True and False Binding and Loosing by Bob DeWaay

Fifteen years ago we published Issue # 1 of CIC on the topic of binding and loosing.1 That article was written to correct a false use of the term by those teaching spiritual warfare. We argued that the term binding and loosing concerns entrance into the kingdom, and what is or is not binding on Christians after they have been added to the church. We demonstrated that our interpretation is not unique and that every major scholarly exegesis of this passage also supports this meaning. We also showed how the apostles practiced binding and loosing in Acts 15 when they met to determine if the Law of Moses was binding on converted Gentiles (they determined that it was not). Now it is now time to bring out some important implications and applications of the true meaning of binding and loosing.

The Teaching of Christ and His Apostles is Binding
Jesus Christ gave His apostles the authority to bind and loose on earth according to God’s mind (literally “having been bound [or loosed]”) as it is in heaven. In other words, the apostles were authorized to speak authoritatively for God and in accordance with the mind of Christ. The power to bind and loose given to the Biblical apostles is also expressed in their being called the foundation of the church: “So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone” (Ephesians 2:19, 20).2Christ and His apostles alone have the authority to give permanently binding revelation to the church. The record of their binding is contained in the New Testament.
Further evidence for such binding is found in Hebrews: “God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world” (Hebrews 1:1, 2). God has spoken authoritatively through Christ, the corner stone of the church. Hebrews also mentions the apostles: “how will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard, God also testifying with them, both by signs and wonders and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will” (Hebrews 2:3, 4). God has preserved the teachings of Christ the corner stone and the apostles and prophets (the writers of the New Testament), and this serves as the once-for-all laid foundation of the church. The church becomes the “pillar and support of the truth” (1Timothy 3:15b), but the church does not continue to be the ongoing giver of new, binding revelation. That function ceases.
This does not imply, however, that the church ceases to practice binding and loosing. Scripture transmits meaning determined by its Holy Spirit-inspired authors. This meaning is fixed and does not change, even over the centuries. But valid implications and applications of Scripture are derived from scripture, and these are also binding.3 For example, the New Testament teaches the terms of entrance into the kingdom of God. The preacher may declare those terms to be binding upon any particular sinner and may authoritatively declare, “You have failed God, are facing His wrath, and shall certainly be damned if you do not turn to Christ in faith.” This is a valid application of the teachings of Christ and His apostles and is therefore validly binding even though it is not a direct citation of Scripture.
Implications and applications are binding on the grounds that they are controlled by the meaning of Scripture. Since it is possible to misuse Scripture we must be careful lest we falsely bind or loose. For example, people wishing to loose themselves or others from the Bible’s prohibition of homosexual behavior have engaged in hermeneutical gymnastics when they suggest that the Bible only prohibits “pederasty” (immorality between an adult male and an adolescent male). This is not a valid interpretation of the pertinent passages (such as Romans 1:26, 27). Only correct Biblical interpretation leads to valid binding and loosing.
False Binding – The Roman Catholic Church
The longest standing and most egregious misuse of binding and loosing (I have it under the section of false binding because Rome has not been prone to loosing anyone) is that of the Roman Catholic Church. They claim that the power to bind and loose was given particularly to Peter and that Peter has successors (the papacy) that may exercise that same power to bind and loose throughout church history and beyond Scripture. Here is how the Roman church states this doctrine:
We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.4
Roman Catholic theology takes binding and loosing several steps away from the foundation of Christ and His apostles as expressed in the New Testament writings. Besides investing this power in supposed successors of Peter, they teach that since the church gave us the Scriptures, the church has primacy over the Scriptures. Therefore, they declare that scripture and church tradition are foundational, and they reject the Scripture’s declaration of the once-for-all laid foundation that Ephesians speaks of. I believe that God gave us the Scriptures through the work of the Holy Spirit and that this Roman Catholic argument is invalid. The reformers rightly taught “Scripture alone” to counter this claim.
False Binding – The New Apostolic Reformation
Another example of false binding comes to us as the movement known as The New Apostolic Reformation.5 The movement’s key idea is that God has raised up thousands of end times prophets and apostles who are going to usher in a glorious revival. They claim that the foundation of the church is not the Biblical apostles and prophets, but the ministry of apostles and prophets. The most prominent person in this movement is C. Peter Wagner, formerly of Fuller seminary.
This movement includes a network of many individuals from all over the world. I wrote an article about Rick Joyner (one of the better known prophets of the movement) who claimed to ascend into heaven and talk with various persons there including the apostle Paul.6 That article shows that this movement is characterized by mysticism, grandiose claims, false spiritual warfare teachings, and the undermining of Biblical authority.
The latter day apostles and prophets movement is in error concerning binding and loosing in two entirely different ways. First, it teaches the false spiritual warfare version of binding and loosing in which it is supposed that men can “bind territorial spirits” and “loose” whole cities from their influence.7 Second, they claim the authority to speak new revelations from God that are binding on the church. An earlier iteration of this movement, the discredited shepherding movement from the 1970’s, used a hierarchical process whereby the authority of the movement traced its way down to individual believers who were under a “shepherd” who was under a series of authorities all the way up to the founders of the movement. These authoritative “shepherds” proved abusive as they intruded into every aspect of the private lives of believers, telling them how they must make life choices. The abuses led to the demise of that version of the movement. The present apostles and prophets version claims that they are nothing like the shepherding movement.
However, whenever men claim the authority to speak for God beyond Scripture they are abusive no matter how nice they appear. The apostles and prophets (there are so many thousands of people claiming this status they cannot all be identified) today use tactics other than directly commandeering the lives of individual Christians. They use the fear of “missing God” or “coming under a curse” or some other really bad outcome to keep people submitted to them. Thus people are “bound” by their decrees, if not by a direct ecclesiastical system of authority, then by the fear of coming under a curse because God is angry at everyone who disregards their claims of authority.8 They assume that anyone who disagrees with them on any grounds is thereby in the clutches of Satan. They have stories to reinforce this. Joyner even claims that he met a man in heaven who had died early and was in the lowest ranks of heaven because of resisting the apostles and prophets. By sowing the fear of being cursed, judged, or even killed if one resists the latter day apostles and prophets, they bind Christians to their own decrees.
This false binding is in many ways worse than that of Rome. The Pope speaks ex cathedra only rarely and there is only one of him at a time. The latter day apostles are continually multiplying as more people claim apostolic status and no mechanism exists to keep anyone from making such claims. The saints find themselves “bound” by conflicting prophecies. We are warned in scripture not to “fear” false prophets like those who make up this movement and fear is precisely what they dish out.
False Binding – Rick Warren’s Oaths
The New Testament teaches against the taking of oaths (Matthew 5:34-46; James 5:12). The taking of special, religious oaths became popular in Roman Catholicism through the monastic system. As we mentioned in the last issue of CIC, Martin Luther wrote against such oaths. One reason taking special religious vows is wrong is that the believer who does so is practicing false binding. The person, for example, who takes a vow of obedience to religious superiors, has “bound” himself in an invalid way. We are only bound to the teachings of Christ and His apostles. If we bind ourselves to obedience to the teachings and practices of religious leaders we have departed from the true foundation of the church.
Just as the latter day apostles have taken it upon themselves to repeat the error of Rome in practicing false binding, so Rick Warren has repeated another Roman Catholic error by bringing back special religious oaths. Rick Warren has created a series of classes (101, 201, 301, and 401) that involve signing a series of covenants (oaths) at completion to go on to the next class and eventually become a fully committed member of Saddleback Church.9 All members must agree to unity: “At Saddleback Church, every member signs a covenant that includes a promise to protect the unity of our fellowship.”10 This is not an agreement to preserve either the “unity of the Spirit” (Ephesians 4:3) or strive for “the unity of the faith” (Ephesians 4:13), but a signed covenant that includes “following the leaders.” 11 Since the terms “covenant” and “oath” are used synonymously in the Bible, Warren is requiring people to take an oath to follow leaders (among other things). He has brought the “oath of obedience” into Protestantism.
The second covenant Warren’s church members sign (from class 201) includes tithing. 12 He has them sign a card they will carry: “The signed covenant cards are collected, I sign them as a witness, we laminate them, and then they are returned so people can carry them in their wallets.”13 There is a picture of one of these in his book.14 One side of the card includes: “My 1992 Growth Covenant,” “A weekly tithe to God,” and “Giving the first 10% of my income.” But tithing is not binding under the New Covenant. By requiring people to enter into a binding covenant to tithe to the church, Rick Warren is practicing false binding and has made himself a lawgiver. Furthermore, by requiring such oaths Warren is practicing false “loosing.” Jesus bound us to His teaching not to make an oath and Warren has loosed the flock from Jesus’ teaching.
On April 17, 2005, Rick Warren had 30,000 people stand at Saddleback Church’s 25th anniversary celebration and make a covenant to express a “radical commitment to this global spiritual revolution.”15 The revolution is a planned “new spiritual reformation.”16 Warren further used the occasion to rally the troops to engage in his P.E.A.C.E. plan to wipe out world problems like poverty and disease.17 He bound his followers by oath to engage in a mission that was not given by Christ and His apostles. This also is false binding. It is interesting that both the new apostolic movement and Rick Warren’s P.E.A.C.E. plan are billed as “reformations.” The real Reformation delivered the church from the false binding of Rome to the truly binding teachings of the Bible. “Reformations” that attack the true Reformation on this point of binding and loosing are false; we should avoid them.
False Binding –Judaizers
In the book of Galatians, Paul dealt with a heresy that claimed that new covenant believers were bound to the Law of Moses and were required to submit to circumcision and other old covenant laws in order to be saved. Paul anathematized this teaching. Sadly, Judaizers still exist and are going about practicing the same false binding that characterized those of the first century.
To find the teachings of modern day Judaizers one only has to type in “Torah only Christians” in Google. Here is one result that pops up:
