Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Barry Being Barry By Phil Ryken
Sometime this summer, Barry Bonds -- who plays outfield for the San Francisco Giants -- will become Major League Baseball's all-time leading home run hitter. Few will cheer, however, because Mr. Bonds's alleged steroid use and lack of interest in anything but himself have also made him one of the least popular players in the history of baseball.Case in point: When asked why he hasn't given any of his personal memorabilia to the Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, Barry said, “I’m not worried about the Hall. I take care of me.”His comments have been widely criticized, but I wonder if that is really fair. After all, isn't "taking care of me" one of the core values of American culture?
Stalwarts of the Faith-Stonewall Jackson
“Our God was my shield. His protecting care is an additional cause for gratitude”
Thomas Jonathan Jackson was born on January 21, 1824 in Clarksburg, Virginia. He entered West Point in July 1842 and, in spite of his poor childhood education, worked hard to graduate seventeenth in his class in 1846. Upon graduation, Jackson was sent on military duty to Mexico, and continued his service in the United States Army in positions in New York and Florida. In 1851, Jackson became professor of artillery tactics and natural philosophy at Virginia Military Institute in Lexington, Virginia. He resigned from the army as of February 29, 1852.
Jackson’s summer vacations from teaching were often spent vacationing in the North and in Europe where his interests were aroused in art and culture rather than military or political aspects. This somewhat calm, domestic period in his life came to a close on April 21, 1861 when he was ordered to go to Richmond as part of the cadet corps. Since military aspirations had faded from his life, he was virtually unknown in this sphere.
It was during the Battle of Bull Run in the Civil War when Jackson assumed his nickname. Amidst the tumult of battle, Brigadeer-General Barnard E. Bee stated, “There is Jackson standing like a stone wall.” As the war continued, Jackson continually impressed his Confederate compatriots with his skill on the battlefield and in planning conferences. He distinguished himself in the Valley campaign of early 1862, the Battle of second Manassas in August 1862, and the Battle of Fredericksburg in December 1862. Jackson was a Southern hero, and in spite of his eccentricities, he was loved and respected by his soldiers. He strictly observed the Sabbath, and his religiousity was constant in all facets of his life.
In private life Jackson was a simple, rather silent Scotch-Irish, Presbyterian gentleman, with large blue eyes, pensive and deep; dark-brown hair, which was very slightly curly and worn rather long; about 5 feet 11 1/2 inches in height, with a fine, full figure. His complexion was fair, almost like a girl’s except when tanned by outdoor exposure. He was noted for his politeness, gentleness of manner, and love of children. While never talkative, he felt always the duty when in society to be responsive to the conversation of others, and was at times a delightful companion and full of pranks and humor, though these occasions were rare. His habits of life were methodical and rigid. According to Dr. R. L. Dabney’s Life of Jackson, he always rose at dawn, had private devotions, and then took a solitary walk. When at home family prayers were held at 7 o’clock, summer and winter, and all members of his household were required to be present, but the absence of anyone did not delay the services a minute. Breakfast followed, and he went to his classroom at 8 o’clock, remaining until 11, when he returned to his study. The first book that then engaged his attention was the Bible, which was studied as he did other courses. Between dinner and supper his attention was occupied by his garden, his farm, and the duties of the church, in which he was a deacon. After supper he devoted his time for half an hour to a mental review of the studies of the next day, without reference to notes, then to reading or conversation until 10 o’clock, at which time he always retired. There was no variation in this daily program.
General Jackson’s life was representative of the simple virtues for which the South was noted - honesty in thought, speech, and action, freedom from sordid ambition for wealth or notoriety, a high sense of honor and chivalry, unselfish patriotism, and benevolence toward his fellow men. To these traits were added an absolute reliance upon God, and trust in His providence as guarding, guiding, and controlling the daily lives of His servants.
On May 2, 1863, in his last march of the Civil War, Jackson was wounded by friendly fire. He died of pneumonia several days later on May 10 at Guiney’s Station, Virginia. There were certain maxims of his life which had much to do with framing his character. One was that “you can be what you resolve to be”, the other, “do your duty.” His last words are supposed to have been, “Let us cross over the river and rest under the shade of the trees”, though others of the attendants at his bedside tell us that the last words were, “Soldiers, do your duty.”
His body was carried to Richmond and then to Lexington where it was buried. It is said that The Army of Northern Virginia never fully recovered from the loss of Stonewall Jackson’s leadership in battle. His death was a severe setback for the Confederacy, affecting not only its military prospects, but the morale of its army and the general public; as Jackson lay dying, General Robert E. Lee stated, “He has lost his left arm; I have lost my right.”
Sources: Biography Of Stonewall Jackson by Mrs. Emil Shaffer Nee Miss Anna Jackson Preston,West Virginia Archives and History; Son of the South website, http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/Stonewall_Jackson.htm
Thomas Jonathan Jackson was born on January 21, 1824 in Clarksburg, Virginia. He entered West Point in July 1842 and, in spite of his poor childhood education, worked hard to graduate seventeenth in his class in 1846. Upon graduation, Jackson was sent on military duty to Mexico, and continued his service in the United States Army in positions in New York and Florida. In 1851, Jackson became professor of artillery tactics and natural philosophy at Virginia Military Institute in Lexington, Virginia. He resigned from the army as of February 29, 1852.
Jackson’s summer vacations from teaching were often spent vacationing in the North and in Europe where his interests were aroused in art and culture rather than military or political aspects. This somewhat calm, domestic period in his life came to a close on April 21, 1861 when he was ordered to go to Richmond as part of the cadet corps. Since military aspirations had faded from his life, he was virtually unknown in this sphere.
It was during the Battle of Bull Run in the Civil War when Jackson assumed his nickname. Amidst the tumult of battle, Brigadeer-General Barnard E. Bee stated, “There is Jackson standing like a stone wall.” As the war continued, Jackson continually impressed his Confederate compatriots with his skill on the battlefield and in planning conferences. He distinguished himself in the Valley campaign of early 1862, the Battle of second Manassas in August 1862, and the Battle of Fredericksburg in December 1862. Jackson was a Southern hero, and in spite of his eccentricities, he was loved and respected by his soldiers. He strictly observed the Sabbath, and his religiousity was constant in all facets of his life.
In private life Jackson was a simple, rather silent Scotch-Irish, Presbyterian gentleman, with large blue eyes, pensive and deep; dark-brown hair, which was very slightly curly and worn rather long; about 5 feet 11 1/2 inches in height, with a fine, full figure. His complexion was fair, almost like a girl’s except when tanned by outdoor exposure. He was noted for his politeness, gentleness of manner, and love of children. While never talkative, he felt always the duty when in society to be responsive to the conversation of others, and was at times a delightful companion and full of pranks and humor, though these occasions were rare. His habits of life were methodical and rigid. According to Dr. R. L. Dabney’s Life of Jackson, he always rose at dawn, had private devotions, and then took a solitary walk. When at home family prayers were held at 7 o’clock, summer and winter, and all members of his household were required to be present, but the absence of anyone did not delay the services a minute. Breakfast followed, and he went to his classroom at 8 o’clock, remaining until 11, when he returned to his study. The first book that then engaged his attention was the Bible, which was studied as he did other courses. Between dinner and supper his attention was occupied by his garden, his farm, and the duties of the church, in which he was a deacon. After supper he devoted his time for half an hour to a mental review of the studies of the next day, without reference to notes, then to reading or conversation until 10 o’clock, at which time he always retired. There was no variation in this daily program.
General Jackson’s life was representative of the simple virtues for which the South was noted - honesty in thought, speech, and action, freedom from sordid ambition for wealth or notoriety, a high sense of honor and chivalry, unselfish patriotism, and benevolence toward his fellow men. To these traits were added an absolute reliance upon God, and trust in His providence as guarding, guiding, and controlling the daily lives of His servants.
On May 2, 1863, in his last march of the Civil War, Jackson was wounded by friendly fire. He died of pneumonia several days later on May 10 at Guiney’s Station, Virginia. There were certain maxims of his life which had much to do with framing his character. One was that “you can be what you resolve to be”, the other, “do your duty.” His last words are supposed to have been, “Let us cross over the river and rest under the shade of the trees”, though others of the attendants at his bedside tell us that the last words were, “Soldiers, do your duty.”
His body was carried to Richmond and then to Lexington where it was buried. It is said that The Army of Northern Virginia never fully recovered from the loss of Stonewall Jackson’s leadership in battle. His death was a severe setback for the Confederacy, affecting not only its military prospects, but the morale of its army and the general public; as Jackson lay dying, General Robert E. Lee stated, “He has lost his left arm; I have lost my right.”
Sources: Biography Of Stonewall Jackson by Mrs. Emil Shaffer Nee Miss Anna Jackson Preston,West Virginia Archives and History; Son of the South website, http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/Stonewall_Jackson.htm
A world such as this
Can I love such a world as this, where tyranny sheds streams of blood, and lays cities and countries desolate; where the wicked are exalted, the just and innocent reproached and oppressed, the gospel restrained, idolatory and infidelity too generally kept up; where Satan too often chooses pastors for the churches of Christ, even such as by ignorance, pride, and sensuality, become devouring wolves to those whom they should feed and comfort; where no two persons are in all things of a different mind, and where appears but little hopes of a remedy? And shall I not think more delightfully of "the inheritance of the saints in light" and of the cordial love and joyful praises of the church triumphant? Should I not love a lovely and loving world much better than a world where there is comparatively so little lovliness of love? [Richard Baxter]
Let it be done in patience
Patience to the soul is as bread to the body…we eat bread with all our meats, both for health and relish; bread with flesh, bread with fish, bread with broths and fruits. Such is pateince to every virtue; we must hope with patience, and pray in pateince, and love with patience, and whatsoever good thing we do, let it be done in patience. [Thomas Adams]
A god Who Loves 'Funk' & Those Who Defend him
I try to give a reasonable amount of slack to professed Christians who don't understand God the exact way that I do, but every once in a while something is said that rips open the curtain of the Seeker Sensitive movement and reveals how desperately twisted it's mindset can be. It makes you wonder if some of them are even talking about the same God that the bible describes as 'holy, holy, holy'. I had one such glimpse behind that curtain over the weekend as I interacted with some defending a popular 'funk' song with lyrics relating to "how well built" a female is. Yes, music in church!
I've seen a lot of shenanigans in the past several years of covering the Church Growth Movement but this one hit me like a couple of high voltage CPR paddles. And what I find almost as reprehensible as the idea itself, is the defense of it, by a group of folks who were willing to fight and die on a hill of support for this pew-packing stunt. For service to the cause of pragmatism, I am awarding them this edition of our Athenian Spirit Award.
It started last week when the owner of a fantastic new website called The Museum of Idolatry (recently added to my blogroll) sent me an email asking for more information on the "friends in low places, whisky drowns, beer chases" video which was recorded in a popular megachurch. He posted his thoughts on that video but added some additional coverage of another (even more troubling) song that was adopted by the same church. Here's what he said:
We received a tip from a reader that "Pastor" Tony Morgan of NewSpring Church commented on the "American Idol" sermon series at his blog. Here is what he said:
"The vote for next weekend's opening song included Brick House by the Commodores. I'm just praying that God loves funk."
Here is the link.
Yep, "Pastor" Tony was personally pulling for the funk song 'Brick House'. This is a song that is about the female anatomy. And yes, this song was sung in their church as part of their American Idol contest. Here are some of the lyrical highlights of 'Brick House':
Verse 1: She knows she got everythinga woman needs to get a man, yeah.How can she use, the things she use 36-24-36 [her measurements], what a winning hand!
Verse 2: The clothes she wears, the sexy ways, make an old man wish for younger daysShe knows she's built and knows how to pleaseSure enough to knock a man to his knees
We're sure these lyrics fit perfectly with the other sermon series they did called "Girls Gone Wild". How kewl is it that they named an entire sermon series after a series of porn videos. [sarcasm intended]
Performing popular secular music with disturbing lyrics is a growing trend in the newest generation of Seeker Sensitive churches. A couple more examples include Granger's promoting of 'Nickleback' and pastor Gary Lamb (who seems to never miss a rock concert that comes to town) launching his sermon with the AC/DC song Highway to Hell.
But what I find just as troubling is how vigorously the fans of these churches will argue in favor of these things. Take for example the discussion thread from the Brick House post, which (as of the time I'm writing this) is still being haggled over by "James and Nathan" who are no strangers to the comment section here on Old Truth. Here's an abbreviated synopsis of the tactics and ridiculous arguments being made by some of those on this latest thread. The one's in red seem to be in favor of this type of music in church, the ones in green are against it.
Nathan Rice: It was not supposed to be a worship song, just a "little fun before the service started".
Val: Who on earth has a "little fun" at church singing songs about drinking booze?!
John: Unfair. You don't know the people there. You don't have the full context. You make mistakes too. Aren't our words to be seasoned with grace?
Val: That isn't church. That's a bunch of boys who never grew up and they are pretending that they have their own TV show. The pastors have so little discernment.
Nathan Rice: Reasserts that the song wasn't technically during worship (though it started mere moments afterwards). Then implies that this criticism is taking advantage of these songs because they are the most convenient thing to pick on - in a church that doesn't fit our personal preferences and style.
Val: "Church is supposed to be the house of the Lord and the gathering of believers but your 'pastors' have turned it into an 'idol' factory. Your pastors have sinned by doing this. It is an offense against the Lord and it is an offense against his people. We have every right to be indignant regarding this travesty."
Nathan Rice: Asserts for the 3rd time that the song was played BEFORE church officially started, then argues with Val by saying: "Actually, 'church' is you. You are the church. I'll assume you're talking about a church gathering. Your statement that its 'supposed to be the house of the Lord' is not supported by the New Testament. And no, they haven't turned 'church' into an 'idol' factory."
Ken: Quotes Perry as saying that the critics can "kiss my rear end".
Jeannette: Remarks that NewSpring's pastor and Nathan Rice have forgotten what reverence is, then asks "Since when did entertainment become necessary to get 'loosened up' for worship?"
James: Favorably suggests thinking of these church services as "a show" rather than a service, and declares that there is no scripture that would be violated by having such "a show".
Nathan Rice: Asserts for the fourth time that this music was before church, and should be thought of in terms of the church announcement time or the time in which you talk with friends before church. He denies that there is any sin, and calls for anyone who thinks there is to prove it. Then whips out a Pharisee scripture and aims it at Jeannette.
Jim B.: I quote 1 John 2:15 on worldliness and cite Perry's past accolades for a drug pusher song.
Arthur: Mentions how the medium becomes the message in these churches, and tries to draw everyone back to whether it's biblical, citing: "Whatever is lovely, noble, pure etc. think on these things." Arthur goes on to quote Tony Morgan saying that "the church is impotent without technology".
James: Asks to have it pointed-out where this church is doing anything against scripture (he doesn't think they are).
Jessica: Thinks this entire conversation is sad, and that Christians shouldn't fight.
Nathan Rice: Cites the parable of the talents in support of his claim that it would be a mistake and perhaps even a sin to not use technology to evangelize (presumably the way NewSpring uses technology such as jumbotrons and massive sound systems). Earlier James reminded everyone of how air conditioning and microphones are "technology" too, therefore - we too embrace technology.
Nathan Rice: Thanks the website owner for not censoring or banning him like some "other" isolationist blogs. Is that a shot at me? Note that I've banned ~5 parties from Old Truth in the ~2 years I've been online, and Nathan happens to be one of them.
Sam and Jim B: Post almost simultaneous comments citing the many seeker blogs out there that likewise "ban and censor" comments that express our point of view, including Tony Morgan's blog.
James: Equates all of the church technology that he likes - with the invention of the printing press. He once again calls for evidence that any scripture was violated, and then for the 5th time, the "it was during announcements / not worship" defense is asserted. Then addresses me: "Jim, here is some 'old truth', early Christians would probably be more horrified by using the church bathroom than singing a silly song. Again, you can't say that singing this song is disrespectful but using the church bathroom is not. Let's be consistent." Sorry . . . he lost me on that line of reasoning; I don't get it.
