Raising Pharisees By Kurt Gebhards

* Kurt serves as the Pastor of Children’s Ministries at Grace Church.

One dynamic of Children’s Ministries at Grace Community Church is that most of the children we minister to come from Christian families. Many of them are blessed with the sound and systematic teaching from God’s Word both at home and in the church, and even sometimes in school. This is something to be grateful for, but it also presents a unique challenge to those of us in Children’s Ministries. While the world breeds rebels, the church can unwittingly breed hypocrites.
It is the sad testimony of church history that the works and expressions of sacrificial love and devotion of one generation of Christians can quickly turn into legalistic rules and regulations for the next. The convictions of the first generation become the caprice of the second. It is sad and shameful how quickly the Object of wonder and worship of a generation can become the boredom and betrayal of the next. Hypocrisy is an imminent and evident threat to the church of Jesus Christ.
Churched children are seldom given to outright defiance of authority; they are much more susceptible to the poison of Pharisaism. Hypocrisy in the heart is much more difficult to spot than disobedient behavior. The Bible gives us some definite character traits of the pretentious pietist, and here is what they may look like in a child:

His outward behavior and adherence to rules are driven by a desire to please men, not by a love for God with all his heart, soul, mind and strength (Mk. 12:30).
Doing good works and having them observed by adults is more important than the action itself (Mt. 6:5).

The child is openly obedient and responsive – asking to pray before bedtime with you – while maintaining a quietly deceitful and rebellious attitude (Gal. 6:7).
He scrupulously observes the letter of the law – like religiously bringing his Bible to church – but neglects the weightier spirit of the law – like sharing his favorite toys with his siblings (Mt. 23:23).

He craves the verbal praises and tangible rewards of his parents and teachers, but cares little for the approbation of God Himself (Jn. 12:43)

Left unchecked by the grace and Word of God, by the time such a child reaches his teenage years, hypocrisy can have entrenched itself.

This teen prefers well-defined, black and white rules, for they give him a sense of certainty that God must surely reward those achievements (Lk. 18:12).

He adds a layer of rules to the Word of God (like not watching any movies, not listening to popular music, et cetera), giving the impression that he holds to a higher standard than Holy Scripture (Mt. 23:4).

He tends to propose personal preferences as, or elevate them above, divine imperatives (Mt. 15:2-3).

He pursues perfectionism (Phil. 3:6), not excellence (Phil. 3:12-14).

He separates himself from others he considers of lesser cultural morality – people whose table manners, courtesy of speech, and refinement of mannerisms do not match middle-class norms (Lk. 15:1-2).

He is judgmental – he excels at fault-finding, he loves to pick verbal fights – and the standard by which he condemns others is not primarily biblical, but personal, preferential, or traditional (Mt. 7:5). He fights against many people, against many issues, but he does not know who he is fighting for.

Hypocrisy is the pretense of virtue or piousness that is contrary to one’s real character. And make no mistake, hypocrisy spreads like an unseen cancer. Everything appears alive and spiritually vital, then suddenly, the person is dull –and soon dead. The Lord specifically warned His disciples, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.” (Lk. 12:1) Since hypocrisy is hidden deep within the recesses of the heart, it goes on unchecked and will hollow out its victim from the inside.
One of the dangers is that these outwardly compliant children receive much approval from parents and teachers. So they are encouraged to continue the duplicity unless anti-hypocritical measures are employed. We can certainly teach and militate against hypocrisy in the following ways:
Instead of just dealing with external behavior issues, we should seize every opportunity to help children understand that it is their hearts that generate their actions (Mt. 15:19). In His judgment of man, God looks at the heart (1 Sam.16:7). We should never equate occasions of good behavior (professions of love for Jesus, acts of compliance, et cetera) with saving faith in Jesus. We need to go beyond fixing wrong behavior to helping the child understand that his evil heart can only be changed by the Lord in regeneration.
Emphasize the affections of NT religion. Make sure that we are not just aiming at a young person’s understanding, but that we reach for the heart and its affections.
Do not encourage children to exhibit their talents and gifts to impress others. They should be reminded that all that they are and have are gifts of grace from God (1 Cor. 4:7), and they should not regard themselves more highly than they ought (Rom. 12:3).
Teach the truth about integrity – which comes from the word for “integer” or “whole.” For a child with integrity, whichever way you turn them, they look they same. Who they are at church, is who they are in school, is who they are at home. This is what our kids should be.
Do not be afraid to share our spiritual and moral failures with children in instances where they can identify with our shortcomings. This allows us to be authentic with them. It also allows us to demonstrate our response to God when we have done wrong, and our reliance on Him to continue molding our hearts.
Be authentic in your love for Christ. Genuine desire for Christ is not easily faked. Let your zeal be a barometer by which they measure their own affection for Christ.
Hypocrisy is an insidious danger in Children’s Ministries today. It also threatens each individual home. As parents, it is our job to honor the intention of Psalm 78:4-6:
We will not conceal [the Word of God] from their children, But tell to the generations to come the praises of the LORD, and His strength and His wondrous works that He has done, that they should teach [the law] to their children, that the generation to come might know, even the children yet to be born, That they may arise and tell them to their children.

THE PROSPERITY GOSPEL TBN's Promise: Send Money and See Riches By William Lobdell

Pastor Paul Crouch calls it "God's economy of giving," and here is how it works:

People who donate to Crouch's Trinity Broadcasting Network will reap financial blessings from a grateful God. The more they give TBN, the more He will give them.
Being broke or in debt is no excuse not to write a check. In fact, it's an ideal opportunity. For God is especially generous to those who give when they can least afford it.
"He'll give you thousands, hundreds of thousands," Crouch told his viewers during a telethon last November. "He'll give millions and billions of dollars."
Preachers who pass the hat while praising the Lord have long been the stuff of ridicule in film and fiction. But for Crouch and his Orange County-based television ministry, God's economy of giving is no laughing matter. It brings a rich bounty, year after year.
Crouch has used a doctrine called the "prosperity gospel" to underwrite a worldwide broadcasting network and a life of luxury for himself and his family.
For at least a century, preachers have plied the notion that dropping money in the collection plate will bring blessings from God — material as well as spiritual. But Crouch, through inspired salesmanship and advanced telecommunications technology, has converted this time-worn creed into a potent financial engine.
TBN collects more than $120 million a year from viewers of its Christian programming — more than any other TV ministry. Those donations have fueled its rise from a rented studio in Santa Ana to a global broadcasting system whose programs appear on thousands of channels — via satellite, cable and over-the-air broadcasts — in a dozen languages.
The network's donors also help fund generous salaries for Crouch ($403,700 a year) and his wife, Jan ($361,000), and an array of perks, including a TBN-owned jet and 30 homes across the country, among them a pair of Newport Beach mansions and a ranch in Texas.
The prosperity gospel is rooted in the idea that God wants Christians to prosper and that believers have the right to ask Him for financial gifts. TBN has woven this notion into its round-the-clock programming as well as the thousands of fund-raising letters it mails every day.
During one telethon, Crouch, 70, told viewers that if they did their part to advance the Kingdom of God -- such as by donating money to TBN -- they should not be shy about asking Him for a reward.
"If my heart really, honestly desires a nice Cadillac ... would there be something terribly wrong with me saying, 'Lord, it is the desire of my heart to have a nice car ... and I'll use it for Your glory?'" Crouch asked. "I think I could do that and in time, as I walked in obedience with God, I believe I'd have it."
Other preachers who appear on the network offer variations on the theme that God appreciates wealth and likes to share it. One of them, John Avanzini, once told viewers that Jesus, despite His humble image, was a man of means.
"John 19 tells us that Jesus wore designer clothes," Avanzini said, referring to the purple robe that Christ's tormentors wrapped around him before the Crucifixion. "I mean, you didn't get the stuff He wore off the rack..... No, this was custom stuff. It was the kind of garment that kings and rich merchants wore."
TBN viewers are told that if they don't reap a windfall despite their donations, they must be doing something to "block God's blessing" — most likely, not giving enough.
Crouch has particularly stern words for those who are not giving at all.
"If you have been healed or saved or blessed through TBN and have not contributed ... you are robbing God and will lose your reward in heaven," he said during a 1997 telecast.
A central element of the prosperity gospel is that no one is too poor or too indebted to donate. Bishop Clarence McClendon, a preacher whose show "Take It By Force" appears on TBN, told viewers in March that God had asked him to deliver a message to those in financial difficulty:
They should "sow a seed" by using their credit cards to make donations. In return, the Lord would see to it that the balances would be paid off within 30 days.
"Get Jesus on that credit card!" McClendon said
Ask and Receive
Proponents of the prosperity gospel -- also known as the "name it and claim it" gospel and the "health and wealth" gospel — point to a verse in the Hebrew Scriptures in which the Lord warns the faithful not to "rob" him by withholding their tithes:
" 'Test me in this,' says the Lord Almighty, 'and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it.' "
E.W. Kenyon, an evangelical pastor in the first half of the 20th century, was an early and influential advocate of the idea that God would grant material wishes.
Kenyon wrote about the "power of faith" to bring health and wealth. He depicted an Almighty who not only protected his followers and forgave their sins, but handed out gifts if asked. The important thing was to ask.
Kenyon's ideas inspired what came to be known as the Word of Faith movement. Many of the phrases Kenyon coined — such as "What I confess, I possess" — are still used by evangelists.
After Kenyon's death in 1948, other pastors used aspects of his teachings to draw an even more emphatic connection between piety and prosperity. Pentecostalists such as Oral Roberts were particularly ardent in espousing this doctrine.
In the 1960s, Pastor Kenneth Hagin, often described as the father of the Word of Faith movement, raised the profile of the prosperity gospel still further, promoting it on television and in books with titles such as "Godliness Is Profitable" and "How to Write Your Own Ticket with God."
Hagin preached a four-part formula that he said he received in a vision from Jesus: Say it. Do it. Receive it. Tell it.
First, believers must ask God for what they want. Next, they must demonstrate their faith through donations. Then they will tap into the "powerhouse of heaven" and receive their gifts. Finally, they must spread the news.
Most of today's leading televangelists preach some version of this creed.
Jan and Paul Crouch were brought up in the Assemblies of God, a Pentecostal denomination where the prosperity gospel flourishes. After working in ministries in South Dakota and Michigan, the couple moved to Southern California in 1961 to run an Assemblies of God TV production facility in Burbank.
They launched their own network in 1973. After two nights on the air on KBSA-Channel 46 in Santa Ana, they were broke. So the next night, they staged a telethon.
The phones hardly rang. Then Paul Crouch hit on an idea, he recalled in his autobiography, "Hello World!" He told Jan to announce on the air that an anonymous donor had promised to give $20,000 — on condition that viewers pledge the same amount that night.
The anonymous donor was Crouch, and the $20,000 was money the couple had already loaned the network. If viewers came through with $20,000, they would forgo repayment of the loan.
By evening's end, viewers had phoned in $30,000 in pledges, enough to keep TBN on the air.
"Without really realizing it at the time, I had put into motion one of God's most powerful laws — the law of giving and receiving, sowing and reaping," Crouch wrote. "Thirty, 60 and 100-fold blessing is, indeed, a glorious truth and blessing for those who will simply obey the word of the Lord!"
The prosperity gospel became the foundation of TBN fundraising. The Crouches and TBN personalities such as faith healer Benny Hinn present the doctrine with passion and a flair for the dramatic.
During fundraising "Praise-a-thons," the Crouches read testimonials from donors whose debts supposedly were miraculously forgiven — or who inexplicably received checks in the mail. They pray over donors' pledge cards.
In 2000, TBN televangelists told viewers that those who promised $2,000 would get the money back before the end of the year — and would find that their debts had been canceled. Later, donors were invited to send in loan statements and other debt paperwork. The documents were burned on a stone altar.
During another pitch, Crouch read on-camera a letter he said was from a financially strapped viewer who had pledged $4,000.
According to Crouch, the donor wrote: "Within 15 minutes of that time, I received a check in the U.S. mail in the amount of $5,496.70. No explanation.... I know it's not an income tax return. I don't make enough money to file returns."
That year, in a fundraising letter to the network's "prayer partners," Crouch wrote: "Praise the Lord, the reports of awesome miracles of debts canceled and God's people coming out of debt continue to come in. God's economy of giving really works!"
What Windfall?
Most mainstream theologians and pastors say the prosperity gospel is at best a doctrinal error and at worst a con game. They point out that Jesus and his disciples abandoned their possessions in order to live a spiritually rich life.
"It is difficult to fathom how anyone familiar with the abundance of biblical teaching about the 'deceitfulness of riches' could have devised the prosperity gospel," said William Martin, a sociology professor at Rice University and author of a biography of Billy Graham. "While the Bible does not condemn all wealth, it surely points to its dangers in numerous passages."
Critics of TBN say that the promise of financial miracles — besides being a distraction from the core principles of Christianity — can cause real harm.
Ole E. Anthony, founder of the Trinity Foundation in Dallas, a televangelist watchdog, said he knew people who had given the last of their savings to TV preachers, hoping for a windfall that never came.
"The people on TBN are living the lifestyle of fabulous wealth on the backs of the poorest and most desperate people in our society," Anthony said. "People have lost their faith in God because they believe they weren't worthy after not receiving their financial blessing."
Thomas D. Horne, of Williford, Ark., a disabled Vietnam-era veteran, said that in 1994 he was swept away by the rhetoric of TBN pastors and donated about $6,000 in disability benefits.
Time went by and he did not receive the promised surfeit of money. Last year, he found out that TBN had purchased a Newport Beach mansion overlooking the Pacific. He wrote to the network, asking for his money back.
"I want to recoup my hard-earned disability money I sent to these despicable people," said Horne. He said he has received no reply.
Philip McPeake is another donor for whom God's economy of giving did not deliver. Out of work and out of luck in November 1998, McPeake heard the Rev. R.W. Schambach make an impassioned plea for donations on TBN's Kansas City television station, KTAJ.
Schambach promised that if viewers sent $200 as a down-payment on a $2,000 pledge, God would give them the rest within 90 days — with a bonus to follow.
McPeake sent in his money and waited for his luck to change. When it didn't, he complained to the Missouri state attorney general's office and the Federal Communications Commission. TBN refunded his donation.
Carl Geisendorfer, who runs a low-power Christian television station in Quincy, Ill., offered TBN programming for 19 years — until, he said, he grew disgusted by the televangelists' financial appeals.
He said he pulled TBN off the air in 2002 after watching a preacher tell viewers that they should pledge $2,000 — even if they didn't have it — in order to receive a financial miracle from God.
"I should have canceled TBN several years earlier, but I thought Paul Crouch would finally see the light on how foolish and prideful that false gospel is," said Geisendorfer, president of Believer's Broadcasting Corp., a small media group. "I'm sorry I waited as long as I did."
Geisendorfer said donations to his station dropped 25% after he dropped TBN's programs. He said Paul Crouch called him and, during a 90-minute conversation, admitted to struggling over how far to go in promising financial rewards to donors.
"He said, 'What's the difference if some believe it or not. It works for many people. Why not?' " Geisendorfer wrote in a newsletter sent to station supporters last year. He quoted Crouch as saying: "The money comes in and the world is being reached by the Gospel."
Crouch declined to be interviewed for this article. His son, Paul Crouch Jr., a TBN executive, said critics of the prosperity gospel overlook the fact that the network has used viewers' contributions to bring God's word to millions of people.
He said it was unfortunate that "the prosperity gospel is a lightning rod for the Body of Christ. It's not what drives TBN."
If TBN was interested only in money, the younger Crouch said, it would sell advertisements instead of funding its operations primarily with viewers' contributions. "We could double our money tomorrow," he said.
He added that appeals for money make up a small part of TBN programming and are prominent mainly during TBN's twice-yearly, weeklong "Praise-a-thons."
Those are the times when Rick Johnston, a retired pastor who lives near Flagstaff, Ariz., swings into action. Johnson, 56, organizes groups of like-minded Christians to try and jam TBN's phone lines during "Praise-a-thons." The strategy is to stay on the line as long as possible offering phony pledges.
"I feel like a little fly trying to knock down Goliath," Johnston said. "But if I can stop somebody from being robbed of $100, I'm going to do it. There are worse things in life I could be guilty of doing."
Not all TBN donors are looking for a financial payback. Many say they are more interested in the promise of salvation and in helping spread the message of Jesus.
Jeanne Fish, 87, a widow who lives in a Tustin apartment, said she took solace from TBN when her husband died nearly 20 years ago and has been a loyal viewer ever since.
"I get so much out of it," she said. "It's almost like getting a theology degree. It's kind of hard to turn off, in fact."
Loyal viewers are dumbfounded that TBN generates controversy within the evangelical community.
"I'm just so amazed and shocked that so many people don't like [TBN] in the Christian world," said Arthur Robbins, an artist who lives near Santa Cruz. "It's a huge undertaking to promote the gospel worldwide, and they're doing it."
On the air, Paul Crouch responds to criticism of the prosperity gospel by invoking Satan.
"If the devil can keep all of us Christians poor, we won't have any disposable income to build Christian television stations," Crouch said once.
Michael Giuliano, an expert in televangelism at Westmont College in Santa Barbara, said this is an effective strategy.
"It's very, very powerful," he said. "In a world of uncertainty, you know who the good guys in the white hats are and who the guys in the black hats are. And giving money to TBN is a tangible way to join the fight for the good guys."