The “million dollar question” that has successfully split the Messianic movement today is: Are Gentiles required to keep Torah? And the answer is a resounding, “YES!” God gave the Torah to His people Israel to tell them how to live their lives and how to relate to Him. Yeshua was Torah observant and neither He nor His disciples ever negated Torah in any way. Therefore, anyone who chooses to believe in Yeshua is obligated to follow Torah to the best of his abilities. It doesn't matter whether you are a Jew or Gentile; in order to please God, you must be Torah-observant. 18
The modern day Judaizers shamelessly bind Christians to food laws, Sabbath observance, circumcision and other matters that Christ and His apostles loosed us from. Their error is quite obvious, but that does not keep them from deceiving many people with their false binding.
False Loosing – The Emergent Church
Outside of traditional, theological liberalism, the Emergent Church is the most prominent Christian movement today that is characterized by loosing Christians from the authority of Christ and His apostles as expressed in Scripture. Their leaders do this in various ways, most of which arise from questioning the possibility of knowing the meaning of Scripture in a non-relativistic way (i.e., other than having a private meaning as in “what it means to me”). Here’s what I mean: They hide under the guise of postmodern theology, a thought process that questions whether we can ever know anything in a valid, binding way. Then, it stands to reason that if we cannot know the meaning of the Spirit-inspired Biblical authors, we cannot bind anyone to it. They also question the clarity of Scripture using arguments that suggest that words written hundreds of years ago cannot transmit the author’s meaning to people today. When the meaning remains unknown, valid implications and applications cannot be made; thus the contemporary reader of the Bible is “loosed” from everything it says.
Doug Pagitt in his book on preaching warns against what he calls “speaching” (authoritative preaching from God’s word). Pagitt sees bad motives behind preachers who would bind anyone to the teachings of scripture:
At the heart of the resistance to progressional dialogue [a process where everyone gets a say about their impressions of a passage] as a legitimate method of preaching is the question of control. The speaching act allows for the preacher not only to control the content, but also to apply the sermon to people’s lives. . . . Is it possible that this kind of phrase [a ball hog in basketball] could also apply to pastors who do all the studying, all the talking, and even have the gall to think they can apply the messages they create to the lives of other people? 19
Pagitt mischaracterizes what it means to apply the teachings of the Bible, binding people to them. In fact, according to the Biblical model, the preacher doesn’t control the meaning of the text; the Biblical authors do. The preacher’s words are binding only if they express valid implications and applications of Scripture based on the one meaning of the passage which was determined by the Spirit-inspired authors. Pagitt finds meaning in the process of discussion which is not based on applying a hermeneutic that validly determines the author’s meaning, but in the process of dialogue itself. So for him, the readers, not the author, determine the meaning.
Saying that one who applies the teachings of Christ and His apostles in a binding way to Christians is a “ball hog” with “gall” is equivalent to loosing the church from the implications and applications that derive from the meaning of scripture. Furthermore, the claim that preachers (Pagitt uses a long section from Martin Lloyd-Jones to illustrate the approach to preaching Pagitt rejects20 ) who bind their hearers to the authoritative teachings of the Bible have suspect motives is an invalid ad hominem argument. I reject his position.
In fact, some preachers actually take Paul’s teachings as binding on their own ministries and therefore obey passages like this:
preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. (2Timothy 4:2-4)
So we are commanded to authoritatively apply the Bible to people’s lives; but Pagitt effectively is counseling us to be loosed from Paul’s authoritative teachings.
Furthermore, Pagitt’s view of the Bible reveals an approach far different from the one evangelicals have held in the past:
The contemporary church makes two mistakes regarding the function and relationship of the Bible. One is to think of her [Pagitt calls the Bible “she” and “her”] as a stagnant telling of all the desires of God. The other is to think of her as something from which we extract truth, whether in the form of moral teaching or propositional statements. 21
This statement reveals a neo-orthodox view of Scripture which in the end is a fancy way of saying the reader determines the meaning of the Bible. When the reader determines the meaning, then readers are all loosed from any binding teaching from the Biblical authors. Learning the Biblical author’s one true meaning is no longer considered a worthy goal of Biblical interpretation.
False Loosing – Theological Liberalism
Though I consider the Emergent Church to be an expression of theological liberalism,22 traditional liberalism deserves to be considered as a separate category. Based on various theories about the nature of Scripture, liberals doubted that one could expect to find true propositions about God, man and salvation and apply them to people today. The reasons for these doubts varied. Some wanted to “de-mythologize” the Bible on the grounds that modern people could not be expected to believe in demons, angels, and talking serpents. Liberalism has also been known for an anti-supernatural bias that lead to doubting even central Christian doctrines such as the bodily resurrection of Christ.
Historical liberalism often turned to the teaching of Jesus to find a Christian ethic in the absence of any doctrine of the atonement, justification, a literal heaven and hell and other such Christian teachings. The Bible could be mined to find ethical gems that could be used to construct a Christian ethic (leading to the idea that the Bible contains the word of God and the liberal scholars would determine which teachings should be taken as God’s word). The reality of the history of liberalism is more complex than this but the result is always the same: people are loosed from the teachings of Christ and His apostles. In their system, most of the teachings of the Bible could be safely ignored. In recent years, liberalism has taken a more radical turn and even the moral teachings of the Bible are rejected. This results in the promotion of gay marriage and other such evils.
False Loosing – Hyper-Dispensationalism
There is a teaching that has been around for over 50 years that claims that Paul had a different gospel than Peter and that most of the teachings found in the gospels and early in Acts are not for the Gentile church, but just the Jews. The Jews were offered a kingdom in which those teachings would be binding, but when they rejected the kingdom offer, it was withdrawn and Paul was raised up with his unique “gospel of grace.” The reason I call this false loosing, is that this teaching actually looses the church from the teachings of Jesus, including the Great Commission.
For example, C. R. Stam claims the Great Commission does not apply to the church: “This so-called ‘great commission’ is generally supposed to embody our Lord’s ‘marching orders’ to His church today.”23 The hyper-dispenstational24 teaching claims that none of the various commissions of Jesus are binding on the church today. Stam writes, “What a mistake to call this ‘the great commission’ and ‘our marching orders.’! How pathetic to see sincere believers vainly trying to carry out this commission and these orders!” 25 Stam and others who follow this theology teach that water baptism is not for the Christian church. When Jesus said, “teaching them to observe all that I commanded you,” that would be “legalism” if we tried to apply it to the church.25 So, according to this theology, the teachings of Jesus, the head of the church, are not binding on the church. This is a clear example of false loosing.
If we consider the implications of this theology further, we see it leads to some very questionable conclusions. For example, when Jesus taught us to love our enemies (Matthew 5:44) we can supposedly safely ignore Him because that passage is not binding on the church. But when Paul taught the same thing in Romans 12:18-21 his teaching is binding. So rather than having the apostles and prophets, with Jesus Christ the cornerstone as the foundation of the church, one is left with Paul as the foundation because the other apostles supposedly only had a message for Jews about a kingdom that was never instituted. This claim is disproved by the following passage that says the “mystery” (that God was going to save Gentiles through the gospel) was revealed not just to Paul, but the other apostles:
And by referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel, (Ephesians 3:4-6)
These “apostles and prophets” who with Christ as the cornerstone are the foundation of the church, are the same ones mentioned in Ephesians 2:20. If Christ’s teachings and those of other apostles besides Paul were not binding on the church, Paul was obviously unaware of it.
According to hyper-dispensationalism, only part of the New Testament is binding on Christians and that part is determined using a contrived system of interpretation that results in Jesus’ teachings being null and void until some later date. But Jesus said this: “Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:19). He warned us not to do the very thing hyper-dispensationalists do.
The Importance of Hermeneutics
The most important principle in hermeneutics is that the author determines the meaning. Ignoring that principle makes valid binding and loosing impossible. Let me give an example. The hyper-dispensationalists reject the Great Commission no matter what gospel it is found in. In the case of Luke, repentance is stressed: “and that repentance for forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem” (Luke 24:47). Luke/Acts is a two volume work and the theme of repentance is found throughout. Early in Luke, John the Baptist says to Jews: “Therefore bring forth fruits in keeping with repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father,’ for I say to you that God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham” (Luke 3:8). To show the continuity of Luke’s theme, at the end of Acts Paul describes his own message to the Gentiles in terms reminiscent of those of John the Baptist: “but kept declaring both to those of Damascus first, and also at Jerusalem and then throughout all the region of Judea, and even to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to repentance” (Acts 26:20). So we see thematic unity in Luke/Acts.
Furthermore, after repentance is emphasized in the Great Commission as found in Luke, Peter preaches repentance (Acts 2:38; Acts 3:19; Acts 5:31) and Paul preaches repentance (Acts 17:30; Acts 20:21; Acts 26:20). In Luke, besides John the Baptist, Jesus preached repentance (Luke 5:32; Luke 13:3, 5; Luke 15:7). The most important people in Luke/Acts, upon whom the Holy Spirit fell, preached repentance. This was preached to both Jews and Gentiles. God also “granted” repentance to the God fearing Gentiles (Acts 11:18). So if the principle of authorial intent means anything, Luke (inspired by the Holy Spirit) intends his readers to know that repentance for forgiveness of sins is to be preached. Therefore those who “loose” the church from Luke 24:47 by claiming that it no longer applies, do so by ignoring Luke’s intended meaning. Bad theology begins with a hermeneutic that fails to be concerned with the meaning of the Biblical authors.
We need to use whatever tools are available to make sure we understand the Biblical authors’ meaning when we study the text.26 Because knowing that meaning is the only way we can practice valid binding and loosing. Believers need to be equipped so that they can understand and apply the Bible. Lacking that ability will make them vulnerable to false binding and loosing like we have described here.
Conclusion
I believe that Jesus will indeed return and set up His millennial reign on the earth. When He does He shall rule directly. Until that time, the kingdom of God gains citizens as people are converted through the gospel. During the entire period from Pentecost until the return of Christ, the acceptable conduct of the citizens of the kingdom is determined through binding and loosing based on the authoritative teachings of Christ and His apostles. Anything that adds or subtracts from this is false binding and loosing. Christians should only submit to what is validly binding, not the teachings of man.