Nathan Rice: Calls upon Sam to mix his criticisms with some positive exhortations for Perry Noble, just to be fair. Mentions me, and apparently takes another shot at me about Calvinism and evangelism (in one of his earlier times here on Old Truth Nathan claimed that those two things were incompatible). Next he outlines what seems right to him for "banning and censoring" practices.
Jim B: I point out to Nathan and James that they are not dealing with scripture, and are simply reasserting the same humanistic points over and over again in an attempt to exhaust everyone. I try once again to bring it back to scripture, specifically Titus 2 this time. They however make no attempt at interacting with this scripture at any point.
Ken: That whole "bathroom" thing of James' is just foolish.
Nathan Rice: Calls upon me to define "sinful worldliness" for him. If I hadn't grown weary of this whole discussion by this point, I would have given him Iain Murray's excellent definition of worldliness on this page.
James: Comments to me that he's still waiting for me to point out where NewSpring has done something unscriptural. He claims that I'm being subjective.
Jim W: The burden of proof is on you. The frustration is beginning to show at this point.
James: Claims that Perry is biblical because he holds to basic creedal type beliefs. James promises to keep defending NewSpring until someone gives him objective evidence of sin or heresy.
That's where the discussion ends, at the time I'm writing this. Though I'm guessing that our Athenian Spirit Award winners have much much more gas in their tank, to keep going with their "endless repeating loop" tactics, used for defending that which is new and pragmatically cool.
The full comments relating to that entire discussion can be found on this page. If anyone thinks that this is an example of good Christian debate (yes, there is such a thing), they are sadly mistaken. One side is making arguments that have a basis in scripture, the other side is simply stating their own human viewpoint over and over again. I'm afraid that nothing short of documented proof of genocide (or something comparable) will ever convince some folks that these types of churches are doing something offensive to God, and contrary to scripture. And what is most tragic, is that this particular church trains other churches how to do what they do, through their regular innovative church pastors conferences.
As they have done on Old Truth in the past, James and Nathan will likely continue to fight this out until they perceive that they are the last man standing, at which point - victory will be declared. In reality, they have simply worn everyone out by not listening and by not making scripture the primary basis for their opinions. That's not debate, and it's not even a biblical discussion for that matter, but their priorities are consistent with that Athenian spirit of "spending their time in nothing except telling or hearing something new" Acts 17:21.
I've seen a lot of shenanigans in the past several years of covering the Church Growth Movement but this one hit me like a couple of high voltage CPR paddles. And what I find almost as reprehensible as the idea itself, is the defense of it, by a group of folks who were willing to fight and die on a hill of support for this pew-packing stunt. For service to the cause of pragmatism, I am awarding them this edition of our Athenian Spirit Award.
It started last week when the owner of a fantastic new website called The Museum of Idolatry (recently added to my blogroll) sent me an email asking for more information on the "friends in low places, whisky drowns, beer chases" video which was recorded in a popular megachurch. He posted his thoughts on that video but added some additional coverage of another (even more troubling) song that was adopted by the same church. Here's what he said:
We received a tip from a reader that "Pastor" Tony Morgan of NewSpring Church commented on the "American Idol" sermon series at his blog. Here is what he said:
"The vote for next weekend's opening song included Brick House by the Commodores. I'm just praying that God loves funk."
Here is the link.
Yep, "Pastor" Tony was personally pulling for the funk song 'Brick House'. This is a song that is about the female anatomy. And yes, this song was sung in their church as part of their American Idol contest. Here are some of the lyrical highlights of 'Brick House':
Verse 1: She knows she got everythinga woman needs to get a man, yeah.How can she use, the things she use 36-24-36 [her measurements], what a winning hand!
Verse 2: The clothes she wears, the sexy ways, make an old man wish for younger daysShe knows she's built and knows how to pleaseSure enough to knock a man to his knees
We're sure these lyrics fit perfectly with the other sermon series they did called "Girls Gone Wild". How kewl is it that they named an entire sermon series after a series of porn videos. [sarcasm intended]
Performing popular secular music with disturbing lyrics is a growing trend in the newest generation of Seeker Sensitive churches. A couple more examples include Granger's promoting of 'Nickleback' and pastor Gary Lamb (who seems to never miss a rock concert that comes to town) launching his sermon with the AC/DC song Highway to Hell.
But what I find just as troubling is how vigorously the fans of these churches will argue in favor of these things. Take for example the discussion thread from the Brick House post, which (as of the time I'm writing this) is still being haggled over by "James and Nathan" who are no strangers to the comment section here on Old Truth. Here's an abbreviated synopsis of the tactics and ridiculous arguments being made by some of those on this latest thread. The one's in red seem to be in favor of this type of music in church, the ones in green are against it.
Nathan Rice: It was not supposed to be a worship song, just a "little fun before the service started".
Val: Who on earth has a "little fun" at church singing songs about drinking booze?!
John: Unfair. You don't know the people there. You don't have the full context. You make mistakes too. Aren't our words to be seasoned with grace?
Val: That isn't church. That's a bunch of boys who never grew up and they are pretending that they have their own TV show. The pastors have so little discernment.
Nathan Rice: Reasserts that the song wasn't technically during worship (though it started mere moments afterwards). Then implies that this criticism is taking advantage of these songs because they are the most convenient thing to pick on - in a church that doesn't fit our personal preferences and style.
Val: "Church is supposed to be the house of the Lord and the gathering of believers but your 'pastors' have turned it into an 'idol' factory. Your pastors have sinned by doing this. It is an offense against the Lord and it is an offense against his people. We have every right to be indignant regarding this travesty."
Nathan Rice: Asserts for the 3rd time that the song was played BEFORE church officially started, then argues with Val by saying: "Actually, 'church' is you. You are the church. I'll assume you're talking about a church gathering. Your statement that its 'supposed to be the house of the Lord' is not supported by the New Testament. And no, they haven't turned 'church' into an 'idol' factory."
Ken: Quotes Perry as saying that the critics can "kiss my rear end".
Jeannette: Remarks that NewSpring's pastor and Nathan Rice have forgotten what reverence is, then asks "Since when did entertainment become necessary to get 'loosened up' for worship?"
James: Favorably suggests thinking of these church services as "a show" rather than a service, and declares that there is no scripture that would be violated by having such "a show".
Nathan Rice: Asserts for the fourth time that this music was before church, and should be thought of in terms of the church announcement time or the time in which you talk with friends before church. He denies that there is any sin, and calls for anyone who thinks there is to prove it. Then whips out a Pharisee scripture and aims it at Jeannette.
Jim B.: I quote 1 John 2:15 on worldliness and cite Perry's past accolades for a drug pusher song.
Arthur: Mentions how the medium becomes the message in these churches, and tries to draw everyone back to whether it's biblical, citing: "Whatever is lovely, noble, pure etc. think on these things." Arthur goes on to quote Tony Morgan saying that "the church is impotent without technology".
James: Asks to have it pointed-out where this church is doing anything against scripture (he doesn't think they are).
Jessica: Thinks this entire conversation is sad, and that Christians shouldn't fight.
Nathan Rice: Cites the parable of the talents in support of his claim that it would be a mistake and perhaps even a sin to not use technology to evangelize (presumably the way NewSpring uses technology such as jumbotrons and massive sound systems). Earlier James reminded everyone of how air conditioning and microphones are "technology" too, therefore - we too embrace technology.
Nathan Rice: Thanks the website owner for not censoring or banning him like some "other" isolationist blogs. Is that a shot at me? Note that I've banned ~5 parties from Old Truth in the ~2 years I've been online, and Nathan happens to be one of them.
Sam and Jim B: Post almost simultaneous comments citing the many seeker blogs out there that likewise "ban and censor" comments that express our point of view, including Tony Morgan's blog.
James: Equates all of the church technology that he likes - with the invention of the printing press. He once again calls for evidence that any scripture was violated, and then for the 5th time, the "it was during announcements / not worship" defense is asserted. Then addresses me: "Jim, here is some 'old truth', early Christians would probably be more horrified by using the church bathroom than singing a silly song. Again, you can't say that singing this song is disrespectful but using the church bathroom is not. Let's be consistent." Sorry . . . he lost me on that line of reasoning; I don't get it.
Nathan Rice: Calls upon Sam to mix his criticisms with some positive exhortations for Perry Noble, just to be fair. Mentions me, and apparently takes another shot at me about Calvinism and evangelism (in one of his earlier times here on Old Truth Nathan claimed that those two things were incompatible). Next he outlines what seems right to him for "banning and censoring" practices.
Jim B: I point out to Nathan and James that they are not dealing with scripture, and are simply reasserting the same humanistic points over and over again in an attempt to exhaust everyone. I try once again to bring it back to scripture, specifically Titus 2 this time. They however make no attempt at interacting with this scripture at any point.
Ken: That whole "bathroom" thing of James' is just foolish.
Nathan Rice: Calls upon me to define "sinful worldliness" for him. If I hadn't grown weary of this whole discussion by this point, I would have given him Iain Murray's excellent definition of worldliness on this page.
James: Comments to me that he's still waiting for me to point out where NewSpring has done something unscriptural. He claims that I'm being subjective.
Jim W: The burden of proof is on you. The frustration is beginning to show at this point.
James: Claims that Perry is biblical because he holds to basic creedal type beliefs. James promises to keep defending NewSpring until someone gives him objective evidence of sin or heresy.
That's where the discussion ends, at the time I'm writing this. Though I'm guessing that our Athenian Spirit Award winners have much much more gas in their tank, to keep going with their "endless repeating loop" tactics, used for defending that which is new and pragmatically cool.
The full comments relating to that entire discussion can be found on this page. If anyone thinks that this is an example of good Christian debate (yes, there is such a thing), they are sadly mistaken. One side is making arguments that have a basis in scripture, the other side is simply stating their own human viewpoint over and over again. I'm afraid that nothing short of documented proof of genocide (or something comparable) will ever convince some folks that these types of churches are doing something offensive to God, and contrary to scripture. And what is most tragic, is that this particular church trains other churches how to do what they do, through their regular innovative church pastors conferences.
As they have done on Old Truth in the past, James and Nathan will likely continue to fight this out until they perceive that they are the last man standing, at which point - victory will be declared. In reality, they have simply worn everyone out by not listening and by not making scripture the primary basis for their opinions. That's not debate, and it's not even a biblical discussion for that matter, but their priorities are consistent with that Athenian spirit of "spending their time in nothing except telling or hearing something new" Acts 17:21.
PREACHING THE BOOK GOD WROTE PART 2 By John MacArthur
INERRANCY, EXEGESIS AND EXPOSITION
Postulates and Propositions
Let me propose five logically sequential postulates that introduce and undergird my main propositions. These five ideas also establish the true biblical basis for the doctrine of inerrancy:
1. God is (Gen 1:1; Pss 14, 53; Heb 11:6).
2. God is true (Exod 34:6; Num 23:19; Deut 32:4; Pss 25:10, 31:6; Isa 65:16; Jer 10:8, 10:11; John 14:6, 17:3; Titus 1:2; Heb 6:18; 1 John 5:20, 21).
3. God speaks in harmony with His nature (Num 23:19; 1 Sam 15:29; Rom 3:4; 2 Tim 2:13; Titus 1:2; Heb 6:18).
4. God speaks only truth (Pss 31:5, 119:43, 142, 151, 160; Prov 30:5; Isa 65:16; John 17:17; James 1:18).
5. God spoke His true Word as consistent with His true Nature to be communicated to people (a self-evident truth which is illustrated at 2 Tim 3:16-77; Heb 1:1).
Therefore, we must consider the following propositions.
1. God gave His true Word to be communicated entirely as He gave it, that is, the whole counsel of God is to be preached (Matt 28:20; Acts 5:20, 20:27). Correspondingly, every portion of the Word of God needs to be considered in the light of its whole.
2. God gave His true Word to be communicated exactly as He gave it. It is to be dispensed precisely as it was delivered without the message being altered.
3. Only the exegetical process which yields expository proclamation will accomplish propositions 1 and 2.
Inerrancy’s Link to Expository Preaching
Now, let me substantiate these propositions with answers to a series of questions. They will channel our thinking from the headwaters of God’s revelation to its intended destination.
1. Why preach? Very simply, God so commanded (2 Tim 4:2), and the Apostles so responded (Acts 6:4).
2. What should we preach? The Word of God—sola Scriptura and tota Scriptura (1 Tim 4:13; 2 Tim 4:2).
3. Who preaches? Holy men of God (Luke 1:70; Acts 3:21; Eph 3:5; 2 Pet 1:21; Rev 18:20, 22:6). Only after God had purified Isaiah’s lips was he ordained to preach (Isa 6:6-13).
4. What is the preacher’s responsibility? First, the preacher needs to realize that God’s Word is not the preacher’s word. But rather:
o He is a messenger, not an originator (euaggelizo).
o He is a sower, not the source (Matt 13:3, 19).
o He is a herald, not the authority (kerusso).
o He is a steward, not the owner (Col 1:25).
o He is the guide, not the author (Acts 8:31).
o He is the server of spiritual food, not the chef (John 21:15, 17).
Second, the preacher needs to reckon that Scripture is ho logos tou theou (the Word of God). When he is committed to this awesome truth and responsibility,
His aim, rather, will be to stand under Scripture, not over it, and to allow it, so to speak, to talk through him, delivering what is not so much his message as its. In our preaching, that is what should always be happening. In his obituary of the great German conductor, Otto Klemperer, Neville Cardus spoke of the way in which Klemperer “set the music in motion,” maintaining throughout a deliberately anonymous, self-effacing style in order that the musical notes might articulate themselves in their own integrity through him. So it must be in preaching; Scripture itself must do all the talking, and the preacher’s task is simply to “set the Bible in motion.” (Packer, Inerrancy and Common Sense, p. 203)
The expression “the Word of God” (logos theou in the Greek texts) is used 47 times in the New Testament. It is what Jesus preached (Luke 5:1). It was the message the Apostles taught (Acts 4:31, 6:2). It was the word the Samaritans received (Acts 8:14) as given by the Apostles (Acts 8:25). It was the message the Gentiles received as preached by Peter (Acts 1:1). It was the word Paul preached on his first missionary journey (Acts 13:5, 7, 44, 48, 49, 15:35-36). It was the message preached on Paul’s second missionary journey (Acts 16:32, 17:13, 18:11). It was the message Paul preached on his third missionary journey (Acts 19:10). It was the focus of Luke in the Book of Acts in that it grew (Acts 6:7, 12:24, 19:20). Paul was careful to tell the Corinthians that he spoke the Word as it was given from God, that it had not been adulterated and that it was a manifestation of truth (2 Cor 2:17, 4:2). Paul acknowledged that it was the source of his preaching (Col 1:25; 1 Thess 2:13).
As it was with Christ and the apostles, so Scripture is also to be delivered by preachers today in such a way that they can say, “Thus saith the Lord.” Their responsibility is to deliver it as it was originally given and intended.
(To be continued tomorrow)
Postulates and Propositions
Let me propose five logically sequential postulates that introduce and undergird my main propositions. These five ideas also establish the true biblical basis for the doctrine of inerrancy:
1. God is (Gen 1:1; Pss 14, 53; Heb 11:6).
2. God is true (Exod 34:6; Num 23:19; Deut 32:4; Pss 25:10, 31:6; Isa 65:16; Jer 10:8, 10:11; John 14:6, 17:3; Titus 1:2; Heb 6:18; 1 John 5:20, 21).
3. God speaks in harmony with His nature (Num 23:19; 1 Sam 15:29; Rom 3:4; 2 Tim 2:13; Titus 1:2; Heb 6:18).
4. God speaks only truth (Pss 31:5, 119:43, 142, 151, 160; Prov 30:5; Isa 65:16; John 17:17; James 1:18).
5. God spoke His true Word as consistent with His true Nature to be communicated to people (a self-evident truth which is illustrated at 2 Tim 3:16-77; Heb 1:1).
Therefore, we must consider the following propositions.
1. God gave His true Word to be communicated entirely as He gave it, that is, the whole counsel of God is to be preached (Matt 28:20; Acts 5:20, 20:27). Correspondingly, every portion of the Word of God needs to be considered in the light of its whole.
