'Decisions For Christ' - The Measure of Success?

Trophies for "decisions" are imaginative to say the least, but they would be iconic of the popular mindset in evangelism. Churches and ministries today are doing outreach differently than in the past, and they are looking for validation of their new techniques. Decision-counts have become the standard unit of measure for quantifying God's blessing on: evangelism techniques, leadership methods, and sermon content. In this posting, we'll explore the claims, concept, and counting of "decisions for Christ".
Within a few days of the annual Christmas musicals this last year, church-blogs everywhere began to light-up with claims of success. So often however, I noticed that "success" was being defined mathematically; here's an example of one church who reported 72 decisions for Christ that night. But it's not just a Christmas phenomenon; these conversion-reports are wide-spread in evangelicalism today. Here are some more examples:
A pastor of one seeker sensitive church claimed 1,879 decisions in a single year. Being enamored with these 'results', he declared: "There have not been in all of church history that many churchesthat have touched as many lives", unquote.
Another pastor preached a sermon on "Your Best Life Now" (apparently based on Joel Osteen's book), and said afterwards - this produced many decisions for Christ.
One pragmatic pastor who offers input on my blog occasionally, insists that all of this represents a great modern revival. Here are some more examples:
A basketball ministry that claims 6,000 decisions in one year.
There's a Superbowl outreach that produced 1,200 decisions.
A movie that led to 2,300 decisions in one weekend.
The Power Team even makes conversion predictions ahead of time.
The most dramatic example I've seen, is the account of one man, who was said to have influenced over one million decisions for Christ in his lifetime. That's Bill Bright. And we are told that a movie that he created lead to more than 200 million decisions.
Let's bring an historical element into this discussion. I'm amazed at how long some of history's greatest missionaries waited before seeing their very first convert. Why didn't they quit in discouragement, and how many of today's pragmatic pastors would have been willing to wait this long?:
William Carey was in India for seven years before he baptized his first convert.
David Livingstone served eight years in Africa before seeing anyone converted.
Adoniram Judson in Burma, six years.
Hudson Taylor in China, waited ten years!
Now with that bit of information from church history in mind, consider some of these claims:
A group of students on one recent missionary excursion in Buenos Aires claimed 1,477 decisions in a single day.
Another missionary trip saw thousands of decisions for Christ in a single week.
How can we explain the fact that a group of students ended up being radically more effective in initial outreach than the most well-known missionaries in church history? Were the missionaries of the past simply not smart enough to come up with innovative and culturally relevant outreach techniques? Could it be that there is really some massive revival going on today, that wasn't going on during the greatest century of missions? The more likely explanation is that Christian ministers of past centuries looked at lasting conversions, where as today - the short-sighted focus is on counting immediate "decisions".
Going back in church history, we see a more discerning attitude, that resisted making immediate conversion claims. George Whitefield, who was a leader in the 18th century Great Awakening, made it a practice to delay judgment until months or years down the road. Whitefield's reasoning for this was, you simply can't know right away. He said:
"There are so many stony ground hearers, who receive the Word with joy, that I have determined to suspend my judgment till I know the tree by its fruits. I cannot believe they are converts till I see fruit brought back; it will never do a sincere soul any harm".
A century later, Charles Spurgeon was also very outspoken against potentially boastful and self-validating conversion claims, saying:
"Do not, therefore, consider that soul-winning is or can be secured by the multiplication of baptisms, and the swelling of the size of your church. What mean these dispatches from the battle-field? "Last night, 14 souls were under conviction, 15 were justified, and 8 received full sanctification". I am weary of this public bragging, this counting of unhatched chickens, this exhibition of doubtful spoils. Lay aside such numberings of the people, such idle pretence of certifying in half a minute that which will need the testing of a lifetime". [read more]
He had the same common-sense that Whitefield had a century earlier. It's a common-sense that seems to be very much lacking today:
"It very often happens that the converts that are born in excitement die when the excitement is over".
Today, we see examples of what Spurgeon referred to as conversions based on emotional 'excitements', not only in churches, but also in concerts:
Tony Nolan of the LifeSong Christian concert tour was said to have: "shared the gospel with humor and truth and over 1/4th of the audience made first-time decisions for Christ! Yes, that's right 765 people changed their eternal destiny".
Another series of concerts (Winter Jam) generated 35,000 decisions
Christian heavy metal rock group Stryper (pictured) is said to be responsible for decisions and healings
Rebecca St. James' recent concert tour created 15,000 decisions.
The singer Carman joins Bill Bright as another human attributed with one million decisions
I have no doubt that amongst the multitudes of "decisions" today, there are some that God has truly saved in the midst of it all, but as Michael Penfold explains, the vast majority of "decisions" simply end up "backsliding". Ernest Reisinger was right when he said:
"Too often modern evangelicalism has substituted a 'decision' in the place of repentance and saving faith. Forgiveness is preached without the equally important truth that the Spirit of God must change the heart. As a result decisions are treated as conversions even though there is no evidence of a supernatural work of God in the life."
The question I get inevitably asked is, "if SOME true converts are coming out of modern evangelistic methods - some is better than none, right?". But we need only look to the lessons learned from the Burned-Over District to realize that more harm can be done than good. Like others in that time period, Spurgeon actually saw danger in the new revivalism that was coming on the scene in his day (and is still with us today), saying:
"Sometimes we are inclined to think that a very great portion of modern revivalism has been more a curse than a blessing, because it has led thousands to a kind of peace before they have known their misery; restoring the prodigal to the Father's house, and never making him say, 'Father, I have sinned'."
At the root of all of this is a common error in modern times, known as "Decisional Regeneration". It teaches that man essentially has the power to cause himself to become born again by making a "decision". We saw this misunderstanding in the Christian concert description above, where it said "765 people changed their eternal destiny". The Purpose Driven Life book teaches it, encouraging the reader to pray a simple life changing prayer. Though they usually don't think of it in these terms, so many church leaders today believe they are getting man to save himself by making a "decision". But Decisional Regeneration is simply not biblical, nor does it have historical precedent prior the the 19th century.
More articles on related topics:
Read how numeric results can be deceptive
Study how God told Ezekiel not to engage in results-based ministry
Read how convert counting in the SBC is being questioned
Find out if you are evangelizing for the wrong reasons
What do the letters to Timothy have to say about numeric results?
Read how this current "revival" isn't really a revival after all
Learn from the bible "How God Converts The Human Soul" (video series)

Wrong Evangelism Fails To Start With Doctrine

Quoting Martyn Lloyd-Jones . . .
The trouble with all false evangelism is that it does not start with doctrine, it does not start by realizing man's condition. All fleshly, carnal, man-made evangelism is the result of inadequate understanding of what the apostle teaches us in the first ten verses of this second chapter of Ephesians. If you and I but realized that every man who is yet a sinner is absolutely dominated by 'the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience', if we only understood that he is really a child of wrath and dead in trespasses and sins, we would realize that only one power can deal with such an individual, and that is the power of God, the power of the Holy Ghost. And so we would put our confidence, not in man-made organizations, but in the power of God, in the prayer that holds on to God and asks for revival and a descent of the Spirit. We would realize that nothing else can do it.
We can change men superficially, we can win men to our side and to our party, we can persuade them to join a church, but we can never raise the spiritually dead; God alone can do that. The realization of these truths would of necessity determine and control all our evangelism.
From:
Exposition of Ephesians 2

One Minute Bible

Okay God...here's the deal. I'm a busy person. I've got emails to read, friends to instant message and hours of shows on my Tivo that I need to catch up on. But, I am willing to set aside exactly 60 seconds of each day to read your word. I think that's fair.
So, If you have something you'd like to say to me then you'd better get right to the point. I don't want to have to read any thees, thous or begats. So give it to me straight and give it to me quick. Do you think you can handle that God?

