Against Compromise By John MacArthur

It was Martin Luther who said:
"The world at the present time is sagaciously discussing how to quell the controversy and strife over doctrine and faith, and how to effect a compromise between the Church and the Papacy. Let the learned, the wise, it is said, bishops, emperor and princes, arbitrate. Each side can easily yield something, and it is better to concede some things which can be construed according to individual interpretation, than that so much persecution, bloodshed, war, and terrible, endless dissension and destruction be permitted.


"Here is lack of understanding, for understanding proves by the Word that such patchwork is not according to God's will, but that doctrine, faith and worship must be preserved pure and unadulterated; there must be no mingling with human nonsense, human opinions or wisdom.

"The Scriptures give us this rule: 'We must obey God rather than men' (Acts 5:29)."
It is interesting to speculate what the church would be like today if Martin Luther had been prone to compromise. The pressure was heavy on him to tone down his teaching, soften his message, stop poking his finger in the eye of the papacy. Even many of his friends and supporters urged Luther to come to terms with Rome for the sake of harmony in the church.

Luther himself prayed earnestly that the effect of his teaching would not be divisive.
When he nailed his 95 Theses to the door, the last thing he wanted to do was split the church.
Yet sometimes division is fitting, even healthy, for the church. Especially in times like Luther's--and like ours--when the visible church seems full of counterfeit Christians, it is right for the true people of God to declare themselves.

Compromise is sometimes a worse evil than division. Second Corinthians 6:14-17 isn't speaking only of marriage when it says,

Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, "I will dwell in them and walk among them; And I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

Therefore, come out from their midst and be separate," says the Lord.

WORD OF THE DAY From The Pastor's Study

Transubstantiation

(tranz-sub-stan-see-aye-shun)


Latin, transsubstantiati, meaning “change of substance”
The Roman Catholic doctrine that refers to the change by which the substance (not the appearance) of the bread and wine in the Eucharist becomes the actual body and blood of Christ. That is, Jesus is not merely symbolically or figuratively present, but is really (or actually) present in what was previously just bread and wine. In 1551 the Council of Trent defined this, “by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.” (Session XIII, chapter IV). Eastern Rite Catholic, Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox Churches, all agree with this doctrine, though vary slightly on their definitions.

Communion Sunday

The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper will be observed in the morning services this Sunday. Be preparing now for this "sign and seal" of the covenant. Here is an exerpt from Rick Phillips' chapter on the Lord's Supper in Give Praise to God.

The elements of the Lord's Supper present Christ's death to the senses of his people. But more is signified in its administration. The eating of the elements by believers signifies their participation in the crucified Christ. Berkhof teaches: "They symbolically appropriate the benefits secured by the sacrificial death of Christ." Additionally, the partaking of the sacrament signifies the effect of Christ's death in giving life and strength to the soul, as food and drink sustain the body. Furthermore, just as the sacrament symbolizes the believers' union with Christ, it also places a visible difference between members of Christ's church and the world, while signifying believers' communion one to another in him."

Controversy is Sometimes a Painful Necessity

Quoting Will Metzger . . .
Perhaps some will say that "the gospel is a person (Jesus), not a doctrine." This is a false dichotomy. The living word and written word are not enemies, but friends. As much as I agree with presenting the person of Christ, not just flinging concepts at people, Christ must be defined. A content-less Christ will not save anyone. Just as we saw the word of God is used by people in various ways, similarly Christ is redefined to fit people's preconceptions. Biblical illiteracy abounds and the possibility of misleading people about Jesus is real. This means that the written word is absolutely necessary to explain who Christ is. (In our explanations of who Christ is, we do not pit the Gospels against the apostolic letters. Both are equally inspired. Red letter Bibles can be misleading, unless all the sentences [not just those of Jesus] are in red!).
[One famous English preacher] an influential leader in the international Christian community since 1950, has emphasized strong, Biblical teaching [wrote]:
The spirit of our age is very unfriendly towards dogmatic people. Folks whose opinions are clearly formulated and strongly held are not popular. A person of conviction, however, intelligent, sincere and humble he may be, will be fortunate if he escapes the charge of being a bigot. Nowadays the really great mind is thought to be both broad and open - broad enough to absorb every fresh idea which is presented to it, and open enough to go on doing so ad infinitum.What are we to say to this? We must reply that historic Christianity is essentially dogmatic, because it purports to be a revealed faith. ...
The second way in which the spirit of the age is unfriendly towards [my aim] ... concerns the modern hatred of controversy. ...Perhaps the best way to insist that controversy is sometimes a painful necessity is to remember that our Lord Jesus Christ Himself was a controversialist. He was not "broad-minded" in the popular sense that He was prepared to countenance any views on any subject. On the contrary, Jesus engaged in continuous debate with religious leaders of His day, the scribes and Pharisees, the Herodians and Sadducees. He said that He was the truth, that He had come to bear witness to the truth, and that the truth would set His followers free. As a result of His loyalty to the truth, He was not afraid to dissent publicly from official doctrines (if He knew them to be wrong), to expose error, and to warn His disciples of false teachers. He was also extremely outspoken in his language, calling them "blind guides", "wolves in sheep's clothing", "whitewashed tombs" and even a "brood of vipers".
The apostles were also controversialists, as is plain from the New Testament Epistles, and they appealed to their readers to "contend for for the faith which was once delivered to all the saints". Like their Lord and Master the apostles found it necessary to warn the churches of false teachers and urge them to stand firm in the truth.Revealed truth is thus likened to a building, and the church's calling is to be it's foundation. The church is "the pillar and foundation of the truth". ...However hostile the spirit of the age may be to an outspoken confession of the truth, the church has no liberty to reject its God-given task.
From:
Tell The Truth

