The Manhattan Declaration's "Common Ground"

Again, leave it to the New York Times. They display the emperor's clothes of the Manhattan Declaration which many dear brethren have signed:

Notice the phrase “They are principles that can be known and honored by men and women of good will even apart from divine revelation,” Rigali said. “They are principles of right reason and natural law.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/20/magazine/20george-t.html

That quote above isn't neutrality to Scripture, and the wisdom of God. That's opposition, in the form of human pride. This is why it was a mistake for any regenerate person to sign on to the MD. Its a compromise of our stance that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge. Fools despise wisdom and instruction, even if they come to a right conclusion or two based on human reason (see Proverbs 1:7).

Avatar Review in NYT

For as silly and liberal as the New York Times can be, occasionally it redeems itself.

Check out the op-ed review (yes, you read that right) on Avatar. Beyond brilliant.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/opinion/21douthat1.html?_r=3&ref=opinion

The Manhattan Declaration

Am I out of touch, weird, or just suspicious? I've read the Manhattan Declaration (MD), and, I don’t know. It just doesn’t resonate with me. But it does with so many who are smarter and wiser than a fool like I.

Not that I don’t understand it. I do. Even more, I have preached on every social topic it describes. Except maybe the “intrinsic dignity of each and every person” thing, which requires nuancing, if you ask me.

So why am I so out of touch with it? I thought about it and I find three reasons:

1) The MD presents itself as a statement of Christian discernment, but it is fundamentally undiscerning.

The document quotes Martin Luther King, the great civil rights figure of US history. I happen to think MLK was a great American man, on the level of a Lincoln, or a Jefferson. I’ve visited the site where he was assassinated.

But he explicitly denied most of the Christian faith – including the deity of Christ. This is all well documented. And the framers of the MD would know this. So why include MLK in their document?

The MD is also undiscerning as to what the gospel is, and what saving faith is. Many others have pointed this out. If we don’t share common ground in regeneration, we don’t share common ground. Period. We may agree on certain theological and moral propositions, but for radically different reasons.

The MD even equates it’s du jour moral issues with those who died for the faith in prior centuries. Get real.


2) The MD’s use of Scripture is puerile.

Rendering to Caesar (Matthew 22:21) is not at stake in the MD, though they say it is. Look, when Caesar keeps Christians from worshipping the Trinity, or begins killing us, then let’s talk about Caesar. Until then, keep your trap shut and bow your face in the dust (1 Peter 2:20-21, Titus 3:1-3).

But that's silly, right? So go fight your culture wars. Just keep Holy Scripture out of your temporal agenda. And by the way. When Caesar starts killing us Christians again, we'll still keep our mouths shut in obedience to the apostles (1 Peter 2:23).

The MD actually uses Christ’s marriage to His bride, the church, as a public policy lever (Ephesians 5:32-33). This is actually said: “And so just as Christ was willing, out of love, to give Himself up for the church in a complete sacrifice, we are willing, lovingly, to make whatever sacrifices are required of us for the sake of the inestimable treasure that is marriage.”

That’s nonsensical. It’s like saying, I love my children, and will raise them in the fear and admonition of the Lord. So too, I’ll stand up to the death for a free press. Hey, admonishment is protected by free speech, right? Weird.

Then Isaiah 61:1 is used to defend religious liberty – you know:

“The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners. ”

Never mind that Jesus quoted this about Himself, and never in the context of religious liberty. For Jesus, this was about the gospel. For the MD folks, its about freedom of conscience. Weird.

They quote the apostle’s words, “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:19-20). This is used in the MD concerning the defense of free speech and civil disobedience.

Gee, guys. Thanks for honoring Peter's and John's bravery so highly.


3) The MD over-reaches.

Take the following statement:

“A truly prophetic Christian witness will insistently call on those who have been entrusted with temporal power to fulfill the first responsibility of government: to protect the weak and vulnerable against violent attack, and to do so with no favoritism, partiality, or discrimination.”

Oh really? Which of the prophets in the New Testament, who we know spoke by the power of God, ever spoke to any government any such thing? Sheesh.

Here’s another case. Speaking of their own involvement in putting together the MD, they say:

“We act together in obedience to the one true God…”

To what command of God are they gathered, that they may know their gathering and acting together is in obedience to Him?