Martyn Lloyd-Jones on Unity

''It is being said that the chief need of the Church today is to repent because of its ‘lack of unity’… we would suggest that before she repents of her disunity, she must repent of her apostasy. She must repent of her perversion of, and substitutes for, ‘the faith once delivered to the saints.’ She must repent of setting up her own thinking and methods over against the divine revelation in Holy Scripture. Here lies the reason for her lack of spiritual power and inability to deliver a living message in the power of the Holy Ghost to a world ready to perish.”

(Re)Thinking Worldview Review by Nathan Williams

(Re)Thinking Worldview is a new book by J. Mark Bertrand which seeks to explain the idea of worldview and how this notion will change the way you live, speak and interact with the world around you.
I wasn’t quite sure what to expect when I picked up this book, but I was pleasantly surprised by the emphasis on practice that saturates (Re)Thinking Worldview. Bertrand understands worldview as not simply an intellectual checklist but as an outlook on reality that transforms the way you live your life.
Bertrand demonstrates this emphasis on practice even in the flow and argument of the book. (Re)Thinking Worldview divides into three major sections. The first section deals with the topic of worldview in general. In this section he defines worldview as “an interpretation of influences, experiences, circumstances and insight” (p. 26). In other words, your worldview is something which helps you interpret the world around you and which you may not even be fully aware of possessing.
Throughout the rest of this first section he comes at the concept of worldview from three different angles to help the reader grasp the fullness of the term. In the chapter describing worldview as a starting point he gives 4 fundamental pillars that form the basis of the Christian worldview. These pillars are creation, order, rationality and fear.
Next worldview is described as a system. Scripture presents God’s truth as an organized system. This helps us to see the major differences between our view of reality and that of other worldviews. Finally in this section, he describes worldview as a story. In all our systematizing we have to remember our worldview is made up of the gospel story.
The second section of (Re)Thinking Worldview transitions from a discussion of the basic understanding of worldview to the topic of wisdom. At first glance, this may seem like a massive jump, but the transition is quite purposeful. “One of the blind spots of much worldview chatter is the failure to connect thinking and living” (p. 115). The concept of worldview cannot be divorced from the practical outworking of wisdom in the life of a believer.
Under the topic of wisdom, Bertrand gives a helpful chapter on what true wisdom looks like. Wisdom is not detached from practice. “Wisdom, then, is the consistent outworking of belief, action, and discernment from worldview” (p. 133). It is easy to see how wisdom fits perfectly into the discussion of worldview. Our beliefs and understanding of the world work themselves out into our decisions and actions.
As an example of putting wisdom into practice, Bertrand gives a chapter on the importance of learning to read. Reading must always be done with a critical eye for the purpose of understanding the worldview assumptions of the author. We must not only do a worldview critique of books, but also of movies, music, and television programs in an effort to recognize the author’s agenda.
The third and final major section of this book is appropriately titled witness. The progression is intentional. We move from an understanding of worldview to the outworking of that worldview in wisdom to the expression of that worldview in our witness. In the section on witness Bertrand deals with some issues of apologetics and also provides a helpful chapter on unbelief. We must be prepared because inevitably our worldview will clash with other worldviews.
As has already been hit upon, (Re)Thinking Worldview is structured in a very intentional manner to help the reader see the progression from right belief to right practice to right witness. Bertrand also writes in a style which is engaging and easy to read. He mixes didactic sections with interesting illustrations and stories to keep the pages turning and the reader on his toes.
I think this would be a great book to open up the discussion of worldview with a group of college students. A proper understanding of the concept of worldview and the basic structure of the Christian worldview are vitally important for believers to grasp. Sometimes, we need to step back and look at the big picture of our system of belief and our notion of reality. A book on worldview is just the tool to help us in that endeavor.

A Post on Politics By Nathan Busenitz

Can you be a Christian and not vote Republican? Apparently not. At least that’s the impression I get from the local Christian radio talk show I listen to almost every evening during my commute home.
But what if the leading Republican candidates are pro-abortion? What do we do then? Well, according to this particular radio program, the answer seems to be that it is best to jettison principle for “the lesser of two evils” and to criticize anyone who thinks differently. The (not so subtle) underlying message is that our mission, as believers, is largely political — as we protect our beloved nation from the devilish hands of the liberal left (and especially from anyone with the last name Clinton).
But is it really the church’s mission, or even her responsibility, to gain political dominance? Should we preoccupy ourselves with congressional hearings, presidential campaigns, and economic plans? Do we need to form committees and coalitions who will raise millions of dollars to protect the Ten Commandments and vigilantly stand against any advance by the “immoral minority”?
No, I don’t think so. (Matthew 28:18-20 gives us the mission, or comission, with which we should be primarily concerned. It is hardly political in nature.)
Yet it would not be an understatement, I fear, to predict that in 2008 more will be said about politics from American pulpits than anything else — including clear Bible exposition.
Such a political preoccupation is somewhat ironic, considering the general eschatology of right-wing Protestantism (usually either Premillennial or Amillennial). Our end-times theology tells us that, until Christ returns, nothing can fix this crumbling world system. Yet our political practice suggests that we are desperately trying to fix it nonetheless.
In light of this paradox, a quick stroll down the halls of church history would be more than appropriate (if time and space permitted). We could speak of Constantine’s Rome, Calvin’s Geneva, Henry VIII’s Church of England, the Pilgrim’s Massachusetts Bay Colony, Kuyper’s Amsterdam or any other “Christian kingdom.” In every case, no matter how good the intentions, the attempt has seen only temporary success. Today, in fact, places like Rome, Geneva, England, New England, and Amsterdam are among the least friendly to true Christianity. They serve as witnesses to the fact that Christian political activism cannot achieve permanent spiritual change.
The truth is that Christianizing (or moralizing) government has never had the long-lasting, God-honoring effects its promoters so deeply desire. Time and time again, Christian political efforts have resulted in, at most, some immediate political gains. But these gains are only external, lacking any power to change the hearts of fallen people. They are equally temporary, eventually resulting in both spiritual confusion and moral decline.
While American Christians have been given a voice in our nation’s affairs, a voice that we can and should exercise, we must remember that our allegiance is first to God and only second to our government. Our primary concern then should be in saving souls rather than gaining votes. Rather than being consumed with political debates, we should be consumed with our responsibility as Christ’s ambassadors. These are the efforts and activities that have eternal value. And while we preoccupy ourselves with the spiritual rather than the political, we can rest in knowing that He is sovereign over the governments and affairs of this world.
In John 18:36, Jesus told Pilate: “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting . . . but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.” Maybe it’s time the church started living like this. At least until He returns and tells us differently.