2. God gave His true Word to be communicated exactly as He gave it. It is to be dispensed precisely as it was delivered without the message being altered.
3. Only the exegetical process which yields expository proclamation will accomplish propositions 1 and 2.
Inerrancy’s Link to Expository Preaching
Now, let me substantiate these propositions with answers to a series of questions. They will channel our thinking from the headwaters of God’s revelation to its intended destination.
1. Why preach? Very simply, God so commanded (2 Tim 4:2), and the Apostles so responded (Acts 6:4).
2. What should we preach? The Word of God—sola Scriptura and tota Scriptura (1 Tim 4:13; 2 Tim 4:2).
3. Who preaches? Holy men of God (Luke 1:70; Acts 3:21; Eph 3:5; 2 Pet 1:21; Rev 18:20, 22:6). Only after God had purified Isaiah’s lips was he ordained to preach (Isa 6:6-13).
4. What is the preacher’s responsibility? First, the preacher needs to realize that God’s Word is not the preacher’s word. But rather:
o He is a messenger, not an originator (euaggelizo).
o He is a sower, not the source (Matt 13:3, 19).
o He is a herald, not the authority (kerusso).
o He is a steward, not the owner (Col 1:25).
o He is the guide, not the author (Acts 8:31).
o He is the server of spiritual food, not the chef (John 21:15, 17).
Second, the preacher needs to reckon that Scripture is ho logos tou theou (the Word of God). When he is committed to this awesome truth and responsibility,
His aim, rather, will be to stand under Scripture, not over it, and to allow it, so to speak, to talk through him, delivering what is not so much his message as its. In our preaching, that is what should always be happening. In his obituary of the great German conductor, Otto Klemperer, Neville Cardus spoke of the way in which Klemperer “set the music in motion,” maintaining throughout a deliberately anonymous, self-effacing style in order that the musical notes might articulate themselves in their own integrity through him. So it must be in preaching; Scripture itself must do all the talking, and the preacher’s task is simply to “set the Bible in motion.” (Packer, Inerrancy and Common Sense, p. 203)
The expression “the Word of God” (logos theou in the Greek texts) is used 47 times in the New Testament. It is what Jesus preached (Luke 5:1). It was the message the Apostles taught (Acts 4:31, 6:2). It was the word the Samaritans received (Acts 8:14) as given by the Apostles (Acts 8:25). It was the message the Gentiles received as preached by Peter (Acts 1:1). It was the word Paul preached on his first missionary journey (Acts 13:5, 7, 44, 48, 49, 15:35-36). It was the message preached on Paul’s second missionary journey (Acts 16:32, 17:13, 18:11). It was the message Paul preached on his third missionary journey (Acts 19:10). It was the focus of Luke in the Book of Acts in that it grew (Acts 6:7, 12:24, 19:20). Paul was careful to tell the Corinthians that he spoke the Word as it was given from God, that it had not been adulterated and that it was a manifestation of truth (2 Cor 2:17, 4:2). Paul acknowledged that it was the source of his preaching (Col 1:25; 1 Thess 2:13).
As it was with Christ and the apostles, so Scripture is also to be delivered by preachers today in such a way that they can say, “Thus saith the Lord.” Their responsibility is to deliver it as it was originally given and intended.
(To be continued tomorrow)
Monday, May 28, 2007
A Few Things To Remember . . . Phil Ryken
on Memorial Day, 2007.Remember the men and women who have given their lives -- in some cases valiantly -- to gain and protect our religious freedom in America, which is a gift from God.Remember the many faithful gospel ministers who serve as chaplains in the United States Armed Services.Remember the men and women who presently serve in the military -- including, I may add, sons of Tenth Church who are in Iraq or heading there soon -- asking God to enable them to do their work safely, righteously, and for the real benefit of others (not just Americans, but also the people of other nations
Q&A WITH DR. RC. SPROUL
How do you know the Bible is true?That’s an excellent question because so much is at stake in the Christian faith in terms of the truthfulness of Scripture. The Bible is our primary source of information about Jesus and about all of those things we embrace as elements of our faith. Of course, if the Bible isn’t true, then professing Christians are in serious trouble. I believe the Bible is true. I believe it is the Word of God. As Jesus himself declared of the Scripture, “Your word is truth.” But why am I persuaded that the Bible is the truth? We need to ask a broader question first. How do we know that anything is true? We’re asking a technical question in epistemology. How do we test claims of truth? There is a certain kind of truth that we test through observation, experimentation, eyewitness, examination, and scientific evidence. As far as the history of Jesus is concerned, as far as we know any history, we want to check the stories of Scripture using those means by which historical evidence can be tested—through archaeology, for example. There are certain elements of the Scripture, such as historical claims, that are to be measured by the common standards of historiography. I invite people to do that—to check it out. Second, we want to test the claims of truth through the test of rationality. Is it logically consistent, or does it speak with a “forked tongue”? We examine the content of Scripture to see if it is coherent. That’s another test of truth. One of the most astonishing things, of course, is that the Bible has literally thousands of testable historical prophecies, cases in which events were clearly foretold, and both the foretelling and the fulfillment are a matter of historical record. The very dimension of the sheer fulfillment of prophecy of the Old Testament Scriptures should be enough to convince anyone that we are dealing with a supernatural piece of literature. Of course, some theologians have said that with all of the evidence there is that Scripture is true, we can truly embrace it only with the Holy Spirit working in us to overcome our biases and prejudices against Scripture, against God. In theology, this is called the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit. I want to stress at this point that when the Holy Spirit helps me to see the truth of Scripture and to embrace the truth of Scripture, it’s not because the Holy Spirit is giving me some special insight that he doesn’t give to somebody else or is giving me special information that nobody else can have. All the Holy Spirit does is change my heart, change my disposition toward the evidence that is already there. I think that God himself has planted within the Scriptures an internal consistency that bears witness that this is his Word.
On Eternity
Eternity to the godly is a day that has no sunset; eternity to the wicked is a night that has no sunrise. [Thomas Watson]
PREACHING THE BOOK GOD WROTE By John MacArthur
We believe in biblical inerrancy. So what? How does the truth of biblical inerrancy and the authority of God’s written revelation affect what we preach and how we minister? There’s little point in defending the inerrancy of Scripture if we’re unwilling to bow to the authority of Scripture in our approach to ministry.
This article is adapted from a paper written by John MacArthur at the height of the inerrancy debate in the early 1980s.
The theological highlight of 20th Century had to be evangelicalism’s intense focus on the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. [1] Much of what was written defending inerrancy in the 1970s and ‘80s represented the most acute theological reasoning our generation has produced.
Yet it seems our practical commitment to inerrancy is somewhat lacking. The modern evangelical’s commitment to the authority and inerrancy of the Bible doesn’t always flesh out in ministry. Shouldn’t our preaching reflect our conviction that God’s Word is infallibly authoritative? Too often, it doesn’t. In fact, there is a discernable trend in contemporary evangelicalism away from biblical preaching, and a corresponding drift toward experience-centered, pragmatic, topical messages in the pulpit.
How can this be? Shouldn’t our preaching reflect our conviction that the Bible is the verbally inspired, inerrant Word of God? If we believe that “all Scripture is inspired by God” and inerrant, shouldn’t we be equally committed to the truth that it is “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work”? [2] Shouldn’t that magnificent truth determine how we preach?
Clearly it should. Paul gave this mandate to Timothy: “I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction.” [3] Any form of preaching that ignores the intended purpose and design of God is seriously deficient.
J. I. Packer has eloquently captured the pursuit of preaching:
Preaching appears in the Bible as a relaying of what God has said about Himself and His doings, and about men in relation to Him, plus a pressing of His commands, promises, warnings, and assurances, with a view to winning the hearer or hearers…to a positive response. [4]
The only logical response then to inerrant Scripture is to preach it expositionally. By expositionally, I mean preaching in such a way that the meaning of the biblical text is presented entirely and exactly as it was intended by God. Expository preaching is the proclamation of the truth of God as mediated through the preacher. [5]
Some who are known as expositors don’t even believe in biblical inerrancy. It might also be the case that most who affirm biblical inerrancy don’t practice expository preaching. (Again, the most popular trend among evangelicals these days is decidedly in the opposite direction—toward preaching driven by “felt needs,” and other topical approaches to the pulpit ministry.) These are baffling inconsistencies, because an inerrantist perspective demands expository preaching, and a non-inerrantist perspective makes expository preaching unnecessary.
Putting it another way, what does it matter that we have an inerrant text if we do not deal with the basic phenomena of communication, e.g. words, sentences, grammar, morphology, syntax, etc. And if we don’t, why bother preaching it?In his landmark work on exegetical theology, Walter Kaiser pointedly analyzed the anemic state of the church due to the inadequate feeding of the flock:
It is no secret that Christ’s Church is not at all in good health in many places of the world. She has been languishing because she has been fed, as the current line has it, “junk food”; all kinds of artificial preservatives and all sorts of unnatural substitutes have been served up to her. As a result, theological and Biblical malnutrition has afflicted the very generation that has taken such giant steps to make sure its physical health is not damaged by using foods or products that are carcinogenic or otherwise harmful to their physical bodies. Simultaneously a worldwide spiritual famine resulting from the absence of any genuine publication of the Word of God (Amos 8:11) continues to run wild and almost unabated in most quarters of the Church. [6]
The obvious cure for evangelicalism’s spiritual malnourishment is expository preaching.
The mandate is clear. Expository preaching is the declarative genre in which inerrancy finds its logical expression and the church its life and power. Stated simply, inerrancy demands exposition as the only method of preaching that preserves the purity of Scripture and accomplishes the purpose for which God gave us His Word.
Or, as R. B. Kuiper succinctly stated it: “The principle that Christian preaching is proclamation of the Word must obviously be determinative of the content of the sermon.” [7]
—–
Endnotes:
[1] The doctrine of biblical inerrancy is “the claim that when all facts are known, the scriptures in their original autographs and properly interpreted will be shown to be without error in all that they affirm to the degree of precision intended, whether that affirmation relates to doctrine, history, science, geography, geology, etc.” Paul D. Feinberg, “Infallibility and Inerrancy,” Trinity Journal, VI:2 (Fall, 1977), 120.
[2] 2 Tim 3:16-17
[3] 2 Tim 4:1-2, emphasis added
[4] James I. Packer, “Preaching As Biblical Interpretation,” Inerrancy And Common Sense, ed. Roger R. Nicole and J. Ramsey Michaels (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980), p. 189.
[5] D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Preaching and Preachers (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1971), p. 222.
[6] Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Toward An Exegetical Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981), pp. 7-8.
[7] R. B. Kuiper, “Scriptural Preaching,” The Infallible Word, 3rd rev. ed., ed. Paul Woolley (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1967), p. 217.
(To be continued tomorrow)
This article is adapted from a paper written by John MacArthur at the height of the inerrancy debate in the early 1980s.
The theological highlight of 20th Century had to be evangelicalism’s intense focus on the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. [1] Much of what was written defending inerrancy in the 1970s and ‘80s represented the most acute theological reasoning our generation has produced.
Yet it seems our practical commitment to inerrancy is somewhat lacking. The modern evangelical’s commitment to the authority and inerrancy of the Bible doesn’t always flesh out in ministry. Shouldn’t our preaching reflect our conviction that God’s Word is infallibly authoritative? Too often, it doesn’t. In fact, there is a discernable trend in contemporary evangelicalism away from biblical preaching, and a corresponding drift toward experience-centered, pragmatic, topical messages in the pulpit.
How can this be? Shouldn’t our preaching reflect our conviction that the Bible is the verbally inspired, inerrant Word of God? If we believe that “all Scripture is inspired by God” and inerrant, shouldn’t we be equally committed to the truth that it is “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work”? [2] Shouldn’t that magnificent truth determine how we preach?
Clearly it should. Paul gave this mandate to Timothy: “I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction.” [3] Any form of preaching that ignores the intended purpose and design of God is seriously deficient.
J. I. Packer has eloquently captured the pursuit of preaching:
Preaching appears in the Bible as a relaying of what God has said about Himself and His doings, and about men in relation to Him, plus a pressing of His commands, promises, warnings, and assurances, with a view to winning the hearer or hearers…to a positive response. [4]
The only logical response then to inerrant Scripture is to preach it expositionally. By expositionally, I mean preaching in such a way that the meaning of the biblical text is presented entirely and exactly as it was intended by God. Expository preaching is the proclamation of the truth of God as mediated through the preacher. [5]
Some who are known as expositors don’t even believe in biblical inerrancy. It might also be the case that most who affirm biblical inerrancy don’t practice expository preaching. (Again, the most popular trend among evangelicals these days is decidedly in the opposite direction—toward preaching driven by “felt needs,” and other topical approaches to the pulpit ministry.) These are baffling inconsistencies, because an inerrantist perspective demands expository preaching, and a non-inerrantist perspective makes expository preaching unnecessary.
Putting it another way, what does it matter that we have an inerrant text if we do not deal with the basic phenomena of communication, e.g. words, sentences, grammar, morphology, syntax, etc. And if we don’t, why bother preaching it?In his landmark work on exegetical theology, Walter Kaiser pointedly analyzed the anemic state of the church due to the inadequate feeding of the flock:
It is no secret that Christ’s Church is not at all in good health in many places of the world. She has been languishing because she has been fed, as the current line has it, “junk food”; all kinds of artificial preservatives and all sorts of unnatural substitutes have been served up to her. As a result, theological and Biblical malnutrition has afflicted the very generation that has taken such giant steps to make sure its physical health is not damaged by using foods or products that are carcinogenic or otherwise harmful to their physical bodies. Simultaneously a worldwide spiritual famine resulting from the absence of any genuine publication of the Word of God (Amos 8:11) continues to run wild and almost unabated in most quarters of the Church. [6]
The obvious cure for evangelicalism’s spiritual malnourishment is expository preaching.
The mandate is clear. Expository preaching is the declarative genre in which inerrancy finds its logical expression and the church its life and power. Stated simply, inerrancy demands exposition as the only method of preaching that preserves the purity of Scripture and accomplishes the purpose for which God gave us His Word.
Or, as R. B. Kuiper succinctly stated it: “The principle that Christian preaching is proclamation of the Word must obviously be determinative of the content of the sermon.” [7]
—–
Endnotes:
[1] The doctrine of biblical inerrancy is “the claim that when all facts are known, the scriptures in their original autographs and properly interpreted will be shown to be without error in all that they affirm to the degree of precision intended, whether that affirmation relates to doctrine, history, science, geography, geology, etc.” Paul D. Feinberg, “Infallibility and Inerrancy,” Trinity Journal, VI:2 (Fall, 1977), 120.
[2] 2 Tim 3:16-17
[3] 2 Tim 4:1-2, emphasis added
[4] James I. Packer, “Preaching As Biblical Interpretation,” Inerrancy And Common Sense, ed. Roger R. Nicole and J. Ramsey Michaels (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980), p. 189.
[5] D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Preaching and Preachers (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1971), p. 222.
[6] Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Toward An Exegetical Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981), pp. 7-8.
[7] R. B. Kuiper, “Scriptural Preaching,” The Infallible Word, 3rd rev. ed., ed. Paul Woolley (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1967), p. 217.
(To be continued tomorrow)
Sunday, May 27, 2007
STYLE OR SUBSTANCE ? By John MacArthur
What’s the Biggest Problem with Contemporary Church Music?
It should be clear to anyone who examines the subject carefully that modern church music, as a rule, is vastly inferior to the classic hymns that were being written 200 years ago.
And incidentally, my own assessment is that the style in which music is written today isn’t really the biggest problem with contemporary music. Styles change. Bad church music isn’t bad just because it is “contemporary.” But the content of the lyrics is what reveals most graphically how low our standards have slipped.
This is not a problem that arose with the current generation. It dates back to an era whose musical style would seem quite old-fashioned by anyone’s standards today.
Before the middle part of the 19th century or so, hymns were wonderful didactic tools, filled with Scripture and sound doctrine, a medium for teaching and admonishing one another, as we are commanded in Colossians 3:16. Most hymns were written not by teenagers with guitars, but by pastors and theologians: Charles Wesley, Augustus Toplady, Isaac Watts.
