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

WORD OF THE DAY From The Pastor's Study

Libertarian Free-Will

(Latin liberum arbitrium)

The belief that the human will is free from any necessitating constraint (necessitas coactio). This is often referred to as “the power of contrary choice.” In this, whatever decisions are made, its alternative decisions are viable options. The alternative to libertarianism is fatalism, divine determinism, or self-determinism. The reformers believed that the faculty of the will is free (vonutas), but this will is in bondage to its nature, as all wills are. The reformers rejected both libertarianism and fatalism, seeking a mediating position that allows the will to be free, but does not allow its liberty to act out of concert with its nature.
See Michael Patton’s article: What Do You Mean by “Free Will”?