The Golden Compass -- A Briefing for Concerned Christians By Dr Al Mohler

The release of The Golden Compass as a major motion picture represents a new challenge for Christians -- especially parents. The release of a popular film with major actors that presents a message directly subversive of Christianity is something new. It is not likely to be the last.
Having seen the movie at an advance viewing and having read all three books of His Dark Materials, I can assure Christians that we face a real challenge -- one that will require careful thinking and intellectual engagement.
Why is this movie such a challenge?
First of all, The Golden Compass is an extremely attractive movie. Like the book on which it is based, the movie is a very sophisticated story that is very well told. The casting was excellent. Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig (the latest James Bond actor) are joined by others including Sam Elliott and newcomer Dakota Blue Richards, who plays the central role of 11-year-old Lyra Belacqua. Kidman is chilling as the beautiful but evil Marisa Coulter and Craig is perfect as Lord Asriel. Actor Ian McKellen (Gandalf in the Lord of the Rings trilogy) is the voice of Iorek Byrnison, the armoured bear.
The movie is very well done and will be very attractive to audiences of all ages. The special effects are superior to any previous movie of the type, including the Lord of the Rings trilogy (also released by New Line Cinema). Everything is in place for this to be a blockbuster at the box office.
Second, the movie is based in a story that is captivating, sophisticated, and truly interesting. Philip Pullman is a skilled writer and teller of tales. His invented worlds of The Golden Compass and the entire His Dark Materials trilogy are about as good as the fantasy genre can offer. His characters are believable and the dialogue is constant -- largely due to Pullman's brilliant invention of a companion for each character -- a "daemon."
The bottom line is that these books and this movie will attract a lot of attention and will captivate many readers and viewers.
So, what's the problem?
This is not just any fantasy trilogy or film project. Philip Pullman has an agenda -- an agenda about as subtle as an army tank. His agenda is nothing less than to expose what he believes is the tyranny of the Christian faith and the Christian church. His hatred of the biblical storyline is clear. He is an atheist whose most important literary project is intended to offer a moral narrative that will reverse the biblical account of the fall and provide a liberating mythology for a new secular age.
The great enemy of humanity in the three books, The Golden Compass, The Subtle Knife, and The Amber Spyglass (together known as His Dark Materials) is the Christian church, identified as the evil Magisterium. The Magisterium, representing church authority, is afraid of human freedom and seeks to repress human sexuality.
The Magisterium uses the biblical narrative of the Fall and the doctrine of original sin to repress humanity. It is both violent and vile and it will stop at nothing to protect its own interests and to preserve its power.
Pullman's attack on biblical Christianity is direct and undeniable. He once questioned why his books attracted little controversy even as the Harry Potter books attracted so much. He told an Australian newspaper that what he is "saying things that are far more subversive than anything poor old Harry has said. My books are about killing God."
Will viewers of the movie see all this?
The direct attack on Christianity and God is toned down in the movie. But any informed person will recognize the Magisterium as representing the Church and Christianity. Of course, in our world the Magisterium is the authoritative leadership of the Roman Catholic Church. In Pullman's world it represents Christianity as a whole.
Indeed, Pullman's tale tells of John Calvin assuming the papacy and moving the headquarters to Geneva, thus combining the Catholic and Reformation traditions into one. In the movie, the Magisterium appears to be located in London. In any event, the point is not subtle.
The most direct attacks upon Christianity and God do not appear until the last book, The Amber Spyglass, in which Lyra and Will (a boy her age who first appears in the second book) eventually kill God, who turns out to be a decrepit and feeble old imposter who was hardly worth the killing.
Is Pullman's attack on Christianity exaggerated by his critics?
No -- his attack is neither hidden nor subtle. The entire premise of the trilogy is that Lyra is the child foretold by prophecy who will reverse the curse of the Fall and free humanity from the lie of original sin. Whereas in Christian theology it is Jesus Christ who reverses the curse through His work of atonement on the Cross, Pullman presents his own theology of sorts in which the Fall is reversed through the defiance of these children. As Pullman insists, Eve and Adam were right to eat the forbidden fruit and God was a tyrant to forbid them the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
The supernatural element of Pullman's story is "Dust," which is seen by the Magisterium as original sin but is presented by Pullman as the essence of life itself. In The Golden Compass, Lyra is given an "alethiometer" or "golden compass" which is filled with Dust and tells the truth to one qualified to operate it. Readers are told that a great battle is coming in which forces fighting for human freedom and happiness will confront (and destroy) the Magisterium and God.
In the last volume of the trilogy, a character known as Dr. Mary Malone explains her discovery to Lyra and Will: "I used to be a nun, you see. I thought physics could be done to the glory of God, till I saw there wasn't any God at all and that physics was more interesting anyway. The Christian religion is a very powerful and convincing mistake, that's all."
Is there more to the larger story?
Yes, and it has to do with sex. Surprisingly graphic and explicit sex. Pullman believes that the Christian church is horribly repressive about sex and that this is rooted in the idea of the Fall. As he told Hanna Rosin of the Atlantic Monthly, "Why the Christian Church has spent 2,000 years condemning this glorious moment, well, that's a mystery. I want to confront that, I suppose, by telling a story that the so-called original sin is anything but. It's the thing that makes us fully human."
Puberty is a big part of Pullman's concern. Coming-of-age stories are one of the most common forms of fiction, but Pullman's packs a punch that readers cannot miss. He wants to celebrate the adolescent's arrival at sexual awareness. Remember that the child's daemon can change forms until puberty. At that point it is fixed as a single creature that reflects the personality and character of the young adult.
Puberty means the coming of sexual feelings. The Magisterium would prefer that children grow up without experiencing sexual temptation, so it is conducting an experiment in order to separate children from their daemons before puberty, when their daemon can no longer change. This procedure, known as "intercision" makes the child a "severed child" who has no daemon -- and thus no soul. The Magisterium has assigned Mrs. Coulter the job of abducting the children and taking them to the North for this experiment.
As Mrs. Coulter explains to Lyra (who is revealed to be her own daughter) in the first book: "All that happens is a little cut, and then everything's peaceful. Forever! You see, your daemon's a wonderful friend and companion when you are young, but at the age we call puberty, the age you're coming to very soon, darling, daemons bring all sorts of troublesome thoughts and feelings, and that's what lets Dust in. A quick little operation before that, and you're never troubled again."
In The Golden Compass, Lyra and her companions free the children held at this experimental station in the North and destroy it. In The Amber Spyglass, Lyra and Will reverse the story of the Edenic Fall by consummating a sexual act in the garden.
Again, Pullman is not subtle. Keep in mind that this is a series of books marketed to children and adolescents. Lyra puts a red fruit to Will's lips and Will "knew at once what she meant, and that he was too joyful to speak." Within moments, the 13-year olds are involved in some kind of unspecified sexual act.
"The word love set his nerves ablaze," Pullman writes of Will. "All his body thrilled with it, and he answered her in the same words, kissing her hot face over and over again, drinking in with adoration the scent of her body and her warm, honey-fragrant hair and her sweet, moist mouth that tasted of the little red fruit."
Just a few pages later, Will and Lyra will dare to touch each other's daemon. That passage is even more sexually charged and explicit than the first. The adolescents now know "that neither daemon would change now, having felt a lover's hands on them. These were their shapes for life: they would want no other."
What is it about Pullman and C. S. Lewis?
Put simply, Pullman hates C. S. Lewis's work The Chronicles of Narnia. He told Hannah Rosin that Lewis's famous work is "morally loathsome" and "one of the most ugly and poisonous things I ever read." Narnia, he said, "is the Christian one . . . . And mine is the non-Christian."
When the first Narnia film was released in 2005, Pullman described the books as "a peevish blend of racist, misogynistic and reactionary prejudice."
Indeed, Pullman's His Dark Materials is intended as an answer to Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia. What Lewis (and J. R. R. Tolkein) did for Christianity, Pullman wants to do for atheism.
So, what should Christians do?
A good first step would be to take a deep breath. The Christian faith is not about to be toppled by a film, nor by a series of fantasy books. Pullman has an agenda that is clear, and Christians need to inform themselves of what this agenda is and what it means. At the same time, nothing would serve his agenda better than to have Christians speaking recklessly or unintelligently about the film or the books.
This is about the battle of ideas and worldviews. While Christians will not celebrate the release of this film, we should recognize the mixture of challenge and opportunity that comes with millions of persons watching this film and talking about the issues it raises. When the movie is mentioned in the workplace, in school, on the playground, or in the college campus, this is a great opportunity to show that Christians are not afraid of the battle of ideas.
We should recognize that the Christian Church has some very embarrassing moments in its history - moments when it has failed to represent the truth of the Gospel and the love of Christ. Authors like Philip Pullman take advantage of these failures in order to paint the entire Christian Church as a conspiracy against human happiness and freedom. Of course, that charge will not stand close scrutiny, and we can face it head-on with a thoughtful response.
Some Christians have also held very unhelpful views of human sexuality. These, we must admit, would include figures as great and influential as Augustine and, alas, C. S. Lewis. But these figures, rightly influential in other areas of the faith, are not representative in this case of biblical sexuality. We can set the record straight.
Should we be concerned that people, young and old, will be confused by this movie? Of course. But I do not believe that a boycott will dissuade the general public from seeing the film. I am very concerned when I think of so many people being entertained by such a subversive message delivered by such a seductive medium. We are responsible to show them, in so far as we are able, that the Magisterium of The Golden Compass is not a fair or accurate representation of the Christian Church.
I can only wonder how many parents and grandparents will allow children and young people to see the movie and then buy them the books -- blissfully unaware of what is coming in books two and three.
The Gospel of Jesus Christ has enemies; this we know. Christian parents must be informed about His Dark Materials and inform others. We must take the responsibility to use interest in this film to teach our own children to think biblically and to be discerning in their engagement with the media in all forms. We should arm our children to be able to talk about this project with their classmates without fear or rancor.
Philip Pullman has an agenda, but so do we. Our agenda is the Gospel of Christ -- a message infinitely more powerful than that of The Golden Compass. Pullman's worldview of unrestricted human autonomy would be nightmarish if ever achieved. His story promises liberation but would enslave human beings to themselves and destroy all transcendent value.
The biblical story of the Fall is true, after all, and our only rescue is through the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The curse of sin was not reversed by adolescents playing at sex in a garden, but by the Son of God shedding His blood on a cross.
So let's get our bearings straight as we think and talk about The Golden Compass. This movie does represent a great challenge, but a challenge that Christians should always be ready to meet.

Are You Born Again? By J. C. Ryle (1816-1900)