Time To Leave The Playpen By Andrew Gould

When I hear the phrase “that was so unloving”, sometimes I want to scream!

We are living at a time when our feelings have become too all-important to us. Over here in the UK we find members of the Police and Armed Forces sueing the Government because of the ‘emotional distress’ that they suffered in the course of their duties. The question needs to be asked, “What did they think they were signing up for when they joined – a Sunday School outing?” Where is the resilience, fortitude and backbone that we once prized as our national trait?
My grandfather was one of the most gentle people that I knew, and only after his death did I learn that he had been a Lewis gunner in the Great War and saw some of the most dreadful places in that conflict. He never talked about it nor complained about the scars left on his soul from the horrors that he must have witnessed.
I used to work for an insurance company, and motorists that were contemplating a trip to the USA were advised to take out “top up insurance”. This is because if you were involved in an accident not only would you have to pay up for the damage to another person’s vehicle but you might get sued for a whole host of other things, such as the “emotional trauma” of the occupants of the other car. Where is this trend leading us?
Don’t Hurt My Feelings!
To generalise, English people are perceived as somewhat cold, formal, clinical, cynical and rather negative, by Americans. To English eyes on the other hand, Americans are seen as being more warm, positive, approachable, and “huggy” - but also oversensitive and gullible. These are generalisations of course but there is an element of truth in them.
While on the one hand the LORD does not want us to be a cold, miserable and griping lot, on the other hand neither does he want us to be oversensitive and unable to receive correction.
There are good things in both national temperaments that we could do with learning from one another, but there are some bad things that we have already learnt and which have run rife in the Church.
God Is LOVE - So Don’t Correct Me!
There is a kind of culture of “over sensitivity” that has spread through the Body like a cancer. It has got to the stage where to make even a remark that comes just close to being critical or negative is perceived by the recipient as being an attack on them personally, and hurtful to their feelings. They instantly become defensive, and angry and either back off completely and then tell the whole world and his dog (behind your back) what a bad person and unloving Christian you are, or they turn round and rip your head off, screaming “God is love – how can you say that to me!” Well, God is love, but do we really know what Love - REAL BIBLICAL LOVE - is?
God So Loved The World
God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whomsoever believeth in Him should not perish but should have everlasting life.
We all know this verse off by heart, and it is a marvellous picture of the love of God, but it is by no means the whole picture! What does the rest of the verse say?
God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
Far more often than it talks of the love of God, the Bible talks of the holiness of God. John - the very same disciple who says that God is love -, said “God is light and in Him is no darkness at all”
In I Corinthians 13 we read of the characteristics of love, which is really the outworking of God’s character in us. Now the very same God who is all those things in 1Cor.13 is the God who thundered at Sinai, who destroyed those who rebelled against Him in the wilderness, who made the whip of cords and drove the moneychangers out of the temple and who denounced the Pharisees so scathingly in Matt. 23. This Jesus who loved us so much that he died for us also says:
As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
What we have forgotten in all these things is that God is “El Emet” the God of Truth. With God, truth and love are part of the same package they are utterly inseparable.
Before we came to know the LORD the Holy Spirit worked in our hearts to show us our utterly lost and sinful condition. Now I don’t know about anyone else, but it was not an enjoyable experience for me, and I did not feel too happy at the time. However, I’m not going to sue God for hurting my feelings! Praise God that He did it – He loved me enough to show me the truth and to upset my feelings. It was pretty traumatic in my early days as a believer too – I felt like I was going through hell at the time, but I learnt much truth that way, and I am glad that He did it. The love of God is sometimes painful.
For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
Scourging means whipping! Whipping does not sound like an enjoyable experience, does it? Yet is it part of that love of God. Let us be clear about this, that the LORD is absolutely committed to producing in us the character of His Son and conforming us to His truth regardless of the cost to our feelings.
In the same way that God is committed to conforming us individually to His truth, even so is He doing the same with the Body as a whole. He is the God of truth and all that is not true will be purged out of His Church.
In the same book of Revelation, Jesus has some very stern things to say to Churches who permit individuals to teach false doctrines and to those who themselves teach such.
And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass; I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first. Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works. But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden.
Paul said of false teachers “let them be accursed”. Strong words! Now these were false teachers , wolves and agents of Satan. But what of those who did love the LORD but were going astray, did he not mention it for fear of being critical or unloving?
But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness comes by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
Because Peter’s error was public before all, Paul rebuked him before all. The truth of the Gospel is more important than our hurt feelings or embarrassment. Among some groups of Christians today the gossip would be flying about - how horrid Paul was to Peter, “how unloving, what a terrible thing to say, Peter was so upset” etc. Paul would be considered the villain for sinking the “Love Boat”.
What does it say happened afterward?
“And Peter departed with many tears and black-balled Paul all over the Internet. For verily Paul had embarrassed him sore before all the brethren. Indeed Peter could no longer stand the sight of Paul, for his soul was bitter against him”
No! Praise God. Peter could have gone away in a huff, but he did not. Peter was a man of God enough to look at what Paul said, weigh it in the light of the truth, repent and get on with the job.
Are we true sons or bastards?
For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds. Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin.
And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.
Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.
Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby. Wherefore lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees; And make straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way; but let it rather be healed. Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord: Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled;
The Greek Word translated “chastisement” is better rendered correction. When scriptural correction comes our own way or someone else is rebuked for teaching false doctrine, which is more important - their or our hurt feelings, or God’s truth?
Many Christians get all offended when someone tries to correct them, and out of fear of rebuke they can’t stand to see others corrected either. Even the gentlest correction is grievous to them and they read it in the worst possible light. They see all correction, however mild, as rejection! They are so conformed to the “namby-pamby”, “wishy-washy” counterfeit idea of love that Satan has sold the Church, that they are effectively uncorrectable. They are ruled by their feelings, and not walking by faith.
Some of them are believers of long standing, but they are still crawling on the floor like babies who have never learnt to walk. They want to be bottle fed with milk, and anything that has to be chewed over, or is bitter to the palate, is vomited back.
Like a babe that cannot yet reason for itself, when adults try to steer them away from harm, or when things are removed from their grasp, they just squawk and yowl in protest. All babies know is that their wishes are not being granted, their wants are not being supplied, so they yell. They cannot sit and think like a mature child of God, and evaluate whether rebuke or correction is deserved or not. They are the ones who, as they read these words, will be so offended that they will not even consider whether what I am saying is true!
Saccharin Not Included
Ideally correction should come with kindness and concern and a little seasoning of grace. But this is an imperfect world with imperfect people in it. Sometimes our brothers and sisters get the truth right but forget to include the grace and humility and give us both barrels at point blank range. Question is, are we still mature enough to read the message instead of shooting the delivery boy?
Many years ago I was into the Word of Faith Doctrine. I had a dear friend who could see it for the error that it was, and she was not a woman noted for great patience, overweening tolerance and suffering of fools gladly. She did not hesitate to let me know her thoughts or give me a piece of her mind!
Eventually I agreed to read a book she pressed on me “The Seduction Of Christianity”. I did not enjoy reading it at all. It was painful and shaming to admit that I was deceived and I had a really most unpleasant time as the LORD stripped away the false doctrine.
After a week or so He began to restore to me the truth that I had strayed from and it turned into a time of joy. What I would have missed if I had hardened my heart and just become bitter and rejected the correction because it did not come in a way that made me feel good!
We’re In The Army Now
Beloved, it is time for all of us to grow up! We are not merely sons but soldiers. We are in a battlefield, not on a picnic site! Like those who served in the Great War, there will be traumatic, even terrible times coming our way. If we continue the way we are going we will not make it through. It is time to toughen up!
"Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ".

The Other Gospel Of John Hagee by G. Richard Fisher

"Most people who see and hear the Rev. John C. Hagee are impressed. He is rotund, strident, authoritative (and could well pass for Rush Limbaugh’s older and more serious brother). His delivery alone gives the impression of one who really knows what he is talking about. However, careful evaluation of the teachings of Hagee, pastor at the San Antonio-based Cornerstone Church, reveals false teaching and a defective view of a basic and essential issue regarding salvation and the Gospel http://www.pfo.org/jonhagee.htm Hagee preaches another way of salvation for the Jew, which is in direct violation of Paul’s warnings in Galatians 1:6-9."

