"Just the Facts Ma'am" from Baptist Pastor Michael Huffman

Titus 2:11 and Definite Atonement

2011-05-25T07:48:00.003-04:00

Titus 2:11, “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people”. I recently heard a synergistic preacher preach from this text with these words, “There are those people, some Baptists, that like to limited the atonement, but I have never had one of them get around this verse”. Let me say first of all that he probably has not had anyone “get around this verse” because, for the person who believes in the Doctrines of Grace, it is not an issue. We celebrate this verse.
Let me also say that I do not like the term “Limited Atonement”, because I do not believe that there was some kind of defect in the atonement. In other words, I do not believe that the atonement was or is ever limited in its power. I have always preferred the phrase “Definite Atonement” or “Particular Redemption”. Yet, I believe that the people who believe in an “unlimited atonement”, really do not think things all the way through.
My question, before I deal with the verse, to this bother would be, “what do you believe actually happened at the cross”. If he is your typical synergistic preacher, which I believe he is, he no doubt would say that Jesus died to atone for the sins of all people. But was the atonement actual or potential? I do not see anywhere in any language of the Scriptures where it even intimates that the atonement was potential. Jesus said, “It is finished”; that is not language of potentiality but of actuality.
But if we say that the atonement paid in full the the sins of all people everywhere, then I ask, “What of those people who were already in hell at the time of this atonement? If Jesus paid the sin debt of every single person without exception at the cross, then what sin do they commit that causes them to die and go to hell? I ask that question because people do die and go to hell, so if Jesus died to atone for the sins of people already in hell and those that will go to hell, what sin did He NOT atone? Some say “unbelief”. So the atonement was incomplete? You see the circle that such thinking takes you. The Scripture say nowhere that unbelief is the one sin for which Jesus did not atone. The greatest picture of an “unjust God” (for which I am blamed as believing in… hmm, strange) is for God to pour out His wrath for sin on Jesus for all men, and then for most men (Matt 7) to spend an eternity in hell in judgment for the sins poured out on Christ. John Owen spoke of this as double jeopardy.
But now to the verse at hand. Why would anyone assume that the phrase “πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις” is referring to every single person without exception? Answer, of course, is because they are looking at it through the eyes of tradition and not allowing the text to speak for itself. There seems to be the constant assumption that “all” is always referring to every single person without exception. Context must be our teacher. It is easy to rip a verse from its natural context and form a theology, but usually it is bad theology.
Context is King!! Paul spends the whole chapter speaking to different kinds of believers; Old men, young men, old women, young women, and slaves. And how they should be godly, self-controlled, obedient, demonstrating dignity; etc. The point is that such is not the language that would be spoken to unbelievers or in a context speaking about unbelievers. Unbelievers do not have the ability to be any of those things; so by natural context, the audience is believers. Such is not, I hope, up for debate.
The debate comes in when you get to verse 11 and what exactly did Paul mean and to whom was he speaking. Paul says that our life should demonstrate all good faith, doing credit to the teaching of God..then you have verse 11. Please note:
“For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all people, (comma, continuation of thought), training US,….” did you see that vital pronoun? This grace that Paul is referring to that brings salvation, is for the training of the believers. This, in its natural context, does not speak about salvation for all men, in the idea of all people without exception, but what is being referenced is the grace that brought salvation to the ones Paul is speaking, the saved. Because this grace teaches US. This is speaking about grace that God extended to the ones saved, not some grace that God extends to every person without exception. This grace was not for all in some universal sense, but was for all in the ecclesiastical sense (those in the Church).
I trust that it can be clearly seen, that a universal application of this verse is simply reading into the text what is not there, instead of allowing the text read for itself.

The Lowered Standard

2011-02-11T09:41:00.001-05:00

One of the areas of life that have always concerned me, as a parent, is the fact that I know that the standards that I set with my children, they will always come just under that standard with their children. With that knowledge, I must take action to make sure that I raise the standard high. Do not ever let anyone tell you that you are "too strict" with your children, you must set the standard high with them, so that when they are parents and they come just under your standard, they will atleast come within a the range of righteousness.

Take, for example, Church attendance. Your children, when they are adults, will come just under the standard that you set for them. So, the question that I ask many parents is, "What are you teaching your children about Church?" When "christian" mom and dad are unsettled about Church membership and/or Church attendance, their children will grow up to be even worse. When I say "unsettled" I am referring to a mom and dad who cannot (or will not) decied on a Church home and be absolutely faithful to it (in attendance and service). They are here, there, and everywhere. They attend this congregation this week (or maybe a couple weeks), another congregation on another occasion, and then, perhaps, nowhere another week. Those parents must understand that their children will come under that standard. Is that what you want? Most, if not all Christian parents would say "I want my children to grow up and be faithful to the Lord". But are you willing to make the necessary changes in your life to help ensure that?

They go to this Church because they like the music, they go to another Church because they like the fellowship, they go to another Church because they enjoy the programs for their Children. Listen, there is ONLY ONE criteria for choosing a Church, only one question that you need to ask yourself, "How does this Church handle the Word of God? Is the Word of God supreme here?" Those are very vital questions. Is emotion and feeling supreme? You can get people to make emotional decisions all day; but lasting, God honoring decisions will ONLY come as a result of the preaching of the Word of God. People get all worked up and emotional with music and say, "The Lord met with us today", but did the Word of God make the difference in your life? If it was not the Word of God, then the decision that you made out of emotion will be very short lived.

There are people all over Christianity that are wondering aimlessly from Church to Church trying to find, sometimes I do not think that they know what. What they need is a Church where the Word of God is supreme and is taught in the pulpit everytime the man of God steps up to the Pulpit. Our Childern are watching and they will follow your lead, just a step or two behind. Set the standard of Church high, parents, so that your childrens standards will also be high.

The Birds, The Plane and the President

2011-02-07T16:23:00.000-05:00

Sometimes we are so overwhelmed at being treated better than we deserve that we must exult in the all-sovereign God—the God of birds' flight and Obama's rise. When King David pondered how many were God's "wondrous deeds," he said, "I will proclaim and tell of them, yet they are more than can be told" (Psalm 40:5). That's the way I feel watching God's public mercies in our day.

Have you considered how unlikely was the crash of USAir flight 1549 in the Hudson River on January 15, 2009—not just the rescue but the crash itself? Picture this: The Airbus A320 is taking off at an angle—maybe 30 degrees. It's not flying horizontal with the earth. Not only that, it is flying fast—not full speed yet, but perhaps four times as fast as your car would go at top highway speeds.

The geese are flying horizontally with the ground, more or less. They are not flying in a cloud like a swarm of bees. They fly level with the ground, often shaped like a V. In view of all that, what are the odds that, traveling at this speed and at this angle, this airplane would intersect with the flight of those geese at that very millisecond which would put a bird not just in one of those engines, but both of them?

Two laser-guided missiles would not have been as amazingly effective as were those geese. It is incredible, statistically speaking. If God governs nature down to the fall (and the flight) of every bird, as Jesus says (Matthew 10:29), then the crash of flight 1549 was designed by God.

Which leads to the landing in the Hudson River—which is just as unlikely. The airbus now has no thrust in either engine. The flight attendants said it was as quiet as a library in the plane without the sound of engines. The plane is now a 77-ton glider with its belly full of fuel. Captain Sullenberger decides to land in the river. Anywhere else would mean one big fireball.

He banks and misses the George Washington Bridge by 900 feet and glides the plane into a perfect belly landing. A few degrees tilt to the front or back or the right or left and the plane would have done cartwheels down the river and broken up. On the water, the flight attendant does not let passengers open the rear door. That would have flooded the cabin too fast. The emergency doors and front doors provide exits for everyone and the plane floats long enough for all of them to climb out. Ferry boats are there almost instantly. The captain walks the aisle twice to make sure everyone is off. Then he leaves. Later the plane sinks.

If God guides geese so precisely, he also guides the captain's hands. God knew that when he took the plane down, he would also give a spectacular deliverance. So why would he do that? If he means for all to live, why not just skip the crash?

Because he meant to give our nation a parable of his power and mercy the week before a new President takes office. God can take down a plane any time he pleases—and if he does, he wrongs no one. Apart from Christ, none of us deserves anything from God but judgment. We have belittled him so consistently that he would be perfectly just to take any of us any time in any way he chooses.

But God is longsuffering. He is slow to anger. He withholds wrath every day. This is what we saw in the parable. The crash of Flight 1549 illustrates God's right and power to judge. The landing of the plane represents God's mercy. It was God's call to all the passengers and all their families and all who heard the story to repent and turn to God's Son, Jesus Christ, and receive forgiveness for sin.

The President and Roe V. Wade

2011-01-24T10:28:00.001-05:00

When Barack Obama was running for President, he was described by some observers as one of the most radical candidates in the nation’s history in terms of support for abortion. Once in office, President Obama has done little to dispel that judgment. Even as the President is tracking to the middle on many issues, this is not the case when it comes to abortion.

This past Saturday, on the 38th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, the President issued a statement that is remarkable, even for presidents who support legalized abortion. The President’s statement included not one word that indicated any recognition that abortion is in any case or in any sense a tragedy. There was not even a passing reference to the unborn child. President Obama did not even use the language used disingenuously by President Bill Clinton — the pledge that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare.”

“Today marks the 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that protects women’s health and reproductive freedom, and affirms a fundamental principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters,” the President stated. That “fundamental principle” was not actually the principle claimed by the Supreme Court, which located the “right” to abortion with the woman, not with a family.

The President continued: “I am committed to protecting this constitutional right. I also remain committed to policies, initiatives, and programs that help prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant women and mothers, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption.” So, the President of the United States puts his high office behind his hope to “encourage healthy relationships,” but not behind any effort even to reduce the number of abortions in this country. Currently, in America one out of five pregnancies ends in abortion.

As he concluded his brief statement, the President said: “And on this anniversary, I hope that we will recommit ourselves more broadly to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights, the same freedoms, and the same opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.”

That paragraph is just a recitation of the feminist argument that was enshrined in Roe v. Wade — that women, no more than men, should be encumbered by the professional and personal limitations required by a pregnancy. That logic is enshrined as orthodoxy within the Democratic Party, and President Obama is one of its most ardent defenders.

Ever since Barack Obama emerged on the national political scene, he has been promoted and protected by a corps of preachers and religious leaders who have tried their best to explain that he is not so pro-abortion as he seems. Nevertheless, his record is all too clear — as is this most recent statement. There was not one expression of abortion as a national tragedy, even as a report recently indicated that almost 60 percent of all pregnancies among African American women in New York City end in abortion.

How can any President of the United States fail to address this unspeakable tragedy? There was no hope expressed that abortion would be rare, only the expression that he would remain “committed to protecting this constitutional right.” The only words that even insinuate any hypothetical reduction in abortion were addressed to reducing “unintended pregnancies” and promoting adoption. But no goal of reducing abortion was stated or even obliquely suggested. No reference at all was made of the unborn child. There was no lament — not even a throwaway line that would cost him nothing in terms of his support from abortion rights forces.

These words were not imposed upon this President. This is his own personal statement. It is one of the most revealing — and tragic — statements made by any political figure in our times.

"What About the Twins?"

2011-01-20T11:07:00.003-05:00

Saturday will mark the 38th anniversary of the infamous Roe v. Wade decision that opened the floodgates for abortion in America. On January 22, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the decision, declaring that women have a constitutional right to an abortion. Hard as it is to imagine, the justices in the majority really believed that their decision would end the national debate over abortion. Not by a long shot.

Nearly four decades later, the argument rages on — and so does the carnage. The national abortion rate is over twenty percent. Just last week it was reported that the abortion rate in New York City is over forty percent, and among African-Americans in that city, nearly sixty percent. In other words, an abortion industrial complex now claims over a million unborn lives each year. The carnage just continues.

In recent days, two horrifying accounts of abortion have gripped the human conscience. From Australia, news came of a couple who had aborted twin boys, just because they wanted a baby girl. Having three sons already, the couple aborted the twins because they want a daughter after the death of a previous baby girl who died shortly after birth.

Related Posts

The Perverse Logic of Abortion

The Deadly Logic of Anti-Blasphemy Laws

What Makes Abortion Plausible? What Makes Abortion Unthinkable?, Part Five

What Makes Abortion Plausible? What Makes Abortion Unthinkable?, Part Six

When Abortion Collides with Totalitarianism (Audio)

The couple is now appealing to a legal tribunal, demanding the right to use gender selection in the course of an IVF procedure. Australia, unlike the United States, has laws against gender selection. The couple is pressing for an exception.

The abortion of the twin boys precipitated an international outcry, with headlines carrying the news around the world. But, even as millions were morally troubled by the account, many were unable to muster a moral argument against the abortions. Why? Because the logic of abortion has been so widely accepted in the larger society.

The very idea of gender-selection abortions is abhorrent, and most people would almost surely argue that such abortions should not be allowed. But the logic of abortion rights demands that a woman be recognized as having a right to an abortion at any time for any reason or for no reason. Once you accept abortion as a moral option, it is virtually impossible to preclude any abortion for any reason. The Culture of Death is built upon the logic of abortion on demand. Once the floodgates were opened, it is almost impossible to stem the tide.

On January 19, the Associated Press reported that a Pennsylvania doctor had been charged with eight counts of murder in the deaths of one woman and seven babies, “who were born alive and then killed with scissors.”

The description of Gosnell’s Women’s Medical Society sounds like something out of a Stephen King novel. Investigators found bags and bottles containing aborted babies and parts of babies. District Attorney Seth Williams said that Dr. Kermit Gosnell “induced labor, forced the live birth of viable babies in sixth, seventh, eighth month of pregnancy, and then killed those babies by cutting into the back of the neck with scissors and severing their spinal cord.”

Williams described Gosnell’s clinic as a “house of horrors.” Gosnell, it turns out, made millions of dollars by performing abortions, including late-term abortions, by the thousands. According to the prosecutors, Gosnell performed “as many illegal late-term abortions as he could.”

Dr. Gosnell has been charged with multiple counts of murder, and for this fact, we should be thankful. But the reality is that what Dr. Gosnell did is just a more graphic display of the horror inside every abortionist’s chamber.

These two cases illustrate the pattern of moral confusion found among the public. News of the “house of horrors” in Pennsylvania brings prompt moral outrage, and understandably so. But is the abortion clinic on the corner, established for the purpose of killing unborn children, any less a house of horrors?

The couple in Australia openly admitted aborting their twin boys because they want a daughter. Millions around the world seem outraged by their decision, but having accepted the basic logic of abortion, they are hard-pressed to define when any abortion demanded by a woman might be unjustified and thus illegal.

The Christian revulsion over abortion and the destruction of human life is based in the knowledge that God is the Author of all life and of every life, without exception. Abortion is the business of death, and it is the great wound that runs through the nation’s conscience. These shocking accounts may sear their way into the nation’s collective conscience, but unless the basic logic of abortion rights is overturned, such accounts will erupt again and again.

Once we buy into the logic of abortion, there is no end to the trail of tears. In the case of the Australian couple, a professor of medicine commented that they should be able to select the gender of their baby after aborting the twin boys. “I can’t see how it could possibly hurt anyone,” he said.

What about the twins?

Repost: Interpreting, Properly, Revelation 3:20

2011-01-19T09:17:00.000-05:00

Have you seen the old potrait that portrays Christ as the effiminate Savior standing at a doorway knocking on the door waiting for someone to open it? Such is really a tasteless view of the Master. He is not some wimpy shepherd that stands at a door and knocks with absolutely no power to open the door. So what does Revelation 3:20 mean?

Many people include this verse in their evangelistics attempts to lost people. Usually saying something like, "Jesus is knocking at the door of your heart waiting for you to open it". Such is not the Biblical doctrine of Salvation, nor the clear context of Revelation 3.

In Revelation 3 Christ is speaking, not to group of unredeemed people, but to the Church; the Church of Ladocia in particular. Jesus was trying to get back into the Church not trying to get into the heart of an individual person or persons in Salvation. These people were already saved. To use this verse in an evangelistic sense is to take the verse from its context and force a meaning on it the Holy Spirit never intended.

This is another example of so many people just taking a verse to mean a certain thing because they have always heard it taught like that. The Scripture must be allowed to speak for itself, not the way we have always heard it spoken for. Let us be faithful to allow the Word to speak for itself.

Just remember, Jesus did not ask Lazarus, in John 11, to "come forth", He commanded it and Lazarus came out of the grave.

