WORD OF THE DAY From The Pastor's Study

extra ecclesiam nulla salus

(Latin, “outside the church, no salvation”)

This phrase has a long theological history, being coined by Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, in third century, but its meaning today is debated among scholars. While it expresses the belief that the church is necessary for salvation, this does not speak to the issues raised by the multiple divisions within the church that followed through the Middle Ages and into the Reformation and what is meant, in light of such, by the word “church.” All traditions of Christianity - Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox - can claim this phrase as substantially correct, but all three traditions would define it with a particular nuance which would be rejected by the others. Protestants would define “church” as the universal or invisible body of Christ that is not necessarily represented by one visible expression, tradition, or denomination. Both Catholics and Orthodox would claim that their tradition is the true representation of the “church” today, outside of which there is no salvation. However, one might find themselves within this “church” without knowledge of his or her membership.

God’s Purpose or Mine? By Oswald Chambers

He made His disciples get into the boat and go before Him to the other side . . . —Mark 6:45

We tend to think that if Jesus Christ compels us to do something and we are obedient to Him, He will lead us to great success. We should never have the thought that our dreams of success are God’s purpose for us. In fact, His purpose may be exactly the opposite. We have the idea that God is leading us toward a particular end or a desired goal, but He is not. The question of whether or not we arrive at a particular goal is of little importance, and reaching it becomes merely an episode along the way. What we see as only the process of reaching a particular end, God sees as the goal itself.
What is my vision of God’s purpose for me? Whatever it may be, His purpose is for me to depend on Him and on His power now. If I can stay calm, faithful, and unconfused while in the middle of the turmoil of life, the goal of the purpose of God is being accomplished in me. God is not working toward a particular finish— His purpose is the process itself. What He desires for me is that I see "Him walking on the sea" with no shore, no success, nor goal in sight, but simply having the absolute certainty that everything is all right because I see "Him walking on the sea" ( Mark 6:49 ). It is the process, not the outcome, that is glorifying to God.
God’s training is for now, not later. His purpose is for this very minute, not for sometime in the future. We have nothing to do with what will follow our obedience, and we are wrong to concern ourselves with it. What people call preparation, God sees as the goal itself.
God’s purpose is to enable me to see that He can walk on the storms of my life right now. If we have a further goal in mind, we are not paying enough attention to the present time. However, if we realize that moment-by-moment obedience is the goal, then each moment as it comes is precious.

What difference is there between the Lord's Supper and the Roman Catholic Mass?

Q80: What difference is there between the Lord's Supper and the Pope's Mass?

A80: The Lord's Supper testifies to us that we have full forgiveness of all our sins by the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which He Himself once accomplished on the cross;[1] and that by the Holy Ghost we are ingrafted into Christ,[2] who, with His true body, is now in heaven at the right hand of the Father,[3] and is there to be worshiped.[4] But the Mass teaches that the living and the dead do not have forgiveness of sins through the sufferings of Christ, unless Christ is still daily offered for them by the priests, and that Christ is bodily under the form of bread and wine, and is therefore to be worshiped in them. And thus the Mass at bottom is nothing else than a denial of the one sacrifice and suffering of Jesus Christ,[5] and an accursed idolatry.
1. Heb. 7:27; 9:12, 25-28; 10:10, 12, 14; 19:302. I Cor. 6:173. Heb. 1:3; 8:14. John 4:21-24; 20:17; Luke 24:52; Acts 7:55; Col. 3:1; Phil. 3:20-21; I Thess. 1:9-105. Heb. ch. 9-10

Q81: Who are to come to the table of the Lord?

A81: Those who are displeased with themselves for their sins, yet trust that these are forgiven them, and that their remaining infirmity is covered by the suffering and death of Christ; who also desire more and more to strengthen their faith and to amend their life. But the impenitent and hypocrites eat and drink judgment to themselves.[1]
1. I Cor. 10:19-22; 11:28-29; Psa. 51:3; 103:1-4; John 7:37-38; Matt. 5:6

Q82: Are they, then, also to be admitted to this Supper who show themselves by their confession and life to be unbelieving and ungodly?

A82: No, for thereby the covenant of God is profaned and His wrath provoked against the whole congregation;[1] therefore, the Christian Church is bound, according to the order of Christ and His Apostles, to exclude such persons by the Office of the Keys until they amend their lives.
1. I Cor. 11:20, 30-32, 34a; Isa. 1:11-15; 66:3; Jer. 7:21-23; Psa. 50:16-17; Matt. 7:6; Titus 3:10-11; II Thess. 3:6

He Descended into Hell by Mark Johnston

There is nothing more central to the Christian message than the cross of Christ. It is there in the shadows of the Old Testament. It explodes to the fore in the New, dominating the landscape of the Gospel records. And from the very first sermon preached by Peter on the Day of Pentecost it becomes the hallmark of authentic apostolic ministry. As Paul tells the church in Corinth: 'For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified' (1Co 2.2).Paradoxically, as church history unfolds in the post-apostolic era, it is the cross that is chosen as the emblem of the Christian Faith. In an age when death by crucifixion was still commonplace and the very shape of the cross was enough to send a chill down anyone's spine, the church opted, not for a dove, or an image of the empty tomb; but for the cross to be its corporate logo.

That perhaps more than anything is an indicator not only of its significance, but also its centrality to all that the gospel says.We see the scale of its significance reflected in the Apostles' Creed in the way that it skips immediately from confessing the incarnation of Christ to confessing his death upon the cross: He suffered under Pontius Pilate,Was crucified, died and was buried;He descended into hell.Without so much as the blink of an eye, the architects of the Creed gloss over 33 years of Jesus' life on earth and three years of his earthly ministry almost as though they were of no consequence! In so doing they signal the cross as being the defining moment of salvation history and therefore also the keynote of the good news of redemption we preach to the world.That said we cannot help but wonder at what seems like an unusual choice of words in this particular clause: 'He descended into hell'. It is made all the more intriguing when we realise that this third line of the triplet was a much later addition to the Creed - most likely in the latter part of the Fourth Century AD. Not surprisingly it is an addition that has sparked no small measure of controversy and debate as to its precise meaning.Some have argued that it simply signifies Jesus' burial; but that has little merit since it would represent a redundancy of language given the previous clause. Others have argued cogently on the basis of its Greek form as being 'Hades' that it speaks of his descent into the realm of the dead for the period between his death and resurrection.

This view is argued by a shining galaxy of theologians and preachers and cannot be dismissed lightly. But the problem with that interpretation is that it does not reflect the weight and balance of the biblical exposition of the cross and all that it accomplished. So, given the economy of words employed in the Creed, it seems odd to include a statement that reflects something of a mere footnote in the biblical account and its explanation.It seems more sensible to follow John Calvin (as he in turn followed expositors of the Creed before him) and see its inclusion in the Creed as a summary of the two clauses about the death of Christ that precede it. So on the one hand it sums up the full horror of what is stated almost in a matter-of-fact way in those lines; but on the other hand it provides us with the key to seeing all that the cross accomplished for God's people.