Good Intentions Gone Bad by R.C. Sproul

The adage tells us that there is a destination, the road to which is paved with good intentions. It is the destination that we would prefer not to reach. Good intentions can have disastrous results and consequences. When we look at the revolution of worship in America today, I see a dangerous road that is built with such intentions. The good purposes that have transformed worship in America have as their goal to reach a lost world – a world that is marked by baby boomers and Generation Xers who have in many ways rejected traditional forms and styles of worship. Many have found the life of the church to be irrelevant and boring, and so an effort to meet the needs of these people has driven some radical changes in how we worship God.Perhaps the most evident model developed over the last half century is that model defined as the “seeker-sensitive model.” Seekers are defined as those people who are unbelievers and are outside of the church but who are searching for meaning and significance to their lives. The good intention of reaching such people with evangelistic techniques that include the reshaping of Sunday morning worship fails to understand some significant truths set forth in Scripture.In Romans 3, Paul makes abundantly clear that unconverted people do not seek after God. Thomas Aquinas understood this and maintained that to the naked eye it may seem that unbelievers are searching for God or seeking for the kingdom of God, while they are in fact fleeing from God with all of their might. What Aquinas observed was that people who are unconverted seek the “benefits” that only God can give them, such as ultimate meaning and purpose in their lives, relief from guilt, the presence of joy and happiness, and things of this nature. These are benefits the Christian recognizes can only come through a vital, saving relationship with Christ. The gratuitous leap of logic comes when church leaders think that because people are searching for benefits only God can give them, they must therefore be searching after God. No, they want the benefits without the Giver of the benefits. And so structuring worship to accommodate unbelievers is misguided because these unbelievers are not seeking after God. Seeking after God begins at conversion, and if we are to structure our worship with a view to seekers, then we must structure it for believers, since only believers are seekers.The purpose of corporate assembly, which has its roots in the Old Testament, is for the people of God to come together corporately to offer their sacrifices of praise and worship to God. So the first rule of worship is that it be designed for believers to worship God in a way that pleases God. Another erroneous assumption made in the attempt to restructure the nature of worship is that the modern generation has been so changed by cultural and contextual influences – such as the impact of the electronic age upon their lives – that they are no longer susceptible to traditional attempts of being reached by expository preaching. So the focus of preaching has moved in many cases away from an exposition of the Word of God. We assume this alteration is necessary if we’re to reach the people who have been trapped within the changes of our current culture. The erroneous assumption is that in the last fifty years, the constituent nature of humanity has changed, as if the heart can no longer be reached via the mind. It also assumes that the power of the Word of God has lost its potency, so that we must look elsewhere if we are to find powerful and moving experiences of worship in our church. Though the intentions may be marvelous, the results, I believe, are and will continue to be catastrophic.

God’s Love for Those Never Saved By John MacArthur

Yesterday we ended by looking at the Rich Young Ruler in Mark 10. But that’s not the only Scripture that speaks of God’s love for those who turn away from Him. In Isaiah 63:7–9 the prophet describes God’s demeanor toward the nation of Israel:
“I shall make mention of the lovingkindnesses of the Lord, the praises of the Lord, according to all that the Lord has granted us, and the great goodness toward the house of Israel, which He has granted them according to His compassion, and according to the multitude of His lovingkindnesses. For He said, ‘Surely, they are My people, Sons who will not deal falsely.’ So He became their Savior. In all their affliction He was afflicted, and the angel of His presence saved them; in His love and in His mercy He redeemed them; and He lifted them and carried them all the days of old.”
Someone might say, Yes, but that talks about God’s redemptive love for His elect alone. No, this speaks of a love that spread over the entire nation of Israel. God “became their Savior” in the sense that He redeemed the entire nation from Egypt. He suffered when they suffered. He sustained them “all the days of old.” This speaks not of an eternal salvation, but of a temporal relationship with an earthly nation. How do we know? Look at verse 10: “But they rebelled and grieved His Holy Spirit; therefore, He turned Himself to become their enemy, He fought against them.”
That is an amazing statement! Here we see God defined as the Savior, the lover, the redeemer of a people who make themselves His enemies. They rebel against Him. They grieve His Holy Spirit. They choose a life of sin.
Now notice verse 17: “Why, O Lord, dost Thou cause us to stray from Thy ways, and harden our heart from fearing Thee?” That speaks of God’s judicial hardening of the disobedient nation. He actually hardened the hearts of those whom He loved and redeemed out of Egypt.
Isaiah 64:5 includes these shocking words: “Thou wast angry, for we sinned, we continued in them a long time; and shall we be saved?”
How can God be Savior to those who will not be saved? Yet these are clearly unconverted people. Look at verses 6–7, which begins with a familiar passage:
For all of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; and all of us wither like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away. And there is no one who calls on Thy name, who arouses himself to take hold of Thee; for Thou hast hidden Thy face from us, and hast delivered us into the power of our iniquities.
These are clearly unconverted, unbelieving people. In what sense can God call Himself their Savior?
Here is the sense of it: God revealed Himself as Savior. He manifested His love to the nation. “In all their affliction He was afflicted” (63:9). He poured out His goodness, and lovingkindness and mercy on the nation. And that divine forbearance and longsuffering should have moved them to repentance (Rom. 2:4). But instead they responded with unbelief, and their hearts were hardened.
Isaiah 65 takes it still further:
I permitted Myself to be sought by those who did not ask for Me; I permitted Myself to be found by those who did not seek Me. I said, “Here am I, here am I,” To a nation which did not call on My name. I have spread out My hands all day long to a rebellious people, who walk in the way which is not good, following their own thoughts. (vv.1–2)
In other words, God turned away from these rebellious people, consigned them to their own idolatry, and chose a people for Himself from among other nations.
Isaiah reveals the shocking blasphemy of those from whom God has turned away. They considered themselves holier than God (v. 5); they continually provoked Him to His face (v. 3), defiling themselves (v. 4) and scorning God for idols (v. 7). God judged them with the utmost severity, because their hostility to Him was great, and their rejection of Him was final.
Yet these were people on whom God had showered love and goodness! He even called Himself their Savior.
In a similar sense Jesus is called “Savior of the world” (Jn. 4:42; 1 Jn. 4:14). Paul wrote, “We have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers” (1 Tim. 4:10). The point is not that He actually saves the whole world (for that would be universalism, and Scripture clearly teaches that not all will be saved). The point is that He is the only Savior to whom anyone in the world can turn for forgiveness and eternal life—and therefore, all are urged to embrace Him as Savior. Jesus Christ is proffered to the world as Savior. In setting forth His own Son as Savior of the world, God displays the same kind of love to the whole world that was manifest in the Old Testament to the rebellious Israelites. It is a sincere, tender-hearted, compassionate love that offers mercy and forgiveness.

WHAT WOULD A NEW REFORMATION LOOK LIKE? By Dr Steven J. Lawson

http://www.newreformationministries.org/home/140001931/140001931/files/What%20Would%20A%20New%20Reformation%20Look%20Like.pdf

Puritan Quote of the Week

"We need not be ashamed of that now, which we are sure we shall not repent of when we come to die."
JOHN MASON

John MacArthur on The Doctrines of Grace

On Grace to You, John MacArthur is presenting a tremendous teaching series on The Doctrines of Grace. You must hear these programs and you can at http://www.gty.org/. You can listen to the audio online, read the transcript, or better yet, purchase the entire series for yourself. Here is an excerpt from the transcript of the program on Monday October 1, on the doctrine of limited atonement…..
“So the message then, the typical evangelical message, is to sinners, “God loves you so much He sent His Son who paid in full the penalty for your sins and won’t you respond to that love and not disappoint God and accept the gift and let Him save you since He already paid in full the price for your sins?” The final decision is up to the sinner.
And it kind of carries the notion that God loves you so much, you’re so special, He gave His Son and He paid in full the penalty for your sins and that’s suppose to move you emotionally to love Him back and accept this gift. And so you kind of work the sinner and kind of manipulate the sinner in that direction trying to find a psychological point, a felt-need point, play the right organ music, sing the right invitation hymn. You know, grease the slide and get him moving in the direction of making the choice.
Now you’ve got a problem here, folks. We’ve got a big problem. We saw in our last study that no sinner on his own can make that choice, right? This is the doctrine of absolute inability. He can’t make it. He cannot make that choice. All people…all people are sinners and all sinners are dead in their trespasses and sins. All of them are alienated from the life of God. All do only evil continually. All are unwilling and unable to understand, to repent and to believe, all have darkened minds, blinded by sin and Satan, all have hearts that are full of evil, all are wicked, desperately wicked. All desire only the will of their father who is Satan, all of them are unable to seek God, they are all trapped in absolute inability and unwillingness.
So how then can the sinner make the choice? I don’t care what felt need you might find. I don’t care what you might think you see, quote/unquote, in his heart that will let you lead anyone to Christ, I don’t care how many invitation verses you sing or how much organ music or mood music you play to try to induce some kind of response, the sinner on his own cannot understand, cannot repent, and cannot believe. Remember what we saw in John 1? To as many as believed He gave the authority, the right to become children of God but not by the will of man or the will of the flesh. Ephesians 2:8 and 9, “By grace are you saved through faith but that not of yourselves.” It is through Him that you are in Christ, 1 Corinthians 1:30, salvation is from God. We saw that. He has to give life to the dead. He has to give sight to the blind. He has to give hearing to the deaf. He has to give understanding to the ignorant. He has to give repentance to those who love sin. He has to give faith to those who can’t believe. He has to move the heart to seek Him who otherwise would not. So that all the elements that caused the sinner to come to Christ are God-ordained and God-induced. ”

