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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Getting Fed": Does This Describe Your Sermons?

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

Error Intolerant By John MacArthur

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

To the Pastor by Dr Ron Gleason

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

Preach expository sermons from both the Old and New Testaments.

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

A faithful pastor takes worship seriously.

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

Manage your time to the glory of God.

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

The pastor must also lead his own home well.

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

Visit the flock.

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

The Heidelberg Catechism, This Lord's Day week 20

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

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

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

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

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

James White - Who Controls Salvation - Man or God?

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

Seek Ye First by R.C. Sproul Jr.

Every culture and subculture has its own taboos. Not all of them are the same, however. Given that we are all human, how can we explain the divergence of cultural standards? Why is it that one culture will find adultery to be a mere peccadillo, while another will consider it the unforgivable sin? Why was it that in polite society in Victorian England one did not call the leg of a table the leg of the table, for fear of offending delicate sensibilities, while on the other hand, there were more brothels in London than there were churches? The answer may get at the grave sins of our own broader culture.
Certainly a culture committed to ethical relativism, the notion that there is no objective right and wrong, will hang its moral hat on its stunted view of the command of Jesus that we judge not, lest we be judged. (Cheerily skipping over the too embarrassing reality that they are judging the judgers, and thus judging themselves.) Accusing someone of wrongdoing is just about as bad as it can get in the world -- not to mention the evangelical world. Not far behind that grand taboo, however, stands this one. We can commit this sin or that. We can manifest this grave character flaw or that. But to really earn your way into the rogue's gallery, you must commit this heinous sin -- hypocrisy.
Jesus, of course, had some harsh words for hypocrites, "Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence" (Matt. 23:25). Hypocrisy is a real sin, something to be ashamed of, something to repent for. It's shameful to its core. But there is something to be said for it. In fact, Francois de La Rouchefoucauld said this about it, "Hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue." The hypocrite, while caught up in whatever sin he is caught up in, plus being caught up in hypocrisy, has this going for him: he is able to recognize virtue and desires to be perceived as virtuous, even while lacking virtue. We hypocrites cover our sins because, while we certainly commit them, we recognize them as sins. While it is far better to be good than to look good, in either case we confess, however feebly, the reality of the good.
This, I believe, is the driving force behind this cultural taboo. We postmoderns hate hypocrisy not because we have such an abiding commitment to honesty, but for the same reason we judge so harshly those who judge, because we are dishonest enough to pretend there is no such thing as virtue. Those who hide their vice by masquerading it as virtue commit the one cardinal sin -- affirming the reality of sin. They break the social contract by confessing a higher standard.
Hypocrisy, then, to the broader culture isn't just the one deadly sin, but avoiding hypocrisy is also the means of atonement for sin. This is why we hear people argue, "Well, I may be selfish and egotistical, but at least I'm honest about it." Or, stranger still, we have philanderers who suggest, "Well, I may not have kept my marriage vows, but at least I'm honest about it." This proud confession of sin is a diabolical perversion of true repentance. We "acknowledge" our sin in that we admit to doing what we did. But we dismiss the sin because in admitting it we make it no longer a sin. Imagine if the serpent were to confess, "Well, sure I rebelled against the maker of heaven and earth, and sought to topple Him from His throne. But hey, at least I'm honest about it."
If we were honest about our sins, we would not only admit to committing them, but we would recognize them for what they are, each and every one of them rebellion against the maker of heaven and earth, each and every one of them an attempt to topple Him from His throne. If we were honest about our sins, we would not cover them up, but cover our eyes, because to look at them is simply too painful. If we were honest about our sins, we would admit that what we are usually doing when "admitting" our sins is copping a plea. Maybe, we rationalize in the quiet of our hearts, if I admit to this, they won't see these other sins. If we were honest about our sins, we would admit that all our games fail us, that all our sins follow us.
To understand the broader culture we have to grasp this reality. The world is not happily pursuing their vices without a care in the world. They are instead pursuing their vices under the cloud of an ever present knowledge of who they are. The defining quality of every culture not built around the Gospel is the haunting of sin. Which is why the solution for every culture, just as it is for every member of that culture, is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. He did not "honest" away our sins. He did not relativize our sins. Instead, He paid for them. He bore the wrath and fury of His Father that was due for our sins. He knows them more intimately than we ever will. And yet, glory be to the Father, they have been washed away in His blood.

Mother’s Day Prayer

God our Creator, we pray:for new mothers, coming to terms with new responsibility ;for expectant mothers, wondering and waiting;for mothers who are tired, stressed or depressed;for mothers who struggle to balance the tasks of work and family;for mothers who are unable to feed their children due to poverty;for mothers whose children have physical, mental or emotional disabilities;for mothers who have children they do not want;for mothers who raise children on their own;for mothers who have lost a child;for mothers who care for the children of others;for mothers whose children have left home; and for those whose desire to be a mother has not been fulfilled.Bless all mothers, that their love may be deep and tender,and that they may lead their children to know and do what is good,living not for themselves alone, but for God and for others. Amen.

The Heidelberg Catechism, This Lord's Day week 19

Q51: What does this glory of Christ, our Head, profit us?

A51: First, that by His Holy Spirit He pours out heavenly gifts upon us, His members;[1] then, that by His power He defends and preserves us against all enemies.[2]
1. Eph. 4:10-122. Psa. 2:9; John 10:28-30; I Cor. 15:25-26; Acts 2:33

Q52: What comfort is it to you that Christ "shall come to judge the living and the dead"?

A52: That in all my sorrows and persecutions, I, with uplifted head, look for the very One, who offered Himself for me to the judgment of God, and removed all curse from me, to come as Judge from heaven,[1] who shall cast all His and my enemies into everlasting condemnation,[2] but shall take me with all His chosen ones to Himself into heavenly joy and glory.[3]
1. Luke 21:28; Rom. 8:23-24; Phil. 3:20-21; Titus 2:132. II Thess. 1:6, 10; Matt. 25:413. I Thess. 4:16-18; Acts 1:10-11; Heb. 9:28

Saved or Deceived- John McArthur PART 1&2

CLICK HERE PART 1......http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpkhDAfVA5U&eurl=http://bloodtippedears.blogspot.com/2008/05/john-macarthur-saved-or-deceived.html

CLICK HERE FOR PART 2...........http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqHML0wabLk&feature=related