Nowhere is the saving significance of Calvary more dramatically expressed than in the words of John the Baptist at as Jesus began his earthly ministry. Pointing the crowds to Jesus he says, 'Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world' (Jn 1.29). Indeed, it bears noting that, in a way that is reflected in the emphasis of the Creed, John the Evangelist skips from confessing the incarnation of Christ to proclaiming his death! On these two great truths the gospel hangs. Three things are worth highlighting in relation to what the two Johns say as a means of explicating what is said in the Creed about the death of Christ.The Innocent Suffering in the Place of the GuiltyJohn the Baptist's ministry as the forerunner of the Christ was geared to expose human sin and guilt and the need for both pardon and cleansing. Its limitation was the fact that he could expose this need, but he could do nothing to deal with it. So, when pressed by a delegation from the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem to say who he was, responded by saying: 'I am not the Christ' (Jn 1.20). Indeed he systematically denied that he was to be identified with any of the messianic figures bound up with the hope of salvation in the Old Testament. His only message was that they should be looking to the One 'who comes after me' (Jn 1.19-28).However, when Jesus appeared among the crowds, without any prompting or collusion between himself and John, John declared, 'Behold the Lamb!' In language that spoke unmistakably of death, the Evangelist uses the testimony of the Baptist to introduce the ministry of Jesus at its inception by pointing to its climax and conclusion. In other words, both Johns are saying that the entire purpose of Jesus' coming was to do for guilty sinners what they could not do for themselves - die to take their sin away!By introducing Jesus in this way, John was not only pointing to the fact that he was destined to die, but also explaining in advance the significance of his death: it would be death as a sacrifice. His language is drawn unmistakably from the world of Old Testament ceremonial practice in which an innocent and unblemished creature (that did not deserve to die) was taken and ritually slaughtered in the place of guilty sinners. God was willing to accept - albeit in symbolic fashion - the death of the innocent in order to preserve the life of the guilty. In that sense it was more than merely the language of some arcane ritual; but rather the language of divine justice. On the one hand it speaks of death as the just consequence of sin. To the ears of our present generation, that sounds harsh, but that is only because today's generation has little or no appreciation of the seriousness of sin. But when we realise that sin is in its very essence defying the authority of God as Lord of the Universe and disrupting the entire equilibrium of the universe he has made, then it makes perfect sense that grand treason on that scale demands the ultimate sanction. The God of the Bible is the Lord of Righteousness whose justice is not to be mocked.The glory of the gospel is that this very same God has instituted a judicial measure by which sin and guilt can be transferred to a third party so that the guilty individual can be pardoned - the entire Old Testament system of sacrifices is built around this fact. God wanted it ingrained into the very psyche of his people that he was simultaneously the Judge of all the Earth and the Saviour of the World without any contradiction.The question for any Jew and indeed for any serious reader of the Old Testament was, 'Where, when and how does the symbol become reality?' God makes it clear repeatedly in the Hebrew Bible that the blood of bulls and goats can never actually atone for the sins of men and women, boys and girls because there is no equivalence between them. Indeed, even if God had sanctioned human sacrifice as a means of making atonement, even then it could be no more than the life of one individual for that of another. So where is the fulfilment? The answer can only be found in one Person and one place: Jesus the God-man providing the only sacrifice with the capacity to atone as one for many and the cross of Calvary as the place where that supreme transaction is made.The judicial element of that transaction is highlighted by Jesus' trial before Pilate. In what in so many ways seems a complete travesty of justice and the ultimate blemish on the judicial system of the Roman Empire, a drama of infinitely deeper significance was unfolding. We have a breathtaking hint of it in the words of Caiaphas the High Priest when he told the Sanhedrin, 'It is better for you that one man should die for the people than that the whole nation perish' (Jn 12.50). Then we see it plainly, as Calvin points out, in the fact that the two charges on which Jesus is convicted before the court of Pilate are treason and blasphemy - the very crimes of which the entire human race is guilty before the court of heaven. The proceedings of the court then climax in what becomes a living allegory in what happens to Barabbas - the criminal convicted of insurrection and murder - when he is released in order that the innocent Jesus might die. The justice being transacted that day as Jesus 'suffered under Pontius Pilate' was the justice of God himself. The innocent suffered so that the guilty might go free.The Blessed One Cursed that the Cursed might be BlessedIf it was true that Jesus' trial before Pilate indicated that there was more going on that day than met the eye, then the manner of Jesus' death made that even more clear.Many people (preachers included) are inclined to look at the fact that Christ died on a cross merely from the perspective of its being a hideous form of the death penalty. If that is all there was to it, then Mel Gibson was entirely justified in doing what he did in The Passion of the Christ. More than that, the atheist who got into trouble recently for saying that by the standard of crucifixions generally Jesus got off pretty lightly, was actually right. The physical torment of crucifixion was undeniably horrendous, but other evil empires have found even more hideous ways to extinguish human life. So physical suffering cannot be the sum total of the anguish Jesus went through that day.The real anguish of the cross can only be understood against the Old Testament backdrop to all that was taking place. In particular, the fact that God had said, '...anyone who is hung on a tree is under God's curse' (Dt 21.23). That statement probably needs a little unpacking for it to make sense to 21st Century Western minds. In the first place it should be borne in mind that 'hanging' in the ancient Near East meant impalement and not suspension by a rope. So for Jesus to be impaled on a Roman gibbet, meant that this sobering anathema settled on him like a cloud - to the horror of those who loved him and the delight of those who wanted him dead. And in the second place, the idea of cursing in the Old Testament was not some primitive version of what is practiced by witch doctors or Voodoo practitioners today; but rather the judicial element of God's holy covenant. While on the one hand God promises blessing to all who believe the promises of his covenant and submit to its stipulations; on the other hand he warns of cursing for all who spurn his overtures of covenant grace and who refuse to bow to his rule. If the essence of blessing is happiness and harmony as the expression of divine favour, then the essence of cursing is unhappiness and chaos as the expression of divine displeasure.So, when Jesus was put to death on a cross that Friday morning, to all the Jews who were watching, he was seen as accursed. And it wasn't just that there was chaos, confusion and disorder all around in the scene at Golgotha; but that smell of divine displeasure filled the air. It was a scene that was made all the more incongruous because the One on the cross exposed to God's curse was the very one of whom the Father had said just three years previously, 'This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased' (Mt 3.17). But the greatest of all disruptions that day came, not in the turmoil that surrounded Jesus, but in the disruption of body and spirit that brought his earthly life to an end - the dis-integration that is the supreme anathema of death.It falls to the apostle Paul to explain the sheer bewilderment of this scene when he tells the Galatians: 'Christ redeems us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree"' (Ga 3.13). The Blessed One is cursed so that those who deserve cursing will be blessed!The Supreme Judge facing the Final JudgmentIt is only when we put these pieces of jigsaw into place as we try to understand what the cross meant that we then appreciate final clause in the Creed's statement about Christ's passion. What could otherwise be seen as something bland and, though tragic, still somewhat innocuous, is in fact utterly extraordinary.'He descended into hell' is the starkest and yet most accurate way of summing up what happened on cross that there is. The Blessed One who, for all eternity had known nothing but the highest heaven of intimacy with God, on the cross plumbed deepest depths of the anguish of hell in order to secure salvation for all his people. The intensity of what that meant is distilled into the words that pierced darkness when Jesus cried out, 'My God, why have you forsaken me?' (Mt 27.46).There was a magnitude to the events played out that day in the drama of Calvary that had eternal proportions. This was nothing less than the drama of Day of Judgment being played out in human history to show where sin ultimately leads. Christ's cry of abandonment is the preview of the final and eternal alienation of hell - permanent separation from God.It stands as a sobering warning to all who think that keeping God at a distance in this life is a choice worth making. But at the same time it is proof of God's promise to save all those who dare to put their hope and trust in his grace and mercy. God has not only made a promise, but has fulfilled its own requirements by satisfying the demands of his perfect justice to the full, so that he can justly throw open floodgates of his love.The cross means that God is able to save with clean conscience! It is nothing less than the One who will one day be the Judge of all mankind taking full force of final judgment so that sinners might be spared.'He descended into hell' may be the most controversial clause in the Apostles' Creed, but when seen this way, it becomes the most glorious, because it speaks most eloquently about the justice and grace of God's salvation!

Mark Johnston is the Senior Minister of Grove Chapel in Camberwell, London

Fully Man and Fully God By Dr. John MacArthur

Did Jesus really claim to be God incarnate in human flesh? Or, as skeptics argue, did His followers later invent those claims and attribute them to Him? Thankfully, the biblical account of His life and ministry leaves no doubt about who Jesus declared Himself to be.