Sin: Today vs. Yesterday By Nathan White

I’ve always been intrigued by the debate concerning old-time athletes and how they would’ve supposedly performed in today’s modern era. With Barry Bonds recently breaking the baseball all-time home run record, this discussion has come up quite a bit as of late: “What would’ve Babe Ruth accomplished if he played in this decade?” And so the speculations go.
But the general tendency of historians is to glorify or ‘romanticize’ the past and its key figures as much more glorious than they were in actuality (especially in sports and other secular arenas). Sometimes this is understandable. Nobody really knew what Babe Ruth was accomplishing until well after he was dead, as baseball hadn’t been around very long when he burst onto the scene. The same argument could be given for the legacy of America’s founding fathers, some presidents down through history, etc. But keep in mind that the argument goes both ways: history, in general, is subject to who it is that writes the history books. Our perception of past events is largely subject to the accuracy of which historical reports we esteem the highest.

Shifting our focus to Christianity and its key figures down through church history, I am intrigued by the perception held by many of today’s Christians concerning certain things in church history. Close attention to history, just like close attention to doctrine, isn’t exactly encouraged in the professing church now days. Thus, it shouldn’t be surprising that many erroneous perceptions and misconceptions about church history abound in our day.
From my limited observation and experience, I see a few concerns with the modern church in evaluating history, including:
A tendency to look down upon the doctrine/theology of church history, as if in all of the modern advances in other fields, we have somehow ‘arrived’ to a higher/deeper/more accurate understanding of scripture than others did before us.
A tendency to glorify certain figures of our own particular theological persuasions, while vilifying others who advocated doctrines which we disagree with. For example, John Calvin is loved in the Reformed Community, but despised and painted in a very negative light in the Arminian crowds.
An ignorance of the errors, controversies, and heresies of church history. There is certainly nothing new under the sun, only repackaged goods. Thus, new doctrines and fads come along as nothing but repackaged errors fancied up to appeal in a different manner, and the tendency is to swallow them hook-line-and-sinker without considering how the same errors probably originated in a different form, many years earlier.
A casual dismissal of ‘old truth’ –the doctrines of scripture that have been taught for hundreds and hundreds of years, in favor of new fads and viewpoints. This sort of aligns with my first point, as in their pride, many look on the old truths as outdated and insufficient, while suggesting new ways of looking at things as if the church has ‘missed it’ all along. Such arrogance is mind-boggling to me, but it continues to go on, even in my own Reformed community.
More could be said on the points above, but I have one more thought in mind that I’d like to focus on, and that is the *standard* of the Christian life then, versus now.
Remember the baseball illustration above? What if we applied the same sort of grid to the Christian life? What would a man like Jonathan Edwards look like living in today’s society? Would he have the same brilliant mind, the same hatred of sin, the same level of sanctification? Just how much does our culture influence holiness (either positively or negatively)?
A great example to help us consider this would be that of George Whitefield. Upon describing his life before salvation, Whitefield confesses that he was “a Sabbath-breaker, a theater-goer, a card-player, and a romance-reader.”
Personally, I find this statement utterly amazing. It’s like he is in a completely different world when he points to his ‘heinous’ sins with these examples!
Sabbath-breaker? The majority of Christians now days do not see this as a sin, much less as something that evidenced an unregenerate heart.
Theater-goer? Who isn’t now days, believer or unbeliever?
Card-player? Do video games, sporting events, and hobbies count the same? From his words, I believe so, for no mention is made of gambling.
Romance-reader? Secular narratives in books, T.V., movies, and magazines abound, for both believers and unbelievers alike.
First, I find it amazing that most Christians now days would have no trouble with any of the four things listed above. In fact, if we were to speak out against such things in any situation other than gross abuse, we would most certainly be labeled as legalistic and self-righteous!
Secondly, all of these have a specific reference to how Whitefield spent his free time. I know this because I am currently finishing up Dallimore’s famous 2-volume biography of Whitefield (I could not recommend it highly enough!), and Whitefield mentions again and again the Christian’s serious obligation to redeem spare time. In fact, if there is ever a re-occurring theme as I read the old stuff (Puritans, etc.), the use of our free time is always given a significant prominence in their teaching.
Thus, has the standard changed? I understand that cultures come and go. No doubt that something might have been a faux pas then that is not viewed in the same manner now. But clearly, sin as it was seen then, and as it is seen now, are sometimes completely different things.
Why has the standard changed? Should we just accept this without questioning it? Why is the use of our free time no longer a clear and precise indicator of our salvation/sanctification? Why are hobbies and entertainments only looked at as evil if they take up too much of our life, as if measuring ourselves by ourselves really gives us an accurate picture of what is acceptable?
I believe it is partly due to the changing nature of the gospel. Fear of legalism and turning people off to Christianity has led the message to be one of personal fulfillment rather than personal sacrifice. The message now days, slanted to the itching ears of sinners, consists of:
Were you a movie enthusiast as an unbeliever? Now you can go see movies to the glory of Christ! Were you a drunkard when you lived according to the world? Now you can drink as much as you want (in moderation) and give glory to Christ! Prideful before? Now you can be prideful in Christ! In a Rock and Roll band? Bring that guitar to church and do the same for Jesus!
Much more could be said, but Tozer sums it up much better than I ever could. Consider this as I bring this topic to a close right here:
“The new cross does not slay the sinner, it redirects him. It gears him into a cleaner and jollier way of living and saves his self-respect. To the self-assertive it says, “Come and assert yourself for Christ.” To the egotist it says, “Come and do your boasting in the Lord.” To the thrill- seeker it says, “Come and enjoy the thrill of Christian fellowship.” The Christian message is slanted in the direction of the current vogue in order to make it acceptable to the public.”