God’s High Calling for Women

Although women have traditionally fulfilled supportive roles in serving the church and gained their greatest joy and sense of accomplishment from being wives and mothers, the feminist movement has successfully influenced many women to abandon these divinely ordained roles.
Unfortunately, this movement has made headway even in the church, creating chaos and confusion regarding the role of women both in ministry and in the home. Only in Scripture can God’s intended design for women be found.
The Old Testament and Women
In the creation account of Genesis 1, God’s first word on the subject of men and women is that they were equally created in the image of God (v. 27). Neither received more of the image of God than the other. So the Bible begins with the equality of the sexes. As persons, as spiritual beings standing before God, men and women are absolutely equal.
In Genesis 2, there is a more detailed account of the creation of the two equal human beings that reveals differences in their God-given functions and responsibilities. God did not create the man and the woman at the same time, but rather He created Adam first and Eve later for the specific purpose of being Adam’s helper. Eve was equal to Adam, but she was given the role and duty of submitting to him. Although the word “helper” carries very positive connotations — even being used of God Himself as the helper of Israel (Deut. 33:7; Ps. 33:20) — it still describes someone in a relationship of service to another. The responsibility of wives to submit to their husbands, then, was part of the plan from creation, even before the curse. The first books of the Bible establish both the equality of men and women and also the support role of the wife (see Exod. 21:15, 17, 28–31; Num. 5:19–20, 29; 6:2; 30:1–16).
Throughout the Old Testament, women were active in the religious life of Israel, but generally they were not leaders. Women like Deborah (Judges 4) were clearly the exception and not the rule. There was no woman with an ongoing prophetic ministry. No woman was a priest. No queen ever ruled Israel. No woman wrote an Old Testament (or New Testament) book. Isaiah 3:12 indicates that God allowed women to rule as part of His judgment on the sinning nation.
Jesus and Women
In the midst of the Greek, Roman, and Jewish cultures, which viewed women almost on the level of possessions, Jesus showed love and respect for women. Though Jewish rabbis did not teach women and the Jewish Talmud said it was better to burn the Torah than to teach it to a woman, Jesus never took the position that women, by their very nature, could not understand spiritual or theological truth. He not only included them in His audiences but also used illustrations and images that would be familiar to them (Matt. 13:33; 22:1–2; 24:41; Luke 15:8–10) and specifically applied His teaching to them (Matt. 10:34ff.). To the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4), He revealed that He was the Messiah and discussed with her topics such as eternal life and the nature of true worship. He also taught Mary and, when admonished by Martha, pointed out the priority of learning spiritual truth even over “womanly” responsibilities like serving guests in one’s home (Luke 10:38).
Although men in Jesus’ day normally would not allow women to count change into their hands for fear of physical contact, Jesus touched women to heal them and allowed women to touch Him (Luke 13:10ff.; Mark 5:25ff.). Jesus even allowed a small group of women to travel with Him and His disciples (Luke 8:1–3), an unprecedented happening at that time. After His resurrection, Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene and sent her to announce His resurrection to the disciples (John 20:1–18), despite the fact that women were not allowed to be witnesses in Jewish courts because they were considered liars.
In Jesus’ treatment of women, He raised their station of life and He showed them compassion and respect in a way they had never known. This demonstrated their equality. At the same time, however, Jesus still did not exalt women to a place of leadership over men.
The Epistles and Women
In the Epistles, the two principles of equality and submission for women exist side by side. Galatians 3:28 points to the equality, indicating that the way of salvation is the same for both men and women and that they are members of equal standing in the body of Christ. It does not, however, eradicate all differences in responsibilities for men and women, for this passage does not cover every aspect of God’s design for male and female. In addition, there are many other passages that make distinctions between what God desires of men and what He desires of women, especially within family and within the church.
The Family
While Christian marriage is to involve mutual love and submission between two believers (Eph. 5:21), four passages in the New Testament expressly give to wives the responsibility to submit to their husbands (Eph. 5:22; Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Pet. 3:1). This voluntary submission of one equal to another is an expression of love for God and a desire to follow His design as revealed in His Word. It is never pictured as demeaning or in any way diminishing the wife’s equality. Rather the husband is called to love his wife sacrificially as Christ loved the church (Eph. 5:25) and to serve as the leader in a relationship of two equals.
While husbands and fathers have been given the primary responsibility for the leadership of their children (Eph. 6:4; Col. 3:21; 1 Tim. 3:4–5), wives and mothers are urged to be “workers at home” (Titus 2:5), meaning managers of the household. Their home and their children are to be their priority, in contrast to the world’s emphasis today on careers and fulltime jobs for women outside the home.
The Church
From the very beginning, women fulfilled a vital role in the Christian church (Acts 1:12–14; 9:36–42; 16:13–15; 17:1–4, 10–12; 18:1–2, 18, 24–28; Rom. 16; 1 Cor. 16:19; 2 Tim. 1:5; 4:19), but not one of leadership. The apostles were all men; the chief missionary activity was done by men; the writing of the New Testament was the work of men; and leadership in the churches was entrusted to men.
Although the Apostle Paul respected women and worked side by side with them for the furtherance of the gospel (Rom. 16; Phil. 4:3), he appointed no female elders or pastors. In his letters, he urged that men were to be the leaders in the church and that women were not to teach or exercise authority over men (1 Tim. 2:12). Therefore, although women are spiritual equals with men and the ministry of women is essential to the body of Christ, women are excluded from leadership over men in the church.
Men and women stand as equals before God, both bearing the image of God Himself. However, without making one inferior to the other, God calls upon both men and women to fulfill the roles and responsibilities specifically designed for them, a pattern that can be seen even in the Godhead (1 Cor. 11:3). In fulfilling the divinely given roles taught in the New Testament, women are able to realize their full potential because they are following the plan of their own Creator and Designer. Only in obedience to Him and His design will women truly be able, in the fullest sense, to give glory to God.

HOW DO YOU KNOW WHO’S RIGHT FOR YOU?

Scripture Reading: James 1:5-8If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously … James 1:5

Writer and radio host Chuck Swindoll tells of a 10-year-old girl who was asked how people decide whom to marry. She said, “No person really decides. God decides it all way before, and you get to find out later who you’re going to be stuck with for the rest of your life.”
Not exactly! Though marriages are pre-arranged in some cultures, most people make their own choice. James Dobson in his book Love for a Lifetime calls it one of the most important choices we can make. Our choice of marriage partner affects our children, our grandchildren, and the surrounding Christian community.
Sometimes the choice is made carelessly. Time magazine once referred to it as “mating at random.” Today’s divorce courts are filled with people who have decided they are incompatible. On more than one occasion I’ve had someone say to me, “I should never have married him. It was a huge mistake!”
If you are dating or have already set your wedding date, ask yourself whether you are right for each other. Ask the Lord whether you can build a marriage that is a true blessing to both partners. James says that if we ask for wisdom, God gives it. Listen carefully to your parents and to Christian counselors, and use the kind of pre-marriage counseling that will help you be sure you are making the right choice.


Prayer:Lord, help those who are dating and thinking about getting married to follow your guidance into marriages that truly bring honor to Christ. In his name we pray. Amen.