Consider the profound content of this hymn about God’s attributes, written by Walter C. Smith in the 1800s:
Immortal, invisibleImmortal, invisible, God only wise,In light inaccessible hid from our eyes,Most blessed, most glorious, the Ancient of Days,Almighty, victorious, Thy great Name we praise.
Unresting, unhasting, and silent as light,Nor wanting, nor wasting, Thou rulest in might;Thy justice, like mountains, high soaring aboveThy clouds, which are fountains of goodness and love.
To all, life Thou givest, to both great and small;In all life Thou livest, the true life of all;We blossom and flourish as leaves on the tree,And wither and perish—but naught changeth Thee.
Great Father of glory, pure Father of light,Thine angels adore Thee, all veiling their sight;But of all Thy rich graces this grace, Lord, impartTake the veil from our faces, the vile from our heart.
All laud we would render; O help us to see‘Tis only the splendor of light hideth Thee,And so let Thy glory, Almighty, impart,Through Christ in His story, Thy Christ to the heart.
Around the start of the twentieth century, however, church music took a different direction. Musicians and singers without formal pastoral or theological training (such as Ira Sankey and Philip Bliss) became the dominant songwriters in the church. Choruses with lighter, simpler subject matter proliferated. Popular Christian music became more subjective. Songs focused on personal experience and the feelings of the worshiper. The newer compositions were often called “gospel songs” to distinguish them from “hymns.”
Consider this familiar chorus, written in 1912 by C. Austin Miles:
In the GardenI come to the garden aloneWhile the dew is still on the rosesAnd the voice I hear falling on my earThe Son of God discloses.
And He walks with me, and He talks with me,And He tells me I am His own;And the joy we share as we tarry there,None other has ever known.
He speaks, and the sound of His voice,Is so sweet the birds hush their singing,And the melody that He gave to meWithin my heart is ringing.
I’d stay in the garden with HimThough the night around me be falling,But He bids me go; through the voice of woeHis voice to me is calling.
Aside from an oblique reference to “the Son of God” in the last line of the first stanza, there’s no distinctly Christian content to that song at all.
“In the Garden” is by no means the only wretched favorite from the gospel-song era, either. “Love Lifted Me” (1912) and “Count Your Blessings” (1897) are two more “gospel songs” without much actual gospel content. If you want to see what thin gruel some of the “oldies” offer by way of actual biblical or doctrinal substance, review almost any random list of favorite old “gospel songs.”
Modern musicians have pushed this trend even further and often see music as little more than a device for stimulating intense emotion. The biblically-mandated didactic role of music is all but forgotten.
The effect is predictable. What we have sown for several generations we are now reaping in frightening abundance. The modern church, fed on choruses with insipid lyrics, has no appetite for her own great tradition of didactic hymnody.
We are in danger of losing a rich heritage as some of the best hymns of our faith fall into neglect and disuse, being replaced with banal lyrics set to catchy tunes. It is a crisis, and the church is suffering spiritually. Both pastors and church musicians need to see the severity of the crisis and work diligently for reform.
It should be clear to anyone who examines the subject carefully that modern church music, as a rule, is vastly inferior to the classic hymns that were being written 200 years ago.
And incidentally, my own assessment is that the style in which music is written today isn’t really the biggest problem with contemporary music. Styles change. Bad church music isn’t bad just because it is “contemporary.” But the content of the lyrics is what reveals most graphically how low our standards have slipped.
This is not a problem that arose with the current generation. It dates back to an era whose musical style would seem quite old-fashioned by anyone’s standards today.
Before the middle part of the 19th century or so, hymns were wonderful didactic tools, filled with Scripture and sound doctrine, a medium for teaching and admonishing one another, as we are commanded in Colossians 3:16. Most hymns were written not by teenagers with guitars, but by pastors and theologians: Charles Wesley, Augustus Toplady, Isaac Watts.
Consider the profound content of this hymn about God’s attributes, written by Walter C. Smith in the 1800s:
Immortal, invisibleImmortal, invisible, God only wise,In light inaccessible hid from our eyes,Most blessed, most glorious, the Ancient of Days,Almighty, victorious, Thy great Name we praise.
Unresting, unhasting, and silent as light,Nor wanting, nor wasting, Thou rulest in might;Thy justice, like mountains, high soaring aboveThy clouds, which are fountains of goodness and love.
To all, life Thou givest, to both great and small;In all life Thou livest, the true life of all;We blossom and flourish as leaves on the tree,And wither and perish—but naught changeth Thee.
Great Father of glory, pure Father of light,Thine angels adore Thee, all veiling their sight;But of all Thy rich graces this grace, Lord, impartTake the veil from our faces, the vile from our heart.
All laud we would render; O help us to see‘Tis only the splendor of light hideth Thee,And so let Thy glory, Almighty, impart,Through Christ in His story, Thy Christ to the heart.
Around the start of the twentieth century, however, church music took a different direction. Musicians and singers without formal pastoral or theological training (such as Ira Sankey and Philip Bliss) became the dominant songwriters in the church. Choruses with lighter, simpler subject matter proliferated. Popular Christian music became more subjective. Songs focused on personal experience and the feelings of the worshiper. The newer compositions were often called “gospel songs” to distinguish them from “hymns.”
Consider this familiar chorus, written in 1912 by C. Austin Miles:
In the GardenI come to the garden aloneWhile the dew is still on the rosesAnd the voice I hear falling on my earThe Son of God discloses.
And He walks with me, and He talks with me,And He tells me I am His own;And the joy we share as we tarry there,None other has ever known.
He speaks, and the sound of His voice,Is so sweet the birds hush their singing,And the melody that He gave to meWithin my heart is ringing.
I’d stay in the garden with HimThough the night around me be falling,But He bids me go; through the voice of woeHis voice to me is calling.
Aside from an oblique reference to “the Son of God” in the last line of the first stanza, there’s no distinctly Christian content to that song at all.
“In the Garden” is by no means the only wretched favorite from the gospel-song era, either. “Love Lifted Me” (1912) and “Count Your Blessings” (1897) are two more “gospel songs” without much actual gospel content. If you want to see what thin gruel some of the “oldies” offer by way of actual biblical or doctrinal substance, review almost any random list of favorite old “gospel songs.”
Modern musicians have pushed this trend even further and often see music as little more than a device for stimulating intense emotion. The biblically-mandated didactic role of music is all but forgotten.
The effect is predictable. What we have sown for several generations we are now reaping in frightening abundance. The modern church, fed on choruses with insipid lyrics, has no appetite for her own great tradition of didactic hymnody.
We are in danger of losing a rich heritage as some of the best hymns of our faith fall into neglect and disuse, being replaced with banal lyrics set to catchy tunes. It is a crisis, and the church is suffering spiritually. Both pastors and church musicians need to see the severity of the crisis and work diligently for reform.
What's life worth?
If life be worth all; then hereby we may take measure of the love and bounty of Christ to poor sinners, who not only spent himself in all to his life, but spent life and all that they might not perish. How superabundant was his grace towards us, that though he was the Prince of Life, (Acts 3:15 Yet became obedient unto death of the cross. (Phil 2:8) that we might live. If a man loves his life, so that he will give skin for skin, and all that he hath, to redeem it; then O how did Christ love His church, who gave not only His riches, and his reputation, but His life also, for its redemption. [Joseph Caryl]
Saturday, May 26, 2007
"Trust Your Heart and Good Intentions", Right?
Quoting William Gurnall . . .
If the message of a man's own good works compares favorably to everyone else's-- i.e., if they are not noticeably meaner or viler than his neighbor's--he thinks he can pass God's inspection. Before the Holy Spirit can convict such a person of his need of Christ, he must agree with God that all his righteousness is but filthy rags. It may help him understand his own wickedness if he sees how utterly polluted the spring is that incessantly feeds it. Can you somehow get a mental picture of the monstrous intensity of Satan's wickedness? Then you have an idea of every man's potential for evil.
The finest human being -- the most sincere philanthropist or moral crusader--has within him the same seeds of corruption, the same potential for wickedness as the devil himself. If his true nature has not yet shown through, it is because God's grace is intervening. For until you are made a new creature in Christ, you are of the same brood as the Serpent; his seed is in you. And the devil can only beget a child like himself.
Sinner, if you do not blossom into Satan's likeness here on earth, you can be sure you will in hell. There the flames will wash off the paint that hides your true complexion. In heaven, the saints will be like angels in alacrity, love, and constancy to God; in hell, the damned will be like the devils, in sin as well as in punishment. Before you excuse yourself by claiming "good intentions", know this; If your heart is good, then so is the devil's! His nature is wicked, and so is yours! The blemishes which you think are so small and insignificant are symptoms of a deadly disease within. Without Gospel medicine--the blood of Christ--applied to you personally, you will die a leper. Sin is a hereditary disease that increases with age: a young sinner will be an old devil. And the malady is always passed on to the next generation.
From:
The Christian in Complete Armour, (year 1665)
If the message of a man's own good works compares favorably to everyone else's-- i.e., if they are not noticeably meaner or viler than his neighbor's--he thinks he can pass God's inspection. Before the Holy Spirit can convict such a person of his need of Christ, he must agree with God that all his righteousness is but filthy rags. It may help him understand his own wickedness if he sees how utterly polluted the spring is that incessantly feeds it. Can you somehow get a mental picture of the monstrous intensity of Satan's wickedness? Then you have an idea of every man's potential for evil.
The finest human being -- the most sincere philanthropist or moral crusader--has within him the same seeds of corruption, the same potential for wickedness as the devil himself. If his true nature has not yet shown through, it is because God's grace is intervening. For until you are made a new creature in Christ, you are of the same brood as the Serpent; his seed is in you. And the devil can only beget a child like himself.
Sinner, if you do not blossom into Satan's likeness here on earth, you can be sure you will in hell. There the flames will wash off the paint that hides your true complexion. In heaven, the saints will be like angels in alacrity, love, and constancy to God; in hell, the damned will be like the devils, in sin as well as in punishment. Before you excuse yourself by claiming "good intentions", know this; If your heart is good, then so is the devil's! His nature is wicked, and so is yours! The blemishes which you think are so small and insignificant are symptoms of a deadly disease within. Without Gospel medicine--the blood of Christ--applied to you personally, you will die a leper. Sin is a hereditary disease that increases with age: a young sinner will be an old devil. And the malady is always passed on to the next generation.
From:
The Christian in Complete Armour, (year 1665)
The Efficacy of Prayer
The Lord will regard the prayers of his people; the efficacy of their prayers depends upon this, because it is God's own work. That which is the work of God is not in vain. Now all the calling upon God, it is from God; it is God's own work and a most glorious piece of the work of God. Every prayer that comes from the poorest Saints of God; every gracious, and faithful prayer, it is a glorious piece of God's work; it is a work of the holy Ghost, and therefore it is not in vain. [Jeremiah Burroughs]
ASSURANCE By Nathan Williams
The topic of assurance of salvation has become a fascinating topic to me over the last 6 months. It all began when I took a class on the writings of Jonathan Edwards and the teacher said that he normally tells his students that if they read Religious Affections by Edwards and don’t doubt their salvation, they might not be a Christian. When I was much younger I remember an evangelist coming to my church and telling us exactly how he felt we could gain assurance of salvation. He said that what we needed to do was write the date when we made a decision for Christ in the front of our Bibles. Then, when Satan would tempt us or doubts would arise, we could flip open our Bibles and say “See, look at that date, I made a decision for Christ and I even have it written down inside my Bible!”
One of the more interesting aspects of assurance of salvation is the difference in the way Scripture tells us to evaluate the salvation of those around us and the way we evaluate our own salvation. Ultimately, it is impossible to be sure of the salvation of another. However, we do have certain criteria from Scripture with which to assess whether or not spiritual life exists in someone else. In Matthew 7:17-18 Jesus tells us that good trees produce good fruit and bad trees produce bad fruit. In some ways it is quite simple to evaluate the spiritual state of another person. Good fruit means you are looking at a good tree and bad fruit means you are looking at a bad tree. Ephesians 2:10 tells us that we were created in Christ Jesus for the purpose of performing good works. Again, we can look at the life of someone claiming to be a Christian and look at what the Bible considers good works and see if their life is producing good works. The basic principle is simple and vital, but because so much is based on internal motivation, it is ultimately impossible to know for certain the spiritual state of another.
This being said, I fear that sometimes we put an overemphasis on personal evaluation when it comes to gaining assurance of our own salvation. We look at the works of others and make judgment calls on their salvation and do the same thing to ourselves. This principle is definitely one aspect of assurance. We cannot expect to be living in the joy of assurance while we are living lifestyles which would be contrary to the Word of God. While looking at our own works and evaluating them in the light of Scripture is certainly important, it cannot be all we do to appraise our own state before God. Many times we become so introspective that we forget about the cross and the work Christ accomplished there on our behalf. In Assured by God, Richard Phillips had this to say concerning this issue:
“Let us find assurance not by long meditation on our own souls, not by pondering questions of assurance itself, but through an ever-absorbing interest in the saving blood of Jesus Christ.”
R.L. Dabney also spoke to this tendency of over self-examination in believers seeking assurance:
“The habit of introspection may be abused, to divert the eyes of the soul too much from Christ”
No doubt, we should test ourselves to see whether we are in the faith (2 Cor. 13:5). But often when we do this we begin to act as if we had something to do with our justification. The simple child-like trust in our sovereign God goes out the window. We are no longer focused on what He has done for us, but whether or not we have exercised enough faith. Thus, like everything else in our lives, even the assurance of salvation can become a self-centered pursuit rather than a God-centered pursuit. Erickson says this of faith:
“As repentance is the negative aspect of conversion, turning from one’s sin, so faith is the positive aspect, laying hold of the promises and the work of Christ.”
Our focus should always be on the cross-work of Jesus Christ. The faith we first exercise at the moment of salvation is the same faith that sustains us throughout our Christian lives. This is a faith that believes the facts about Christ and relies on those facts for salvation. It lays hold of the promises and the work of Christ. Inherent within this faith is what we call assurance of salvation. If you are dealing with someone who doubts their salvation, by all means examine the fruit showing in their life. But don’t stop there, go on to remind them of the promises and work of Christ they originally believed in and relied on for salvation. This is where true assurance is found, in God and not in us.
One of the more interesting aspects of assurance of salvation is the difference in the way Scripture tells us to evaluate the salvation of those around us and the way we evaluate our own salvation. Ultimately, it is impossible to be sure of the salvation of another. However, we do have certain criteria from Scripture with which to assess whether or not spiritual life exists in someone else. In Matthew 7:17-18 Jesus tells us that good trees produce good fruit and bad trees produce bad fruit. In some ways it is quite simple to evaluate the spiritual state of another person. Good fruit means you are looking at a good tree and bad fruit means you are looking at a bad tree. Ephesians 2:10 tells us that we were created in Christ Jesus for the purpose of performing good works. Again, we can look at the life of someone claiming to be a Christian and look at what the Bible considers good works and see if their life is producing good works. The basic principle is simple and vital, but because so much is based on internal motivation, it is ultimately impossible to know for certain the spiritual state of another.
This being said, I fear that sometimes we put an overemphasis on personal evaluation when it comes to gaining assurance of our own salvation. We look at the works of others and make judgment calls on their salvation and do the same thing to ourselves. This principle is definitely one aspect of assurance. We cannot expect to be living in the joy of assurance while we are living lifestyles which would be contrary to the Word of God. While looking at our own works and evaluating them in the light of Scripture is certainly important, it cannot be all we do to appraise our own state before God. Many times we become so introspective that we forget about the cross and the work Christ accomplished there on our behalf. In Assured by God, Richard Phillips had this to say concerning this issue:
“Let us find assurance not by long meditation on our own souls, not by pondering questions of assurance itself, but through an ever-absorbing interest in the saving blood of Jesus Christ.”