Are you born again? This is one of life's most important questions. Jesus Christ said, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3).It is not enough to reply, "I belong to the church; I suppose I'm a Christian." Thousands of nominal Christians show none of the signs of being born again which the Scriptures have given us—many listed in the First Epistle of John.First of all, John wrote: "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin" (I John 3:9). "Whosoever is born of God sinneth not" (5:18).A person who has been born again, or regenerated, does not habitually commit sin. He no longer sins with his heart and will and whole inclination. There was probably a time when he did not think about whether his actions were sinful or not, and he did not always feel grieved after doing evil. There was no quarrel between him and sin; they were friends. But the true Christian hates sin, flees from it, fights against it, considers it his greatest plague, resents the burden of its presence, mourns when he falls under its influence, and longs to be completely delivered from it. Sin no longer pleases him, nor is it even a matter of indifference to him; it has become a horrible thing which he hates. However, he cannot eliminate its presence within him.If he said that he had no sin, he would be lying (I John 1:8). But he can say that he hates sin and that the great desire of his soul is not to commit sin at all. He cannot prevent bad thoughts from entering his mind, or shortcomings, omissions, and defects from appealing in both his words and his actions. He knows that "in many things we offend all" (James 3:2). But he can truly say, in the sight of God, that these things cause him grief and sorrow and that his whole nature does not consent to them. What would the apostle say about you? Are you born again?Second, John wrote: "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God" (I John 5:1).A man who is born again, or regenerated, believes that Jesus Christ is the only Saviour who can pardon his soul, that He is the divine person appointed by God the Father for this very purpose, and beside Him there is no Saviour at all. In himself he sees nothing but unworthiness. But he has full confidence in Christ, and trusting in Him, he believes that his sins are all forgiven. He believes that, because he has accepted Christ's finished work and death on the cross, he is considered righteous in God's sight, and he may look forward to death and judgment without alarm.He may have fears and doubts. He may sometimes tell you that he feels as if he had no faith at all. But ask him if he is willing to trust in anything instead of Christ, and see what he will say. Ask him if he will rest his hope of eternal life on his own goodness, his own works, his prayers, his minister, or his church, and listen to his reply. What would the apostle say about you? Are you born again?Third, John wrote: "Every one that doeth righteousness is born of Him" (I John 2:29).The man who is born again, or regenerated, is a holy man. He endeavors to live according to God's will, to do the things that please God and to avoid the things that God hates. He wishes to continually look to Christ as his example as well as his Saviour and to prove himself to be Christ's friend by doing whatever He commands. He knows he is not perfect. He is painfully aware of his indwelling corruption. He finds an evil principle within himself that is constantly warring against grace and trying to draw him away from God. But he does not consent to it, though he cannot prevent its presence.Though he may sometimes feel so low that he questions whether or not he is a Christian at all, he will be able to say with John Newton, "I am not what I ought to be, I am not what I want to be, I am not what I hope to be in another world; but still I am not what I once used to be, and by the grace of God I am what I am." What would the apostle say about you? Are you born again?Fourth, John wrote: "We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren" (I John 3:14).A man who is born again has a special love for all true disciples of Christ. Like his Father in heaven, he loves all men with a great general love, but he has a special love for those who share his faith in Christ. Like his Lord and Saviour, he loves the worst of sinners and could weep over them; but he has a peculiar love for those who are believers. He is never so much at home as when he is in their company.He feels they are all members of the same family. They are his fellow soldiers, fighting against the same enemy. They are his fellow travelers, journeying along the same road. He understands them, and they understand him. They may be very different from himself in many ways—in rank, in station and in wealth. But that does not matter. They are his Father's sons and daughters and he cannot help loving them. What would the apostle say about you? Are you born again?Fifth, John wrote: "Whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world" (I John 5:4).A man who is born again does not use the world's opinion as his standard of right and wrong. He does not mind going against the world's ways, ideas and customs. What men think or say no longer concerns him. He overcomes the love of the world. He finds no pleasure in things which seem to bring happiness to most people. To him they seem foolish and unworthy of an immortal being.He loves God's praise more than man's praise. He fears offending God more than offending man. It is unimportant to him whether he is blamed or praised; his first aim is to please God. What would the apostle say about you? Are you born again?Sixth, John wrote: "He that is begotten of God keepeth himself' (I John 5:18).A man who is born again is careful of his own soul. He tries not only to avoid sin but also to avoid everything which may lead to it. He is careful about the company he keeps. He knows that evil communications corrupt the heart and that evil is more catching than good, just as disease is more infectious than health. He is careful about the use of his time; his chief desire is to spend it profitable.He desires to live like a soldier in an enemy country—to wear his armor continually and to be prepared for temptation. He is diligent to be watchful, humble, prayerful man. What would the apostle say about you? Are you born again?These are the six great marks of a born again Christian.There is a vast difference in the depth and distinctness of these marks in different people. In some they are faint and hardly noticeable. In others they are bold, plain and unmistakable, so anyone may read them. Some of these marks are more visible than others in each individual. Seldom are all equally evident in any one person.But still, after every allowance, here we find boldly painted six marks of being born of God.How should we react to these things? We can logically come to only one conclusion—only those who are born again have these six characteristics, and those who do not have these marks are not born again. This seems to be the conclusion to which the apostle intended us to come. Do you have these characteristics? Are you born again?

Warren, Hybels and other IslamoChristian Apostates, cont. By Tim Brown

I posted an article on the Unity Pledge between Muslims and Christians which was signed by Rick Warren and others, and I stand unapologetically behind that post. However, I discussed one central point...a key one...but only the one central point. Listen here for Todd Friel's coverage of this blasphemous document.Note the signers included those from Bethel Seminary, Wheaton College and others. Are you a member of a BGC church? Bethel is a part of the BGC.Thank you, Todd, for covering this as you did.***Note***If the above links don't work, try this one.

Rick Warren: Asks for Allah's Forgiveness By Tim Brown

Yup, you read that right. See, he's been working on a unity between Islam and Christianity. In the process, he signed a document. Want to see it? Oh...yeah...read the end of the Preamble. Better yet, here's what to look for:"Before we “shake your hand” in responding to your letter, we ask forgiveness of the All-Merciful One and of the Muslim community around the world."Wanna guess who the "All-Merciful One" is? It isn't Jesus. It is Allah, the false god of Islam.By signing this, Rick Warren, Senior "Pastor" and "wolf-in-sheep's clothing" of Saddleback Church, committed open apostasy. Note that he wasn't the only one. He just happens to be a very influential person in what I reluctantly call "evangelicalism". Bill Hybels signed it as well as his other liberal friend, Robert Schuller and a host of other Christian "wannabes".My friends, this is called "shipwrecking the faith". Hymenaeus and Alexander would be proud.

Puritan Quote of the Week From the Pastor's Desk

"The Christian's life should put his minister's sermon in print."
WILLIAM GURNALL

Rick Warren's Inquisition By Joseph Farah

Why does Rick Warren eagerly seek to find common ground with Muslim leaders while, at the same time, so ruthlessly advocating the disfellowship of Christian believers?- By Joseph Farah

While mega-pastor Rick Warren has joined a group of 100 church leaders calling for interfaith dialogue and the building of "common ground" with Muslims, he has a slightly different outlook toward Christians with whom he disagrees.In his latest missive to fellow pastors, he writes: "You've got to protect the unity of your church. If that means getting rid of troublemakers, do it.""As pastors, as shepherds of God's people, it's our job to protect our congregations from Satan's greatest weapon – disunity," he writes. "It's not always easy, but it's what we've been called to do."I may not be pastor of a mega-church, but, I've got to tell you, Rick Warren's priorities and sensibilities and his biblical literacy and standards are upside-down, inside-out and twisted beyond anything remotely connected with Scripture. And I'm not afraid of his threats of ex-communication from the new papacy he apparently seeks to create.Warren cites Paul's advice in II Timothy 2:23-26 as the basis for when and how "pastors" should draw the line on disagreements among the flock. However, Paul was addressing Timothy not as a "pastor" or "priest," but rather as an itinerant evangelist doing his utmost to spread the Gospel to non-believers."But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes."And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,"In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;"And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will."That happens to be excellent advice for anyone attempting to evangelize unbelievers. It is not, however, a call for church "professionals" to declare themselves as founts of unlimited wisdom and infallibility in spiritual matters.Likewise, he quotes from Titus 3:10-11 as the authority for getting rid of "troublemakers." Yet, that Scripture is not referring to people contending for the faith. It is referring to heretics."A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself."Has it ever occurred to Rick Warren that pastors have been wrong? Has it ever occurred to Rick Warren that pastors might teach unbiblical principles? Has it ever occurred to Rick Warren no earthly pastor is the recipient of all Divine revelation? Has it ever occurred to Rick Warren that pastors have led entire flocks into grave error that may have eternal consequences?Has it ever occurred to Rick Warren that he, too, might be capable of such mistakes?Rick Warren makes a spiritually fatal error when he proclaims, without any biblical authority, that Satan's greatest weapon is disunity. That is simply not true. The Bible reveals over and over again that even one spirit-filled believer can stand up against Satan. God is not impressed with numbers. He doesn't need numbers for victory. He doesn't care about big churches. He doesn't care about the cathedrals of men. He wants numbers only because He is "not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9).No, Satan's greatest weapon is hardly disunity. His greatest weapon since his fall and since the Garden of Eden has been deception. In fact, Satan loves unity – as long as those unified are knowingly or unknowingly serving him. He'd love for all of us to "go to hell in a handbasket."Are more people led to death by debate within the body of Christ or by spiritual leaders who demand absolute obedience to themselves?Paul warned us about this, too, in Acts 20:29-30: "For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them."For heaven's sake, nothing could be clearer from Scripture than that no man has a monopoly on truth. That is why Paul even had to correct Peter (Galatians 2:11-14). Besides worshipping God, this would seem to be one of the principal purposes of the church.The church is warned over and over about false teachers throughout the Bible. Surely Rick Warren is familiar with those warnings. Why would he assume all pastors to be righteous and assume all lay dissenters to be unrighteous?And, equally curious, why does Rick Warren eagerly seek to find common ground with Muslim leaders while, at the same time, so ruthlessly advocating the disfellowship of Christian believers?

