Spin Doctor of the Month Award

Mark Kelly, who is Rick Warren’s personal spin doctor has clearly demonstrated that he has a astonishing gift for arguing both sides of an issue and playing the persecution card when called on the carpet for his inconsistencies.
In a recent post on his personal blog entitled “Assigned a place with the unbelievers” Kelly argues against the “Once Saved Always Saved” doctrine and claims that outrageous disobedience will get you thrown out of the God’s house and cause you to be dumped in hell with the unfaithful dead.
When CRN pointed out the fact that Kelly’s arguments contradicted Saddleback Church’s doctrinal statement regarding Eternal Security, Kelly went into ‘spin mode’ and posted a new piece that claims that his original post wasn’t about losing your salvation. All the while, he was claiming that he was being falsely accused of not believing in the security of the believer.
Mark Kelly’s two posts contradicted each other so badly that we have no idea what he actually believes on the matter. As best as we can figure, Kelly believes that Christians are Eternally Secure in their salvation so long as they don't committ an 'outrageous disobedience'. If they do that then they will be numbered with the unbelievers and thrown out of God's house and be sent to hell. But this doesn't mean that they've lost their salvation because the idea that a Christian can lose his/her salvation is an insult to God even though according to Kelly they were truly believers before God sent them to hell. Sound confusing? We were so puzzled by Kelly's poistion that we've named it the "Doctrine of Eternal Confusion".
Fact is, Mark's position is soooo convoluted that we felt that he deserved an award for his efforts. So we are honoring him with the ‘Spin Doctor of the Month’ award.
---
In all seriousness, the reason why Kelly's position contradicts itself so badly is because Mark is attempting to resolve the very real contradiction that exists between the Reformed doctrine of Eternal Security and the Biblical warnings regarding apostasy and its consequences.
Mark, I am not sure that the contradiction can be resolved in a way that allows you to maintain your presuppositions. However, if you allow yourself to challenge your presuppositions you will run the very real danger of truly being at odds with Saddleback's doctrinal statement. (But you are already far down that path already)
Mark, my advice to you would be to look at how the Lutheran theologians have addressed this dilema. You need more data and a different perspective.

Evan Help Us?

Behold the cover of the latest Christianity Today. This was the first of a four-page spread (front and back covers, inside and out) shamelessly plugging the less-than-reverent sequel to Bruce Almighty. Under the guise of a “ministry initiative” called ArkAlmighty, the film’s producers are targeting evangelical churches in a big way.
But to have this film flaunted on the cover of Christianity Today? What were the editors thinking?
Yes, we know it was just an advertisment (and that the real cover was underneath).
No, we still don’t think it was appropriate.
Yes, we would have hoped for better from the folks at CT.
No, we’re not really surprised.
Yes, we agree the whole thing is a reflection of the current state of evangelicalism.
No, we don’t think Carl Henry would be happy about it.
Yes, we do have a good sense of humor.
No, we don’t think this is funny.
And no, we are not overreacting.

The Calvary Road Leading To Confusion

If your pastor ever holds up a book from the pulpit (other than the bible) and says "If you want to know what our church is all about, read this book", it probably ought to be setting off red flags for you. What's even worse is when that book contains subtle errors that are capable of leading an entire congregation into wrong thinking about the work of Christ and false notions of revivalism. Here's the testimony of how that very thing happened at one conservative church. It underscores how easily error can slip into a church, and how needed discernment is today.
This post was written by guest contributor Chad VanRens.Chad is a long-time commenter here on Old Truth, and is active in street evangelism and the study of systematic theology.
Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you , and exhort you that you should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. No doubt you will recognize the verse from Jude's epistle exhorting his readers to contend earnestly for the faith. As Christians we have a divinely ordained duty to contend for the very nature of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to guard it with all jealousy. Paul anathematized those in the Galatian Church who tried to make circumcision a requirement for salvation and rebuked the rest of the believers as foolish people who had been bewitched. In Revelation 2 the church in Pergamos was counted faithful but Christ had somewhat against them because they had tolerated those that held the doctrine of Balaam and in Thyatira the church had suffered the woman Jezebel. In both cases Christ said he would come against those that held the false doctrine and fight against them. But to them that overcame Christ would bring blessing. So clearly doctrinal purity is just as important as moral purity and the scriptures warn those who hold false doctrines to repent. Even an otherwise faithful church can fall into false teaching and be lead astray. This is what I experienced at a church I used to be a member of. It was an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist Church and one Sunday evening at the end of the service the Senior Pastor held a book up and from the pulpit and made the following statement:
"If you want to know what our church is all about, read this book."
The book is titled "The Calvary Road" by Roy Hession. The purpose of the announcement came prior to our annual revival meeting and the pastors had asked that everyone read the book as a congregation so that when the revival speaker came we might see God move. They even offered to give anyone who promised to read the book a copy at no charge. Well I already had a copy of the book but I hadn't read it yet. The music pastor had bought a copy for me when I first began attending that church and said that it was one of his favorite books. I had only been saved about a year at that time and it was another year before the proclamation came from the pulpit so I decided to read the book. I was rather shocked to discover that the book taught that a Christian's standing before God was based entirely on his behavior. It seemed to be teaching a strange mix of works righteousness, perfectionism and on-again off-again salvation.
The illustrations the book used were perversions of biblical imagery designed to give believers assurance and twisted to put believers into bondage and fear of loss of salvation. In chapter 5 the Holy Spirit is referred to as "she" and a timid little dove who was too afraid rest on Christ lest he be meek. Imputed righteousness and the merit of Christ's finished work being the Christian's assurance and acceptance before God are totally absent. Biblical exhortations to pursue holiness of life and sanctification are no where to be found.I have since left that church and am now part of a Reformed Baptist Church. The purpose of this post is not to call out my old church. It is to examine the teachings of this book and to illustrate how careful we must be to guard our doctrine and contend for the faith once delivered to the saints. I will provide an excerpt from one chapter and deal with it in some detail. The entire book can be read online at the following link; Calvary Road Table of Contents.There is a very reckless use of scriptural imagery in every chapter of "The Calvary Road". Roy Hession often takes a scriptural image with a well understood meaning and twists it to his own end. Here we shall see how Hession has made reference to something he calls "the Water of Life" (capitalization his). Now, the only scriptural association that one can make when seeing the words Water of Life could be that Hession is referencing "fountains of living water", a metaphor for eternal life (John 4:10-11, 7:38, Rev. 7:17).
Here is the excerpt from Chapter 2 "Cups Running Over":
The picture that has made things simple and clear to so many of us is that of the human heart as a cup, which we hold out to Jesus, longing that He might fill it with the Water of Life. Jesus is pictured as bearing the golden water pot with the Water of Life. As He passes by, He looks into our cup and if it is clean, He fills to overflowing with the Water of Life. And as Jesus is always passing by, the cup can be always running over. That is something of what David meant, when he said, "My cup runneth over." This is Revival - you and I full to overflowing with blessing ourselves and to others - with a constant peace in our hearts. People imagine that dying to self makes one miserable. But it just the opposite. It is the refusal to die to self that makes one miserable. The more we know of death with Him, the more we shall know of His life in us, and so the more of real peace and joy. His life, too, will overflow through us to lost souls in a real concern for their salvation, and to our fellow Christians in a deep desire for their blessing.Under the Blood.Only one thing prevents Jesus filling our cups as He passes by, and that is sin in one of its thousand forms. The Lord Jesus does not fill dirty cups. Anything that springs from self, however small it may be, is sin. Self-energy or self-complacency in service is sin. Self-pity in trials or difficulties, self-seeking in business or Christian work, self-indulgence in one's spare time, sensitiveness, touchiness, resentment and self-defense when we are hurt or injured by others, self-consciousness, reserve, worry, fear, all spring from self and all are sin and make our cups unclean.* But all of them were put into that other cup, which the Lord Jesus shrank from momentarily in Gethsemane, but which He drank to the dregs at Calvary - the cup of our sin. And if we will allow Him to show us what is in our cups and then give it to Him, He will cleanse them in the precious Blood that still flows for sin. That does not mean mere cleansing from the guilt of sin, nor even from the stain of sin - though thank God both of these are true - but from the sin itself, whatever it may be. And as He cleanses our cups, so He fills them to overflowing with His Holy Spirit.
Notice that Hession says that if our cup is clean then Christ will fill it with the Water of Life. Since Christ does not fill dirty cups he won't fill our cups if they are stained with sin. Now let us consider that Hebrews 10:14 says "For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified." The bible tells us that our sin has been separated from us as far as the east is from the west. Now I am not denying that Christians must confess their sins for the scriptures command us to do so. The problem here is that Hession is confusing justification and sanctification. He is threatening the withholding of the Water of Life at the first instance of anything sinful in the Christian's life. Christ has forever removed our sin and God no longer deals with us as sinners but as sinless in Christ because of the imputation of Christ's righteousness. This "Water of Life" is the free gift of God given to us on the merit of Christ's perfect obedience on our behalf. We cannot merit it even by our confession. Notice also that Hession states that Christ drank the cup of our sin, but then turns and says that our sins are not actually cleansed from the guilt, stain of sin or the sin itself until we allow Christ to show us what's in our cup and then give it to him. If we are not cleansed from the guilt or stain of sin by Christ's finished work then we are not cleansed at all. Christ's work perfectly cleanses all who believe in him. They can never be defiled in the sense that Hession is suggesting. Consider again the following scriptures. Romans 6:9-11 "Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord."In Romans 6 we are exhorted to consider what is true of Christ is also true of us, permanently. We are dead to sin, verse 2. It cannot condemn us. That is the Christian's great assurance. What Hession is suggesting is impossible. It's biblically unsound, and irresponsible to make the claim that he is making. Guard your doctrine carefully dear ones and hold fast to the truth. If sanctification is what you desire, and all Christian's must (Heb12:13), then seek it scripturally. Martyn Lloyd Jones' sermon's on Romans 6 are a great resource and J.C. Ryle has an excellent tract titled "Sanctification".