IF JUSTIFICATION IS BY FAITH ALONE HOW CAN WE APPLY JAMES 2:24 BY DR. RC SPROUL

If justification is by faith alone, how can we apply James 2:24, which says a person is justified by what he does, not his faith alone?

That question is not critical only today, but it was in the eye of the storm we call the Protestant Reformation that swept through and divided the Christian church in the sixteenth century. Martin Luther declared his position: Justification is by faith alone, our works add nothing to our justification whatsoever, and we have no merit to offer God that in any way enhances our justification. This created the worst schism in the history of Christendom. In refusing to accept Luther’s view, the Roman Catholic Church excommunicated him, then responded to the outbreak of the Protestant movement with a major church council, the Council of Trent, which was part of the so-called Counter-Reformation and took place in the middle of the sixteenth century. The sixth session of Trent, at which the canons and decrees on justification and faith were spelled out, specifically appealed to James 2:24 to rebuke the Protestants who said that they were justified by faith alone: “You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.” How could James say it any more clearly? It would seem that that text would blow Luther out of the water forever. Of course, Martin Luther was very much aware that this verse was in the book of James. Luther was reading Romans, where Paul makes it very clear that it’s not through the works of the law that any man is justified and that we are justified by faith and only through faith. What do we have here? Some scholars say we have an irreconcilable conflict between Paul and James, that James was written after Paul, and James tried to correct Paul. Others say that Paul wrote Romans after James and he was trying to correct James. I’m convinced that we don’t really have a conflict here. What James is saying is this: If a person says he has faith, but he gives no outward evidence of that faith through righteous works, his faith will not justify him. Martin Luther, John Calvin, or John Knox would absolutely agree with James. We are not saved by a profession of faith or by a claim to faith. That faith has to be genuine before the merit of Christ will be imputed to anybody. You can’t just say you have faith. True faith will absolutely and necessarily yield the fruits of obedience and the works of righteousness. Luther was saying that those works don’t add to that person’s justification at the judgment seat of God. But they do justify his claim to faith before the eyes of man. James is saying, not that a man is justified before God by his works, but that his claim to faith is shown to be genuine as he demonstrates the evidence of that claim of faith through his works.

Penal Substitution Revisited J. I. Packer

[Jim Packer's latest response to recent criticisms of penal substitution.

Throughout my 63 years as an evangelical believer, the penal substitutionary understanding of the cross of Christ has been a flashpoint of controversy and division among Protestants. It was so before my time, in the bitter parting of ways between conservative and liberal evangelicals in the Church of England, and between the Inter-Varsity Fellowship (now UCCF) and SCM in the student world. It remains so, as liberalism keeps reinventing itself and luring evangelicals away from their heritage. Since one’s belief about the atonement is bound up with one’s belief about the character of God, the terms of the gospel and the Christian’s inner life, the intensity of the debate is understandable. If one view is right, others are more or less wrong, and the definition of Christianity itself comes to be at stake.
An evangelical theologian, dying, cabled a colleague: ‘I am so thankful for the active obedience (righteousness) of Christ. No hope without it.’ As I grow old, I want to tell everyone who will listen: ‘I am so thankful for the penal substitutionary death of Christ. No hope without it.’ That is where I come from now as I attempt this brief vindication of the best part of the best news that the world has ever heard.
It is impossible to focus the atonement properly until the biblical mode of Trinitarian and incarnational thought about Jesus Christ is embraced. The Trinitarian principle is that the three distinct persons within the divine unity, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, always work inseparably together, as in creation, so in providence and in every aspect of the work of redemption. The incarnational principle is that when the Son took to himself all the powers and capacities for experience that belong to human nature, and began to live through his human body, mind and identity, his sense of being the Father’s Son was unaffected, and he knew and did his Father’s will, aided by the Spirit, at all times. It was with his own will and his own love mirroring the Father’s, therefore, that he took the place of human sinners exposed to divine judgment and laid down his life as a sacrifice for them, entering fully into the state and experience of death that was due to them. Then he rose from death to reign by the Father’s appointment in the kingdom of God. From his throne he sent the Spirit to induce faith in himself and in the saving work he had done, to communicate forgiveness and pardon, justification and adoption, to the penitent, and to unite all believers to himself to share his risen life in foretaste of the full life of heaven that is to come. Since all this was planned by the holy Three in their eternal solidarity of mutual love, and since the Father’s central purpose in it all was and is to glorify and exalt the Son as Saviour and Head of a new humanity, smartypants notions like ‘divine child abuse’, as a comment on the cross, are supremely silly, and as irrelevant and wrong as they could possibly be.
As in all the Creator’s interacting with the created order, there is here an element of transcendent mystery, comparable to fog in the distance hanging around a landscape, which the rising sun has effectively cleared for our view. What is stated above is clearly revealed in God’s own witness to himself in the Bible, and so must be given the status of non-negotiable fact.
Again, the atonement cannot be focused properly where the biblical view of God’s justice as one facet of his holiness, and of human willfulness as the root of our racial, communal and personal sinfulness and guilt, is not grasped. Justice, as Aristotle said long ago, is essentially giving everyone their due, and whatever more God’s justice (righteousness) means in the Bible, it certainly starts here, with retribution for wrongdoing. We see this as early as Genesis 3, and as late as Revelation 22:18-19, and consistently in between. God’s mercy to guilty sinners is framed by his holy hostility (wrath) against their sins.
Human nature is radically twisted into an instinctive yet deliberate and ineradicable habit of God-defying or God-denying self-service, so that God’s requirement of perfect love to himself and others is permanently beyond our reach, and falling short of God’s standard marks our lives every day. What is due to us from God is condemnation and rejection.
The built-in function of the human mind that we call conscience tells everyone, uncomfortably, that when we have misbehaved we ought to suffer for it, and to that extent conscience is truly the voice of God.
Both Testaments, then, confirm that judicial retribution from God awaits those whose sins are not covered by a substitutionary sacrifice: in the Old Testament, the sacrifice of an animal; in the New Testament, the sacrifice of Christ. He, the holy Son of God in sinless human flesh, has endured what Calvin called ‘the pains of a condemned and lost person’ so that we, trusting him as our Saviour and Lord, might receive pardon for the past and a new life in him and with him for the present and future. Tellingly, Paul, having announced ‘the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation (i.e. wrath-quencher) by his blood, to be received by faith’, goes on to say: ‘This was…to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus’ (Romans 3:2-26, my emphasis). Just justification- justified justification - through the doing of justice in penal substitution, is integral to the message of the gospel.
Penal substitution, therefore, will not be focused properly till it is recognized that God’s redemptive love must not be conceived - misconceived, rather - as somehow triumphing and displacing God’s retributive justice, as if the Creator-Judge simply decided to let bygones be bygones. The measure of God’s holy love for us is that ‘while we were still sinners, Christ died for us’ and that ‘he…did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all’ (Romans 5:8, 8:32). Evidently there was no alternative to paying that price if we were to be saved, so the Son, at the Father’s behest ‘through the eternal Spirit’ (Hebrews 9:14), paid it. Thus God ‘set aside…the record of debt that stood against us…nailing it to the cross’ (Colossians 2:14). Had we been among the watchers at Calvary, we should have seen, nailed to the cross, Pilate’s notice of Jesus’ alleged crime. But if, by faith, we look back to Calvary from where we now are, what we see is the list of our own unpaid debts of obedience to God, for which Christ paid the penalty in our place. Paul, having himself learned to do this, testified: ‘the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me’ (Galatians 2:20).
This text starts to show us how faith in Christ our penal substitute should be shaping our lives today; which will be my final point for reflection. Thirty years ago I wrote an analysis of insights basic to personal religion that faith in Christ as one’s penal substitute yields. Since I cannot improve on it, I cite it as it stands.
(1) God, in Denney’s phrase, ‘condones nothing’, but judges all sin as it deserves, which Scripture affirms, and my conscience confirms, to be right.
(2) My sins merit ultimate penal suffering and rejection from God’s presence (conscience also affirms this), and nothing I do can blot them out.
(3) The penalty due to me for my sins, whatever it was, was paid for me by Jesus Christ, the Son of God, in his death on the cross.
(4) Because this is so, I through faith in him am made ‘the righteousness of God in him’, i.e. I am justified; pardon, acceptance and sonship (to God) become mine.
(5) Christ’s death for me is my sole ground of hope before God. ‘If he fulfilled not justice, I must; if he underwent not wrath, I must to eternity’ (John Owen).
(6) My faith in Christ is God’s own gift to me, given in virtue of Christ’s death for me: i.e. the cross procured it.
(7) Christ’s death for me guarantees my preservation to glory.
(8) Christ’s death for me is the measure and pledge of the love of the Father and Son to me.
(9) Christ’s death for me calls and constrains me to trust, to worship, to love and to serve.
(Cited from Tyndale Bulletin 25. 1974, pp42-43)
A lawyer, having completed his argument, may declare that here he rests his case. I, having surveyed the penal substitutionary sacrifice of Christ afresh, now reaffirm that here I rest my hope. So, I believe, will all truly faithful believers.
In recent years, great strides in biblical theology and contemporary canonical exegesis have brought new precision to our grasp of the Bible’s overall story of how God’s plan to bless Israel, and through Israel the world, came to its climax in and through Christ. But I do not see how it can be denied that each New Testament book, whatever other job it may be doing, has in view, one way or another, Luther’s primary question: ‘How may a weak, perverse and guilty sinner find a gracious God?’; nor can it be denied that real Christianity only really starts when that discovery is made. And to the extent that modern developments, by filling our horizon with the great meta-narrative, distract us from pursuing Luther’s question in personal terms, they hinder as well as help in our appreciation of the gospel.
The Church is and will always be at its healthiest when every Christian can line up with every other Christian to sing P. P. Bliss’s simple words, which really say it all:

Bearing shame and scoffing rudeIn my place condemned he stood,Sealed my pardon with his blood-Hallelujah! What a Saviour!

Cheap Religion Through an Easy Profession

Quoting William Gunrall, The Christian in Complete Armour, (year 1665)

“Genuine readiness to suffer thins out the number of true Christians from the ranks of professing believers; it eliminates those whose walk goes no further than a cheap profession. A person who looks into the crowded sanctuaries of Christendom today and finds multitudes who flock after the Word might wonder why ministers say that this company of Christians is such a small one, and he might think that they who say such things cannot see the forest through the trees. This situation made one of the disciples question Christ: “Lord, are there few that shall be saved?” (Luke 13:23).
At that time Christ “went through the cities and villages, teaching and journeying toward Jerusalem” (v 22). When His disciples saw Christ preaching so freely in every town, and people thronging after Him with expressions of hope, it seemed almost incredible to think that only a few of them would have been saved.
Now take note of how our Savior solved this riddle: “And he said unto them, Strive to enter in at the straight gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able” (v. 24). Christ said His disciples were measuring by a wrong rule. “If following after sermons and testimonies and excitement were enough to save, heaven would already be full”, He was saying. But do not sift the pure from the impure by such a coarse sieve. “Strive to enter - fight and wrestle, risk life and limb rather than fall short of heaven”. “For many shall seek, but shall not be able” - that is, they are looking for a cheap religion through an easy profession.
Almost anyone is willing to walk through heaven’s door if he never has to risk pride in public or hazard his everyday interests by any inconvenience or opposition of the world. But “they shall not be able” to enter because their hearts are not willing to strive even unto blood. If we take the standard to be striving, not merely seeking, then the number of Christian soldiers will shrink, like Gideon’s army, to a little troop.”

Warren’s Use of Scripture is No Laughing Matter By Chris Rosebrough

Those of you familiar with Rick Warren’s writings are aware that this man is a scripture twister. He constantly rips passages out of context, exegetes bad paraphrases and generally proof texts his own ‘made up’ doctrines. I’m writing a book on this subject called ‘Bible Balloon Animals: How Rick Warren & Other Christian Leaders Twist God’s Word’.
The Latest Specimen
In Warren’s July 13, 2007 Christian Post article entitled “Learn to Laugh” Warren is up to his usually antics. This article has a perfect example of Warren’s misuse of scripture. The nice thing about this example is that, unlike others that require some instruction in the basics of Biblical Interpretation, this example is so obvious that even a grade school child could understand it.
In his column Warren makes the case that laughter is a good thing and that God has a sense of humor. Before I go on let me say that even though this is a shallow point to be making, I agree with Warren about the psychological benefits of laughter. I also believe that God has a sense of humor. One need only look at the Duckbilled Platypus to come to this conclusion. Warren’s conclusion no matter how shallow and pop-psych-ish it is, isn’t the main problem. The problem is that Warren supports his conclusion with twisted scripture.
Here is what Warren wrote:
One of my favorite verses in the Bible is Psalm 2:4, “The One enthroned in heaven laughs.” Isn’t that a great verse? God has a sense of humor. God laughs!...Do you want to be more like God? Learn to laugh. A sense of humor can preserve your sanity.
So what’s the big deal? The verse says God laughs, what could be wrong with that?
Let’s look at this passage in context and you’ll see what the problem is. Here is what the passage says in context, pay close attention to verses 4 and 5:
Psalm 2:1-6
1 Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain?
2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD and against his anointed, saying,
3 “Let us burst their bonds apart and cast away their cords from us.”
4 He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision.
5 Then he will speak to them in his wrath, and terrify them in his fury, saying,
6 “As for me, I have set my King on Zion, my holy hill.”
When this passage says that God’s laughs, it is not referring to a therapeutic, stress relieving belly laugh or sense of humor. The laughter it is referring to is the laughter of derision that is followed by terrifying wrath and fury. This verse in context doesn’t support the point that Warren is making. Yet, Warren says that Psalm 2:4 is one of his favorite verses in the Bible. How can this be unless Warren read’s Bible verses as if they were disconnected fortune cookies sayings?
Warren has clearly ripped this passage out of context and makes it say the exact opposite of what the passage actually says.
Here’s the Bigger Issue
Rick Warren is a national Christian Leader and an ordained minister in the church. He has a Biblical duty and an obligation to God and the church to accurately teach and proclaim God’s word. He does not have the freedom to twist it, rip it out of context and make it say things that it doesn’t say. PERIOD!
There are a growing number of Christians and Christian leaders who have a deep seated distrust of Rick Warren. The reason for this dis-trust is Warren’s misuse of scripture. This example is just the latest in an entire series of mis-quotes, mis-applications, rips and twists that Warren chronically engages in. The reason that so many people dis-trust Warren and have become out spoken and vocal critics of Warren is because scripture teaches us that twisting God’s Word is one of the favorite tactics of the devil and his servants. This is NEVER an appropriate behavior for the servants of One True God. God makes no allowances for ‘Scripture Twisting’. In fact, God’s word warns people who do this. Here are the words of the prophet Jeremiah found in chapter 23 verses 29-32:
29 Is not my word like fire, declares the LORD, and like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces? 30 Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, declares the LORD, who steal my words from one another. 31 Behold, I am against the prophets, declares the LORD, who use their tongues and declare, ‘declares the LORD.’ 32 Behold, I am against those who prophesy lying dreams, declares the LORD, and who tell them and lead my people astray by their lies and their recklessness, when I did not send them or charge them. So they do not profit this people at all, declares the LORD.
Verse 31 should give Rick Warren pause and make him rethink his habit of twisting scripture. It says that the Lord is against those who make up their own words and then ascribe them to the Lord. When you rip scripture out of context to support a point that YOU are making rather than a point that GOD is making you are making up your own words and then ascribing them to the Lord.
Psalm 2:4 does not teach that God has a sense of humor or enjoys a good therapeutic chuckle. It teaches that God laughs in derision at those who are against him. Rick Warren lied to the world by making it say otherwise. This is not a small matter. Nor is the the first time Warren has done this.
Pastor Warren how many times do you think that God will turn a blind eye to your chronic distorting of His Word? Do you expect God to reward you for twisting His Word?
Repent Rick Warren and bear fruit in keeping with that repentance.