Does God Love Whom He Does Not Save? By John MacArthur

I realize that most of our readers will have no objection whatsoever to the idea that God’s love is universal. Most of us were weaned on this notion, being taught as children to sing songs like, “Jesus loves the little children; all the children of the world.” Many may never even have encountered anyone who denies that God’s love is universal.
Yet if I might take a moment to dwell on this issue, it is because I want to acknowledge that it poses a perplexing difficulty for other aspects of God’s revealed truth. Let us honestly admit that on the face of it, the universal love of God is hard to reconcile with the doctrine of election.
Election is a biblical doctrine, affirmed with the utmost clarity from beginning to end in Scripture. The highest expression of divine love to sinful humanity is seen in the fact that God set His love on certain undeserving sinners and chose them for salvation before the foundation of the world. There is a proper sense in which God’s love for His own is a unique, special, particular love determined to save them at all costs.
It is also true that when Scripture speaks of divine love, the focus is usually on God’s eternal love toward the elect. God’s love for mankind reaches fruition in the election of those whom He saves. And not every aspect of divine love is extended to all sinners without exception. Otherwise, all would be elect, and all would ultimately be saved. But Scripture clearly teaches that many will not be saved (Matt. 7:22–23). Can God sincerely love those whom He does not intervene to save?
British Baptist leader Erroll Hulse, dealing with this very question, has written,
How can we say God loves all men when the psalms tell us He hates the worker of iniquity (Ps. 5:5)? How can we maintain that God loves all when Paul says that He bears the objects of His wrath, being fitted for destruction, with great patience (Rom. 9:22)? Even more how can we possibly accept that God loves all men without exception when we survey the acts of God’s wrath in history? Think of the deluge which destroyed all but one family. Think of Sodom and Gomorrah. With so specific a chapter as Romans [1,] which declares that sodomy is a sign of reprobation, could we possibly maintain that God loved the population of the two cities destroyed by fire? How can we possibly reconcile God’s love and His wrath? Would we deny the profundity of this problem? (Erroll Hulse, “The Love of God for All Mankind,” Reformation Today [Nov–Dec 1983], 18–19).
Yet Hulse realizes that if we take Scripture at face value, there is no escaping the conclusion that God’s love extends even to sinners whom He ultimately will condemn. “The will of God is expressed in unmistakable terms,” Hulse writes. “He has no pleasure in the destruction and punishment of the wicked” (Ez. 18:32; 33:11). Hulse also cites Matthew 23:37, where Jesus weeps over the city of Jerusalem, then says, “We are left in no doubt that the desire and will of God is for man’s highest good, that is his eternal salvation through heeding the gospel of Christ.” (Ibid., 21–22)
It is crucial that we accept the testimony of Scripture on this question, for as Hulse points out,
We will not be disposed to invite wayward transgressors to Christ, or reason with them, or bring to them the overtures of the gospel, unless we are convinced that God is favorably disposed to them. Only if we are genuinely persuaded that He will have them to be saved are we likely to make the effort. If God does not love them it is hardly likely that we will make it our business to love them. Especially is this the case when there is so much that is repulsive in the ungodliness and sinfulness of Christ-rejecters. (Ibid., 18)
Biblically, we cannot escape the conclusion that God’s benevolent, merciful love is unlimited in extent. He loves the whole world of humanity. This love extends to all people in all times. It is what Titus 3:4 refers to as “the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind.” God’s singular love for the elect quite simply does not rule out a universal love of sincere compassion—and a sincere desire on God’s part to see every sinner turn to Christ.
Mark 10 relates a familiar story that illustrates God’s love for the lost. It is the account of the rich young ruler who came to Jesus and began asking Him a great question: “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” Scripture tells us:
And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone. You know the commandments, ‘Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother’ ” (vv. 18–19).
Every aspect of Jesus’ reply was designed to confront the young man’s sin. Many people misunderstand the point of Jesus’ initial question: “Why do you call Me good?” Our Lord was not denying His own sinlessness or deity. Plenty of verses of Scripture affirm that Jesus was indeed sinless—“holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens” (Heb. 7:26). He is therefore also God incarnate (Jn. 1:1). But Jesus’ reply to this young man had a twofold purpose: first, to underscore His own deity, confronting the young man with the reality of who He was; and second, to gently chide a brash young man who clearly thought of himself as good.
To stress this second point, Jesus quoted a section of the Decalogue. Had the young man been genuinely honest with himself, he would have had to admit that he had not kept the law perfectly. But instead, he responded confidently, “Teacher, I have kept all these things from my youth up” (v. 20). This was unbelievable impertinence on the young man’s part. It shows how little he understood of the demands of the law. Contrast his flippant response with how Peter reacted when he saw Christ for who He was. Peter fell on his face and said, “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord!” (Lk. 5:8). This rich young ruler’s response fell at the other end of the spectrum. He was not even willing to admit he had sinned.
So Jesus gave him a second test: “One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess, and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me” (Mk. 10:21).
Sadly, the young man declined. Here were two things he refused to do: he would not acknowledge his sin, and he would not bow to Christ’s lordship. In other words, he shut himself off from the eternal life he seemed so earnestly to be seeking. As it turned out, there were things more important to him than eternal life, after all. His pride and his personal property took priority in his heart over the claims of Christ on his life. And so he turned away from the only true Source of the life he thought he was seeking.
That is the last we ever see of this man in the New Testament. As far as the biblical record is concerned, he remained in unbelief. But notice this significant phrase, tucked away in Mark 10:21: “Looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him.” Here we are explicitly told that Jesus loved an overt, open, non-repentant, non-submissive Christ-rejector. He loved him.
(To be concluded tomorrow)

God’s Own Defense of His Word By John MacArthur

We are living in a time, as I pointed out in our last study together, when the sufficiency of Scripture is under unique assault. The move to psychology as a necessary component in solving man’s problems indicates that the Bible in itself is not enough [in the view of many]. The search for methods found in the world’s economics and the world’s businesses and the world’s techniques, and the world’s strategies to apply in building the church are an indication that the Scripture itself is [considered to be] not enough for the life and growth and expansion of the church.
The demand for political power as the key to the church’s influence, as the key to revival in a society and in a culture is testimony to the fact that among some people the Bible itself is not sufficient. The cry for miracles, the cry for signs, and wonders, and new revelations and supernatural activities is another indication that the Bible in and of itself is [considered] not enough to demonstrate the great power of God. The invention of a synthetic gospel, a pop gospel of prosperity and indulgence and sensuality and success and self-fulfillment and self-indulgence is another testimony to the fact that there is a lack of confidence in the sufficiency of Scripture to do its work of changing lives.
All of these really are a demonstration of the tragic worldliness of the church. When the church has to design its ministry around non-biblical things, it has abandoned its confidence in the Word of God and thus has brought reproach upon God who Himself affirms the absolute sufficiency of His Word. It forces us to ask this substantially foundational question: Is the Scripture enough?
Is it enough to do the work of evangelism? Is it enough to do the work of sanctification? Is it enough to solve the problems of the human heart? Is it enough to build and extend and advance the church? Or do we need to concede that the Scripture has its limitations that have to be overcome by psychology, by human wisdom, and strategy, by political clout, by new revelations, by wonders and signs? Do we have to somehow overcome the stigma of the gospel by inventing a more popular message that will be acceptable to people? Is the Bible so lacking in its own power and sufficiency that we have to apply human wisdom and human technique to help God overcome the natural resistance of a fallen world?
Well the answer to that question about the sufficiency of Scripture is given by God Himself in Psalm 19. Let’s return to Psalm 19. In fact, there are many, many places in the Scripture where its own sufficiency is attested, more than one could exposit, probably, in a lifetime. But here is one that is a great and rich and comprehensive summation. Here is God’s own witness, God’s own revelation as to the sufficiency of Scripture.

Which Biblical Doctrines Are 'Non-Essential'? By Jim B.

