fall into the same devilish trap by which our first parents were ensnared. Once our minds are open to open-mindedness, all ideas, no matter how absurd, can come and go as they please -- with our sanction.

We thus become headless and brainless philosophers who just want to get along. One such philosopher and self-proclaimed theologian has written: "So I believe we have radically to rethink our understanding of the place of Christianity in the global religious picture. And we have to face the fact that it is one path amongst others, and then reform our belief-system to be compatible with this. This is the big new challenge that theologians and church leaders have yet to face. We have to become consciously what are called religious pluralists." This is the mantra of religious pluralists: Liberate your mind, lose your faith, and feel the love.Although many professed evangelicals have become precarious evanjellyfish, I would like to think that most have not yet succumbed to the most blatant sort of religious pluralism. Nevertheless, being the narrow-minded biblical fundamentalist that I am, I am decidedly closed-minded to anything that is not biblical, and I concur with John Calvin: "Wherefore all theology, when separated from Christ, is not only vain and confused, but is also mad, deceitful, and spurious; for, though the philosophers sometimes utter excellent sayings, yet they have nothing but what is short-lived, and even mixed up with wicked and erroneous sentiments." As the closed-minded, Christ-minded faithful we must join arms against the satanic pluralism of our day, whether it is decreed from the Vatican or broadcast from Mecca. We live and breathe for Christ alone and proclaim that there is only one way to God. Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6).

The Christian's Responsibilities To Members Of The Church

2008-06-01T09:58:00.000-07:00

As a member of the church the Christian is a part of the family of God (1 Tim. 3:15). Being a family member carries responsibilities. As a part of the universal church one has responsibilities to all Christians worldwide.

Being a member of a local church, though, he sustains peculiar responsibilities to those who are his fellow-members in that local body. It is like being a part of the physical family. When one is born he becomes a part of a large family with aunts, uncles, cousins, etc., to whom he has responsibilities. But he also is part of a nuclear family of mother, father, sisters and brothers to whom he has special moral and spiritual obligations over and above those he has to the rest of his relatives.

Some of the Christian's responsibilities to other members of the church include:

Love (1 Pet. 1:22)
Edify (Eph. 4:16)
Encourage (Heb. 10:24)
Teach and Admonish (Col. 3:16)
Bear Burdens (Gal. 6:2)
Comfort (1 Thes. 4:18)
Forgive (Eph. 4:32; Matt. 6:14-15)
Work Together (Phil. 1:27)

I pray that, with God's grace, you will be able to fully live up to all your responsibilities to others members of your local church as well as the Church universal.

The Garden

2008-06-01T09:51:00.000-07:00

author unknown

FOR THE GARDEN OF YOUR DAILY LIVING, PLANT THREE ROWS OF PEAS:

1. Peace of mind
2. Peace of heart
3. Peace of soul

PLANT FOUR ROWS OF SQUASH:
1. Squash gossip
2. Squash indifference
3. Squash grumbling
4. Squash selfishness

PLANT FOUR ROWS OF LETTUCE:

1. Lettuce be faithful
2. Lettuce be kind
3. Lettuce be patient
4. Lettuce really love one another

NO GARDEN IS WITHOUT TURNIPS:

1. Turnip for meetings
2. Turnip for service
3. Turnip to help one another

TO CONCLUDE OUR GARDEN WE MUST HAVE THYME:

1. Thyme for studying God’s Word
2. Thyme for family
3. Thyme for friends

WATER FREELY WITH PATIENCE AND CULTIVATE WITH LOVE.

THERE WILL BE MUCH FRUIT IN YOUR GARDEN BECAUSE YOU WILL REAP WHAT YOU SOW.

The Heidelberg Catechism, This Lord's Day week 22

2008-06-01T05:05:00.000-07:00

Q57: What comfort do you receive from the "resurrection of the body"?

A57: That not only my soul after this life shall be immediately taken up to Christ its Head,[1] but also that this my body, raised by the power of Christ, shall be reunited with my soul, and made like unto the glorious body of Christ.[2]
1. Luke 23:43; Phil. 1:21-232. I Cor. 15:53-54; Job 19:25-27; I John 3:2
Q58: What comfort do you receive from the article "life everlasting"?

A58: That, inasmuch as I now feel in my heart the beginning of eternal joy,[1] I shall after this life possess complete blessedness, such as eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither has entered into the heart of man,[2] therein to praise God forever.[3]
1. II Cor. 5:2-32. I Cor. 2:93. John 17:3; Rom. 8:23; I Peter 1:8

Against Compromise By John MacArthur

2008-05-31T17:47:00.000-07:00

It was Martin Luther who said:
"The world at the present time is sagaciously discussing how to quell the controversy and strife over doctrine and faith, and how to effect a compromise between the Church and the Papacy. Let the learned, the wise, it is said, bishops, emperor and princes, arbitrate. Each side can easily yield something, and it is better to concede some things which can be construed according to individual interpretation, than that so much persecution, bloodshed, war, and terrible, endless dissension and destruction be permitted.

"Here is lack of understanding, for understanding proves by the Word that such patchwork is not according to God's will, but that doctrine, faith and worship must be preserved pure and unadulterated; there must be no mingling with human nonsense, human opinions or wisdom.

"The Scriptures give us this rule: 'We must obey God rather than men' (Acts 5:29)."
It is interesting to speculate what the church would be like today if Martin Luther had been prone to compromise. The pressure was heavy on him to tone down his teaching, soften his message, stop poking his finger in the eye of the papacy. Even many of his friends and supporters urged Luther to come to terms with Rome for the sake of harmony in the church.

Luther himself prayed earnestly that the effect of his teaching would not be divisive.
When he nailed his 95 Theses to the door, the last thing he wanted to do was split the church.
Yet sometimes division is fitting, even healthy, for the church. Especially in times like Luther's--and like ours--when the visible church seems full of counterfeit Christians, it is right for the true people of God to declare themselves.

Compromise is sometimes a worse evil than division. Second Corinthians 6:14-17 isn't speaking only of marriage when it says,

Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, "I will dwell in them and walk among them; And I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

Therefore, come out from their midst and be separate," says the Lord.

WORD OF THE DAY From The Pastor's Study

2008-05-31T04:09:00.000-07:00

Transubstantiation

(tranz-sub-stan-see-aye-shun)

Latin, transsubstantiati, meaning “change of substance”
The Roman Catholic doctrine that refers to the change by which the substance (not the appearance) of the bread and wine in the Eucharist becomes the actual body and blood of Christ. That is, Jesus is not merely symbolically or figuratively present, but is really (or actually) present in what was previously just bread and wine. In 1551 the Council of Trent defined this, “by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.” (Session XIII, chapter IV). Eastern Rite Catholic, Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox Churches, all agree with this doctrine, though vary slightly on their definitions.

Communion Sunday

2008-05-30T08:10:00.000-07:00

The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper will be observed in the morning services this Sunday. Be preparing now for this "sign and seal" of the covenant. Here is an exerpt from Rick Phillips' chapter on the Lord's Supper in Give Praise to God.

The elements of the Lord's Supper present Christ's death to the senses of his people. But more is signified in its administration. The eating of the elements by believers signifies their participation in the crucified Christ. Berkhof teaches: "They symbolically appropriate the benefits secured by the sacrificial death of Christ." Additionally, the partaking of the sacrament signifies the effect of Christ's death in giving life and strength to the soul, as food and drink sustain the body. Furthermore, just as the sacrament symbolizes the believers' union with Christ, it also places a visible difference between members of Christ's church and the world, while signifying believers' communion one to another in him."