The Final Authority, Period. By John MacArthur

Anyone who faithfully and correctly proclaims the Word of God will speak with authority.
It is not our own authority. It is not even the ecclesiastical authority attached to the office of a pastor or teacher in the church. It is a still greater authority than that. Insofar as our teaching accurately reflects the truth of Scripture, it has the full weight of God’s own authority behind it. That is a staggering thought, but it is precisely how 1 Peter 4:11 instructs us to handle biblical truth: “If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God.”
Of course that is a profound threat to the tolerance of a society that loves its sin and thinks of compromise as a good thing. To speak boldly and declare that God has spoken with finality is neither stylish nor politically correct. But if we truly believe the Bible is the Word of God, how can we handle it any other way?
Many modern evangelicals, cowed by post-modernism’s demand for latitudinarianism, claim they believe Scripture, but then shy away from proclaiming it with any authority. They are willing to give lip service to the truth of Scripture, but in practice they strip it of its authority, treating it as just another opinion in the great mix of post-modern ideas.
Neither Scripture nor common sense will allow for such a view. If the Bible is true, then it is also authoritative. As divinely-revealed truth, it carries the full weight of God’s own authority. If you claim to believe the Bible at all, you ultimately must bow to its authority. That means making it the final arbiter of truth — the rule by which every other opinion is evaluated.
The Bible is not just another idea to be thrown into the public discussion and accepted or rejected as the individual sees fit. It is the Word of God, and it demands to be received as such, to the exclusion of all other opinions.

Sola Scriptura-Steve Camp

This is what the Reformers referred to as Sola Scriptura, meaning: The Bible is the sole written divine revelation of God and alone can bind the conscience of believers absolutely. This truth flew in the face of abject Romanism that did not hold to Sola Scriptura and still does not. In fact, they deny it. The singularity of God’s Word IS the foundation for all matters of life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3-4). There is no spiritual growth apart from it; and there is no authority in ministry without it. It is how we know God and His way of salvation for lost people. It is a lamp unto our feet and a light to our path. He has even exalted His Word above His name (Psalm 138:2). The Word of God is the Sword of the Spirit and if we fail to honor it, embrace, read it, memorize it, teach it, preach it, fix our minds on it, hide it in our hearts, then we are ultimately defenseless in our daily walk through this world and are not honoring to the Spirit of God in our daily lives.His Word can bring comfort, but also it can convict, rebuke, correct, train us in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16-17). We are to cherish it more than our daily food (Job 23:12); more than this world’s greatest pleasures and treasures (Psalm 19:7-11); and have it as the joy and rejoicing of our hearts (Jer. 15:16).How sufficient is the Word of God? How is it a “more sure word…” The gospel is anchored in this truth: "faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of Christ." If you deny sola Scriptura, then ultimately you are denying the truth of the gospel itself. Strip away your confidence in the absolute authority of God's Word, and you will find yourself on the slippery slope of the downgrade as many were in Spurgeon's day.

when wisdom becomes madness

Whatever wisdom a person has of himself, is pure folly with regard to God; and when self-confidence is added it becomes madness.[ John Calvin]

God's Will and Testament by R.C. Sproul

“It is the will of God.”

How easily these words fall from the lips or flow from the pen. How difficult it is to penetrate exactly what they mean. Few concepts in theology generate more confusion than the will of God.One problem we face is rooted in the multifaceted way in which the term will functions in biblical expressions. The Bible uses the expression “will of God” in various ways. Augustine once remarked, “In some sense, God wills everything that happens.” The immediate question raised by this comment is, In what sense? Some distinctions made by theologians include the following:THE DECRETIVE WILL OF GODThis is sometimes described as the sovereign efficacious will, by which God brings to pass whatever He pleases by His divine decree. An example of this may be seen in God’s work of creation. When God said, “Let there be light,” He issued a divine imperative. He exercised His sovereign efficacious will. It was impossible for the light not to appear. The decretive will can have no other effect, no other consequence than what God sovereignly commands. THE PRECEPTIVE WILL OF GODThe preceptive will of God relates to the revealed commandments of God’s published law. When God commands us not to steal, this “decree” does not carry with it the immediate necessity of consequence. Where it was not possible for the light to refuse to shine in creation, it is possible for us to refuse to obey this command. We may have the power to disobey the precept. We do not have the power to disobey it with impunity. Nor can we annul it by our disregard. His law remains intact whether we obey it or disobey it. Yet we still observe the acute difference between the light’s obedience to God’s creative decree and our disobedience to God’s moral, preceptive decree. How do we account for this?A common way to resolve this conundrum is by appeal to a distinction between the sovereign will of God and His permissive will.This distinction between God’s sovereign will and His permissive will is fraught with peril, and it tends to generate untold confusion.In ordinary language the term permission suggests some sort of positive sanction. To say that God “allows” or “permits” evil does not mean that He sanctions it in the sense that He grants approval to it. It is easy to discern that God never permits sin in the sense that He sanctions it in His creatures.What is usually meant by divine permission is that God simply lets it happen. That is, He does not directly intervene to prevent its happening. Here is where grave danger lurks. Some theologies view this drama as if God were impotent to do anything about human sin. This view makes man sovereign, not God. God is reduced to the role of spectator. This ghastly view is not merely a defective view of theism; it is unvarnished atheism.Whatever God “permits” He sovereignly and efficaciously wills to permit. If I have a choice to sin or not sin, God also has a choice in the matter. He always has the ability and the authority to stop me from exercising my will.In the treachery perpetrated by Joseph’s brothers, it was said, “You meant it for evil; God meant it for good.” God’s good will was served through the bad will of Joseph’s brothers. Their acts are judged together with their intentions, and they were rightly judged by God to be evil. That God brings good out of evil only underscores the power and the excellence of His sovereign decretive will.