A Few Problems With Arminianism and a Case For Calvinism

CLICK HERE......http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eHjQHMWp1M&eurl=http://bloodtippedears.blogspot.com/

How to Change Your Church By Mark Dever

Change is necessary. In a fallen world, lost in sin, the one thing that is needful is for us to change. We must change our relationship with God from estrangement to acceptance. We must change our standing before Him from guilty to forgiven. We must change our heart for Him, from dead to alive. I say “we must change”, but in all of these changes, God must make the way, and give us the heart to travel it.
But change doesn’t stop with conversion. As Christians we know that we are to continue to change as we grow in Christ. Our love for God and devotion to His will should grow, even as our love for the world and its ways should wane.
Our need to continue to change, however, isn’t limited to ourselves; it’s also true of those around us, and of our churches, too. And few know this better than the pastor of a church. Any given church, with all of its virtues and strengths, is in need of change. The Protestant reformers knew this, and confessed it in their oft-quoted slogan “the reformed church, always being reformed by the Word of God.” That sums it up nicely, doesn’t it?
How to change? But the question then often comes, “How do we get our churches to change?” Praise God for all the ways our churches don’t slip off into bad directions. And we can be thankful for ways in which they are resistant to changes that would be bad. But in that category of changes that we know should happen—a renewed commitment to expository preaching, to evangelism, to a disciplined membership—how can we contribute to those reforms in our churches? It is on this very point that too many ministers—including some of you who are reading this piece right now—have ended up being alienated from many in your church, with some ministers even being fired. I think of some words Phillip Jensen (of St. Matthias Church, Sydney, Australia) said to me this past summer, “Unless you change something in your first year, you never will; and whatever you do change in your first year will be wrong.” (Phillip is the only pastor I know who can make John Piper seem understated!) We must lead our churches to change, and yet we must realize that such change will often be difficult.
If we need to lead our churches to do something both so necessary and yet so dangerous as change, how should we do it? In this brief article I want to make just a few suggestions in answer to this question, and they are these: teach, stay and love.
I. Teach to change
First, all ideas of the direction of any local church should come from Scripture. As we sit under the preaching of the Word, our needs and God’s supply are revealed. We are taught to follow the Lord’s commands for His church. The most powerful tool in changing any church is the pulpit. The regular, expository preaching of Scripture is how God’s Spirit normally works in our hearts.
Pray that through your preaching, God will teach your church to change in the ways it needs to change. It is amazing how many times we pastors want to fix problems before we’ve given any time and thought to explaining to people what the problems are—and why they’re problems! Even when we’ve done that, have we explained how we think we may have gotten into these problems, how we could get out, and some of the benefits that would come to us as a church by addressing the problem?
We may see something as a priority, and see so rightly from the Word, but that doesn’t mean that those who don’t see it are evil; they may simply be ignorant, but even if that is so, we must remember that we are their teachers. Too many pastors have tried to force changes in their church—often defended as leadership—when they should have tried to inform them. Brothers, we should feed the sheep entrusted to our care, not beat them. Most of the changes that we need to see in our churches cannot be coerced or ordered. We must teach the congregation that God has entrusted to our care. We must convince them.
Even if the change you envision is right, there is still the further question of whether the time is right for that change. And even if you could get a particular change through without getting fired, what cost will it exact from the body as a whole at that point in the congregation’s life? Being right is not a license for immediate action.
This brings me to my second observation of what we need to do to lead our churches in change.
II. Stay to change
We must stay at a church long enough to teach. We must stay at a church long enough to see the church understand and embrace needed change. In fact, we should desire to see the bride of Christ so built up that there are not simply individual changes made, but rather a whole culture developed. We should labor in the congregation to see a culture of devotion to Christ typify the church. So important is this willingness to plant yourself in one location, that I’ve wondered if we should include long pastorates as a tenth mark of a healthy church (in addition to the nine I’ve already written about).
A survey sponsored by the Consumer Federation of America and the financial services firm Primerica has found that 28% of Americans believe their best chance for building long-term wealth is to play the lottery. Among households with annual incomes of $35,000 or less, 40% put their faith in gambling. Fewer than a third of respondents said that $25 invested weekly for 40 years at a 7% annual yield would amount to over $150,000. In fact, it would amount to $286,640. (reported in World, Nov 20, 1999, p. 14). In our culture, we underestimate the power of longevity, of repeated faithfulness.
I remember several years ago talking with one pastor immediately after having listened to one mother of a young child expressing her despair over the seeming futility of her endless round of the same repeated tasks. The pastor, looking wistfully out the window, said the same thing! But both needed to be encouraged to realize that God works over time, that characters are formed slowly, and that such faithfulness is a beautiful reflection of God’s consistent care for us.
Long pastorates help the pastor, too. They help to eliminate the pastor simply coming in with a bag of tricks (or barrel of sermons), doing his thing for 2 or 3 years, and then simply moving on. Generally, the longer we stay at a place, the more real we have to be—and that’s good for our own souls, and for those we serve.