R.L. Dabney also spoke to this tendency of over self-examination in believers seeking assurance:
“The habit of introspection may be abused, to divert the eyes of the soul too much from Christ”
No doubt, we should test ourselves to see whether we are in the faith (2 Cor. 13:5). But often when we do this we begin to act as if we had something to do with our justification. The simple child-like trust in our sovereign God goes out the window. We are no longer focused on what He has done for us, but whether or not we have exercised enough faith. Thus, like everything else in our lives, even the assurance of salvation can become a self-centered pursuit rather than a God-centered pursuit. Erickson says this of faith:
“As repentance is the negative aspect of conversion, turning from one’s sin, so faith is the positive aspect, laying hold of the promises and the work of Christ.”
Our focus should always be on the cross-work of Jesus Christ. The faith we first exercise at the moment of salvation is the same faith that sustains us throughout our Christian lives. This is a faith that believes the facts about Christ and relies on those facts for salvation. It lays hold of the promises and the work of Christ. Inherent within this faith is what we call assurance of salvation. If you are dealing with someone who doubts their salvation, by all means examine the fruit showing in their life. But don’t stop there, go on to remind them of the promises and work of Christ they originally believed in and relied on for salvation. This is where true assurance is found, in God and not in us.
Friday, May 25, 2007
THE TIES THAT BIND By John MacArthur
Have you ever noticed how different the individual members of the same family can be? One child may be melancholy while another is a live wire. One may be especially gifted in music, and another, who has no interest in music, may excel in sports. In some cases they look nothing like each other or even their parents. Yet the members of a family share a bond stronger than their differences.
In the same way, within the Body of Christ churches develop their own unique personalities. Some may insist on formal worship services, while others thrive in a relaxed atmosphere. But the most important thing about a church isn’t the superficial things that make it different, but what it has in common with other Christian assemblies.
There are certain truths—fundamental doctrines—that every true church is committed to. These doctrines are unalterable; they cannot be compromised in any way. They are non-negotiable. Yield on any one point, and the church ceases to be a church. Here are five foundational truths that distinguish all authentic churches.
A High View of God
It is essential that a church perceive itself as a body of believers designed for the glory of God. Unfortunately, most churches today have deviated from that priority and developed a human focus: meeting man’s felt needs. Instead of faithfully proclaiming God’s sufficient Word to direct people’s minds toward God, church leaders respond to superficial needs with temporary solutions like psychology, self-esteem, entertainment, or a myriad of other diversions.
As a result, the church is no longer an organism that emphasizes knowing and glorifying God; it is an organization that tries to help people feel good about themselves. But if you know and glorify God, you don’t need to be concerned about your needs because “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Prov. 9:10). When your relationship with God is right, your perspective on your needs will also be right. That doesn’t mean we should ignore people’s needs—we are to be concerned about people the same way God is. But there must be a balance, and it begins with a high view of God.
We must take God seriously and exalt Him. Yes, we are to reach out to people with the love of Christ, but God must be the focus of our worship and our life.
The Absolute Authority of Scripture
A second non-negotiable truth is the absolute authority of Scripture. God reveals Himself primarily through the pages of Scripture; that is why we must uphold it as our absolute authority.
Because we believe Scripture is true, we must proclaim it with conviction and without compromise or apology. The Bible makes bold claims, and Christians who believe it ought to affirm it boldly.
Anyone who faithfully and correctly proclaims the Word of God will speak with authority. It is not our own authority. Insofar as our teaching accurately reflects the truth of Scripture, it has the full weight of God’s own authority behind it. That is a staggering thought, but it is precisely how 1 Peter 4:11 instructs us to handle biblical truth: “If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God.”
If the Bible is true, then it is also authoritative. As divinely revealed truth, it carries the full weight of God’s own authority. If you claim to believe the Bible at all, you ultimately must bow to its authority. That means making it the final arbiter of truth—the rule by which every other opinion is evaluated.
Sound Doctrine
Another non-negotiable for the church is sound doctrine. If you have a high view of God and are committed to Him, you will obey His Word. The content of God’s Word is sound doctrine.
Countless Christians today are vague about doctrine. Many pastors offer short sermons that might excite or make their congregations feel better, but they have little to do with truths that matter. We need truths that we can hold on to—truths about God, life and death, heaven and hell, man and sin, redemption through Christ, the ministry of the Holy Spirit and angels, the believer’s position in Christ, and Satan and his realm. You need to be able to read a biblical text, discover what it says, and draw out divine principles. God’s people need solid doctrine to build their lives on.
Personal Holiness
We must draw lines when it comes to personal holiness and be careful what we expose ourselves and our children to. We dare not lower our standards to those of the world. Christians are called to live a pure life, and we can’t compromise that.
Second Corinthians 7:1 says, “Having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.” A church must enforce that standard (see Matt. 18:15-17). That’s why we implement church discipline where I pastor. If someone sins, we confront him or her for their own good and the good of the church as a whole.
Many Christians aren’t as concerned about their personal holiness as they should be. Where are you in terms of holiness and real communion with the living God? Church leaders aren’t the only ones who should live holy lives. You can’t have a half-hearted commitment to God and expect Him to work through you.
Spiritual Authority
One more component that’s true of a biblical church is spiritual authority. A church must understand that Christ is the head of the church (Eph. 1:22; 4:15) and that He mediates His rule in the church through godly elders (1 Thess. 5:13-14; Heb. 13:7, 17).
Hebrews 13 says to submit to those over you in the Lord, for they watch your souls. Follow their example. Paul says to “recognize those who labor among you, and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in love for their work’s sake” (1 Thess. 5:12-13).
I am one of many leaders at our church. I happen to be the one whom God chose to preach, but I am one elder among many. While there are variations in the giftedness of spiritual leaders, there is still an equality of spiritual authority among those the Bible calls elders or overseers. Such spiritual leadership is essential to the church of Jesus Christ. That’s why the church must be committed to training and obeying godly leaders.
There is room for diversity within the Body of Christ. But every true church is united by certain non-negotiables. Make sure you and your church are committed to the ties that bind.
In the same way, within the Body of Christ churches develop their own unique personalities. Some may insist on formal worship services, while others thrive in a relaxed atmosphere. But the most important thing about a church isn’t the superficial things that make it different, but what it has in common with other Christian assemblies.
There are certain truths—fundamental doctrines—that every true church is committed to. These doctrines are unalterable; they cannot be compromised in any way. They are non-negotiable. Yield on any one point, and the church ceases to be a church. Here are five foundational truths that distinguish all authentic churches.
A High View of God
It is essential that a church perceive itself as a body of believers designed for the glory of God. Unfortunately, most churches today have deviated from that priority and developed a human focus: meeting man’s felt needs. Instead of faithfully proclaiming God’s sufficient Word to direct people’s minds toward God, church leaders respond to superficial needs with temporary solutions like psychology, self-esteem, entertainment, or a myriad of other diversions.
As a result, the church is no longer an organism that emphasizes knowing and glorifying God; it is an organization that tries to help people feel good about themselves. But if you know and glorify God, you don’t need to be concerned about your needs because “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Prov. 9:10). When your relationship with God is right, your perspective on your needs will also be right. That doesn’t mean we should ignore people’s needs—we are to be concerned about people the same way God is. But there must be a balance, and it begins with a high view of God.
We must take God seriously and exalt Him. Yes, we are to reach out to people with the love of Christ, but God must be the focus of our worship and our life.
The Absolute Authority of Scripture
A second non-negotiable truth is the absolute authority of Scripture. God reveals Himself primarily through the pages of Scripture; that is why we must uphold it as our absolute authority.
Because we believe Scripture is true, we must proclaim it with conviction and without compromise or apology. The Bible makes bold claims, and Christians who believe it ought to affirm it boldly.
Anyone who faithfully and correctly proclaims the Word of God will speak with authority. It is not our own authority. Insofar as our teaching accurately reflects the truth of Scripture, it has the full weight of God’s own authority behind it. That is a staggering thought, but it is precisely how 1 Peter 4:11 instructs us to handle biblical truth: “If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God.”
If the Bible is true, then it is also authoritative. As divinely revealed truth, it carries the full weight of God’s own authority. If you claim to believe the Bible at all, you ultimately must bow to its authority. That means making it the final arbiter of truth—the rule by which every other opinion is evaluated.
Sound Doctrine
Another non-negotiable for the church is sound doctrine. If you have a high view of God and are committed to Him, you will obey His Word. The content of God’s Word is sound doctrine.
Countless Christians today are vague about doctrine. Many pastors offer short sermons that might excite or make their congregations feel better, but they have little to do with truths that matter. We need truths that we can hold on to—truths about God, life and death, heaven and hell, man and sin, redemption through Christ, the ministry of the Holy Spirit and angels, the believer’s position in Christ, and Satan and his realm. You need to be able to read a biblical text, discover what it says, and draw out divine principles. God’s people need solid doctrine to build their lives on.
Personal Holiness
We must draw lines when it comes to personal holiness and be careful what we expose ourselves and our children to. We dare not lower our standards to those of the world. Christians are called to live a pure life, and we can’t compromise that.
Second Corinthians 7:1 says, “Having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.” A church must enforce that standard (see Matt. 18:15-17). That’s why we implement church discipline where I pastor. If someone sins, we confront him or her for their own good and the good of the church as a whole.
Many Christians aren’t as concerned about their personal holiness as they should be. Where are you in terms of holiness and real communion with the living God? Church leaders aren’t the only ones who should live holy lives. You can’t have a half-hearted commitment to God and expect Him to work through you.
Spiritual Authority
One more component that’s true of a biblical church is spiritual authority. A church must understand that Christ is the head of the church (Eph. 1:22; 4:15) and that He mediates His rule in the church through godly elders (1 Thess. 5:13-14; Heb. 13:7, 17).
Hebrews 13 says to submit to those over you in the Lord, for they watch your souls. Follow their example. Paul says to “recognize those who labor among you, and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in love for their work’s sake” (1 Thess. 5:12-13).
I am one of many leaders at our church. I happen to be the one whom God chose to preach, but I am one elder among many. While there are variations in the giftedness of spiritual leaders, there is still an equality of spiritual authority among those the Bible calls elders or overseers. Such spiritual leadership is essential to the church of Jesus Christ. That’s why the church must be committed to training and obeying godly leaders.
There is room for diversity within the Body of Christ. But every true church is united by certain non-negotiables. Make sure you and your church are committed to the ties that bind.
This Purpose-Driven Church Has "Friends in Low Places"
Imagine showing up at church to find that your pastor has decided to stage his very own American Idol contest.
A church member decked in country and western garb walks on stage and begins singing "I've got friends in low places".
In a western twang he belts out such inspired lyrics as:
I've got friends in low places where the whiskey drowns and the beer chases my blues away
As soon as this 'church' song is finished the music minister stands up and calls people to worship the Lord.
Does this sound too insane to be true?
It's not! Here is the video to prove it!http://www.alittleleaven.com/2007/05/this_church_has.html
This is from Newspring Church in Anderson, South Carolina.
Perry Noble is their pastor and he is a disciple of Rick Warren. Click here to read his open letter to Rick Warren.
After watching this video please scroll down and read the update. This story gets better.
*** Update ***
This story gets weirder by the minute.
We received a tip from a reader that “Pastor” Tony Morgan of NewSpring Church commented on the “American Idol” sermon series at his blog. Here is what he said:
"The vote for next weekend's opening song included Brick House by the Commodores. I'm just praying that God loves funk."
Here is the link.
Yep, "Pastor" Tony was personally was pulling for the funk song ‘Brick House’. This is a song that is about the female anatomy. And yes, this song was sung in their church as part of their American Idol contest. Here are some of the lyrical highlights of ‘Brick House’:
Verse: 1. She knows she got everythinga woman needs to get a man, yeah.How can she use, the things she use36-24-36, what a winning hand!
Verse:2. The clothes she wears, the sexy ways, make an old man wish for younger daysShe knows she's built and knows how to pleaseSure enough to knock a man to his knees
We're sure these lyrics fit perfectly with the other sermon series they did called "Girls Gone Wild". How kewl is it that they named an entire sermon series after a series of porn videos.
---
those Purpose-Driven Churches sure are relevant.
A church member decked in country and western garb walks on stage and begins singing "I've got friends in low places".
In a western twang he belts out such inspired lyrics as:
I've got friends in low places where the whiskey drowns and the beer chases my blues away
As soon as this 'church' song is finished the music minister stands up and calls people to worship the Lord.
Does this sound too insane to be true?
It's not! Here is the video to prove it!http://www.alittleleaven.com/2007/05/this_church_has.html
This is from Newspring Church in Anderson, South Carolina.
Perry Noble is their pastor and he is a disciple of Rick Warren. Click here to read his open letter to Rick Warren.
After watching this video please scroll down and read the update. This story gets better.
*** Update ***
This story gets weirder by the minute.
We received a tip from a reader that “Pastor” Tony Morgan of NewSpring Church commented on the “American Idol” sermon series at his blog. Here is what he said:
"The vote for next weekend's opening song included Brick House by the Commodores. I'm just praying that God loves funk."
Here is the link.
Yep, "Pastor" Tony was personally was pulling for the funk song ‘Brick House’. This is a song that is about the female anatomy. And yes, this song was sung in their church as part of their American Idol contest. Here are some of the lyrical highlights of ‘Brick House’:
Verse: 1. She knows she got everythinga woman needs to get a man, yeah.How can she use, the things she use36-24-36, what a winning hand!
Verse:2. The clothes she wears, the sexy ways, make an old man wish for younger daysShe knows she's built and knows how to pleaseSure enough to knock a man to his knees
We're sure these lyrics fit perfectly with the other sermon series they did called "Girls Gone Wild". How kewl is it that they named an entire sermon series after a series of porn videos.
---
those Purpose-Driven Churches sure are relevant.
“Bible Fight” The Video Game
We didn't hear about this game from atheists or non-Christians. We heard about this game from Christian gamers and youth ministers who thought it was an "awesome video game" and the “most fun video game they’ve played in a long time".
There was no outrage over the game, no pangs of guilt for having fun while beating the snot out of Jesus, God or Moses. There was no shame expressed over enjoying a game that blasphemes our Lord. Instead, there was gleeful excitement about the game and an enthusiasm for blogging about it and sharing it with the friends in their online communities.
Above are screen shots from the online video game entitled “Bible Fight”. In the game you can pick different Bible ‘characters’ to fight each other in hand to hand combat. The Characters include Moses, Noah, Eve, Mary, Satan and Jesus (who fights wearing only a loin clothe and a crown of thorns).
Each character has 'special' moves and powers. For instance Noah can call forth a stampede of ark animals, Eve (who is wearing only fig leaves) can whap her adversaries with a snake, Moses can rain down a plague of frogs while Jesus can clobber his opponents with a cross. As an added bonus, if you win enough tournaments you can unlock an additional character, God Himself.
This is the type of mockery that we'd expect from the world and unbelievers. But what does it say about the state of the church when Christians, rather than being outraged are proud to express their approval of a game like this?
There was no outrage over the game, no pangs of guilt for having fun while beating the snot out of Jesus, God or Moses. There was no shame expressed over enjoying a game that blasphemes our Lord. Instead, there was gleeful excitement about the game and an enthusiasm for blogging about it and sharing it with the friends in their online communities.
Above are screen shots from the online video game entitled “Bible Fight”. In the game you can pick different Bible ‘characters’ to fight each other in hand to hand combat. The Characters include Moses, Noah, Eve, Mary, Satan and Jesus (who fights wearing only a loin clothe and a crown of thorns).
Each character has 'special' moves and powers. For instance Noah can call forth a stampede of ark animals, Eve (who is wearing only fig leaves) can whap her adversaries with a snake, Moses can rain down a plague of frogs while Jesus can clobber his opponents with a cross. As an added bonus, if you win enough tournaments you can unlock an additional character, God Himself.
This is the type of mockery that we'd expect from the world and unbelievers. But what does it say about the state of the church when Christians, rather than being outraged are proud to express their approval of a game like this?
WHAT'S INSIDE THE TROJAN HORSE? By John MacArthur
By God’s grace, I have been the pastor of the same church now for nearly forty years. From that vantage point, I have witnessed the birth and growth of menacing trends within the church, several of which have converged under what I would call evangelical pragmatism — an approach to ministry that is endemic in contemporary Christianity.