Controversy is Sometimes a Painful Necessity

2008-05-28T04:46:00.000-07:00

Quoting Will Metzger . . .
Perhaps some will say that "the gospel is a person (Jesus), not a doctrine." This is a false dichotomy. The living word and written word are not enemies, but friends. As much as I agree with presenting the person of Christ, not just flinging concepts at people, Christ must be defined. A content-less Christ will not save anyone. Just as we saw the word of God is used by people in various ways, similarly Christ is redefined to fit people's preconceptions. Biblical illiteracy abounds and the possibility of misleading people about Jesus is real. This means that the written word is absolutely necessary to explain who Christ is. (In our explanations of who Christ is, we do not pit the Gospels against the apostolic letters. Both are equally inspired. Red letter Bibles can be misleading, unless all the sentences [not just those of Jesus] are in red!).
[One famous English preacher] an influential leader in the international Christian community since 1950, has emphasized strong, Biblical teaching [wrote]:
The spirit of our age is very unfriendly towards dogmatic people. Folks whose opinions are clearly formulated and strongly held are not popular. A person of conviction, however, intelligent, sincere and humble he may be, will be fortunate if he escapes the charge of being a bigot. Nowadays the really great mind is thought to be both broad and open - broad enough to absorb every fresh idea which is presented to it, and open enough to go on doing so ad infinitum.What are we to say to this? We must reply that historic Christianity is essentially dogmatic, because it purports to be a revealed faith. ...
The second way in which the spirit of the age is unfriendly towards [my aim] ... concerns the modern hatred of controversy. ...Perhaps the best way to insist that controversy is sometimes a painful necessity is to remember that our Lord Jesus Christ Himself was a controversialist. He was not "broad-minded" in the popular sense that He was prepared to countenance any views on any subject. On the contrary, Jesus engaged in continuous debate with religious leaders of His day, the scribes and Pharisees, the Herodians and Sadducees. He said that He was the truth, that He had come to bear witness to the truth, and that the truth would set His followers free. As a result of His loyalty to the truth, He was not afraid to dissent publicly from official doctrines (if He knew them to be wrong), to expose error, and to warn His disciples of false teachers. He was also extremely outspoken in his language, calling them "blind guides", "wolves in sheep's clothing", "whitewashed tombs" and even a "brood of vipers".
The apostles were also controversialists, as is plain from the New Testament Epistles, and they appealed to their readers to "contend for for the faith which was once delivered to all the saints". Like their Lord and Master the apostles found it necessary to warn the churches of false teachers and urge them to stand firm in the truth.Revealed truth is thus likened to a building, and the church's calling is to be it's foundation. The church is "the pillar and foundation of the truth". ...However hostile the spirit of the age may be to an outspoken confession of the truth, the church has no liberty to reject its God-given task.
From:
Tell The Truth

A Few Problems With Arminianism and a Case For Calvinism

2008-05-28T04:42:00.000-07:00

CLICK HERE......http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eHjQHMWp1M&eurl=http://bloodtippedears.blogspot.com/

How to Change Your Church By Mark Dever

2008-05-28T04:16:00.000-07:00

Change is necessary. In a fallen world, lost in sin, the one thing that is needful is for us to change. We must change our relationship with God from estrangement to acceptance. We must change our standing before Him from guilty to forgiven. We must change our heart for Him, from dead to alive. I say “we must change”, but in all of these changes, God must make the way, and give us the heart to travel it.
But change doesn’t stop with conversion. As Christians we know that we are to continue to change as we grow in Christ. Our love for God and devotion to His will should grow, even as our love for the world and its ways should wane.
Our need to continue to change, however, isn’t limited to ourselves; it’s also true of those around us, and of our churches, too. And few know this better than the pastor of a church. Any given church, with all of its virtues and strengths, is in need of change. The Protestant reformers knew this, and confessed it in their oft-quoted slogan “the reformed church, always being reformed by the Word of God.” That sums it up nicely, doesn’t it?
How to change? But the question then often comes, “How do we get our churches to change?” Praise God for all the ways our churches don’t slip off into bad directions. And we can be thankful for ways in which they are resistant to changes that would be bad. But in that category of changes that we know should happen—a renewed commitment to expository preaching, to evangelism, to a disciplined membership—how can we contribute to those reforms in our churches? It is on this very point that too many ministers—including some of you who are reading this piece right now—have ended up being alienated from many in your church, with some ministers even being fired. I think of some words Phillip Jensen (of St. Matthias Church, Sydney, Australia) said to me this past summer, “Unless you change something in your first year, you never will; and whatever you do change in your first year will be wrong.” (Phillip is the only pastor I know who can make John Piper seem understated!) We must lead our churches to change, and yet we must realize that such change will often be difficult.
If we need to lead our churches to do something both so necessary and yet so dangerous as change, how should we do it? In this brief article I want to make just a few suggestions in answer to this question, and they are these: teach, stay and love.
I. Teach to change
First, all ideas of the direction of any local church should come from Scripture. As we sit under the preaching of the Word, our needs and God’s supply are revealed. We are taught to follow the Lord’s commands for His church. The most powerful tool in changing any church is the pulpit. The regular, expository preaching of Scripture is how God’s Spirit normally works in our hearts.
Pray that through your preaching, God will teach your church to change in the ways it needs to change. It is amazing how many times we pastors want to fix problems before we’ve given any time and thought to explaining to people what the problems are—and why they’re problems! Even when we’ve done that, have we explained how we think we may have gotten into these problems, how we could get out, and some of the benefits that would come to us as a church by addressing the problem?
We may see something as a priority, and see so rightly from the Word, but that doesn’t mean that those who don’t see it are evil; they may simply be ignorant, but even if that is so, we must remember that we are their teachers. Too many pastors have tried to force changes in their church—often defended as leadership—when they should have tried to inform them. Brothers, we should feed the sheep entrusted to our care, not beat them. Most of the changes that we need to see in our churches cannot be coerced or ordered. We must teach the congregation that God has entrusted to our care. We must convince them.
Even if the change you envision is right, there is still the further question of whether the time is right for that change. And even if you could get a particular change through without getting fired, what cost will it exact from the body as a whole at that point in the congregation’s life? Being right is not a license for immediate action.
This brings me to my second observation of what we need to do to lead our churches in change.
II. Stay to change
We must stay at a church long enough to teach. We must stay at a church long enough to see the church understand and embrace needed change. In fact, we should desire to see the bride of Christ so built up that there are not simply individual changes made, but rather a whole culture developed. We should labor in the congregation to see a culture of devotion to Christ typify the church. So important is this willingness to plant yourself in one location, that I’ve wondered if we should include long pastorates as a tenth mark of a healthy church (in addition to the nine I’ve already written about).
A survey sponsored by the Consumer Federation of America and the financial services firm Primerica has found that 28% of Americans believe their best chance for building long-term wealth is to play the lottery. Among households with annual incomes of $35,000 or less, 40% put their faith in gambling. Fewer than a third of respondents said that $25 invested weekly for 40 years at a 7% annual yield would amount to over $150,000. In fact, it would amount to $286,640. (reported in World, Nov 20, 1999, p. 14). In our culture, we underestimate the power of longevity, of repeated faithfulness.
I remember several years ago talking with one pastor immediately after having listened to one mother of a young child expressing her despair over the seeming futility of her endless round of the same repeated tasks. The pastor, looking wistfully out the window, said the same thing! But both needed to be encouraged to realize that God works over time, that characters are formed slowly, and that such faithfulness is a beautiful reflection of God’s consistent care for us.
Long pastorates help the pastor, too. They help to eliminate the pastor simply coming in with a bag of tricks (or barrel of sermons), doing his thing for 2 or 3 years, and then simply moving on. Generally, the longer we stay at a place, the more real we have to be—and that’s good for our own souls, and for those we serve.
Often, over time the vision of a congregation begins to slip from God and His glory to the church and its satisfaction. We are to consistently work to refocus the church on God and His priorities by the careful, continuous, repeated teaching of His Word. We are to glorify God by the building up of His church and the evangelization of the world, not by simply doing all we can to keep the current set of members happy. With almost any group of several score or larger, some people will resist needed changes. At that point, the group has a crucial decision to make—is it more important that we find some way to continue to include everyone who is presently here, or is it more important that we (as a group) move in a particular direction, even if such a move comes at the cost of certain ones of our number leaving because they do not feel that they can consent to this change? Such difficult points in a congregations life are best reached slowly, deliberately, openly and with much patient teaching. Remember Paul’s great charge to Timothy: “Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage-- with great patience and careful instruction,” (II Tim. 4:2). Your patient teaching can help your church move from self-centeredness to a God-centered self-giving in mission, evangelism and discipling. Such patience will usually require you to stay.
The idea of such commitment to one group is vanishing in the workplace and even in the home. The model for Gen-Xers is not a pre-fabricated corporate ladder, with carefully limited pathways, but rather the mosaic of the world-wide web, with alternatives and options seeming to spread out infinitely. Our generation is being taught to value varying experiences, understanding each one as enriching the other. To remain at one company for many years seems at least unimaginative, and at most a reflection of a debilitating fear of the new.
We pastors need to be willing to set a different model in our congregations. We need to teach them that commitment is good, whether that’s to our marriages and families, our friends and our faith, or even our church and our neighborhood. It is in the light of such longer-term commitments (thinking in terms not of months, but of decades) that we can help a church to find its right priorities and to institutionalize them afresh. To that end we pastors should choose our battles wisely. We should carefully prioritize one needed change over another. We should consider which of the several changes that seem needful is most needed right now. We should consider what order these changes could most naturally come in. Do we address first how we take members in, or how we practice church discipline? Do we address first how we improve attendance at Sunday School, or how we want the Sunday School to improve? All such decisions are important for the church, and take both patience and a longer-term commitment by the pastor to be willing to think in such a mature, long-range way.
As a pastor, your greatest power to help your congregation change comes not through your forceful personality, but by your months and years of faithful, patient teaching. Changes that do not happen this year, may come next year. And in the meantime, the teaching that you’ve given, and even the results of those changes not being made yet, may well be opening the eyes and changing the hearts of the congregation. Under the influence of good teaching and right priorities in the pastor’s preaching and schedule and leadership, some changes may simply happen naturally.
In a recent book, Peter Brierley wrote that “Several studies have indicated that, within limits, the longer a minister stays with his/her church, the greater likelihood of growth. Paul Beasley-Murray, now Senior Minister in a large Baptist church in Essex, in a 1981 study of half the Baptist churches in England, found that growing churches were invariably associated with ministers who had served in their current church between five and fifteen years, though some grew after over twenty-five years of service! The five-to-fifteen year slot is confirmed for studies in other than Baptist churches,” (Steps to the Future [2000], p. 28).
Friends, all of this is not advice that you stay in a place so long that you simply wear anyone out; rather that you should stay in a place long enough that you can teach them in. The key to change is to stay in one church long enough to teach the congregation. If you don’t plan on staying like that, then be very careful before you start something that the next guy is going to have to finish. Beware of leaving the congregation hardened either against you or your successor, or even against the change itself.
I remember as a young seminarian taking as my model three Cambridge Anglican clergymen who all had expositional ministries in key locations stretching over many years—Richard Sibbes (in Cambridge and London for 30 years), Charles Simeon (in Cambridge for over 50 years), and John Stott (in London for over 50 years). All three of these men by the grace of God built the church they served and even effected the rising ministerial generations by their long faithfulness.
Conclusion: Love to change
Abraham Lincoln is reported to have said that the best negotiation position “is the biggest purse and the longest cannon.” What I am suggesting here is that for the pastor, the best way to help a church change is to provide the meatiest, most compellingly Biblical teaching over the longest time.
But even with great teaching patiently given, something still could be lacking. Finally, in order to desire the right changes, and to teach about them, and to stay so that you can do so patiently, you must love. You must love the Lord, and you must love His people, over whom He has set you, to tend and care for them. From love will come genuine care for God and His Word. From love comes humility. Clement of Rome said that “Christ belongs to the lowly of heart, and not to those who would exalt themselves over His flock.” And from love will come the patient care that will again and again turn the congregation to the long-term, the horizon, to the Word of God in all their decisions.
None of this is intended to say that either short pastorates or getting fired are in themselves necessarily signs of a minister’s faults. There are certainly short, faithful pastorates.
The courtiers of Henry IV of France, one day complimenting him upon the strength of his constitution, told him that he might live to be eighty years of age. He replied, “The number of our days is reckoned. I have often prayed to God for grace, but never for a long life. A man who has lived well, has always lived long enough, however early he may die.”
Certainly Jonathan Edwards was no less faithful a pastor simply because his congregation dismissed him. Some of us have had short and faithful pastorates. But these are not my concern here. With this short piece, I have simply intended to raise in your mind some thought of how you may, by teaching, staying and loving lead your congregation in Biblical change.
May God help all of us to so care for His people that His church is built up and His name is glorified.