WORD OF THE DAY From The Pastor's Study

Anthropomorphism

[an’-thruh-puh-mor‘-fiz’-um]


(Greek anthropos, “human” and Greek morphe, “shape” or “form”)
The ascription of human attributes to inanimate objects, animals, forces of nature, and others. With respect to Christian theology, the authors of the Bible assign certain emotions, actions or physical features of man to God. For example, in Exodous 3:20 we have God “stretching out His hand.” Without anthropomorphism we would not have a framework from which to begin to understand God, since he is invisible and immaterial (cf. 1 Tim 1:17). The purpose is to describe God in terms more understandable to humans.
For more on anthropomorphism, click here.

Pride & Humility by Rev. Robert S. Rayburn

Pride is the idolatry of the self. It is the nature of pride as competition with God -- the displacing of God by the self at the center -- that has led many Christian thinkers through the ages to regard pride (superbia) as the mother sin and the essential element in all sin. It is strongly suggested in the Bible that pride was Satan's primary sin (1 Tim. 3:6), and from that pride in his case came every manner of hostility to God and man: evil desire, hatred, cruelty, and deceit. In the same way, man's fall resulted from his being persuaded by Satan that he might throw off his creaturely limitations and be "like God" (Gen. 3:5). From that pride has come all the rest of the evil that men think, say, and do, much -- if not all -- of which is motivated by the desire of men and women either to serve themselves or to protect their place at the center of their existence. Whether lust, greed, anger, or indifference toward others, it is not hard to see such sins as the expression of self-worship. A person does not necessarily deny that God is immeasurably greater than himself, but admissions of that type are no match for raging self-admiration in the heart.
The worst sin of pride consists in its breathtaking dishonesty: constructing a view of oneself in defiance of the facts. Pride, as Aquinas put it, is an offense against right reason. Or as Mother Teresa once said, "I am always very glad that my slanderers should tell a trifling lie about me rather than the whole terrible truth." It is the testimony of the Christian ages that the holiest men and women are invariably the most keenly aware of the humiliation they would suffer if others ever discovered the enormity of their moral failure.
Samuel Rutherford was only speaking for a great company of Christians when he wrote, "despair might almost be excused, if everyone in this land saw my inner side." And William Law said that he would rather be hanged and his body thrown in a swamp than that anyone should be allowed to look into his heart! It is man's most monumental effrontery to imagine that a selfish, petty collection of unworthy desires such as himself belongs in the center, even of his own life. The insidious nature of pride is such that men and women rarely appreciate how proud they are, and the index of pride's power over the heart is that even the purest motions of the Christian soul are deeply affected by it. Indeed, it is possible to be proud of one's confessions of sin and unworthiness or secretly to congratulate oneself on one's "brokenness." As anyone knows who has struggled against it, one of pride's most sinister effects is its dulling our sense of appreciation for the kindness and mercy of God.
A Christian, of course, would never say that he deserved salvation, perhaps never think it; but the difficulty every Christian has in being and remaining genuinely amazed and heart-broken at God's grace to him or her is evidence enough of the pride that still fills the heart. We think so well of ourselves; it is very hard to think that God should not as well.
It is the power and prevalence of pride as the principle sin of the human heart that explains the concentration on self-denial and humility in the Bible's teaching on the Christian life, what Charles Simeon called "growing downwards." It is not too much to say, as Augustine did (Letters, 118), that humility is the first, the second, and the third part of godliness. If, he said, humility did not precede, accompany, and follow every action we perform, it would not be a good work. Paul said that it is in living for God and others rather than for ourselves -- the Bible's simplest definition of humility -- that we are most like Jesus Christ (Phil. 2:3-4). If someone so worthy of the worship of all nevertheless devoted Himself to the life of others, how much more ought we sinners saved by grace cheerfully live the life of a servant? And our lives cannot be a fit response to God's grace if we do not live in heart and behavior as those who know very well that we have nothing that we did not receive (1 Cor. 4:7).
But to put pride to death is lifelong work of the most difficult kind. We get no help from our culture. Pride is a topic of little interest to modern psychology or the self-help industry, and self-congratulation has become an accepted art form in the era of the "touchdown dance." Nowadays, low self-esteem is likely to be thought a far more serious problem than pride. But the godly have always known that true goodness requires the killing of their pride, and they learned soon enough that there was no gentle way to go about it. It had to be hacked to death. One good man after another has instructed himself in these or similar words: "Talk not about myself"; "Desire to be unknown"; and "Lord, Deliver me from the lust of vindicating myself."
Once Francis of Assisi became a celebrated figure and the object of constant adulation, he is said to have assigned to a fellow monk the task of reminding him of his failures and of how little he deserved the praise he was receiving. There are other reasons to confess our sins to one another constantly, but the mortification of our pride is chief among them. Hard work; but the selflessness of the truly humble is one of the most beautiful things in the world and one of the greatest honors we can pay to our Savior.

WORD OF THE DAY From The Pastor's Study

Infralapsarianism

[in’-fruh-lap-sair‘-ee-uh-niz’-um]

(Latin infra, “after” + Latin lapsus, “fall” = “After the fall”)
Also, “sublapsarianism.”
A system of belief among certain Calvinists believing in a theoretical plan of God that occurred before creation concerning his decree to save mankind. In the “infra” scheme, God first decreed creation, second he decreed to allow the fall, third he decreed to elect some to salvation while passing over others, and fourth he decreed the atonement as a means of salvation for the elect. In this order one can surmise that the damnation of the reprobate came as a result of the self-determined fall of mankind, not God’s active reprobation (double predestination).

Ask R.C.

Last Friday on Renewing Your Mind with Dr. R.C. Sproul, we took the opportunity to ask some questions of our esteemed founder. It's always enjoyable to hear our Executive Producer John Duncan ask Dr. Sproul the hard questions. Click here to listen.Here are the questions and the time codes in the broadcast:

In the work of evangelism, whether in preaching or personal witnessing, is it Scriptural to tell the lost that "God loves them" and "that He died for their sins?" (@ 03:45)
Why do Presbyterian churches not have altar calls? (@ 08:55)
If Scripture alone is our final authority, then what do we do with all the conflicting interpretations especially on the larger matters of salvation and justification? Do we accept the authority of the church when it comes to the authority of Scripture? (@ 11:35)
If no one the Father gives to the Son is lost, why and was Judas lost? (@ 13:52)
How is the Protestant notion of sola fide, faith alone, consistent with James 2:24, which says, "You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone?" (@ 15:35)
Why did Jesus descend into hell before He rose to the right hand of the Father? (@ 20:00)
Who raised Jesus after His crucifixion? God or Christ Himself? And does it make a difference? (@ 23:00)