Often, over time the vision of a congregation begins to slip from God and His glory to the church and its satisfaction. We are to consistently work to refocus the church on God and His priorities by the careful, continuous, repeated teaching of His Word. We are to glorify God by the building up of His church and the evangelization of the world, not by simply doing all we can to keep the current set of members happy. With almost any group of several score or larger, some people will resist needed changes. At that point, the group has a crucial decision to make—is it more important that we find some way to continue to include everyone who is presently here, or is it more important that we (as a group) move in a particular direction, even if such a move comes at the cost of certain ones of our number leaving because they do not feel that they can consent to this change? Such difficult points in a congregations life are best reached slowly, deliberately, openly and with much patient teaching. Remember Paul’s great charge to Timothy: “Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage-- with great patience and careful instruction,” (II Tim. 4:2). Your patient teaching can help your church move from self-centeredness to a God-centered self-giving in mission, evangelism and discipling. Such patience will usually require you to stay.
The idea of such commitment to one group is vanishing in the workplace and even in the home. The model for Gen-Xers is not a pre-fabricated corporate ladder, with carefully limited pathways, but rather the mosaic of the world-wide web, with alternatives and options seeming to spread out infinitely. Our generation is being taught to value varying experiences, understanding each one as enriching the other. To remain at one company for many years seems at least unimaginative, and at most a reflection of a debilitating fear of the new.
We pastors need to be willing to set a different model in our congregations. We need to teach them that commitment is good, whether that’s to our marriages and families, our friends and our faith, or even our church and our neighborhood. It is in the light of such longer-term commitments (thinking in terms not of months, but of decades) that we can help a church to find its right priorities and to institutionalize them afresh. To that end we pastors should choose our battles wisely. We should carefully prioritize one needed change over another. We should consider which of the several changes that seem needful is most needed right now. We should consider what order these changes could most naturally come in. Do we address first how we take members in, or how we practice church discipline? Do we address first how we improve attendance at Sunday School, or how we want the Sunday School to improve? All such decisions are important for the church, and take both patience and a longer-term commitment by the pastor to be willing to think in such a mature, long-range way.
As a pastor, your greatest power to help your congregation change comes not through your forceful personality, but by your months and years of faithful, patient teaching. Changes that do not happen this year, may come next year. And in the meantime, the teaching that you’ve given, and even the results of those changes not being made yet, may well be opening the eyes and changing the hearts of the congregation. Under the influence of good teaching and right priorities in the pastor’s preaching and schedule and leadership, some changes may simply happen naturally.
In a recent book, Peter Brierley wrote that “Several studies have indicated that, within limits, the longer a minister stays with his/her church, the greater likelihood of growth. Paul Beasley-Murray, now Senior Minister in a large Baptist church in Essex, in a 1981 study of half the Baptist churches in England, found that growing churches were invariably associated with ministers who had served in their current church between five and fifteen years, though some grew after over twenty-five years of service! The five-to-fifteen year slot is confirmed for studies in other than Baptist churches,” (Steps to the Future [2000], p. 28).
Friends, all of this is not advice that you stay in a place so long that you simply wear anyone out; rather that you should stay in a place long enough that you can teach them in. The key to change is to stay in one church long enough to teach the congregation. If you don’t plan on staying like that, then be very careful before you start something that the next guy is going to have to finish. Beware of leaving the congregation hardened either against you or your successor, or even against the change itself.
I remember as a young seminarian taking as my model three Cambridge Anglican clergymen who all had expositional ministries in key locations stretching over many years—Richard Sibbes (in Cambridge and London for 30 years), Charles Simeon (in Cambridge for over 50 years), and John Stott (in London for over 50 years). All three of these men by the grace of God built the church they served and even effected the rising ministerial generations by their long faithfulness.
Conclusion: Love to change
Abraham Lincoln is reported to have said that the best negotiation position “is the biggest purse and the longest cannon.” What I am suggesting here is that for the pastor, the best way to help a church change is to provide the meatiest, most compellingly Biblical teaching over the longest time.
But even with great teaching patiently given, something still could be lacking. Finally, in order to desire the right changes, and to teach about them, and to stay so that you can do so patiently, you must love. You must love the Lord, and you must love His people, over whom He has set you, to tend and care for them. From love will come genuine care for God and His Word. From love comes humility. Clement of Rome said that “Christ belongs to the lowly of heart, and not to those who would exalt themselves over His flock.” And from love will come the patient care that will again and again turn the congregation to the long-term, the horizon, to the Word of God in all their decisions.
None of this is intended to say that either short pastorates or getting fired are in themselves necessarily signs of a minister’s faults. There are certainly short, faithful pastorates.
The courtiers of Henry IV of France, one day complimenting him upon the strength of his constitution, told him that he might live to be eighty years of age. He replied, “The number of our days is reckoned. I have often prayed to God for grace, but never for a long life. A man who has lived well, has always lived long enough, however early he may die.”
Certainly Jonathan Edwards was no less faithful a pastor simply because his congregation dismissed him. Some of us have had short and faithful pastorates. But these are not my concern here. With this short piece, I have simply intended to raise in your mind some thought of how you may, by teaching, staying and loving lead your congregation in Biblical change.
May God help all of us to so care for His people that His church is built up and His name is glorified.