The Blood of Martyrs Was The Seed of The Church

Quoting Jeremiah Burroughs . . .
The power of God is glorious, not only in preserving His church, in raising the spirits of His servants in their greatest affliction, but in increasing His church by them. If it is a wonder to be upheld in them, it is much more a wonder to be increased by them. "The more we are cut down, the more we persist", says Tertullian. The church never grew so fast as when it was under the most affliction. Sulpitius says of the Christians in primative times, that they were greedy of martyrdom, as in his time men were greedy of bishopric. The blood of martyrs was the seed of the church. Pliny reports of the lily, that it is increased by it's own juice that drops from it, and so is the church, which is the lily that grows among the thorns; the very blood that drops from it, multiplies it; the sufferings of one beget many to the love of the truth.
John Knox reports of a gentlemen, one John Lindsay, familiar to Bishop James Bettoune, that he said to the Bishop upon the occasion of Patrick Hamilton's burning: "My Lord, if you burn any more, you will destroy yourselves; if you will burn them, let them be burnt in hollow cellars, for the smoke of Mr. Patrick Hamilton has infected as many as it blew upon."
It is reported of one Cecelia ... that her constancy and exhortations, before and after her martyrdom, were the means to convert four hundred people. "By blood and prayer the church converts the whole world", says Luther.
From:
Discovering The Healthy Condition of a Self-Denying Heart (from Day By Day w/Puritans)

Scripture and Plain Reason

Scripture isn’t antithetical to sound, rational wisdom, though many today imagine otherwise. Reason is no substitute for Scripture, of course, but when good reason and sound logic are kept subject to the authority of Scripture, they are in no way a threat to the truth. On the contrary, the application of sound, logical thinking to the truth of Scripture is a key aspect of the formula for discernment.

The Christian's Way and end

Here is the Christian's way and his end…His way is holiness, his end happiness.[John Whitlock]

Does Doctrine Really Matter? By John MacArthur

Is it enough to “believe in Jesus” in some amorphous sense that divorces “faith” from any particular doctrine about Him, or is doctrine—and the content of our faith—really important after all?
Scripture plainly teaches that we must be sound in the faith—which is to say that doctrine does matter (1 Tim. 4:6; 2 Tim. 4:2-3; Tit. 1:9; 2:1). It matters a lot.
“If anyone advocates a different doctrine, and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing” (1 Tim. 6:3-4, emphasis added).
Sound, biblical doctrine is a necessary aspect of true wisdom and authentic faith. The attitude that scorns doctrine while elevating feelings or blind trust cannot legitimately be called faith at all, even if it masquerades as Christianity. It is actually an irrational form of unbelief.
God holds us accountable for what we believe as well as how we think about the truth He has revealed. All Scripture testifies to the fact that God wants us to know and understand the truth. He wants us to be wise. His will is that we use our minds. We are supposed to think, meditate, and above all, to be discerning.
The content of our faith is crucial. Sincerity is not sufficient.
Consider, for example, these well-known verses. Note the repeated use of words like truth, knowledge, discernment, wisdom, and understanding:
“Thou dost desire truth in the innermost being, and in the hidden part Thou wilt make me know wisdom” (Psa. 51:6).
“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; a good understanding have all those who do His commandments” (Psa. 111:10).
“Teach me good discernment and knowledge, For I believe in Thy commandments” (Psa. 119:66).
“Make your ear attentive to wisdom, incline your heart to understanding; for if you cry for discernment, lift your voice for understanding; if you seek her as silver, and search for her as for hidden treasures; then you will discern the fear of the Lord, and discover the knowledge of God. For the Lord gives wisdom; from His mouth come knowledge and understanding” (Prov. 2:2-6).
“The beginning of wisdom is: acquire wisdom; and with all your acquiring, get understanding” (Prov. 4:7).
“We have not ceased to pray for you and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding” (Col. 1:9).
“In [Christ] are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col. 2:3).
“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16).
God’s Word makes it abundantly clear that He wants us to use our minds. And one of the most vital duties facing every Christian—especially in an era (such as ours) when the church is overrun with contradictory ideas and spiritual confusion—is the duty of discernment. As those who would be faithful Bereans of the Word (Acts 17:11), we must be careful to watch our lives and our doctrine closely (1 Tim. 4:16).