The Christian Master Narrative

2011-01-12T13:23:00.000-05:00

The reversal of the curse of sin originates in God’s love and his sovereign determination to save sinners, and it is grounded in the cross and resurrection of Christ. The atonement of Jesus Christ accomplishes our salvation from sin. Nevertheless, the New Testament makes clear that we are awaiting the transformation of our bodies and the arrival of the Kingdom in fullness. Any honest reading of the New Testament leaves us knowing that our salvation is secure in Christ, but we await the final display of Christ’s glory in the Kingdom’s fullness.

In understanding the Kingdom, we benefit by considering the fact that the Kingdom is already here, inaugurated by Christ, but is not yet fully come. The “already/not yet” character of the Kingdom explains why, though sin is fully defeated, we still experience sin in our lives. Death was defeated at the cross, but we still taste death. The created order continues to cry out for redemption, and the venom of the serpent still stings.

The Christian doctrine of eschatology provides the Christian worldview with its mature understanding of history. Every worldview must provide an account of where history is headed and whether human history has any purpose at all. Christianity grounds the meaning of human existence in the fact that we are made in the image of God and the meaning of human history in the security of God’s providential rule. Thus, the Christian worldview dignifies history and assures us that history is indeed meaningful. The Gospel of Christ is itself grounded in historical events – and so is the promise of things to come.

At the end of this age, Christ will return to bring his Kingdom in fullness. He will rule with perfect righteousness and will both judge the nations and vindicate his own cause. The unfolding events point to a conclusive final judgment at the end of history.

This final judgment is made necessary by the fact of human sin and the infinite reality of God’s holiness. The Bible straightforwardly presents the assurance of a final judgment that will demonstrate the perfection of God and the glory of his justice. This final judgment will demonstrate God’s mercy to those who are in Christ and God’s wrath righteously poured out upon sin.

This judgment will be so perfect that, in the end, all must know that God alone is righteous and that his decrees are absolutely perfect. God’s power will be demonstrated when all authorities are brought under submission to the Lord Jesus Christ, when every earthly kingdom yields, and when every knee bows and every tongue confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Phil. 2:10).

The glory of the Garden of Eden will be surpassed by the glories of the New Heaven and the New Earth. The saints will rule with Christ as his vice-regents, and perfect peace will dawn in the messianic Kingdom.

Every single moment of human history cries out for judgment. Every sin and every sinner will be brought before the throne of God, and full satisfaction will be made. The demands of divine justice will be fully met, and the mercy and grace of God will be fully demonstrated. The great dividing line that runs through humanity will be the one that separates those who are in Christ and those who are not.

The backdrop of eternity puts the span of a human life into perspective. Our time on earth is short, but eternity dignifies time even as it reminds us of our finitude. The concluding movement of the biblical narrative reminds us that we are to yearn for eternity and for the glory that is to come.

On this Day of Judgment, all human attempts at justice will be shown to fall far short of authentic justice. On this day, God’s perfect justice will indeed flood like a mighty river. The destiny of the unrepentant sinner is eternal punishment. But God’s justice is also restorative, and those who are in Christ will come to know the absolute satisfaction, peace, wholeness, and restoration that Christ promises. Every eye will be dry, and every tear will be wiped away (Rev. 7:17; 21:4).

The reversal of the curse and the end of history serve to ground Christians in this age within the secure purposes and the sovereign power of God. The Christian worldview rejects all human utopianisms, all claims of lasting earthly glory, and all denials of the meaningfulness of history and human experience.

In other words, the conclusion of the Christian master narrative reminds believers that we are not to seek ultimate fulfillment in this life. Instead, we are to follow Christ in obedience and give the totality of our lives to the things that will bring glory to God in the midst of this fallen world. We will refrain from optimism grounded in humanity and will rest in the hope that is ours in Christ. We will suffer illness, injury, persecution, and death—but we know ourselves to be completely safe within the purposes of God. And so we wait. And so we pray, “Even so, Lord, come quickly.”

"The Grandville Sharp Rule and the Deity of Christ"

2010-12-28T14:49:00.000-05:00

In our Church, just a few weeks ago, we had a visting preacher who made this statement that he had made to a Jehovah's Witness: "If I could show you from your bible (exphasis on lower case, because it is really NOT the Bible), the deity of Christ, would you believe me?" Now, I do not know the outcome of that meeting, but it sparked an interest in my mind.

So, I went and looked at a copy of the New World Translation and found the reference for Titus 2:13; one of the greatest examples of the Deity of Christ. Sure enough, it says almost identical to the true Word of God. Which is very suprising, seeing as how Charles Russell did not know Greek and could not even quote you the Greek Alphabet (which a couple of my sons can do). But another question was raised in my mind, "Well the JW would just say that the verse was referring to two different people". Thus we are introduced to the Granville Sharp Rule, a rule introduced to me my second year in Greek.

Basically, Granville Sharp's rule states that when you have two nouns, which are not proper names (such as Cephas, or Paul, or Timothy), which are describing a person, and the two nouns are connected by the word "and," and the first noun has the article ("the") while the second does not, *both nouns are referring to the same person*. In our texts, this is demonstrated by the words "God" and "Savior" at Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. "God" has the article, it is followed by the word for "and," and the word "Savior" does not have the article. Hence, both nouns are being applied to the same person, Jesus Christ. This rule is exceptionless. One must argue solely on theological grounds against these passages. There is truly no real grammatical objection that can be raised. Not that many have not attempted to do so, and are still trying. However, the evidence is overwhelming in favor of the above interpretation. Lets look at some of the evidence from the text itself.

In Titus 2:13, we first see that Paul is referring to the "epiphaneia" of the Lord, His "appearing." Every other instance of this word is reserved for Christ and Him alone. It is immediately followed by verse 14, which says, who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good works. The obvious reference here is to Christ who "gave Himself for us" on the cross of Calvary. There is no hint here of a plural antecedent for the "who" of verse 14 either. It might also be mentioned that verse 14, while directly referring to Christ, is a paraphrase of some Old Testament passages that refer to Yahweh God. (Psalm 130:8, Deuteronomy 7:6, etc). One can hardly object to the identification of Christ as God when the Apostle goes on to describe His works as the works of God!

The passage found at 2 Peter 1:1 is even more compelling. Some have simply by-passed grammatical rules and considerations, and have decided for an inferior translation on the basis of verse 2, which, they say, "clearly distinguishes" between God and Christ. Such translation on the basis of theological prejudices is hardly commendable. The little book of 2 Peter contains a total of five "Granville Sharp" constructions. They are 1:1, 1:11, 2:20, 3:2, and 3:18. No one would argue that the other four instances are exceptions to the rule. For example, in 2:20, it is obvious that both "Lord" and "Savior" are in reference to Christ. Such is the case in 3:2, as well as 3:18. No problem there, for the proper translation does not step on anyone's theological toes. 1:11 is even more striking. The construction here is *identical* to the construction found in 1:1, with only one word being different. Here are the passages as they are transliterated into English:

1:1: tou theou hemon kai sotaros Iesou Christou

1:11: tou kuriou hemon kai sotaros Iesou Christou

Notice the exact one-to-one correspondence between these passages! The only difference is the substitution of "kuriou" for "theou". No one would question the translation of "our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ" at 1:11; why question the translation of "our God and Savior, Jesus Christ" at 1:1? Consistency in translation demands that we not allow our personal prejudices to interfere with our rendering of God's Word.

Dr. A. T. Robertson examined this very subject, and in conclusion said,

Sharp stands vindicated after all the dust has settled. We must let these passages mean what they want to mean regardless of our theories about the theology of the writers.

There is no solid grammatical reason for one to hesitate to translate 2 Pet. 1:1, "our God and Saviour Jesus Christ," and Tit. 2:13, "our great God and Saviour Christ Jesus."... Scholarship, real scholarship, seeks to find the truth. That is its reward. The Christian scholar finds the same joy in truth and he is not uneasy that the foundations will be destroyed.

Hopefully all involved can echo Dr. Robertson's words. We need not think that God's Word is our enemy, or that we must twist it around to suit our needs. God's truth will stand firm, despite all of mankind's attempts to hide it, or twist it. Christians are looking for that blessed hope; the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. In the meantime, let us do good deeds to others, living in the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

"Must We Believe in the Virgin Birth?"

2010-12-22T09:02:00.000-05:00

In one of his columns for The New York Times, Nicholas Kristof once pointed to belief in the Virgin Birth as evidence that conservative Christians are “less intellectual.” Are we saddled with an untenable doctrine? Is belief in the Virgin Birth really necessary?

Kristof is absolutely aghast that so many Americans believe in the Virgin Birth. “The faith in the Virgin Birth reflects the way American Christianity is becoming less intellectual and more mystical over time,” he explains, and the percentage of Americans who believe in the Virgin Birth “actually rose five points in the latest poll.” Yikes! Is this evidence of secular backsliding?

“The Virgin Mary is an interesting prism through which to examine America’s emphasis on faith,” Kristof argues, “because most Biblical scholars regard the evidence for the Virgin Birth … as so shaky that it pretty much has to be a leap of faith.” Here’s a little hint: Anytime you hear a claim about what “most Biblical scholars” believe, check on just who these illustrious scholars really are. In Kristof’s case, he is only concerned about liberal scholars like Hans Kung, whose credentials as a Catholic theologian were revoked by the Vatican.

The list of what Hans Kung does not believe would fill a book [just look at his books!], and citing him as an authority in this area betrays Kristof’s determination to stack the evidence, or his utter ignorance that many theologians and biblical scholars vehemently disagree with Kung. Kung is the anti-Catholic’s favorite Catholic, and that is the real reason he is so loved by the liberal media.

Kristof also cites “the great Yale historian and theologian” Jaroslav Pelikan as an authority against the Virgin Birth, but this is both unfair and untenable. In Mary Through the Centuries, Pelikan does not reject the Virgin Birth, but does trace the development of the doctrine.

What are we to do with the Virgin Birth? The doctrine was among the first to be questioned and then rejected after the rise of historical criticism and the undermining of biblical authority that inevitably followed. Critics claimed that since the doctrine is taught in “only” two of the four Gospels, it must be elective. The Apostle Paul, they argued, did not mention it in his sermons in Acts, so he must not have believed it. Besides, the liberal critics argued, the doctrine is just so supernatural. Modern heretics like retired Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong argue that the doctrine was just evidence of the early church’s over-claiming of Christ’s deity. It is, Spong tells us, the “entrance myth” to go with the resurrection, the “exit myth.” If only Spong were a myth.

Now, even some revisionist evangelicals claim that belief in the Virgin Birth is unnecessary. The meaning of the miracle is enduring, they argue, but the historical truth of the doctrine is not really important.

Must one believe in the Virgin Birth to be a Christian? This is not a hard question to answer. It is conceivable that someone might come to Christ and trust Christ as Savior without yet learning that the Bible teaches that Jesus was born of a virgin. A new believer is not yet aware of the full structure of Christian truth. The real question is this: Can a Christian, once aware of the Bible’s teaching, reject the Virgin Birth? The answer must be no.

Nicholas Kristof pointed to his grandfather as a “devout” Presbyterian elder who believed that the Virgin Birth is a “pious legend.” Follow his example, Kristof encourages, and join the modern age. But we must face the hard fact that Kristof’s grandfather denied the faith. This is a very strange and perverse definition of “devout.”

Matthew tells us that before Mary and Joseph “came together,” Mary “was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.” [Matthew 1:18] This, Matthew explains, fulfilled what Isaiah promised: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name ‘Immanuel,’ which translated means ‘God with Us’.” [Matthew 1:23, Isaiah 7:14]

Luke provides even greater detail, revealing that Mary was visited by an angel who explained that she, though a virgin, would bear the divine child: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy child shall be called the Son of God.” [Luke 1:35]

Even if the Virgin Birth was taught by only one biblical passage, that would be sufficient to obligate all Christians to the belief. We have no right to weigh the relative truthfulness of biblical teachings by their repetition in Scripture. We cannot claim to believe that the Bible is the Word of God and then turn around and cast suspicion on its teaching.

Millard Erickson states this well: “If we do not hold to the virgin birth despite the fact that the Bible asserts it, then we have compromised the authority of the Bible and there is in principle no reason why we should hold to its other teachings. Thus, rejecting the virgin birth has implications reaching far beyond the doctrine itself.”

Implications, indeed. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, who was His father? There is no answer that will leave the Gospel intact. The Virgin Birth explains how Christ could be both God and man, how He was without sin, and that the entire work of salvation is God’s gracious act. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, He had a human father. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, the Bible teaches a lie.

Carl F. H. Henry, the dean of evangelical theologians, argues that the Virgin Birth is the “essential, historical indication of the Incarnation, bearing not only an analogy to the divine and human natures of the Incarnate, but also bringing out the nature, purpose, and bearing of this work of God to salvation.” Well said, and well believed.

Nicholas Kristof and his secularist friends may find belief in the Virgin Birth to be evidence of intellectual backwardness among American Christians. But this is the faith of the Church, established in God’s perfect Word, and cherished by the true Church throughout the ages. Kristof’s grandfather, we are told, believed that the Virgin Birth is a “pious legend.” The fact that he could hold such beliefs and serve as an elder in his church is evidence of that church’s doctrinal and spiritual laxity — or worse. Those who deny the Virgin Birth affirm other doctrines only by force of whim, for they have already surrendered the authority of Scripture. They have undermined Christ’s nature and nullified the incarnation.

This much we know: All those who find salvation will be saved by the atoning work of Jesus the Christ — the virgin-born Savior. Anything less than this is just not Christianity, whatever it may call itself. A true Christian will not deny the Virgin Birth.

"The Dangerous Doctrine of the 'unknown god'"

2010-12-20T12:06:00.000-05:00

When the Apostle Paul arrived in Athens in the seventeenth chapter of the book of Acts, his spirit was in heaviness as he saw all the false idols; and as he continued through the city he saw an alter to the "unknown god".

Christians are usually the first to condemn idol worshippers (and we should, condemn the practice, not the sinner; pray for the sinner that God would give them the heart for repentance), but do not hold themselves to the same standards as they hold the "heathen". What do I mean? Just this, many Christians are guilty of worshipping "an unknown god". Many create a god in their mind that they are comfortable with and then worship that god. The problem is that many times that is not the God of the Bible and so they are guilty of worshipping "an unknown god", certainly unknown to the pages of Scripture.

So many times many Christians are not comfortable with the God that the Scriptiures represents. For example;

They do not want a God who is almighty. Oh, they do for selfish reason. They want the almighty God to get them out of a jam. But so many times they do not want an almighty God that makes claims on their lives, that requires things of them, that demands worship, that demands faithfulness, that demands a singularity of devotion. Because so many do not want the authority that the almighty God requires. They want, as Jane Russell used to say, "My sweet Daddy in the sky". That kind of view of God is blasphemy and an unknown god".

People are comfortable with a god that meets their needs, gives them their greeds and makes no demands on their lives. Now, I will tell you that if you have been convinced that that is the proper view of God, then you have been watching too much TBN. Their channel line-up is filled with people who will tell you that the god of the Bible wants you healthy and wealthy. That, as Joel Osteen put it, make your order for God to fill. Listen, this is paganism and not the God of the Scriptures.

The God of the Scriptures is absolutely Sovereign, absolutely holy, absolutely almighty, absolute in power, absolute in knowledge, absolute in grace, absolute in justice, absolute in omnscience, absolute in righteousness, absolute in authority, absolute in rule, absolute in lordship, absolute in creative design.

The God of the Bible is not the unknown god that many people try to worship. He is Lord, He is sovereign; worship Him, not the god of our minds.

"Building a Church without a Heart for Doctrine"

2010-12-03T14:17:00.000-05:00

To begin with, the older I get, the less impressed I am with flashy successes and enthusiasms that are not truth-based. Everybody knows that with the right personality, the right music, the right location, and the right schedule you can grow a church without anybody really knowing what doctrinal commitments sustain it, if any. Church-planting specialists generally downplay biblical doctrine in the core values of what makes a church “successful.” The long-term effect of this ethos is a weakening of the church that is concealed as long as the crowds are large, the band is loud, the tragedies are few, and persecution is still at the level of preferences.

But more and more this doctrinally-diluted brew of music, drama, life-tips, and marketing seems out of touch with real life in this world—not to mention the next. It tastes like watered-down gruel, not a nourishing meal. It simply isn’t serious enough. It’s too playful and chatty and casual. Its joy just doesn’t feel deep enough or heartbroken or well-rooted. The injustice and persecution and suffering and hellish realities in the world today are so many and so large and so close that I can’t help but think that, deep inside, people are longing for something weighty and massive and rooted and stable and eternal. So it seems to me that the trifling with silly little sketches and breezy welcome-to-the-den styles on Sunday morning are just out of touch with what matters in life.