What is pragmatism? Basically it is a philosophy that says that results determine meaning, truth, and value — what will work becomes a more important question than what is true. As Christians, we are called to trust what the Lord says, preach that message to others, and leave the results to Him. But many have set that aside. Seeking relevancy and success, they have welcomed the pragmatic approach and have received the proverbial Trojan horse.
Let me take a few minutes to explain a little of the history leading up to the current entrenchment of the pragmatic approach in the evangelical church and to show you why it isn’t as innocent as it looks.
Recent History
The 1970s, for the most part, were years of spiritual revival in America. The spread of the gospel through the campuses of many colleges and universities marked a fresh, energetic movement of the Holy Spirit to draw people to salvation in Christ. Mass baptisms were conducted in rivers, lakes, and the ocean, several new versions of the English Bible were released, and Christian publishing and broadcasting experienced remarkable growth.
Sadly, the fervent evangelical revival slowed and was overshadowed by the greed and debauchery of the eighties and nineties. The surrounding culture rejected biblical standards of morality, and the church, rather than assert its distinctiveness and call the world to repentance, softened its stance on holiness. The failure to maintain a distinctively biblical identity was profound — it led to general spiritual apathy and a marked decline in church attendance.
Church leaders reacted to the world’s indifference, not by a return to strong biblical preaching that emphasized sin and repentance, but by a pragmatic approach to “doing” church — an approach driven more by marketing, methodology, and perceived results than by biblical doctrine. The new model of ministry revolved around making sinners feel comfortable and at ease in the church, then selling them on the benefits of becoming a Christian. Earlier silence has given way to cultural appeasement and conformity.
Even the church’s ministry to its own has changed. Entertainment has hijacked many pulpits across the country; contemporary approaches cater to the ever-changing whims of professing believers; and many local churches have become little more than social clubs and community centers where the focus is on the individual’s felt needs. Even on Christian radio, phone-in talk shows, music, and live psychotherapy are starting to replace Bible teaching as the staple. “Whatever works,” the mantra of pragmatism, has become the new banner of evangelicalism.
The Down-Grade Controversy
You may be surprised to learn that what we are now seeing is not new. England’s most famous preacher, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, dealt with a similar situation more than 100 years ago. Among churches that were once solid, Spurgeon and other faithful pastors noticed a conciliatory attitude toward and overt cooperation with the modernist movement. And what motivated the compromise? They sought to find acceptance by adopting the “sophisticated” trends of the culture. Does that sound familiar to you?
One article, published anonymously in Spurgeon’s monthly magazine The Sword and the Trowel, noted that every revival of true evangelical faith had been followed within a generation or two by a drift away from sound doctrine, ultimately leading to wholesale apostasy. The author likened this drifting from truth to a downhill slope, and thus labeled it “the down grade.” The inroads of modernism into the church killed ninety percent of the mainline denominations within a generation of Spurgeon’s death. Spurgeon himself, once the celebrated and adored herald of the Baptist Union, was marginalized by the society and he eventually withdrew his membership.
The Effects of Pragmatism
Many of today’s church leaders have bought into the subtlety of pragmatism without recognizing the dangers it poses. Instead of attacking orthodoxy head on, evangelical pragmatism gives lip service to the truth while quietly undermining the foundations of doctrine. Instead of exalting God, it effectively denigrates the things that are precious to Him.
First, there is in vogue today a trend to make the basis of faith something other than God’s Word. Experience, emotion, fashion, and popular opinion are often more authoritative than the Bible in determining what many Christians believe. From private, individual revelation to the blending of secular psychology with biblical “principles,” Christians are listening to the voice of the serpent that once told Eve, “God’s Word doesn’t have all the answers.” Christian counseling reflects that drift, frequently offering no more than experimental and unscriptural self-help therapy instead of solid answers from the Bible.
Christian missionary work is often riddled with pragmatism and compromise, because too many in missions have evidently concluded that what gets results is more important than what God says. That’s true among local churches as well. It has become fashionable to forgo the proclamation and teaching of God’s Word in worship services. Instead, churches serve up a paltry diet of drama, music, and other forms of entertainment.
Second, evangelical pragmatism tends to move the focus of faith away from God’s Son. You’ve seen that repeatedly if you watch much religious television. The health-wealth-and-prosperity gospel advocated by so many televangelists is the ultimate example of this kind of fantasy faith. This false gospel appeals unabashedly to the flesh, corrupting all the promises of Scripture and encouraging greed. It makes material blessing, not Jesus Christ, the object of the Christian’s desires.
Easy-believism handles the message differently, but the effect is the same. It is the promise of forgiveness minus the gospel’s hard demands, the perfect message for pragmatists. It has done much to popularize “believing” but little to provoke sincere faith.
Christ is no longer the focus of the message. While His name is mentioned from time to time, the real focus is inward, not upward. People are urged to look within; to try to understand themselves; to come to grips with their problems, their hurts, their disappointments; to have their needs met, their desires granted, their wants fulfilled. Nearly all the popular versions of the message encourage and legitimize a self-centered perspective.
Third, today’s Christianity is infected with a tendency to view the result of faith as something less than God’s standard of holy living. By downplaying the importance of holy living–both by precept and by example–the biblical doctrine of conversion is undermined. Think about it: What more could Satan do to try to destroy the church than undermining God’s Word, shifting the focus off Christ, and minimizing holy living?
All those things are happening slowly, steadily within the church right now. Tragically, most Christians seem oblivious to the problems, satisfied with a Christianity that is fashionable and highly visible. But the true church must not ignore those threats. If we fight to maintain doctrinal purity with an emphasis on biblical preaching and biblical ministry, we can conquer external attacks. But if error is allowed into the church, many more churches will slide down the grade to suffer the same fate as the denominations that listened to, yet ignored, Spurgeon’s impassioned appeal.
Make it your habitual prayer request that the Lord would elevate the authority of His Word, the glory of His Son, and the purity of His people in the evangelical church. May the Lord revive us and keep us far from the slippery slope of pragmatism.
What is pragmatism? Basically it is a philosophy that says that results determine meaning, truth, and value — what will work becomes a more important question than what is true. As Christians, we are called to trust what the Lord says, preach that message to others, and leave the results to Him. But many have set that aside. Seeking relevancy and success, they have welcomed the pragmatic approach and have received the proverbial Trojan horse.
Let me take a few minutes to explain a little of the history leading up to the current entrenchment of the pragmatic approach in the evangelical church and to show you why it isn’t as innocent as it looks.
Recent History
The 1970s, for the most part, were years of spiritual revival in America. The spread of the gospel through the campuses of many colleges and universities marked a fresh, energetic movement of the Holy Spirit to draw people to salvation in Christ. Mass baptisms were conducted in rivers, lakes, and the ocean, several new versions of the English Bible were released, and Christian publishing and broadcasting experienced remarkable growth.
Sadly, the fervent evangelical revival slowed and was overshadowed by the greed and debauchery of the eighties and nineties. The surrounding culture rejected biblical standards of morality, and the church, rather than assert its distinctiveness and call the world to repentance, softened its stance on holiness. The failure to maintain a distinctively biblical identity was profound — it led to general spiritual apathy and a marked decline in church attendance.
Church leaders reacted to the world’s indifference, not by a return to strong biblical preaching that emphasized sin and repentance, but by a pragmatic approach to “doing” church — an approach driven more by marketing, methodology, and perceived results than by biblical doctrine. The new model of ministry revolved around making sinners feel comfortable and at ease in the church, then selling them on the benefits of becoming a Christian. Earlier silence has given way to cultural appeasement and conformity.
Even the church’s ministry to its own has changed. Entertainment has hijacked many pulpits across the country; contemporary approaches cater to the ever-changing whims of professing believers; and many local churches have become little more than social clubs and community centers where the focus is on the individual’s felt needs. Even on Christian radio, phone-in talk shows, music, and live psychotherapy are starting to replace Bible teaching as the staple. “Whatever works,” the mantra of pragmatism, has become the new banner of evangelicalism.
The Down-Grade Controversy
You may be surprised to learn that what we are now seeing is not new. England’s most famous preacher, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, dealt with a similar situation more than 100 years ago. Among churches that were once solid, Spurgeon and other faithful pastors noticed a conciliatory attitude toward and overt cooperation with the modernist movement. And what motivated the compromise? They sought to find acceptance by adopting the “sophisticated” trends of the culture. Does that sound familiar to you?
One article, published anonymously in Spurgeon’s monthly magazine The Sword and the Trowel, noted that every revival of true evangelical faith had been followed within a generation or two by a drift away from sound doctrine, ultimately leading to wholesale apostasy. The author likened this drifting from truth to a downhill slope, and thus labeled it “the down grade.” The inroads of modernism into the church killed ninety percent of the mainline denominations within a generation of Spurgeon’s death. Spurgeon himself, once the celebrated and adored herald of the Baptist Union, was marginalized by the society and he eventually withdrew his membership.
The Effects of Pragmatism
Many of today’s church leaders have bought into the subtlety of pragmatism without recognizing the dangers it poses. Instead of attacking orthodoxy head on, evangelical pragmatism gives lip service to the truth while quietly undermining the foundations of doctrine. Instead of exalting God, it effectively denigrates the things that are precious to Him.
First, there is in vogue today a trend to make the basis of faith something other than God’s Word. Experience, emotion, fashion, and popular opinion are often more authoritative than the Bible in determining what many Christians believe. From private, individual revelation to the blending of secular psychology with biblical “principles,” Christians are listening to the voice of the serpent that once told Eve, “God’s Word doesn’t have all the answers.” Christian counseling reflects that drift, frequently offering no more than experimental and unscriptural self-help therapy instead of solid answers from the Bible.
Christian missionary work is often riddled with pragmatism and compromise, because too many in missions have evidently concluded that what gets results is more important than what God says. That’s true among local churches as well. It has become fashionable to forgo the proclamation and teaching of God’s Word in worship services. Instead, churches serve up a paltry diet of drama, music, and other forms of entertainment.
Second, evangelical pragmatism tends to move the focus of faith away from God’s Son. You’ve seen that repeatedly if you watch much religious television. The health-wealth-and-prosperity gospel advocated by so many televangelists is the ultimate example of this kind of fantasy faith. This false gospel appeals unabashedly to the flesh, corrupting all the promises of Scripture and encouraging greed. It makes material blessing, not Jesus Christ, the object of the Christian’s desires.
Easy-believism handles the message differently, but the effect is the same. It is the promise of forgiveness minus the gospel’s hard demands, the perfect message for pragmatists. It has done much to popularize “believing” but little to provoke sincere faith.
Christ is no longer the focus of the message. While His name is mentioned from time to time, the real focus is inward, not upward. People are urged to look within; to try to understand themselves; to come to grips with their problems, their hurts, their disappointments; to have their needs met, their desires granted, their wants fulfilled. Nearly all the popular versions of the message encourage and legitimize a self-centered perspective.
Third, today’s Christianity is infected with a tendency to view the result of faith as something less than God’s standard of holy living. By downplaying the importance of holy living–both by precept and by example–the biblical doctrine of conversion is undermined. Think about it: What more could Satan do to try to destroy the church than undermining God’s Word, shifting the focus off Christ, and minimizing holy living?
All those things are happening slowly, steadily within the church right now. Tragically, most Christians seem oblivious to the problems, satisfied with a Christianity that is fashionable and highly visible. But the true church must not ignore those threats. If we fight to maintain doctrinal purity with an emphasis on biblical preaching and biblical ministry, we can conquer external attacks. But if error is allowed into the church, many more churches will slide down the grade to suffer the same fate as the denominations that listened to, yet ignored, Spurgeon’s impassioned appeal.
Make it your habitual prayer request that the Lord would elevate the authority of His Word, the glory of His Son, and the purity of His people in the evangelical church. May the Lord revive us and keep us far from the slippery slope of pragmatism.
DOCTRINE IS PRACTICAL By John MacArthur
I have in my library a book by the spiritual father of a quasi-Christian cult. It argues that structured doctrine and systematized theology are contrary to the spirit of Jesus’ ministry.
The idea that Christ is anti-doctrine is a foundational belief of that cult. But no idea is further from the truth. The word doctrine simply means “teaching.” And it’s ludicrous to say that Christ is anti-teaching. The central imperative of His Great Commission is the command to teach (Matthew 28:18-20).
Unfortunately, cultists aren’t alone in their bias against doctrine. Some evangelicals have almost the same perspective. Because they view doctrine as heady and theoretical, they dismiss it as unimportant, divisive, threatening, or simply impractical.
People often ask why I emphasize doctrine so much. Now and then someone tells me frankly that my preaching needs to be less doctrinal and more practical.
Of course, practical application is vital. I don’t want to minimize its importance. But if there is a deficiency in preaching today, it is that there’s too much relational, pseudopsychological, and thinly life-related content, and not enough emphasis on sound doctrine.
The distinction between doctrinal and practical truth is artificial; doctrine is practical! In fact, nothing is more practical than sound doctrine.
The pastor who turns away from preaching sound doctrine abdicates the primary responsibility of an elder: “holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict” (Titus 1:9). We teach truth, we teach error, or we teach nothing at all.
Building on the Truth
Practical insights, gimmicks, and illustrations mean little if they’re not attached to divine principle. There’s no basis for godly behavior apart from the truth of God’s Word. Before the preacher asks anyone to perform a certain duty, he must first deal with doctrine. He must develop his message around theological themes and draw out the principles of the texts. Then the truth can be applied.
Romans provides the clearest example. Paul doesn’t give any exhortation until he has given eleven chapters of theology.
He scales incredible heights of truth, culminating in 11:33-36, where he says, “Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor? Or who has first given to Him that it might be paid back to him again? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.”
Then in chapter 12, he turns immediately to the practical consequences of the doctrine of the first 11 chapters. No passage in Scripture captures the Christian’s responsibility in the face of truth more clearly than Romans 12:1-2.
Resting on eleven chapters of profound doctrine, Paul calls each believer to a supreme act of spiritual worship — giving oneself as a living sacrifice. Doctrine gives rise to dedication to Christ, the greatest practical act. And the remainder of the book of Romans goes on to explain the many practical outworkings of one’s dedication to Christ.
He follows the same pattern in Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and 1 Thessalonians. The doctrinal message comes first. Upon that foundation he builds the practical application, making the logical connection with the word therefore (Romans 1:1; Galatians 5:1; Ephesians 4:1; Philippians 2:1) or then (Colossians 3:1; 1 Thessalonians 4:1).
Living by the Truth
We have imposed an artificial meaning on the word doctrine. We’ve made it something abstract and threatening, unrelated to daily living. That has brought about the disastrous idea that preaching and teaching are unrelated to living.
The scriptural concept of doctrine includes the entire message of the gospel — its teaching about God, salvation, sin, and righteousness. Those concepts are so tightly bound to daily living that the first-century mind did not see them as something separate from practical truth.
The New Testament church was founded on a solid base of doctrine. First Timothy 3:16 contains what many expositors believe is an early church hymn: “God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory” (KJV). There, in capsule form, is the basis of all Christian teaching. Without that, no practical application matters.
Departing from the Truth
The next few verses of 1 Timothy describe what happens when men depart from the basis of biblical truth: “Some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth” (4:1-3).
Lying, hypocrisy, a dulled conscience, and false religious practices all have roots in wrong doctrine.
No ministry activity is more important than rightly understanding and clearly proclaiming sound doctrine. In 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, Paul commissions two young men to the ministry. His central theme is the importance of adhering to sound doctrine.
Paul charged Timothy: “In pointing out these things to the brethren, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, constantly nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound doctrine which you have been following” (1 Timothy 4:6). “Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching,” Paul adds, “persevere in these things, for as you do this you will ensure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you” (v. 16).
Titus 2:10 says we “adorn [or honor] the doctrine of God” by how we live. When it comes to affirming sound doctrine, what we do carries far more significance than what we say. That’s why it’s disastrous when a pastor, seminary professor, or any kind of Christian leader fails morally. The message he proclaims is that his doctrine becomes merely an intellectual exercise.
Hearing the Truth
True doctrine transforms behavior as it is woven into the fabric of everyday life. But it must be understood if it is to have its impact. The real challenge of the ministry is to dispense the truth clearly and accurately. Practical application comes easily by comparison.