And if they are in obedience to Him (which I question), then all who do not sign the statement are in disobedience. Obedience to God applies to all.

And if the MD is obedience to God, then how often should we all obey him in this way – the way of public declarations? Once a year, once a day? And who should write them?

If you are going to proclaim your obedience to God, you ought to defend it out of Scripture. Either that or we may just suppose we see some arbitrary and self-assigned righteousness in the writers of the MD.

Check this one out:

“We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm our right—and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation—to speak and act in defense of these truths”

Any time I read professing Christians talk about defending their rights, I know I've left the cross of Christ and it's singular boast (Galatians 6:14).

By “these truths” they mean the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage, and the freedom of conscience. So who gave them the right to speak out for these? Not God. Let us be persecuted for proclaiming Christ and His gospel, but not these little temporal things.

I lost all my rights on the cross of Jesus Christ. My only right left is to serve His will, not mine. I do not have a right to speak to the social and moral injustices of the day without biblical warrant, which must come by the text of Holy Scripture.

Would the apostle Paul have signed the MD, were he alive today? Well, do we have any trace in his writings of him addressing social injustices, of which there were many?

No. Paul, and Jesus, addressed themselves to all men as fundamentally religious beings who suppresses the truth of God in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18). And given half a chance, every one will use his ecclesial flavor of the Christian religion to do it.

So it just doesn’t resonate with me. Call me a troglodyte and a naysayer. But I’m here to shepherd the souls of people desperately broken by indwelling sin (like my own). And for that, only the Word of God, and the Spirit of God, will do.

And no, I didn't sign it. I wasn't even tempted.

Who Should Take the Lord's Supper?

Who should partake of the Lord's Supper? Everyone, or just the members of the church? The right answer is neither. The Lord's supper is for those who have been baptized out of obedience to Christ.

Some say, "only those in the church and under the care of the elders should take communion." Now, we know in the early church they celebrated the Lord's Table every Sunday (Acts 20:7). Yet Luke, Paul's co-worker, took communion in this church at Troas, yet he was not a member of it, nor in submission to their elders in any formal way. So that view doesn't hold up.

Others say, "We shouldn't limit the Lord's Table to anyone." However, the matter of taking the Lord's Table is a matter of discipleship to Jesus Christ. If we follow His words, we will offer communion to all who have been baptized.

Let me explain.

In Mat. 28:19-20, Jesus teaches that those who are baptized are to be taught to obey Him in all things. The "all things" includes the Lord's Supper, for our Lord said, "Do this, in remembrance of Me." Therefore, this pattern of baptism first, the Lord's Table after, is the "fence" around the Lord's Table.

While membership is of great importance, it is not a fence around the Lord's Table. Nor is communion just to be offered to people based on their own subjective faith. We have something objective to guide people - have they been baptized out of obedience to Christ?

This pattern, baptism prior to communion, is observed in Acts 2:41-42. So in Mat. 28 we have direct command, and in Acts 2 we have a clear example of that command being followed.

There is an exception - those under public church discipline. These should have the Lord's Table withheld from them, if they have been publicly admonished, as Paul makes clear in 2 Thessalonians 3:14.

However, I should add, the baptism in Mat. 28:19 Jesus commands is the baptism of a person who consciously wishes to be His disciple. To baptize a person, and then withhold communion from them, except in the case of discipline, is to fail to uphold our Lord's words in Mat. 28:19-20, which requires us to teach all those baptized to obey all the Lord's commands. Thus, for all who are baptized, they should participate in the Lord's Table also. This helps us counsel those of tender conscience, who look to their own imperfection instead of Christ's perfection in deciding whether or not to partake.

This position, baptism prior to communion, requires that those baptized do so out of a "free will" decision to identify with the Lord in the waters of baptism. In other words, it would be unwise for a church to baptize someone who has not intentionally expressed their desire to be Christ's disciple, out of personal faith.

I Usually Don't Like Poetry, but check this out...

Holy Sonnet XII: Why Are We By All Creatures Waited On?