Jesus frequently spoke of His unique, otherworldly origin, of having preexisted in heaven before coming into this world. To the hostile Jews He declared, “You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world” (John 8:23). “What then,” He asked, “if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?” (John 6:62). In His high-priestly prayer Jesus spoke of the glory which He had with the Father before the world existed (John 17:5). In John 16:28 He told His disciples, “I came forth from the Father and have come into the world; I am leaving the world again and going to the Father.” Thus, John described Jesus in the prologue of his gospel with these words: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1).
Amazingly, Jesus assumed the prerogatives of deity. He claimed to have control over the eternal destinies of people (John 8:24; cf. Luke 12:8–9; John 5:22, 27–29), to have authority over the divinely-ordained institution of the Sabbath (Matt. 12:8; Mark 2:28; Luke 6:5), to have the power to answer prayer (John 14:13–14; cf. Acts 7:59; 9:10–17), and to have the right to receive worship and faith due to God alone (Matt. 21:16; John 14:1; cf. John 5:23). He also assumed the ability to forgive sins (Mark 2:5–11)—something which, as His shocked opponents correctly understood, only God can do (v. 7).
Jesus also called God’s angels (Gen. 28:12; Luke 12:8–9; 15:10; John 1:51) His angels (Matt. 13:41; 24:30–31); God’s elect (Luke 18:7; Rom. 8:33) His elect (Matt. 24:30–31); and God’s kingdom (Matt. 12:28; 19:24; 21:31; Mark 1:15; Luke 4:43; John 3:3) His kingdom (Matt. 13:41; 16:28; cf. Luke 1:33; 2 Tim. 4:1).
When a Samaritan woman said to Him, “I know that Messiah is coming (He who is called Christ); when that One comes, He will declare all things to us” (John 4:25) Jesus replied, “I who speak to you am He” (v. 26). In His high-priestly prayer to the Father, He referred to Himself as “Jesus Christ whom You have sent” (John 17:3); “Christ” is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word translated “Messiah.” When asked at His trial by the high priest, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” (Mark 14:61) Jesus replied simply, “I am” (v. 62). He also accepted, without correction or amendment, the testimonies of Peter (Matt. 16:16–17), Martha (John 11:27), and others (e.g., Matt. 9:27; 20:30–31) that He was the Messiah. He was the One of whom Isaiah prophesied, “His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6).
The Lord’s favorite description of Himself was “Son of Man” (cf. Matt. 8:20; Mark 2:28; Luke 6:22; John 9:35–37, etc.). Although that title seems to stress His humanity, it also speaks of His deity. Jesus’ use of the term derives from Daniel 7:13–14, where the Son of Man is on equal terms with God the Father, the Ancient of Days.
The Jews viewed themselves collectively as sons of God. Jesus, however, claimed to be God’s Son in a unique sense. “All things have been handed over to Me by My Father,” Jesus affirmed, “and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him” (Matt. 11:27). In John 5:25–26 He said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself.” After receiving word that Lazarus was ill Jesus said to the disciples, “This sickness is not to end in death, but for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified by it” (John 11:4). When asked at His trial, “Are You the Son of God, then?” Jesus replied, “Yes, I am” (Luke 22:70; cf. Mark 14:61–62). Instead of rejecting the title, the Lord embraced it without apology or embarrassment (Matt. 4:3, 6; 8:29; Mark 3:11–12; Luke 4:41; John 1:49–50; 11:27).
The hostile authorities clearly understood that Jesus’ use of the title Son of God was a claim to deity. Otherwise, they would not have accused Him of blasphemy (cf. John 10:46). In fact, it was Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God that led the Jews to demand His death: “The Jews answered [Pilate], ‘We have a law, and by that law He ought to die because He made Himself out to be the Son of God’” (John 19:7). And in John 5:18 — “The Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.” Even while He was on the cross, some mocked Him, sneering, “He trusts in God; let God rescue Him now, if He delights in Him; for He said, ‘I am the Son of God’” (Matt. 27:43).
Jesus further outraged the unbelieving Jews by taking for Himself the covenant name of God, “I am” (Yahweh). That name was so sacred to the Jews that they refused to even pronounce it, lest they take it vain (cf. Exod. 20:7). In John 8:24 Jesus warned that those who refuse to believe He is Yahweh will perish eternally: “Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” (The word “He” is not in the original Greek.) Later in that chapter “Jesus said to [His hearers], ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am’” (v. 58). Unlike many modern deniers of His deity, the Jews knew exactly what He was claiming, as their subsequent attempt to stone Him for blasphemy makes clear (v. 59). In John 13:19 Jesus told His disciples that when what He predicted came to pass, they would believe that He is Yahweh. Even His enemies, coming to arrest Him in Gethsemane, were overwhelmed by His divine power and fell to the ground when Jesus said “I am” (John 18:5–8).
All of the above lines of evidence converge on one inescapable point: Jesus Christ claimed absolute equality with God. Thus He could say, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30); “He who sees Me sees the One who sent Me” (John 12:45); and “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (14:9–10). And thus we can conclude that “in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (Col. 2:9), and we can worship Him accordingly as “our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus” (Titus 2:13).

Jesus, Made in America Review by Nathan Williams

“So it may be argued . . . that America has its own quest for Jesus, its own reshaping of the Son of God, fashioning Him into something more palatable to American tastes and acceptable to American sensibilities.” (p. 10)
The above quote accurately captures the main idea proposed by Stephen Nichols in his new book, Jesus, Made in America. In this book, Nichols guides the reader chronologically through American history, beginning with the Puritans, and ending with the current evangelical obsession with political activism. With every new era in American history comes a new transformation of the Son of God by the surrounding culture.
Essentially, Jesus, Made in America, provides a study of the way in which the church’s perception and teaching about Christ have been shaped by the culture. Nichols begins with the era of the Puritans in America. Although not perfect, in many ways the early American Puritans were the apex of the American perception and teaching about Christ. They welded together deep personal piety and a theological precision that the church today is severely lacking.
After the Puritans, the American perception of Jesus has been in severe decline and this is the story told throughout the rest of this book.
This decline began with the influence of the founding fathers on the national idea of Christ. Men such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were eager to strip Jesus of divinity and reduce Christianity to a set of good moral teachings. Next, through the 19th century Jesus was first a masculine frontiersmen and next a feminized Victorian depending on the bent of the culture. As the 20th century dawned it brought the fundamentalist/modernist controversy and with it another period of emphasis on the character and lifestyle of Jesus rather than the truth of who Jesus is.
Nichols spends the second half of the book all in the 20th and 21st century. These 4 chapters provide some of the most bizarre ways in which culture has influenced teaching on Jesus including the WWJD? craze, the book Jesus in Blue Jeans and the (often) shallow and money-driven Contemporary Christian Music industry.
Worldliness continues to plague the church and always will. I believe one of the major problems for Christians is identifying exactly what worldliness means and how to apply biblical commands to not be conformed to the world. Perhaps we make it more difficult than it should be. As I read through this book, I felt like the veil was being pulled back and I was getting an inside look at exactly how worldly the church has become. All throughout the history of America, we have allowed the surrounding culture to influence how we think of our Savior. Having a Jesus who has been molded by the fad of the moment has become such a “normal” part of evangelicalism that we can’t even see it anymore. It’s almost as if we believe Jesus should reflect the societal obsession of the moment.
One of the major reasons for the malleable Jesus we have created is the complex nature of Christ presented in the gospels. More often than not, problems arise when one generation focuses on one aspect of the character of Christ to the exclusion or at least minimization of the other facets of who He is. We must remember that Jesus is not only human but divine, He is loving and at the same time so angry over sin that He will send many to Hell for eternity. We must balance the tensions of the complex character of Christ. When we get out of balance in our perception of who He is, we create massive problems. This book is a clear and accurate description of the history of those problems in America.
The value of understanding history cannot be overstated. Many of the modern currents of evangelicalism make perfect sense when seen from the vantage point of the bridge overlooking the entire river. In other words, through the historical study of the misconceptions of Jesus, many of the problems in the church today become easily identifiable.
My favorite chapter and the one I found to be most helpful was the chapter dealing with Jesus and politics. Obviously we are in the middle of an election year and the political system has captured the mind of the country. Nichols offers insightful analysis of the way the “right” and the “left” have claimed Jesus as one of their own. Then he briefly offers a helpful strategy for Christian political engagement without cheapening the gospel or Jesus as so much Christian political activism does today.
Overall, this is a book that is enjoyable to read and one full of fascinating wisdom on the way American culture has shaped Jesus.