Salvation through Christ Alone? -- A Moment of DecisionBy Dr Al Mohler

The Church of England faces yet another theological challenge as it prepares for the meeting of its General Synod in July. This time the issue is the Gospel itself and the specific question concerns the evangelization of Muslims. In the end, the outcome of this debate may, more then anything else, determine the future viability of the Church of England.
Paul Eddy, a lay theology student from Winchester who aspires to the priesthood, has entered a Private Member's Motion and has secured the signatures necessary to force the General Synod to deal with his motion.
The text of his motion sets the issue clearly:
'That this Synod request the House of Bishops to report to the Synod on their understanding of the uniqueness of Christ in Britain's multi-faith society, and offer examples and commendations of good practice in sharing the gospel of salvation through Christ alone with people of other faiths and of none.'

Mr. Eddy's motion has been roundly denounced by many in the church and the Daily Mail [London] reports that liberal bishops attempted to dissuade members from signing the motion. Nevertheless, the motion is now set and the General Synod will effectively vote on whether the Church of England should seek to evangelize Muslims

As the Daily Mail reports:

[Mr. Eddy] said that the active recruitment of non-believers and adherents of other faiths had always been a Biblical injunction on Christians, commanded by Christ himself.
But he claimed that many bishops were downplaying the missionary role of the Church and official documents often glossed over the requirement to convert Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs or followers of other religions.
He warned that the central role of Christianity in Britain was being eroded, and by 'allowing the rise of another religion in our country, all that Britain stands for is up for grabs.'
Mr. Eddy's motion has found support among at least some bishops, including the Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali. Bishop Nazir-Ali, born in Pakistan, is the only Asian-born bishop in the Church of England. In response to Mr. Eddy's motion, the Bishop argued that the Church of England has failed in its responsibility to "welcome people of other faiths." He suggested that the church had "gone too far" in responding to the sensitivities of British Muslims.
He also said, "Our nation is rooted in the Christian faith and that is the basis of welcoming people of other faiths. You cannot have an honest conversation on the basis of fudge."
Just months ago, the bishop drew criticism for his warning that certain sectors of British cities had become "no-go areas" where Muslims intimidate others from entering. The Telegraph [London] reported that Bishop Nazir-Ali's statements met with fierce opposition from another bishop:
However, his comments were condemned by senior figures within the Church. The Rt Rev Stephen Lowe, the former Bishop of Hulme and the newly appointed Bishop of Urban Life and Faith, said: "Both the Bishop of Rochester's reported comments and the synod private members' motion show no sensitivity to the need for good inter-faith relations. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs are learning to respect one another's paths to God and to live in harmony. This demand for the evangelisation of people of other faiths contributes nothing to our communities."
Bishop Lowe sets the issue clearly. He denies that the church should share the Gospel with persons of other faiths, but should instead "respect one another's paths to God."
This is precisely the theological compromise that motivated Paul Eddy to bring his motion in the first place. Mr. Eddy told the BBC that the Church of England has "lost its nerve" and was "not doing what the Bible says" in terms of evangelism.
His motion explicitly affirms "the uniqueness of Christ" and "the gospel of salvation through Christ alone," and for this reason the church will be forced to face a defining issue for the integrity of the Gospel and the church.
If Bishop Lowe's theology wins the day, as evidence suggests is already happening, the Church of England will forfeit any claim to the Gospel. The New Testament leaves absolutely no room for other "paths to God," nor for allowing "respect" to preclude evangelism.
The Church of England is not the only church or denomination that has "lost its nerve" when it comes to the Gospel, nor is it the only church to face this test, but it will set its future course in July even if the vote on Mr. Eddy's motion is the only vote taken.