John Donne (1572-1631)

Why are we by all creatures waited on?
Why do the prodigal elements supply
Life and food to me, being more pure than I,
Simple, and further from corruption?
Why brook’st thou, ignorant horse, subjection?
Why dost thou, bull, and bore so seelily,
Dissemble weakness, and by one man’s stroke die,
Whose whole kind you might swallow and feed upon?
Weaker I am, woe is me, and worse than you,
You have not sinned, nor need be timorous.
But wonder at a greater wonder, for to us
Created nature doth these things subdue,
But their Creator, whom sin nor nature tied,
For us, His creatures, and His foes, hath died.

Way of the Master

Ray Comfort does it again -

http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=103847642034&h=atdTH&u=5dNz6&ref=nf

I preached MJ 2 weeks ago - his life and death opened up Romans 1:24-32 for us, teaching us that while man wants to blur all lines, especially the line between death and life, God defines all of life by His own Word.

All Roads Lead to Rome

Well, I like the old saying, but it ain't true. The true saying should refer to the road that ran straight from Jerusalem to Rome.

The gospel of God was first preached in Jerusalem and ended up in Rome, if you adopt a "book of Acts" worldview. But the road implies so much more.

For in Rome the gospel proved it could conquer the "most worldly" place on earth, and do so without apostolic planting. But not without apostolic care when about ready to fracture.

Look down the road from Rome, in the direction to Jerusalem, and look past Jerusalem to Corinth in Greece. If you squint and focus, you can Paul coming, the great apostle to the Gentiles. The road is important. Paul is writing from Rome, ready to go to Jerusalem, so he can turn around and come to Rome.

Did you hear Romans 1:1-7 on Sunday, May 24? If not, go back and download it (www.gracechurchministry.org). If you did, you are ready for Paul to begin the greatest NT letter (IMHO).

Naughty Evangelicals

That the palate of today's evangelicals is pandering toward the offensive is old news. That the movement has captured so many defenders is. As well, many people want to sit on the side lines and wait for all the "big names" to get together and rebuke the Mark Driscolls and Ed Youngs of the Internet age.

But don't wait for anything like that to happen. In today's media driven hype, might makes right.

So make a decision now, to never listen to a man who preaches with lewdness, or unseemliness, in the area of sexuality. A man who gets laughs with sex talk is not sent by Christ, beloved. Now, if a man publicly repents of his sin, that may be different. But then again, repentance would mean stepping down, which would be good for the body of Christ, but not for the house of cards they call church.

See 2 Peter 2:18-22 for a word that ought to send chills down our collective spines.

c.f. http://www.shepherdsfellowship.org/pulpit/posts.aspx?ID=4168

Is Infant Baptism Sin?

The better question is, "is infant baptism" (IB) contrary to the gospel?

The reason why I say this is because to call it sin then requires a specific response along the lines of Matthew 18:15. And this issue, having been made now public by Mark Dever, allows for further discussion of something normally swept under ecclesiastical carpets (see http://blog.9marks.org/2009/03/the-sin-of-infant-baptism-written-by-a-sinning-baptist.html).

But you'll notice that far from responding to the issue has sin, our brother fellowships with brethren who baptise infants. Obviously he doesn't regard it as sin, say as he would sin in his church, right?

Since the gospel can be preached without the doctrine of baptism included it isn't contrary to the gospel. Paul writes forcefully that "Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel" (1 Corinthians 1:17).

Instead, IB is a religious practice inherited from one's theological forefathers to whom one feels indebted. It is not sin, but it is dangerous since it confuses the proper biblical response to the gospel, placing baptism prior to faith. When practitioners of IB see this, they, like Adoniram Judson, flee the practice for biblical revelation.

Or, as people do in our church who were sprinkled as infants, they get baptised, leaving behind the heritage of beloved theological forefathers for a clear conscience (1 Peter 3:21).

The Soldiers and Jesus -Mark 15:16-21

Mark 15:16-21

The abuse of the soldiers on Jesus is way over the top: mocking, spitting, beating, taunting, crown of thorns, bowing and kneeling.

And this comes after they finished scourging Him. Shouldn't their savagery have ended at the scouring - such a vicious torture in itself? Why go on doing so much to Him? What's the point?

The numbers are ridiculous - 600 to 1. Six hundred soldiers, a "cohort" (v. 16) versus one man, Jesus.