Justification by Faith (pt. 2) by John H. Gerstner

The epistle to the Romans has already shown us that man is guilty before God. Their sins have incurred the wrath of God: "The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness" (Romans 1:18). And this wrath is further intensified by every sin that is committed: "thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up wrath against the day of wrath and the revelation of the righteous judgment of God" (Romans 2:5).
Later, the same epistle tells us that "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). Death refers to eternal death in hell because it is set in contrast with eternal life. Did not Christ Himself say the same thing? "The Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many" (Matthew 20:28). He said, "This is My body which is given for you" (Luke 22:19). Did He not say that like "as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up" (John 3:14)? Why would the Son of man be lifted up as a vile serpent, the symbol of sin, to become sin and cry out in His desolation, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" (Matthew 27:46) except that, as Paul says, God "made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" (2 Corinthians 5:21). Christ Himself did not say so much about His death. He was making the sacrifice, so He left to others the privilege of explaining it. For 2000 years now the church has been glorying in His cross and exploring its wondrous meaning.
The positive element, making sinners just or righteous, is really the central aspect of justification, though it is commonly less noticed. But, as we have said, if Christ did not procure our righteousness as well as secure our remission, the latter would have been of no avail to us, for we would still be outside paradise and exposed to the recurrence of sin and ultimate damnation. God could not bestow righteousness on us, to be sure, without removing our filthy guilt. But on the other hand, it would have been no use to remove our guilt if He did not bestow a new righteousness on us. This is what the first Adam failed to do. He was never asked to die for the remission of sin, but he was placed on probation to fulfill the law and secure the perpetual favor of God upon all whom he represented--and he failed in this. The second Adam, the man Christ Jesus, both washed us from our sins by His blood and clothed us in the white raiment of His righteousness, justified.
In order to do this great thing, Christ had first to be justified Himself so that those whom He represented might share in His justification; and this He did. He fulfilled the law perfectly, not for Himself alone, but for His people. He was holy and undefiled, a Lamb without blemish. He was the only one who could say, "The prince of this world cometh, and he hath nothing in Me." He was the Son in whom the Father was well-pleased, made in all points like as we are, but without sin. Therefore God vindicated the second Adam, as we read in 1 Peter 3:18: "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened in the Spirit." And 1 Timothy 3:16: "Without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness: 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." Here we see that the man Christ Jesus was justified by His own keeping of the law; but in Romans 4:25 we see that this justification was not for Himself alone, but representatively for His people; "Who was delivered up for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification." So 1 Timothy tells us that He was raised again for His own justification, and Romans 4:25 shows that He was raised again for our justification.
In justification, as in all other works as a Mediator, Christ does not act as a private person, but as a public one; not for Himself alone, but for all of His own; not for the Head only, but for the members of the body as well. So that we are quickened, raised up, and made to sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus. You are Christ's, and Christ is God's. Again, Romans 8:34: "Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea, rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us." So, being justified, being endowed with a title to life as well as a reprieve from death, "we have peace with God . . .access into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice [triumphantly] in hope of the glory of God."
That these two elements together constitute justification is shown in Acts 26:18: "that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and an inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in Me." And John 5:24: "He that heareth My word, and believeth on Him that sent Me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation."
You may ask, "Why is faith the means of justification? Is it a kind of good work?"
I answer, no; the Bible is very plain in teaching that salvation is not by works of any kind. If it were, we would have something to glory about; we could not boast that we did this or that, but we could glory in our belief. We could alter Toplady's hymn like this: "Nothing in my hands I bring, except my faith!" No other work could avail, only the work of believing. If faith were a kind of good work, we would be back again at the old heresy of salvation by works--and the work that saves would be the work of faith. Romans 4:5 makes it clear that we are not saved by faith as a good work; for that text says that we are justified while still ungodly in ourselves. God "justifieth the ungodly." So, at the moment of justification, we are still ungodly. If we are still ungodly then, our faith cannot be a good work.
But if you ask why faith is the means of justification, it is simply because it is the act of union with Jesus Christ. Faith is our coming to Him, our trusting Him, our resting in Him. The moment we are united to Him, we are immediately endowed with all that He has secured for us. We are immediately justified before we have done a single good deed, because we are His and He is God's. A very poor woman is a very poor woman until the very moment that she marries a wealthy man; but at the moment that she becomes his wife, she becomes a wealthy woman. It is by means of her acceptance that she becomes a wealthy woman; but her acceptance does not make her wealthy--it is her husband's wealth that makes her so. And faith does not justify, Christ does--but faith unites us to Christ.

Justification by Faith (pt. 1) by John H. Gerstner

From Romans 1:18 to 3:20, the Apostle Paul seeks to demonstrate the universal sinfulness of men. He shows the wrath of God revealed against the heathen because they would not have God in their thinking. He shows that the nominally religious people of Israel, by their condemning other persons for sins of which they were also guilty, were treasuring up "wrath against the day of wrath." In chapter 3 Paul shows that all have gone astray: "There is none that doeth good." With or without the law, men have sinned. Every mouth is stopped; the whole world is shut up under judgment. Then and only then does the apostle come back to this theme:
Now the righteousness of God without [or apart from] the law is manifested [revealed], being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe; for there is no difference, for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God; being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood, to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God--to declare, I say, at this time His righteousness, that He might be just and the Justifier of him which believeth in Jesus (Romans 3:21-26).
Having shown most plainly that no man can be saved by the works of the law, Paul proceeds to show just as plainly that men may be saved by the faith that is in Christ Jesus. Now that he has shown men why they should not trust in themselves, he will show them how suitable it is to trust in Christ. Since their own works only condemn them, he will tell them of one whose works can save them. Furthermore, he says that this is no new or novel way of salvation; it is the only way of salvation in all ages. Abraham was saved in this way, and so was David.
In the beginning of chapter 4, Paul points out that "if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory, but not before God. For what saith the Scripture? 'Abraham believed God and it was counted unto him for righteousness.' " Then in verse 5 he gives us a classic statement of justification by faith alone: "To him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." Justification is by faith alone without works.
The Westminster Shorter Catechism has well summarized the abundance of biblical data on this great theme: "Justification is an act of God's grace wherein He pardoneth all our sins and accepteth us as righteous in His sight only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us and received by faith alone."
Justification has a positive and a negative element. It consists at once in the removal of guilt and the imputation [or granting] of righteousness. It rescues the sinner as a brand from the burning, and at the same time gives him a title to heaven. If it failed to do either of these, it would fail to do anything; for man, as a sinner against God, must have that enormous guilt somehow removed. But, at the same time, if he had the guilt removed he would still be devoid of positive righteousness and with no title to heaven, and would also be certain to fall again into sin and condemnation. If Christ only canceled our guilt, He would merely return the sinner to Adam's original state without Adam's original perfection of nature. There must be a "double cure" then, as Augustus Toplady wrote in his beloved hymn, "Rock of Ages":
Rock of Ages, cleft for me, Let me hide myself in Thee; Let the water and the blood, From Thy riven side which flowed, Be of sin the double cure, Cleanse me from its guilt and power.

Oswald Chambers Story

Oswald Chambers (1874-1917) was born July 24, 1874, in Aberdeen, Scotland. Converted in his teen years under the ministry of Charles Haddon Spurgeon, he studied art and archaeology at the University of Edinburgh before answering a call from God to the Christian ministry. He then studied theology at Dunoon College. From 1906-1910 he conducted an itinerant Bible-teaching ministry in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Japan.
In 1910, Chambers married Gertrude Hobbs. They had one daughter, Kathleen.
In 1911 he founded and became principal of the Bible Training College in Clapham, London, where he lectured until the school was closed in 1915 because of World War I. In October 1915 he sailed for Zeitoun, Egypt (near Cairo), where he ministered to troops from Australia and New Zealand as a YMCA chaplain. He died there November 15, 1917, following surgery for a ruptured appendix.
Although Oswald Chambers wrote only one book, Baffled to Fight Better, more than thirty titles bear his name. With this one exception, published works were compiled by Mrs. Chambers, a court stenographer, from her verbatim shorthand notes of his messages taken during their seven years of marriage. For half a century following her husband's death she labored to give his words to the world.
My Utmost For His Highest, his best-known book, has been continuously in print in the United States since 1935 and remains in the top ten titles of the religious book bestseller list with millions of copies in print. It has become a Christian classic.

Dependent on God’s Presence By Oswald Chambers

There is no thrill for us in walking, yet it is the test for all of our steady and enduring qualities. To "walk and not faint" is the highest stretch possible as a measure of strength. The word walk is used in the Bible to express the character of a person— ". . . John . . . looking at Jesus as He walked. . . said, ’Behold the Lamb of God!’ " ( John 1:35-36 ). There is nothing abstract or obscure in the Bible; everything is vivid and real. God does not say, "Be spiritual," but He says, "Walk before Me. . ." ( Genesis 17:1 ).
When we are in an unhealthy condition either physically or emotionally, we always look for thrills in life. In our physical life this leads to our efforts to counterfeit the work of the Holy Spirit; in our emotional life it leads to obsessions and to the destruction of our morality; and in our spiritual life, if we insist on pursuing only thrills, on mounting up "with wings like eagles" ( Isaiah 40:31 ), it will result in the destruction of our spirituality.
Having the reality of God’s presence is not dependent on our being in a particular circumstance or place, but is only dependent on our determination to keep the Lord before us continually. Our problems arise when we refuse to place our trust in the reality of His presence. The experience the psalmist speaks of— "We will not fear, even though . . ." ( Psalm 46:2 )— will be ours once we are grounded on the truth of the reality of God’s presence, not just a simple awareness of it, but an understanding of the reality of it. Then we will exclaim, "He has been here all the time!" At critical moments in our lives it is necessary to ask God for guidance, but it should be unnecessary to be constantly saying, "Oh, Lord, direct me in this, and in that." Of course He will, and in fact, He is doing it already! If our everyday decisions are not according to His will, He will press through them, bringing restraint to our spirit. Then we must be quiet and wait for the direction of His presence.