What Would Luther Do? By Phil Ryken

Writing in USA Today this week, Skidmore College's Mary Zeiss Stange argues that Martin Luther would join her in blessing same-sex unions. The basic argument for this is as conventional as it is false, namely, that the genius of the Reformation is its willingness to advocate controversial changes in the church.Stange writes: "In the Augsburg Confession of 1530, Luther publicly agreed with other reformers of his day that biblical references that depart from New Testament inclusiveness -- abstaining from eating pork, for example, or requiring male circumcision -- not only can but should be set aside. A 21st century Luther would surely recognize that the few biblical proscriptions against 'sodmy' -- shakey in themselves as condemnations of same-sex love and rooted in a worldview vastly different from our own -- should not bar the loving union of two gay or lesbian persons. Equally, a 21st century Luther would affirm the ordination of such persons, as in line with his theology of 'the priesthood of all believers'."Stange is right that the Augsburg Confession was in 1530. She is also right that the Old Testament worldview is vastly different from our own. But she is wrong about virtually everything else.

Challies on Evan Almighty

Once again, Tim Challies has done a superb job of providing biblical insight, this time expressing some tremendous points concerning the upcoming film Evan Almighty. Sadly, the film is being pushed to a largely gullible “Christian” audience, with Salem Radio Network even airing a multitude of commercials promoting the films release. You must read Tim Challies article on this. Thanks Tim.

From Challies.com:
“But I think my greatest and overarching concern is this: this movie, like the one before it, makes light of our faith. When people walked out of Bruce Almighty I don’t think they had a greater and deeper understanding of God. They did not have greater love for and respect for Him. The genre simply could not bring so serious and important and biblical a message. Amidst all of the laughs and vulgarity there would simply not have been opportunity to really help people understand God better, despite the filmmaker’s attempts. And when people walk away from Evan Almighty they will not love God more. I don’t think they will have a greater understanding of the Bible. In fact, I suspect they’ll see the biblical story of the flood as being as fictional as this movie–a quaint plot but completely unrealistic and implausible. Mere fiction. This movie will not and cannot bring anyone closer to God. Rather, it will necessarily project a false image of God, a false understanding of Him. And we’re being told to watch this, to enjoy this, and to bring our families to see it so they can laugh with us.
No thanks.”

Has the Roman Catholic church really changed?

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).

Pope: Other denominations not true churches

LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy - Pope Benedict XVI has reasserted the universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says Orthodox churches were defective and that other Christian denominations were not true churches.

This is why we must fight for the TRUTH today because it does MATTER. THE POPE CLAIMS TO HAVE THE SAME POWER HERE ON EARTH AS Christ Himself, this is not true and we must fight for a modern day reformation against this lie and all other false teachings and false doctrines of our day, the pope is not the vicor of Christ he does not hold the power of forgivness and the keys to the kingdom. He is in need of the grace of Almighty God and he is also a born sinner like the rest of fallen mankind. As the reformers did before us we must get the WORD OF GOD back into the hands of God's people, we pray for God to open this mans eyes to the Truth so that he will REPENT of his sins and the leading of so many people astray.

Please stand with TRUTH MATTERS MINISTRY as we move forward to speak the TRUTH were lies have been told for so long. Look for future interviews and teachings on this topic and many others.

Confessions of a 'Numbers' Pastor

In the same week of seeing with my own eyes - one of the most distressing "come on, get baptized, everybody's doing it" type church videos, I also happened to read a blog post bathed in baptism-boasting and conversion counting. It comes from a familiar source, and once again, he's indignant that anyone would question the importance of 'numbers'. In this post however, we'll hear from a recovering 'numbers' pastor, and find out from him where his obsession lead him.
Before we do, be sure to watch the BBQ and Baptism party video that I saw this week. A more tame methodology for twisting people's arms until they agree to be baptized is Rick Warren's 40 Ways To Increase Baptisms. But don't forget to scuba equip your pastor, to help get more kids to dive in. With all of these churches putting the hard-sell on, to manipulate more baptisms, it must seem shocking to them that there are actually some churches that still want to see evidence of a credible profession of faith before allowing anyone to be baptized. Suffice it to say, those of us who still think that way are not all that impressed with the numbers of people being nudged into the water these days. Likewise, I'm not all that impressed with Perry Noble's latest post simply entitled "1171", named after the number of baptisms he's had:
do the numbers really matter? I actually refuse to engage in that argument anymore...it's stupid and meaningless and the ONLY churches that say numbers don't matter are the ones with no numbers. ...we've baptized 1171 people!...GOD HELP the church that just wants to be small and comfortable and, in so doing, neglects sharing the Gospel with those who are bound for hell!!!
We've been through this with Perry before, yet he never seems to get it, or perhaps he's just unwilling to accurately represent the position of those who oppose his view. But just to recap: Nobody is saying number counting is bad; we are however disputing the way some churches rely on 'numbers' as their primary indicator of success. The Mormons, TBN, Catholics, and Muslims, all have 'numbers'; need I say more? We also dispute the microwave claims of so many like Perry who often post on their blogs "300 got saved tonight"; it's a useless counting of unhatched chickens. We also dispute Perry's continual insistence that - to not have 'numbers' equates to: "your church likes being small" or "your church doesn't evangelize". And by the way, it's also wrong to suggest that the only ones with these concerns are the small churches that don't have 'numbers' (I happen to know that's not true).
As I said, there's nothing wrong with counting, but another pastor, Samuel Rima warns of the obsession with numbers that he fell into, and pastors like Perry Noble are in danger of as well. Pastor Rima writes:
The Confessions of a 'Numbers' Pastor:
When I began in pastoral ministry, I was much more concerned, in fact almost exclusively concerned, with with quantity as opposed to quality. When I began my ministry journey, it was not at all about the quality of the journey, but rather about reaching the destination as quickly and impressively as possible.
Every week saw me consumed with numbers: giving amounts, attendance figures, response numbers visitor counts, and many other empirical standards of measure that gave irrefutable testimony to whether or not we had been successful for that week of ministry.Let the numbers be down - even for one week - and I would be tumbling into a depressed state, scared to death that the end of my ministry was just around the corner and that any future advancement in ministry was in grave jeopardy. Frankly it was a miserable and destructive way to do ministry and live life. During those years of obsessive and compulsive success seeking, I experienced periods of extreme stress and the almost constant fear that we would lose some of our hard-won gains. ...Fortunately, over the course of time, and as a result of a near emotional breakdown, God began the slow process of changing my warped perspective of success - particularly success as it relates to ministry. ... For me, success in ministry has become much more qualitative than it is quantitative. I no longer obsessively measure my accomplishments in terms of numbers and statistics as I did in my early years of ministry, seeing them as a direct reflection on my personal ability or worth as a person. For me success in ministry and life has begun to take on a more spiritual and intangible meaning.The reality is that it is entirely possible to manufacture phenomenal church growth and produce dramatic tangible indicators of success, while at the same time accomplishing nothing of any genuine eternal value. In fact the realization of tangible signs of success in ministry can actually be the source of profound spiritual sickness and dysfunction, both in church and in the life of an individual leader.
Pastor Rima spoke-out about his former numbers-obsession in a book he later authored called Rethinking the Successful Church. We can only pray that Perry Noble and other 'numbers' pastors will one day come to the same understanding. Yes, you can say that "numbers are people and that's why we care", but it's also true for many of these pastors that 'numbers' are an unhealthy obsession with synthetic church growth via unbiblical evangelism methods.