Who Does God Punish, and Why Does He Do It? By Jim Bublitz of Old Truth

In his latest book "Everything Must Change", (in which I feel like writing a response-book entitled "Why?"), Emergent leader Brian McLaren argued that those who believe in a Jesus who will crush His enemies by force [at the 2nd coming] may be inclined to dominate and take advantage of other people. McLaren elaborated on some of his new ideas found in his book when he recently spoke at the Shift conference at Willow Creek. You can read more about his remarks and the common perplexity that many of us have as to why an Emergent fringe leader (many would say a heretical one) would be given pulpit-time by Bill Hybels. McLaren's remarks (and book) show him to be off the biblical rails on the topics of punishment, justice, holiness, and more. But before your pendulum swings too far in the opposite direction in rejection of this new proponent of error, make sure you have an old paths understanding of punishment, why it happens, and who it is applied to.
We addressed the topic of the punishment of God's enemies in an audio post on Old Truth some time ago, so I won't rehash all of that again in this post. But I believe it is that exact aspect of the bible that McLaren is speaking out against. He doesn't like it, and many believe that it has lead him into a biblically deviant view of Hell such as Universalism (though getting him to talk about his views on Hell is like pulling teeth).
Many Christians today however, have a wrong view of the punishment from God. One of the most common misunderstandings is one that I had myself up until, not that long ago. It relates to the difference between punishment and chastisement. You've probably heard some Christians say "God is punishing me for my sins" when they go through some trial. Did you know that such thinking actually sets itself up against the Cross?
For a biblical perspective on this, as well as the difference between punishment and chastisement, I'm going to turn the rest of this post over to the late AW Pink, in this excerpt from his decades-old book entitled: "Comfort For Christians". It's one of the MANY books that comes packaged on the AW Pink CD from Ages Software:
"Despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou are rebuked of him" (Hebrews 12:5). It is of first importance that we learn to draw a sharp distinction between Divine punishment and Divine chastisement: important for maintaining the honor and glory of God, and for the peace of mind of the Christian. The distinction is very simple, yet is it often lost sight of. God's people can never by any possibility be punished for their sins, for God has already punished them at the Cross. The Lord Jesus, our Blessed Substitute, suffered the full penalty of all our guilt, hence it is written "The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin" (1 John 1:7). Neither the justice nor the love of God will permit Him to again exact payment of what Christ discharged to the full.
The difference between punishment and chastisement lies not in the nature of the sufferings of the afflicted: it is most important to bear this in mind. There is a threefold distinction between the two. First, the character in which God acts. In the former God acts as Judge, in the latter as Father. The sentence of punishment is the act of a judge, a penal sentence passed on those charged with guilt. Punishment can never fall upon the child of God in this judicial sense because his guilt was all transferred to Christ:
"Who his own self bear our sins in his own body on the tree" (1 Peter 2:24)
But while the believer's sins cannot be punished, while the Christian cannot be condemned (Romans 8:3), yet he may be chastised. The Christian occupies an entirely different position from the non-Christian: he is a member of the Family of God. The relationship which now exists between him and God is that of parent and child; and as a son he must be disciplined for wrongdoing. Folly is bound up in the hearts of all God's children, and the rod is necessary to rebuke, to subdue, to humble.
The second distinction between Divine punishment and Divine chastisement lies in the recipients of each. The objects of the former are His enemies. The subjects of the latter are His children. As the Judge of all the earth, God will yet take vengeance on all His foes. As the Father of His family, God maintains discipline over all His children. The one is judicial, the other parental.
A third distinction is seen in The design of each: the one is retributive, the other remedial. The one flows from His anger, the other from His love. Divine punishment is never sent for the good of sinners, but for the honoring of God's law and the vindicating of His government. But Divine chastisement on the other hand, is sent for the well-being of His children:
"We have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness" (Hebrews 12:9-10).
The above distinction should at once rebuke the thoughts which are so generally entertained among Christians. When the believer is [suffering] under the rod let him not say, God is now punishing me for my sins. That can never be. That is most dishonoring to the blood of Christ. God is correcting you in love, not smiting in wrath. Nor should the Christian regard the chastening of the Lord as a sort of necessary evil to which he must bow as submissively as possible. No, it proceeds from God's goodness and faithfulness, and is one of the greatest blessings for which we have to thank Him. Chastisement evidences our Divine son-ship: the father of a family does not concern himself with those on the outside: but those within he guides and disciplines to make them conform to his will. ...
"Unfortunately there is no word in the English language which is capable of doing justice to the Greek term here. "Paideia" which is rendered "chastening" is only another form of "paidion" which signifies "young children," being the tender word that was employed by the Savior in John 21:5 and Hebrews 2:13. One can see at a glance the direct connection which exists between the words "disciple" and "discipline": equally close in the Greek is the relation between "children" and "chastening." Son-training would be better. It has reference to God's education, nurture and discipline of His children. It is the Father's wise and loving correction.
Much chastisement comes by the rod in the hand of the Father correcting His erring child. But it is a serious mistake to confine our thoughts to this one aspect of the subject. Chastisement is by no means always the scourging of His refractive sons. Some of the saintliest of God's people, some of the most obedient of His children, have been and are the greatest sufferers. Oftentimes God's chastenings instead of being retributive are corrective. They are sent to empty us of self-sufficiency and self-righteousness: they are given to discover to us hidden transgressions, and to teach us the plague of our own hearts. Or again, chastisements are sent to strengthen our faith, to raise us to higher levels of experience, to bring us into a condition of usefulness. Still again, Divine chastisement is sent as a preventative, to keep under pride, to save us from being unduly elated over success in God's service.

Don’t Waste Your Pulpit By John Piper

CLICK HERE........http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xiad6nKJCw&eurl=http://theexpositor.wordpress.com/

HUSBANDS AND WIVES

Scripture Reading: 1 Peter 3:7-12Husbands … treat [your wives] with respect. 1 Peter 3:7 The wife must respect her husband. Ephesians 5:33


Some years ago a professor at a Christian college stated that the main reasons for the high rate of divorce in our culture are not adultery or incompatibility, but selfishness and a lack of respect. I’m sure he had it right. Throughout my ministry I’ve met many couples who did not respect each other.
On one occasion, while meeting with a married couple, the wife stormed out of the room while shouting at her husband, “You don’t respect me and you never have. You always put me down, even in front of other people. I can’t take it anymore!”
Mutual respect between husband and wife is a must. Unless we respect each other, we cannot have the marriage God has in mind for us or love each other the way we should. According to Peter, disrespect for our spouse will hinder our prayers and drive a wedge between us.
Husbands and wives must learn to accept each other as they are, encourage each other to use the gifts God has given them, and build each other up. To do so requires respect.
Ask yourself this question: “Do I live in such a way as to earn respect? Am I showing respect to my spouse by my words and actions?” And if you are dating, ask, “Is our relationship marked by respect?” If not, that’s a big problem, and you many need to look elsewhere.


Prayer:Lord, please help us to respect each other and accept each other. Forgive us for not always showing one another the respect you ask of us. In Jesus’ name we pray. Amen.