No believer can apply truth he doesn’t know. Those who don’t know the Bible’s principles for marriage, divorce, family, childrearing, discipline, money, debt, work, service to Christ, responsibilities to the poor, care of widows, response to governments, eternal rewards, and other teachings will not be able to apply them.
Those who don’t’ know what the Bible teaches about salvation cannot be saved. Those who don’t know what the Bible teaches about holiness are incapable of dealing with sin. Thus they are unable to live fully to God’s glory and their own blessedness.
The idea that Christ is anti-doctrine is a foundational belief of that cult. But no idea is further from the truth. The word doctrine simply means “teaching.” And it’s ludicrous to say that Christ is anti-teaching. The central imperative of His Great Commission is the command to teach (Matthew 28:18-20).
Unfortunately, cultists aren’t alone in their bias against doctrine. Some evangelicals have almost the same perspective. Because they view doctrine as heady and theoretical, they dismiss it as unimportant, divisive, threatening, or simply impractical.
People often ask why I emphasize doctrine so much. Now and then someone tells me frankly that my preaching needs to be less doctrinal and more practical.
Of course, practical application is vital. I don’t want to minimize its importance. But if there is a deficiency in preaching today, it is that there’s too much relational, pseudopsychological, and thinly life-related content, and not enough emphasis on sound doctrine.
The distinction between doctrinal and practical truth is artificial; doctrine is practical! In fact, nothing is more practical than sound doctrine.
The pastor who turns away from preaching sound doctrine abdicates the primary responsibility of an elder: “holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict” (Titus 1:9). We teach truth, we teach error, or we teach nothing at all.
Building on the Truth
Practical insights, gimmicks, and illustrations mean little if they’re not attached to divine principle. There’s no basis for godly behavior apart from the truth of God’s Word. Before the preacher asks anyone to perform a certain duty, he must first deal with doctrine. He must develop his message around theological themes and draw out the principles of the texts. Then the truth can be applied.
Romans provides the clearest example. Paul doesn’t give any exhortation until he has given eleven chapters of theology.
He scales incredible heights of truth, culminating in 11:33-36, where he says, “Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor? Or who has first given to Him that it might be paid back to him again? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.”
Then in chapter 12, he turns immediately to the practical consequences of the doctrine of the first 11 chapters. No passage in Scripture captures the Christian’s responsibility in the face of truth more clearly than Romans 12:1-2.
Resting on eleven chapters of profound doctrine, Paul calls each believer to a supreme act of spiritual worship — giving oneself as a living sacrifice. Doctrine gives rise to dedication to Christ, the greatest practical act. And the remainder of the book of Romans goes on to explain the many practical outworkings of one’s dedication to Christ.
He follows the same pattern in Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and 1 Thessalonians. The doctrinal message comes first. Upon that foundation he builds the practical application, making the logical connection with the word therefore (Romans 1:1; Galatians 5:1; Ephesians 4:1; Philippians 2:1) or then (Colossians 3:1; 1 Thessalonians 4:1).
Living by the Truth
We have imposed an artificial meaning on the word doctrine. We’ve made it something abstract and threatening, unrelated to daily living. That has brought about the disastrous idea that preaching and teaching are unrelated to living.
The scriptural concept of doctrine includes the entire message of the gospel — its teaching about God, salvation, sin, and righteousness. Those concepts are so tightly bound to daily living that the first-century mind did not see them as something separate from practical truth.
The New Testament church was founded on a solid base of doctrine. First Timothy 3:16 contains what many expositors believe is an early church hymn: “God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory” (KJV). There, in capsule form, is the basis of all Christian teaching. Without that, no practical application matters.
Departing from the Truth
The next few verses of 1 Timothy describe what happens when men depart from the basis of biblical truth: “Some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth” (4:1-3).
Lying, hypocrisy, a dulled conscience, and false religious practices all have roots in wrong doctrine.
No ministry activity is more important than rightly understanding and clearly proclaiming sound doctrine. In 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, Paul commissions two young men to the ministry. His central theme is the importance of adhering to sound doctrine.
Paul charged Timothy: “In pointing out these things to the brethren, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, constantly nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound doctrine which you have been following” (1 Timothy 4:6). “Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching,” Paul adds, “persevere in these things, for as you do this you will ensure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you” (v. 16).
Titus 2:10 says we “adorn [or honor] the doctrine of God” by how we live. When it comes to affirming sound doctrine, what we do carries far more significance than what we say. That’s why it’s disastrous when a pastor, seminary professor, or any kind of Christian leader fails morally. The message he proclaims is that his doctrine becomes merely an intellectual exercise.
Hearing the Truth
True doctrine transforms behavior as it is woven into the fabric of everyday life. But it must be understood if it is to have its impact. The real challenge of the ministry is to dispense the truth clearly and accurately. Practical application comes easily by comparison.
No believer can apply truth he doesn’t know. Those who don’t know the Bible’s principles for marriage, divorce, family, childrearing, discipline, money, debt, work, service to Christ, responsibilities to the poor, care of widows, response to governments, eternal rewards, and other teachings will not be able to apply them.
Those who don’t’ know what the Bible teaches about salvation cannot be saved. Those who don’t know what the Bible teaches about holiness are incapable of dealing with sin. Thus they are unable to live fully to God’s glory and their own blessedness.
True and False Religion
Whenever religion revives remarkably, till we have learned well to distinguish between true and false religion, between saving affections and experiences, and those manifold fair shows, and glistering appearances, by which they are counterfeited; the consequences of which, when they are not distinguished, are often inexpressibly dreadful. By this means, the devil gratifies himself, by bringing it to pass, that that should be offered to God, by multitudes, under a notion of a pleasing acceptable service to him, that is indeed above all things abominable to him. By this means he deceives great multitudes about the state of their souls; making them think they are something, when they are nothing; and so eternally undoes them; and not only so, but establishes many in a strong confidence of their eminent holiness, who are in God's sight some of the vilest of hypocrites. By this means, he many ways damps and wounds religion in the hearts of the saints, obscures and deforms it by corrupt mixtures, causes their religious affections woefully to degenerate, and sometimes, for a considerable time, to be like the manna that bred worms and stank; and dreadfully ensnares and confounds the minds of others of the saints and brings them into great difficulties and temptation, and entangles them in a wilderness, out of which they can by no means extricate themselves. By this means, Satan mightily encourages the hearts of open enemies of religion, and strengthens their hands, and fills them with weapons, and makes strong their fortresses; when, at the same time, religion and the church of God lie exposed to them, as a city without walls. By this means, he brings it to pass, that men work wickedness under a notion of doing God service, and so sin without restraint, yea with earnest forwardness and zeal, any with all their might. By this means he brings in even the friends of religion, insensibly to themselves, to do the work of enemies, by destroying religion in a far more effectual manner than open enemies can do, under a notion of advancing it. By this means the devil scatters the flock of Christ, and sets them one against another, and that with great heat of spirit, under a nation of zeal for God; and religion, by degrees degenerates into vain jangling; and during the strife, Satan leads both parties far out of the right way, driving each to great extremes, one on the right hand, and the other on the left, according as he finds they are most inclined, or most easily moved and swayed, till the right path in the middle is almost wholly neglected. [Johnathan Edwards]
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Pulpit Ghost Stories, Bug Eating, Repent & Believe
Here's a grab bag of stories too small for their own post and too big for the news ticker. Meet the seeker church that testified of a ghost encounter with a dead civil war chaplain. Is error in doctrine always sin? What is required for salvation, and a reader's email asking what to say when evangelizing. Also a book recommendation and a look at the fearless eating escapades of one popular blogger.
Tim Challies recently asked "is error in doctrine always sin?" As if answering from the grave, Charles Spurgeon says: "every deviation from truth is a sin" and "Error in doctrine is as much a sin as error in practice". Challies further ponders whether that may not be the case on difficult issues such as baptism. Spurgeon again answers that question and more: "if baptism be not by immersion, I commit a sin every time I practice it; and if it be, my brother commits a sin who does not practice it. If Election be true, I am committing a sin if I do not believe it". Continue reading the rest of Spurgeon's excellent sermon.
Of course Spurgeon was not mystically talking directly to Challies from the grave, but here's a seeker church where you might expect that kind of thing. This sandal-wearing pastor tells of his recent lengthy coffee shop encounter with the Civil War chaplain EM Bounds. Although we don't know whether EM ordered one of those $5 flavored cappuccinos at the coffee shop, we do know that this is what we can expect from the pulpit of a church that has lost (or never had) a doctrinal footing. Fast forward ahead 54 minutes into either the audio or video clip from 4-29-07 to hear the story. What a fitting example of the superstition that Ichabod Spencer warned about from the 19th century, in his post here earlier this week. Well, Spencer didn't actually post something here, you see, he is dead; you know what I mean!
If you have kids ages 9 and up, here's a great idea for your family time. I've been reading some classic short stories to my kids from this set of books. Themes include salvation, truth, sin, true martyr accounts, and more. I'm benefiting as much from them as my kids are. At $10 for this entire set of books - you can't go wrong. Joel Beeke also recommends them.
Remember Jim and Tammy Bakker? It's really sad to read the words of a 65 pound Tammy near death, saying: "The doctors have stopped trying to treat the cancer and so now it's up to God and my faith".
I'll bet there used to be some Old Testament law that prohibited this very troubling behavior by Phil Johnson. (paging through my bible . . . it's in here somewhere . . . I'll find it.) Never mind, I just remembered what John The Baptist ate.
My latest StrangeBaptistFire.com article is posted, and I talk about the theological inconsistencies of some megachurch pastors, focussing in particular on a strange book by Chuck Smith - Founder of the Calvary Chapel line of churches.
While men like TD Jakes and Billy Graham teach that there is hope for non-Christians to be saved without conversion, Tom Chantry offers this biblical reality check on what must be known in order to be saved (part 1 and part 2). He follows this up with a post on what must be done in order to be saved.
On a related note, a reader in Malaysia named Joshua recently emailed me this question. I'll close-out this post with my response to him.
"Here is a common phrase.....Ask Jesus to come into your heart or life.....is that how calvinists do it? ... From a calvinist point of view..... When a sinner is convicted by the Holy Spirit, is there any "sinner's prayer" to recite? If not...what would be the normal reformed way of doing this? Does "accepting Jesus into our heart" in line with reformed teachings? If not...how would you explain the steps of salvation? I know that it is GOD who chose and justified the sinner...how do you explain to the sinner that he needs to accept Jesus Christ as LORD and Savior? At this point of conversion, from my old arminian school, I am confused that we 'invite' Jesus into our hearts....and later was told it was the Holy Spirit... Could you explain this part? As I am now leaning strongly to reformed doctrine, I do not know how to explain this part from the reformed view..."
Joshua, as you may know, some of the most noteworthy soul winners in church history have been Calvinists, and you can look through the writings of many of them including George Whitefield and Charles Spurgeon to see the kinds of things they said. The emphasis is much the same as the Apostles as they preached that people should obey the Lord's command to repent and believe.
Unlike much of today's evangelism however, considerable time was invested by these men to use the law to communicate the 'bad news' before going on to the good news (the Gospel). Classic Calvinists avoid "come to Jesus because God loves you" as the Apostles never witnessed that way. There is a sense in which we do "accept Jesus" (those who are God's elect are the ones that will eventually accept Him), but there are numerous problems with the "sinner's prayer". If you scroll down on this page, you'll find an instance of how Charles Spurgeon closed out one of his church services. Notice his emphasis on sin and trust, and how he encourages the unbeliever to ask God to save them, rather than saying "pray this prayer" followed by "congratulations, now you are Christian!!!" as is painfully common today. I hope that gives you a better understanding, if not - feel free to write back.
Tim Challies recently asked "is error in doctrine always sin?" As if answering from the grave, Charles Spurgeon says: "every deviation from truth is a sin" and "Error in doctrine is as much a sin as error in practice". Challies further ponders whether that may not be the case on difficult issues such as baptism. Spurgeon again answers that question and more: "if baptism be not by immersion, I commit a sin every time I practice it; and if it be, my brother commits a sin who does not practice it. If Election be true, I am committing a sin if I do not believe it". Continue reading the rest of Spurgeon's excellent sermon.
Of course Spurgeon was not mystically talking directly to Challies from the grave, but here's a seeker church where you might expect that kind of thing. This sandal-wearing pastor tells of his recent lengthy coffee shop encounter with the Civil War chaplain EM Bounds. Although we don't know whether EM ordered one of those $5 flavored cappuccinos at the coffee shop, we do know that this is what we can expect from the pulpit of a church that has lost (or never had) a doctrinal footing. Fast forward ahead 54 minutes into either the audio or video clip from 4-29-07 to hear the story. What a fitting example of the superstition that Ichabod Spencer warned about from the 19th century, in his post here earlier this week. Well, Spencer didn't actually post something here, you see, he is dead; you know what I mean!
If you have kids ages 9 and up, here's a great idea for your family time. I've been reading some classic short stories to my kids from this set of books. Themes include salvation, truth, sin, true martyr accounts, and more. I'm benefiting as much from them as my kids are. At $10 for this entire set of books - you can't go wrong. Joel Beeke also recommends them.
Remember Jim and Tammy Bakker? It's really sad to read the words of a 65 pound Tammy near death, saying: "The doctors have stopped trying to treat the cancer and so now it's up to God and my faith".
I'll bet there used to be some Old Testament law that prohibited this very troubling behavior by Phil Johnson. (paging through my bible . . . it's in here somewhere . . . I'll find it.) Never mind, I just remembered what John The Baptist ate.
My latest StrangeBaptistFire.com article is posted, and I talk about the theological inconsistencies of some megachurch pastors, focussing in particular on a strange book by Chuck Smith - Founder of the Calvary Chapel line of churches.
While men like TD Jakes and Billy Graham teach that there is hope for non-Christians to be saved without conversion, Tom Chantry offers this biblical reality check on what must be known in order to be saved (part 1 and part 2). He follows this up with a post on what must be done in order to be saved.
On a related note, a reader in Malaysia named Joshua recently emailed me this question. I'll close-out this post with my response to him.
"Here is a common phrase.....Ask Jesus to come into your heart or life.....is that how calvinists do it? ... From a calvinist point of view..... When a sinner is convicted by the Holy Spirit, is there any "sinner's prayer" to recite? If not...what would be the normal reformed way of doing this? Does "accepting Jesus into our heart" in line with reformed teachings? If not...how would you explain the steps of salvation? I know that it is GOD who chose and justified the sinner...how do you explain to the sinner that he needs to accept Jesus Christ as LORD and Savior? At this point of conversion, from my old arminian school, I am confused that we 'invite' Jesus into our hearts....and later was told it was the Holy Spirit... Could you explain this part? As I am now leaning strongly to reformed doctrine, I do not know how to explain this part from the reformed view..."
Joshua, as you may know, some of the most noteworthy soul winners in church history have been Calvinists, and you can look through the writings of many of them including George Whitefield and Charles Spurgeon to see the kinds of things they said. The emphasis is much the same as the Apostles as they preached that people should obey the Lord's command to repent and believe.
Unlike much of today's evangelism however, considerable time was invested by these men to use the law to communicate the 'bad news' before going on to the good news (the Gospel). Classic Calvinists avoid "come to Jesus because God loves you" as the Apostles never witnessed that way. There is a sense in which we do "accept Jesus" (those who are God's elect are the ones that will eventually accept Him), but there are numerous problems with the "sinner's prayer". If you scroll down on this page, you'll find an instance of how Charles Spurgeon closed out one of his church services. Notice his emphasis on sin and trust, and how he encourages the unbeliever to ask God to save them, rather than saying "pray this prayer" followed by "congratulations, now you are Christian!!!" as is painfully common today. I hope that gives you a better understanding, if not - feel free to write back.
What is The Greatest Issue Facing the Church Today?
Is it any wonder the Apostle Paul boldly proclaims, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes.” (Romans 1:16). And again in 1 Corinthians 9:16, “…for woe is me if I do not preach the gospel.” Sadly, not many today are saying that anymore. If the gospel of Jesus Christ is all sufficient and accomplishes all saving grace, then why is the church not about proclaiming its truth with the boldness and conviction it demands? One significant reason is that the true gospel has been replaced by a different gospel (Galatians 1:6-8).