Brothers, Pray for the Seminaries By John Piper

We cannot overemphasize the importance of our seminaries in shaping the theology and spirit of the churches and denominations and missionary enterprise. The tone of the classrooms and teachers exerts profound effect on the tone of our pulpits. What the teachers are passionate about will by and large be the passions of our younger pastors. What they neglect will likely be neglected in the pulpits. When I was choosing a seminary, someone gave me good advice. “A seminary is one thing,” he told me. “Faculty. Do not choose a denomination or a library or a location. Choose a great faculty. Everything else is incidental.” By “great faculty” he, of course, did not mean mere charismatic personalities. He meant that wonderful combination of passion for God, for truth, for the church, and for the perishing, along with a deep understanding of God and his Word, a high esteem for doctrinal truth, and careful interpretation and exposition of the infallible Bible. I believe his advice was right: choose a seminary for its teachers. Which means that when we pray for our seminaries, we pray especially for the minds and hearts of faculty and those who assess and hire them. When we stop to think for a while about what to pray, we start to clarify our own concept of ministry. We can’t pray without a goal. And we can’t have a goal for a seminary faculty unless we have a vision for what kind of pastors we want to see graduate. So the more we try to pray, the more we are forced to define what we value in the pastoral office. And once we clarify this, we begin to ponder what sort of person and pedagogy cultivates these values. So the will to pray for the seminary presses us on to develop at least a rudimentary pastoral theology and philosophy of theological education. What follows is a baby step in this direction – a rough sketch of what I think we need from our seminaries. My petitions cluster in three groups. Each group echoes a biblical value at which I think we should aim, and toward which we should pray, in pastoral education. Under the all-embracing goal of God’s glory (first petition), petitions 2-7 echo my goal that we cultivate a contrite and humble sense of human insufficiency. “I am the vine, you are the branches . . . apart from Me you can do nothing” (John 15:5). “We have this treasure in earthen vessels, so that the surpassing greatness of the power will be of God and not from ourselves” (2 Cor. 4:7). “Who is sufficient for these things?” (2 Cor. 2:16). Petitions 8-11 echo my goal that we cultivate a great passion for Christ’s all-sufficiency; and that, for all our enthusiasm over contemporary trends in ministry, the overwhelming zeal of a pastor’s heart be for the changeless fundamentals of the faith. “Whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord” (Philippians 3:7). Petitions 12-21 echo my goal that we cultivate strong allegiance to all of Scripture, and that what the apostles and prophets preached and taught in Scripture will be esteemed worthy of our careful and faithful exposition to God’s people. “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15). You will want to supplement these prayers with the burdens of your own heart for the seminaries you care about most deeply. But these are essential, I think, to breed power and purity in our churches. I pray:
That the supreme, heartfelt and explicit goal of every faculty member might be to teach and live in such a way that his students come to admire the glory of God with white-hot intensity (1 Corinthians 10:31; Matthew 5:16).
That, among the many ways this goal can be sought, the whole faculty will seek it by the means suggested in 1 Peter 4:11: Serve “in the strength which God supplies: in order that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ.”
That the challenge of the ministry might be presented in such a way that the question rises authentically in students’ hearts: “Who is sufficient for these things?” (2 Corinthians 2:16).
That in every course the indispensable and precious enabling of the Holy Spirit will receive significant emphasis in comparison to other means of ministerial success (Galatians 3:5).
That teachers will cultivate the pastoral attitude expressed in 1 Corinthians 15:10 and Romans 15:18: “I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me. . . . I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has wrought through me to win obedience from the Gentiles.”
That the poverty of spirit commended in Matthew 5:3 and the lowliness and meekness commended in Colossians 3:12 and Ephesians 4:2 and 1 Peter 5:5-6 will be manifested through the administration, faculty, and student body.
That the faculty might impress upon students by precept and example the immense pastoral need to pray without ceasing and to despair of all success without persevering prayer in reliance on God’s free mercy (Matthew 7:7-11; Ephesians 6:18).
That the faculty will help the students feel what an unutterably precious thing it is to be treated mercifully by the holy God, even though we deserve to be punished in hell forever (Matthew 25:46; 18:23-35; Luke 7:42, 47).
That, because of our seminary faculties, hundreds of pastors, 50 years from now, will repeat the words of John Newton on their death beds: “My memory is nearly gone; but I remember two things: that I am a great sinner and that Jesus is a great Savior.”
That the faculty will inspire students to unqualified and exultant joy in the venerable verities of Scripture. “The precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart” (Psalm 19:8
That every teacher will develop a pedagogical style based on James Denney’s maxim: “No man can give the impression that he himself is clever and that Christ is mighty to save.”
That in the treatment of Scripture there will be no truncated estimation of what is valuable for preaching and for life.
That students will develop a respect for and use of the awful warnings of Scripture as well as its precious promises; and that the command to “pursue holiness” (Hebrews 12:14) will not be blunted, but empowered, by the assurance of divine enablement. “Now the God of peace . . . equip you in every good thing to do His will, working in us that which is pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen” (Hebrews 13:20).
That there might be a strong and evident conviction that the deep and constant study of Scripture is the best way to become wise in dealing with people’s problems. “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
That the faculty may not represent the contemporary mood in critical studies which sees “minimal unity, wide-ranging diversity” in the Bible; but that they will pursue the unified “whole counsel of God” and help students see the way it all fits together. “For I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole purpose of God” (Acts 20:27).
That explicit biblical insights will permeate all class sessions, even when issues are treated with language and paradigms borrowed from contemporary sciences.
That God and his Word will not be taken for granted as the tacit “foundation” that doesn’t get talked about or admired.
That the faculty will mingle the “severe discipline” of textual analysis with an intense reverence for the truth and beauty of God’s Word.
That fresh discoveries will be made in the study of Scripture and shared with the church through articles and books.
That faculty, deans, and presidents will have wisdom and courage from God to make appointments which promote the fulfillment of these petitions.
And that boards and all those charged with leadership will be vigilant over the moral and doctrinal faithfulness of the faculty and exercise whatever discipline is necessary to preserve the biblical faithfulness of all that is taught and done.
Brothers, let us not merely criticize or commend the seminaries. God loves his church and his truth. He ordains to do his work through the intercession of his people. Generations of faithfulness are at stake. Therefore, brothers, let us pray for the seminaries.

Daily Bread….

You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. ” John 15:16

The Importance of Catechisms

"Do not think the catechism is a little thing to be read hastily and cast aside. Although I am a doctor, I have to do just as a child and say word for word every morning and whenever I have time the Lord's Prayer and the Ten Commandments, the Creed and Psalms. I have to do it every day and yet, I cannot stand as I would. But these smart folks in one reading want to be doctors of doctors. Therefore I beg thee wise saints to be persuaded that they are not such a great doctor as they think. To be occupied with God's Word helps against the world, the flesh and the Devil, and all bad thoughts. This is the true holy water with which to excorcise the Devil." [Martin Luther]

Scripture and Plain Reason

When Martin Luther was summoned to the Diet of Worms in 1521 and asked to recant his teaching, he replied, “Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe. God help me. Here I stand, I can do no other.”
Luther’s well-known formulation, “Scripture and plain reason,” is the only basis on which we can properly ground true spiritual discernment.
Scripture isn’t antithetical to sound, rational wisdom, though many today imagine otherwise. Reason is no substitute for Scripture, of course, but when good reason and sound logic are kept subject to the authority of Scripture, they are in no way a threat to the truth. On the contrary, the application of sound, logical thinking to the truth of Scripture is a key aspect of the formula for discernment.
Contrary to what a lot of people these days assume, discernment is not a mystical or intuitive ability to know the truth as if by magic. It is the skill of understanding, interpreting, and applying truth accurately. Discernment is a cognitive act. Therefore no one who spurns right doctrine or sound reason can be truly discerning.
Authentic spiritual discernment must begin with Scripture-revealed truth. Without a firm grounding in divine revelation, human reason always degenerates into skepticism (a denial that anything can be known for certain), rationalism (the theory that reason is a source of truth), secularism (an approach to life that purposely excludes God), or any number of other anti-Christian philosophies.
When Scripture condemns human wisdom (1 Cor. 3:19), it is not denouncing logic and reason per se, but humanistic ideology divorced from the divinely-revealed truth of God’s Word. In other words, reason apart from the Word of God leads inevitably to unsound ideas, but reason subjected to the Word of God is at the heart of wise spiritual discernment.

Pragmatism Potty In The Press

Just when I think I have seen and heard it all, there comes something like this story courtesy of OldTruth.com. With people dying and going to hell, we have “pastors” like this guy in Hastings, Minnesota wasting time and resources on building a better restroom. You have got to read this post, complete with photos of this lunacy.
Probably more interesting that this story itself, will be the onslaught of people who email me and attempt to justify this trash. Any person or people who would find justification for spending money to decorate a bathroom in a NASCAR motif, just so it will apparently attract more people, is either intellectually challenged or just a plain old-fashioned apostate. Yes, I said apostate.
Pragmatism Potty In The Press

Has the Roman Catholic church really changed?