Coram Deo: Living Before the Face of God by Burk Parsons

We all certainly agree that all virtues are heavenly and that all sins are deadly. Nevertheless, certain virtues are more heavenly than others, and certain sins lead to death more quickly than other sins. While some sins are private and some sins public, the wages of every sin is death (Rom. 6:23). As Christians we understand that God hates sin and loves virtue. However, our problem is that we don't hate sin enough and that we don't love virtue enough. Consequently, we soft-peddle the deadliness of sin and we offer nice platitudes about the virtues of living a holy life. As such, many professing Christians have swapped their faith for a bumper-sticker and have chosen to live as Christians of the world but just barely in the world, mimicking the world in nearly every way, and, in some cases, leading the way. And because we desire the vain virtues the world has to offer, we have come to terms on how to play the world's game according to the world's rules. To our shame, the Enemy has fooled us into thinking that we can actually win the battle by impressing the world with our seeming successfulness. All of this is on account of the fact that the virtues of the world have become more churchy and the respectable vices of the church have become more worldly.
While the waves of compromise and the tide of worldly vice seem overwhelming to those of us standing on the shores of Christian virtue, we cannot stand as idle spectators of the raging battle; we must board our battleships and fight. This is our supreme commission as warriors of Christ, namely, to conquer all the tempting vices of the flesh, coming to the end of ourselves, laying down our arms, our gods, and all our besetting sins. We must put to death "what is earthly" and take up arms against all the deadly sins within our own hearts (Col. 3:5), for it is only then that we will be able to destroy the strongholds of the world, the flesh, and the Devil (2 Cor. 10:4). Herein is our heavenly virtue, that the Prince of Peace has put death to death in His death on the cross, nailing our deadly sins to the tree on which He was put to death so that we might be seated with Him in the heavenly places, coram Deo, before His face, forevermore in peaceful triumph (Col. 2:13-15).

Pro Ecclesia: For the Church by George Grant

The heroine of My Fair Lady, Eliza Doolittle, captured the sentiment of most of us when she complained, "Words, words, words -- I am so sick of words. I get words all day through, first from him, now from you. Is that all you blighters can do?" She was tired of empty rhetoric -- as high sounding as it was. Instead, she wanted to see something real.
Talk is cheap. Promises are a dime a dozen. Most of us have had about all of the spin-controlled sound-bites we can stand. We've heard just about all the hollow rhetoric we can tolerate. We all know that actions speak louder than words. That is a universal truth -- no less valid in business or politics or media as in faith or family or church. Good intentions are simply not sufficient. There has to be follow-through. There has to be substance.
John the apostle admonishes us accordingly, "Let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth" (1 John 3:18). In the biblical scheme of things, love is something we do, not just something we feel. Mercy is something we extend, not just something we intend. Hope is something we must act on, not just something we harbor. Our orthodoxy (right doctrine) must be matched by orthopraxy (right action). Our life together must be marked by both Word and deed.
This does not by any means minimize the primacy of the Word of God in the Christian life. It is simply a recognition that God's truth will always bear incarnational, tangible, and demonstrable fruit.
The Westminster Confession of Faith highlights this notion, asserting that the church has been entrusted with "the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world" (25.3). In other words, to carry out this stewardship faithfully, the mission of the church must be organized around Word and deed -- or what Francis Schaeffer called "contents and realities."
To that end, from the earliest days of the apostolic church, congregations were purposefully structured for Word and deed ministry. Each local body was to be led by elders who were charged with the weighty task of preserving sound doctrine. They were to teach it, exhort it, nurture it, and highlight it in every aspect of congregational life -- in both its evangelism and its discipleship, from its worship to its societal presence. They were to bring the Gospel to bear in Word and deed. That fixedness in the Word was to provoke holiness, godliness, and faithfulness.
In addition to the elders though, those early fellowships were also served by deacons -- or more literally, servants. They were to translate the truth of the Word into very practical deeds. They were to make evident the beauty of human relationships transformed, reconciled, and restored by the Gospel. They were to provoke abundant evidence of true koinonia (community). At the same time, they were to ensure that covenantal relationships would show forth selfless service crafted in tenderness, empathy, excellence, intelligence, and glory.
According to Acts 6, the deacons were charged with the responsibility of coordinating, administering, and conducting the charitable generosity and stewardship of the church. It seems that because of the spectacular growth of the Jerusalem congregation, the distribution of food to the needy had gradually become uneven and inefficient. A number of the Grecian widows had been overlooked. The Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, "It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word" (vv. 2-4). Thus, these seven men, or deacons as they would later be called, were to practically translate Word into deed. They had as their primary duty the oversight of the mercy ministry of the church. This was the essence of the diaconal function.
Throughout church history, this sort of practical-deeds ministry has been more or less faithfully carried out by men of passion, conviction, and concern -- men like William Olney and Joseph Passmore. Olney and Passmore were deacons for many years at London's Metropolitan Tabernacle during the pastorate of Charles Haddon Spurgeon. Their busy stewardship of service involved the administration of almshouses, orphanages, relief missions, training schools, retirement homes, tract societies, and colportages.
Sadly, in our congregations today this balanced Word and deed vision is, at best, a secondary notion in the functioning of the church offices. Indeed, instead of meting out the succor of compassion in ministries of service, our deacons are often called upon to spend most of their time sitting on committees and launching building drives. Instead of spending and being spent on behalf of the needy, instead of modeling Word and deed, our deacons are waxing the floors of the fellowship hall or dusting the dampers, pew by pew, "and goodness knows what other trifles," as Olney put it. Consequently, we leave our churches and our communities with the impression that the Gospel really is little more than "Words, words, words."

The Heidelberg Catechism, This Lord's Day week 18

Q49: What benefit do we receive from Christ's ascension into heaven?

A49: First, that He is our Advocate in the presence of His Father in heaven.[1] Second, that we have our flesh in heaven as a sure pledge, that He as the Head will also take us, His members, up to Himself.[2] Third, that He sends us His Spirit as an earnest,[3] by whose power we seek those things which are above, where Christ sits at the right hand of God, and not things on the earth.[4]
1. I John 2:1; Rom. 8:342. John 14:2; 20:17; Eph. 2:63. John 14:16; Acts 2:33; II Cor. 5:54. Col. 3:1; John 14:3; Heb. 9:24

Q50: Why is it added: "And sitteth at the right hand of God"?