A BRIEF AND UNTECHNICAL STATEMENT By B. B. Warfield

1. I believe that my one aim in life and death should be to glorify God and enjoy Him forever; and that God teaches me how to glorify and enjoy him in His holy Word, that is, the Bible, which He has given by the infallible inspiration of His Holy Spirit in order that I may certainly know what I am to believe concerning Him and what duty He requires of me.
2. I believe that God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal and incomparable in all that He is; one God but three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, my Creator, my Redeemer, and my Sanctifier; in whose power and wisdom, righteousness, goodness and truth I may safely put my trust.
3. I believe that the heavens and the earth, and all that in them is, are the work of God's hands; and that all that He has made He directs and governs in all their actions; so that they fulfil the end for which they were created, and I who trust in Him shall not be put to shame but may rest securely in the protection of is almighty love.
4. I believe that God created man after is own image, in knowledge, righteousness and holiness, and entered into a covenant of life with him upon the sole condition of the obedience that was his due: so that it was by wilfully sinning against God that man fell into the sin and misery in which I have been born.
5. I believe, that, being fallen in Adam, my first father, I am; by nature a child of wrath, under the condemnation of God and corrupted in body and soul, prone to evil and liable to eternal death; from which dreadful state I cannot be delivered save through the unmerited grace of God my Savior.
6. I believe that God has not left the world to perish in its sin, but out of the great love wherewith He has loved it, has from all eternity graciously chosen unto Himself a multitude which no man can number, to deliver them out of their sin and misery, and of them to build up again in the world His kingdom of righteousness: in which kingdom I may be assured I have my part, if I hold fast to Christ the Lord.
7. I believe that God has redeemed His people unto Himself through Jesus Christ our Lord; who, though be was and ever continues to be the eternal Son of God, yet was born of a woman, born under the law, that He might redeem them that are under the law: I believe that He bore the penalty due to my sins in His own body on the tree, and fulfilled in His own person the obedience I owe to the righteousness of God, and now presents me to His Father as His purchased possession, to the praise of the glory of His grace forever: wherefore renouncing all merit of my own, I put all my trust only in the blood and righteousness of Jesus Christ my redeemer.
8. I believe that Jesus Christ my redeemer, who died for my offences was raised again for my justification, and ascended into the heavens, where He sits at the right hand of the Father Almighty, continually making intercession for his people, and governing the whole world as head over all things for his Church: so that I need fear no evil and may surely know that nothing can snatch me out of His hands and nothing can separate me from His love.
9. I believe that the redemption wrought by the Lord Jesus Christ is effectually applied to all His people by the Holy Spirit, who works faith in me and thereby unites me to Christ, renews me in the whole man after the image of God, and enables me more and more to die unto sin and to live unto righteousness; until, this gracious work having been completed in me, I shall be received into glory: in which great hope abiding, I must ever strive to perfect holiness in the fear of God.
10. I believe that God requires of me, under the gospel, first of all, that, out of a true sense of my sin and misery and apprehension of His mercy in Christ, I should turn with grief and hatred away from sin and receive and rest upon Jesus Christ alone for salvation; that, so being united to Him, I may receive pardon for my sins and be accepted as righteous in God's sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to me and received by faith alone: and thus and thus only do I believe I may be received into the number and have a right to all the privileges of the sons of God.
11. I believe that, having been pardoned and accepted for Christ's sake, it is further required of me that I walk in the Spirit whom He has purchased for me, and by whom love is shed abroad in my heart; fulfilling the obedience I owe to Christ my King; faithfully performing all the duties laid upon me by the holy law of God my heavenly Father; and ever reflecting in my life and conduct, the perfect example that has been set me by Christ Jesus my Leader, who has died for me and granted to me His Holy Spirit just that I may do the good works which God has afore prepared that I should walk in them.
12. I believe that God has established His Church in the world and endowed it with the ministry of the Word and the holy ordinances of Baptism, the Lord's Supper and Prayer; in order that through these as means, the riches of his grace in the gospel may be made known to the world, and, by the blessing of Christ and the working of His Spirit in them that by faith receive them, the benefits of redemption may be communicated to his people: wherefore also it is required of me that I attend on these means of grace with diligence, preparation, and prayer, so that through them I may be instructed and strengthened in faith, and in holiness of life and in love; and that I use my best endeavors to carry this gospel and convey these means of grace to the whole world.
13. I believe that as Jesus Christ has once come in grace, so also is He to come a second time in glory, to judge the world in righteousness and assign to each his eternal award: and I believe that if I die in Christ, my soul shall be at death made perfect in holiness and go home to the Lord; and when He shall return in his majesty I shall be raised in glory and made perfectly blessed in the full enjoyment of God to all eternity: encouraged by which blessed hope it is required of me willingly to take my part in suffering hardship here as a good soldier of Christ Jesus, being assured that if I die with Him I shall also live with him, if I endure, I shall also reign with Him.

And to Him, my Redeemer,
with the Father,
and the Holy Spirit,
Three Persons, one God,
be glory forever, world without end,
Amen, and Amen.

Have a Martin Luther Christmas By Dr Philip Ryken

Somehow the legend persists that Martin Luther wrote the famous Christmas carol “Away in a Manger.” The truth of the matter is that the carol was not written in German but in English, and that it did not make its first appearance—right here in Philadelphia—until the 1880’s. However, according to the famous Luther scholar Roland Bainton, “Away in a Manger” may have been written in 1884 to honor the German Reformer on the 400th anniversary of his birth. And in a way the legend is appropriate, because as much as any other theologian, Luther had a passion for celebrating the true meaning of Christmas [see Bainton’s introduction to Martin Luther’s Christmas Book (1948; repr. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1997), p. 7].
Over the course of more than thirty years in ministry, Luther often preached from the Christmas narratives in the Gospels, and from other passages related to the incarnation of God the Son. Typically he would preach on Christmas several times a week throughout Advent, carefully working through each passage verse-by-verse. He also wrote at least five Christmas carols, composing the music as well as coming up with the lyrics.
What were some of the main themes in Luther’s theology of Christmas and the cross? The famous Reformer often emphasized the humble circumstances of the people who witnessed the Savior’s birth. He characterized Mary as “a lowly maid from a mean town,” and said that among “the downtrodden people she was one of the lowliest, not a maid of high station in the capital city, but a daughter of a plain man in a small town” [pp. 12-13]. Of the shepherds he said, “That was a mean job, watching flocks by night. Common sense calls it low-down work, and the men who do it are regarded as trash” [p.35].
Luther used similar language to describe the earthiness of our Savior’s birth. “Bad enough,” he wrote, “that a young bride married only a year could not have had her baby at Nazareth in her own house instead of making all that journey of three days when heavy with child. The inn was full. No one would release a room to this pregnant woman. She had to go to a cow stall and there bring forth the Maker of all creatures because nobody would give way” [p. 30]. So it was that when the wise man came to worship the newborn King, “they saw but a tumbled down shack and a poor young mother with a poor little babe, not like a king at all” [p. 58].
These sufferings were all part of God’s saving plan. In order for God the Son to do the work of redemption—and to save ordinary sinners like Mary and the shepherds—he had to become a man and endure all the difficulties and degradations of our human situation.
We might be tempted to think that if we had been in Bethlehem, we would have given the baby Jesus the welcome he deserved. “If only I had been there!” Luther imagines us saying. “How quick I would have been to help the Baby.” And yet, said Luther, “You only say that because you know how great Christ is, but if you had been there at that time you would have done no better than the people of Bethlehem. Why don’t you do it now? You have Christ in your neighbor. You ought to serve him, for what you do to your neighbor in need you do to the Lord Christ himself” [p. 31]. Spoken like a true pastor, always trying to encourage his congregation to put their faith into practice.
Throughout his preaching on the incarnation, Martin Luther had a pressing concern for Christmas to make its way into our hearts. “We must both read and meditate upon the Nativity,” he preached. “If the meditation does not reach the heart, we shall sense no sweetness, nor shall we know what solace for humankind lies in this contemplation. The heart will not laugh nor be merry” [p. 15].
The true believer’s response to the true meaning of Christmas is beautifully expressed in a carol that Luther wrote for his young children—a carol commonly known by its opening words: “From Heaven High.” The carol seems to have been written for a Christmas pageant to be performed in Luther’s church. First an angel sings, announcing the Savior’s birth. The final stanza of the angel’s song goes like this:
Look now, you children, at the sign, A manger cradle far from fine. A tiny baby you will see.Upholder of the world is he.
These words serve as the cue for the church’s children to come forward and worship the Christ. With reverent wonder they sing:
How glad we’ll be if it is so!With all the shepherds let us goTo see what God for us has doneIn sending us his own dear Son.Look, look, my heart, and let me peek.Whom in the manger do you seek?Who is that lovely little one?The Baby Jesus, God’s own Son.Be welcome, Lord; be now our guest.By you poor sinners have been blessed.In nakedness and cold you lie.How can I thank you—how can I?O dear Lord Jesus, for your headNow will I make the softest bed.The chamber where this bed shall beIs in my heart, inside of me.
Then the whole congregation joins the song, celebrating Christmas the Martin Luther way, and the way of every true believer in the Christ of Christmas:
To God who sent his only SonBe glory, laud, and honor done.Let all the choir of heaven rejoice,The new ring in with heart and voice [pp. 71-72].