Cheap Religion Through an Easy Profession

“Genuine readiness to suffer thins out the number of true Christians from the ranks of professing believers; it eliminates those whose walk goes no further than a cheap profession. A person who looks into the crowded sanctuaries of Christendom today and finds multitudes who flock after the Word might wonder why ministers say that this company of Christians is such a small one, and he might think that they who say such things cannot see the forest through the trees. This situation made one of the disciples question Christ: “Lord, are there few that shall be saved?” (Luke 13:23).
At that time Christ “went through the cities and villages, teaching and journeying toward Jerusalem” (v 22). When His disciples saw Christ preaching so freely in every town, and people thronging after Him with expressions of hope, it seemed almost incredible to think that only a few of them would have been saved.
Now take note of how our Savior solved this riddle: “And he said unto them, Strive to enter in at the straight gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able” (v. 24). Christ said His disciples were measuring by a wrong rule. “If following after sermons and testimonies and excitement were enough to save, heaven would already be full”, He was saying. But do not sift the pure from the impure by such a coarse sieve. “Strive to enter - fight and wrestle, risk life and limb rather than fall short of heaven”. “For many shall seek, but shall not be able” - that is, they are looking for a cheap religion through an easy profession.
Almost anyone is willing to walk through heaven’s door if he never has to risk pride in public or hazard his everyday interests by any inconvenience or opposition of the world. But “they shall not be able” to enter because their hearts are not willing to strive even unto blood. If we take the standard to be striving, not merely seeking, then the number of Christian soldiers will shrink, like Gideon’s army, to a little troop.”

Decision Theology: Can you make a decision for Christ?

“Have you made a decision for Christ?” One often hears this question from radio and television preachers, or even from our friends and family. “Have you invited Jesus into your heart? Have you received Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior? Have you dedicated your life to Christ?” Many churches have a “Time of Decision” at the end of their services, with altar calls and emotional appeals for the person to respond. All of these questions rotate around this same premise: the unbeliever has the ability and responsibility to chose Jesus. But is this what the Bible teaches? Can the unbeliever make a decision for Christ?
What Can We Do?
St Paul speaks of our conversion as a move from death to life. “And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins.” [Ephesians 2:1, see also 2:5 and Colossians 2:13] Dead in trespasses and sins. Not sick, not crippled, dead. We are, says St Paul, dead in our sins, completely unable to chose or decide anything regarding Jesus. Again, St. Paul, “But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” [1 Corinthians 2:14] The things of the Spirit of God, this certainly includes the truth of Jesus and His cross and death for us, all these things are unknown and unknowable to the natural man, the mind of flesh. The Gospel is “foolishness” [1 Corinthians 1:23,25] to those who do not believe. How, then, could we invite the unbeliever to make a decision for that which is foolish? It cannot.
Again, St Paul says, “For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do.” [Galatians 5:17] Far from accepting the good news of Jesus, our sinful flesh fights against it. As Stephen, the first martyr after Jesus' Ascension, preaches to the Jews in Jerusalem, “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you.” [Acts 7:51] Such accusation stands over all the unbelieving world, “They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart.” [Ephesians 4:18]
Far from having a free will to choose or make a decision for Jesus, the Scriptures speak of the natural condition of man as an enemy of God. “For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot.” [Romans 8:7] The fleshly mind “does not” and “can not” submit to God's law. Such sure testimonies should answer the question “Can we make a decision for Christ?” The Scriptures plainly tell us “no”. St Paul quotes from the Psalms, “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” [Romans 3:10-12] And the Lord Jesus testifies, “The light shines in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.” [John 1:5]
Conversion: God's Work
The Bible says that we cannot chose or turn to God, that we are completely helpless when it comes to heavenly things. How, then, are we to believe? Conversion, turning from death to life and from the devil to God is a work of God Himself; a work of God alone. We call this the teaching of monergism, God alone is the cause of our salvation; He creates faith [see Ephesians 2:8-10] and gives repentance as a gift. Such is the testimony of the Scriptures.
When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, "Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life." [Acts 11:18]
One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. [Acts 16:14]
Jesus says, “All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him.” [Matthew 11:27] And again, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.” [Matthew 13:11]
And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. [1 John 5:20]
Just as the Lord spoke and the universe was created out of nothing, so our knowledge and trust in the Lord is created out of nothing in us. “For God, who said, 'Let light shine out of darkness,' has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” [2 Corinthians 4:6] God's Word alone creates faith in us. For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. [Romans 1:16] So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. [Romans 10:17]
It is the Holy Spirit, working through the Word of God, who gives us faith and trust in Jesus and His cross, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure. [Philippians 2:13] So what we learn in the Catechism is a marvelous summary of this Biblical teaching:
I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Spirit has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith.
In the same way He calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith.
Our faith is a work of God the Holy Spirit through His Word.
Jesus' Work is Our Comfort
It is plain from the Scriptures that the unbeliever cannot make a decision for Jesus or invite them in to their heart, but that the Holy Spirit, through the Word, converts the heart and gives us faith. But does this matter? Jesus teaches us, “I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in Me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.” [John 15:5] This is a verse of marvelous comfort, for here we have Jesus' promise that, abiding in Him, we will bear much fruit. But Jesus is also warning us to not think too highly of ourselves. “Apart from Me you can do nothing.” Jesus means what He says, there is no doing anything good or holy apart from Him.
If we think that the unbeliever has the will to chose Jesus or make a decision for Christ, then we undo Jesus' words, as if He wanted to say, “Apart from Me you can do nothing except invite Me into your heart.” But Jesus wants us to have the comfort that He Himself, through the Holy Spirit, has given us repentance and faith.
Far from making a decision for Jesus, the Lord's people rejoice that He has made a decision for us, to die for us, to forgive all our sins, to baptize us into His family, and to call us through His Gospel. Our faith is Jesus' work, and this is our great comfort.
May our Lord's words to His disciples also grant us peace: “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.” [John 15:16] Amen.

R. Scott Clark on Infant Baptism

Since joining the PCA (Presbyterian Church in Amercia), probably the question I have been asked the most is ‘what about infant baptism’. I can’t begin to say I am an authority on the subject, in fact I am learning too. But one aspect of infant baptism that I have come to understand is that it is not salvific, or having the intent or power to save or redeem. I plan on doing a radio program on the subject in the next several weeks. Meanwhile, I submit to you this article by R. Scott Clark, associate professor of historical and systematic theology at Westminster Seminary in Escondido, California. Read it, study it and have your questions ready for the radio discussion.http://www.wscal.edu/clark/baptism.php

SO WHO IS THE CHURCH OF TODAY?????