What Does Jesus Demand From Us? By Paul Washer

CLICK HERE TO SEE VIDEO............http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBAcrDiITJ0&eurl=http://bloodtippedears.blogspot.com/2008/07/paul-washer-what-does-jesus-demand-from.html

Lakeland Healing Revival

Beware another false "prophet" is on the loose and his name is Todd Bentley and he's in the middle of 'healing revival' in Lakeland Florida. This man is nothing more than a new TBN type false prophet and minister. He blathers on about seeing angels and seeing Jesus and receiving personal revelations directly from Jesus. This man is dangerous and deceptive. When he's done with you, your wallet will be empty and your soul will be without Christ.

click for video.....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbBUMv0V-ZU&eurl=http://www.alittleleaven.com/

Todd Bentley - Forget Preaching About Jesus...Get People to "Believe in the Angel"

Apparently "God" isn't interested in the church hearing about Jesus any more. Todd Bentley claims that God wants people to believe in the angel named "winds of change" that supposedly visited Bentley at the beginning of the Lakeland "revival".
Bentley's 'god' told him, "Todd, you’ve got to get people to believe in the angel”

click for video........ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIjO4wMLjBk&eurl=http://www.alittleleaven.com/

Galatians 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!
1 Cor. 2:1 And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. 2 For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.

A THOUGHT FOR TODAYS PREACHERS By Oswald Chambers

My speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom . . . —1 Corinthians 2:4


Paul was a scholar and an orator of the highest degree; he was not speaking here out of a deep sense of humility, but was saying that when he preached the gospel, he would veil the power of God if he impressed people with the excellency of his speech. Belief in Jesus is a miracle produced only by the effectiveness of redemption, not by impressive speech, nor by wooing and persuading, but only by the sheer unaided power of God. The creative power of redemption comes through the preaching of the gospel, but never because of the personality of the preacher.


Real and effective fasting by a preacher is not fasting from food, but fasting from eloquence, from impressive diction, and from everything else that might hinder the gospel of God being presented. The preacher is there as the representative of God— ". . . as though God were pleading through us . . ." (2 Corinthians 5:20). He is there to present the gospel of God. If it is only because of my preaching that people desire to be better, they will never get close to Jesus Christ. Anything that flatters me in my preaching of the gospel will result in making me a traitor to Jesus, and I prevent the creative power of His redemption from doing its work.
"And I, if I am lifted up. . . , will draw all peoples to Myself" (John 12:32).

Modernity, Madness, and Morals by Dr Al Mohler

Why do you do what is right, rather than what is wrong? That is hardly a new question. It troubled the minds of the ancients. Some felt that humans are naturally drawn to virtue, but they were hard-pressed to explain why some individuals seemed to resist this impulse. Others argued that society had to make a firm impression upon the young, inculcating a desire for virtue and character that was more external than internal.
Fast forward and the Victorians in Britain were convinced that a lack of virtue could be traced to either heredity or deprivation. Assuming the British middle class as normative, the Victorians offered the advice famously advocated by Jiminy Cricket to Pinocchio -- "Let your conscience be your guide."
Experience indicates, consistent with what the Bible teaches, that this advice has limited value. The conscience is a human capacity for sure, part of the moral sense that testifies of the imago Dei, but it is just as deformed by the Fall as any other capacity. Conscience alone explains nothing. Many of the most heinous acts in human history have been done by individuals with a clear conscience. The conscience can lie, rationalize, and deceive.
More recently, moral philosophers have settled on a more clearly secular theory of morality -- rational choice theory. According to rational choice theory, people tend to settle on a moral code that fits their needs and leads, or is likely to lead, to their desired outcomes. In other words, individuals make a rational choice. A young woman might make a rational choice not to engage in premarital sex because she does not want to harm her reputation or opportunities or marriage. A young man might not shoplift because it would harm his chances of advancement. Rational choice theorists argue that their theory can explain virtually any human behavior, including moral choice.
We must admit that there is ample evidence to support this theory, at least in many cases of moral choice. This is a very significant insight for Christian theology, for it reminds us that when people make a choice to do good, it does not follow that they are good.
Take the example of two ten-year-old boys. One is considered a "good" boy because he is pleasant, respectful, obedient, and rarely breaks rules. The other boy is a "bad" boy who is markedly unpleasant, disrespectful, disobedient, and regularly flaunts his breaking of rules. Without doubt, we would rather that our own 10-year-old son, if we had one, would sit next to the first boy in class, rather than the second. But is the first boy really a "good" boy, and s the second really "bad?"
In reality, the first boy may have decided that being "good" works for him. His parents expect it of him. He is rewarded when he obeys (even if the reward is what merely comes his way with parental pleasure) and he is punished when he disobeys. He may have learned to play the game -- a game with far larger rewards later in life. Life goes much easier for this lad when he behaves well and is seen to do so -- so he does.
The second boy has no experience of similar controls. He does not expect life to go better for him if he behaves well. He may lack parents who would even teach him how to behave, much less reward him when he obeys and punish him when he disobeys. Instead, he learns that cutting corners, breaking rules, flaunting his misbehavior, and playing the part of the "bad" boy works for him. He gets more attention (even if negative attention) and gains the respect of his peer structure by misbehavior.
As twentieth century authors like Joseph Heller and Kurt Vonnegut understood so well, standing upside-down works rather well when the world is upside-down.
Minette Marrin raises many of these issues in her insightful report on Britain's problem of criminal youth -- boys and young man who have rejected the social contract and are seemingly beyond the reach of those who would reform them. In other words, these are young males who have made a rational choice to be criminals, she argues.
Her report was published in the July 13, 2008 edition of The Times [London]. As she makes her case, she also offers some important insights into how Britain negotiated away its common moral commitments.
She writes:
No one disagrees any longer that Britain is in parts and in places broken; Gallowgate [in Glascow] is a horrifying microcosm of broken families, broken spirits, broken health and broken schools; it is a dark place of chronic unemployment, violence and crime, of disorder and fear –- a disgrace to the supposedly developed world.
It's also true that at long last people of all persuasions are beginning to recognise that this social breakdown is due in part to the abdication both of authority and of personal responsibility that began some time after the war. Some are inclined to emphasise the demoralising paternalism of the welfare state, others the permissiveness of the 1960s, but few now question this abdication, at all levels. Not only that –- taking personal responsibility is sometimes forbidden, or punished, as when misguided adults try to control delinquent children in the street.
However, while personal responsibility and shared morality are essential to a good society and the only glue for a broken one, neither can be had just by whistling for them. Both depend on an instinctive sense of a social contract. Conventional morality is meaningless to a boy who has nothing whatsoever to gain by good behaviour. Personal responsibility means nothing if you have grown up neglected, abused and powerless among adults who hardly know what it is and feel powerless themselves.
Those paragraphs contain crucial moral insights and social observations. Many of those insights and observations would fit just as well with reference to American cities and American youth. One important difference is that a smaller percentage of American boys and young men seem yet to have abandoned the entire social contract.
Then comes Marrin's key paragraph:
Morality depends on having something to lose. It isn't just a matter of learning right from wrong, least of all in a post-religious society. Morality is socially constructed. I will respect your property and your person because I want you to respect mine. We both have something to lose. One does not have to be educated in political philosophy to understand that ancient deal. But if I have neither property nor respect from anyone, what's in the deal for me?
With this paragraph she articulates rational choice theory in all of its plausibility and all its inherent limitations. We must admit that much of what we call morality is indeed socially constructed -- matters of cultural context and custom. But we fool ourselves if we believe that all morality is socially constructed. Rational choice theory must assume that it is, but a bit of serious reflection is enough to throw all that into doubt. The Christian worldview insists that morality depends ultimately upon the character of God.
God's own righteousness is the ground of authentic morality and His revelation of what is right and what is wrong (as Paul reminds us, in nature, in conscience, in the law, in the Scripture, and in Christ) is our only sure guide.
Minette Marrin offers frightening insights in her important report. These insights should humble the proud, and make us all a bit more aware of just why we "behave" when others do not. A good dose of rational choice theory is humbling indeed. But, at the same time, we must be thankful that this is not where we are left.
The rational choice theorist has little or nothing to say to the boys and young men of Minette Marrin's concern. The Christian church does have something to say -- the liberating truth of the Gospel. But in order to be heard, we had better first be humbled by the honest recognition that we are not as "good" as we like to think. We are all delinquents -- every last one of us.