source: Ken Silva, Apprising Minsiries
When dealing with the subject of the Roman Catholic Church as evangelical Protestants it is imperative to understand that absolutely nothing substantially has changed with the Church of Rome regarding their official core dogmas as they were pronounced by the Council of Trent. This was the historic Council held by the Roman Catholic Church in response to Luther and the Reformers and ran from 1545-1563.
One would certainly have to admit that eighteen years is more than enough time to formulate the doctrines of your organization. And it’s also adequate time to make sure that these dogmas are then articulated to the public at large in a clear enough manner for them to be completely understood.
In his article Thoughts on the Conflict over Justification the late Dr. Carl F.H. Henry a leading Evangelical theologian brings out a rather salient point when he says:
In the doctrinal decrees of the Council of Trent (1545–1563) the Roman church officially approved and canonized the doctrine of justification by faith-and-works, and thus condemned what had earlier been one strand in its own message, justification by faith.
The opportunity that the Reformers offered of a reformed church that would remain unified and universal was therefore rejected. A historic moment for theological dialogue and a major opportunity for doctrinal understanding were squandered. In consequence, evangelical-Catholic dialogue must now begin with [the Council of] Trent. Trent cannot be bypassed as merely the time-bound echo of one spectrum of influential Catholic dogmatics, since it expressed Church doctrine that Rome identified as authoritative and irreformable” (emphasis added).
In their informative little booklet The Facts On Roman Catholicism. respected protestant apologists Dr. John Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon are absolutely correct when they inform us:
In essence, the decrees made by the Council Of Trent on justification remain the standard of Roman Catholic theology. These decrees have never been modified, altered, or rescinded by Rome (39,40, emphasis added).
In fact, by using words like irreformable the Church of Rome has backed itself into a theological corner from which there is no return. Indeed, these dogmas of Roman Catholicism cannot be changed. Jimmy Akin, Director of Apologetics and Evangelization for Catholic Answers a pro-Roman Catholic apologetic organization confirms this. Writing in the December 1997 issue of This Rock Akin correctly points out:
The anathemas [of Trent] do not apply today, since the 1983 Code of Canon Law (CIC) abolished the canonical penalty of anathema, which was a form of excommunication. This does not mean that the [Roman Catholic] Church no longer rejects (sic) the beliefs that had been anathematized. The formula “let him be anathema” is a traditional expression that ecumenical councils used when making infallible definitions. Therefore, the dropping of the canonical penalty of anathema does not “undo” the infallible definitions expressed in Trent’s canons. An infallible definition, by its very nature, can never be “undone.” The [Roman Catholic] Church still believes and teaches all the definitions Trent issued.
Furthermore, even though a person no longer incurs anathema by violating the canons of Trent, he still may incur excommunication. Many of Trent’s definitions concern articles of faith, and for a Catholic to doubt them culpably or to deny them constitutes heresy (CIC 751), which in turn incurs excommunication (CIC 1364 §1) (emphasis added).
The following words from the late Dr. Walter Martin a recognized authority in the area of Comparative Religion will shed light on how the Roman Catholic Church operates here in the United States. He brings out something that is extremely critical for us to understand in trying to reach those with the true gospel of Jesus Christ who would consider themselves Roman Catholic. Dr Martin said:
The American Catholic is a different breed of cats from the Irish Catholic; the Spanish Catholic; the Italian Catholic. Different because there [in Europe] you find the theology I’m talking about now–today. Just as much as alive as when Boniface the VIII and…the popes of yesteryear wrote it, and said it had to be believed. You must understand what you are seeing in this country is not pure Roman Catholic theology. What you are seeing in this country is a watered down version adapted to the American mind so that the Americans will live with it.
Rome is a great chameleon. She changes color on what ever surface you place her. Here in this country she cannot do the things she does in Spain and Italy and survive. And so, she is different. The face is different, but underneath the theology remains unchanged. The statement [in 1964 by Pope Paul VI – “nothing really changes in the traditional doctrine.”] is true. They never change on the basics. They will change on the peripherals, [but] never on the centrality, the authority of the papacy” (Walter Martin, Roman Catholicism – Part 2 of 3, side 1, cassette #4011, Walter Martin’s Religious InfoNet, emphasis added).
Incidentally Dr. Martin was speaking in the 1980’s some twenty years after the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) which people are still under the misguided impression changed Roman Catholic dogmas such as the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. As you will see from official Church of Rome sources Dr. Martin was quite correct in his assessment of the Roman Catholic Church. For as Ankerberg and Weldon point out while discussing the changes made during Vatican II – “While it is true the Church has undergone significant alterations, major, permanent doctrinal change is not one of them” (ibid., 16, emphasis added).
To Be Or Not To Be The True Church
And precisely the problem we run in to immediately as we attempt to understand Roman Catholicism are the word games. The image is presented through various media to the American public that there has been a change away from their dogmas, but upon closer examination this does not prove to be true at all.
In a recent article entitled Vatican II—The Myths from the library of the “Global Catholic Network” EWTN we read:
All that the Church taught when Vatican II began is still [Roman] Catholic teaching. The changes whether made by the Council or decided upon since, are [only] in practical matters such as the liturgy or discipline, but always leaving doctrine unchanged (emphasis added).
Then there is this by Rino Fisichella Auxiliary Bishop of Rome in L’Osservatore Romano which is the newspaper of the Holy See. On page 10 of an article called “Vatican I’s Teaching As Timely As Ever,” which ran September 13, 2000, we read:
on 8 December 1869 Plus IX brought the Council back to the centre of the Church. Holding it at St Peter’s Basilica in the Vatican was equivalent to recovering the great tradition of the medieval Councils, … The First Vatican Council, from this symbolic standpoint, initiated an event that would remain in the Church’s history as a point of no return for the growth of faith (emphasis added).
Again, as you can see, Roman Catholicism by their own sources remains the same. Auxiliary Bishop Fisichella continues:
The [Roman Catholic] Church presented the divine nature of her institution…a decision of historical import was reached. The proclamation of infallibility embraced and expressed that sense of faith of all the baptized, which sees in Peter the rock on which Christ has indefectibly and infallibly established his Church (ibid., emphasis added).
Regardless of what we may think of some of his other activities, before a worldwide audience on the The John Ankerberg Show, Dr. D. James Kennedy at least had the intestinal fortitude to be willing to put all this all into its proper perspective when he tells us:
The Council Of Trent [was a full] 18 years…spent examining the doctrines of the Protestant Reformation…[and] this has never been altered or denied by the [Roman] Catholic Church – “if anyone says that the faith which justifies is nothing else but trust in the divine mercy–which pardons sins because of Christ or that it is trust alone by which we are justified” – which is what every Evangelical Christian would say… “Let him be anathema.” Which means let him be accursed. Every Evangelical Christian in the world stands under the official–[and] never changed curse of the Roman [Catholic] Church. (Grace To You, Irreconcilable Differences, cassette tape GTY54, parts 1-3, side 1).
What everyone needs to do at this point is to stop equivocating as the truth is that the Roman Catholic Church is trapped by her own misapplied logic. Here’s the issue: If, when the Pope “speaks ex cathedra– that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians,” and he thus “defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church,” then by definition those “definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable.” Thus the apostate Church of Rome can never change unless she admits that the above is, in fact, wrong.
And as such those who would truly call themselves evangelical Protestants must heed the words of the great Reformer Dr. Martin Luther who said:
The negotiation about doctrinal agreement displeases me altogether, for this is utterly impossible unless the pope has his papacy abolished. Therefore avoid and flee those who seek the middle of the road. Think of me after I am dead and such middle-of-the-road men arise, for nothing good will come of it. There can be no compromise (What Luther Says, emphasis added).

The “Age of Accountability” By John MacArthur

What is the Scriptural basis for an “age of accountability” regarding a child’s salvation?
I think the best way to answer that is to say this: There is no “age of accountability” identified in Scripture, as such. There is nothing in the Bible that says, “Here is the age and from here on you are responsible!” I think the reason for that is because children mature at different paces. That would be true from culture to culture, and from age to age in history.
So the Lord in His wisdom didn’t identify a specific moment. God knows when each soul is accountable. God knows when real rejection has taken place; when the love of sin exists in the heart. When enmity with God is conscious and willful. God alone knows when that occurs.
The Jews had identified about the age of twelve, and that was when Jesus was taken by His parents to Jerusalem for the Passover and the Feast, and there He was in the temple questioning the doctors. You have a good illustration there, and Jesus was asking profound questions at that point. This then seems to be the age when those kinds of questions begin to be personal in the heart of a child.
So I have always felt that somewhere around age twelve, the transition from childhood to adulthood takes place. It’s probably not totally disassociated from puberty, where there is a consciousness of one’s own impulses, feelings, drives, desires, and therefore sinful attitudes and passions, and whatever else starts to emerge.
With this in mind, I believe that it is absolutely essential, all along the way with children, that every time they desire to make a commitment to Jesus Christ, at whatever age, you (as someone giving spiritual oversight to them) encourage them to do that. Because you don’t know, we can’t know, when their desire is indicative of genuine saving faith. When a young child says, “I want to invite Christ into my life,” then you need to encourage them to do that. Every one of those, I see as a step towards God. At what point that becomes saving faith — only God knows for certain.
But, I also believe, that up until that point of real saving faith, God in His mercy, would save that child, should that child die. I have been doing some study on that very issue, because when I was at a conference recently, and that question was asked of a panel of very astute theologians — no one gave an adequate answer. And I thought, “How can we have theologians who don’t know the answer to that question? What about the children before the age of accountability, when they die, do they go to heaven?” I think the answer is “yes,” and I think it is a strong “YES,” based upon the confidence of David who said, when his little baby died: “He cannot come to me, but I shall go to him.” And David knew where he was going; David knew he was going to heaven — he knew that. There wasn’t any question in his mind about that.
So when he said, “I shall go to him,” in those words was the anticipation and the joyful hope of reunion. Now, some people have said, “Well, all he meant was, ‘I am going to be buried next to him.’” There wouldn’t be any reason to say, “He can’t come to me, but, oh I’m so glad I am going to be buried next to him!” There would be no joy in that; that wouldn’t satisfy anything. So I think at that point, he was expressing the confidence that he was going to heaven; he knew that was where he would find his son, who had died before the age of accountability.
Another interesting thing that occurs numerous times in the Old Testament, is that children (including those who die) are referred to as “innocent.” The Hebrew word that is used for “innocent” is used numerous times in the Old Testament to refer to “not being guilty” — literally, “being taken to court and found ‘not guilty.’” In fact, the OT refers to the babies that were passed through the fire to Moloch [false god] as the “innocents,” so I believe that God, prior to the “age of accountability” treats them as “innocent.” It doesn’t mean that they are not fallen; it doesn’t mean that they are not sinful — it does mean that God mercifully treats them as “innocent” in spite of that, and He has to exercise grace to do that, just as He exercises grace to save those who believe.
In summary, the “age of accountability” is not clearly identified in Scripture. I think it’s up to parents; every time a child wants to respond and open the heart to Christ — you need to encourage that, all the way along, until they come to that point where it is genuine, and the Lord knows that even if you don’t.