I have recived many emails asking me who is the person who comments on the blog site and calls themselves THE CHURCH OF TODAY. Well from seeing what it is they write and what they belive in, all we can do is pray that they come to the TRUTH. I was disapointed that I did not get a chance to meet face to face with the person behind the call letters of THE CHURCH OF TODAY when I spoke at Tenth Church on july 1st. As all of you remember I was told by THE CHURCH OF TODAY that he or she went to that church and would see me the night I preached. But let me just some this up this way if a person will lie about were they go to church and will not step out from there call letters then we are not to belive anything else they have to say.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH HERE AT TRUTH MATTERS WE DISMISS THE CHURCH OF TODAY.

Here at theis ministry the TRUTH IS WHAT MATTERS
So to the person behind the call letters THE CHURCH OF TODAY we will pray for you.

Ten Martin Luther Myths by James Swan

I have read this piece in several sites, but is great! Enjoy and be blessed.
I regularly get e-mail from people I don’t know asking questions about Martin Luther. I’ve even had people contact me in the hopes I will help write their research papers for school (I will not!). Recently, I was sent a few Luther questions, and I was amazed certain myths still circulate. Despite the explosion of cyber-information, here are ten that somehow still survive. http://theexpositor.wordpress.com/2007/07/12/ten-martin-luther-myths-by-james-swan/#more-300

New" Christianity?

This year's International Christian Retail Show is going strong. If you are a profit for Je$u$ then this is the place to be. Sadly, it is also a parade of the absurd. Case in point. Here is a picture of Empowerment Press' booth at the show. Their slogan is "It's the New Christianity! Now we do the impossible."
What exactly does this mean?
Is this like an auto manufacturer releasing new model cars. 'New' Christians now come with GPS and satellite radio as a standard option?
Well...Empowerment Press also happens to be the publisher of the book the "2 Minute Miracle: Releasing God's Power, Protection and Prosperity with Spoken Blessings". We love the smell of 'Snake Oil' in the morning.

RC SPROUL ON CHILDREN, BAPTISM AND SALVATION

From his Renewing Your Mind broadcast on July 6, 2007, Dr. R.C. Sproul answers questions. In this short clip, he addresses a question concerning children and salvation.

http://www.wqbc.net/mcprogram/SPROUL_CHILDRENSALVATION.mp3

THE COMMANDMENT THAT TIME MADE OPTIONAL

Isn't it interesting how many Christians today will fight to keep the 10 Commandments posted in the schools and court houses, but when it comes right down to it, many of these same Christians don't even believe that the 10 commandments are for them to follow as a rule of life? Go figure.

Here's one of those surprising things you learn when you study church history. You read the words of Charles Spurgeon talking about "profane Sabbath-breakers", and the Puritans talking about Sabbath-breaking in the same sentence as lying, lusting, and other moral failings. You read many of the greatest theologians and seminary professors essentially saying: "of course we believe in the Sabbath, it is one of the 10 commandments". Now fast forward a hundred years or two, and you find modern Christians, usually with a fraction as much bible knowledge, who are so sure of themselves that the Sabbath is no longer for today. So who's right, the new Christians, or the old ones?
As you can see by my recent participation in a thread on Ingrid's blog, this is a debate where I happen to come out on the side of the extreme minority, today. Statistically speaking, it's likely that even you (the Old Truth reader) disagrees with me on this topic. But it probably wouldn't have been that way in the past. In his booklet on the 10 Commandments, AW Pink diagnoses our present Christian era: "The fact that any man can escape the observance of [the 4th] Commandment is a sad reflection upon our modern social order, and shows how far we have departed from the Divine plan and ideal". And in Pink's writing The Redeemer's Return he wrote: "There is such an awful 'falling away' from the observance of the Holy Sabbath". He went on to say:
"All around us are people who are worldly-minded, money-lovers, pleasure-seekers, Sabbath-breakers, yet who think all is well with them because they have 'accepted Christ as their personal Savior'. In their aspiration, conversation, and recreation, there is practically nothing to differentiate them from those who make no profession at all. Neither in their home-life nor social-life is there anything except empty pretensions to distinguish them from others. The fear of God is not upon them, the commands of God have no authority over them, the holiness of God has no attraction for them." --AW Pink, Gospel Preaching Commanded
Chances are, if you've benefited from a quotation or book excerpt that I've ever posted here on Old Truth, the one that I quoted was probably a Sabbatarian. That's likely true of your favorite hymn writers and authors of commentaries as well.
You see, in many past times and places, the Christian Sabbath was a wonderful thing to behold. It was said of one town in England during the Puritan era: "On the Lord's Day all disorder became quite banished out of the town. As you passed along the streets on the Sabbath morning, you might hear a hundred households singing psalms at their family worship". It reminds me of the scripture that my pastor's father based a book on, which he entitled Call The Sabbath a Delight.
So why have today's Christians rejected the Sabbath?
In the aforementioned book, Walter Chantry explains the reason why many today have jettisoned the 4th Commandment. In his chapter which demonstrates that even the New Testament teaches the Sabbath, Chantry responds to the common thinking that it was "just for the Jews", saying:
"Such a response calls our attention to one of the great difficulties which arises when modern evangelicals discuss the bible and it's teaching. In the United States, the Bible School movement and the Scofield Bible have spread far and wide a system of thought called 'dispensationalism'. Dispensationalism is a theology which distorts one's understanding of Scripture and places blinders on Bible students. ... It is dispensationalism which has given the popular impression that a Christian may dismiss Old Testament teaching or Commandments unless it is repeated in the New Testament. ..."
Dispensationalism, of course is rather new in church history, and as you know, I am very suspicious of new ways to interpret the bible. There are many great dispensationalists that I respect (such as John MacArthur), but here is one area where I depart with their teaching in favor of the 'old truth'.
By now you probably have questions (or even protests) that you are itching to comment on. This should make for a some useful and friendly debate in the comments below, but before we get into the details, let me make a couple of things clear and set some ground rules:
Sabbatarians do NOT believe that those highly detailed rules (the ceremonial law) in the Old Testament are still for Christians today, however the 10 Commandments are not in the ceremonial law.
The Sabbath pre-dates the 10 Commandments, as the bible establishes this pattern: "for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day".
Let's save "what Christians should and should not do on the Sabbath" for another post. In this post I am simply interested in discussing whether the 10 commandments are still for Christians to follow.
Sabbatarians do NOT believe that Christians are justified (saved) by following the 10 Commandments. With the Holy Spirit's help we endeavor to follow them because we want to please the God who has saved us, though we know we will not do so perfectly in this life.
Be careful not to make the mistake of thinking that this is an easy issue to decide against. Consider whether it's an arrogant thing to say "all of those dead guys were wrong and I am right". Maybe you ARE right, but just to make sure, do some reading on this topic; one book that I especially recommend is The Lord's Day, by Joseph Pipa. Also see the Richard Barcellos links given by my blogging partner over at SBF.
And finally, resist the temptation to think that it's "fine for you but not for me". Either it's 100% right for everyone to obey this commandment, or it's equally right that none of us should. Could murder (or another commandment) be fine for one person but not another?

JESUS THE EASY BUTTON????????