Salvation through Christ Alone? -- A Moment of DecisionBy Dr Al Mohler

2008-05-27T07:09:00.000-07:00

The Church of England faces yet another theological challenge as it prepares for the meeting of its General Synod in July. This time the issue is the Gospel itself and the specific question concerns the evangelization of Muslims. In the end, the outcome of this debate may, more then anything else, determine the future viability of the Church of England.
Paul Eddy, a lay theology student from Winchester who aspires to the priesthood, has entered a Private Member's Motion and has secured the signatures necessary to force the General Synod to deal with his motion.
The text of his motion sets the issue clearly:
'That this Synod request the House of Bishops to report to the Synod on their understanding of the uniqueness of Christ in Britain's multi-faith society, and offer examples and commendations of good practice in sharing the gospel of salvation through Christ alone with people of other faiths and of none.'

Mr. Eddy's motion has been roundly denounced by many in the church and the Daily Mail [London] reports that liberal bishops attempted to dissuade members from signing the motion. Nevertheless, the motion is now set and the General Synod will effectively vote on whether the Church of England should seek to evangelize Muslims

As the Daily Mail reports:

[Mr. Eddy] said that the active recruitment of non-believers and adherents of other faiths had always been a Biblical injunction on Christians, commanded by Christ himself.
But he claimed that many bishops were downplaying the missionary role of the Church and official documents often glossed over the requirement to convert Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs or followers of other religions.
He warned that the central role of Christianity in Britain was being eroded, and by 'allowing the rise of another religion in our country, all that Britain stands for is up for grabs.'
Mr. Eddy's motion has found support among at least some bishops, including the Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali. Bishop Nazir-Ali, born in Pakistan, is the only Asian-born bishop in the Church of England. In response to Mr. Eddy's motion, the Bishop argued that the Church of England has failed in its responsibility to "welcome people of other faiths." He suggested that the church had "gone too far" in responding to the sensitivities of British Muslims.
He also said, "Our nation is rooted in the Christian faith and that is the basis of welcoming people of other faiths. You cannot have an honest conversation on the basis of fudge."
Just months ago, the bishop drew criticism for his warning that certain sectors of British cities had become "no-go areas" where Muslims intimidate others from entering. The Telegraph [London] reported that Bishop Nazir-Ali's statements met with fierce opposition from another bishop:
However, his comments were condemned by senior figures within the Church. The Rt Rev Stephen Lowe, the former Bishop of Hulme and the newly appointed Bishop of Urban Life and Faith, said: "Both the Bishop of Rochester's reported comments and the synod private members' motion show no sensitivity to the need for good inter-faith relations. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs are learning to respect one another's paths to God and to live in harmony. This demand for the evangelisation of people of other faiths contributes nothing to our communities."
Bishop Lowe sets the issue clearly. He denies that the church should share the Gospel with persons of other faiths, but should instead "respect one another's paths to God."
This is precisely the theological compromise that motivated Paul Eddy to bring his motion in the first place. Mr. Eddy told the BBC that the Church of England has "lost its nerve" and was "not doing what the Bible says" in terms of evangelism.
His motion explicitly affirms "the uniqueness of Christ" and "the gospel of salvation through Christ alone," and for this reason the church will be forced to face a defining issue for the integrity of the Gospel and the church.
If Bishop Lowe's theology wins the day, as evidence suggests is already happening, the Church of England will forfeit any claim to the Gospel. The New Testament leaves absolutely no room for other "paths to God," nor for allowing "respect" to preclude evangelism.
The Church of England is not the only church or denomination that has "lost its nerve" when it comes to the Gospel, nor is it the only church to face this test, but it will set its future course in July even if the vote on Mr. Eddy's motion is the only vote taken.