What happens to children who die before they can accept the gospel? Dr RC Sproul

What happens to children who die before they can accept the gospel?

In my own theological tradition, we believe that those children who die in infancy are numbered among the redeemed. That is to say, we hope and have a certain level of confidence that God will be particularly gracious toward those who have never had the opportunity to be exposed to the gospel, such as infants or children who are too disabled to hear and understand. The New Testament does not teach us this explicitly. It does tell us a lot about the character of God—about his mercy and his grace—and gives us every reason to have that kind of confidence in his dealings with children. Some will make a distinction between infants in general and those who are children of believers, the reason being that when God made a covenant with Abraham, he made it not only with Abraham, but with Abraham’s descendants. In fact, as soon as God entered into that relationship with Abraham, he brought Isaac into it—when Isaac was still an infant and didn’t have an understanding of what was going on. This is the reason, incidentally, that a large number of Christian bodies practice the baptism of infants; they believe that children of believers are to be incorporated into full membership in the church. We see this relationship within the family in biblical history. We also see David’s situation in the Old Testament when his infant child dies. Yet David is given the confidence that he will see that child again in heaven. That story of David and his dying child gives a tremendous consolation to parents who have lost infants to death. Now the point that we have to make is that infants who die are given a special dispensation of the grace of God; it is not by their innocence but by God’s grace that they are received into heaven. There are great controversies that hover over the doctrine of original sin. Lutherans disagree with Roman Catholics, who disagree in turn with Presbyterians, etc., on the scope and extent of what we call original sin. Original sin does not refer to the first sin that was committed, but rather to the result of that—the entrance of sin into the world so that all of us as human beings are born in a fallen state. We come into this world with a sin nature, and so the baby that dies, dies as a sinful child. And when that child is received into heaven, he is received by grace.

Sermons for Little People Dr Phil Ryken

Last night I had a night off from duties leading worship and thus had a rare opportunity to sit in the worship service with my family. Whenever I get the chance, I try to do what my mother did for me when I was roughly age 5 to 8: draw little pictures with short captions to illustrate the sermon. The quality of the artwork is low (mainly stick figures and other crude drawings), but my efforts are generally appreciated by Jack (age 6), Kathryn (age 5), and maybe even Kirsten (age 11). Over the course of a half hour sermon I typically draw 15 to 20 boxed pictures on the back of bulletin inserts or what have you. I believe my mother started drawing sermon pictograms for me after reading a book by Edith Schaeffer, who apparently did the same thing for her children. It has been a good family tradition for us -- a way to help children make the most of the sermons they hear.

The Universe, Our Playground Dr.Phil Ryken

It was good to attend The Gospel Coalition at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School a few weeks ago -- hosted by Tim Keller and D. A. Carson, and jointly sponsored by a couple of dozen evangelical pastors from a wide variety of churches. Although I was only able to attend half the conference, it was good to hear Alliance Council Member John Piper preach from Romans 8 on the new heavens and the new earth. I was especially blessed by a comment to this effect: "The universe is not so important in itself, but more so as the playground of God's children . . . and the temple for God's children . . . and the craft shop."

Biblical Apologetics

The Bible does not present “apologetics” as simply an academic discipline or exercise - far from it; but it does speak clearly about defending the faith by having an intelligent grasp of the hope we posssess as revealed in God’s Word and the skill in presenting its claims. That is the heart and soul of apologetics: a defense of the Christian faith, the gospel, and the hope we have in Christ that lies in us. Read the article article……

How do you make heretic whine?…..

The answer….you give him a mic at a press conference. I have been critcized many times for the use of the term heretic, but in the case of Brian McLaren, it certainly applies. To describe McLaren as a liberal is being unkind to liberals. In this YouTube, McLaren, along with other free-swinging “progressive Christians” such as Jim Forbes, speak at a press conference to whine about how they are not getting their fair share of attention. Boo-hoo!
http://theexpositor.wordpress.com/2007/06/05/how-do-you-make-heretic-whine/trackback/

Decisions, Decisions

How can Christians make God-honoring decisions?

Decision-making can be a daunting task for anyone, but Christians have the unique advantage of making decisions that are informed by God’s Word. To do so, there are at least three factors to consider.
First, you must obey the moral will of God as it is revealed in Scripture. If Scripture prohibits the action in question, your decision is easy: don’t do it.
Likewise, if one of the options in your choice causes you to neglect something God specifically commands you to do, you are required to make the choice that will allow you to fulfill your biblical obligation. For example, if God requires you to be an active part of a local church — Hebrews 10:25 indicates that He does — any decision that prohibits you from that is against God’s revealed will. In order to uphold God’s moral will in your decision making, ask yourself, “What does God’s Word say about it?” If it says anything, obey that (1 John 5:3). If it says nothing, you have freedom and do not need to fear missing God’s will or sinning against Him (Romans 14:2-6, 22).
Second, good decision-making requires that you exercise biblical wisdom. Such wisdom comes from a diligent study of God’s Word, coupled with God’s generous provision. James encourages those who lack wisdom to “ask of God, who gives to all men generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him” (James 1:5). To make wise decisions, you need to gather necessary information, consider all the options carefully, seek godly counsel, and then choose the option that is most sensible (Proverbs 2:1-11).
Finally, you need to consider your own desire. If the Bible is silent about your decision, and if one choice is not clearly wiser than the other, then do what you want. You have the freedom to do so, and God sovereignly works out His plan through your desires (Psalm 37:4; Philippians 2:13).
The above process presupposes that you are submitted to Christ and filled with the Spirit. Otherwise you won’t be able to make biblical decisions, as sin blinds your ability to understand and apply God’s Word to your life. However, if you do have a vital relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ and are walking in the Spirit — as opposed to the flesh — you are free to make decisions so long as they don’t violate God’s revealed (moral) will. You shouldn’t be concerned that your decisions will somehow derail God’s sovereign will for you life, because He routinely works through your decisions to accomplish what He purposes.

The Relevant Reformation Restroom?

They say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and so I may be the only one to think that my own artwork is a thing of beauty. Regardless of whether this qualifies as 'art' (and there is no reason why it shouldn't, considering some of what passes as 'abstract art'), my Reformed rendition of the 'pragmatism potty' that we covered in a previous post, is at least worth a laugh. Mark this day on your calendar, it's a rare humor post on Old Truth!
If you have yet to see the photos of the seeker sensitive church that rev'ed-up their men's room, you'll want to have a look at those first, otherwise you won't think this is very funny at all. Interestingly, that church's homepage used to be saturated with photos and verbiage expressing "just look how cool our men's room is", but all of that is gone now, after the story made it's way onto so many blogs and a Christian radio show or two.
But I was just thinking, since so many of these churches behave as though Christianity is like Apple Computers (like it was invented by a couple of young guys, out of their garage, a few decades ago), they could really benefit from some historical reminders to the contrary. And since this particular church likes to use restrooms to communicate things, I put my novice artistic skills to work creating something that might communicate a little bit of church history right back to them.
So without further ado, let me present the Relevant Reformation Restroom as a proposed renovation of their existing Pragmatism Potty.
In this rendition, we have a mural of Martin Luther burning his papal excommunication bull, and there is a full theological library within easy reach; we've mounted a Puritan wall calendar above the mirror, and have installed some additional wall art of the Reformers. Last but not least, there's a TULIP air freshener by the door that will keep the place scented like a field of fresh flowers in 17th century Dordrecht.
I suppose if I have to attend a church that insists on communicating a message to me through a decorated restroom, given the choice - I'll take this one. At least it will remind me that Christianity goes back further than Bill Hybels, Robert Schuller, and churches who take 'relevance' to absurd extremes.