Of course, it works. Sort of. Because, in the name of felt needs, it resonates with people’s impulse to run from what is most serious and weighty and what makes them most human and what might open the depths of God to their souls. The design is noble. Silliness is a stepping-stone to substance. But it’s an odd path. And evidence is not ample that many are willing to move beyond fun and simplicity. So the price of minimizing truth-based joy and maximizing atmosphere-based comfort is high. More and more, it seems to me, the end might be in view. I doubt that a religious ethos with such a feel of entertainment can really survive as Christian for too many more decades. Crises reveal the cracks.

"Biblical Inerrancy- A Fifty Year War......and Counting"

2010-11-19T09:37:00.000-05:00

Back in 1990, theologian J. I. Packer recounted what he called a “Thirty Years’ War” over the inerrancy of the Bible. He traced his involvement in this war in its American context back to a conference held in Wenham, Massachusetts in 1966, when he confronted some professors from evangelical institutions who “now declined to affirm the full truth of Scripture.” That was nearly fifty years ago, and the war over the truthfulness of the Bible is still not over — not by a long shot.

From time to time, the dust has settled in one arena, only for the battle to erupt in another. In the 1970s, the most visible battles were fought over Fuller Theological Seminary and within the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod. By the 1980s, the most heated controversies centered in the Southern Baptist Convention and its seminaries. Throughout this period, the evangelical movement sought to regain its footing on the doctrine. In 1978, a large number of leading evangelicals met and adopted a definitive statement that became known as “The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.”

Many thought the battles were over, or at least subsiding. Sadly, the debate over the inerrancy of the Bible continues. As a matter of fact, there seems to be a renewed effort to forge an evangelical identity apart from the claim that the Bible is totally truthful and without error.

Recently, Professor Peter Enns, formerly of Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, has argued that the biblical authors clearly erred. He has argued that Paul, for example, was clearly wrong in assuming the historicity of Adam. In Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament, published in 2005, he presented an argument for an “incarnational” model of biblical inspiration and authority. But in this rendering, incarnation — affirming the human dimension of Scripture — means accepting some necessary degree of error.

This argument is taken to the next step by Kenton L. Sparks in his 2008 book, God’s Word in Human Words: An Evangelical Appropriation of Critical Biblical Scholarship. Sparks, who teaches at Eastern University, argues that it is nothing less than intellectually disastrous for evangelicals to claim that the Bible is without error.

His arguments, also serialized and summarized in a series of articles, are amazingly candid. He asserts that Evangelicalism has “painted itself into an intellectual corner” by claiming the inerrancy of Scripture. The movement is now in an “intellectual cul-de-sac,” he laments, because we have “crossed an evidential threshold that makes it intellectually unsuitable to defend some of the standard dogmas of the conservative evangelical tradition.” And, make no mistake, inerrancy is the central dogma he would have us let go.

God’s Word in Human Words is an erudite book with a comprehensive argument. Kenton Sparks does not misunderstand the evangelical doctrine of biblical inerrancy — he understands it and sees it as intellectually disastrous. “So like any other book,” he asserts, “the Bible appears to be a historically and culturally contingent text and, because of that, it reflects the diverse viewpoints of different people who lived in different times and places.” But a contingent text bears all the errors of its contingent authors, and Sparks fully realizes this.

The serialized articles by Sparks appear at the BioLogos Web site, a site with one clear agenda — to move evangelicals toward a full embrace of evolutionary theory. In this context, Sparks understands that the affirmation of biblical inerrancy presents a huge obstacle to the embrace of evolution. The “evidential threshold” has been crossed, he insists, and the Bible has come up short. The biblical writers were simply trapped within the limits of their own ancient cosmology and observations.

But Sparks presses far beyond this argument, accusing the Bible of presenting immoral teachings, citing “biblical texts that strike us as down-right sinister or evil.” The Bible, he suggests, “exhibits all the telltale signs of having been written by finite, fallen human beings who erred in the ways that human beings usually err.”

When Peter Enns and Kenton Sparks argue for an incarnational model of inspiration and biblical authority, they are continuing an argument first made long ago — among evangelicals, at least as far back as the opening salvos of the battle over biblical inerrancy. Sparks, however, takes the argument further. He understands that the incarnational model implicates Jesus. He does not resist this. Jesus, he suggests, “was a finite person who grew up in Palestine.” While asserting that he affirms the historic Christian creeds and “traditional Christian orthodoxy,” Sparks proposes that Jesus made routine errors of fact.

His conclusion: “If Jesus as a finite human being erred from time to time, there is no reason at all to suppose that Moses, Paul, [and/or] John wrote Scripture without error.”

That is a breath-taking assumption, to say the very least. But, even in its shocking audacity, it serves to reveal the clear logic of the new battle-lines over biblical inerrancy. We now confront open calls to accept and affirm that there are indeed errors in the Bible. It is demanded that we accept the fact that the human authors of the Bible often erred because of their limited knowledge and erroneous assumptions about reality. We must, it is argued, abandon the claim that the Bible is a consistent whole. Rather, we are told to accept the claims that the human authors of Scripture were just plain wrong in some texts — even in texts that define God and his ways. We are told that some texts are just “down-right sinister or evil.”

And, note clearly, we are told that we must do this in order to save Evangelicalism from an intellectual disaster.

Of course, accepting this demand amounts to a theological disaster of incalculable magnitude. Rarely has this been more apparent and undeniable. The rejection of the Bible’s inerrancy will please the evangelical revisionists, but it will rob the church of its secure knowledge that the Bible is indeed true, trustworthy and fully authoritative.

Kenton Sparks and the new evangelical revisionists are now making some of the very arguments that earlier opponents of inerrancy attempted to deny. In this sense, they offer great clarity to the current debate. Their logic is clear. They argue that the human authors of the Bible were not protected from error, and their errors are not inconsequential. We are talking about nothing less than whether the Bible truthfully reveals to us the nature, character, acts, and purposes of God.

As Dr. Packer said years ago, “[W]hen you encounter a present-day view of Holy Scripture, you encounter more than a view of Scripture. What you meet is a total view of God and the world, that is, a total theology, which is both an ontology, declaring what there is, and an epistemology, stating how we know what there is. This is necessarily so, for a theology is a seamless robe, a circle within which everything links up with everything else through its common grounding in God. Every view of Scripture, in particular, proves on analysis to be bound up with an overall view of God and man.”

The rejection of biblical inerrancy is bound up with a view of God that is, in the end, fatal for Christian orthodoxy. We are entering a new phase in the battle over the Bible’s truthfulness and authority. We should at least be thankful for undisguised arguments coming from the opponents of biblical inerrancy, even as we are ready, once again, to make clear where their arguments lead.

"Pornography-The Difference being a Parent Makes"

2010-11-18T15:20:00.000-05:00

Political scientists and sociologists long ago came to the realization that one of the most significant indicators of political behavior is parenthood. Those who bear responsibility to raise children look at the world differently from those who do not. In fact, parenthood may be the most easily identifiable predictor of an individual’s position on an entire range of issues.

Now, along comes Steve Jobs to prove the point. Jobs, the Maestro of Cool at Apple, recently engaged in a most interesting email exchange with Ryan Tate, who writes the “Valleywag” blog for the gossip Web site, Gawker.

On his initial email to Steve Jobs, Tate complained about what he described as a lack of freedom in Apple’s approach to the approval of products for its “App Store” for iPods, the iPhone, and the iPad. “If Dylan was 20 today, how would he feel about your company?,” Tate asked. “Would he think the iPad had the faintest thing to do with ‘revolution?’ Revolutions are about freedom.”

Apparently, Tate was upset about some of the restrictions put in place by Apple. Among those restrictions is a ban on pornography.

Steve Jobs threw Ryan Tate’s definition of freedom right back at him. Is Apple about freedom? “Yep,” said Jobs, “freedom from programs that steal your private data. Freedom from programs that trash your battery. Freedom from porn. Yep, freedom. The times they are a changin’.”

One of the interesting dimensions of Steve Jobs’ leadership at Apple is his habit of answering selected emails personally. It appears that Ryan Tate’s complaint got under Jobs’ skin. It is even more apparent that Jobs’ response irritated Ryan Tate.

“I don’t want freedom from porn,” Tate asserted. “Porn is just fine.” Jobs sent back a remarkably insightful retort, informing Ryan Tate that he “might care more about porn when you have kids.” Tate wasn’t conceding his case, however, acknowledging that he might “sound bitter,” by complaining that Jobs is “imposing his morality about porn.”

There are several startling aspects of this exchange. When was the last time we saw a major American business leader take the lead to point to porn as something from which we should seek to be free?

Steve Jobs is a businessman of unquestioned ability, a technological wizard, and one of the greatest orchestrators of “cool” in world history. Nevertheless, he has not been known as a critic of pornography . . . until now.

Furthermore, Jobs is in the computer business, and that makes his comments on pornography all the more significant. To get a sense of what that means, consider the observation made by Eric Felten in The Wall Street Journal, “Apple impresario Steve Jobs is preparing to overturn one of the most basic assumptions of modern technology–that the computer business is built on pornography.”

While Felten does not expand upon his assertion that “one of the most basic assumptions of modern technology” is the dependence of the computer business on pornography, a look at that business will prove his thesis to be true. Though pornography is not the sole energy behind the quantum expansion of the Internet and digital technologies, its funding and quest for innovation have been major factors driving the digital age. The pornography business quickly recognized the computer and the Internet for what they are — the greatest and most revolutionary means of selling and distributing pornographic materials.

This is what makes Steve Jobs’ statements so interesting and significant. Apple has created an entirely new way of thinking about digital devices and their phenomenally successful iPhone and iPod technologies — now joined by the iPad — have created an enormous market for “apps,” shorthand for custom applications marketed and purchased through the company’s iTunes digital store. While the Internet at large has become a vast supermarket for pornography, Apple’s tight control over its “App Store” has prevented “pornification” of the apps.

Felten argues that Jobs’ posture is based less on morality than on a straightforward assessment that the general public — and parents in particular — will be much friendlier toward the App Store if they know that pornography is excluded.

“Apple seems to realize that it can do far more box office in its App Store if parents are confident they can let their children make purchases there without strict scrutiny,” Felten observed.

There are interesting twists to the exchange between Tate and Jobs. Tate actually accuses Jobs of imposing his own morality on the App Store (as if the contrary decision would not be just a reverse form of imposing morality). Felten also wonders if Jobs’ statements indicate that at least some sectors of the creative classes are turning cold to pornography as such a dominant influence. “Could it be,” he asks, “that the tide has begun to turn against pornography, and not because of any moral awakening, but just as a matter of taste and style?”

That seems more doubtful, but we can hope that it is true. At the very least, a statement like this from Steve Jobs — an iconic figure of the creative class — is hardly insignificant.

The Internet is still the domain of the pornographers, and there is little chance of that changing soon. Furthermore, any device with a Web browser can still download porn. The digital world is rife with sexually explicit material, and this includes many musical and film offerings through Apple’s iTunes store. Still, the “no porn” decision for the App Store is remarkable on its own.

While Wall Street, Hollywood, and Silicon Valley do their best to interpret what all this means, one dimension of this development is clear - parenthood matters.

Steve Jobs made this clear in his retort to Ryan Tate that he “might care more about porn when you have kids.” No kidding. Parenthood changes everything about one’s outlook on life and its challenges. A parent lacks the luxury of believing the world is all about himself or herself as individuals. Parents necessarily and understandably begin to think of the world in terms of how their children, and by extension the children of others as well, engage the world. This concern extends to the digital world, where the generation of young “digital natives” will spend much of their lives.

Ryan Tate got more than he bargained for when he made his protest to Steve Jobs. In a strange way, we are now all in his debt, because the response from Steve Jobs now puts Apple on the line. In the end, the real meaning of this media eruption is less about computers and “apps” and more about parents and kids.

Parenthood matters. Just ask Steve Jobs.

"What Will You Tell Them?"

2010-11-17T08:45:00.000-05:00

Like me, my Dad is a Pastor. I can rememeber hearing him say on many occasions that there were many times when the only thing that kept him going in His walk with the Lord (from a human perspective) was the fact of who was watching him. What would he say if one of his children asked him why he was not faithful to the Lord anymore?

That same question has lead me in my adulthood and with the raising of my children. What would I tell my children for the reason of my unfaithfullness to the Lord? Is there ever a good reason? I don't think so. Eph. 6:4 is clear to us, as parents, of our responsibility. The Apostle Paul said in His letter to the Corinthians that it is required that a man be found faithful. Faithfullness is not an option for the believer, it is a requirment for the believer.

What are we called to be faithful too? Well, a number of things and this blog is far to short to speak on all of them, so I will just mention a couple and leave the rest up to the Spirit of God.

We are commanded to pray without ceasing (2 Thess 5:18). A prayerless life is a powerless life. As a husband, you will never be able to fully and completely lead your family without a vibrate pray life. Getting alone with the Lord and asking for guidance, strength, courage and power. Begging God for blessing, begging God to be glorified in your life this day, begging God for the salvation of your children, begging God to help you be the best spiritual leader you can be by His grace. This is where you meet with the Lord. Question, if you are not faithful to this and you lack the power to lead in your home, if you have not spoken to God in while (I am not talking about a quick 10 minute prayer, I am talking about getting hold of the heart of God), what are you going to tell your children? Can you tell them how important prayer is? No! Because your life does not reflect that.

As a wife, you will never be the care giver to your children that you should be. You will never be the helpmeet to your husband that you should be; because your prayerless life is a powerless life. What will you tell your children? Can you tell them the importance of prayer? No! Because neither does your life reflect this.

We are commanded in Scripture to be faithful to Church (Heb. 10:25). Some would say, "Well, I fulfill my obligation when I go Sunday Morning, I am not forsaking the assembling". Well, take a look at the passage. The passage says to be faithful to the house of the Lord when it is assembling. It does not give leverage if you just attend part of the services. These are the words of the Scripture. Question, what will you tell your kids if you are not faithful? We must remember that our children, even if they are grown, are watching us. Even if they don't ask why, they are wondering. I would hate to be the one that gives my children a reason for not being faithful to God in all things.

Is Abortion a Theological Issue?

2010-11-11T09:27:00.000-05:00

Garry Wills is at it again — this time in the pages of The Los Angeles Times. A liberal Roman Catholic, Wills is a prolific historian who also writes works on contemporary religion. His new book, Head and Heart: American Christianities presents his pluralistic model of American Christianity and his effort to counter the influence of conservative Christians in the public square.

In his November 4, 2007 opinion column in The Los Angeles Times, Wills argues that abortion should be seen as a purely secular and scientific issue. Abortion “is not a theological matter at all,” he insists — making a brazen argument that is likely to shock parties on both sides of this issue.

“There is no theological basis for defending or condemning abortion,” he claims. Further, “The subject of abortion is not scriptural. For those who make it so central to religion, this seems an odd omission. Abortion is not treated in the Ten Commandments — or anywhere in Jewish Scripture. It is not treated in the Sermon on the Mount — or anywhere in the New Testament. It is not treated in the early creeds. It is not treated in the early ecumenical councils.”

This is intellectual sophistry on display. Abortion is not “treated in the early ecumenical councils” because abortion was not an issue in those debates. Neither was homosexuality . . . or any number of other issues. How exactly does Wills interpret “Thou shall not murder?” If abortion is not included here, what else is left out? Abortion is a theological issue because it deals with the questions of human life, personhood, the image of God, and the sanctity of the gift of life. There is no way that is can be anything less than theological at its core, which is why so many Christians take the issue with such seriousness.

Wills wants to secularize the abortion debate and leave it to science. So, when does he believe that a fetus becomes a person? He suggests that this is marked by the development of a “functioning brain” at about the end of the sixth month of gestation. He celebrates that this also marks where he considers the fetus viable.

But Wills also makes this argument:

The question is not whether the fetus is human life but whether it is a human person, and when it becomes one. Is it when it is capable of thought, of speech, of recognizing itself as a person, or of assuming the responsibilities of a person? Is it when it has a functioning brain?