Praying for the Lost By John MacArthur

Before Jesus gave up His spirit as He hung on the cross, He took time to pray for those who were murdering Him. He prayed, “Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing” (Luke 23:34).
God began to answer His prayer on the Day of Pentecost as some three thousand people repented and were baptized that day, and there have been countless multitudes that have been saved through the centuries. In response to Jesus’ intercession for the transgressors (Isaiah 53:12), God has snatched many souls from eternal death.
Do you have a heart to pray for the lost like Jesus did? Do you have the passion that inspired John Knox to plead, “Give me Scotland or I die”? Is your attitude that of George Whitefield, who prayed, “O Lord, give me souls or take my soul”? Do you, like Henry Martyn, mourn when you see others trapped in false religion and cry out, “I cannot endure existence if Jesus is to be so dishonored”?
God used those faithful men as powerful tools to bring salvation to dying people. Each of them had a clear and vivid understanding of what is at stake in the gospel — it’s an issue of life or death, an eternity in heaven or hell. Do you realize that your unbelieving family members, your co-workers, and your neighbors will spend forever suffering in torment away from the presence of God if they don’t embrace Christ? That realization should drive you to your knees to plead, not only with them to believe the gospel, but with God to save their souls.
The seventeenth-century English Puritan Richard Baxter wrote,
Oh, if you have the hearts of Christians or of men in you, let them yearn towards your poor ignorant, ungodly neighbors. Alas, there is but a step betwixt them and death and hell; many hundred diseases are waiting ready to seize on them, and if they die unregenerate, they are lost forever. Have you hearts of rock, that cannot pity men in such a case as this? If you believe not the Word of God, and the danger of sinners, why are you Christians yourselves? If you do believe it, why do you not bestir yourself to the helping of others? (cited in I.D.E. Thomas, ed., A Puritan Golden Treasury [Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1977], 92)
It is one thing to pray for family and friends, those for whom you have natural affections. But God wants you to pray for all people. Paul writes, “First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority” (1 Timothy 2:1-2). Kings and people in authority in Paul’s day weren’t bound by civil rights and were often unjust, self-serving, and cruel. Do you pray for the salvation of people like that — those who disagree with you politically, those who advocate ungodly agendas, those who openly embrace sin and reject the Scripture?
The Bible has several examples of radical evangelistic prayer, and for the worst of sinners. Here are a few examples:
Moses interceded for Israel after catching them in orgiastic idolatry at the foot of Mount Sinai. After he confronted and dealt with their sin, he turned to the Lord and prayed, “Alas, this people has committed a great sin, and they have made a god of gold for themselves. But now, if You will, forgive their sin — and if not, please blot me out from Your book which You have written!” Moses was willing to forfeit his life for his people, even though they were guilty of wicked rebellion!
While being stoned to death, Stephen followed the Lord’s example by praying for the salvation of his executioners: “And they went on stoning Stephen as he called upon the Lord and said, ‘Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!’ And falling on his knees, he cried out with a loud voice, ‘Lord, do not hold this sin against them!’ And having said this, he fell asleep” (Acts 7:59-60).
Standing among those who killed Stephen was a young man named Saul of Tarsus. His salvation was an answer to Stephen’s prayer. Years later, the apostle Paul communicated the depth of his concern for his people Israel, and in Romans 9 he sounds very much like Moses:
I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, […]Brethren, my heart’s desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. (Romans 9:1-3; 10:1)
His brethren according to the flesh, fellow Jews, were the very ones who persecuted him so severely, disrupting his work, stirring up mobs, even plotting his assassination. And yet he loved them and prayed that God would show them mercy.
God honored those men’s prayers for the souls of the lost; He’ll honor yours too. Whether friend or foe; whether moral or immoral; whether you know them or not — pray for the lost. For those God brings your way, open your mouth in love and compassion to tell them the truth. Warn them of God’s judgment for their personal offenses against his holiness, but then tell them the good news. There is salvation in Jesus Christ from God’s eternal wrath, if they will only repent and believe. Once you’ve told them the truth, keep praying for them and trust God for the results. You will rejoice as you see God use you as He saves people from their sins and grants them new life in His Son.

THINK ON THIS.................

God makes a promise. Faith believes it. Hope anticipates it. And patience waits quietly for it. Do you trust the Lord enough to be patient for His way and His time?

WORD OF THE DAY From The Pastor's Study

Simul Justus Et Peccator

[sim’-uhl yoost’-uhs et peck’-ah-tore]

(Latin simul, “simultaneous” + Latin justus, “righteous” + Latin et, “and” + Latin peccator, “sinner”]

At the same time righteous and a sinner. The phrase was coined by 16th century German Reformer, Martin Luther. In his Lectures on Romans, Luther put it this way,

“The saints in being righteous are at the same time sinners; they are righteous because they believe in Christ whose righteousness covers them and is imputed to them, but they are sinners because they do not fulfill the Law and are not without sinful desires. They are like sick people in the care of a physician: they are really sick, but healthy only in hope and in so far as they begin to get better, or, rather: are being healed.”

Waiting for God

READ Psalm 27:14

Our culture is an “instant” society. Because of inventions like the computer and the microwave, we’re used to quick results. A fast pace isn’t necessarily bad, but we should guard against becoming so set on immediate fulfillment that we can’t wait for God’s timing.This problem existed long before the computer age. In Genesis 15:4-5, God revealed to Abraham that though he and his wife Sarah were too old to have children, a great nation would come from him.

Abraham believed God but soon decided to handle matters himself. He took Sarah’s servant Hagar as his wife so she could bear the promised son.Abraham probably rationalized his decision, figuring the Lord wanted him to have a son.

Since it seemed impossible any other way, surely this must be what God wanted him to do! But it wasn’t. Abraham had to deal with the consequences of his actions, including jealousy and resentment between Sarah and Hagar.

These problems in turn created further difficulties, both in the short term and throughout history.The Lord was faithful, though. 14 years later, Sarah gave birth to Isaac.

But, the consequences of Abraham’s decision to step out of God’s plan are still with us. The two boys grew to become the fathers of nations which are in conflict to this very day.Like Abraham, we might believe God’s promises but prefer immediate results. Or we may just want things done our way. Instead, ask the Lord to lead you. Then wait for Him. His way may not be what you think you want, but it is always best.