Praying for the Lost By John MacArthur

2008-05-27T05:11:00.000-07:00

Before Jesus gave up His spirit as He hung on the cross, He took time to pray for those who were murdering Him. He prayed, “Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing” (Luke 23:34).
God began to answer His prayer on the Day of Pentecost as some three thousand people repented and were baptized that day, and there have been countless multitudes that have been saved through the centuries. In response to Jesus’ intercession for the transgressors (Isaiah 53:12), God has snatched many souls from eternal death.
Do you have a heart to pray for the lost like Jesus did? Do you have the passion that inspired John Knox to plead, “Give me Scotland or I die”? Is your attitude that of George Whitefield, who prayed, “O Lord, give me souls or take my soul”? Do you, like Henry Martyn, mourn when you see others trapped in false religion and cry out, “I cannot endure existence if Jesus is to be so dishonored”?
God used those faithful men as powerful tools to bring salvation to dying people. Each of them had a clear and vivid understanding of what is at stake in the gospel — it’s an issue of life or death, an eternity in heaven or hell. Do you realize that your unbelieving family members, your co-workers, and your neighbors will spend forever suffering in torment away from the presence of God if they don’t embrace Christ? That realization should drive you to your knees to plead, not only with them to believe the gospel, but with God to save their souls.
The seventeenth-century English Puritan Richard Baxter wrote,
Oh, if you have the hearts of Christians or of men in you, let them yearn towards your poor ignorant, ungodly neighbors. Alas, there is but a step betwixt them and death and hell; many hundred diseases are waiting ready to seize on them, and if they die unregenerate, they are lost forever. Have you hearts of rock, that cannot pity men in such a case as this? If you believe not the Word of God, and the danger of sinners, why are you Christians yourselves? If you do believe it, why do you not bestir yourself to the helping of others? (cited in I.D.E. Thomas, ed., A Puritan Golden Treasury [Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1977], 92)
It is one thing to pray for family and friends, those for whom you have natural affections. But God wants you to pray for all people. Paul writes, “First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority” (1 Timothy 2:1-2). Kings and people in authority in Paul’s day weren’t bound by civil rights and were often unjust, self-serving, and cruel. Do you pray for the salvation of people like that — those who disagree with you politically, those who advocate ungodly agendas, those who openly embrace sin and reject the Scripture?
The Bible has several examples of radical evangelistic prayer, and for the worst of sinners. Here are a few examples:
Moses interceded for Israel after catching them in orgiastic idolatry at the foot of Mount Sinai. After he confronted and dealt with their sin, he turned to the Lord and prayed, “Alas, this people has committed a great sin, and they have made a god of gold for themselves. But now, if You will, forgive their sin — and if not, please blot me out from Your book which You have written!” Moses was willing to forfeit his life for his people, even though they were guilty of wicked rebellion!
While being stoned to death, Stephen followed the Lord’s example by praying for the salvation of his executioners: “And they went on stoning Stephen as he called upon the Lord and said, ‘Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!’ And falling on his knees, he cried out with a loud voice, ‘Lord, do not hold this sin against them!’ And having said this, he fell asleep” (Acts 7:59-60).
Standing among those who killed Stephen was a young man named Saul of Tarsus. His salvation was an answer to Stephen’s prayer. Years later, the apostle Paul communicated the depth of his concern for his people Israel, and in Romans 9 he sounds very much like Moses:
I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, […]Brethren, my heart’s desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. (Romans 9:1-3; 10:1)
His brethren according to the flesh, fellow Jews, were the very ones who persecuted him so severely, disrupting his work, stirring up mobs, even plotting his assassination. And yet he loved them and prayed that God would show them mercy.
God honored those men’s prayers for the souls of the lost; He’ll honor yours too. Whether friend or foe; whether moral or immoral; whether you know them or not — pray for the lost. For those God brings your way, open your mouth in love and compassion to tell them the truth. Warn them of God’s judgment for their personal offenses against his holiness, but then tell them the good news. There is salvation in Jesus Christ from God’s eternal wrath, if they will only repent and believe. Once you’ve told them the truth, keep praying for them and trust God for the results. You will rejoice as you see God use you as He saves people from their sins and grants them new life in His Son.

THINK ON THIS.................

2008-05-27T05:03:00.000-07:00

God makes a promise. Faith believes it. Hope anticipates it. And patience waits quietly for it. Do you trust the Lord enough to be patient for His way and His time?

WORD OF THE DAY From The Pastor's Study

2008-05-26T05:47:00.000-07:00

Simul Justus Et Peccator

[sim’-uhl yoost’-uhs et peck’-ah-tore]

(Latin simul, “simultaneous” + Latin justus, “righteous” + Latin et, “and” + Latin peccator, “sinner”]

At the same time righteous and a sinner. The phrase was coined by 16th century German Reformer, Martin Luther. In his Lectures on Romans, Luther put it this way,

“The saints in being righteous are at the same time sinners; they are righteous because they believe in Christ whose righteousness covers them and is imputed to them, but they are sinners because they do not fulfill the Law and are not without sinful desires. They are like sick people in the care of a physician: they are really sick, but healthy only in hope and in so far as they begin to get better, or, rather: are being healed.”

Waiting for God

2008-05-26T05:41:00.000-07:00

READ Psalm 27:14

Our culture is an “instant” society. Because of inventions like the computer and the microwave, we’re used to quick results. A fast pace isn’t necessarily bad, but we should guard against becoming so set on immediate fulfillment that we can’t wait for God’s timing.This problem existed long before the computer age. In Genesis 15:4-5, God revealed to Abraham that though he and his wife Sarah were too old to have children, a great nation would come from him.

Abraham believed God but soon decided to handle matters himself. He took Sarah’s servant Hagar as his wife so she could bear the promised son.Abraham probably rationalized his decision, figuring the Lord wanted him to have a son.

Since it seemed impossible any other way, surely this must be what God wanted him to do! But it wasn’t. Abraham had to deal with the consequences of his actions, including jealousy and resentment between Sarah and Hagar.

These problems in turn created further difficulties, both in the short term and throughout history.The Lord was faithful, though. 14 years later, Sarah gave birth to Isaac.

But, the consequences of Abraham’s decision to step out of God’s plan are still with us. The two boys grew to become the fathers of nations which are in conflict to this very day.Like Abraham, we might believe God’s promises but prefer immediate results. Or we may just want things done our way. Instead, ask the Lord to lead you. Then wait for Him. His way may not be what you think you want, but it is always best.