After my earlier post, which addressed today's tendency to classify unpopular biblical doctrines as "non-essential", I received an anonymous email from a reader in the seeker-sensitive camp. In their protest against all of this attention to doctrine, they said: "What???. . .the basics are what matters! Jesus was born of a virgin, died for our sins, and rose again! Does all this theology and doctrine study make us more like Christ or more like a Pharisee?" With the backdrop of that modern sentiment, I thought I'd allow someone from times-past to express his views on what biblical doctrines, if any, should be considered non-essential. Originally Posted: January of 06
What follows is a compilation from six of Spurgeon's 19th century sermons. In case you missed my last posting on this topic, entitled "Absence of Consensus Does Not Mean Stalemate", it explored the historical lessons learned from Athanasius' uphill battle for a doctrine that was unpopular in his time.
Charles Spurgeon on "Non-Essential" Doctrines:
If you say that any one part of the truth is unimportant, you do as good as say - to that extent the Holy Spirit has come upon an unimportant or valueless mission. You perceive it is declared that he is to teach us "all things"; but if some of these "all things" are really of such minor importance, and so quite non-essential, then surely it is not worth while disturbing our minds with them. And so to that degree, at any rate, we accuse the Holy Spirit of having come to do what is not necessary to be done; and I trust that our minds recoil with holy repulsion from such a half-blasphemy as that..
[If more understood this] they would surely study a great many things that they overlook now, and I think they would not be so apt to excuse their own need of diligence in the school of Christ, by saying:"Well, there are some all-important doctrines; we have studied them, and that is enough."
Brethren, when a boy goes to school, he may say, "If I learn arithmetic,I shall be able to be a tradesman, and that is what I shall be; [so I do not want to learn those other subjects]." But the schoolmaster says, "My boy, you are put under my teaching to learn all things, and it is not for you to pick and choose what class you will attend." Now, we are scholars under the teaching of the blessed Spirit, and it is not for us to say, "I will learn the doctrine of justification By faith, and when I know that, I shall not trouble my mind about election, I shall not raise any question about final perseverance,I shall not enquire into the ordinances, whether believer's baptism or infant baptism is right; I take no interest in these things; I have learned the essential matter, and I will neglect the rest." Thou will not say this if thou art an obedient disciple, for do you not know that the ministers of Christ have received a commission to teach all things that Christ has taught them, and do you think that our commission is frivolous and [annoying]? Do you think that Christ would bid us teach thee what it is no need of thee to learn, or, especially, that the Holy Ghost would himself come to dwell in the midst of his church and to teach them all things, when out of those "all things" there are, according to thy vain supposition, some things that were quite as well, if not better, left alone? . . .
There is a tendency, among us all, I suppose, to choose some part of the truth, and attach undue importance to that, to the neglect of other truths. It is a grave question if this is not the origin of various divisions which are to be found in the Church of Christ - not so much heresy, as the attaching of disproportionate importance to some truth, to the disparaging or neglecting of others equally necessary.
Some brother speaking to me the other day, declared of a certain truth, "You cannot have too much of a good thing." Whereupon I remarked, that a nose was a good thing, but it might be possible so to exaggerate it that you would spoil the beauty of the face; a mouth is a good thing, and yet it may be very possible to have such a mouth that there would be no particular beauty about the visage, for the beauty of the man consists in proportion, and the beauty of divine truth consists in the proportion in which every part of it is brought into view. Now, there be some who exaggerate one feature, and some another.
There are some brethren who are fond of what is called "the high side" of doctrine. I am fond of it, too, very fond of it, but there is a temptation to bring that out, and to neglect, perhaps, the practical part of the gospel, and to ease into the background, possibly, the invitations of the gospel, and those truths which concern our usefulness in the world. Then, on the other hand, there are some who are so enamored by "experience" that nothing but experiential truth will suit them; they must be always harping upon that one string, and they look down with contempt upon those who hold fast doctrinal truth, which is very wrong, and shows that they have not yet been led into all truth. ...
It is all truth, and not some truth, that the Holy Spirit comes to teach. To teach his children truth in all its harmony, truth in all its parts, truth indeed, as a whole. But it may be said, "There must be some truths which are not so essential as others!" That is granted. There are some truths that are so vital to salvation and peace with God, and there are some others that do not vitally concern the regeneration and conversion of the soul, and upon these men may be in error, and yet not risk their souls for all eternity. But still, even these [less vital] truths are part of the whole body of truth, and the body cannot do without its head, its heart, though it might lose a limb. Yet is that a reason why I should chop off a limb, or consent to have it maimed, because I could still exist without it? I could exist without an eye; shall I not, therefore, mind being blinded? . . .
All truth must be necessary for you and for me, or else the Spirit of God would not have come to teach it to us, and that while we may give more prominent importance to the greater and more vital truths, yet there is not one truth in Scripture to which we are allowed to say, "Be still, be quiet, we do not want you."
Brethren, how many of you would be happy if you did but study doctrinal truth! You go lean and starved through the world, because your minister does not preach the doctrines of grace, and does not give you the full weight of the truths of the sovereign grace of God. Still, if you but studied them for yourselves, you might yet have a bright eye, and an elastic, bounding footstep, and rejoice in the everlasting love of God, which never leaves his people, but preserves and glorifies them in the end.
--Charles Spurgeon, The Great Teacher and Rememberancer
That idea about "non-essentials" is wicked and rebellious. Cast it from you; go without the camp. Be particular in every point. To the tiniest jot and tittle seek to obey your Master's will, and seek his grace that you may walk in the way of his commandments with a perfect heart. But then, if you do walk according to this rule, others will say, "You are so bigoted". Thus reply to them: "I am very bigoted over myself, but I never claim any authority over you. To your own Master you stand or fall, and I do the same".
If it be bigotry to hold decisive views about God's truth, and to be obedient in every particular, as far as God the Spirit has taught me, if that be bigotry - all hail bigotry! - a most hallowed thing. --Charles Spurgeon, The Tabernacle - Without The Camp
Anything that is in the Word of God and has the stamp of His approval, I tremble at. Someone once said to an old Puritan, "Some have made such [allowances] in their conscience, can't you make a little [exception] in yours? There is no reason why you should be so precise"; but the other replied "I serve a precise God." --Charles Spurgeon, Living Temples For The Living God
Do not follow a part of his orders, and neglect the rest. The Lord Jesus must be received as a whole, or not at all. Do not say "This is non-essential", for such a speech is flat rebellion. I do not believe in any words of our Lord being non-essential. They may not be essential to our salvation, but every word of Christ is essential to our spiritual health; neither can we disregard the least of his precepts without suffering loss through our disobedience.
Be very careful that you follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth; no other kind of walking is safe in such a world as this. Do what he bids you, as he bids you, and it shall he well with you.
--Charles Spurgeon, Blessed Promises For Dying Outcasts
There is a man in the world, whose views are not quite in consistency with Scripture. He says, "Well, it does not matter it is a little thing, a very little thing." Yes but that little wrong thing leads to a great wrong thing. The sinner's path is down hill, and when you take one step in violation of Scripture precept, your next step is not only easy, but seems even to be forced upon you. Doubt election, you will soon doubt perseverance, and you may soon come to deny redemption.
Where did the errors of the church of Rome come from? Were they all born in a day? No, they came by slow degrees. ... If you tamper with one truth of Scripture, he that tempts you to meddle with one, will tempt you to tamper with another, and there will be no end to it, till, at last, you will want a new Bible, a new Testament, and a new God. There is no telling where you will end when you have begun.
--Charles Spurgeon, Importance of Small Things In Religion
Let us hold God's truth, but not with a slippery hand. If a doctrine be true, let us grip it [tightly], though the earth shake or the heavens fall. Christian men, where there is a love for God's truth, God will bless his Church; but because this is a time-serving age, because we have not come out plainly with those things which distinguish us from each other, because we have paid too much deference to each other's views, and have not boldly declared the great truths of his Word. - these are the reasons why God has to some extent deserted us. You say, "I do not see so much [value] in doctrines, after all." Then you will not see much blessing. I love so much what I believe to be true, that I would fight for every grain of it; not for the "stones" only, but for the very "dust thereof."
I believe that we ought not to say that any truth is non-essential; it may be non-essential to salvation, but it is essential for something else. Why! you might as well take one of the jewels out of the Queen's crown, and say it is non-essential, but she will be Queen all the same! Will anyone dare to tell God that any doctrine is non-essential?
Oh gracious Spirit, hast thou written what is non-essential? Hast thou given me a Book respecting which I say, "My father and mother believed it all, but it is not necessary for me to believe it"? God has given me a judgment; am I to follow in the wake of other people, thinking I shall be sure to be right and that God will never ask me what I was? An easy kind of religion is this! It was not so in the days of good old John Bunyan and Berridge; they sang a far different song. But now people are saying, "I can listen to So-and-so and So and-so" - men who contradict one another. We cannot think [highly] of people, who can hear opposite opinions, and yet believe both to be correct. We cannot expect much growth unless you hold the truth, and take pleasure in the stones of Zion, and, "favor the dust thereof," - every atom of [the truth]. --Charles Spurgeon, Zion's Prosperity
Further reading and resources:
For other points of view on this subject see: Phil Johnson and Al Mohler
Read how church doctrinal statements have become meaningless
Before you label someone, read Who Are You Calling a Pharisee?
See how error in doctrine leads to error in practice

Reformation Day ......... is comming October 31st....But are you ready for a Modern day Reformation?

Reformation Day is a religious holiday celebrated on October 31 in remembrance of the Reformation, particularly by Lutheran and Reformed church communities. It is a civic holiday in Slovenia (since the Reformation contributed to its cultural development profoundly, although Slovenians are mainly Roman Catholics) and in the German states of Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt, and Thuringia.
On this day in 1517, Martin Luther posted a proposal at the doors of a church in Wittenberg, Germany to debate the doctrine and practice of indulgences. This proposal is popularly known as the 95 Theses, which he nailed to the Castle Church doors. This was not an act of defiance or provocation as is sometimes thought. Since the Castle Church faced Wittenberg's main thoroughfare, the church door functioned as a public bulletin board and was therefore the logical place for posting important notices. Also, the theses were written in Latin, the language of the church, and not in the vernacular. Nonetheless, the event created a controversy between Luther and those allied with the Pope over a variety of doctrines and practices. When Luther and his supporters were excommunicated in 1520, the Lutheran, Reformed and Anabaptist traditions were born.
Within the Lutheran church, Reformation Day is considered a minor festival, and is officially referred to as The Festival of the Reformation. Until the 20th Century, most Lutheran churches celebrated Reformation Day on October 31st, regardless of which day of the week it occurred. Today, most Lutheran churches transfer the festival, so that it falls on the Sunday (called Reformation Sunday) on or before October 31st and transfer All Saints' Day to the Sunday on or after November 1st.
The liturgical color of the day is red, which represents the Holy Spirit and the Martyrs of the Christian Church. Luther's hymn, A Mighty Fortress is our God is traditionally sung on this day. Lutherans customarily stand during the hymn, in memory of its use in the religious wars of the Sixteenth Century.
It is also traditional in some Lutheran schools for schoolchildren to hold Reformation Day plays or pageants that re-enact scenes from the life of Martin Luther.
in the new movie "Luther" an acurate portrail of the story of Luther is given.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformation_Day"

Reformation Day is October 31st. Look for posting's on this topic this month.