The Real Prayer of Jabez By Steve Lawson

Riding a tidal wave of surging popularity, few Christian books have burst onto the publishing scene and been as widely received as The Prayer of Jabez (Multnomah). In only its sixth year of circulation, this brief, ninety-three-page book has sold a staggering 10 million copies, pushing its way to the top of the New York Times bestseller list. In its wake, a virtual Prayer of Jabez sub-culture has emerged, complete with journals, backpacks, jewelry, vanilla-scented candles, and myriads of assorted marketing paraphernalia. But, unfortunately, many well-meaning evangelicals have been swept up in this trendy phenomenon.
Prefacing this work, author Bruce Wilkinson writes, “I want to teach you how to pray a daring prayer that God always answers. It is brief—only one sentence with four parts…but I believe it contains the key to a life of extraordinary favor with God…In fact, thousands of believers who are applying its truths are seeing miracles happen on a regular basis.” But is the prayer of Jabez really the single greatest key to a spiritual life that is pleasing to God? Is Wilkinson’s teaching true to the full counsel of God? Hardly.
Those with doctrinal moorings and spiritual discernment know that this simplistic approach to the Christian life is an inadequate means by which to view God, true spirituality, and prayer. True, certain features of the book can be sited as positive, such as its much-needed emphasis upon prayer. But The Prayer of Jabez, quite frankly, suffers from a deficient theology. The book is seriously plagued with: (1) an inadequate view of prayer, trivializing its true profound nature, (2) a misguided focus upon prosperity, overtly emphasizing miracles and financial blessings, and (3) a defective doctrine of providence that fails to see God sovereignly and actively involved in all of life. Polemics aside, however, it will do us well to revisit the prayer of Jabez—not the book, but the biblical text—and discover what this prayer actually teaches.
Tucked away in a long genealogical record (1 Chron. 4), Jabez emerges from relative obscurity as one who “was more honorable than his brothers” (verse 9). A spiritually strong man, he was highly esteemed in his day, more virtuous and upstanding than others. His extraordinary piety is well documented in that a city was named after him, a place where “the families of scribes” gathered (1 Chron. 2:55). Moreover, his name, Jabez, means, “He will cause pain,” a perpetual reminder of the agony he caused during delivery. Yet, despite such a difficult entrance into this world, there was a divinely scripted plan for his life, sovereignly orchestrated for God’s glory and his good.
With complete dependence upon God in prayer, Jabez “called upon…God (Elohim)” (10a), the divine name meaning the Supreme One, Mighty Ruler, and Sovereign Lord (Gen. 1:1). By appealing to this name, he acknowledged that God providentially reigns over all the works of His hands (Ps. 103:19). Moreover, He is the God “of ,” closely related to His chosen ones (Amos 3:2). To Jabez, God is both infinite and intimate, both accessible and able to answer his prayers.
In petitioning God, Jabez prayed, “Oh that you would bless me” (10b). That is, he asked God to extend His undeserved favor toward him. Specifically, Jabez asked, “Enlarge my border” (10c), thereby requesting that God would expand his territory by defeating his enemies, the Canaanites, expelling them from the adjacent territory. In the days of Moses and Joshua, God had promised that He would give the Promised Land to . Accordingly, Jabez prayed for this increase in land.
Is it right to ask God for material things? Of course it is. Jesus Himself taught His disciples to pray for their “daily bread” (Matt. 6:11; Luke 11:3). God desires us to petition Him for all good things needed to fulfill His will, even for physical provisions (James 4:2). But, ultimately, God is sovereign and will answer prayer as He wills, not as man wills. To be sure, the motive of every prayer must be for the glory of God, not the greed of man. As a lowly servant before his exalted king, prayer should always be a humble request, never a haughty demand.
Furthermore, Jabez prayed “that your hand might be with me” (10d), a petition that the invisible hand of Providence would empower him in this heroic endeavor. The truth is, God’s work must always be done in God’s power, or it will surely fail (Zech. 4:6). Moreover, Jabez requested “that you would keep me from harm so that it might not bring me pain” (10e). In this, he asked for God’s supernatural protection to be upon him throughout this conflict. To be sure, all God’s servants are exposed to constant danger and desperately need divine protection from Satan’s relentless assaults.
With unwavering faith, Jabez placed this entire matter into the all-sufficient hands of God—and there are no more reliable, on more capable, and no more powerful hands than those of our sovereign God.
What was the result of such a humble prayer? Simply this, that God “granted his request” (10f). Not because Jabez used the right formula in prayer. Nor because he somehow manipulated God. For God is not a genie to be conjured out of a bottle and used for one’s own personal ends. Rather, God sovereignly chose to be glorified through Jabez in answering his petition. The prayer of Jabez is not a mindless mantra that God always answers, chanted for self-advancement. Instead, it teaches us to faithfully seek God, who supremely does as and when He pleases. When He alone is magnified, we will be truly blessed indeed.

Should Christians be learning how to pray Jabez's prayer?