A50: Because Christ ascended into heaven for this end, that He might there appear as the Head of His Church,[1] by whom the Father governs all things.[2]
1. Eph. 1:20-23; Col. 1:182. John 5:22; I Peter 3:22; Psa. 110:1

Why Evangelicals are Returning to Rome? The Abandonment of Sola Scriptura as a Formal Principle By Bob DeWaay

The February 2008 edition of Christianity Today ran a cover story about evangelicals looking to the ancient Roman Catholic Church in order to find beliefs and practices.1 What was shocking about the article was that both the author of the article and the senior managing editor of CT claim that this trip back to Rome is a good thing. Says Mark Galli the editor, “While the ancient church has captivated the evangelical imagination for some time, it hasn’t been until recently that it’s become an accepted fixture of the evangelical landscape. And this is for the good.”2 Chris Armstrong, the author of the article who promotes the trip back to the ancient church, claims that because the movement is led by such persons as “Dallas Willard, Richard Foster, and living and practicing monks and nuns,” that therefore, “they are receiving good guidance on this road from wise teachers.” This he claims shows that, “Christ is guiding the process.”3
Apparently, contemporary evangelicals have forgotten that sola scriptura (scripture alone) was the formal principle of the Reformation. Teachings and practices that could not be justified from Scripture were rejected on that principle. To endorse a trip back to these practices of ancient Roman Catholicism is to reject the principle of sola scriptura being the normative authority for the beliefs and practices of the church. In this article I will explore how modern evangelicalism has compromised the principle of sola scriptura and thus paved smoothly the road back to Rome.
New “Reformations” Compromise Sola Scriptura

Today at least three large movements within Protestantism claim to be new “reformations.” If we examine them closely we will find evidence that sola scriptura has been abandoned as a governing principle—if not formally, at least in practice. To have a new reformation requires the repudiation of the old Reformation. That in turn requires the repudiation of the formal principle of the Reformation. That’s where we’ll begin.

Robert Schuller and Rick Warren
In 1982, Robert Schuller issued a call for a new Reformation with the publication of his book, Self Esteem: The New Reformation.4 Schuller issued this fervent call: “Without a new theological reformation, the Christian church as the authentic body of Christ may not survive.”5 He was apparently aware that his reformation was of a different type than the original: “Where the sixteenth-century Reformation returned our focus to sacred Scriptures as the only infallible rule for faith and practice, the new reformation will return our focus to the sacred right of every person to self-esteem! The fact is, the church will never succeed until it satisfies the human being’s hunger for self-value.”6 The problem is that Schuller based much of his self-esteem teaching on psychological theory and did not provide a rigorous Biblical defense of the idea. Thus his reformation was a de facto denial of the Reformation principle of Scripture alone.
For example, Schuller criticized the Reformation for a faulty doctrine of sin: “Reformation theology failed to make clear that the core of sin is a lack of self-esteem.”7 But Schuller does not discuss the many verses in the Bible that define sin. For example: “Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness” (1John 3:4). It is not hard to see that Schuller’s reformation constituted the abandonment of sola scriptura as a formal principle.8
In one sense, since Schuller’s call for a reformation based on self-esteem was made 26 years ago, one could argue that it never happened. Of course the idea of self-esteem is still around and taught by many evangelicals, but it never became the one key idea of the church. In another sense, however, Schuller’s reformation was broadened and transferred to others. In 2005 Schuller claimed the following as noted alumni of his institute: Bill Hybels, John Maxwell, Bishop Charles Blake, Rick Warren, Walt Kallestad, and Kirbyjon Caldwell. Bill Hybels himself credited Robert Schuller as a key person who influenced his ideas.9 Though Rick Warren disputes Schuller’s influence on his theology, he has carried forward Schuller’s idea of creating a church that meets people’s felt needs and thus attracts them.
But what interests us here is that Warren is now proposing yet another reformation:
And we've actually created what we call clinic-in-a-box, business-in-a-box, church-in-a-box, and we are using normal people, volunteers. When Jesus sent the disciples – this will be my last point – when Jesus sent the disciples into a village he said, “Find the man of peace.” And he said, “When you find the man of peace you start working with that person, and if they respond to you, you work with them. If they don't, you dust the dust off your shoes; you go to the next village.” Who's the man of peace in any village – or it might be a woman of peace – who has the most respect, they're open and they're influential? They don't have to be a Christian. In fact, they could be a Muslim, but they're open and they're influential and you work with them to attack the five giants. And that's going to bring the second Reformation.10
The problem is that solving the world’s five greatest problems as Warren defines them11 using anyone willing to help regardless of religion, cannot be justified on Biblical grounds. If sola scriptura were the formal principle in Warren’s theology, then he would provide vigorous, Biblical analysis using sound exegesis to ground his reformation on the authority of Scripture. But his teachings and public statements are not characterized by sound Biblical exegesis.
As I documented in my book on the Purpose Driven Movement, Warren’s reformation compromises sola scriptura in many significant ways.12These include the use of loose paraphrases that go so far as to change the meaning of various passages, the integration of unbiblical, human wisdom, serious misinterpretation of Scripture, and an unbiblical philosophy of ministry. Warren has an orthodox statement about the authority of Scripture on his church Web site. In fact, most evangelicals other than those who convert to Roman Catholicism do not overtly reject Scripture alone. But is it practiced?13
There is reason to believe that Warren’s reformation is the continuation of Schuller’s in a modified form. Warren has made finding one’s purpose the lynchpin of his teachings and practices. Finding purpose may not be identical to finding self esteem, but the idea is at least a first cousin. Also, both concepts derive their power from outside Scripture.

C. Peter Wagner
Another proposed reformation of the church is C. Peter Wagner’s New Apostolic Reformation. As I argued in a recent CIC article,14 Wagner sees the presence of apostles who speak authoritatively for God as the key to the church fulfilling her role in the world. He even speaks approvingly of the “apostles” of the Roman Catholic Church. Wagner and the thousands of apostles and prophets in his movement have shown as little regard for sola scriptura as any non Roman Catholic Christian group apart from the Quakers. So their reformation is a de facto repudiation of the Reformation. Their writings and messages show little or no concern for sound, systematic Biblical exegesis. If they were to adopt sola scriptura as a formal principle and rigorously use it to judge their own teachings and practices, their movement would immediately come to an end.

The Emergent Church
The third (if we count Warren’s reformation as a current replacement for Schuller’s) proposed reformation is that of the Emergent Church. In their case sola scriptura dies a thousand deaths. As we saw in the previous issue of CIC, Rob Bell denies it using the same arguments that Roman Catholics have used. The Emergent Church and its postmodern theology is noteworthy for being a non-Catholic version of Christianity that forthrightly assaults the type of use of the Bible that characterizes those who hold sola scriptura as the formal principle of their theology. The Emergent Church adherents reject systematic theology, and thus make using the principle impossible. For example, defending the doctrine of the Trinity using Scripture requires being systematic. I have read many Emergent/postmodern books as I write a new book, and each of them attacks systematic theology in some way.
The Emergent Reformation rests on the denial of the validity of foundationalism. Gone are the days when Christians debated the relative merits of evidential and presuppositional apologetics—debates based on the need for a foundation for one’s theology. Either one started with evidence for the authority of Scripture and then used the Bible as the foundation of one’s theology; or one presupposed the Bible as the inerrant foundation. But today both approaches are mocked for their supposed naïveté. To think that one can know what the Bible means in a non-relativistic way is considered a throwback to now dead “modernity.” The Emergent mantra concerning the Bible is “we cannot know, we cannot know, we cannot know.” Furthermore, in their thinking, it is a sign of arrogance to claim to know. For the postmodern theologian, sola scriptura is as dead and buried as a fossilized relic of bygone days.
So the Protestant (if the term even means anything today) world is characterized by reformations that have either rejected or compromised sola scriptura as the formal principle for their theology. No wonder few voices of concern are raised at Christianity Today’s proposed trip back to Rome to find beliefs and practices. Once sola scriptura has been rejected, there remain few reasons not to go back to Rome. If religious traditions can be considered normative, then why not embrace those with the longest history?