Points that make us walk with God

We must be reconciled to God. The only way for man to be reconciled to God is through Christ (Rom 5:11, Eph 2:18, Heb 2:17, Gal 3:13, and many other verses).
We must be friends of God. Only in Christ can we become God’s friend (1John 5:20, John 1:18)
We must walk in God’s way of holiness. This way can only be learned from Christ (Heb 10:20, John 14:6, Is 35:8, 42:16)
We must have strength. In ourselves, we do not have the strength to walk with God, but our strength is in Christ (Phil 4:13, 2Cor 3:5, Eph 6:10)
We must have confidence. God is a consuming fire, and no sinful creature can be in His presence, let alone walk with Him, without being in Christ (Eph 3:12, Heb 10:19, Rom 8:15).
We must have the same purpose as God. Here again, we cannot hope to be able to walk with our lives completely consummed with the glory of God except through Christ. [John Owen]

Continuing to Fight the War on Error By John MacArthur

What is truth? We began with that question, and my earnest hope is that the answer would be clear: Truth is not any individual’s opinion or imagination. Truth is what God decrees. And He has given us an infallible source of saving truth in His revealed Word.
For the true Christian, this should not be a complex issue. God’s Word is what all pastors and church leaders are commanded to proclaim, in season and out of season—when it is well received and even when it is not (2 Timothy 4:2). It is what every Christian is commanded to read, study, meditate on, and divide rightly. It is what we are called and commissioned by Christ to teach and proclaim to the uttermost parts of the earth.
Is there mystery even in the truth God has revealed? Of course. “ ‘For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways,’ says the LORD” (Isaiah 55:8). In 1 Corinthians 2:16, Paul paraphrased Isaiah 40:13–14: “Who has known the mind of the LORD that he may instruct Him?”
But then Paul immediately added this: “We have the mind of Christ.” Christ has graciously given us enough truth and enough understanding to equip us for every good deed—including the work of earnestly contending for the faith against deceivers who try to twist the truth of the gospel. Although we cannot know the mind of God exhaustively, we certainly can know it sufficiently to be warriors for the cause of truth against the lies of the kingdom of darkness.
And we are commanded to participate in that battle. God Himself sounded the call to battle when His Spirit moved Jude to write his short epistle and it permanently entered the canon of Scripture. This is not a duty any faithful Christian can shirk. Earthly life for the faithful Christian can never be a perpetual state of ease and peace. That’s why the New Testament includes so many descriptions of the Christian life as nonstop warfare: Ephesians 6:11-18; 2 Timothy 2:1-4; 2 Timothy 4:7; 2 Corinthians 6:7; 10:3-5; 1 Thessalonians 5:8. Those unwilling to join the fight against untruth and false religion are no true friends of Christ.
The handful of vignettes from church history we have examined together in this book are only a brief introduction to how the Truth War has been fought over the past two millennia. Look at any period of church history and you will discover this significant fact: Whenever the people of God have sought peace with the world or made alliances with false religions, it has meant a period of serious spiritual decline, even to the point where at times the truth seemed almost to be in total eclipse. But whenever Christians have contended earnestly for the faith, the church has grown and the cause of truth has prospered. May it be so in our time.
In other words, the Truth War is a good fight (1 Timothy 6:12). So let’s wage good warfare (1 Timothy 1:18)—for the honor of Christ and the glory of God.

Removing the Offense of the Cross

“If the professed convert distinctly and deliberately declares that he knows the Lord’s will but does not mean to attend to it, you are not to pamper his presumption, but it is your duty to assure him that he is not saved. Do not suppose that the Gospel is magnified or God glorified by going to the worldlings and telling them that they may be saved at this moment by simply accepting Christ as their Savior, while they are wedded to their idols, and their hearts are still in love with sin. If I do so I tell them a lie, pervert the Gospel , insult Christ, and turn the grace of God into lasciviousness.” -C.H. SPURGEON
Those kinds of words fall on deaf ears today.They are not cool, contemporary, relatable, winsome, attractive. They sound too harsh, too judgmental, too defining, too narrow, and… too biblical. Compare the above with the following attempts in addressing a lost world.
Just tell an audiencethat God is crazy about you; that He cares for you and doesn’t want to punish you; that the dread Sovereign of the universe is a powerless lover down on one knee begging you to be His bride and has to wait to see if you choose to accept Him; that the whole universe is proposing to you; that He wants you to fall in love with Him; that His law is designed just to make this world a better place; and as you proclaim the gospel to insure the highest success from as many nonbelievers as possible, make sure you don’t speak about repentance from sin; justification by faith; the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ; submission to the Lordship of Jesus Christ; don’t ever mention Scripture specifically, open up a Bible and actually read it, or use Bible sounding words; just carry a surfboard against the backdrop of beautiful scenery, walk along a beach and show that you’re a regular guy who can relate by talking about how fast the planet earth revolves around the sun, get all giggly that God created laugher, and make it as comfortable as possible for people to hear some things about the gospel; but don’t ever mention that you must come to the end of yourself–deny yourself; take up your cross and follow Him; don’t ever tell them that God is angry with them and His wrath abides on them; don’t mention Hell (to negative); don’t ever tell them that they have to hate their own lives, their father, mother, brother, sister, son and daughter and love Him more than all other loves or they cannot be His disciple; just reassure them that God loves them just the way they are and wants to give them a better life if they would cry out and say “I love You too.”
Stop. Think.What kind of Jesus are you communicating to others? It’s important we critique our methods and our message–it is incumbent we do so for lives are at stake and God will us hold us accountable for the stewardship of His divine mysteries. No wonder Paul said, For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade men…” (2 Cor. 5:10-11a).
I want to encourage you to take some time today and read one of the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke or John)and see how the Lord Jesus Christ called people to follow Him. And then compare it to today’s pastors and what they think is the way to present His gospel. In our postmodern evangelical world, it’s no longer necessary or required to have to accurately preach the Word, rightly divide the truth, or to proclaim the whole gospel. It’s just enough to make “a good-faith attempt to preach the Gospel to the lost.” PC translation, the effort is more important than the message.
Listen, Jesus Christ isn’t anybody’s “spiritual Pez dispenser”that we can turn into whomever we choose by repackaging Him in order for Him and His message to relate to our lost world. He is not to be triffled with. He is God incarnate, beloved, and He must be reckoned with in His virgin birth, His sinless life, His gospel of sola fide, His once for all death, His bodily resurrection, His ascension, His reign as King and Mediator at the right hand of the throne of God. He is not asking you to accept Him, fall in love with Him, shower bouquets of flowers at His feet, bring Him candy, or date Him. He is not proposing to you or asking you to marry Him. He is commanding you to repent of your sins; submit to Him as Lord of your life; forsake all other loves and all other claims to eternal life; to come to the end of yourself; believe solely in Him; take up your cross and follow Him. You don’t have the luxury or His permission to turn Him into a passive, effeminate Divine lover who can only beg, but cannot elect.
Some represent God as a powerless lover, bending His sovereign knee proposing marriage to sinful man, begging him to accept Him as their Savior; rather than picturing sinful man bending the knee before a holy God crying out for mercy that his sins be forgiven in repentance to inherit eternal life and be given saving faith to confess Jesus Christ as Lord unto salvation. The video presents God begging sinful man to choose Him; the Bible presents sinful bowing the knee in godly fear before a holy God begging for forgiveness. Which picture of God and man do you present?
Do you proclaim Jesus as your divine Pez dispenser or do you proclaim Him as the only hope of salvation… as Sovereign Lord? Is the cross just a trinket that you wear? Has your presentation of the gospel removed the offense of the cross or do you preach “Jesus Christ and Him crucified…” We must get this right–this is not a game.