The Prayer of Jabez, by Dr. Bruce Wilkinson, has gained enormous popularity in the Christian community. Within the last year it has sold more than 4 million copies-3.5 million in the last four months alone-and has maintained a first-place ranking on many national best-seller lists. The author is a distinguished Bible teacher and founder of Walk thru the Bible Ministries. His organization, which hosts more than 2,500 Bible conferences annually, is designed to train Christians in a fundamental understanding of both the Old and New Testaments.
Wilkinson's book is a study on Jabez's prayer recorded in 1 Chronicles 4:9-10. Dr. Wilkinson's purpose is to encourage believers to continually look to Jabez's prayer as a model to follow if they expect to receive great blessing from and accomplish great things for God. Dr. Wilkinson writes, "This petition has radically changed what I expect from God and what I experience every day by his power" (p. 7). In fact, he continues to express throughout the book the need for Christians to pray this prayer, so they too can experience a radical change in their life.
We commend much within The Prayer of Jabez.
For example, Dr. Wilkinson rightly emphasizes the importance of prayer in the Christian life. All Christians should commune with the Lord in prayer. Jesus, for example, gave his disciples an outline to follow in prayer (Matthew 6:9-13) and fashioned a parable to encourage persistence in prayer (Luke 18:1-7). Following the Lord's lead, The Prayer of Jabez does an excellent job of emphasizing the need for cultivating a rich prayer life.
Another helpful focus of the book is its exhortation for Christians to focus their prayers on ministry and not on personal desires. That is noteworthy as many of today's popular books encourage prayer merely for individual gain. They assert that God owes blessings to them, and they should ask Him for anything they desire. Dr. Wilkinson never encourages that attitude. Though he states God will bless the believer, the blessing will come in the form of more and more opportunities to minister to others in need. Answered prayer, Dr. Wilkinson reminds us, is born out of proper motives (James 4:3).
With those commendations in mind, however, there are some areas of concern in The Prayer of Jabez.
First of all, the book leaves the door open for Christians to presume upon God. Wilkinson writes, "I want to teach you how to pray a daring prayer that God always answers." (p. 7, emphasis added). Though it is true that God hears the prayers of His saints, there is no guarantee that He will always answer them in the expected manner. To suggest to the reader that God will always answer those who pray Jabez's prayer greatly overstates reality.
Furthermore, that expectation could lead believers to experience disappointment with God. Someone might feel justified complaining that he prayed the "model prayer of Jabez" but God never answered. The truth is, there could be other reasons for God's silence, such as our own unconfessed sin or impure motives. Or perhaps God's plan for that person is far different from what they asked for in prayer. Dr. Wilkinson does not clarify his statement, but repeatedly claims throughout the book that God will most assuredly answer the "Jabez" prayer, a claim that oversimplifies all God's Word says about prayer.
The book also tends to trivialize the discipline of prayer by making the words of Jabez's prayer the formula to follow. Wilkinson encourages Christians to repeat the words of Jabez's prayer regularly. But Jesus spoke against that kind of rote prayer style in Matthew 6:7, where He warned His disciples not to use vain, repetitious prayers. Rather, Christians should pray to God with heartfelt sincerity. Simply repeating the prayer of Jabez daily runs the risk of reducing a believer's prayer life to vain repetition.
Moreover, The Prayer of Jabez can also create confusion about the importance of the many other prayers throughout the Bible. Does Jabez's prayer somehow take precedence over Jesus' model of prayer in Matthew 6:9-13? Are Paul's prayers worth imitating? Do the prayers of other Old Testament saints help us better understand prayer any more or any less than Jabez's? Focusing solely on Jabez's brief prayer implicitly ascribes to it some kind of magical character it does not possess. Certainly, Jabez's prayer is a very good model, but it does not have any inherent ability to unlock God's power in the Christian life. Unfortunately, Dr. Wilkinson's book does little to dissuade such conclusions about the prayer.
Finally, The Prayer of Jabez paints an inconsistent picture of the Christian life. Wilkinson asserts that praying Jabez's prayer leads to a life of incredible blessing and ever-increasing ministry opportunities-a life that sounds almost like a fairy-tale. However, little reference is ever made to the reality of genuine difficulties in life, and the necessity of sincere prayer to face those difficulties in a God-honoring way. Furthermore, Dr. Wilkinson fails to encourage the importance of faithfulness in the mundane circumstances of daily living. He seems to indicate that real Christian living is only happening when Christians encounter regular miracles and astounding ministry opportunities in life. Scripture, however, points to the importance of learning to live a life fixed on pleasing God in all the little details in life-attitudes, thoughts, words, and behavior. The Prayer of Jabez fails to exhibit biblical balance in that regard.
In conclusion, The Prayer of Jabez can be a helpful tool because it encourages Christians to look to Jabez's prayer as one of many biblical models of prayer worthy of emulation. You can look to Jabez's prayer along with the prayers of other Bible characters in an effort to better inform your own prayer life. But remember, true prayer does not consist of a set of mantras or incantations employed to elicit a particular response from God. God is not a genie in a bottle, waiting to be coaxed out so He can grant wishes. Rather, prayer is about aligning your mind and heart with God's sovereign purposes.
Prayer is a rich privilege God graciously grants to His children, enabling us to express our submission to His will for our lives. To that end, may we all learn to pray with the humility, dependence, and expectation of blessing Jabez exhibited.

Albert Einstein's God -- The "Product of Human Weaknesses"

A letter from Albert Einstein to philosopher Eric Gutkind is to be auctioned today at Bloomsbury Auctions in London. The letter -- hidden within a private collection for a half-century -- is making news as evidence of Einstein's dismissal of belief in God.
For decades, Einstein has been claimed by both atheists and theists. The scientist was given to rather anecdotal statements about religion and belief in God, and these statements are easily taken out of context. Given Einstein's cultural and intellectual stature, both sides in this great debate have assumed that Einstein's agreement would lend intellectual credibility to their argument.

Some theists (including an unfortunate number of Evangelicals) have seized upon some of Einstein's statements to claim that he was a theist. When Einstein remarked that God "does not throw dice," some claimed that this was evidence of theism and belief in God. When Einstein quipped that "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind," others claimed that this was evidence of Einstein's insistence that some form of religious belief is necessary to science.

Atheists, on the other hand, had plenty of evidence upon which to draw. The data of Einstein's life and the contours of his thought certainly indicate that Einstein held no belief in a personal God who acted as a moral agent.
The letter to Eric Gutkind includes more explicit statements by Einstein, written in the year before his death.
The Guardian [London] published selections from the letter, including this paragraph:
... The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them.