Does Garry Wills believe that a fetus at six months is capable of “recognizing itself as a person, or of assuming the responsibilities of a person?” This sounds like the logic of philosopher Peter Singer, who argues that an individual is not to be considered fully human until he or she develops such understandings of self as a person and is able to communicate, establish relationships, and envision the future. Needless to say, these capacities are not present at birth — which is why Singer would not consider infanticide murder.

Would Wills go this far? Probably not. But his argument that the issue must be settled on purely secular terms leaves the door wide open.

Wills is certainly right that abortion is not specifically mentioned in the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, or the early Christian creeds. He fails to mention, however, that it is specifically mentioned in the Didache — a compendium of early Christian teaching that claims an origin tied to the twelve disciples. The Didache states that a Christian “shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born.”

Consider these two paragraphs from Wills’ article. The first is his opening salvo:

What makes opposition to abortion the issue it is for each of the GOP presidential candidates is the fact that it is the ultimate “wedge issue” — it is nonnegotiable. The right-to-life people hold that it is as strong a point of religion as any can be. It is religious because the Sixth Commandment (or the Fifth by Catholic count) says, “Thou shalt not kill.” For evangelical Christians, in general, abortion is murder. That is why what others think, what polls say, what looks practical does not matter for them. One must oppose murder, however much rancor or controversy may ensue.

Then, a later paragraph:

If we are to decide the matter of abortion by natural law, that means we must turn to reason and science, the realm of Enlightened religion. But that is just what evangelicals want to avoid. Who are the relevant experts here? They are philosophers, neurobiologists, embryologists. Evangelicals want to exclude them because most give answers they do not want to hear. The experts have only secular expertise, not religious conviction. They, admittedly, do not give one answer — they differ among themselves, they are tentative, they qualify. They do not have the certitude that the religious right accepts as the sign of truth.

Wills is a Roman Catholic, and Catholicism has a much longer tradition of dealing explicitly with abortion than does Evangelicalism (to our shame). Nevertheless, he aims his sights on evangelicals, accusing evangelicals of opposing abortion “however much rancor or controversy may ensue.”

But later, in pressing his own preferred agenda, he admits that his designated secular experts — the scientists and philosophers — “do not give one answer” and “differ among themselves.” Is he seriously arguing that if evangelicals went away, the abortion controversy would disappear?

There is more to Wills’ article (and book) on this subject, and it is clear that this Catholic author and intellectual has huge problems with his own church. But his suggestion that abortion is a merely secular issue will get nowhere. Theology is inevitably involved whenever human life and human dignity are defined or debated. A world in which these issues are considered merely secular is the stuff of nightmares.

"Lordship Salvation"

2010-10-08T16:37:00.000-04:00

The gospel that Jesus proclaimed was a call to discipleship, a call to follow him in submissive obedience, not just a plea to make a decision or pray a prayer. Jesus’ message liberated people from the bondage of their sin while it confronted and condemned hypocrisy. It was an offer of eternal life and forgiveness for repentant sinners, but at the same time it was a rebuke to outwardly religious people whose lives were devoid of true righteousness. It put sinners on notice that they must turn from sin and embrace God’s righteousness.

Our Lord’s words about eternal life were invariably accompanied by warnings to those who might be tempted to take salvation lightly. He taught that the cost of following him is high, that the way is narrow and few find it. He said many who call him Lord will be forbidden from entering the kingdom of heaven (cf. Matt. 7:13-23).

Present-day evangelicalism, by and large, ignores these warnings. The prevailing view of what constitutes saving faith continues to grow broader and more shallow, while the portrayal of Christ in preaching and witnessing becomes fuzzy. Anyone who claims to be a Christian can find evangelicals willing to accept a profession of faith, whether or not the person’s behavior shows any evidence of commitment to Christ. In this way, faith has become merely an intellectual exercise. Instead of calling men and women to surrender to Christ, modern evangelism asks them only to accept some basic facts about Him.

This shallow understanding of salvation and the gospel, known as “easy-believism,” stands in stark contrast to what the Bible teaches. To put it simply, the gospel call to faith presupposes that sinners must repent of their sin and yield to Christ’s authority. This, in a nutshell, is what is commonly referred to as lordship salvation.

The Distinctives of Lordship Salvation

There are many articles of faith that are fundamental to all evangelical teaching. For example, there is agreement among all believers on the following truths: (1) Christ’s death purchased eternal salvation; (2) the saved are justified by grace through faith in Christ alone; (3) sinners cannot earn divine favor; (4) God requires no preparatory works or pre-salvation reformation; (5) eternal life is a gift of God; (6) believers are saved before their faith ever produces any righteous works; and (7) Christians can and do sin, sometimes horribly.

What, then, are the distinctives of lordship salvation? What does Scripture teach that is embraced by those who affirm lordship salvation but rejected by proponents of “easybelievism”? The following are nine distinctives of a biblical understanding of salvation and the gospel.

First, Scripture teaches that the gospel calls sinners to faith joined in oneness with repentance (Acts 2:38; 17:30; 20:21; 2 Pet. 3:9). Repentance is a turning from sin (Acts 3:19; Luke 24:47) that consists not of a human work but of a divinely bestowed grace (Acts 11:18; 2 Tim. 2:25). It is a change of heart, but genuine repentance will effect a change of behavior as well (Luke 3:8; Acts 26:18-20). In contrast, easy-believism teaches that repentance is simply a synonym for faith and that no turning from sin is required for salvation.

Second, Scripture teaches that salvation is all God’s work. Those who believe are saved utterly apart from any effort on their own (Titus 3:5). Even faith is a gift of God, not a work of man (Eph. 2:1-5, 8). Real faith therefore cannot be defective or short-lived but endures forever (Phil. 1:6; cf. Heb. 11). In contrast, easybelievism teaches that faith might not last and that a true Christian can completely cease believing.

Third, Scripture teaches that the object of faith is Christ Himself, not a creed or a promise (John 3:16). Faith therefore involves personal commitment to Christ (2 Cor. 5:15). In other words, all true believers follow Jesus (John 10:27-28). In contrast, easy-believism teaches that saving faith is simply being convinced or giving credence to the truth of the gospel and does not include a personal commitment to the person of Christ.

Fourth, Scripture teaches that real faith inevitably produces a changed life (2 Cor. 5:17). Salvation includes a transformation of the inner person (Gal. 2:20). The nature of the Christian is new and different (Rom. 6:6). The unbroken pattern of sin and enmity with God will not continue when a person is born again (1 John 3:9-10). Those with genuine faith follow Christ (John 10:27), love their brothers (1 John 3:14), obey God’s commandments (1 John 2:3; John 15:14), do the will of God (Matt. 12:50), abide in God’s Word (John 8:31), keep God’s Word (John 17:6), do good works (Eph. 2:10), and continue in the faith (Col. 1:21-23; Heb. 3:14). In contrast, easybelievism teaches that although some spiritual fruit is inevitable, that fruit might not be visible to others and Christians can even lapse into a state of permanent spiritual barrenness.

Fifth, Scripture teaches that God’s gift of eternal life includes all that pertains to life and godliness (2 Pet. 1:3; Rom. 8:32), not just a ticket to heaven. In contrast, according to easy-believism, only the judicial aspects of salvation (e.g., justification, adoption, and positional sanctification) are guaranteed for believers in this life; practical sanctification and growth in grace require a post-conversion act of dedication.

Sixth, Scripture teaches that Jesus is Lord of all, and the faith He demands involves unconditional surrender (Rom. 6:17-18; 10:9-10). In other words, Christ does not bestow eternal life on those whose hearts remain set against Him (James 4:6). Surrender to Jesus’ lordship is not an addendum to the biblical terms of salvation; the summons to submission is at the heart of the gospel invitation throughout Scripture. In contrast, easy-believism teaches that submission to Christ’s supreme authority is not germane to the saving transaction.

Seventh, Scripture teaches that those who truly believe will love Christ (1 Pet. 1:8-9; Rom. 8:28-30; 1 Cor. 16:22). They will therefore long to obey Him (John 14:15, 23). In contrast, easy-believism teaches that Christians may fall into a state of lifelong carnality.

Eighth, Scripture teaches that behavior is an important test of faith. Obedience is evidence that one’s faith is real (1 John 2:3). On the other hand, the person who remains utterly unwilling to obey Christ does not evidence true faith (1 John 2:4). In contrast, easybelievism teaches that disobedience and prolonged sin are no reason to doubt the reality of one’s faith.

Ninth, Scripture teaches that genuine believers may stumble and fall, but they will persevere in the faith (1 Cor. 1:8). Those who later turn completely away from the Lord show that they were never truly born again (1 John 2:19). In contrast, easy-believism teaches that a true believer may utterly forsake Christ and come to the point of not believing.

Most Christians recognize that these nine distinctives are not new or radical ideas. The preponderance of Bible-believing Christians over the centuries have held these to be basic tenets of orthodoxy. In fact, no major orthodox movement in the history of Christianity has ever taught that sinners can spurn the lordship of Christ yet lay claim to Him as Savior.

This issue is not a trivial one. In fact, how could any issue be more important? The gospel that is presented to unbelievers has eternal ramifications. If it is the true gospel, it can direct men and women into the everlasting kingdom. If it is a corrupted message, it can give unsaved people false hope while consigning them to eternal damnation. This is not merely a matter for theologians to discuss and debate and speculate about. This is an issue that every single pastor and lay person must understand in order that the gospel may be rightly proclaimed to all the nations.

"Between the boy and the Bridge"

2010-10-05T08:07:00.001-04:00

By all accounts Tyler Clementi was an 18-year-old young man who was excited to be a freshman in college, gifted as a violinist, and looking forward to the future. All that changed last week when he walked out onto the massive George Washington Bridge that connects New York with New Jersey and jumped 200 feet to his death.

The last few days of Tyler Clementi’s life were a cauldron of confusions. Over the course of three days, he learned that his roommate at Rutgers University, also age 18, had surreptitiously turned a webcam toward his bed, filming him in a romantic encounter with another male student. The roommate employed social media to inform friends of the event, turning what Tyler Clementi assumed was a private moment into a devastating public disclosure.
It is now clear that Tyler was crushed, confused, and angry. He posted thoughts about how he might respond on the Web and finally wrote this on his Facebook page: “Jumping off gw bridge sorry.”

In September, no less than three additional teenagers committed suicide, and these are believed also to be connected to disclosures or struggles with homosexuality. As Geoff Mulvihill and Samantha Henry of the Associated Press report:
Clementi’s death was part of a string of suicides last month involving youngsters who were believed to have been victims of anti-gay bullying. Fifteen-year-old Billy Lucas hanged himself in a barn in Greensburg, Ind. Asher Brown, 13, shot himself in the head in Houston. And 13-year-old Seth Walsh of Tehachapi, Calif. hanged himself from a tree in his back yard.

That is four teenagers in just one month. And look at those ages. Two were only 13, one was 15, and Tyler Clementi was 18. That is four dead boys in the space of one horrible month, and all were struggling with sexual identity.
The gay rights movement was fast to claim that Tyler Clementi was a victim of gay bullying. While the motive of his roommate and accomplices is not known, the undeniable result was that Tyler was exposed before the world through the power of social media — in this case a very dangerous power indeed.

He was humiliated, angry, and horribly confused. His confusion is evident in his Internet musings, in which he swings in mood from outright indignation to the reflection that, other than this incident, his roommate was basically decent.

Somewhere in the midst of his heartbreak and confusion, Tyler decided to end his life. He posted his announcement on his Facebook page and headed for the George Washington Bridge. There, he ended his short life with a long plunge into the Hudson River.

Reading the news accounts of Tyler’s final days and final act is truly horrifying. He was betrayed by classmates and exposed to the world. At the age of 18, it was simply too much for him to bear. A young man who probably never considered suicide in the past, and who might never have considered it again in the future, felt himself pushed on that day beyond his emotional limits, so he pushed himself off the bridge.

Tyler joined Billy, Seth, and Asher as tragic evidence of the dangerous intersection of sexual confusion, hateful classmates, and the wide-open world of social media. These boys simply ran out of the emotional ability to face life, crushed by the burden of secrets and the bullying of their peers.

The homosexual community will argue that these boys were oppressed by the fact that so many believe that homosexuality is sinful. They respond with calls for the acceptance and normalization of homosexuality. Their logic is easy to understand. If the stigma attached to homosexuality were to disappear, persons who are convinced that they are homosexual in sexual orientation, along with those who are confused, would be free from bullying, the threat of exposure, and injury to their parents and loved ones.

Of course, Christians committed to biblical truth will recognize this as a demand to lie to sinners about their sin. The church cannot change its understanding of the sinfulness of homosexual acts unless it willfully disobeys the Scripture and rejects the authority of the Bible to reveal the truth about sin and sinfulness.

In other words, the believing church cannot surrender to the demand that we disobey and reject biblical truth. That much is clear. We cannot lie to persons about the sinfulness of their sin, nor comfort them with falsehood about their moral accountability before God. The rush of the liberal churches and denominations to normalize homosexuality is now a hallmark of their disobedience to the Bible.

But this is not the end of the matter, and we know it. When gay activists accuse conservative Christians of homophobia, they are wrong. Our concern about the sinfulness of homosexuality is not rooted in fear, but in faithfulness to the Bible — and faithfulness means telling the truth.

Yet, when gay activists accuse conservative Christians of homophobia, they are also right. Much of our response to homosexuality is rooted in ignorance and fear. We speak of homosexuals as a particular class of especially depraved sinners and we lie about how homosexuals experience their own struggle. Far too many evangelical pastors talk about sexual orientation with a crude dismissal or with glib assurances that gay persons simply choose to be gay. While most evangelicals know that the Bible condemns homosexuality, far too many find comfort in their own moralism, consigning homosexuals to a theological or moral category all their own.

What if Tyler Clementi had been in your church? Would he have heard biblical truth presented in a context of humble truth-telling and gospel urgency, or would he have heard irresponsible slander, sarcastic jabs, and moralistic self-congratulation? What about Asher and Billy and Seth?
The teenage years are hard enough to navigate. Most boys do not struggle with homosexuality, but there is not a teenage boy alive who does not struggle with sexual confusion. There is no deacon, preacher, or pew-sitter who went through male adolescence unscathed and without sin. There is not a human being who reaches school age who would not be humiliated by a well-placed webcam. And yet these boys — along with girls facing similar struggles — imagine themselves to be alone in their confusion and helpless in their anguish.

Was there no one to step between Tyler Clementi and that bridge? Was there no friend, classmate, or trusted adult who had the courage and compassion to reach into his life and offer hope? Was there no one who could tell him that the anguish of his moment would not last for his lifetime? Was there no one to put into perspective the fact that people who did not love him had taken advantage of him, but that the many who did love him would love him no less?

We can only look at this news account and grieve. As Christians, we just have to wonder. Was there no believer to befriend Tyler and, without loving his homosexuality, love him? The homosexual community insists that to love someone is to love their sexual orientation. We know this to be a lie. But no one who loves me should love nor rationalize my sin. The church must be the people who speak honestly about sin because we have first learned by God’s grace to speak honestly of our own.

Something has gone horribly wrong when four young boys take their lives in the space of one month, and a society just goes on with its business. There are grieving parents and loved ones who will never get over that month, and there were four young men who did not survive it.

There are Tylers and Ashers and Billys and Seths all around us. They are in our schools, in our neighborhoods, in our churches . . . and in our homes. They, like us, desperately need to hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to know the grace of God toward sinners. They, like us, need to know the mercy of God extended to sinners through Christ Jesus. They, like us, need to repent of their sins and learn by grace how to grow into faithfulness. They, like us, need to know that they are loved if they are going to trust Christians to tell them about Jesus.

Even long before they may hear or respond to the gospel, they need to know that they are loved and cherished for who they are. They need to know that we stand between them and those who would harm them. They need to know that we know how to love sinners because we have been loved despite our own sin.

I am haunted by the one question that seems so obvious and clear in the account of Tyler Clementi’s tragic death. In those days of crushing anguish, humiliation, and confusion, was there no one who could have stood between that boy and that bridge?

What did Jesus mean by His standing at the door and knocking Revelation 3:20?