The Real Prayer of Jabez By Steve Lawson

2008-05-25T18:41:00.000-07:00

Riding a tidal wave of surging popularity, few Christian books have burst onto the publishing scene and been as widely received as The Prayer of Jabez (Multnomah). In only its sixth year of circulation, this brief, ninety-three-page book has sold a staggering 10 million copies, pushing its way to the top of the New York Times bestseller list. In its wake, a virtual Prayer of Jabez sub-culture has emerged, complete with journals, backpacks, jewelry, vanilla-scented candles, and myriads of assorted marketing paraphernalia. But, unfortunately, many well-meaning evangelicals have been swept up in this trendy phenomenon.
Prefacing this work, author Bruce Wilkinson writes, “I want to teach you how to pray a daring prayer that God always answers. It is brief—only one sentence with four parts…but I believe it contains the key to a life of extraordinary favor with God…In fact, thousands of believers who are applying its truths are seeing miracles happen on a regular basis.” But is the prayer of Jabez really the single greatest key to a spiritual life that is pleasing to God? Is Wilkinson’s teaching true to the full counsel of God? Hardly.
Those with doctrinal moorings and spiritual discernment know that this simplistic approach to the Christian life is an inadequate means by which to view God, true spirituality, and prayer. True, certain features of the book can be sited as positive, such as its much-needed emphasis upon prayer. But The Prayer of Jabez, quite frankly, suffers from a deficient theology. The book is seriously plagued with: (1) an inadequate view of prayer, trivializing its true profound nature, (2) a misguided focus upon prosperity, overtly emphasizing miracles and financial blessings, and (3) a defective doctrine of providence that fails to see God sovereignly and actively involved in all of life. Polemics aside, however, it will do us well to revisit the prayer of Jabez—not the book, but the biblical text—and discover what this prayer actually teaches.
Tucked away in a long genealogical record (1 Chron. 4), Jabez emerges from relative obscurity as one who “was more honorable than his brothers” (verse 9). A spiritually strong man, he was highly esteemed in his day, more virtuous and upstanding than others. His extraordinary piety is well documented in that a city was named after him, a place where “the families of scribes” gathered (1 Chron. 2:55). Moreover, his name, Jabez, means, “He will cause pain,” a perpetual reminder of the agony he caused during delivery. Yet, despite such a difficult entrance into this world, there was a divinely scripted plan for his life, sovereignly orchestrated for God’s glory and his good.
With complete dependence upon God in prayer, Jabez “called upon…God (Elohim)” (10a), the divine name meaning the Supreme One, Mighty Ruler, and Sovereign Lord (Gen. 1:1). By appealing to this name, he acknowledged that God providentially reigns over all the works of His hands (Ps. 103:19). Moreover, He is the God “of ,” closely related to His chosen ones (Amos 3:2). To Jabez, God is both infinite and intimate, both accessible and able to answer his prayers.
In petitioning God, Jabez prayed, “Oh that you would bless me” (10b). That is, he asked God to extend His undeserved favor toward him. Specifically, Jabez asked, “Enlarge my border” (10c), thereby requesting that God would expand his territory by defeating his enemies, the Canaanites, expelling them from the adjacent territory. In the days of Moses and Joshua, God had promised that He would give the Promised Land to . Accordingly, Jabez prayed for this increase in land.
Is it right to ask God for material things? Of course it is. Jesus Himself taught His disciples to pray for their “daily bread” (Matt. 6:11; Luke 11:3). God desires us to petition Him for all good things needed to fulfill His will, even for physical provisions (James 4:2). But, ultimately, God is sovereign and will answer prayer as He wills, not as man wills. To be sure, the motive of every prayer must be for the glory of God, not the greed of man. As a lowly servant before his exalted king, prayer should always be a humble request, never a haughty demand.
Furthermore, Jabez prayed “that your hand might be with me” (10d), a petition that the invisible hand of Providence would empower him in this heroic endeavor. The truth is, God’s work must always be done in God’s power, or it will surely fail (Zech. 4:6). Moreover, Jabez requested “that you would keep me from harm so that it might not bring me pain” (10e). In this, he asked for God’s supernatural protection to be upon him throughout this conflict. To be sure, all God’s servants are exposed to constant danger and desperately need divine protection from Satan’s relentless assaults.
With unwavering faith, Jabez placed this entire matter into the all-sufficient hands of God—and there are no more reliable, on more capable, and no more powerful hands than those of our sovereign God.
What was the result of such a humble prayer? Simply this, that God “granted his request” (10f). Not because Jabez used the right formula in prayer. Nor because he somehow manipulated God. For God is not a genie to be conjured out of a bottle and used for one’s own personal ends. Rather, God sovereignly chose to be glorified through Jabez in answering his petition. The prayer of Jabez is not a mindless mantra that God always answers, chanted for self-advancement. Instead, it teaches us to faithfully seek God, who supremely does as and when He pleases. When He alone is magnified, we will be truly blessed indeed.

Should Christians be learning how to pray Jabez's prayer?

2008-05-25T18:30:00.000-07:00

The Prayer of Jabez, by Dr. Bruce Wilkinson, has gained enormous popularity in the Christian community. Within the last year it has sold more than 4 million copies-3.5 million in the last four months alone-and has maintained a first-place ranking on many national best-seller lists. The author is a distinguished Bible teacher and founder of Walk thru the Bible Ministries. His organization, which hosts more than 2,500 Bible conferences annually, is designed to train Christians in a fundamental understanding of both the Old and New Testaments.
Wilkinson's book is a study on Jabez's prayer recorded in 1 Chronicles 4:9-10. Dr. Wilkinson's purpose is to encourage believers to continually look to Jabez's prayer as a model to follow if they expect to receive great blessing from and accomplish great things for God. Dr. Wilkinson writes, "This petition has radically changed what I expect from God and what I experience every day by his power" (p. 7). In fact, he continues to express throughout the book the need for Christians to pray this prayer, so they too can experience a radical change in their life.
We commend much within The Prayer of Jabez.
For example, Dr. Wilkinson rightly emphasizes the importance of prayer in the Christian life. All Christians should commune with the Lord in prayer. Jesus, for example, gave his disciples an outline to follow in prayer (Matthew 6:9-13) and fashioned a parable to encourage persistence in prayer (Luke 18:1-7). Following the Lord's lead, The Prayer of Jabez does an excellent job of emphasizing the need for cultivating a rich prayer life.
Another helpful focus of the book is its exhortation for Christians to focus their prayers on ministry and not on personal desires. That is noteworthy as many of today's popular books encourage prayer merely for individual gain. They assert that God owes blessings to them, and they should ask Him for anything they desire. Dr. Wilkinson never encourages that attitude. Though he states God will bless the believer, the blessing will come in the form of more and more opportunities to minister to others in need. Answered prayer, Dr. Wilkinson reminds us, is born out of proper motives (James 4:3).
With those commendations in mind, however, there are some areas of concern in The Prayer of Jabez.
First of all, the book leaves the door open for Christians to presume upon God. Wilkinson writes, "I want to teach you how to pray a daring prayer that God always answers." (p. 7, emphasis added). Though it is true that God hears the prayers of His saints, there is no guarantee that He will always answer them in the expected manner. To suggest to the reader that God will always answer those who pray Jabez's prayer greatly overstates reality.
Furthermore, that expectation could lead believers to experience disappointment with God. Someone might feel justified complaining that he prayed the "model prayer of Jabez" but God never answered. The truth is, there could be other reasons for God's silence, such as our own unconfessed sin or impure motives. Or perhaps God's plan for that person is far different from what they asked for in prayer. Dr. Wilkinson does not clarify his statement, but repeatedly claims throughout the book that God will most assuredly answer the "Jabez" prayer, a claim that oversimplifies all God's Word says about prayer.
The book also tends to trivialize the discipline of prayer by making the words of Jabez's prayer the formula to follow. Wilkinson encourages Christians to repeat the words of Jabez's prayer regularly. But Jesus spoke against that kind of rote prayer style in Matthew 6:7, where He warned His disciples not to use vain, repetitious prayers. Rather, Christians should pray to God with heartfelt sincerity. Simply repeating the prayer of Jabez daily runs the risk of reducing a believer's prayer life to vain repetition.
Moreover, The Prayer of Jabez can also create confusion about the importance of the many other prayers throughout the Bible. Does Jabez's prayer somehow take precedence over Jesus' model of prayer in Matthew 6:9-13? Are Paul's prayers worth imitating? Do the prayers of other Old Testament saints help us better understand prayer any more or any less than Jabez's? Focusing solely on Jabez's brief prayer implicitly ascribes to it some kind of magical character it does not possess. Certainly, Jabez's prayer is a very good model, but it does not have any inherent ability to unlock God's power in the Christian life. Unfortunately, Dr. Wilkinson's book does little to dissuade such conclusions about the prayer.
Finally, The Prayer of Jabez paints an inconsistent picture of the Christian life. Wilkinson asserts that praying Jabez's prayer leads to a life of incredible blessing and ever-increasing ministry opportunities-a life that sounds almost like a fairy-tale. However, little reference is ever made to the reality of genuine difficulties in life, and the necessity of sincere prayer to face those difficulties in a God-honoring way. Furthermore, Dr. Wilkinson fails to encourage the importance of faithfulness in the mundane circumstances of daily living. He seems to indicate that real Christian living is only happening when Christians encounter regular miracles and astounding ministry opportunities in life. Scripture, however, points to the importance of learning to live a life fixed on pleasing God in all the little details in life-attitudes, thoughts, words, and behavior. The Prayer of Jabez fails to exhibit biblical balance in that regard.
In conclusion, The Prayer of Jabez can be a helpful tool because it encourages Christians to look to Jabez's prayer as one of many biblical models of prayer worthy of emulation. You can look to Jabez's prayer along with the prayers of other Bible characters in an effort to better inform your own prayer life. But remember, true prayer does not consist of a set of mantras or incantations employed to elicit a particular response from God. God is not a genie in a bottle, waiting to be coaxed out so He can grant wishes. Rather, prayer is about aligning your mind and heart with God's sovereign purposes.
Prayer is a rich privilege God graciously grants to His children, enabling us to express our submission to His will for our lives. To that end, may we all learn to pray with the humility, dependence, and expectation of blessing Jabez exhibited.