Most Protestant Christians observe Reformation Day in honor of Martin Luther and other Christians who removed false doctrine and destructive practices from the Christian church.
Because the Roman Catholic Church was desperate to raise money to complete St. Peter's in Rome during the Middle Ages, many clergy used fear as a tool to obtain money from poor and unsophisticated people. They told the people that they had to pay money to the church so that their sins and the sins of their families might be forgiven. The people bought pieces of paper called pardons and indulgences from the church so that they could believe that they would go to heaven when they died.
Luther was deeply disturbed by these and other abuses in the church. At the same time he was aware of his own sins and imperfections, and he tried very hard to make himself into a person that he thought God would like. The harder he tried, the worse he felt. He thought he was growing farther and farther away from God, and that it was becoming impossible for God to like him at all.
In despair, he began a deep study of the Bible, especially the letters in the New Testament that were written by Paul, and he began to understand what Paul had told the early Christians over a thousand years before.
In his preaching and writing, Luther began to emphasize two main points: justification by faith and the priesthood of all believers.
Justification by faith means that Christians can never earn God's love or forgiveness. All that Christians must do is to accept God as God, and God will love and forgive and cherish them.
The priesthood of all believers means that every Christian has his or her own personal relationship with God, reading the Bible and worshiping in his or her own language, and praying directly to God without anyone's going in between.
So Protestant Christians give thanks to God on this day for the opportunity to lead lives of faith, instead of lives of fear.
Reformation Day is observed on the last Sunday of October, during the Season of Pentecost. The symbol of Luther and Lutherans is the Luther Rose.

Messengers or Manipulators? By John MacArthur

First Corinthians 2 makes it clear that Paul shunned manipulative oratory. He didn’t do what many preachers do today; he wasn’t into manipulating his crowd. In fact, he says in 1 Corinthians 2:1, “I didn’t come with superiority of speech” (that’s oratorical ability), I didn’t come to bowl you over with my oration, I didn’t come with “wisdom.”
He says further in verse 4, “My message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom” (I didn’t use technique; I didn’t use manipulation). I didn’t want your faith to “rest on the wisdom of men” (literally, the wisdom of their information or their approach). He said, I came to you with God’s wisdom; I came to you in God’s power; I came to “you in weakness in fear and in trembling.”
He didn’t use techniques that excite and stir, and move people’s emotions to achieve results. He preached the Scriptures (listen to this) to the mind! Many preachers today are good at the art of persuasion — they know how to move people to respond without the Scripture being the issue. They can manipulate their listeners emotionally. But frankly, that kind of approach really prostitutes the preacher’s stewardship because it makes him no different then a secular persuader.
A number of years ago, a man named Duane Liftin wrote a very interesting article called “The Perils of Persuasive Preaching.” There are a number of things in that article that are worth understanding. I share them with you because I want you to be alert to what some ”Christian” leaders endeavor to do with crowds of people. They claim to be preachers, when in fact they are not preaching the Word of God, but are simply manipulating the people.
In his article, cites a book by Frederick L. Marcuse called Hypnotism — Fact and Fiction, which reports a research study conducted at a large eastern university:
The researchers attempted, through hypnotic suggestion, to induce a convinced and vocal atheist to become “religious.” The attempt was so successful that it had to be halted and all suggestion removed from the subjects mind. When his entire attitude toward religious faith changed after only three sessions and for the first time in his life he began to attend church, the investigators decided that the ethics of the situation prevented them from pursuing their research any further.
They could literally make an atheist religious by manipulating him. While the example is admittedly a dramatic one, it serves to raise a monstrous question, “Would it be possible through hypnotic suggestion to create a believer — quite apart from any work of the Holy Spirit? And would such a person really be a child of God?” Such questions, he writes, “are not simply academic.”
In the same article, Liftin cites Psychologist James McConnell, who says: “The time has come when if you give me any normal human being and a couple of weeks … I can change his behavior from what it is now to whatever you want it to be, if it’s physically possible. I can’t make him fly by flapping his wings, but I can turn him from a Christian into a Communist and vice versa”
Although, researchers have shown more recently that audiences are not nearly so malleable as once thought, nevertheless, skilled persuaders, including some who stand in the pulpit are often able to exert a tremendous influence on other human beings. And they do not have to resort to such dramatic methods as hypnotism. Consider for example, the words of the well known social scientist, Milton Rokeach:
Suppose you could take a group of people, give them a 20-minute pencil-and-paper task, talk to them for 10 to 20 minutes afterward, and thereby produce long-range changes in core values and personal behavior in a significant portion of this group. Suppose, further, that you could ascertain quickly and that you could predict accurately the nature and direction of these changes
My colleagues and I have in the last five years achieved the kinds of results suggested [above]. As a result we must now face up to the ethical implications that follow from the fact that it now seems to be within man’s power to alter experimentally another person’s basic values, and to control the direction of the change.”
That is from Psychology Today magazine. If you have any questions if its claims are true, just consider how many psychologists create false memories and restructure a patient’s entire life with fantasy, manipulating people’s thinking to believe that some fantasy is the real story of their life.
Preachers who are gifted communicators — who are articulate, and who use emotional techniques and sad stories and tear-jerking approaches, and who get the mood music playing behind the scene, and who can create a manipulative environment – can effect in people behavior changes and even alter their basic values, yet never need to use the Word of God.
But what is the result? What is the ultimate result? Is it true regeneration? Of course not! The only legitimate tool is the Scripture. The only legitimate bridge to change is the mind. Liftin also says in this article,
In an excellent article on attitude change in the Handbook of Social Psychology (IH,173), psychologist William McGuire suggests that human attitude change may be broken down into at least five steps or levels: attention, comprehension, yielding, retention, and action.
In other words, change moves across that kind of spectrum. People go from attention (something gets their attention) to comprehension, to yielding, to retention and, finally, to action. And he writes, “The hearers must go through each of these steps if communication is to have ultimate persuasive impact, and each depends on the occurrence on the preceding steps.” The traditional approach to homiletics seems to suggest that the goal of preaching is the third step — YIELDING.
Probably, you have experienced a sermon like that. The preacher began by getting your attention. Then their was a certain amount of comprehension, and then they started talking about your need to surrender, your need to yield. They started to play the organ, the mood music began. Maybe you have been in a meeting where they “played and they played” and they kept telling people to raise their hands or ”come down the aisle.” And they tried to force or manipulate the YIELDING, and not with clarifying truth, but with sounds and sights. They use peer-pressure, guilt-tripping, and ambience to evoke a response or a decision. But that is sheer manipulation!
I am not saying that people can’t be converted in a situation like that, but I am saying that people who aren’t being converted get swept up in it. The people who are converted, are converted because they comprehend the truth, and because the Spirit of God effects the transformation.
Now, Liftin says, “I suggest that the preacher’s goal should not be viewed as the yielding step at all but simply the previous step, comprehension.” I want to let you know that I agree with that absolutely. I think it is the preacher’s responsibility to get ATTENTION and COMPREHENSION. It is the Holy Spirit’s responsibility to produce YIELDING, RETENTION, and ACTION. That’s not my job.
It is not my task, as the preacher, to manipulate my hearers to do something emotionally. All the slick techniques, all the gospel-marketing packages, all the pulpit histrionics of jumping and stomping and flailing around and beating the organ, and doing whatever they do to create the mood; all the sad stories, the mood music, the endless invitations, the hand raising, the walking, all of that kind of pressure is not preaching the Word. It has nothing to do with COMPREHENSION.
The decision of yielding, surrendering and then acting, is between the hearer and God, not between the hearer and the preacher. It is the Holy Spirit’s work.
Preaching is proclaiming saving truth, sanctifying truth, and strengthening truth from Scripture, the rest is up to the Holy Spirit. So Paul says, I was entrusted with the proclamation. That’s all that I can do. All I can do is to get their attention and bring comprehension. The message is the Scripture, and since the message is the Scripture, beloved, it should be patently obvious to everyone that the proper kind of preaching should be “expository preaching.” That is the only legitimate way to be true to the divine message.
You know as well as I know that I could manipulate people with stories. I mean, you could tell a tear-jerking story and effect emotional trauma on people. You can move people with things other than the Scriptures, but you are working on their feelings and not on their mind. The message is Scripture. And if the message is Scripture and the preacher is to preach the message he has to preach the Scripture; and preaching the Scripture means you must exposit the Word.
The preacher’s job is not to force his people to yield through some manipulative process. His job is to make them comprehend the Word of God, which will save them, sanctify them, and strengthen them. That is the goal of expository preaching.
What does it mean when we say “expository preaching?” To “exposit” simply means to “explain the meaning.” It means to preach the Bible in such a way, that the meaning of the Bible passage is presented entirely and exactly as it was intended by God. That’s the challenge — the divine Word coming through the preacher.
Walt Kaiser wrote in his wonderful book Towards Exegetical Theology,
It is no secret that Christ’s Church is not at all in good health in many places of the world. She has been languishing because she has been fed, as the current line has it, “junk food.” All kinds of artificial preservatives, and all sorts of unnatural substitutes have been served up to her. As a result, theological and biblical malnutrition has afflicted the very generation that has taken such giant steps to make sure its physical health is not damaged by using food or products that are carcinogenic or otherwise harmful to their physical bodies. Simultaneously, a world wide spiritual famine resulting from the absence from any genuine publication of the Word of God continues to run wild and almost unabated in quarters in the Church.
We have got to get back to preaching the Word of God. That’s our calling. That’s what God has commanded us to do.