2010-09-27T13:16:00.001-04:00

Have you seen the old potrait that portrays Christ as the effiminate Savior standing at a doorway knocking on the door waiting for someone to open it? Such is really a tasteless view of the Master. He is not some wimpy shepherd that stands at a door and knocks with absolutely no power to open the door. So what does Revelation 3:20 mean?
Many people include this verse in their evangelistics attempts to lost people. Usually saying something like, "Jesus is knocking at the door of your heart waiting for you to open it". Such is not the Biblical doctrine of Salvation, nor the clear context of Revelation 3.
In Revelation 3 Christ is speaking, not to group of unredeemed people, but to the Church; the Church of Ladocia in particular. Jesus was trying to get back into the Church not trying to get into the heart of an individual person or persons in Salvation. These people were already saved. To use this verse in an evangelistic sense is to take the verse from its context and force a meaning on it the Holy Spirit never intended.
This is another example of so many people just taking a verse to mean a certain thing because they have always heard it taught like that. The Scripture must be allowed to speak for itself, not the way we have always heard it spoken for. Let us be faithful to allow the Word to speak for itself.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.0

The Church, The Body of Christ

2010-07-20T09:32:00.002-04:00

The last two weeks I have spent preaching on the Church being the body of Christ. Since the Apostle Paul compares the Church with that of a physical body in 1 Corinthians 12, we say that in order for the Church to function properly all the parts must work together, just like that of the physical body.
I emphasized faithfulness both in your attendance and in the use, keeping in context with chapter 12, of your spiritual gift. God has sovereignly given each believer atleast one spiritual gift with the command to use that gift for the glory of God and the edification of the body.
Our spiritual gifts are not to be used for the glory of ourselves and they are not to be used anywhere without the sanction of the local Church. If we doubt that truth we need to reread the books of Acts, 1 Corinthians 12, and much of the New Testament. In those passages you will see that the Church is local, not universal and therefore the gifts are to be used in a local Church.
You can certainly excercise your gift outside the Church but not when the body is assembling. If you are a part of a local body, we are commanded by God to be there when the body assembles, Hebrews 10:25.
It would be a violation of Scripture, not to assemble with the body. Let's put this in Paul's terms, would you get up in the morning and leave your foot in bed? Certainly not! But that is exactly what we do when we are not faithful to the body. We can come up with all sorts of justifications for it I guess. Such as when people "minister" when they should be in their local Church. You minister on times and days when your body isn't assembled. Now, I'm not talking about going to other Churches and ministering as God leads, I'm talking about missing consistently in order to "minister", the New Testament has a probelm with that, you have neglected the local body.
We have a gentleman in our Church, Nathan Panther, who felt like God wanted him to start a Bible Study in his home for some local people that live nearby. He has one condition that he told me, "I will not have it during Church times, that would be wrong, I need to be in my Church when it assembles." Amen, Nathan.
Next post I will talk more about the gifts in the body. Just keep in mind, when Gods people neglect asssembling together as the body, the body suffers.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.4.8

What Marks a Healthy Church? #1 Biblical Teaching and Preaching

2010-07-02T22:59:00.001-04:00

Two Sundays ago I began a new series on “Marks of a Healthy Church” and the first mark that I went over with the congregation was “Biblical Teaching and Preaching”. I gave, by the power of the Spirit, two very “frank” messages on the fact that the Church needs Biblical Preaching and Teaching.

We live in a day where, as the Apostle Paul said in 2 Timothy 4, people, literally in the Greek, “…will not put up with error free preaching, but will heap to themselves teachers who are telling them what they want to hear”. People today do not want to hear strong Biblical Teaching and Preaching. People today seem to want sermonettes for christianettes, they want enough to ease the conscience that they went to Church, but they cannot tolerate and WILL NOT tolerate strong Biblical preaching.

I thought about some things that people do not want to hear:

1. People do not want to hear about Lordship Salvation- Yes, I am a Lordship Salvation pastor 115%. People do not want to hear about the fact that there must be a surrender of the life to the Lordship of Christ or there is no genuine salvation. This is not works salvation as some have incorrectly accused, this is the heart of the Gospel. Surrender to the Lordship of Christ is a natural outflow of the Spirit of God that lives in the heart of the new believer. Lordship salvation also does not teach that you have every conviction at the moment of your salvation. There is no doubt that people need room and time to grow in their faith, the New Testament is filled with that proof. But what it does teach is that a person recognizes the fact that Jesus is Lord (kurios in the Greek, meaning master), and there is a genuine desire to submit to that lordship. Although we do not also do it, the desire is still present. But people do not want to hear this, because, since these things are true, a lot of people would have to be reclassified whether they are saved or not. People want to make a whole lot of people saved that do not possess biblical faith, because there is no desire to submit to the Lordship of Christ.

2. People do not want to hear about the Sovereignty of God- Sovereignty means that we are out of the picture. Our salvation, our life is not ours; it belongs to Christ. He can do with it what he wants just because He wants and does not have to give us a reason for it. People do not want to hear about this because they want to feel like they have some sort of control, they want to feel like they have had some part in their salvation. But these things are foreign to Scripture. Our lives are all controlled by the Sovereign hand of Almighty God; (cf. Dan. 4:35, Eph 1:11, Psalm 115:3, Psalm 135:6, Isa. 14:24, Isa. 46:10, Acts 4:28, Proverbs 21:1, Rom. 9:18). There are many more verses that could be given, but these will suffice. Sovereignty is a blow to human pride and ego, and many people do not want to hear it.

Thankfully, I have a Church and a group of believers that want to hear these hard things. They sit and listen and hang onto every word. This is not me, but the power of the Spirit of God working in these precious people’s hearts. I close this thread with the following text message I received from a Church member after last Sundays Evenings service:

“I just wanted to say thank you for not changing your style of preaching just because of a few people. We (he and his wife) will always be grateful and faithful to your service…Thanks again…”

That makes the ministry worthy it. To see a hand-full of people get it and love it.

Next Mark of a Healthy Church, #2 Faithful Church Members.

My fourth son

2010-06-07T16:30:00.001-04:00

He said last night, "Daddy, I love Jesus."

Published with Blogger-droid

Some instruction on reply

2010-06-07T10:49:00.001-04:00

There are several people who automatically receive an email each time that I blog on the website. Please be advised that if you want to comment on the blog post that you cannot click reply on your email, it will be returned to you. This is not a problem with our Churches website, it is just that the server from the Blogger that sends the emails out is a no reply mailbox, that is why they are coming straight back to you. We welcome and appreciate all comments, however, in order to comment you must go to the Churches website at WWW.emmanuelbaptistmineral.com, or if you are on dial up and loading the Churches web page would take to long, just send me an email at pastormichael@emmanuelbaptistmineral.com and I will make sure that your comment gets on the blog. If you go to the web site, on the home page scroll down to the lower right corner and click on pastor Michael's blog, locate the article and click on the blue comments link at the bottom of the article. Leave your comment and click submit. I look forward to hearing from you.

Published with Blogger-droid

Whose ministry is it, anyway?

2010-05-31T21:46:00.001-04:00

I am very excited about a brand new series I will be starting on Sunday, June 13th. This series is going to be a Biblical look at the local church. We are going to be looking at the responsibilities of the Elders as well as the responsibility of the Church members. One of the areas that we are going to be looking is the responsibility of the members to support the ministries of their local Church.

The Apostle Paul is very clear in Hebrews 10:25, that as God’s people, we are to always be consistent in supporting the ministries of our local Church with our attendance. Many Christians believe that because they attend once on Sunday, that they are fulfilling the requirements of the Scriptures. But the Scriptures show a very different picture of faithfulness. I wonder if men were as faithful to their wives as they are to their Church (the Church being a picture of marriage in the Scripture cf. Ephesians 5), how long they would be married. Some may think that I am over-emphasizing this to prove a point, but throughout the Old Testament God accuses Israel of Spiritual adultery because they were unfaithful. Could God accuse those who are unfaithful to their local Church of the same thing. I think so!

But we not only support our Church with our faithful attendance to the services, but we also support our Church by being faithful to the ministries that may not affect us directly. Listen, even if a ministry of your local Church doesn’t affect you directly, it is still a ministry of your Church and therefore, that is your ministry. People incorrectly believe because they personally do not have people involved in a particular ministry in the Church, that when that ministry is on display they do not have to be there. Part of being faithful to your Church is to support the ministries of your Church. There are a number of reasons why, but one of which is to support the people that have worked hard to make that ministry successful. By you not attending because you are not involved directly, is pretty much saying that the hard work that was put into that ministry does not mean anything, because you are not involved directly. Such is incorrect thinking and contrary to the Scriptural meaning of faithfulness. I do not mean to come across hard, but I don’t think that we think about the reactions that our actions cause.

But don’t worry, I am also going to spend a great deal of time reminding myself of my responsibility as Pastor, so it will not be one sided at all.

Remember June 13th.

The Theology of Charles Finney

2010-04-22T23:51:00.001-04:00

Many Christians over the years have given rave reviews to the eighteenth century revivalist, Charles G. Finney. Books have been written about his life, preachers quote him from the pulpit and lest we forget the great number of people that “came to the Lord” as a result of his ministry. However, as you begin to review the life and the beliefs of Charles Finney, you will find that he was very much NOT an evangelical, and not at all orthodox in his beliefs.

Charles Finney was born in 1792 in Connecticut but lived most of his life in Oneida County, New York. Raised by unsaved parents, he grew up largely ignorant of Christian doctrine. The religion that Finney remembered as a child was, he said later, “of a type not at all calculated to arrest my attention”. Finney characterized his pastor’s sermon content as “a dry discussion of Theology”.

Finney decided to study law and took an apprenticeship in Adams, New York, where for the first time he became actively involved in Church. The local Presbyterian Pastor, George W. Gale, took a special interest in Finney and made him choir director. Then over the years, Finney made a profession of faith and later felt the call of God to preach. It was, I believe, extremely unfortunate that Finney chose to pursue a preaching ministry immediately after his conversion. Devoid of any solid Christian influence in his life, he was almost completely ignorant of the Scriptures and Theology. He was a brilliant man; however, and his legal training had conditioned him to think logically, but it also saddled him with a world of wrong presumptions. Finney’s notions about justice, guilt, righteousness, transgression, forgiveness, responsibility, sovereignty, and a host of other terms were drawn from his legal studies, not the Scriptures.

Wherever Finney preached, people responded enthusiastically. Finney boldly challenged conventional doctrine and persuasively championed his own rather novel set of doctrines. He interpreted everything from a nineteenth-century American legal standard to every biblical statement. “I had read nothing on the subject of the atonement except in my Bible”, he wrote, “and what I found on the subject, I had interpreted as I would have understood the same or like passages in law books”. He concluded that God’s justice demanded that He extend grace equally to all. He reasoned that God could not righteously hold mankind guilty for Adam’s disobedience. In his opinion, a just God would never condemn people for being sinners. Finney wrote, “The Bible defines sin to be a transgression of the law. What law have we violated inheriting this sin nature? What law requires us to have a different nature from that which we possess? Does reason affirm that we are deserving of the wrath and curse of God forever, for inheriting from Adam a sinful nature”. Thus Finney discarded the clear teaching of Romans 5:16-19 in favor of human reason. Worse yet, Finney denied that a holy God would impute people’s sin to Christ and of Christ’s righteousness to believers. Finney concluded that the doctrines clearly taught in Romans 3-5 were “theological fiction”. In essence he denied the core teachings of evangelical theology.

Unfortunately, Finney’s early success in preaching obscured his serious flaws in Theology. Finney himself admitted that when he was being examined by his Church to be licensed to preach, the presbytery, “avoided asking questions that would naturally brings my views into collision with theirs”. When asked if he agreed with the Westminster Confession of Faith, he said, “I replied that I received it for substance of doctrine, so far as I understood it”. Then later confessed that he had never read it.

There is much more that I could say about him and if anyone is interested I will share, but for my purposes on this article what I have said will suffice, because you get the message. One of the marks that you always hear about Finney is the great number of people that came to “know the Lord” under his preaching. In closing I want to quote a contemporary of Finney, “During ten years, hundreds, and perhaps thousands, were annually reported to be converted on all hands, but now it is admitted that Finney’s real converts are comparatively few”. It is declared, even by himself, that “the great body of them are a disgrace to religion”; as a consequence of these defections, practical evils, great, terrible, and innumerable, are in various quarters rushing into the Church.

Finney’s logical way of thinking, instead of biblical, and heretical teaching caused the superficial “conversion” of many. He denied the most cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith, and his presentation of the Gospel bore little fruit. Thank God for pastors who are strong on Biblical doctrine.

"What is the Church doing wrong"?

2010-03-23T21:21:00.002-04:00

The following article is adopted from Dr. Albert Mohler. Dr. Mohler is the President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

"Churches in many ways have actually added to the problem. They promote the idea of the Church as a full-service entertainment and activity center, where you take children away from their parents and put them in a different peer culture. Now it's a Church peer culture. What happens when they grow out of that? What steps can the Church take to do better"

Focus on expository preaching, and teach how to think biblically. The puplit has to take the responsibility. In far too many Churches there is just no expository preaching (teaching that expounds on a particular text of Scripture). There isn't the robust biblical preaching that sets forth the Word of God and then explains how the people of God must think differently in order to be faithful to that Word.

Show the seriousness of Church, including personal accountability. The local Church must be a robust gospel people. It must be a warm fellowship of believers...who are really living out holiness and faithfulness to Christ, and being mutually accountable for that.

Give answers about current issues. We're not giving kids adequate information on some very crucial issues. Look at the questions that the average teenager is facing, "Why aren't you physically intimate with your girlfriend?" "Why don't you believe in evoloution?" "Why don't you accept this worldview?" "Why don't you accept this lifestyle?" If we aren't giving them intellectual material, intellectual knowledge, substance, and confidence, we shouldn't be suprised when they go with the flow.

Explain how the gospel in unfolding through real history. The Christian faith, the Christian claim, the gospel, is first of all a master narrative-a true story-about life, about God's purpose to bring glory to Himself. It has four major movements: Creation, Fall, Redemption, Consummation. The only was to understand the great story of the gospel is to begin with the fact that God is the Creator and He is the Lord of all. If we don't anchor our children in that story, if they think that Christianity is merely a bunch of stuff to believe, if they don't find their identity in that-in which they say-"Yes, that's my story. This is where I am"-then they are going to fall away.

What are parents doing wrong?

We've got to start treating young people as a mission field, not just assuming that mere nuture will lead them into Christian discipleship and into Christian faith.

Parents need to take the responsibility here. The one thing we know from the entirety of the Scripture is that parents have the non-negotiable responsibility to train, educate, to confront them with the biblical truth, to ground them in Scripture.

We also have, on the part of many Christian parents, a buy-in to a new secualar understanding of parenthood. We are letting our children make big decisions far too early. A teenager making a decision about whether he or she is going to participate in Church activities or be at Church...is making a decision that should be made for him or her".

The "Black and White" Scriptures?

2010-03-09T21:56:00.003-05:00

There is a sweeping notion permeating the Church at warp speed. A notion that most Bible believing Christians would say does not exist in their form of Doctrine. Oh yes, they believe the Bible and they believe its fundemental doctrines; but when the truths of Scripture begin to hit a little close to home they back off a little. Why? Because they really do not like truth that is absolute.

The Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary defines "Absolute" and being, "outright, unmitigated", (that word probably does not help much, so let me say that unmitigated means to be so definite in what one says that it leaves little chance for change or relief). It also uses the word "fundemental" and "ultimate". Many people will sit in Church and listen to good sermons being preached, but the minute that preacher comes out with one of those absolute statments, you can see their facial expressions change; particularly if that absolute statement is a negative statement and has to do with them or a person that they care a lot about. It is even more damaging when the preacher can show from Scripture that his absolute statements are, in fact, biblical. Then they have no where to go. Their argument then goes from being with the preacher to being with the Lord God of the Scriptures.

I have many things to thank God for in my life. One of the things that I am immensley thankful for is for my home pastor, Jeff Clark. He taught me two fundemental lessons about preaching and teaching. Always, always, always (did I mention "always"), have the Scripture back up what you say; and, people will only learn to the degree of the depth that you take them, (so if people do not like my in-depth approach to the Scriptures, they can thank Jeff Clark for that). That lesson is very important because I realize that there are a lot of preachers out there that spend a lot of time preaching and making absolute statements based on their own opinion. I, too, have to back up sometimes in my study and say "ok, Huffman (I like to think that is the Holy Spirit), where is your Bible for that statement", and sometimes I have to retract. So, I am very aware that the tendency is there for that. Because preachers are humans with real emotions; emotions that sometimes get the better of them.

The Bible is a book of absolutes. There are no grey areas in Scripture, none; it is black and white. But there are some who do not appreciate absolute, black and white statements. And when they hear a preacher make to many of them (especially if it makes them uncomfortable), they will discontinue going to that Church or going when or where that man is preaching. If you hear me make one of those absolute statements, whether live in our Church or over the internet, I, by the Grace of God, will have Scripture that validates the point.