Nine Marks of a Healthy Church
by Dr. Mark Dever
Expository Preaching
Biblical Theology
Biblical Understanding of the Good News
Biblical Understanding of Conversion
Biblical Understanding of Evangelism
Biblical Understanding of Church Membership
Biblical Church Discipline
Concern for Promoting Christian Discipleship and Growth
Biblical Church Leadership
Expository Preaching
Biblical Theology
Biblical Understanding of the Good News
Biblical Understanding of Conversion
Biblical Understanding of Evangelism
Biblical Understanding of Church Membership
Biblical Church Discipline
Concern for Promoting Christian Discipleship and Growth
Biblical Church Leadership
LET THIS SINK IN...........
“We must not take our cues from people who are perfectly happy to compromise the truth wherever possible ‘for harmony’s sake’. Friendly dialogue may sound affable and pleasant. But neither Christ nor the Apostles ever confronted serious, soul-destroying error by building collegial relationships with false teachers.”
Peace
The godly man, when he dies, "enters into peace" (Isaiah 57:2); but while he lives, peace must enter into him. [Thomas Watson]
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Preaching Christ from the Old Testament
Here's a paper Tim Keller referenced today in his talk at the Gospel Coalition: Sinclair Ferguson's Preaching Christ from the Old Testament.
Women Active in Evangelism, Not The Pulpit
Quoting John Murray . . .
A disquieting departure from the New Testament at the present time is the opening of the office of the ministry to women. In this there is failure to recognize and maintain the line of distinction between the general office of believers and the special office of the ministry of the Word. There is not only ample scope, but an indispensable place for the activity of women in witness to the faith. It is here that women properly and necessarily perform the most effective service in the propagation of the Gospel.
Particularly, does this pertain to the witnessing to their own gender. There are here avenues that are scarcely open to men. If women were alert in their opportunities and responsibilities in this realm of more personal-witnessing and instruction, then not only would there be no plea on their part for entrance into the special office; there would be recoil from the suggestion.
In this failure on the part of men and women to understand and discharge responsibility and buy up opportunity, resides to a large extent the appalling spectacle the confronts us in the sphere of mission. At our doors and within our family circles is the call to mission. Our remissness springs from our lack of concern for the salvation of perishing souls, our lack of love, our lack of zeal for the claims of Christ and of His body the church, and finally our lack of jealousy for the glory of God. If fervor of spirit and the service of the Lord animate our hearts, then with the apostles we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard. And we may not be dismayed by the odds of unbelieving opposition and indifference. The Gospel is the glory of God unto salvation and His Word will not return to Him void. And He has put this treasure in earthen vessels that the excellency of the power may be of God and not of us.
From:
Collected Writings of John Murray, v1
A disquieting departure from the New Testament at the present time is the opening of the office of the ministry to women. In this there is failure to recognize and maintain the line of distinction between the general office of believers and the special office of the ministry of the Word. There is not only ample scope, but an indispensable place for the activity of women in witness to the faith. It is here that women properly and necessarily perform the most effective service in the propagation of the Gospel.
Particularly, does this pertain to the witnessing to their own gender. There are here avenues that are scarcely open to men. If women were alert in their opportunities and responsibilities in this realm of more personal-witnessing and instruction, then not only would there be no plea on their part for entrance into the special office; there would be recoil from the suggestion.
In this failure on the part of men and women to understand and discharge responsibility and buy up opportunity, resides to a large extent the appalling spectacle the confronts us in the sphere of mission. At our doors and within our family circles is the call to mission. Our remissness springs from our lack of concern for the salvation of perishing souls, our lack of love, our lack of zeal for the claims of Christ and of His body the church, and finally our lack of jealousy for the glory of God. If fervor of spirit and the service of the Lord animate our hearts, then with the apostles we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard. And we may not be dismayed by the odds of unbelieving opposition and indifference. The Gospel is the glory of God unto salvation and His Word will not return to Him void. And He has put this treasure in earthen vessels that the excellency of the power may be of God and not of us.
From:
Collected Writings of John Murray, v1
The Crash of Saddleback's Doctrinal Balancing Act
Rick Warren's "Frequently Asked Questions" webpage offers a large quantity of answers for seekers at his church. It's problematic however, when we find answers that contradict each other. Perhaps the contradictions get lost in the sea of other answers, and therefore nobody ends up noticing. One example is in FAQ #11 where he warns: "If you lean too far towards man's free will, you come down on the side of humanism: we are in control of our fate". This is contradicted in FAQ #60, which says your choice is important because "it determines where I am going to spend eternity". Well which is it?
Alan Kurschner says: Saddleback attempts a balancing act between predestination and free-will, and ends up embracing "Evangelical Deism" and the ancient heresy of "Dualism". Alan who previously wrote on the CalvinistGadfly website goes on to say:
Over the years I have often observed three objections to Calvinism: Caricatures, Eisegetical, and Emotional. The emotional objections are the most interesting in my opinion. One that pops up often is "We need to be balanced with Predestination and Free will." When a seasoned Calvinist hears this, they know exactly what that means. For those who do not know what I am talking about, allow me to decipher this code phrase for you by giving you a concrete example in action.
On the Saddleback small group page, there is a FAQ section titled, "Small Group Questions about Saddleback Church". There is a list of common questions that are asked in Saddleback small groups. Coming in at #11, the question is asked, "Do we really have free will?" The sub-question is, "How could God know and plan everything that will happen and yet also give us a free choice? Aren't these two ideas mutually exclusive?" Five very short paragraphs are given as an answer. Let's take some selections from the paragraphs and briefly respond to each one,
One of the great truths of the Bible is that God is able to know and be in control of all that happens (the Bible calls this predestination), and yet still give us free will and individual choice within that plan.
This is not what the Bible calls predestination. Predestination in a general sense is that God decreed those things that will come to past from eternity past. Further, there is no attempt to explain the statement "control all that happens." I would even argue that an Open Theist can agree with the statement above. But what caught my eye is the phrase, "and yet still give us free will and individual choice within that plan." Here the writer is obviously reassuring the Saddleback member that he or she has not lost their free will. It is predictable. Say anything about God and theology, XYZ, then add the tag, "but we still have free will."
One picture that has always helped me to understand these twin truths of God's sovereignty and our free will is that of two ropes hanging before you and extending through the ceiling above your head. One is marked predestination" and the other free will." [sic] If you were able to look through the ceiling you could see that the two ropes are actually one, hanging on a pulley above the ceiling. God can see, in ways that we cannot see, the ways that these seemingly contradictory facts are actually one powerful truth.
Don't expect Saddleback pastors to use the Biblical picture of God's sovereignty and man's will - that being Paul's picture that we are "lumps of clay" and God is the Potter. Nope, leave it up to a Saddleback humanistic Arminian to come up with a "two ropes" illustration to protect his own so-called libertarian free will and diminish our Lord's freedom.
This rope illustration is comical. Here the writer is pretending to be omniscient. I hope you caught what was said, "If you were able to look through the ceiling you could see..." Let's stop right there. The writer is contradicting himself by saying that we cannot look through the ceiling, then he goes on to tell us what is through the ceiling! Simply amazing. That would be like me saying, "We cannot know God's eternal thoughts, but let me tell you what they are." So, being that this Saddleback pastor says that no one can know these thoughts of God, he admits that he is privy to such information. He continues to enlighten us with what we cannot know. He says, "If you were able to look through the ceiling you could see that the two ropes are actually one, hanging on a pulley above the ceiling. God can see, in ways that we cannot see." Ah! there is a pulley above the ceiling...of course...now I understand, thanks to the omniscience of Saddleback gnostic pastors. But I am left with more questions than I had at first: Where is this taught in Scripture? If "God can see, in ways that we cannot see," then how can Saddleback pastors see what we cannot see? How can I look through the "ceiling" and attain this special knowledge of God's eternal thoughts? What else do Saddleback pastors know that I or you don't know? Did an angel appear to Saddleback pastors to reveal this special knowledge?
(By the way, when you hear the phrase, "twin truths" that is just a synonym for "We need to be balanced.")
He continues,
Our free choice cannot violate God's sovereignty and God's sovereignty cannot violate our free choice.
There you have it: Saddleback officially embraces "Evangelical Deism." But worse, they have committed the ancient heresy of "dualism." That is, affirming that there are two independent sovereign powers in the universe that govern their own realms.
What is God's opinion on this matter? Read that last Deist quote again,then compare that with what God Almighty says here in Romans 9:
18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. 19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'" 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? 22 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath - prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory Romans 9:18-23
I am kind of torn... Do I take the word of gnostic Saddleback pastors who state that they have special knowledge from God on this issue, or do I go with the apostle Paul?
The other way that the rope picture helps me is as a reminder that I can't lean more heavily on one of these two truths - God's will and our choice - than the other. Be sure to keep these truths in balance.
Is this Paul's view of the human will? Does Paul take a "neutral" position on the will of God and the will of man in his treatise of Romans? Once again, this is simply Deist language couched in "Evangelical" jargon. Here we encounter, "Be sure to keep these truths in balance." By now you should know what this means when the Arminian says this. The attempt is to affirm a libertarian notion of free will and to negate God of his free will. This is no "balance," but simply man's effort of stripping the Creator of one of his attributes, free will, and appropriating it as an attribute of the creature. Oh it sounds nice and civil to say, "Let's be balanced," but the implication is that if you do not affirm their notion of "balanced," you are extreme.
There is no inherent value in being "balanced." Should we be balanced pot smokers? Should we balance our idolatry so it's not too extreme? "Let's be balanced" is all about rhetoric. I am not concerned with being balanced–my concern is to be Biblical. Saddleback is more concerned with being palatable with their members and pleasing their creaturely sensibilities than being faithful to God's Word.
In summary, make no bones about it, Saddleback detests the freedom of God. Sure, they may use nice sounding phrases that go unchallenged. But it is those platitudes that are most dangerous because they sound reasonable and "balanced" to the sensibilities of the creature's mind. What is more dangerous? Someone outside the "Evangelical" camp overtly attacking the freedom of God, or a group within the camp attempting to be "reasonable" in accord with their libertarian assumptions.
My heart goes out to those in Saddleback small groups. When these topics arise in a discussion group, the pastors or those leading the group will have their canned Arminian answers to such concerns or questions. Woe to those Saddleback pastors for "not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly." James 3:1
Alan Kurschner says: Saddleback attempts a balancing act between predestination and free-will, and ends up embracing "Evangelical Deism" and the ancient heresy of "Dualism". Alan who previously wrote on the CalvinistGadfly website goes on to say:
Over the years I have often observed three objections to Calvinism: Caricatures, Eisegetical, and Emotional. The emotional objections are the most interesting in my opinion. One that pops up often is "We need to be balanced with Predestination and Free will." When a seasoned Calvinist hears this, they know exactly what that means. For those who do not know what I am talking about, allow me to decipher this code phrase for you by giving you a concrete example in action.
On the Saddleback small group page, there is a FAQ section titled, "Small Group Questions about Saddleback Church". There is a list of common questions that are asked in Saddleback small groups. Coming in at #11, the question is asked, "Do we really have free will?" The sub-question is, "How could God know and plan everything that will happen and yet also give us a free choice? Aren't these two ideas mutually exclusive?" Five very short paragraphs are given as an answer. Let's take some selections from the paragraphs and briefly respond to each one,
One of the great truths of the Bible is that God is able to know and be in control of all that happens (the Bible calls this predestination), and yet still give us free will and individual choice within that plan.
This is not what the Bible calls predestination. Predestination in a general sense is that God decreed those things that will come to past from eternity past. Further, there is no attempt to explain the statement "control all that happens." I would even argue that an Open Theist can agree with the statement above. But what caught my eye is the phrase, "and yet still give us free will and individual choice within that plan." Here the writer is obviously reassuring the Saddleback member that he or she has not lost their free will. It is predictable. Say anything about God and theology, XYZ, then add the tag, "but we still have free will."
One picture that has always helped me to understand these twin truths of God's sovereignty and our free will is that of two ropes hanging before you and extending through the ceiling above your head. One is marked predestination" and the other free will." [sic] If you were able to look through the ceiling you could see that the two ropes are actually one, hanging on a pulley above the ceiling. God can see, in ways that we cannot see, the ways that these seemingly contradictory facts are actually one powerful truth.
Don't expect Saddleback pastors to use the Biblical picture of God's sovereignty and man's will - that being Paul's picture that we are "lumps of clay" and God is the Potter. Nope, leave it up to a Saddleback humanistic Arminian to come up with a "two ropes" illustration to protect his own so-called libertarian free will and diminish our Lord's freedom.
This rope illustration is comical. Here the writer is pretending to be omniscient. I hope you caught what was said, "If you were able to look through the ceiling you could see..." Let's stop right there. The writer is contradicting himself by saying that we cannot look through the ceiling, then he goes on to tell us what is through the ceiling! Simply amazing. That would be like me saying, "We cannot know God's eternal thoughts, but let me tell you what they are." So, being that this Saddleback pastor says that no one can know these thoughts of God, he admits that he is privy to such information. He continues to enlighten us with what we cannot know. He says, "If you were able to look through the ceiling you could see that the two ropes are actually one, hanging on a pulley above the ceiling. God can see, in ways that we cannot see." Ah! there is a pulley above the ceiling...of course...now I understand, thanks to the omniscience of Saddleback gnostic pastors. But I am left with more questions than I had at first: Where is this taught in Scripture? If "God can see, in ways that we cannot see," then how can Saddleback pastors see what we cannot see? How can I look through the "ceiling" and attain this special knowledge of God's eternal thoughts? What else do Saddleback pastors know that I or you don't know? Did an angel appear to Saddleback pastors to reveal this special knowledge?
(By the way, when you hear the phrase, "twin truths" that is just a synonym for "We need to be balanced.")
He continues,
Our free choice cannot violate God's sovereignty and God's sovereignty cannot violate our free choice.
There you have it: Saddleback officially embraces "Evangelical Deism." But worse, they have committed the ancient heresy of "dualism." That is, affirming that there are two independent sovereign powers in the universe that govern their own realms.
What is God's opinion on this matter? Read that last Deist quote again,then compare that with what God Almighty says here in Romans 9:
18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. 19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'" 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? 22 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath - prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory Romans 9:18-23
I am kind of torn... Do I take the word of gnostic Saddleback pastors who state that they have special knowledge from God on this issue, or do I go with the apostle Paul?
The other way that the rope picture helps me is as a reminder that I can't lean more heavily on one of these two truths - God's will and our choice - than the other. Be sure to keep these truths in balance.
Is this Paul's view of the human will? Does Paul take a "neutral" position on the will of God and the will of man in his treatise of Romans? Once again, this is simply Deist language couched in "Evangelical" jargon. Here we encounter, "Be sure to keep these truths in balance." By now you should know what this means when the Arminian says this. The attempt is to affirm a libertarian notion of free will and to negate God of his free will. This is no "balance," but simply man's effort of stripping the Creator of one of his attributes, free will, and appropriating it as an attribute of the creature. Oh it sounds nice and civil to say, "Let's be balanced," but the implication is that if you do not affirm their notion of "balanced," you are extreme.
There is no inherent value in being "balanced." Should we be balanced pot smokers? Should we balance our idolatry so it's not too extreme? "Let's be balanced" is all about rhetoric. I am not concerned with being balanced–my concern is to be Biblical. Saddleback is more concerned with being palatable with their members and pleasing their creaturely sensibilities than being faithful to God's Word.
In summary, make no bones about it, Saddleback detests the freedom of God. Sure, they may use nice sounding phrases that go unchallenged. But it is those platitudes that are most dangerous because they sound reasonable and "balanced" to the sensibilities of the creature's mind. What is more dangerous? Someone outside the "Evangelical" camp overtly attacking the freedom of God, or a group within the camp attempting to be "reasonable" in accord with their libertarian assumptions.
My heart goes out to those in Saddleback small groups. When these topics arise in a discussion group, the pastors or those leading the group will have their canned Arminian answers to such concerns or questions. Woe to those Saddleback pastors for "not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly." James 3:1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)