Albert Einstein's God -- The "Product of Human Weaknesses"

2008-05-25T04:11:00.000-07:00

A letter from Albert Einstein to philosopher Eric Gutkind is to be auctioned today at Bloomsbury Auctions in London. The letter -- hidden within a private collection for a half-century -- is making news as evidence of Einstein's dismissal of belief in God.
For decades, Einstein has been claimed by both atheists and theists. The scientist was given to rather anecdotal statements about religion and belief in God, and these statements are easily taken out of context. Given Einstein's cultural and intellectual stature, both sides in this great debate have assumed that Einstein's agreement would lend intellectual credibility to their argument.

Some theists (including an unfortunate number of Evangelicals) have seized upon some of Einstein's statements to claim that he was a theist. When Einstein remarked that God "does not throw dice," some claimed that this was evidence of theism and belief in God. When Einstein quipped that "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind," others claimed that this was evidence of Einstein's insistence that some form of religious belief is necessary to science.

Atheists, on the other hand, had plenty of evidence upon which to draw. The data of Einstein's life and the contours of his thought certainly indicate that Einstein held no belief in a personal God who acted as a moral agent.
The letter to Eric Gutkind includes more explicit statements by Einstein, written in the year before his death.
The Guardian [London] published selections from the letter, including this paragraph:
... The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them.

Einstein's language is very clear. God is dismissed as "nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses" -- a statement hauntingly like the verdict of Friedrich Nietzsche. This letter helps to substantiate what other statements also indicate. Einstein was not an atheist in the sense that he wanted to deny any force beyond what science could explain. On the other hand, he was an atheist in the sense that he clearly rejected theism and belief in any personal God.
Born to a Jewish family, Einstein once wrote of his loss of faith: "Through the reading of popular scientific books, I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived by the state through lies, it was a crushing impression."
In his letter to Gutkind, Einstein expressed his belief that the Bible is a "collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."
An individual's thought can easily (even almost necessarily) change over a lifetime. The emergence of the Gutkind letter, written just a year before Einstein's death, seems to provide ample evidence that the scientist's verdict about the Bible did not change.

Before fleeing Germany as World War II approached, Einstein explained his concept of religion:
"Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible laws and connections, there remains something subtle, intangible, and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in fact, religious."
By that definition, most atheists are "in fact, religious." There is no room in this definition for the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob -- nor for Jesus Christ. Like many other unbelievers, Einstein respected the morals of Jesus, but rejected any thought of deity. He came to be proud of his Jewish ethnic identity, but rejected any claim that the Jews are a chosen people.

The emergence of the letter from Albert Einstein to Eric Gutkind goes a long way toward setting the record straight. Evangelical Christians are prone to over-excitement when any famous person, living or dead, is claimed as a believer in God. This is not an attractive habit, and it often leads to intellectual embarrassment. The truth of the Gospel and the reality of the self-revealing God are not enhanced by vague expressions of a non-theistic spirituality or a sense of nothing more than an inexplicable sense of meaning in the cosmos.

Beyond this, the witness of an honest Christian is far more powerful than a listing of the rich, intelligent, and powerful who may or may not have believed in some kind of God. Attempts to claim Einstein for theism reveal a deep intellectual insecurity.

The Einstein/Gutkind letter is expected to bring a sale price well into the thousands of dollars. It is then likely to disappear into yet another private collection. Its unexpected emergence in these days does present an opportunity to clarify Einstein's real beliefs.
In the end, it is better to see Einstein, not as a believer of sorts, but as an atheist of sorts. Belief in God was simply childish, he asserted. Einstein believed in awe and wonder, but not in God.

WORD OF THE DAY From The Pastor's Study

2008-05-25T03:57:00.000-07:00

Kenosis
[kuh-noe’-sis]
(Greek, “emptying”)

Describes the “emptying” of Christ at the incarnation. The Greek word kenoo (”to empty”) is found in Phil 2:6-11 where Christ humility is described through the incarnation. Debate exists concerning the meaning of the Kenosis. Did Christ lose divine attributes and thus “empty” himself, or did he give up rights for the independent use of his divine attributes, without actually giving them up? Most theologians would opt for the latter, believing that if Christ “lost” divine attributes he would no longer be divine; indeed, he would never have been divine in the first place considering the essential divine attribute of immutability (the inability to change in essence).

The Heidelberg Catechism, This Lord's Day week 21

2008-05-25T03:52:00.000-07:00

Q54: What do you believe concerning the "Holy Catholic Church"?

A54: That out of the whole human race,[1] from the beginning to the end of the world,[2] the Son of God,[3] by His Spirit and Word,[4] gathers, defends and preserves for Himself unto everlasting life a chosen communion [5] in the unity of the true faith;[6] and that I am and forever shall remain a living member of this communion.[7]
1. Gen. 26:42. John 10:103. Eph. 1:10-134. Rom. 1:16; 10:14-17; Isa. 59:21; Eph. 5:265. Rom. 8:29-30; Matt. 16:18; Eph. 4:3-66. Acts 2:46; Psa. 71:18; I Cor. 1:8-9; 11:26; John 10:28-307. I John 2:19; 3:21; Gal. 3:28

Q55: What do you understand by the "communion of saints"?

A55: First, that believers, one and all, as members of the Lord Jesus Christ, are partakers with Him in all His treasures and gifts;[1] second, that each one must feel himself bound to use his gifts readily and cheerfully for the advantage and welfare of other members.[2]
1. I John 1:32. I Cor. 12:12-13, 21; 13:5-6; Phil. 2:4-6; Heb. 3:14

Q56: What do you believe concerning the "forgiveness of sins"?

A56: That God, for the sake of Christ's satisfaction,[1] will no more remember my sins, nor the sinful nature with which I have to struggle all my life long;[2] but graciously imputes to me the righteousness of Christ, that I may nevermore come into condemnation.[3]
1. I John 2:22. II Cor. 5:19, 21; Rom. 7:24-25; 8:1-4; Psa. 103:3, 10, 12; Jer. 31:343. John. 3:18; Eph. 1:7; Rom. 4:7-8; 7:18

ALL BY MYSELF......... By Rev. Charles J. Paul

2008-05-24T20:39:00.000-07:00

Have you ever felt like you were all alone? Like God was no where to be found. Have you ever had the darkest night of your soul take place?

Dr Sproul in the article below lays out for us what a lot of us may have felt. Or are presently feeling.

I know that for myself there are many times that I feel alone in the present day battle for the Truth of God’s Word to be preached and taught. I know that I feel as though I am fighting not only by myself. But that I am also fighting what seems to be a losing battle.

But then just as the darkness comes over us, it also is removed by the LIGHT of His Word.

I would like to take this moment to encourage anyone facing the giant of darkness in your life. To tell you that your hope is in a new feeling would be a lie. So I will tell the answer you seek to the darkness you face. Is the same refuge that all those who came before us found who were in these times of darkness,

And that is open the book. Preachers bring the book. And to the body of His true sheep LIVE BY THE BOOK.

May God bless you as your night turns to day

The Dark Night of the Soul by R.C. Sproul

2008-05-24T20:21:00.000-07:00

The dark night of the soul. This phenomenon describes a malady that the greatest of Christians have suffered from time to time. It was the malady that provoked David to soak his pillow with tears. It was the malady that earned for Jeremiah the sobriquet, “The Weeping Prophet.”

It was the malady that so afflicted Martin Luther that his melancholy threatened to destroy him. This is no ordinary fit of depression, but it is a depression that is linked to a crisis of faith, a crisis that comes when one senses the absence of God or gives rise to a feeling of abandonment by Him.Spiritual depression is real and can be acute. We ask how a person of faith could experience such spiritual lows, but whatever provokes it does not take away from its reality.

Our faith is not a constant action. It is mobile. It vacillates. We move from faith to faith, and in between we may have periods of doubt when we cry, “Lord, I believe, help Thou my unbelief.” We may also think that the dark night of the soul is something completely incompatible with the fruit of the Spirit, not only that of faith but also that of joy. Once the Holy Spirit has flooded our hearts with a joy unspeakable, how can there be room in that chamber for such darkness?