For example, if I where to say, (and I have said from the pulpit), "If there is no consistent Church attendance coupled with your "faith" then your faith is vain". Is there biblical evidence for such an absolute statement? Yes! Hebrews 10:25, James 2:14-26; John 14:15, Matthew 7:21, just to name a few. But you know what, people hate that absolute statment. And I understand from a human perspective. We all have people that we want very desperately to believe are saved, but do not meet the requirement of the above mentioned verses. And the emotion and the flesh hate to hear that. Another example, my dad who, (for those of you reading this that are not a member of our Church), is also a pastor makes this absolute statement, "You cannot be saved without a changed life". Is there biblical evidence for that absolute statement? Yes! 2 Corinthians 5:17 is very clear on that.

Just remember, the Scriptures are a book of absolutes. If you have a problem with biblical absolutes, then your problem is with the God of the Absolute Bible.

Sermons Series in 2010

2010-01-04T21:22:00.002-05:00

I am sitting here in my thinking chair, not doing much thining, but watching the fiesta bowl. I do not like either team, really, but hey sometimes it is just a matter of the fact that it is football, right? (Let me here a good Tim the "tool man" Taylor grunt).

I wanted to share with the readers of this blog and folks of my Church some information about the sermon series that we will be enjoying the first part of the new year. Also, for those that cannot be with us because of distance, so that you may listen online (Thanks to the cyber-talents of Mrs. Karen Cersley. Oops! Sorry Karen, I did not ask permission to use your name).

I am very excited about what the Lord is going to teach us through His Word in the Coming year. For those who have been with us we have spent sometime in the Gospel of John; Three years now and we are half way through the eighth chapter. But that is not the record, I know a Pastor who has been in John 5 years and is in chapter 4, so I am not the only nut!! But we will take an extended break from the Gospel of John.

Last Lord's day we began our study on the Lords teaching on the subject of Divorce and Remarriage. I taught this about three years ago, but the Churches in America are so confused on what the Lord actually taught on the subject, that we need to learn exactly what He said. I get tired of hearing preachers add their view and put words in the mouth of the Lord, we are going to let Christ speak for Himself.

Next, we will enjoy and wonderfully enriching study on "Twelve Ordianary Men", We will spend 11 weeks and learn about the first preachers of the NT Church. How they were men of doubt and sin just as we are yet God used them in a mighty way. We will come away from that with the understanding that God can use us no matter our past or our present, as long as we are submitted to God.

Then, we will do a study "Twelve extraordinanry women". I think God for how He uses my Mom in my life. I am thankful for how He uses my wife in my life. We will see the great way that God used women to perform His will.

We have many others planned, but God's grace. It is my prayer that God's people will be faithful to the Service at our Church on Sunday Evening and not sit at home, but come and worship as we learn great things about God's Word.

"12 Ways to Love your Wayward Child"

2009-10-09T12:55:00.000-04:00

1. Point them to Christ.
Your rebellious child's real problem is not drugs or sex or cigarettes or pornography or laziness or crime or cussing or slovenliness or homosexuality or being in a punk rock band. The real problem is that they don't see Jesus clearly. The best thing you can do for them--and the only reason to do any of the following suggestions--is to show them Christ. It is not a simple or immediate process, but the sins in their life that distress you and destroy them will only begin to fade away when they see Jesus more like he actually is.

2. Pray.
Only God can save your son or daughter, so keep on asking that he will display himself to them in a way they can't resist worshiping him for.

3. Acknowledge that something is wrong.
If your daughter rejects Jesus, don't pretend everything is fine.
For every unbelieving child, the details will be different. Each one will require parents to reach out in unique ways. Never acceptable, however, is not reaching out at all. If your child is an unbeliever, don't ignore it. Holidays might be easier, but eternity won't be.

4. Don't expect them to be Christ-like.
If your son is not a Christian, he's not going to act like one.
You know that he has forsaken the faith, so don't expect him to live by the standards you raised him with. For example, you might be tempted to say, "I know you're struggling with believing in Jesus, but can't you at least admit that getting wasted every day is sin?"
If he's struggling to believe in Jesus, then there is very little significance in admitting that drunkenness is wrong. You want to protect him, yes. But his unbelief is the most dangerous problem--not partying. No matter how your child's unbelief exemplifies itself in his behavior, always be sure to focus more on the heart's sickness than its symptoms.

5. Welcome them home.
Because the deepest concern is not your child's actions, but his heart, don't create too many requirements for coming home. If he has any inkling to be with you, it is God giving you a chance to love him back to Jesus. Obviously there are some instances in which parents must give ultimatums: "Don't come to this house if you are..." But these will be rare. Don't lessen the likelihood of an opportunity to be with your child by too many rules.
If your daughter smells like weed or an ashtray, spray her jacket with Febreze and change the sheets when she leaves, but let her come home. If you find out she's pregnant, then buy her folic acid, take her to her twenty-week ultrasound, protect her from Planned Parenthood, and by all means let her come home. If your son is broke because he spent all the money you lent him on loose women and ritzy liquor, then forgive his debt as you've been forgiven, don't give him any more money, and let him come home. If he hasn't been around for a week and a half because he's been staying at his girlfriend's--or boyfriend's--apartment, plead with him not to go back, and let him come home.

6. Plead with them more than you rebuke them.
Be gentle in your disappointment.
What really concerns you is that your child is destroying herself, not that she's breaking rules. Treat her in a way that makes this clear. She probably knows--especially if she was raised as a Christian--that what she's doing is wrong. And she definitely knows you think it is. So she doesn't need this pointed out. She needs to see how you are going to react to her evil. Your gentle forbearance and sorrowful hope will show her that you really do trust Jesus.
Her conscience can condemn her by itself. Parents ought to stand kindly and firmly, always living in the hope that they want their child to return to.

7. Connect them to believers who have better access to them.
There are two kinds of access that you may not have to your child: geographical and relational. If your wayward son lives far away, try to find a solid believer in his area and ask him to contact your son. This may seem nosy or stupid or embarrassing to him, but it's worth it--especially if the believer you find can also relate to your son emotionally in a way you can't.
Relational distance will also be a side effect of your child leaving the faith, so your relationship will be tenuous and should be protected if at all possible. But hard rebuke is still necessary.
This is where another believer who has emotional access to your son may be very helpful. If there is a believer who your son trusts and perhaps even enjoys being around, then that believer has a platform to tell your son--in a way he may actually pay attention to--that he's being an idiot. This may sound harsh, but it's a news flash we all need from time to time, and people we trust are usually the only ones who can package a painful rebuke so that it is a gift to us.
A lot of rebellious kids would do well to hear that they're being fools--and it is rare that this can helpfully be pointed out by their parents--so try to keep other Christians in your kids lives.

8. Respect their friends.
Honor your wayward child in the same way you'd honor any other unbeliever. They may run with crowds you'd never consider talking to or even looking at, but they are your child's friends. Respect that--even if the relationship is founded on sin. They're bad for your son, yes. But he's bad for them, too. Nothing will be solved by making it perfectly evident that you don't like who he's hanging around with.
When your son shows up for a family birthday celebration with another girlfriend--one you've never seen before and probably won't see again--be hospitable. She's also someone's wayward child, and she needs Jesus, too.

9. Email them.
Praise God for technology that lets you stay in your kids' lives so easily!
When you read something in the Bible that encourages you and helps you love Jesus more, write it up in a couple lines and send it to your child. The best exhortation for them is positive examples of Christ's joy in your own life.
Don't stress out when you're composing these as if each one needs to be singularly powerful. Just whip them out one after another, and let the cumulative effect of your satisfaction in God gather up in your child's inbox. God's word is never proclaimed in vain.

10. Take them to lunch.
If possible, don't let your only interaction with your child be electronic. Get together with him face to face if you can. You may think this is stressful and uncomfortable, but trust me that it's far worse to be in the child's shoes--he is experiencing all the same discomfort, but compounded by guilt. So if he is willing to get together with you for lunch, praise God, and use the opportunity.
It will feel almost hypocritical to talk about his daily life, since what you really care about is his eternal life, but try to anyway. He needs to know you care about all of him. Then, before lunch is over, pray that the Lord will give you the gumption to ask about his soul. You don't know how he'll respond. Will he roll his eyes like you're an idiot? Will he get mad and leave? Or has God been working in him since you talked last? You don't know until you risk asking.
(Here's a note to parents of younger children: Set up regular times to go out to eat with your kids. Not only will this be valuable for its own sake, but also, if they ever enter a season of rebellion, the tradition of meeting with them will already be in place and it won't feel weird to ask them out to lunch. If a son has been eating out on Saturdays with his dad since he was a tot, it will be much harder for him later in life to say no to his father's invitation--even as a surly nineteen-year-old.)

11. Take an interest in their pursuits.
Odds are that if your daughter is purposefully rejecting Christ, then the way she spends her time will probably disappoint you. Nevertheless, find the value in her interests, if possible, and encourage her. You went to her school plays and soccer games when she was ten; what can you do now that she's twenty to show that you still really care about her interests?
Jesus spent time with tax collectors and prostitutes, and he wasn't even related to them. Imitate Christ by being the kind of parent who will put some earplugs in your pocket and head downtown to that dank little nightclub where your daughter's CD release show is. Encourage her and never stop praying that she will begin to use her gifts for Jesus' glory instead her own.

12. Point them to Christ.
This can't be over-stressed. It is the whole point. No strategy for reaching your son or daughter will have any lasting effect if the underlying goal isn't to help them know Jesus.
Jesus.
It's not so that they will be good kids again; it's not so that they'll get their hair cut and start taking showers; it's not so that they'll like classical music instead of deathcore; it's not so that you can stop being embarrassed at your weekly Bible study; it's not so that they'll vote conservative again by the next election; it's not even so that you can sleep at night, knowing they're not going to hell.
The only ultimate reason to pray for them, welcome them, plead with them, email them, eat with them, or take an interest in their interests is so that their eyes will be opened to Christ.
And not only is he the only point--he's the only hope. When they see the wonder of Jesus, satisfaction will be redefined. He will replace the pathetic vanity of the money, or the praise of man, or the high, or the orgasm that they are staking their eternities on right now. Only his grace can draw them from their perilous pursuits and bind them safely to himself--captive, but satisfied.
He will do this for many. Be faithful and don't give up.

What will you tell them?

2009-09-30T10:29:00.005-04:00

Like me, my Dad is a Pastor. I can rememeber hearing him say on many occasions that there were many times when the only thing that kept him going in His walk with the Lord (from a human perspective) was the fact of who was watching him. What would he say if one of his children asked him why he was not faithful to the Lord anymore?

That same question has lead me in my adulthood and with the raising of my children. What would I tell my children for the reason of my unfaithfullness to the Lord? Is there ever a good reason? I don't think so. Eph. 6:4 is clear to us, as parents, of our responsibility. The Apostle Paul said in His letter to the Corinthians that it is required that a man be found faithful. Faithfullness is not an option for the believer, it is a requirment for the believer.

What are we called to be faithful too? Well, a number of things and this blog is far to short to speak on all of them, so I will just mention a couple and leave the rest up to the Spirit of God.

We are commanded to pray without ceasing (2 Thess 5:18). A prayless life is a powerless life. As a husband, you will never be able to fully and completely lead your family without a vibrate pray life. Getting alone with the Lord and asking for guidance, strength, courage and power. Begging God for blessing, begging God to be glorified in your life this day, begging God for the salvation of your children, begging God to help you be the best spiritual leader you can be by His grace. This is where you meet with the Lord. Question, if you are not faithful to this and you lack the power to lead in your home, if you have not spoken to God in while (I am not talking about a quick 10 minute prayer, I am talking about getting hold of the heart of God), what are you going to tell your children? Can you tell them how important prayer is? No! Because your life does not reflect that.

As a wife, you will never be the care giver to your children that you should be. You will never be the helpmeet to your husband that you should be; because your prayerless life is a powerless life. What will you tell your children? Can you tell them the importance of prayer? No! Because neither does your life reflect this.

We are commanded in Scripture to be faithful to Church (Heb. 10:25). Some would say, "Well, I fulfill my obligation when I go Sunday Morning, I am not forsaking the assembling". Well, take a look at the passage. The passage says to be faithful to the house of the Lord when it is assembling. It does not give leverage if you just attend part of the services. These are the words of the Scripture. Question, what will you tell your kids if you are not faithful? We must remember that our children, even if they are grown, are watching us. Even if they don't ask why, they are wondering. I would hate to be the one that gives my children a reason for not being faithful to God in all things.

What will you tell them? This is an important question that we all must ask ourselves.

"Spiritual Acid Reflux"

2009-09-24T15:12:00.004-04:00

What a hassle!! I have acid reflux. My doctors diagnosed me with it about two years ago, but probably I had what was later known as acid reflux even in my youth. It is not acting up all the time, but when it does, I feel horrible. Anyone reading this who has it or has had a case of minor heartburn can relate to the pain that acid reflux brings. The burning that comes up through your chest and into your throat, is just at times unbearable. My case is coupled with what feels like "heart attack like" symptoms; pain in the left arm, pain in my jaw. And when it is really bad it is unimaginable pain across my chest. By know, most of you are probably thinking that I need to go to the emergency room. But, I assure you, that is not necessary.

However, there is a spiritual acid reflux. One that can bring just as much pain, but only worse. I call it bitterness or unforgiveness. When Peter asked Jesus how often He should forgive, "seven times", I guess Peter was thinking that was the number of perfection so that should be the limit of his forgiveness. Well, you all know the response of Christ, "seventy times seven". That was, of course, Christ's way of sayng that there is no limit to how much you forgive.

Matthew 5:44 are some pointed words. "Love" is the Greek word "agape" and is the same word used for how we should love our neighbors and our brothers and sisters in Christ. The true love that Christ calls for is a love that does not include resentment, bitterness, and unforgiveness.

The thing about bitterness is that it grows. It never just stays the same. It always gets worse and it is a sin. To harbor unforgiveness for anyone (whether they have asked for it or not), is sinful and you completely lack the power to discern the will of God.

Some say, "Well, you dont know what they did to me" or "you dont understand". Any many times, I dont understand. Praise God I dont understand and by God's grace I will not have to understand by experience. But I do not need to experience it to know that bitterness and unforgiveness are sins against God. Why do we not forgive? Because we feel justified to think and act the way we do. Listen, no one has ever done anything worse to any of us, then we have not already done to Christ, and He forgave us all. So we need to ask the Lord to give us the grace to forgive.

Unforgiveness and bitterenss take on many forms. Most of the time when we are harboring bitterness in our hearts towards someone else, or many person's, we usually blame someone who had nothing to do with it. We have all experienced this. I have been the victim of that. But it was not me, it was the bitterness that person had toward someone else. Then I pray that they get whatever is going on with them right with God.

That is the way that it goes. People leave places, not because of the will of God, but because they harbor some ill-feelings against someone. But what happens is that the ill-feelings are not without effect. They just find a new outlet to blame at the new place and that drags down the innocent. Unforgivessness is a sad thing. Are you harboring bitterenss in your heart toward someone? Then you need to go to that person, by the grace of God, and forgive them. You say, "I cannot do that." You are right, you cannot, but the grace of our God can do it for you. Because in forgivess that is the only way that you will truly be right with God again. Jesus said, "Forgive, as you have been forgiven."

"What has God called us to"?

2009-09-16T10:18:00.004-04:00

There is a continuing wave in the Church today that is extremely dangerous. This wave is giving up the best thing for something that is good. When a "good" opportunity comes by we convince ourselves that this would be a good thing to partake of, even if it means that we are not faithful to the Lord.

I can remember very clearly, as a young person growing up in a Christian home, that nothing came before our attendance in Church, NOTHING!! This is a heritage for which I am very thankful. One such incident that I remember was during basketball season. It was tournament time and the tournament began on Friday night and went all day Saturday into Saturday night. Well, I went to a Christian School so no problem with Church, usually, with the sports program. However, on this particular tournament we were having revival at my home Church (which was not the Church where I attended school). The coach called me into his office and informed me that he was going to call my dad and speak with him about letting me miss the revival in order to go to the basketball game because, "I know that you need to be dedicated to your Church, but you also need to be dedicated to your team." He called my dad and told him the same thing that he told me. To which my dad replied, "How can I let my son miss Church to let him play a sport and then try and tell him later that faithfulness to Church is vital? I would be speaking out of both sides of my mouth." The coach did not appreciate his zeal for faithfulness, but I know the Lord did. Needless to say, I was not on the bus that Friday night, I was in Church and Church was certainly the best thing for me. Some would say, "What was the big deal in you missing one service?" Well, when God calls us to faithfulness it is not only for those times when nothing else is going on, it is all the time. Besides, we are creatures of habit, one time leads to two, which leads to three, etc. you get the picture.