Dallas Willard Leads Us Back to Rome
The cover of the CT article reads, “Lost Secrets of the Ancient Church.” It shows a person with a shovel digging up a Catholic icon. What are these secrets? Besides icons, lectio divina and monasticism are mentioned. Dallas Willard, who is mentioned as a reliable guide for this process, has long directed Christians to monastic practices that he himself admits are not taught in the Bible.15 Willard pioneered the rejection of sola scriptura in practice on the grounds that churches following it are failures. He writes, “All pleasing and doctrinally sound schemes of Christian education, church growth, and spiritual renewal came around at last to this disappointing result. But whose fault was this failure?”16 The “failure,” according to Willard is that, “. . . the gospel preached and the instruction and example given these faithful ones simply do not do justice to the nature of human personality, as embodied, incarnate.”17 So what does this mean? It means that we have failed because our gospel had too little to do with our bodies.
The remedy for “failure” says Willard is to find practices in church history that are proven to work. But are these practices taught in the Bible? Willard admits that they are not by using an argument from silence, based on the phrase “exercise unto godliness” in 1Timothy 4:7. Here is Willard’s interpretation:
“Or [the possibility the phrase was imprecise] does it indicate a precise course of action he [Paul] understood in definite terms, carefully followed himself, and called others to share? Of course it was the latter. So obviously so, for him and the readers of his own day, that he would feel no need to write a book on the disciplines of the spiritual life that explained systematically what he had in mind.”18
But what does this do to sola scriptura? It negates it. In Willard’s theology, the Holy Spirit, who inspired the Biblical writers, forgot to inspire them to write about spiritual disciplines that all Christians need. If this is the case, then we need spiritual practices that were never prescribed in the Bible to obtain godliness.
Having determined the insufficiency of Scripture, Willard looks to human potential through tapping into spiritual powers: “It is the amazing extent of our ability to utilize power outside ourselves that we must consider when we ask what the human being is. The limits of our power to transcend ourselves utilizing powers not located in us—including of course, the spiritual—are yet to be fully known.”19 So evidently our spirituality is to be discovered by various means that are not revealed by God in the Bible.
If the Bible is insufficient in regard to the spiritual practices that we need in order to become sanctified, where do we find them? Here is Willard’s solution: “Practicing a range of activities that have proven track records across the centuries will keep us from erring.”20 This, of course leads us back to Rome. Catholic mystics spent centuries experimenting with spiritual practices without regard to the Biblical justification for such practices. If evangelicals are going to join them in rejecting Scripture alone, AGAIN they might as well not reinvent the wheel—go to the masters of mystical asceticism.
Willard admires the monastics and suggests that solitude is one of the most important disciplines. He says, “This factual priority of solitude is, I believe, a sound element in monastic asceticism. Locked into interaction with the human beings that make up our fallen world, it is all but impossible to grow in grace as one should.”21 If it is impossible to grow in grace without solitude, why are we not informed of this fact by the Biblical writers? In Willard’s mind sola scriptura is a false idea, so therefore God failed to reveal to us the most important way to grow in grace! Willard says that solitude is most important even while admitting that it is dangerous:
But solitude, like all the disciplines of the spirit, carries its risks. In solitude, we confront our own soul with its obscure forces and conflicts that escape our attention when we are interacting with others. Thus, [quoting Louis Bouyer] “Solitude is a terrible trial, for it serves to crack open and bust apart the shell of our superficial securities. It opens out to us the unknown abyss that we all carry within us . . . and discloses the fact that these abysses are haunted.”22
This danger was shown by the early desert fathers, some of whom came under demonic torment in their solitude. Before following people whose practices are dangerous and not prescribed in the Bible, wouldn’t we be better off sticking to the safe ground of revealed truth?

Spirituality for the Unconverted
The fact is that the various ancient practices of the Roman Catholic Church were and are not unique to Christianity. The meditative techniques that make people feel closer to God work for those who do not even know God. Thomas Merton (who is recommended by Dallas Willard) went to the East to find spiritual practices. They work just as well for those who do not know Christ, probably better. Many ancient Roman Catholic practices were invented at times when many illiterate pagans were ushered into the church, sometimes at the point of a sword. Those pagans were not exactly the type to search the Scriptures daily in order to find the things of God.
But why are literate American Christians running away from sola scriptura at a time when searching the Scriptures (especially using computer technology) has never been easier? On this point I am offering my opinion, but there is good evidence for it. I believe that the lack of gospel preaching has allowed churches to fill up with the unregenerate. The unregenerate are not like “newborn babes who long for the pure milk of the word” (1Peter 2:2). Those who have never received saving grace cannot grow by the means of grace. Those who are unconverted have not drawn near to God through the blood of Christ. But with mysticism, it is possible to feel near to God when one is far from Him. Furthermore, the unconverted have no means of sanctification because they do not have the imputed righteousness of Christ as their starting point and eternal standing. So they end up looking for man-made processes to engineer change through human works because they have nothing else.
Those who feel empty because of the “pragmatic promises of the church-growth movement” as the CT article calls them, may need something far more fundamental than ancient, Catholic, ascetic practices. They may very well need to repent and believe the gospel. Those who are born of the Spirit will find that this passage is true: “His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence” (2Peter 1:3).

Conclusion
Perhaps the best antidote to rejecting sola scriptura and going back to Rome would be a careful study of the Book of Hebrews. It describes a situation that is analogous to that which evangelicals face today. The Hebrew Christians were considering going back to temple Judaism. Their reasons can be discerned by the admonitions and warnings in Hebrews. The key problem for them was the tangibility of the temple system, and the invisibility of the Christian faith. Just about everything that was offered to them by Christianity was invisible: the High Priest in heaven, the tabernacle in heaven, the once for all shed blood, and the throne of grace. At the end of Hebrews, the author of Hebrews points out that they have come to something better than mount Sinai: “But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel” (Hebrews 12:22-24). All of these things are invisible.
But the life of faith does not require tangible visibility: “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1). The Roman Catholic Church has tangibility that is unmatched by the evangelical faith, just as temple Judaism had. Why have faith in the once-for-all shed blood of Christ that is unseen when you can have real blood (that of the animals for temple Judaism and the Eucharistic Christ of Catholicism)? Why have the scriptures of the Biblical apostles and prophets who are now in heaven when you can have a real, live apostle and his teaching Magisterium who can continue to speak for God? The similarities to the situation described in Hebrews are striking. Why have only the Scriptures and the other means of grace when the Roman Church has everything from icons to relics to cathedrals to holy water and so many other tangible religious articles and experiences?