It is important for us to make a distinction between the spiritual fruit of joy and the cultural concept of happiness. A Christian can have joy in his heart while there is still spiritual depression in his head. The joy that we have sustains us through these dark nights and is not quenched by spiritual depression. The joy of the Christian is one that survives all downturns in life. In writing to the Corinthians in his second letter, Paul commends to his readers the importance of preaching and of communicating the Gospel to people. But in the midst of that, he reminds the church that the treasure we have from God is a treasure that is contained not in vessels of gold and silver but in what the apostle calls “jars of clay.” For this reason he says, “that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us.” Immediately after this reminder, the apostle adds, “We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies” (2 Cor. 4:7–10). This passage indicates the limits of depression that we experience. The depression may be profound, but it is not permanent, nor is it fatal. Notice that the apostle Paul describes our condition in a variety of ways. He says that we are “afflicted, perplexed, persecuted, and struck down.”

These are powerful images that describe the conflict that Christians must endure, but in every place that he describes this phenomenon, he describes at the same time its limits. Afflicted, but not crushed. Perplexed, but not in despair. Persecuted, but not forsaken. Struck down, but not destroyed. So we have this pressure to bear, but the pressure, though it is severe, does not crush us. We may be confused and perplexed, but that low point to which perplexity brings us does not result in complete and total despair.

Even in persecution, as serious as it may be, we are still not forsaken, and we may be overwhelmed and struck down as Jeremiah spoke of, yet we have room for joy. We think of the prophet Habakkuk, who in his misery remained confident that despite the setbacks he endured, God would give him feet like hind’s feet, feet that would enable him to walk in high places.Elsewhere, the apostle Paul in writing to the Philippians gives them the admonition to be “anxious for nothing,” telling them that the cure for anxiety is found on one’s knees, that it is the peace of God that calms our spirit and dissipates anxiety. Again, we can be anxious and nervous and worried without finally submitting to ultimate despair.

This coexistence of faith and spiritual depression is paralleled in other biblical statements of emotive conditions. We are told that it is perfectly legitimate for believers to suffer grief. Our Lord Himself was a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. Though grief may reach to the roots of our souls, it must not result in bitterness. Grief is a legitimate emotion, at times even a virtue, but there must be no place in the soul for bitterness. In like manner, we see that it is a good thing to go to the house of mourning, but even in mourning, that low feeling must not give way to hatred.

The presence of faith gives no guarantee of the absence of spiritual depression; however, the dark night of the soul always gives way to the brightness of the noonday light of the presence of God.

"Getting Fed": Does This Describe Your Sermons?

2008-05-24T15:08:00.000-07:00

Quoting Martyn Lloyd-Jones . . .
What is preaching? Logic on fire! Eloquent reason! Are these contradictions? Of course they are not. Reason concerning this Truth ought to be mightily eloquent, as you see it in the case of the Apostle Paul and others. It is theology on fire. And a theology which does not take fire, I maintain, is a defective theology; or at least the man's understanding of it is defective. Preaching is theology coming through a man who is on fire. A true understanding and experience of the Truth must lead to this. I say again that a man who can speak about these things dispassionately has no right whatsoever to be in a pulpit; and should never be allowed to enter one. What is the chief end of preaching? I like to think it is this. It is to give men and women a sense of God and His presence.
As I have said already, during this last year I have been ill, and so have had the opportunity, and the privilege, of listening to others, instead of preaching myself. As I have listened in physical weakness this is the thing I have looked for and longed for and desired. I can forgive a man for a bad sermon, I can forgive the preacher almost anything if he gives me a sense of God, if he gives me something for my soul, if he gives me the sense that, though he is inadequate himself, he is handling something which is very great and very glorious, if he gives me some dim glimpse of the majesty and the glory of God, the love of Christ my Saviour, and the magnificence of the Gospel.
If he does that I am his debtor, and I am profoundly grateful to him. Preaching is the most amazing, and the most thrilling activity that one can ever be engaged in, because of all that it holds out for all of us in the present, and because of the glorious endless possibilities in an eternal future.
From:
Preaching and Preachers

Error Intolerant By John MacArthur

2008-05-22T18:22:00.000-07:00

As Christians we must understand that whatever opposes God’s Word or departs from it in any way is a danger to the very cause of truth. Passivity toward known error is not an option for the Christian. Staunch intolerance of error is built into the very fabric of Scripture. And tolerance of known error is anything but a virtue.
Jesus clearly and unashamedly affirmed the utter exclusivity of Christianity. He said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6). “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). Obviously, that sort of exclusivity is fundamentally incompatible with post-modern tolerance.
Truth and error cannot be combined to yield something beneficial. Truth and error are as incompatible as light and darkness. “What fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement has the temple of God with idols?” (2 Corinthians 6:14-16).
We can’t tell the world, “This is truth, but whatever you want to believe is fine, too. It’s not fine. Scripture commands us to be intolerant of any idea that denies the truth.
Lest anyone misunderstand, I’m not defending dogmatism on any and every theological issue. Some things in Scripture are not perfectly clear. But the central teachings of Scripture (in particular, those things related to the way of salvation) are so simple and so clear that even a child can understand.
Those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them. (Westminster Confession, 1:7).
All the truth that is necessary for our salvation can be easily understood in a true way by anyone who applies common sense and due diligence in seeking to understand what the Bible teaches. And that truth — the core message of Scripture — is incompatible with every other system of belief. We ought to be dogmatic about it.
No wonder post-modernism, which prides itself on being tolerant of every competing world-view, is nonetheless hostile to biblical Christianity. Even the most determined post-modernist recognizes that biblical Christianity by its very nature is totally incompatible with a position of uncritical broad-mindedness. If we accept the fact that Scripture is the objective, authoritative truth of God, we are bound to see that every other view is not equally or potentially valid.
There is no need to seek middle ground through dialogue with proponents of anti-Christian world-views, as if the truth could be refined by the dialectical method. It is folly to think truth given by divine revelation needs any refining or updating. Nor should we imagine that we can meet opposing world-views on some philosophically neutral ground. The ground between us is not neutral. If we really believe the Word of God is true, we know that everything opposing it is error. And we are to yield no ground whatsoever to error.

To the Pastor by Dr Ron Gleason

2008-05-18T04:23:00.000-07:00

Being a pastor has been the most humbling, challenging, fulfilling, and wonderful calling of my life. It was in the pastoral ministry that I learned -- and still am learning -- that true success is not measured by the size of your salary or your level of notoriety. It is measured by the faithfulness you exhibit in serving Christ and His church. I wouldn't trade being a pastor for anything, and I've learned that scholarship's best place is in the pulpit. Because the pastorate is not a temporary address or a "jumping off place" where a man waits for bigger and more glorious personal opportunities, a pastor learns to be God's servant and his own man. As pastors, it is our job to do the Lord's bidding where He calls us, according to His purposes, and for as long as He requires our services there. In general, here is what I've learned thus far:

Preach expository sermons from both the Old and New Testaments.

The preacher's foremost task is to preach the Gospel. Many voices in Christianity today tempt us to forget this. They encourage us to do what will attract the unsaved. Nevertheless, the pastor is primarily called to proclaim the riches of Christ through the preaching of the Word and the clear exposition of Scripture. In this manner, he both equips the saints and prepares them to present the true, pure Gospel to the lost. Expository preaching has three decided advantages for any pastor: First, it takes the congregation through a book of the Bible so that they are able to observe and understand the various covenantal themes contained in it. Second, this type of "series" preaching protects the congregation from the pastor's "hobby horses." Therefore, rather than preaching on a number of his favorite topics, he is bound by the text to preach and teach the variety of doctrines found in the Word of God. Moreover, in the history of preaching it has been this expository approach that has proven to be the most spiritually beneficial to God's covenant communities. Third, this will solve the problem for the younger pastor of choosing a text every week. Being guided by the text and your exegesis, you know what you're preaching on next week.

A faithful pastor takes worship seriously.