The mystery is, why do parents allow their children to do the exact same thing that my dad would not let me do and then wonder why their children are not interested in Church. It is because they have told their children, through their actions, that Church is second-class to everything else, or at least everything that we want to do. Hebrews 10:25 is clear that this should not be the attitude of our actions.

If we make it a habit of letting the best thing go for the thing that we think is good, then when that "good" thing is over, there will be anothing "good" thing for us to do instead of being faithful to God.

It all comes down to this: God has not called us to be great ball players (the chances of our children becoming professional atheletes is rare, but we need to train them to be great Christians for the Lord), God has not called us to be counselors for the weary at the cost of our faithfulness, he has not called us to be life-savers; but He has called us to be faithful and to make sure that our children are faithful. He has called us to raise them in the instruction of the Lord (Eph. 6:4).

Don't trade what we think is a "good" thing for the best thing of the faithfulness that God has called us to.

"Inspiration"- The Effectual Call

2009-09-02T11:45:00.003-04:00

We believe in the inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures, that is, that the Holy Scriptures are without error. That the words of the Scripture are wholely perfect and not only are without error, but are incapable of containing error. When you consider the Doctrine of Inspiration, what some believers miss is the fact of the moulded will. What exactly do I mean by that? It means that we believe that God can work in such a way that the human will wills to do what God wills that will to do. We do not believe that God had to force the Apostle Paul to write the letter to the Romans or to the Ephesians. We believe that every word of the Holy Scriptures convey God's perfect message because God formed Paul's will to do what the Father's will, willed to do.

That is the idea of 2 Peter 1:21, where the Apostle Peter says that the Scripture did not come by the will of man, by Holy men were "moved" by the Holy Spirit. "Moved" is a Greek term that literally means "to be moved along". The Holy Spirit, as it were, took the writters of the Scripture and moved them into what to say, yet using their personal characteristic style. They were not robots penning the Holy Scripture, their own style was used (which is how we can identify writters of books that are not plainly stated, based on style), and the Holy Spirit formed their wills to write what the Father willed to be written. In other points of theology, as in inspiration, the Father can and does change the will in order for the Father's will to be done. Inspiration is just one example of this.

The Heart of the True Gospel

2009-08-30T17:39:00.001-04:00

Sotomayor bobs and weaves

2009-07-14T16:01:00.003-04:00

Supreme Court aspirant Sonya Sotomayor said today when asked about abortion rights that it was "settled law" and there is a constitutional right to privacy. The federal court of appeals judge was asked at her confirmation hearing how she felt about the landmark Roe V. Wade decision of 1973.

"There is a right to privacy", Sotomayor told the Senate Judiciary Commitee. "The court has found it in various places in the Constitution". The right is stated in the fourth Amendment and it protected by the 14th Amendment, she said.

The 4th Amendment is thus stated: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized".

The 4th Amendment is clearly stating the fact that someone cannot come into my home, or my person or any of my possessions and search or seize them without a warranty given by a court of law and only with probable cause. Judge Sotomayor is proven in this statement that, if confirmed as a justice, will not interpret the law but will judiciate from the bench.

I am having great difficulty figuring out how she can justify the muderous ruling of the supreme court in 1973 by stating the 4th amendment. She never would say what she actually thought about the ruling.

She is doing the typical liberal bob and weave and really giving no answers. The fact of the matter is that life is protected by the same bill of rights she is using to justify abortion. Every life is a creation of God and to take that life, whether in the womb or out, is murder and a violation of the law of God.

Our Judeo-Christian Nation

2009-06-17T14:53:00.000-04:00

"The Tale of Two Sons"

2009-06-05T16:25:00.001-04:00

Every Christian should read this book.

"When Sorrow gives way to Joy"

2009-05-29T00:34:00.005-04:00

It is 12:37 on a Friday morning here and my Grandmother has just gone home to be with the Lord. My Grandmother was a victim of the cruel diease of ALS for which she fought for about a year, maybe a little longer. My Grandmother was a wonderful lady with lots of spirit that will greatly be missed. At this moment my heart is filled with grief. Not grief for my Grandmother, but grief for us; grief for my precious Dad who has now lost both of his parents. Grief for my children who thought the world of Grandma and she thought the world of them. Even though you know that this is coming (she was so sick this last week), the heart is never truly prepared for the news. I just got off the phone with my Dad with the news.

But while my heart is filled with sorrow, I know that it is a selfish sorrow. But we would never want Grandma back here in the condition that she was in. I have been praying very hard the last couple of days that the Lord would take Grandma on home to be with Him. And He has, once again, been faithful to answer. I am reminded of the words of a song that I heard and have sang in Church, I will just give you the first verse and the chorus:

Our prayers have all been answered, I've finally arrived.
The healing that had been delayed has now been realized.
No ones in a hurry, there's no schedule to keep,
We're all just praising Jesus, sitting at His feet.

Chorus:
If you could see me now, I'm walking streets of gold,
If you could see me now, I'm standing tall and whole.
If you could see me now, you'd know I've seen His face,
If you could see me now, you'd know the pains erased.
You would'nt want to ever leave this perfect place,
If you could only see me now.

In this time the words of the Apostle Paul take on new meaning.

In 2 Corinthians 5:8, "We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord."

For Christians, our sorrow can turn to joy to know that our saved loved one that has departed this life is not lost, is not floating, or is not asleep, but is in the presence of Christ. My Grandma, at this very hour, is in the presence of Christ, reunited with her husband, in great joy. Never again to suffer the pains of ALS or the loss of dignity that sickness can bring, but is with Christ waiting for me some day. The Apostle Paul said in Philippians 1:23 that it is better to depart this life and be with Christ. Grandma now knows the joy of which Paul spoke.

So while we say "good-bye" for now, and we will travel to Charlottle next week I'm sure to lay Grandma's shell next to the shell of her husband, it is not, by the Grace of Almighty God, good-bye forever. It is only for a short while. I told my oldest child just yesterday, that if we live 60 more years here on earth, what is that in light of eternity.

"Father in Heaven, thank you for the life of Grandma. And thank you for extending your Grace to her so that she could face death with victory and not sting and so that we have the hope of her eternal healing and once again sharing her presence. Thank you for Salvation found only in the Lord Jesus Christ, and that Grandma knew you as her Lord and Savior." AMEN

I love you Grandma. Good-bye for now. See you in a little while.

The Best Bible Study Software On the Market

2009-05-27T23:11:00.001-04:00

"What are we Teaching our Children"

2009-05-18T09:33:00.003-04:00

I believe that the Word is not only interpretational, but I believe that it is also applicational. By that I mean that the Scriptures have a meaning, they have one meaning and as a Pastor it is my job to find out that singular meaning. I do not buy into the notion of what is being taught today as the "Hermenutics of Humility". That basically says that "I am far to humble to think that I could ever really know the truth of God's Word." To the person buying into that; they believe that it is pride and arrogance to say that I know what the Bible says. To get up and say that I have the meaning of the Scripture is the height of arrogance.

But isn't that the job of a Pastor? Anyone who gets up in the pulpit and preaches anything but the truth, is preaching their opinion. And there opinions are like noses; everybody has one. But opinion does not necessarily mean truth. It is the Pastor's responsibility before God and his congregation to study, to find and know the truth.

With that being said, I believe that John 7:5 is a very sad verse. It speaks about the brothers of Jesus "not believing on Him (Jesus)." I spoke on this passage in last nights service at my Church. I spoke on Divine Timetables. Even Christ, in His humanity, humbled Himself to the Divine timetable of the Father. All people, to the most holy to the most diobolical, are under the restraint of the Sovereign timetable of God.

But as I was studying verse 1-13, I came across verse 5; I stopped for a moment and thought. We do not know a lot about the life of Joseph. We know nothing about him after the incident at the temple when Christ was twelve.

Now, understand me please, I am not making any accusations about the way that Joseph raised his children and I am not saying that this is the proper interpretational view of this verse; however, I do believe that looking at this verse, at least for me, brought about a reminder. What could have happened in the home of Jospeh that caused his four sons not to believe on Christ as the Messiah until so late in life. Accoprding to Acts 1, it wasn't until the resurrection that they did believe. In fact, in John 7, they were the four that were trying to push Christ to go, prematurely, to Jerusalem to show His power and they did this with the word "if". As if they were questioning whether or not He was genuine.

Listen, Joseph may have taught his sons about the Messiah and that their half-brother was the anoited one of God and they reacted like Joseph's brothers did in the book of Genesis. However, we do not know that to be the fact. The fact that they did finally believe in Acts 1, may indicate that all that their father taught them finally produced fruit, we just do not know for sure.

But all of this is a reminder to us that it is possible that from the brothers original reaction, Jospeh MAY NOT have done his job in teaching his children. This is a challenge to us to make sure that our children are taught about the Lord and then, and this is just as vital, that we live before them the message that we teach. That we are faithful to God in our personal service, speaks volumes more than what we say. If we are not faithful in our service (Bible study, Church Attendance, etc.), then our message is just hypocrisy to our Children. What are you teaching your Children; both in your words and in your actions. If everything comes before Church attendance in your life, then do not be suprised when it is the same way with your Children. If we allow sports and other activites to come before Church or other services to God, your children's devotion to the holy things will be worse. Your children will always fall below your standards, so set your standards ultra-high to protect their future.

"Truth Wars! Your Best Life Now!"

2009-05-18T09:19:00.001-04:00

Dr. John MacArthur examines Joel Osteen's book, "Your Best Life Now".

"The Gospel According to Jesus"

2009-05-15T09:13:00.007-04:00

The following is an portion of a sermon that I preached on Lordship Salvation.

We live in a day where the Gospel has been prostituted by would-be ministers of the Gospel, but who are really wolves in sheeps clothing. Your typical Gospel presentation urges the sinner to say a pray or as some preachers put it, "make a decision for Christ".

The Gospel is not about us "making a decision for Christ" it is not about us "receiving Jesus" it is about asking Christ to accept us. It is not about making Christ "Lord", He is Lord. The Gospel is not about health or wealth prosperity. Jesus said in Luke 9 that if "....anyone wishes to come after me let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me." When the people heard Jesus say these things about taking up their cross, they understood one thing, death. The cross had one imagery for those people, death. But that is not the typical gospel that you hear today. Robert Schuller has said that the problem with the Gospel is that it is more God-centered and not man-centered. He said that when a person hears that they are an unworthy sinner, it is doubtful that they will ever be able to receive the grace that is found in Christ.

Now, why some "evangelicals" may would not go that far, the Gospel is diluted. I have even heard the Gospel diluted in fundamental Baptist Churches (how sad). There is such a drive for numbers that the gospel gets cut to pieces.

The Gospel gets reduced to "receiving Jesus as Savior" or "accept Jesus" or "make a decision for Christ". There is rarely a mention about the Lordship of Christ (oops, I am in trouble now). Jesus is either Lord or He is not Savior. Romans 10:13, (In the original Greek) reads, "Whoever accepts Jesus as Lord...".

When I speak to people about the Gospel, the first place I go to is the price. Not the price that Christ paid, but the price that we must pay. That is another phrase I hear alot, "Salvation is absolutely free", not quite. It cost Christ and it costs those that repent as well. You say, "What do you mean?" Well. Jesus spoke in Luke 14 that if any person comes to Him and does not hate father, mother, brothers or sister or even his own life, he is not worthy of Christ. He further says that if you are not willing to forsake all, then you cannot be my disciple. Jesus told the rich young ruler to sell all that he has and give to the poor. In essence what does it cost us, potentially everything. If a person is not willing to loose everything to gain Christ, Jesus said, don't even bother coming to me, you are not serious nor worthy.

"Well", you say,"Who would want to accept that?" Simply, those are truly being drawn by the Holy Spirit would gladly give up everything for the sake of knowing Christ. Listen, this is not a new Gospel, it is the true Gospel. People have a hard time hearing it because they have heard the watered down gospel for so long. May we return to the truth of Lordship Salvation.

"What Do You Call your Pastors?"

2009-05-12T19:27:00.004-04:00

I want to say from the outset that this is not a particulary theological post, but it is something that I think probably needs to be addressed. It has been a busy posting day, but this will probably be my last for the day.

As I look in the NT, I see the Pastors of the different local Churches addressed as "Pastor" or "Elder". When I was first saved, my Pastor was insistent that we call him "Pastor", not "Jeff", but "Pastor". He would tell us, "It is not for prides sake, but it reminds me of my position in your life".

Probably one of the most "gut-wrenching" things I here from a Church member is to call their Pastors by their first names. Listen, They may be Steve or they may be Michael by birth, but that is not who they are in the lives of the members of Emmanuel Baptist Church, they are "Pastor". And, just as my Pastor said, it is not for prides sake, it reminds us of our position in your lives. I have seen new people come into the Church calling the Pastors, "Pastor", but as time goes on they hear other members calling them by their first names, so they begin to do the same thing.

Some Churches are not as blessed to have two Pastors, as other Churches. Both, according to 1 Timothy 5 are worthy of double-honor and I believe that part of that honor is by calling them "Pastor"; again, that is what they are to you that are members. I still call my home Pastor, Pastor. So, if you just have a Senior Pastor, call him "Pastor", that is what he is in your life; but if you have a Senior Pastor and an Associate Pastor, call them "Pastor", for that is what THEY are in your life.

My Favorite Southern Gospel Group

2009-05-12T18:25:00.001-04:00

This blog is usually very serious, but I wanted to add a bit of blessing from my favorite Southern Gospel Group, Greater Vision. Enjoy!!!

2009-05-12T10:51:00.002-04:00

This is a duplicate copy of the one on my facebook site, but I wanted to post it here as well. Unfortunately, there are those wolves that call themselves shepherds of the flock. Clips like this are why I preach so hard for Lordship Salvation; Lordship Salvation is the only Salvation.

John MacArthur and Charles Spurgeon on Worldly Preaching

2009-05-12T10:09:00.006-04:00

Charles Spurgeon spent his life defending the truth; as well does Dr. John F. MacArthur and I am proud to be associated with both of these brothers.

"How Do we Know when to confront and when to quietly forgive and forget"?

2009-05-12T07:46:00.002-04:00

That’s a good question because most people seem to err on one side or the other. Some people think it is best to overlook every offense and take pride in their tolerance. However, Paul confronted the Corinthians for tolerating sin in the church and rebuked them for failing to deal with a man living in sin (1 Cor. 5).
On the other side of the issue are people who confront over any slight infraction and make themselves intolerable.

Are there any biblical principles to help us make the right choice? Yes! Here are six guidelines to help you know whether to quietly forgive or to lovingly confront.

1. Whenever possible, especially if the offense is petty or unintentional, it is best to forgive unilaterally. This is the very essence of a gracious spirit. It is the Christlike attitude called for in Ephesians 4:1-3. We are called to maintain a gracious tolerance (”forbearance”) of others’ faults. Believers should have a sort of mutual immunity to petty offenses. Love “is not easily angered” (1 Cor. 13:5). If every fault required formal confrontation, the whole of our church life would be spent confronting and resolving conflicts over petty annoyances. So for the sake of peace, to preserve the unity of the Spirit, we are to show tolerance whenever possible (see 1 Pet. 2:21-25; Mat. 5:39-40).

2. If you are the only injured party, even if the offense was public and flagrant, you may choose to forgive unilaterally. Examples of this abound in Scripture. Joseph (Genesis 37-50), David (2 Sam. 16:5-8), and Stephen (Acts 7:60) each demonstrated the unilateral forgiveness of Christ (Luke 23:34).

3. If you observe a serious offense that is a sin against someone other than you, confront the offender. Justice never permits a Christian to cover a sin against someone else. While we are entitled, and even encouraged, to overlook wrongs committed against us, Scripture everywhere forbids us to overlook wrongs committed against another (see Ex. 23:6; Deut. 16:20; Isa. 1:17; Isa. 59:15-16; Jer. 22:3; Lam. 3:35-36).

4. When ignoring an offense might hurt the offender, confront the guilty party. Sometimes choosing to overlook an offense might actually injure the offender (by allowing him to continue unwarned down a wrong path). In such cases it is our duty to confront in love (Gal. 6:1-2).