The Saint's Excellency

Indeed the saints in themselves have no excellence as they are in and of themselves…. They are in themselves filthy, vile creatures and see themselves to be so. they have an excellence and a glory in them because they have Christ dwelling in them…. Tis some. thing of God. This holy heavenly spark is put into the soul in con version, and God maintains it there. All the power of hell cannot put it out…. Though it be small … 'tis a powerful thing. It has influence on the heart to govern that, and brings forth holy fruits in the life, and won't cease to prevail 'til it has consumed all the corruption that is left in the heart and 'til it has turned the whole soul, as it were, into a pure, holy and heavenly flame. Jonathan Edwards

Episcopal Church Continues to Harden its Stance Against Marriage

WASHINGTON, June 4 /Christian Newswire/ -- New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch signed a law on May 31 that makes civil unions for homosexual couples legal; it will take effect in January 2008. The governor stated his belief that the civil unions will not "threaten" marriage. The Episcopal Church's bishop of the Diocese of New Hampshire, the Rt. Rev. Gene Robinson, told the press that Episcopal priests in the diocese can bless civil unions: "Just like in marriages, every priest will have the option to bless or not to bless."
IRD Director of Anglican Action Ralph Webb commented,
"Bishop Robinson's allowance of blessing civil unions as a local option-even though such blessings are not required of priests-provides yet another illustration of how the Episcopal Church opposes the traditional definition of marriage as a covenant between one man and one woman.
"It's tragic that just within the last year, we have seen increasing evidence of a hardening of this position. Some Episcopal Church parishioners, parishes, parachurch groups, and diocesan bishops opposed state marriage amendments upholding the traditional definition of marriage last fall. And this spring, the denomination's Executive Council passed a resolution urged against future General Conventions being held in states where the marriage amendments are in effect.
"And the tragedy is on full display in the bishop's phrase, 'Just like in marriages.' What's at stake here is the Judeo-Christian understanding that no other relationship-whether that of cohabiting heterosexual couples or same-sex partners-in which two people commit to living together can approximate marriage or should receive the church's blessing. That understanding informs the Episcopal Church's own Book of Common Prayer.
"It's the Episcopal Church's stance against that understanding that has led to many of the current problems in the Anglican Communion today-and that has led it to disregard the concerns of the primates of the Anglican Communion. It is also partially that stance that has led many thousands of Episcopalians to leave the denomination in the last few years."
Special Note: The primates (i.e., leaders of Anglican Communion provinces) have given the Episcopal Church's House of Bishops until September 30 to provide assurances that it will neither authorize same- sex blessings nor consent to the consecration of bishops living in a same-sex relationship.

WHILE THE AMERICAN CHURCH PLAYS..........

While we the contemporary church in America looks for more ways to “feel” like a church without appearing to be a church, or when one authors analogy of his faith in God can be compared to penguin sex; in other parts of the world, real believers face losing their lives just for being Christians and refusing to deny their faith.
Another case in point can be seen in a story in World Net Daily today. The headline reads, “Descendant of Muhammad converts to Christianity:Face threat to life if forced to Turkey”.
Here isi the testimony of Sedar Dedeoglu, who is said to be a direct descendant of Muhammad, and has converted to faith in Christ while living in Germany. Now Dedeoglu is facing death threats solely because Christ has called this man to himself.
No lattes, no book deals, no hula dance ministry, just a man and his family who came to the point where they knew that Jesus Christ is more than just a good prophet, or a cultural architect, or futurist; He is Lord!
How shallow the American church has become. While believers in other parts of the world are being persecuted for their faith, the American church wastes time with coffee bars, profanity from the pulpit

Understanding Satan By DR RC Sproul

Has Satan been given dominion over the earth until Jesus returns? If so, why was he given this authority?

There’s only one supreme Lord over all the world, and that’s God. We are told in the Old Testament that this whole concept of dominion was shared with Adam and Eve. Man was given dominion over the earth to be vice-regents for God, that is, vice kings to represent God’s reign on this planet. Of course, we made a terrible mess out of it, and we were subjected more and more to the power of Satan. That power of Satan was dealt not just a significant blow but a fatal blow by Christ in his incarnation. We’re told, first of all, that God the Father gives to Jesus all authority in heaven and on earth. In his ascension, Christ is seated at the right hand of God, where he is crowned as the King of kings and the Lord of lords. That was a tremendous blow to all worldly or satanic powers, principalities, and spiritual wickedness in high places. So if you ask me who is in dominion over this world right now, I think the New Testament is perfectly clear on that. The one who is in dominion is the Lord. The Lord God omnipotent reigns, and the Lord Christ reigns over this world right now. His kingdom may not be of this world, but it certainly includes this world, and Jesus has all authority over heaven and earth. Even at this moment, as I’m discussing this question, Satan’s authority and power are limited and subordinate to the authority that is vested in Christ. Christ right now is the king of this earth. His kingdom is invisible, and not everybody acknowledges it. People are giving more allegiance to the prince of darkness than to the Prince of Peace, but that is an act of usurpation on the part of Satan. His power is restricted, limited, and temporal. What has happened briefly is this: The power and authority of Satan has been dealt a fatal blow by Christ. The Cross, the Incarnation, the Resurrection, and the Ascension tremendously weakened any power or authority that Satan enjoyed, but it didn’t annihilate him. That will come later, when Christ completes his work of redemption with the consummation of his kingdom. All things will be brought into captivity to him, and every knee will bow to him, including the fallen angels, who will bow in submission to his authority.

BIBLICAL FOREKNOWLEDGE ? By Nathan Williams

There is no doubt that the Bible teaches the doctrine of election. The language of God’s picking and choosing fills the pages of Scripture. For some people this language can be difficult to read and even more difficult to accept. How can a good and gracious God choose people for salvation based on no merit of their own? How can that be fair?
Some have tried to deal with what they see as the thorny doctrine of election by a misunderstanding of the term “foreknowledge.” They have no problem with election because they understand election to mean that God simply looked down the corridors of time and saw who would exercise faith and then elected those people to salvation. This helps to alleviate some of the pressure they feel when talking of “picking” and “choosing.”
But is this the correct understanding of the biblical term foreknowledge? Is God’s election a response to those who will exercise faith in Him? In these couple of posts I hope to shed some light on the biblical term foreknowledge and its relationship to election.
Definitions
There are 2 main explanations of the term “foreknowledge.” One explanation takes “foreknowledge” to be simple prescience. God knows in the sense that he perceives those who will exercise faith in Him. This would be the equivalent of saying that I “know” that my car is an ugly green. I understand the facts of the situation because my senses have supposed them to be true.
The second explanation argues that the term “foreknowledge” means a bit more than simple knowledge. Those holding to this explanation would teach that the term can mean intimate knowledge and not just prescience. The dispute is based on the Greek word proginosko. One Arminian writer ( C. Gordon Olson) says, “The verb simply means, ‘to know beforehand, foreknow’ and the noun, ‘foreknowledge,’ or ‘prescience.’” He claims that Calvinists have made far too much of the supposed “pregnant meaning” in the Greek term proginosko.
The facts show that it is plausible to think that this term connotes more than simple prescience. There are multiple locations throughout the New Testament where the term cannot possibly mean a simple prescience (Mt. 25:12; Jn. 10:14; I Cor. 8:3; 2 Tim. 2:19). In fact, the term can and often does mean much more than natural perception. The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament states: “Thus knowledge has an element of acknowledgement. But it also has an element of emotion, or better, of movement of will . . . .” In another place the same dictionary says: “His foreknowledge, however, is an election or foreordination of His people (Rom. 8:29; 11:2) or Christ (I Pet. 1:20).”
With this proper understanding of “foreknowledge” as an intimate knowledge, it helps us to see that God does not simply perceive who will choose Him and then elect them. “Thus, ‘according to the foreknowledge’ suggests ‘according to God’s fatherly care for you before the world was made’” (Wayne Grudem).
Specific Texts
There are several places throughout Scripture where the term “foreknowledge” is used. I would like to look at a few of those and explain how implausible it is that the term means simple prescience. First, in Acts 2:23 the passage says that Jesus was “delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God.” It is interesting to note here that the word by is used of God’s foreknowledge. Would simple knowledge act in this way? Simple foreknowledge would know but would not act.
Romans 8:29 also uses the word “foreknowledge” in reference to our salvation. It is used as the beginning link in a series of words that describe the acts of God in salvation. In this passage the object of the verb “foreknew” is personal, referring to “those whom.” Foreknowledge here means to set a personal love upon. It is very close in meaning to the next word in the chain, predestined, but there is a difference. “Foreknowledge” emphasizes God’s covenantal love for the one He has chosen, while “predestined” emphasizes his electing will.
Three chapters later in Romans 11:2 we have a conclusive example that “foreknowledge” as used in the Bible means “intimate knowledge” and not simply to know beforehand. The verb here cannot mean only knowledge based on what we know of Israel and the surrounding context. Did God see in advance some reason to choose Israel as His special nation? There was nothing worthy about the people of Israel. In fact, it was quite the opposite. They were most unworthy (see v. 3)! Yet, Romans 11:2 says that God foreknew them. Surely, the word used here must mean something more than to look down the corridors of time and see who responds as God desires.
Finally, I Peter 1:1, 2 is the classic text used to teach that God’s election is based on His foreseeing man’s faith. The passage says that we “are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father.” Proponents of Arminianism teach that we should understand this to mean that God’s election is based on His foreknowledge. God only chooses those whom He sees will respond in faith. Even a casual glance at the text will show this is an impossible assumption to take from the text. The verse clearly says “according to” and not “on the basis of.” The preposition translated “according to” in English is kata in Greek. This word can never mean “on the basis of.” It has a variety of definitions, and they all indicate “the harmony of the items mentioned . . . ” (Buswell). Thus, foreknowledge does not provide the basis for election. Rather, it always operates in harmony with His electing will. His knowledge is predicated on His choosing, not on the influence of any outside will. Nothing about this passage suggests that God reacts to human faith.
In our next installment (scheduled for next weekend) I will take a look at some further reasons for denying that “foreknowledge” means simply to know beforehand. In so doing, I hope to show that there are clear biblical reasons to believe that God’s choice of who will be saved is based on His sovereign prerogative alone.