I urge my fellow evangelicals to seriously consider the consequences of rejecting sola scriptura as the formal principle of our theology. If my Hebrews analogy is correct, such a rejection is tantamount to apostasy.

Do Today's Churches Give God a Subordinate Role?

Quoting John MacArthur . . .
Many in the church today believe that the only way to reach the world is to give the unchurched multitudes what they want. . . Subtly the overriding goal is church attendance and worldly acceptability rather than a transformed life. Preaching the Word and boldly confronting sin are seen as archaic, ineffectual means of winning the world. After all, those things actually drive most people away. Why not entice people into the fold by offering what they want, creating a friendly, comfortable environment, and catering to the very desires that constitute their strongest urges? As if we might get them to accept Jesus by somehow making Him more likable or making His message less offensive. That kind of thinking badly skews the mission of the church.
The Great Commission is not a marketing manifesto. Evangelism does not require salesmen, but prophets. It is the Word of God, not any earthly enticement, that plants the seed for the new birth (1 Peter 1:23). We gain nothing but God's displeasure if we seek to remove the offense of the cross.
Something is wrong with a philosophy that relegates God and His Word to a subordinate role in the church. It is clearly unbiblical to elevate entertainment over biblical preaching and worship in the church service. Sadly, some actually believe that their salesmanship can bring people into the kingdom more effectively than a sovereign God - a philosophy that has opened the door to worldliness in the church.

Pastors, is Your Preaching Wimpy?

Quoting James White . . .
When Paul spoke to the Ephesian elders in his final meeting with them, he said these words: "Therefore, I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole purpose of God." (Acts 20:26-27) The true preacher of the Word seeks to have this as his ambition as well. God is not honored when men think so little of Him and so highly of themselves that they edit the content of the proclamation for the fear of the face of men and so that they may be considered "successful" in some worldly sense. It is a fearful thing to be unfaithful to the task of preaching "the whole counsel of God." Keeping this in mind, I would like to point out the fact that there are religious hypocrites in the church. There were even in the days of Paul, as he names some by name. But today one looks for the true believer as the oddity in evangelical churches filled with unregenerate men and women who have been fooled into thinking you can shake a man's hand, say some magical words that are not joined with any kind of repentance or understanding of the gospel itself, and you have your "ticket punched" and you are on your way to heaven.
The result is that any time you would dare to preach the soul-searching passages of Scripture that expose sin and hypocrisy and false faith you will hear the howl of the religious hypocrite from front row to back. Which is why you can observe major "ministries" today that are completely focused upon avoiding any form of offense of the natural man, just so long as they are there on Sunday morning and drop a little something in the plate to help you pay for your massive sports arena.
But even the best church will have false professors in its midst, men and women who, for various reasons, may well play the religion game quite well for an amazingly long time. Some do it for family reasons, some just because they were raised that way, some for acceptance--but in any case, they attend services, may even be involved in ministry, but their hearts are unchanged, their faith in word only. ...
So the question I have to ask of many who stand behind pulpits today is this: is your preaching so wimpy it would never trouble a religious hypocrite, and never result in such a person fleeing its proclamation so as to run to man's religions for refuge?
Do you pull back on those elements of God's truth that are the most offensive to the natural man because you do not wish to see that disdainful look, that annoyed shaking of the head? Do you really distrust the ministry of the Spirit to make the Word of Christ to come alive in the hearts and minds of Christ's sheep, so that you do not need to worry about those who find offense at His truth? Or have you embraced the spirit of the age which places man's fragile emotions upon the seat of prominence, and have bought into the idea that to be "loving" means to never give offense to anyone (well, except for God--it is fine to offend Him by thinking yourself so wise you can edit out what shouldn't be in the gospel in our day)?
Would your teaching and proclamation allow a religious hypocrite to remain safely and comfortably ensconced in the congregation for years on end, never offended, never convicted?

Finally, if such a hypocrite does leave and make a show of embracing heresy just to spite you, do you sting with embarrassment, or rejoice that God's Word continues to work in the hearts of men and women, some to His glory in their salvation, and some to His glory in their damnation? Think about it.

WORD OF THE DAY From The Pastor's Study

Theodicy

[thee-awd’-ih-see]

(Greek theos, “god” + Greek dike, “justice” = “the justice of God“)

The branch of theology (and philosophy) which attempts to harmonize the reality of evil with an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God. More specifically, it endeavors to vindicate the divine attributes of God, particularly with respect to holiness and justice.

Read Damian Romano’s ongoing book review of William Hasker’s The Triumph of God over Evil (here) and (here).

WHY GOD MADE MARRIAGE

Scripture Reading: Genesis 2:15-18God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” Genesis 2:18


A recent Larry King Live show featured several celebrity women who had formed an “ex-wives club.” Most of them had been married more than once, yet they all agreed that marriage was not so special. That prompted Larry King to ask, “If marriage is not special, why try it for a second or third time?”

The answer to that question is found, at least in part, in Genesis 2:18, where God says, “It is not good for the man to be alone.” Adam needed a companion. Without the woman, Adam was lonely. So God brought Eve into his life to make him more complete. God gave Adam a lifelong partner with whom he could have a meaningful, intimate relationship.
Through marriage, God gives us a companion to share all of the experiences of life. A spouse is someone who understands us, someone who is there for us every step of the way. The gift of marriage is intended to give us a companion who can make us more complete and with whom we can share the deepest joys, fears, and yearnings of our souls. In addition, God intended it to be a relationship for life.

If you are contemplating marriage, choose someone who can be that kind of companion to you on life’s journey. And if you are married, nurture carefully your heart-to-heart relationship with the one God gave you.

Prayer:Lord, we thank you for our marriage partners. May we help and encourage each other. Where relationships struggle, give your healing grace, we pray. For Jesus’ sake, Amen.

John MacArthur on Real Christianity

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcTY_Z9auZg&NR=1

John MacArthur Explains True Gospel

CLICK HERE......http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BZ-N4pruFo&NR=1

The Gospel in 6 Minutes By John Piper

CLICK HERE....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qr9_vryE98&eurl=http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2008/02/video-the-gospel-in-six-minute.php

What A Pity By George Whitefield

"What a pity it is that modern preachers attend no more to the method those took who were first inspired by the Holy Ghost, in preaching Jesus Christ! The success they were honored with, gave a sanction to their manner of preaching, and the divine authority of their discourses, and energy of their elocution, one would think, should have more weight with those that are called to dispense the gospel, than all modern schemes whatever. If this was the case, ministers would then learn first to sow, and then to reap; they would endeavor to plough up the fallow ground, and thereby prepare the people for God's raining down blessing upon them."-George Whitefield