For Christians, how we worship God is a key consideration. To worship God rightly means to worship Him scripturally. The pastor and his congregation must pay careful attention to what God requires in His Word. If God's people are to worship Him in spirit and in truth -- and they are -- then we must look to Scripture both to form and inform our worship style. By using the ordinary means of grace God has given us, worship gives the opportunity to preach the Word, sing the Word, pray the Word, and read the Word. True worship is Christ-centered and Word-centered.

Manage your time to the glory of God.

This is a crucial, essential component of the pastor's life and calling. Far too many pastors waste precious time performing ever-nebulous "networking." Time, once spent, cannot be regained. Therefore, how we use our time matters greatly. Since we are accountable to God, pastors should have an exemplary work ethic. Among other tasks, the pastor must make time for theological study and keeping his use of Greek and Hebrew, he must be fully conversant with the contents of Scripture, taking the requisite time for sermon preparation and delivery, and setting aside time for prayer and reading the Bible devotionally for himself and for his own instruction and edification.

The pastor must also lead his own home well.

This requires a disciplined life. He pays attention to his marriage and the spiritual instruction of his entire family. He is a good friend and neighbor. He builds solid relationships with his session and deacons, and other church members who serve in various other leadership positions.
Maintain office hours and be approachable. There are fewer things that put me off more than an aloof and unapproachable pastor. One way to remain approachable for your congregation is to keep office hours. Most churches provide adequate studies for their pastors. Make good use of your study and be available by phone, for personal visits, or a spontaneous "hello." My study door is almost always open and I enjoy people sticking their head in and saying hello.
Each person is a little bit different in this area. My day off is Friday. My wife and I have a "date day" for breakfast outside at the beach, and we take a long walk every Friday morning simply to be together. This means I get in early on Monday morning and I have a written schedule of what I'll be doing every day. Thursday is sermon-making day and no one gets through to me except my family, my elders, or a bona fide emergency. No interruptions on Thursday!

Visit the flock.

Pastors and their fellow elders need to visit the congregation, and congregants should expect their spiritual leaders to visit them and inquire about their spiritual well-being, including their Bible reading, prayer life, family devotions, and catechism memorization, only to mention the most important and obvious things. Home visitation reaps rich spiritual rewards. It is a time of personal accountability, equipping, and teaching that is so often missing in today's churches. Grieving members, members in the hospital, and the elderly members need pastoral visits and should not be neglected.

The Heidelberg Catechism, This Lord's Day week 20

2008-05-18T03:52:00.000-07:00

Q53: What do you believe concerning the "Holy Ghost"?

A53: First, that He is coeternal God with the Father and the Son.[1] Second, that He is also given unto me:[2] by true faith makes me a partaker of Christ and all His benefits,[3] comforts me,[4] and shall abide with me forever.[5]
1. Gen. 1:2; Isa. 48:16; I Cor. 3:16; 6:19; Acts 5:3-42. Matt. 28:19; II Cor. 1:21-223. I Peter 1:2; I Cor. 6:174. Acts 9:315. John 14:16; I Peter 4:14; I John 4:13; Rom. 15:13

God’s Plan for the Gay Agenda By Dr John MacArthur

2008-05-16T16:12:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, a California court ruled that same sex couples have a consitutional right to marry. Those promoting homosexual marriage see this as a major step forward. But what is God’s plan for the gay agenda?

If you’ve been watching the headlines over the last couple years, you may have noticed the incredible surge of interest in affirming homosexuality. Whether it’s at the heart of a religious scandal, political corruption, radical legislation, or the redefinition of marriage, homosexual interests have come to characterize America. That’s an indication of the success of the gay agenda. And some Christians, including some national church leaders, have wavered on the issue even recently. But sadly, when people refuse to acknowledge the sinfulness of homosexuality—calling evil good and good evil (Isaiah 5:20)—they do so at the expense of many souls.
How should you respond to the success of the gay agenda? Should you accept the recent trend toward tolerance? Or should you side with those who exclude homosexuals with hostility and disdain?
In reality, the Bible calls for a balance between what some people think are two opposing reactions—condemnation and compassion. Really, the two together are essential elements of biblical love, and that’s something the homosexual sinner desperately needs.
Homosexual advocates have been remarkably effective in selling their warped interpretations of passages in Scripture that address homosexuality. When you ask a homosexual what the Bible says about homosexuality—and many of them know—they have digested an interpretation that is not only warped, but also completely irrational. Pro-homosexual arguments from the Bible are nothing but smokescreens—as you come close, you see right through them.
God’s condemnation of homosexuality is abundantly clear—He opposes it in every age.
- In the patriarchs (Genesis 19:1-28)
- In the Law of Moses (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13)
- In the Prophets (Ezekiel 16:46-50)
- In the New Testament (Romans 1:18-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Jude 7-8)
Why does God condemn homosexuality? Because it overturns God’s fundamental design for human relationships—a design that pictures the complementary relationship between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:18-25; Matthew 19:4-6; Ephesians 5:22-33).
Why, then, have homosexual interpretations of Scripture been so successful at persuading so many? Simple: people want to be convinced. Since the Bible is so clear about the issue, sinners have had to defy reason and embrace error to quiet their accusing consciences (Romans 2:14-16). As Jesus said, “Men loved the darkness rather than the Light, [because] their deeds were evil” (John 3:19-20).
As a Christian, you must not compromise what the Bible says about homosexuality—ever. No matter how much you desire to be compassionate to the homosexual, your first sympathies belong to the Lord and to the exaltation of His righteousness. Homosexuals stand in defiant rebellion against the will of their Creator who from the beginning “made them male and female” (Matthew 19:4).
Don’t allow yourself to be intimidated by homosexual advocates and their futile reasoning—their arguments are without substance. Homosexuals, and those who advocate that sin, are fundamentally committed to overturning the lordship of Christ in this world. But their rebellion is useless, for the Holy Spirit says, “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10; cf. Galatians 5:19-21).
So, what is God’s response to the homosexual agenda?
Certain and final judgment. To claim anything else is to compromise the truth of God and deceive those who are perishing.
As you interact with homosexuals and their sympathizers, you must affirm the Bible’s condemnation. You are not trying to bring damnation on the head of homosexuals, you are trying to bring conviction so that they can turn from that sin and embrace the only hope of salvation for all of us sinners—and that’s through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Homosexuals need salvation. They don’t need healing—homosexuality is not a disease. They don’t need therapy—homosexuality is not a psychological condition. Homosexuals need forgiveness, because homosexuality is a sin.
I don’t know how it happened, but a few decades ago someone branded homosexuals with the worst misnomer—“gay.” Gay used to mean happy, but I can assure you, homosexuals are not happy people. They habitually seek happiness by following after destructive pleasures. There is a reason Romans 1:26 calls homosexual desire a “degrading passion.” It is a lust that destroys the physical body, ruins relationships, and brings perpetual suffering to the soul—and its ultimate end is death (Romans 7:5). Homosexuals are experiencing the judgment of God (Romans 1:24, 26, 28), and thus they are very, very sad.
First Corinthians 6 is very clear about the eternal consequence for those who practice homosexuality—but there’s good news. No matter what the sin is, whether homosexuality or anything else, God has provided forgiveness, salvation, and the hope of eternal life to those who repent and embrace the gospel. Right after identifying homosexuals as those who “will not inherit the kingdom of God,” Paul said, “Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Corinthians 6:11).
God’s plan for many homosexuals is that they come to salvation. There were former homosexuals in the Corinthian church back in Paul’s day, just as there are many former homosexuals today in my church and in faithful churches around the country. With regenerated hearts, they sit in biblical churches throughout the country praising their Savior, along with former fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, thieves, coveters, drunkards, revilers, and swindlers. Remember, such were some of you too.
What should be your response to the homosexual agenda? Make it a biblical response—confront it with the truth of Scripture that condemns homosexuality and promises eternal damnation for all who practice it. What should be your response to the homosexual? Make it a gospel response—confront him with the truth of Scripture that condemns him as a sinner, and point him to the hope of salvation through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. Stay faithful to the Lord as you respond to homosexuality by honoring His Word, and leave the results to Him.

James White - Who Controls Salvation - Man or God?

2008-05-14T15:58:00.000-07:00

THIS IS A MUST HEAR........http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKciLp1B3K0&eurl=http://bloodtippedears.blogspot.com/2008/05/james-white-who-controls-salvation-man.html