The Lord takes care of His own

I had also this consideration, that I if I should now venture all for God, I engaged God to take care of my concernments; but if I forsook Him and His ways for fear of any trouble that should come to me or mine, then I should not only falsify my profession but should count also that my concernments were not so sure…This was a smarting consideration, and was as spurs unto my flesh. {John Bunyan]

Addressing Our Culture w/Reformed Christianity

In this audio clip RC Sproul says: At the heart of Reformed Theology, at the heart of Luther and Calvin's struggle, and in Knox and Jonathan Edwards, were men who were awakened to the greatness, to the majesty, to the holiness, and the sovereignty of God. By contemplating the holiness and sovereignty of God, they were driven to develop their doctrines of the grace of God. Because until you meet a God who is holy and is sovereign, you don't know what grace means. I don't think we are ever going to see a healthy evangelical church until the evangelical church is solidly Reformed, where it takes biblical Christianity seriously with a right concept of a sovereign God.
That's because unreformed Christianity has failed in our culture. It has been pervasively antinomian (no law, no Lordship), and has been pervasively liberal in it's trends and tendencies away from scripture, because there's been no real basis in the sovereignty of God.
Today's evangelicals are never amazed by grace, because they don't understand sovereignty, they don't understand God. The evangelical church today is sick, more sick than it has ever been. We need a style and a variety of Christianity that is not a religion, but is a life and a worldview, where at the heart and foundational structure of it is a sound and deep biblical concept of the character of God.
That is RC Sproul's Christianity, that is my Christianity, and that is - as I like to say on this blog - the old truth. That's also why OldTruth.com endeavors to be more than just a news service or a watch-blog. One of the aims here is to focus on the underlying flawed theology that has caused so many methodology problems today, and press on to right biblical thinking which should influence our whole approach to church and evangelism.

Listen-in now to this short 7 minute audio excerpt from Sproul's teaching entitled "Who is Truth?". It's part of his series called a Blueprint for Thinking.
CLICK HERE TO PLAY NOW. . .

Jesus Died for 'Climate Change'?

Did Jesus die on the cross to 'save' us from global warming? According to Emergent leader and neo-liberal Brian McClaren apparently he did.
Last week McLaren spoke at a homiletics festival in Tennessee (homiletics is the art of preaching) and McLaren had much to say about what topics pastors should and shouldn't be preaching about. In McLaren's view, sermons about doctrine, sin, and salvation through Jesus alone create factions and should be replaced with messages about global issues.
Here is how one paper covered the story.
Brian McLaren, an author and Christian activist who spoke Thursday, said many television and radio evangelists had delivered to their listeners the kind of fear-mongering and finger-pointing messages that promote factionalism.
In his lecture at First Baptist Church, McLaren proposed that preaching should remedy, rather than incite, controversial issues.
These include poverty and climate change, and he encouraged his audience not to shy away from such global issues.
"We can't really afford to waste too many Sundays with so much at stake," he said.
"If instead we play it safe, in a true sense we have switched sides from being part of the solution to being part of the problem."(Online Source)
Did you catch the part about wasting Sundays? Since when is preaching on a Biblical passage or Christian doctrine, or proclaiming the death and resurrection of Jesus for sinners a 'wasted Sunday'?
What problem does McLaren think that Jesus was solving while suffering on the cross? Since there weren't any epistles written by Ralph Nader or Al Gore we can say with confidence that Jesus' death wasn't about climate change. Therefore, that is not what our sermons should be about . Instead, the Bible tells us that the Church of Jesus Christ is supposed to preach a message of repentance from sins and belief in the gospel.
Luke 24:46 and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, 47 and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things.
According to the Bible, what is at stake is salvation from the eternal judgment and wrath of God. The message that Jesus gave us to preach is more urgent, more pressing and more important than the highly dubious issue of man-made global climate change. And there is the rub. Mclaren doesn't believe the Bible is God's word nor does he believe its exclusive claims and message.
The news report was right in describing McLaren as an activist. But, his denial of the substitionary attonement, the innerancy of scripture, and his denial of hell all disqualify him from being called a 'Christian' Activist.

Recognizing the validity of different religions?!

Dr. Brad R. Braxton, Associate Professor of Homiletics and New Testament, at Vanderbilt University was another of the speakers at last week's Homiletics Festival and he did a fine job of showing us that he is also a card carrying member of the neo-liberal cult of emergence and relativism. Here is what Dr. Braxton said at the preaching festival:
"Recognizing the validity of different religions, he said, is a necessity for contemporary pastors.
"The challenge is, 'How can I speak in a way that says Christianity is important to me and my community, but I realize there are other religions that have perspectives?' " Braxton said.
"That's how the dialogue will be moved forward."
Well now that is odd? Dr. Braxton holds a Ph.D. in New Testament Studies from Emory University. You would think that with a doctorate in the subject that he'd be familiar with the exclusive claims of Jesus Christ that are recorded for us in the New Testament.
John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
John 8:24 I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am the one I claim to be you will die in your sins.”
Acts 4:12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
From these passages and others it is very clear that the New Testament doesn't teach that other religions are valid. Therefore, it could never be a 'necessity' for pastors either ancient or modern to 'recognize the validity' of other religions. Christian pastors are instead called to proclaim the exclusive and narrow claims of the ONE true religion, Christianity.
So now we have a decision to make. Either Jesus and his apostles were lying when they made these exclusive statements OR Dr. Brad Braxton was lying when he said, "Recognizing the validity of different religions is a necessity for contemporary pastors."
Since Jesus proved that He was God in human flesh by raising himself from the dead three days after he was crucified and the apostles were eye-witnesses to this miracle, we're going to put our trust with them and reject Dr. Brad Braxton's statement as a lie.
Who do you side with?

On ruling authorities

Rulers are tutors to Christ’s bairns that are minors. Therefore let rulers get all their own, for pride against them stots ( rebounds) off them upon God; and when their laws are unjust we owe to them an upholding of the Majesty, dignity, credit, and honour which God has given them… seeing we are willed to honour the king. So all comes to this, that troublers of the peace of the kirk or Commonwealth condemned, and discrediting authority in the very act of refusing obedience to the unjust decrees, is unlawful. Again, the patience of an ass in any man that has a conscience is unlawful. [Samuel Rutherford]

Cowardly Preaching and The Veiled Truth

Quoting William Gurnall . . .
To a sinner, the light of truth is more blistering than a desert sun on mid-day (John 3:19). He shuns to walk where it is shining, and when exposed to it, will spare no expense to get relief. Satan is always at his elbow, ready to help him find a way to hide from it's penetrating rays. Does he hear the truth in a powerful sermon? Satan will sit alongside him in the pew and whisper nonsense to distract him. He may ask his plans for dinner, or what is on the schedule for tomorrow. And if the sermon gets too hot, the devil will dull his senses and get him to doze until the service is over. Suppose a man's conscience strains toward the truth. Satan may then send him to hear a cold preacher, whose senseless prattle will tickle his fancy rather than prick his conscience. Oh, he may preach from the word of God, but he does it gingerly.
That preacher is too cowardly to use the Sword of the Spirit in all it's might and power, lest he offend some member of the congregation. Many who dare to handle the truth and even admire it when encased in a scabbard would faint on the spot to see it drawn and bared.
Both sin and darkness cause distress. What could the Egyptians do under the plague of darkness but sit still and hope it would pass? A man under the state of sin is under the same plague. He can do nothing profitable until God lifts the darkness from his soul. The epitaph of every impenitent sinner could fitly read: "Hear lies one who never did one hour's work for God".
And if he can do God no service while kept in darkness, neither can he help himself. Pity the man whose darkness hides the disservice he does to his own soul! He is like one who stands helplessly in a dark cellar, supposing himself trapped and doomed to die. But if a candle were lit, he would find the door within easy reach. Christ is the candle that lights the way out of man's darkness.
From:
The Christian in Complete Armour, (year 1665)