The Will to Debate by Keith A. Mathison

When Dutch Calvinists and Arminians squared off against one another in the early part of the seventeenth century, the Calvinists won the opening battle. The controversy, however, soon spread beyond the borders of the Netherlands. Now, four hundred years later, the conflict continues, and in terms of numbers alone, Arminianism is clearly winning the war for the hearts and minds of professing Christians. Today, Calvinists are a small minority. But why the debate in the first place? Is it really that important?


Many professing Christians today would say that the debate between Calvinism and Arminianism should be put to rest, that we have more important things to think about. Robert A. Peterson and Michael D. Williams disagree. In their book, Why I Am Not an Arminian (IVP, 2004), these two authors not only explain what Arminianism is, they demonstrate how it is biblically, theologically, and philosophically unsound and why it must be rejected by those concerned to be faithful to the teaching of Scripture.

Peterson and Williams begin by providing some historical context to the debate. They look first at the fourth-century debate between Augustine and Pelagius over the nature of sin. The importance of our understanding of this doctrine can hardly be overstated, because what a person understands about sin will inevitably affect his understanding of grace and redemption. The authors show that Pelagius' underestimation of the power of sin and his overestimation of the power of human ability destroys the Gospel.

Two topics that have been debated from the fourth century on are predestination and perseverance, and Robertson and Williams devote the next two chapters to an examination of each. Generally speaking, Arminians teach that election to salvation is conditioned upon foreseen faith. Calvinists, on the other hand, believe that the Scriptures teach unconditional election, namely, that election is based on God's sovereign will. Arminians also reject what Calvinists refer to as the "perseverance of the saints." According to Arminian theology, true Christians can and do apostatize from the faith. Peterson and Williams devote considerable space to showing why the Arminian doctrines are false and to demonstrating the biblical foundation of the Calvinist doctrines.

In chapter 5, the authors provide a historical and theological overview of the Calvinist-Arminian controversy that led to the Synod of Dort in 1618-19. In the remaining four chapters, Peterson and Williams compare Calvinist and Arminian teaching on four crucial topics. They look first at the different views of human freedom. Arminianism generally teaches that human freedom and divine sovereignty are logically incompatible. Calvinists, on the other hand, argue that human freedom and divine sovereignty are compatible because the Bible affirms both. The final three chapters examine the differences between Calvinists and Arminians on the subjects of depravity, grace, and the atonement. In each case, Peterson and Williams set forth the biblical case for the Calvinist position. They argue that the Bible clearly teaches total depravity, irresistible grace, and substitutionary atonement.

Unlike many books on the subject (from both sides), Peterson and Williams counter the claims of Arminians with both clarity and charity. They do not understate serious differences, but they take particular care to make sure the views of those with whom they differ are presented accurately. This is important because critiquing views that are held by no one in order to score debating points with those who do not know any better is both dishonest and a waste of time.
Peterson and Williams' book is important because the issues involved are important. The issues at the heart of the Calvinist-Arminian controversy are intimately related to the Gospel. The controversy deals with the nature of God's sovereignty and human free will, the impact of sin upon human beings, the meaning of the atonement, the definition and power of God's grace, the possibility of assurance, and much more. Clearly, such doctrines lie at the heart of the Christian faith.
The Calvinist-Arminian debate is not a debate that Christians can afford to ignore. It is vitally important. If you have been a Christian for any amount of time, you likely know people who are Arminian or who have been influenced by Arminian teaching. It is important to be ready to give an answer when challenged by such teaching. For those who want to be ready, Why I Am Not an Arminian is a good place to start.

WORD OF THE DAY From The Pastor's Study

perichoresis

[pehr’-ih-koe-ree‘-sis]

(Greek peri, “around” + Greek choreio, “dance”)


Refers to the mutual indwelling and relationship of the members of the Trinity. This concept is emphasized more by Eastern Christianity, but is affirmed by all orthodox branches of Trinitarian Christianity. St John of Damascus defines it such: “The subsistences [i.e., the three Persons] dwell and are established firmly in one another. For they are inseparable and cannot part from one another, but keep to their separate courses within one another, without coalescing or mingling, but cleaving to each other. For the Son is in the Father and the Spirit: and the Spirit in the Father and the Son: and the Father in the Son and the Spirit, but there is no coalescence or commingling or confusion. And there is one and the same motion: for there is one impulse and one motion of the three subsistences, which is not to be observed in any created nature” (The Orthodox Faith, 1.14).

All Truth Is God's Truth by Dr. R.C. Sproul

During the nineteenth-century potato famine in Ireland, my great-grandfather, Charles Sproul, fled his native land to seek refuge in America. He left his thatched roof and mud floor cottage in a northern Ireland village and made his way barefoot to Dublin -- to the wharf from which he sailed to New York. After registering as an immigrant at Ellis Island, he made his way west to Pittsburgh, where a large colony of Scots-Irish people had settled. They were drawn to that site by the industrial steel mills led by the Scot, Andrew Carnegie.

My great-grandfather died in Pittsburgh in 1910, but not until he instilled a profound love for the tradition and yore of Ireland in his sons and grandsons. Thirty years ago, one of my cousins made a pilgrimage to north Ireland to seek his roots in the town from which our great-grandfather came. As he inquired about the whereabouts of any Sprouls, he was told by an elderly gentleman that the last surviving member of our family had perished when he stumbled on his way home from the local pub in a profound state of inebriation. He fell into a canal and drowned.

This leaves us with the stereotype of the Irish as hard-drinking, two-fisted men, who consider bricks to be "Irish confetti." This caricature of the Irish, however, obscures some very important dimensions of Irish history. In the eighth century, missionary settlers to Ireland were very important to the Christianization of the British Isles that had been inhabited largely by pagans and barbarians. The monasteries in Ireland were noted for their devotion to scholarship, for copying biblical texts, and especially for adorning the biblical texts with magnificent illuminations. Their passion for scholarship and art quickly spread to Great Britain where the codification of ancient law was established, which has made an impact even on our land to this day.

One of the most important scholars of this period was a man called Bede, known as the "Venerable." He resided in England and is considered to be the first great European historian. The Irish also produced a masterpiece that combined scholarship and beauty in the famous Book of Kells.

But it was in the second part of the eighth century that the great impetus for a revival of scholarship took place. It was under the reign of Charles the Great (Charlemagne), crowned as the first holy Roman emperor, that a new revival of arts and sciences took place. This revival, called the "Carolingian Renaissance," foreshadowed the great Renaissance that would sweep through Europe in the late Middle Ages, beginning chiefly with the work of the Medici patrons in Italy, which found its zenith in the labors of Lorenzo the Magnificent.
In the Holy Roman Empire of the eighth century, Charlemagne was determined to recover the best of classical and biblical learning. He became a patron of scholarship and appointed as his chief intellectual assistant Alcuin, who was from Great Britain. Charlemagne was one of the most illustrious members of the Carolingian dynasty that began with his father, Pepin the Short, and lasted until the tenth century. The Renaissance was a recovery of classical language and biblical truth.

The later Renaissance at the time of the sixteenth century with its most famous personage, Erasmus of Rotterdam, found its motto in the words ad fontes, that is, "to the sources." The motto declared the intent of the scholars of that day to return to the wellspring -- "to the sources" of ancient philosophy, culture, and especially the biblical languages. So a renewed study of the Greek philosophers, Plato and Aristotle, coupled with a zeal for the recovery of the biblical languages, spearheaded both the later Renaissance as well as the Carolingian Renaissance that came about under the leadership of Charlemagne.


Before the Carolingian period, Augustine, in his passion for scholarship, was convinced that it was the duty of the Christian to learn as much as possible about as many things as possible. Since all truth is God's truth, all aspects of scientific inquiry are to be within the province of biblical and Christian learning. It was not by accident that the great discoveries of Western science were spearheaded by Christians who took seriously their responsibilities to exercise dominion over the earth in service to God. Rather than seeing learning, scholarship, and the pursuit of beauty as being ideas foreign to the Christian enterprise, the eighth-century revival, following the earlier lead of Augustine, saw a pursuit of God Himself in the pursuit of knowledge and of beauty.

They saw that God is the source of all truth and of all beauty.
Throughout the centuries, Christian influences dominated the world of art as well as the world of scholarship. The legacy of this period has enriched the whole scope of Western history even to this day. It is imperative that we in the twenty-first century learn from the pioneers of the past who did not despise classical scholarship, but saw it as something to be harnessed in the service of the kingdom of God.

Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation? By Dr.John MacArthur

No. Let's examine what the Scriptures teach on this issue:


First, it is quite clear from such passages as Acts 15 and Romans 4 that no external act is necessary for salvation. Salvation is by divine grace through faith alone (Romans 3:22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30; 4:5; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; Philippians 3:9, etc.).
If water baptism were necessary for salvation, we would expect to find it stressed whenever the gospel is presented in Scripture. That is not the case, however. Peter mentioned baptism in his sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38). However, in his sermon from Solomon's portico in the Temple (Acts 3:12-26), Peter makes no reference to baptism, but links forgiveness of sin to repentance (3:19). If baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sin, why didn't Peter say so in Acts 3?
Paul never made water baptism any part of his gospel presentations. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul gives a concise summary of the gospel message he preached. There is no mention of baptism. In 1 Corinthians 1:17, Paul states that "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel," thus clearly differentiating the gospel from baptism.
Those passages are difficult to understand if water baptism is necessary for salvation. If baptism were part of the gospel itself, necessary for salvation, what good would it have done Paul to preach the gospel, but not baptize? No one would have been saved. Paul clearly understood water baptism to be separate from the gospel, and hence in no way efficacious for salvation.
Perhaps the most convincing refutation of the view that baptism is necessary for salvation are those who were saved apart from baptism. The penitent woman (Luke 7:37-50), the paralytic man (Matthew 9:2), the publican (Luke 18:13-14), and the thief on the cross (Luke 23:39-43) all experienced forgiveness of sins apart from baptism. For that matter, we have no record of the apostles' being baptized, yet Jesus pronounced them clean of their sins (John 15:3--note that the Word of God, not baptism, is what cleansed them).
The Bible also gives us an example of people who were saved before being baptized. In Acts 10:44-48, Cornelius and those with him were converted through Peter's message. That they were saved before being baptized is evident from their reception of the Holy Spirit (v. 44) and the gifts of the Spirit (v. 46) before their baptism. Indeed, it is the fact that they had received the Holy Spirit (and hence were saved) that led Peter to baptize them (cf. v. 47).
One of the basic principles of biblical interpretation is the analogia scriptura, the analogy of Scripture--we must compare Scripture with Scripture in order to understand its full and proper sense. Since the Bible doesn't contradict itself, any interpretation of a specific passage that contradicts the general teaching of the Bible is to be rejected.
Since the general teaching of the Bible is, as we have seen, that baptism and other forms of ritual are not necessary for salvation, no individual passage could teach otherwise. Thus we must look for interpretations of those passages that will be in harmony with the general teaching of Scripture.
With that in mind, let's look briefly at some passages that appear to teach that baptism is required for salvation.
In Acts 2:38, Peter appears to link forgiveness of sins to baptism. But there are several plausible interpretations of this verse that do not connect forgiveness of sin with baptism. It is possible to translate the Greek preposition eis--"because of," or "on the basis of," instead of "for." It is used in that sense in Matthew 3:11; 12:41; and Luke 11:32.
It is also possible to take the clause "and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ" as parenthetical. Support for that interpretation comes from that fact that "repent" and "your" are plural, while "be baptized" is singular, thus setting it off from the rest of the sentence. If that interpretation is correct, the verse would read "Repent (and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ) for the forgiveness of your sins." Forgiveness is thus connected with repentance, not baptism, in keeping with the consistent teaching of the New Testament (cf. Luke 24:47; John 3:18; Acts 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18; Ephesians 5:26).
A third possibility exists, as Wallace explains in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics:
It is possible that to a first-century Jewish audience (as well as to Peter), the idea of baptism might incorporate both the spiritual reality and the physical symbol. In other words, when one spoke of baptism, he usually meant both ideas--the reality and the ritual. Peter is shown to make the strong connection between these two in chapters 10 and 11. In 11:15-16 he recounts the conversion of Cornelius and friends, pointing out that at the point of their conversion they were baptized by the Holy Spirit. After he had seen this, he declared, "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit..." (10:47).
The point seems to be that if they have had the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit via spiritual baptism, there ought to be a public testimony/acknowledgment via water baptism as well. This may not only explain Acts 2:38 (viz., that Peter spoke of both reality and picture, though only the reality removes sins), but also why the NT speaks of only baptized believers (as far as we can tell): Water baptism is not a cause of salvation, but a picture; and as such it serves both as a public acknowledgment (by those present) and a public confession (by the convert) that one has been Spirit-baptized.
Mark 16:16, a verse often quoted to prove baptism is necessary for salvation, is actually a proof of the opposite. Notice that the basis for condemnation in that verse is not the failure to be baptized, but only the failure to believe. Baptism is mentioned in the first part of the verse because it was the outward symbol that always accompanied the inward belief.
I might also mention that many textual scholars think it unlikely that vv. 9-20 are an authentic part of Mark's gospel. We can't discuss here all the textual evidence that has caused many New Testament scholars to reject the passage. But you can find a thorough discussion in Bruce Metzger, et al., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, pp. 122-128, and William Hendriksen, The Gospel of Mark, pp. 682-687.
Water baptism does not seem to be what Peter has in view in 1 Peter 3:21. The English word "baptism" is simply a transliteration of the Greek word baptizo, which means "to immerse." Baptizo does not always refer to water baptism in the New Testament (cf. Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; 7:4; 10:38-39; Luke 3:16; 11:38; 12:50; John 1:33; Acts 1:5; 11:16; 1 Corinthians 10:2; 12:13).
So Peter is not talking about immersion in water, as the phrase "not the removal of dirt from the flesh" indicates. He is referring to immersion in Christ's death and resurrection through "an appeal to God for a good conscience," or repentance. Again, it is not the outward act that saves, but the internal reality of the Spirit's regenerating work (cf. Titus 3:4-8).
I also do not believe water baptism is in view in Romans 6 or Galatians 3. I see in those passages a reference to the baptism in the Holy Spirit (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:13). For a detailed exposition of those passages, I refer you to my commentaries on Galatians and Romans, or the transcripts my sermons on Galatians 3 and Romans 6.
In Acts 22:16, Paul recounts the words of Ananias to him following his experience on the Damascus road: "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name." It is best to connect the phrase "wash away your sins" with "calling on His name." If we connect it with "be baptized," the Greek participle epikalesamenos ("calling") would have no antecedent. Paul's sins were washed away not by baptism, but by calling on His name.
Water baptism is certainly important, and required of every believer. However, the New Testament does not teach that baptism is necessary for salvation.

Dr. Martin Luther On Infant Baptism

Here a question occurs by which the devil through his sects, confuses the world, namely, Of Infant Baptism, whether children also believe, and are justly baptized. Concerning this we say briefly: Let the simple dismiss this question from their minds, and refer it to the learned. But if you wish to answer then answer thus: --