Einstein's language is very clear. God is dismissed as "nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses" -- a statement hauntingly like the verdict of Friedrich Nietzsche. This letter helps to substantiate what other statements also indicate. Einstein was not an atheist in the sense that he wanted to deny any force beyond what science could explain. On the other hand, he was an atheist in the sense that he clearly rejected theism and belief in any personal God.
Born to a Jewish family, Einstein once wrote of his loss of faith: "Through the reading of popular scientific books, I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived by the state through lies, it was a crushing impression."
In his letter to Gutkind, Einstein expressed his belief that the Bible is a "collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."
An individual's thought can easily (even almost necessarily) change over a lifetime. The emergence of the Gutkind letter, written just a year before Einstein's death, seems to provide ample evidence that the scientist's verdict about the Bible did not change.


Before fleeing Germany as World War II approached, Einstein explained his concept of religion:
"Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible laws and connections, there remains something subtle, intangible, and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in fact, religious."
By that definition, most atheists are "in fact, religious." There is no room in this definition for the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob -- nor for Jesus Christ. Like many other unbelievers, Einstein respected the morals of Jesus, but rejected any thought of deity. He came to be proud of his Jewish ethnic identity, but rejected any claim that the Jews are a chosen people.

The emergence of the letter from Albert Einstein to Eric Gutkind goes a long way toward setting the record straight. Evangelical Christians are prone to over-excitement when any famous person, living or dead, is claimed as a believer in God. This is not an attractive habit, and it often leads to intellectual embarrassment. The truth of the Gospel and the reality of the self-revealing God are not enhanced by vague expressions of a non-theistic spirituality or a sense of nothing more than an inexplicable sense of meaning in the cosmos.

Beyond this, the witness of an honest Christian is far more powerful than a listing of the rich, intelligent, and powerful who may or may not have believed in some kind of God. Attempts to claim Einstein for theism reveal a deep intellectual insecurity.

The Einstein/Gutkind letter is expected to bring a sale price well into the thousands of dollars. It is then likely to disappear into yet another private collection. Its unexpected emergence in these days does present an opportunity to clarify Einstein's real beliefs.
In the end, it is better to see Einstein, not as a believer of sorts, but as an atheist of sorts. Belief in God was simply childish, he asserted. Einstein believed in awe and wonder, but not in God.

WORD OF THE DAY From The Pastor's Study

Kenosis
[kuh-noe’-sis]
(Greek, “emptying”)

Describes the “emptying” of Christ at the incarnation. The Greek word kenoo (”to empty”) is found in Phil 2:6-11 where Christ humility is described through the incarnation. Debate exists concerning the meaning of the Kenosis. Did Christ lose divine attributes and thus “empty” himself, or did he give up rights for the independent use of his divine attributes, without actually giving them up? Most theologians would opt for the latter, believing that if Christ “lost” divine attributes he would no longer be divine; indeed, he would never have been divine in the first place considering the essential divine attribute of immutability (the inability to change in essence).

The Heidelberg Catechism, This Lord's Day week 21

Q54: What do you believe concerning the "Holy Catholic Church"?

A54: That out of the whole human race,[1] from the beginning to the end of the world,[2] the Son of God,[3] by His Spirit and Word,[4] gathers, defends and preserves for Himself unto everlasting life a chosen communion [5] in the unity of the true faith;[6] and that I am and forever shall remain a living member of this communion.[7]
1. Gen. 26:42. John 10:103. Eph. 1:10-134. Rom. 1:16; 10:14-17; Isa. 59:21; Eph. 5:265. Rom. 8:29-30; Matt. 16:18; Eph. 4:3-66. Acts 2:46; Psa. 71:18; I Cor. 1:8-9; 11:26; John 10:28-307. I John 2:19; 3:21; Gal. 3:28

Q55: What do you understand by the "communion of saints"?

A55: First, that believers, one and all, as members of the Lord Jesus Christ, are partakers with Him in all His treasures and gifts;[1] second, that each one must feel himself bound to use his gifts readily and cheerfully for the advantage and welfare of other members.[2]
1. I John 1:32. I Cor. 12:12-13, 21; 13:5-6; Phil. 2:4-6; Heb. 3:14

Q56: What do you believe concerning the "forgiveness of sins"?

A56: That God, for the sake of Christ's satisfaction,[1] will no more remember my sins, nor the sinful nature with which I have to struggle all my life long;[2] but graciously imputes to me the righteousness of Christ, that I may nevermore come into condemnation.[3]
1. I John 2:22. II Cor. 5:19, 21; Rom. 7:24-25; 8:1-4; Psa. 103:3, 10, 12; Jer. 31:343. John. 3:18; Eph. 1:7; Rom. 4:7-8; 7:18

ALL BY MYSELF......... By Rev. Charles J. Paul

Have you ever felt like you were all alone? Like God was no where to be found. Have you ever had the darkest night of your soul take place?

Dr Sproul in the article below lays out for us what a lot of us may have felt. Or are presently feeling.

I know that for myself there are many times that I feel alone in the present day battle for the Truth of God’s Word to be preached and taught. I know that I feel as though I am fighting not only by myself. But that I am also fighting what seems to be a losing battle.

But then just as the darkness comes over us, it also is removed by the LIGHT of His Word.

I would like to take this moment to encourage anyone facing the giant of darkness in your life. To tell you that your hope is in a new feeling would be a lie. So I will tell the answer you seek to the darkness you face. Is the same refuge that all those who came before us found who were in these times of darkness,

And that is open the book. Preachers bring the book. And to the body of His true sheep LIVE BY THE BOOK.

May God bless you as your night turns to day

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.