A Good Soldier By Dr John MacArthur

On June 12, 1944, just six days after D-Day in World War II, a young lieutenant named Richard Winters led his men to the outskirts of Carentan. As the officer in charge of Easy Company, of the 101st Airborne, he was tasked to clear the large French town of its German defenders. It would be a small battle, but it played a significant role in the massive effort to rid the world of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis.
As Winters led his company up the road toward town, the company started taking machine gun fire from a German MG42. The men instinctively dived for cover into ditches on either side of the road, and stayed there — they froze. Not only was the success of the mission in jeopardy, but the men were easy targets for enemy machine gun and sniper fire.
What happened next proved to be the turning point in the battle for Carentan — it’s the stuff legends are made of. Lt. Winters went into the middle of the road and, with bullets hissing past him, started yelling at his troops to get up out of the ditches and engage the enemy. His words, coupled with his heroic action, motivated the men to get up, get in the fight, and gain a decisive victory over the Germans.
Winters’ disregard for personal safety in his effort to save his men from certain death didn’t just earn him a medal; his actions earned him the love, respect, and admiration of his men. They followed him faithfully from Carentan, through the nightmarish Battle of the Bulge, and on to triumph at Hitler’s Eagle’s Nest.
Soldiers willingly follow men like that, men who demonstrate acts of self-sacrifice in the most harrowing of circumstances. How much more should we, as Christians, follow the One who endured suffering and death to rescue us from the most terrifying fate of all, an eternity in hell?
That was the idea that entered Paul’s mind when, at the end of his own ministry, having been imprisoned by the emperor Nero, he wrote to encourage the young pastor Timothy. Timothy was facing severe conflict in his ministry at Ephesus, and the relentless opposition from heretics, apostates, and persecutors was weakening him. And just like any Christian who experiences difficulty because of following Christ, he needed to be reminded again of his task — to suffer hardship as a good soldier of Jesus Christ.
Paul wrote in 2 Timothy 2:3-4, “Suffer hardship with me, as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No soldier in active service entangles himself in the affairs of everyday life, so that he may please the one who enlisted him as a soldier.” A good soldier is one who does not simply do minimum duty for his Lord, but rather is one who serves Him with everything he is and has. As a Christian, that’s what you are called to. Paul’s words to Timothy are your marching orders, too, as you strive to be a good soldier of Christ Jesus.
The first mark of a good soldier is the willingness to suffer hardship with the rest of the soldiers. “Suffer hardship” literally means to suffer evil or pain along with someone else. By adding “with me,” Paul assures Timothy that he hasn’t asked anything of him that he wasn’t willing to do. In fact, Paul was writing from a prison cell.
As a Christian in the Western world, I’d bet it is sometimes difficult for you to understand what serious spiritual warfare and suffering for Christ mean. Even though the secular environment in our society is increasingly hostile to Christianity, you are not faced with loss of job, imprisonment, or execution because of your faith. With few exceptions, being a Christian won’t keep you out of college or from getting a good job. But the more faithful you are as a Christian, the more Satan will put roadblocks, hardships, and rejection in the way, the more evident the spiritual warfare will become, and the more frequent and obvious the hardship will become.
You have been called to endure hardship, and every Christian who has gone before you has had his share. And although you haven’t yet shed blood for your faith (Hebrews 12:4), you will experience hardship as a Christian for your faithfulness–count on it. Jesus said, “If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you” (John 15:20). But be encouraged for He also said, “In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world” (John 16:33). Jesus is the perfect Commander who leads by example and will bring you to certain victory in the end.
Secondly, a good soldier is marked by his separation from the “normal” life. A “soldier in active service” does not have a 9 to 5 job, or even a long 60- to 70-hour work week. He is a soldier 24 hours a day, every day of the year. His body, his health, his skills, his time–all that he is–belongs to the military. Even when on leave, he is subject to recall at any time, without notice and for any reason. And whenever ordered into dangerous duty, he is expected to put his very life on the line without question or hesitation.
Consequently, he is separated from his normal environment, so that he will not “entangle himself in the affairs of everyday life.” Paul is not speaking about things that necessarily are wrong in themselves. It is not that you, as a Christian, should have no contact at all with your former friends and surroundings, but that you should never be caught up and enmeshed in them. Those things are irrelevant to your soldiering and are always subject to being relinquished.
You should never allow earthly matters to interfere with the fulfillment of your duty to the Lord. Temporal concerns and activities, innocent in themselves, have neutralized the effectiveness of many pastors, special ministries, and doctrinally sound churches. Though they once labored faithfully in the primary purpose of serving Jesus Christ to advance His kingdom against the forces of darkness, they have unwittingly taken themselves out of the battle.
Just as the dutiful soldier places his life willingly on the line in the service of his commander, so also will you, as a faithful Christian, willingly deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow Christ (Luke 9:23). And you will find yourself echoing Paul’s words: “I do not consider my life of any account as dear to myself, in order that I may finish my course, and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus” (Acts 20:24).
The final mark of a good soldier is a genuine desire to “please the one who enlisted him as a soldier.” The men who followed Lt. Winters through terrible conditions and battles in Europe did so willingly–he had earned their respect and affections. In an even greater way, the Lord deserves your honor, your affection, and your obedience for all He has done for you. His own courage on the battlefield is unparalleled. He stayed the course and went before you to win your freedom and eternal life. And now He seeks your loyal service in His army.
The Christian’s greatest desire is to please Christ, and his fondest hope is to be rewarded for faithful service, to hear his Master say, “Well done, good and faithful slave; you were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things, enter into the joy of your master” (Matthew 25:21).
With that hope in the forefront of your mind, let your life be animated and driven forward by your love for Jesus Christ. And make it your ambition, “whether at home or absent, to be pleasing to Him” (2 Corinthians 5:9)–He is your spiritual Commander-in-Chief.

Questions 13-16 from the Westminster Shorter Catechism. For your Family Devotion today.

Q13: Did our first parents continue in the estate wherein they were created?

A13: Our first parents, being left to the freedom of their own will, fell from the estate wherein they were created, by sinning against God.[1]
1. Eccl. 7:29

Q14: What is sin?

A14: Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God.[1]
1. I John 3:4

Q15: What was the sin whereby our first parents fell from the estate wherein they were created?

A15: The sin whereby our first parents fell from the estate wherein they were created, was their eating the forbidden fruit.[1]
1. Gen. 3:6-8

Q16: Did all mankind fall in Adam's first transgression?

A16: The covenant being made with Adam, not only for himself, but for his posterity;[1] all mankind, descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him, in his first transgression.[2]
1. Gen. 1:28; 2:16-172. Rom. 5:18

The Heidelberg Catechism, This Lord's Day week 48

Q123: What is the second petition?

A123: Thy kingdom come; that is, so govern us by Thy Word and Spirit, that we submit ourselves to Thee always more and more;[1] preserve and increase Thy Church;[2] destroy the works of the devil, every power that exalts itself against Thee, and all wicked devices formed against Thy Holy Word,[3] until the fullness of Thy kingdom come,[4] wherein Thou shalt be all in all.[5]
1. 119:5; 143:102. Psa. 51:18; 122:6-73. I John 3:8; Rom. 16:204. Rev. 22:17, 20; Rom. 8:22-235. I Cor. 15:24, 28; Psa. 102:12-13; Heb. 12:28; Rev. 11:15

Does a Computer Belong in the Crib? By Dr. Al Mohler

We are constantly advised that this generation of children is growing up in a digital world. That much is pretty hard to deny. Just watch teenagers in the mall, each with a cell phone at the ear. Or observe school kids in the library, who are more likely to be at a computer screen than with a book.
But The New York Times now reports that toddlers and preschoolers are demanding a digital Christmas -- complete with laptops, cell phones, and all the rest.
"Cell phones, laptops, digital cameras and MP3 music players are among the hottest gift items this year. For preschoolers," explained reporters Matt Richtel and Brad Stone. "Toy makers and retailers are filling shelves with new tech devices for children ages 3 and up, and sometimes even down. They say they are catering to junior consumers who want to emulate their parents and are not satisfied with fake gadgets."
This trend has been noted carefully by retailers and marketers, who are pushing "toys" like the "Easy Link Internet Launch Pad" (from Fisher-Price) and similar products.
As the reporters explain:
Jim Silver, editor of Toy Wishes magazine and an industry analyst for 24 years, said there had been "a huge jump in the last 12 months" in toys that involve looking at a screen.
"The bigger toy companies don't even call it the toy business anymore," Mr. Silver said. "They're in the family entertainment business and the leisure business. What they're saying is, 'We're vying for kids' leisure time.' "
Technology has been slowly permeating the toy business for a number of years, but the trend has been accelerating. On Wednesday, six of the nine best-selling toys for 5- to 7-year-olds on Amazon.com were tech gadgets. For all of 2006, three of the top nine toys for that age group were tech-related.
Now, let's think about this for a moment. We are talking about toddlers and preschoolers here. Do children these ages really have "leisure time?" Do they have jobs?
For years now, prophetic observers have warned that we are turning children into young adults. As David Elkind warned in his book, The Hurried Child: Growing Up Too Fast Too Soon, the adult world is pushing children and adolescents into adult roles long before they are ready. Now, toddlers demand (real) cell phones.
It doesn't take much imagination to see that much of the blame lies with permissive and indulgent parents. Consider this section drawn from the paper's report:
Yunice Kotake, of San Bruno, Calif., recently purchased a Fisher-Price Knows Your Name Dora Cell Phone for her twin year-old daughters. But a few days later, she returned the play phone to a local Toys "R" Us, after she found that the girls seemed to prefer their parents' actual phones.
"They know what a real cell phone is, and they don't want a fake one," Ms. Kotake said.
This passage is troubling at so many levels. Ms. Kotake has twin year-old girls who are not satisfied with "play" cell phones. The real phones are so much a part of their lives that "they don't want a fake one."
The reporters also pointed to the demands made by children. They took readers into a leading national toy retailer:
Standing near the front of the store, a 6-year-old named Sabrina, with a gap-tooth smile, explained that her No. 1 choice for a Christmas gift is an adult laptop.
"Cause it's cool," she explained.
"Maybe when she's 8," said her mother, Amina, who declined to give her last name. She might, she said, have to yield when her daughter turns 7. "These kids are different from the way we were," she added.
Might have to yield? Has anyone told this mother that she is not required to meet her daughter's demands? This 6-year-old girl demands an adult laptop computer because it is "cool."
Here is a newsflash for you -- elementary school kids do not "need" adult laptops and will survive without digital entertainment products as well.
This is not an argument for keeping kids away from all computers and digital technologies, but it is a plea for parents (and marketers) to let children be children.
As for the kids, it is telling that so many are absolutely uninterested in any toy lacking a disk drive or an electronic screen.
More from the article:
Donald L. Shifrin, a pediatrician based in Seattle and the spokesman for the academy, said tech toys cannot replace imaginative play, where children create rich narratives and interact with peers or parents.
"Are we creating media use as a default for play?" Dr. Shifrin asked. "When kids want to play, will they ask, 'Where's the screen?' "
But to the toy industry, the so-called youth electronics category is a bright spot and now accounting for more than 5 percent of all toy sales. Overall toy sales have been flat at around $22 billion a year for the last five years, according to the market research firm NPD Group.
"If you're just selling traditional toys like board games or plastic toys, you can survive but you can't grow," said Sean McGowan, a toy industry analyst with Needham & Company. "This industry has to redefine what a toy is."
Toy makers are also worried that they might be losing their youngest, most devoted customers to the consumer electronics and video game companies. Mr. McGowan said the industry has even coined a term for the anxiety: KGOY, which stands for Kids Getting Older Younger.
Children should be respected as children and not reduced to younger consumers. Parents must protect their children from growing up too fast -- such as the "Kids Getting Older Younger" syndrome.
Keep the family computer in the kitchen or the family room where use can be monitored and limited. Don't let your kids -- all the way from toddlers to teenagers -- spend too much time in front of a screen.
Parents must learn to say no, and to make it stick. There is something downright creepy about the thought of a toddler or preschooler who feels more at home in front of the computer screen than on the playground.