5. When a sin is scandalous or otherwise potentially damaging to the body of Christ, the guilty party should be confronted. Some sins have the potential to defile many people, and Scripture gives ample warning of such dangers (see Heb. 12:15; 3:13; 1 Cor. 5:1-5). In fact, Scripture calls for the church to discipline individuals who refuse to repent of open sin in the body, so that the purity of the body might be preserved (Matt. 18:15-20; 1 Cor. 5).

6. Lastly, any time an offense results in a broken relationship, confrontation of the sinner should occur. Any offense that causes a breach in relationships simply cannot be overlooked. Both the offense and the breach must be confronted, and reconciliation must be sought. And both the offended party and the offender have a responsibility to seek reconciliation (Luke 17:3; Matt. 5:23-24). There is never any excuse for a Christian on either side of a broken relationship to refuse to pursue reconciliation.

The only instance where such a conflict should remain unresolved is if all the steps of discipline in Matthew 18 have been exhausted and the guilty party still refuses to repent.

"The Necessity of the Local Church"

2009-05-11T09:08:00.002-04:00

The New Testament repeatedly emphasizes the importance of local assemblies. In fact, it was the pattern of Paul’s ministry to establish local congregations in the cities where he preached the gospel. Hebrews 10:24-25 commands every believer to be a part of such a local body and reveals why this is necessary.

It is only in the local body to which one is committed that there can be the level of intimacy that is required for carefully stimulating fellow-believers “to love and good deeds.” And it is only in this setting that we can encourage one another.

The New Testament also teaches that every believer is to be under the protection and nurture of the leadership of the local church. These godly men can shepherd the believer by encouraging, admonishing, and teaching. Hebrews 13:7 and 17 help us to understand that God has graciously granted accountability to us through godly leadership.

Furthermore, when Paul gave Timothy special instructions about the public meetings, he said “Until I come, give attention to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation and teaching” (1 Timothy 4:13). Part of the emphasis in public worship includes these three things: hearing the Word, being called to obedience and action through exhortation, and teaching. It is only in the context of the local assembly that these things can most effectively take place.

Acts 2:42 shows us what the early church did when they met together: “They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.” They learned God’s Word and the implications of it in their lives; they joined to carry out acts of love and service to one another; they commemorated the Lord’s death and resurrection through the breaking of bread; and they prayed. Of course, we can do these things individually, but God has called us into His body-the church is the local representation of that worldwide-body-and we should gladly minister and be ministered to among God’s people.

Active local church membership is imperative to living a life without compromise. It is only through the ministry of the local church that a believer can receive the kind of teaching, accountability, and encouragement that is necessary for him to stand firm in his convictions. God has ordained that the church provide the kind of environment where an uncompromising life can thrive.

White House says no to Jesus, yes to Allah, on the National Day of Prayer"

2009-05-07T08:14:00.007-04:00

Breaking tradition with President George W. Bush, the Obama administration declined to host an event celebrating the National Day of Prayer this year. This adds another snub to the pro-faith community, since President Obama continues to push his recent nomination of the anti-Christian, anti-Life Judge David Hamilton, the same judge who issued controversial rulings banning public prayers offered "in Jesus name," and hastening the abortion of unborn children.

If confirmed by the Senate, Hamilton will soon be promoted to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, the same court that overruled his aggressive, activist, liberal decisions for years.Obama's Judge Hamilton ruled in 2005 to ban the practice of opening the Indiana legislature with prayers mentioning Jesus Christ or using terms such as "Savior." He said that amounted to state endorsement of a religion. (But he ruled prayers to "Allah" were perfectly lawful.)

ANTI-JESUS, BUT PRO-ALLAH?

Judge Hamilton wrote: "The injunction orders the Speaker...that the prayers should not use Christ's name or title or any other denominational appeal...If those offering prayers in the Indiana House of Representatives choose to use the Arabic 'Allah'...the court sees little risk that the choice of language would advance a particular religion or disparage others."In other words, Judge Hamilton ruled the words "Jesus" or "Christ" are illegal words, prohibited for public speech, banned by the First Amendment, which somehow forbids freedom of religious expression, and makes Christian prayers ILLEGAL in a public forum. (What crazy version of the First Amendment is he reading?)

While I believe in honoring the ordained power (as indicated by my last post), I also believe in "just the facts Ma'Am". While during his campaign Mr. Obama could not speak loud enough about how he was a Christian, having attented a "Christian" Church for 30+ years, (Although, I would hardly consider Jereimah Wright, his Church or his theology Christian). All this being an attempt to down play the fact the he was raised by two Militant Muslim Fathers, attended Muslim Schools and the fact that His first name "Barrack" is after the donkey that Mohammad rode out of Mecca. As my Grandmother use to say, "the proof is in the pudding". We are, once again, seeing his true self; anti-Christ, anti-life and really anti-American. God's people must pray hard for the salvation of this power.

"What is at Stake?"

2009-05-06T08:22:00.002-04:00

2 Corinthians 3:2, “Ye are our Epistles, written in our Hearts, known and read of all men.”

The Apostle Paul, writing these words to a very fleshly group of Christians, emphasizes the importance of purity and faithfulness to God. Paul considered their lives as very important and what was at stake was how others perceived them. I have had the misfortune for, supposing, people of God to tell me, “I don’t care what people think of me, I only answer to God”; (I usually hear that from very fleshly people). Although it is true that we answer only to God and that public opinion or political correctness should not keep us from doing right, the fact remains, according to our text, we most certainly are responsible to others to live our lives pure and faithful to God, no matter what.

From the text, there are two things at stake that I want to bring out just briefly. First, the text, “…. Ye are OUR epistles, written in OUR hearts….” The pronoun “our” refers to more than one person, by the plural form of the pronoun; but it also refers to Paul, the founding Pastor. Are you a burden or are you a helper to your Pastors. When your Pastors think of you, do they think of you with great joy or do you bring them grief because you have let the Devil get the victory in your life? Paul, no doubt, thought on these believers with great grief because they had allowed Satan to get the victory. And, although, your life may not seem as sinful as Corinth, any victory given to Satan will cause any caring Pastor grief.

Then the text, “….known and read of all men.” The second important area that is a stake is what your life does to the lives of your friends, co-workers, children, etc. The fact is that you are an epistle; the question is what kind. What do they read in you? Do they read an epistle of faithfulness and godliness or do they read an epistle of ground and victories given to Satan?

You must remember that your life is a direct reflection on the Lord Jesus Christ in the eyes of other people; your friends, your co-workers and your children. What is your epistle?

"Living Soli Deo Gloria under Barrack Obama"

2009-05-06T08:17:00.006-04:00

As a conservative Baptist Pastor, I am not ashamed in the fact that I did not vote for Barrack Obama. Neither am I ashamed that it had nothing to do with race. I did not vote for Barrack Obama, not because he is black, but because he is anti-Christ, anti-life, and really anti-American. He stands for everything that as a conservative Baptist Pastor I find abhorrent. I entered the voting booth with the Holy Spirit of God being my conscience.

However, he is the President and being as such, I have certain obligations to him. Romans 13:1,

“1Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

Also, as a Pastor that believes in the absolute Sovereignty of God, I do not believe that God stepped aside and watched as Barrack Obama walked away with the Presidency. I believe that God ordained for him to be our President. Paul could not be clearer with his words, “the powers that be are ordained of God….” God put Barrack Obama in office. Why? I do not know the answer to that question, for I do not know the mind of God.

There are a lot of Christians that are openly in opposition to the President. I have even heard Christians speak about a militia. I wonder how many of those people actually pray for the salvation of Mr. Obama. Do they spend most of their time putting him down or praying that God will give him wisdom and that salvation will come to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Paul could not be clearer; to resist the ordained authority of God is to resist God. You say, “Well, we have a President who is anti-Christian”. Well, wait a minute, Paul wrote this letter to the Romans who, themselves, were under persecution from an anti-Christian ruler. Yet he says, “do not resist that authority, if you do, you are resisting the authority of God."

To think for one minute that we, somehow, have the right to rise up against the President because he is anti-Christian, is unbiblical and wrong. We are to support him, pray for him and honor him, until what time we are faced with the decision to obey God or man; then you obey God.

How do we live for the Glory of God Alone (Soli Deo Gloria) under Barrack Obama? Honor the Lord by honoring His ordained power.

"True Lips Wait?"

2009-05-06T07:25:00.004-04:00

This will come as no news to most younger evangelicals, but The Tennessean [Nashville] has just taken notice of the fact that a sizable number of younger evangelical couples are saving their first kiss for their wedding ceremony.

As the paper reports, "In a culture where casual sex is the norm, some Tennesseans have taken the purity pledge to a whole new level, through a practice that some teens refer to as the 'Virgin Lips Movement.'"

Reporter Claudia Pinto began her article with the fact that Katy Kruger, who was married on December 13 of last year, experienced her first kiss at the moment her new husband kissed his bride. "The 22-year-old woman, who was married at Harpeth Hills Church of Christ in Brentwood, admits to being nervous and a bit self-conscious about having her first kiss in front of 200 people," Pinto reported. "I wasn't sure what to do," said the bride, "I thought I would mess up."

The Virgin Lips Movement will sound absolutely nuts to a culture that has openly embraced the sexual revolution. Sexual virginity is controversial enough, with authors like Jessica Valenti arguing that the expectation of virginity until marriage is unfair to girls and young women. In The Purity Myth: How America's Obsession with Virginity Is Hurting Young Women, Valenti presses her case, suggesting that when young women aim for virginity and fail, they suffer a loss of self-esteem. Valenti's argument is all the evidence any sane person should need to see that the world has gone crazy when it comes to sex.

Over the past thirty years Western civilization has undergone a near total transformation in sexual morality. Sex education programs assume that teenagers (and increasingly pre-teens as well) simply will be involved in sexual activity. Sexual purity, abstinence, and sexual denial are written off as unrealistic, unfair, and repressive.

Even so, the Virgin Lips Movement will come as a shock to some older evangelicals. For older Christians, the expectation was, as the Bible makes clear, for sex to wait until marriage. As for kissing, that was considered to be another matter altogether. To some of these older Christians, the Virgin Lips Movement sounds like overkill and over-reaction.
Listen to Katy Kruger, as reported in The Tennessean: "It was so important to me because I felt a kiss was something very intimate, and something I wanted to give only to one man, to my husband," said Kruger. "He thought it was so special, and he was so proud to be able to be the only man I will ever kiss."

While sexual abstinence until monogamous marriage is the biblical standard, these young Christians see virginity as requiring more than reserving sexual intercourse for marriage. They see kissing as an act of physical intimacy -- a gateway drug to greater physical intimacy and involvement.

As any minister who works with youth and young adults knows, the "how far is too far question" is a constant. The Virgin Lips Movement represents a determination to stop that train before it leaves the station, so to speak.
Consider this: In the space of little more than a single generation, we have seen the breaking down of virtually every social and cultural support for sexual abstinence. Arousal and intimacy come with the romantic longing that marks the deepening relationship between a man and a woman. Young couples no longer court on the porch swing with the girl's parents sitting inside and very close at hand. Now, most young couples face the temptation of romantic contexts in which intimacy--and this means sexual intimacy--is a likely outcome.

The Virgin Lips Movement represents a serious effort to push back against this expectation and to create boundaries that will protect virtue and honor marriage.
Alec Cort, Minister to Students at Tulip Grove Baptist Church in Nashville, told the paper that a significant percentage of the young couples in his ministry have taken the "no kiss until marriage" pledge. "I have always encouraged those people," he said. "It sets the ultimate bar."

Well, perhaps not an ultimate bar, but a recognizably significant bar.
There is no explicit biblical ban on premarital kissing, but any honest person knows that there are kisses that can only be considered sexual, naturally leading to the sex act itself. These young

Christians are not afraid of their bodies, they are afraid of sinning against God and losing something precious to themselves as well.

In a world that has made monogamy an embarrassment, these young Christians want to offer their future spouse the gift of monogamous lips. In an age of instant sexual gratification, these young believers believe that true lips wait. This is what a counter-revolution looks like.

Did the BIble Misquote Jesus?

2009-05-05T23:32:00.004-04:00

Tom Krattenmaker, an opinion columnist for USA Today, wrote an article entitled “Fightin’ Words”, in which he regards the inconsistency of the Scriptures. He brings in Dr. Bart Erhman from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (and, yes, I cheered for them in the NCAA Tournament). He quotes Erhamn:

If the Bible is the literal word of God how could it be inconsistent on so many details large and small? Let's start with an example appropriate to the just-concluded Easter season marking the Savior's death and resurrection: As Jesus was dying on the cross, was he in agony, questioning why God had forsaken him? Or was he serene, praying for his executioners? It depends, Ehrman points out, on whether you're reading the Gospel of Mark or Luke. Regarding Jesus' birthplace of Bethlehem, had his parents traveled there for a census (Luke's version) or is it where they happened to live (Matthew's version)? Did Jesus speak of himself as God? (Yes, in John; no, in Matthew.)

What always amazes me about anti-Christ people, like Ehrman and Krattenmaker, is that they never allow for the same rules of consistency in their own world that they put on the Scripture. For example, if these two men were involved in a conversation with a large group of people, and then later had to recount the conversation to another party, they would allow for different perspectives; as long as the perspective do not contradict each other. They would allow for some to see the conversation from a different perspective and; therefore, focus on different areas in the re-telling of that conversation.

The same is the case with the Word of God. John’s purpose of writing was to emphasize the deity of Christ; Matthew’s purpose was to emphasize the humanity of Christ. Obviously, they will tell things a little bit different because their focus was on different things. However, they do not contradict each other. Anyone who would take the time to study the history of the Gospel’s would understand this fact. I call Mr. Bart Erhman and Mr. Tom Krattenmaker to allow for the same rules for consistency, not change the rules in an attempt to discredit what you already choose not to believe.

What is Your Authority

2009-05-05T23:13:00.000-04:00

We affirm the four main Sola’s, (Latin for “Alone”); Sola Gratia (Grace Alone), Sola Fide (Faith Alone), Sola Deo Gloria (to God Alone be the Glory), and Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone). That is the emphasis of this article, Sola Scriptura.

Christians separate from Roman Catholics in this area (among other areas). We do not believe that anything else is needed, other than the Word of God, to stand as our final authority in matters of faith and practice. To hold up anything else to the same degree as the Scriptures, is to be guilty of idolatry. Scripture alone is the source of our faith. We do not need the words of a priest as our only understanding of God; we have the Scripture. It was Martin Luther who said, “That a simply laymen armed with Scripture is greater than the mightiest Pope without it”.

One of the classic verses on this is 2 Ti 3:16
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

“Inspiration” is the Greek word “θεόπνευστος” comes from two Greek words, “Theos” (God) and “pneo” (blow or breathe); literally “prompted by God”. The Scriptures were not some invention of the minds of mortal men, they were prompted by God. You say, “What do you mean, prompted”? 2 Pe 1:21
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

I like the word moved. It is the Greek word “φέρω” and it literally means “to bear or to carry”. What does Peter say is clearly happening in the giving of the Scriptures? That these men were carried along. Notice the prepositional phrase that modifies “moved”, “by the Holy Spirit”. The Greek verb “φέρω” is also in the passive voice, which means that the subject is receiving the action. The subject is “aνθρωπος” (men). These holy men received the action of being moved or carried along by the Holy Spirit to write down what He, by divine inspiration, gave them.

B.B. Warfield said, “….every word indited under the analogous influence of inspiration was at one and the same time the consciously self-chosen word of the writer and the divinely-inspired word of the Spirit.

This, then, is what we understand by the church doctrine:—a doctrine which claims that by a special, supernatural, extraordinary influence of the Holy Ghost, the sacred writers have been guided in their writing in such a way, as while their humanity was not superseded, it was yet so dominated that their words became at the same time the words of God, and thus, in every case and all alike, absolutely infallible.

Charles H. Spurgeon said, “This singular personality of the Word to each one of a thousand generations of believers is one of its greatest charms and one of the surest proofs of its divine inspiration. We treat our Bibles not as old almanacs but as books for the present: new, fresh, adapted for the hour. Abiding sweetness dwells in undiminished freshness in the ancient words upon which our fathers fed in their day. Glory be to God, we are feasting on them still. If not, we ought to be. We can only blame ourselves if we do not!”

Christians believe in a verbum Dei (voice of God) in the Scriptures, we need to other source, no other man to speak for God. The Scriptures and the Scriptures alone, speak the word of the Living God to us.