That the Baptism of infants is pleasing to Christ is sufficiently proved from His own work, namely, that God sanctifies many of them who have been thus baptized, and has given them the Holy Ghost; and that there are yet many even to-day in whom we perceive that they have the Holy Ghost both because of their doctrine and life; as it is also given to us by the grace of God that we can explain the Scriptures and come to the knowledge of Christ, which is impossible without the Holy Ghost. But if God did not accept the baptism of infants, He would not give the Holy Ghost nor any of His gifts to any of them; in short, during this long time unto this day no man upon earth could have been a Christian. Now, since God confirms Baptism by the gifts of His Holy Ghost as is plainly perceptible in some of the church fathers, as St. Bernard, Gerson, John Hus, and others, who were baptized in infancy, and since the holy Christian Church cannot perish until the end of the world, they must acknowledge that such infant baptism is pleasing to God. For He can never be opposed to Himself, or support falsehood and wickedness, or for its promotion impart His grace and Spirit. This is indeed the best and strongest proof for the simple-minded and unlearned. For they shall not take from us or overthrow this article: I believe a holy Christian Church, the communion of saints.
Further, we say that we are not so much concerned to know whether the person baptized believes or not; for on that account Baptism does not become invalid; but everything depends upon the Word and command of God. This now is perhaps somewhat acute but it rests entirely upon what I have said, that Baptism is nothing else than water and the Word of God in and with each other, that is when the Word is added to the water, Baptism is valid, even though faith be wanting. For my faith does not make Baptism, but receives it. Now, Baptism does not become invalid even though it be wrongly received or employed; since it is not bound (as stated) to our faith, but to the Word.
For even though a Jew should to-day come dishonestly and with evil purpose, and we should baptize him in all good faith, we must say that his baptism is nevertheless genuine. For here is the water together with the Word of God. even though he does not receive it as he should, just as those who unworthily go to the Sacrament receive the true Sacrament even though they do not believe.
Thus you see that the objection of the sectarians is vain. For (as we have said) even though infants did not believe, which however, is not the case, yet their baptism as now shown would be valid, and no one should rebaptize them; just as nothing is detracted from the Sacrament though some one approach it with evil purpose, and he could not be allowed on account of his abuse to take it a second time the selfsame hour, as though he had not received the true Sacrament at first; for that would mean to blaspheme and profane the Sacrament in the worst manner. How dare we think that God's Word and ordinance should be wrong and invalid because we make a wrong use of it?
Therefore I say, if you did not believe then believe now and say thus: The baptism indeed was right, but I, alas! did not receive it aright. For I myself also, and all who are baptized, must speak thus before God: I come hither in my faith and in that of others, yet I cannot rest in this, that I believe, and that many people pray for me; but in this I rest, that it is Thy Word and command. Just as I go to the Sacrament trusting not in my faith, but in the Word of Christ; whether I am strong or weak, that I commit to God. But this I know, that He bids me go, eat and drink, etc., and gives me His body and blood; that will not deceive me or prove false to me.
Thus we do also in infant baptism. We bring the child in the conviction and hope that it believes, and we pray that God may grant it faith; but we do not baptize it upon that, but solely upon the command of God. Why so? Because we know that God does not lie. I and my neighbor and, in short, all men, may err and deceive, but the Word of God cannot err.
Therefore they are presumptuous, clumsy minds that draw such inferences and conclusions as these: Where there is not the true faith, there also can be no true Baptism. Just as if I would infer: If I do not believe, then Christ is nothing; or thus: If I am not obedient, then father, mother, and government are nothing. Is that a correct conclusion, that whenever any one does not do what he ought, the thing in itself shall be nothing and of no value? My dear, just invert the argument and rather draw this inference: For this very reason Baptism is something and is right, because it has been wrongly received. For if it were not right and true in itself, it could not be misused nor sinned against. The saying is: Abusus non tollit, sed confirmat substantiam, Abuse does not destroy the essence but confirms it. For gold is not the less gold though a harlot wear it in sin and shame.
Therefore let it be decided that Baptism always remains true, retains its full essence, even though a single person should be baptized, and he, in addition, should not believe truly. For God's ordinance and Word cannot be made variable or be altered by men. But these people, the fanatics, are so blinded that they do not see the Word and command of God, and regard Baptism and the magistrates only as they regard water in the brook or in pots, or as any other man; and because they do not see faith nor obedience, they conclude that they are to be regarded as invalid. Here lurks a concealed seditious devil, who would like to tear the crown from the head of authority and then trample it under foot, and, in addition, pervert and bring to naught all the works and ordinances of God. Therefore we must be watchful and well armed, and not allow ourselves to be directed nor turned away from the Word, in order that we may not regard Baptism as a mere empty sign, as the fanatics dream.
Lastly, we must also know what Baptism signifies, and why God has ordained just such external sign and ceremony for the Sacrament by which we are first received into the Christian Church. But the act or ceremony is this, that we are sunk under the water, which passes over us, and afterwards are drawn out again. These two parts, to be sunk under the water and drawn out again, signify the power and operation of Baptism, which is nothing else than putting to death the old Adam, and after that the resurrection of the new man, both of which must take place in us all our lives, so that a truly Christian life is nothing else than a daily baptism, once begun and ever to be continued. For this must be practised without ceasing, that we ever keep purging away whatever is of the old Adam, and that that which belongs to the new man come forth. But what is the old man? It is that which is born in us from Adam, angry, hateful, envious, unchaste, stingy, lazy, haughty, yea, unbelieving, infected with all vices, and having by nature nothing good in it. Now, when we are come into the kingdom of Christ, these things must daily decrease, that the longer we live we become more gentle, more patient more meek, and ever withdraw more and more from unbelief, avarice, hatred, envy, haughtiness.
This is the true use of Baptism among Christians, as signified by baptizing with water. Where this, therefore, is not practised but the old man is left unbridled, so as to continually become stronger, that is not using Baptism, but striving against Baptism. For those who are without Christ cannot but daily become worse, according to the proverb which expresses the truth, "Worse and worse -- the longer, the worse." If a year ago one was proud and avaricious, then he is much prouder and more avaricious this year, so that the vice grows and increases with him from his youth up. A young child has no special vice; but when it grows up, it becomes unchaste and impure, and when it reaches maturity real vices begin to prevail the longer, the more.
Therefore the old man goes unrestrained in his nature if he is not checked and suppressed by the power of Baptism. On the other hand where men have become Christians, he daily decreases until he finally perishes. That is truly to be buried in Baptism, and daily to come forth again. Therefore the external sign is appointed not only for a powerful effect, but also for a signification. Where, therefore, faith flourishes with its fruits, there it has no empty signification, but the work [of mortifying the flesh] accompanies it; but where faith is wanting, it remains a mere unfruitful sign.
And here you see that Baptism, both in its power and signification, comprehends also the third Sacrament, which has been called repentance, as it is really nothing else than Baptism. For what else is repentance but an earnest attack upon the old man [that his lusts be restrained] and entering upon a new life? Therefore, if you live in repentance, you walk in Baptism, which not only signifies such a new life, but also produces, begins, and exercises it. For therein are given grace, the Spirit, and power to suppress the old man, so that the new man may come forth and become strong.
Therefore our Baptism abides forever; and even though some one should fall from it and sin, nevertheless we always have access thereto, that we may again subdue the old man. But we need not again be sprinkled with water; for though we were put under the water a hundred times, it would nevertheless be only one Baptism, although the operation and signification continue and remain. Repentance, therefore, is nothing else than a return and approach to Baptism, that we repeat and practise what we began before, but abandoned.
This I say lest we fall into the opinion in which we were for a long time, imagining that our Baptism is something past, which we can no longer use after we have fallen again into sin. The reason is, that it is regarded only according to the external act once performed [and completed]. And this arose from the fact that St. Jerome wrote that repentance is the second plank by which we must swim forth and cross over after the ship is broken, on which we step and are carried across when we come into the Christian Church. Thereby the use of Baptism has been abolished so that it can profit us no longer. Therefore the statement is not correct, or at any rate not rightly understood. For the ship never breaks because (as we have said) it is the ordinance of God, and not a work of ours; but it happens, indeed, that we slip and fall out of the ship. Yet if any one fall out, let him see to it that he swim up and cling to it till he again come into it and live in it, as he had formerly begun.
Thus it appears what a great, excellent thing Baptism is, which delivers us from the jaws of the devil and makes us God's own, suppresses and takes away sin, and then daily strengthens the new man, and is and remains ever efficacious until we pass from this estate of misery to eternal glory.
For this reason let every one esteem his Baptism as a daily dress in which he is to walk constantly, that he may ever be found in the faith and its fruits, that he suppress the old man and grow up in the new. For if we would be Christians, we must practise the work whereby we are Christians. But if any one fall away from it, let him again come into it. For just as Christ, the Mercy-seat does not recede from us or forbid us to come to Him again, even though we sin, so all His treasure and gifts also remain. If, therefore we have once in Baptism obtained forgiveness of sin, it will remain every day, as long as we live, that is, as long as we carry the old man about our neck.

WORD OF THE DAY From The Pastor's Study

Protestantism

A tradition in Christianity which found its self-identity as “Protestant” in the sixteenth-century Reformation. Protestantism began when the church, according to Protestants, lost the Gospel during the middle to late middle ages and reformers began to “protest” this loss. Martin Luther, often seen as the father of Protestantism, rejected the Pope’s claims to infallible authority, believed that the Gospel was being lost to a system of works-based salvation, and confessed the Bible alone was the only infallible and ultimate source of authority for the Christian. Protestantism is not a church, but a tradition which claims to have restored or reformed the Gospel, and hence, the church. Protestantism is made up of thousands of denominations (various expressions of the Protestant faith) and claims nearly four hundred million members world-wide.



Roman Catholicism

A tradition in the Christian faith that distinguishes itself as the “one true church.” The primary distinctives of Roman Catholicism from other traditions of Christianity are 1) the bishop of Rome who claims apostolic succession, infallibility, and the authority of Peter the Apostle, 2) its claims to absolute and infallible authority in matters of faith and practice, 3) its claim to doctrinal fidelity with both the history of the church and biblical interpretation, and 4) the unity that is produced by such fidelity. Other major Christian traditions that would deny such claims are Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Roman Catholicism boasts of over one billion members.