The King of Kings by R.C. Sproul

The gospel of Luke ends with a supremely jarring statement: “Then he led them out as far as Bethany, and lifting up his hands he blessed them. While he blessed them, he parted from them and was carried up into heaven. And they worshiped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy, and were continually in the temple blessing God” (24:50-53).What is jarring about this passage is, as Luke reports the departure of Jesus from this world, the response of His disciples was to return to Jerusalem with “great joy.” What about Jesus’ departure would instill in His disciples an emotion of sheer elation? This question is made all the more puzzling when we consider the emotions the disciples displayed when Jesus earlier had told them that His departure would come soon. At that time, the idea that their Lord would leave their earthly presence provoked in them a spirit of profound remorse. It would seem that nothing could be more depressing than to anticipate separation from the presence of Jesus. Yet, in a very short period of time, that depression changed to unspeakable joy. We have to ask what is it that provoked such a radical change of emotion within the hearts of Jesus’ disciples. The answer to that question is plain in the New Testament. Between the time of Jesus’ announcement to them that He would soon be going away and the time of His actual departure, the disciples came to realize two things. First, they realized why it was that Jesus was leaving. Secondly, they understood the place to which He was going. Jesus was leaving not in order that they might be left alone and comfortless, but that He might ascend into heaven. The New Testament idea of ascension means something far more weighty than merely going up into the sky or even to the abode of the heavenlies. In His ascension, Jesus was going to a specific place for a specific reason. He was ascending into heaven for the purpose of His investiture and coronation as the King of kings and Lord of lords. He is King in the highest possible sense of kingship. In biblical terms, it is unthinkable to have a king without a kingdom. Since Jesus ascends to His coronation as king, with that coronation comes the designation by the Father of a realm over which He rules. That realm is all creation.The King is already in place. He has already received all authority on heaven and on earth. That means that at this very moment the supreme authority over the kingdoms of this world and over the entire cosmos is in the hands of King Jesus. There is no inch of real estate, no symbol of power in this world that is not under His ownership and His rule at this very moment. In Paul’s letter to the Philippians, in chapter 2, in the so-called kenotic hymn, it is said that Jesus is given the name that is above all names. The name that He is given that rises above all other titles that anyone can receive, is a name that is reserved for God. It is God’s title Adonai, which means the “One who is absolutely sovereign.” Again, this title is one of supreme governorship for the One who is the King of all of the earth. The New Testament translation of the Old Testament title adonai is the name lord. When Paul says that at the name of Jesus every knee must bow and every tongue confess, the reason for the bowing in obeisance and for confessing is that they are to declare with their lips that Jesus is Lord – that is, He is the sovereign ruler. That was the first confession of faith of the early church. The lordship of Jesus is not simply a hope of Christians that someday might be realized; it is a truth that has already taken place. It is the task of the church to bear witness to that invisible kingdom, or as Calvin put it, it is the task of the church to make the invisible kingdom of Christ visible. Though invisible, it is nevertheless real.

I Fear for Men Like Hybels and Furtick

Thank you Extreme Theology for this great post. I pray that everyone who reads this uses it to take a good look at there own church and what comes or does not come from the pulpit. Rev. C.J. Paul
Over and again I marvel at how our Lord has not left us without instruction and warning regarding false teachers in the church.
Case in point.
As I have been researching, reading, digesting the current attack against God's sheep by men who have been called to be their shepherds I have also been searching the scriptures in search of a clear word from The Lord to help us in this dire time of trouble in church history. Sadly, I think I've found it and what I've found shakes me to my core and throws me on my knees in fear and prayer.
My friend Jim from Old Truth pointed me to a blog piece written by Steven Furtick regarding those people in the church who are complaining that they are not being fed. This is a growing complaint as more and more pastors abandon expository Bible preaching and replace it with topical sermons designed to meet the felt needs of so-called seekers. Said Furtick in the most un-kind and condescending tone possible:
"Proverbs 26:15

The sluggard buries his hand in the dish;
He is too lazy to bring it back to his mouth.
What a great picture of nominal, noncommittal church attendees!
We all know that one of top 3 reasons people leave churches is the (infamous) claim:
“I wasn’t getting fed there.”
Maybe you weren’t.
Or maybe the church set the table, presented the bread of life, and you were too stinking lazy to bring it back to your mouth, chew it, swallow, and digest it, like a big boy.
You know, I don’t mind helping my 2 year old eat his Easy Mac. 
But if he can’t pick up a fork and bring the food to his mouth by age 20, we have a problem.
Churches are filled with those who have known Christ for decades, and still need a bib, a high chair, and want Daddy to do “open wide, here comes the airplane” tricks with the fork before shoving it into their mouths."
As I have shown in a previous post, don't expect to be fed God's word when you go to Furtick's church. His Church isn't for Christians.
This terrible attitude of disdain and condescension towards feeding God's sheep is also shared by Bill Hybels of Willow Creek. His speech regarding the findings of his people's own survey of the effectiveness of their methods when it comes to making mature disciples of Christ is every bit as ugly as Furtick's. But, Hybels shamefully tries to make it into a joke. Said Hybels to those complaining that they were not being fed and were wanting more meat of the word and more serious minded Bible study:
"I'll feed those people! I'll hire some old seminary prof. I'll feed them til they barf!"
Rather than truly repent and show his repentance through a change in behavior, Hybels' solution regarding those who aren't being fed at his church is NOT to feed them. Instead, he is going to teach them how to be SELF feeders! In other words, rather then obey God's word (read the scripture passages supplied at the end of this post) and feed God's sheep with God's word, "Pastor" Hybels and other "pastors" like him are now going to tell their hungry sheep to go and get their own &*$! food.
The reason I put the word Pastor in quotes above is because the word Pastor is literally a shepherding term that comes to us from the Latin word "pascere" which means "to feed". Therefore, it is some sick irony that has befallen Christ's Church. We are now plagued with "pastors" who refuse to feed Christ's sheep. What are we supposed to call these men? They are NOT feeders! They are withholders. They are NON-Feeders, no worse, they are ANTI-Feeders! Should we not then be referring to these men as NON-Pastors or ANTI-Pastors?
Now, here is where the REALLY terrifying word from The Lord comes in.
In the Epistle of Jude we are admonished to contend for the faith against deceivers who've secretly slipped in among God's people, the Church. Jude gives us a very clear description of what these men would be like so that we can spot them. He also tells us their fate. Said Jude:
Jude 11-13 Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed for profit into Balaam’s error; they have been destroyed in Korah’s rebellion.
12 These men are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm — SHEPHERDS WHO FEED ONLY THEMSELVES. They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted — twice dead. 13 They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever.
Jude describes the deceivers he is warning us about as "shepherds who feed only themselves" and warns that blackest darkness has been reserved for these deceivers. This description fits nearly all of the seeker-sensitive preachers and their "sinless", "Repentance-less", "positive spin" gospel of meeting felt needs.
Jude's words should terrify us and spur us to do everything we can to call these men to repentance.
Pray for these men.

'Seekers' Are Poor Judges of Their Own Needs

Quoting Ichabod Spencer . . .
During a time of a revival, a pastor that I had not known very well called upon me, and by invitation preached for me at my regular weekly evening service. I had mentioned to him the existing seriousness among the people. His sermon did not suit me. He made careless statements; seemed to me to rely on impressions more than on truth; seemed to value his own powers, and to desire other people to rely on theirs. I perceived that he highly esteemed himself, as "a revival preacher", and I thought he preached "revival" and prayed "revival", rather than Christianity. After we arrived home, and my pastor friend had retired for the night, a good friend came in to see me, and inquired how I liked his sermon. I criticized it strongly. My friend then told me, that as she left the church she crossed paths with one of our young ladies, who had been serious for some weeks, and who said to her, "oh that sermon will do me good. It was just what I wanted. I wish our pastor would preach like that". I felt humbled and sad.
And as my pastor friend was much older than myself, I thought it became me to consider more carefully what he had preached, and what I had been saying.
But I noticed that, from that time, the serious impressions of this young lady, who thought "the sermon would do her good", began evidently to diminish. I saw her often, and aimed to bring back the depth and solemnity of her former seriousness. It was all in vain. She grew more and more indifferent, till finally she went back to the world entirely. There she remains. Years have rolled on; but she remains a stranger to Christ.
Convicted sinners are very poor judges of what "will do them good". The very things which they think they need, are often the very things that are snares to their souls. How is it possible for "natural man, who discerneth not the things of the Spirit of God", to tell what will do him good? He has no sincere liking for God, or the truth of God. And if likings are to be consulted, the truth must often be sacrificed.
It is better to trouble his conscience, than to please his heart. A convicted sinner is the last person in the world to judge justly, in regard to the kind of instruction he needs. He will seize error more readily than truth, and if his tastes are consulted, his soul will be endangered. In consulting such tastes lies the cunning art deceivers, who lead crowds to admire them, and run after them, and talk of them, while they care not for the truth, "deceiving and being deceived".
From:
A Pastor's Sketches, (year 1850)

The Christmas Sola by Eric Landry

“It is fitting that we end the year, looking forward to the Christmas holiday, with an issue on soli Deo gloria. Not only do the familiar Christmas carols and stories of angel voices singing “glory” to the Lord remind us of our celebration of the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, but the entire Christmas story is of glory shrouded in weakness and hidden from the powerful. Far from being the triumphant last note of a Christmas cantata, soli Deo gloria is the underlying counterpoint directing our eyes and thoughts thirty-three years into the future when the babe in a manger hangs on a cross. Soli Deo gloria reflects the Reformation’s emphasis on a theology of the cross as much as any other sola.
But American Christians, particularly, have rejected the theology of the cross-of glory hidden in meekness, of wisdom revealed through foolishness, of power made powerful in weakness-in favor of a theology of glory that does not worship God so much as it uses God. Reformed pastor and co-host of the White Horse Inn radio show Kim Riddlebarger exposes the folly of so much of our own thinking about God in his piece titled, “Using God.”
The question must be asked, however, is it possible for a human to give the transcendent God glory? Does God lack something that only we can provide? What does such thinking do to our understanding of the great distinction between God as Creator and ourselves as creatures? Editor-in-chief and Reformed theologian Michael Horton tackles these questions and takes us to the Old Testament prophet Isaiah for answers-and along the way also gives us an astronomy lesson!”
Read the entire article….