This 'Christian' t-shirt manufacturer wants the the world to know that if you're looking for a solution to 'Life's Problems' Jesus is your easy answer. That's funny. The Bible doesn't say anything about Jesus solving 'Life's Problems'. Hmmm...maybe we'd better recheck the good book....let's see here.
For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost. - Luke 19:10
There's nothing about 'Life's Problems' in that verse. Let's check another.
For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. - Rom. 5:6
Nope. Not there.
...but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. - Rom. 5:8
Not there either. Hmmm...let's try one more.
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, -1Pet. 3:18
We couldn't find anything about Jesus solving 'Life's Problems' but we did find a bunch of verses that talk about Jesus dying for our sins. But, sins aren't just 'problems'. They're outright evil and Jesus' solution for our sins was to die on the cross. There was nothing easy about that.
Maybe the folks that made this t-shirt are reading a different Bible.

ENJOYING GOD

God is not otherwise to be enjoyed than as He is obeyed. [John Howe]

THE CHRISTIAN NEWLY WED SHOW

This video is NOT Kid Friendly At All! That this is done in a church is beyond reprehensible.
http://www.alittleleaven.com/2007/07/christian-newly.html

IS IT THE WILL OF GOD???????

“It is the will of God.” How easily these words fall from the lips or flow from the pen. How difficult it is to penetrate exactly what they mean. Few concepts in theology generate more confusion than the will of God.One problem we face is rooted in the multifaceted way in which the term will functions in biblical expressions. The Bible uses the expression “will of God” in various ways. Augustine once remarked, “In some sense, God wills everything that happens.” The immediate question raised by this comment is, In what sense? Some distinctions made by theologians include the following:THE DECRETIVE WILL OF GODThis is sometimes described as the sovereign efficacious will, by which God brings to pass whatever He pleases by His divine decree. An example of this may be seen in God’s work of creation. When God said, “Let there be light,” He issued a divine imperative. He exercised His sovereign efficacious will. It was impossible for the light not to appear. The decretive will can have no other effect, no other consequence than what God sovereignly commands. THE PRECEPTIVE WILL OF GODThe preceptive will of God relates to the revealed commandments of God’s published law. When God commands us not to steal, this “decree” does not carry with it the immediate necessity of consequence. Where it was not possible for the light to refuse to shine in creation, it is possible for us to refuse to obey this command. We may have the power to disobey the precept. We do not have the power to disobey it with impunity. Nor can we annul it by our disregard. His law remains intact whether we obey it or disobey it. Yet we still observe the acute difference between the light’s obedience to God’s creative decree and our disobedience to God’s moral, preceptive decree. How do we account for this?A common way to resolve this conundrum is by appeal to a distinction between the sovereign will of God and His permissive will.This distinction between God’s sovereign will and His permissive will is fraught with peril, and it tends to generate untold confusion.In ordinary language the term permission suggests some sort of positive sanction. To say that God “allows” or “permits” evil does not mean that He sanctions it in the sense that He grants approval to it. It is easy to discern that God never permits sin in the sense that He sanctions it in His creatures.What is usually meant by divine permission is that God simply lets it happen. That is, He does not directly intervene to prevent its happening. Here is where grave danger lurks. Some theologies view this drama as if God were impotent to do anything about human sin. This view makes man sovereign, not God. God is reduced to the role of spectator. This ghastly view is not merely a defective view of theism; it is unvarnished atheism.Whatever God “permits” He sovereignly and efficaciously wills to permit. If I have a choice to sin or not sin, God also has a choice in the matter. He always has the ability and the authority to stop me from exercising my will.In the treachery perpetrated by Joseph’s brothers, it was said, “You meant it for evil; God meant it for good.” God’s good will was served through the bad will of Joseph’s brothers. Their acts are judged together with their intentions, and they were rightly judged by God to be evil. That God brings good out of evil only underscores the power and the excellence of His sovereign decretive will.

A SUPERNATURAL FAITH

A Supernatural Faith by R.C. Sproul

“The God hypothesis is no longer necessary to explain the origin of the universe or the development of human life.” This assertion was at the very heart of the movement that took place in the eighteenth century that we call the Enlightenment. God’s existence was seen as no longer necessary because He had been supplanted by the “science” of that period that explained the universe in terms of spontaneous generation. Here we see an example of pseudoscience supplanting sound philosophy and theology.Added to this, we have the agnosticism of the titanic philosopher Immanuel Kant, who argued that it is impossible for science or philosophy to acquire knowledge of the metaphysical realm of God. It was declared that all knowledge must be restricted to the realm of the natural. With the combination of Kant’s agnosticism and the hypothesis of the Enlightenment, the door was open wide to a thoroughgoing philosophy of naturalism. This philosophy captured in its wake the academic theologians of Europe in the nineteenth century. Out of this came nineteenth-century liberalism with its militant anti-supernatural perspective. The liberalism of that era denied all of the supernatural elements of the Christian faith, including the virgin birth of Jesus, His miracles, His atoning death, and His resurrection. The impact of liberalism and neo-liberalism on the church left it basically as a worldly, nature-bound religion that sought refuge in a humanitarian social agenda. This is the approach to Christianity that has all but completely captured many of today’s mainline churches throughout the world.However, in the last few decades, we have witnessed a comeback of sorts of the supernatural. Yet this increasing interest in the supernatural has been driven in large measure by a fascination with the occult. People are now interested in demons, witches, spiritualists, and other occultic phenomena.The Christianity of the Bible is a religion that is uncompromisingly supernatural. If we take away the supernatural, we take away Christianity. At the heart of the worldview of both Testaments is the idea that the realm of nature is created by One who transcends that nature. With the renewed interest in the supernatural that comes with the occult, we must be ever vigilant to make sure that whatever understanding we have of the supernatural is an understanding that is informed by the Bible and not by paganism. Sheer naturalism is paganism with a vengeance, but so is the occult. What we need is an understanding of the supernatural that comes to us from the supernatural, from the Author of the supernatural, who reveals to us in His Word the content of the supernatural realm – so that our understanding of angels, or demons, or of spiritual beings comes from God’s self-revelation and not from human speculation, neo-gnostic magic, or other forms of pagan intrusions. Again, we must insist that without the supernatural, Christianity loses its very heart, and this writer cannot understand why anybody would attach any great significance to Christianity at all once it’s been stripped of its supernatural elements.

RICHES

Riches are long in getting with much pains, hard in keeping with much care, quick in losing with more sorrow. [Thomas Fuller]

MTV BIBLE STUDY

Enough Already!!!
James 1:27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, and the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.
Youth Specialties is a publishing company that should be avoided at all costs. Not only do they offer works by Emergent guru Tony Jones, they've recently created the MTV Video Music Awards Questions and Bible Study.
Instructions include how to view the top four videos and have a party to ask questions of the invitees. Collectively, the videos display abuse, violence, drugs, and sexual content.
Here are a couple of comments in this Youth Specialties "Bible Study" concerning Snoop Dogg’s video Drop It Like It’s Hot:
Just for grins…pick up a Bible and randomly select a Proverb and see if your group can say it in “izzle” speak...
..The images in the video show some of the “perks” that go along with great wealth. If you had unlimited money at your disposal what would be the first “perk” you would by (sic)? It’s okay to think selfishly for this question.
This is NOT a Bible Study nor is this type of stuff appropriate for church or for children.