The torture is ridiculous - read the passage or listen to the sermon - www.gracechurchministry.org, should be up March 3rd.

Until you realize God's purpose. Simon of Cyrene and his 2 sons - Alexander and Rufus (v. 21), were saved by the ridiculous.

Had not the soldiers "kept beating" and abusing Jesus, He would have gone to the cross earlier and Simon, a "passer-by" (v. 21) would not have carried His cross.

Mark's original readers knew both Alex and Rufus, probably in the church of Rome (Romans 16:13). Not all of them knew Simon, their Dad. They also knew the mother. No doubt, the Father became a Christian and led his family to the Lord.

God's sovereignty. Jesus is on the way out (v. 20), Simon on his way in. Simon is pressed into service, learns of Christ, believes. We now know why the reason for the "over-the-top" abuse of Christ by the 600 soldiers. It was from the Father. The abuse was from the Father, who was punishing the Son with the full depth of our depravity through the depraved soldiers. How great is our sin? How deep is our love of it as seen in the soldiers?

So if you ask Simon, "Simon, are you glad the soldiers did what they did to Jesus, what would he answer? Let me know.

Off to Shepherds Conference this week, then some R and R in Phoenix, with the golf clubs. Back March 12.

"Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life" (Revelation 2:10)

Of Men, Books, and Faith

Great men's study again yesterday morning - thanks to the men who came out.

Last week we talked to the pastor in Florida who made national news because his church was faithful to a member, and to Christ, to call her to repent for blatant sexual immorality. She called in the media to defend her sin. Even the Drudge Report got a hold of it. The media loved her and hated the church. Thanks, Scott Christmas and Grace Community Church of Jacksonville, FL.

This week we studied the church problem of self-willed elders. I gave each of the men a copy of the introduction of my upcoming book (D.V.). They correctly analyzed the problems and demonstrated some good wisdom.

Then we talked about an approach to defending Christianity based on Proverbs 26:4-5:
Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Or you will also be like him. Answer a fool as his folly deserves, That he not be wise in his own eyes.

You could see the eyes light up! Not only does the unbeliever has no answer for what he believes, he has no answer for what he does not believe. This allows us to show him the God of Scripture compared to his futility. Wrapping your mind around that one takes some time but it's well worth it.

Baptisms tomorrow at Rockville Baptist. Be praying for the four people testifying to Christ.

Sermon Update

We didn't make it through Mark 15:6-15 so we'll finish next Sunday, D.V.

I've been unable to put into words why this text is helping me so much to walk with Christ these past few weeks. Something about His shame on my behalf that affects me.

I need to understand this. Why does the shame and suffering of my Lord Jesus take away my desire to sin? I don't want to lose this. Ideas?

James 1:13-18 was challenging last night, eh?
Quick Outline:
4 Ultimate Realities Connected to Trials:
The Ultimate Blame Shift – v. 13 (our tendency in trials)
The Ultimate Fault – v. 14 (the source of sin in trials)
The Ultimate Spiritual Law – v. 15 (the "end," or result of our sin in trials)
The Ultimate Good – v. 16-18 (How to overcome those tendencies in trials)

If you're in the church, don't forget next week's baptisms - Rockville Baptist, 4pm.

Thanks, Rockville Baptist.

Shame and Sanctification

Wow. The text of Mark 15:6-15 has really impressed me with Jesus Christ, but not in any expected way. I find myself so motivated to walk in holiness because He underwent such shame and degradation - here's my preaching outline:

Mark 15:6-15 contains 6 degrading exchanges that remove all public honor from Jesus of Nazareth and Accomplish The Public Degradation of Jesus Christ

Background: The Crowd of Shame (they want Barabbas – 6-8)

1) His Title was Exchanged for Envy – 9-10
2) His Honor was Exchanged for a Murderer – 11
3) His Shame was Exchanged for Blame – 12-13
4) His Innocence was Exchanged for Guilt – 14
5) His Status was Exchanged for Satisfaction – 15a
6) His Glory was Exchanged for a Cross – 15b

Like Mark 11:27-12:12, the underlying factor here is the honor/shame culture of the Middle East. The textual keys to see this: "The crowd (v.8)," "envy" in v. 10, Pilate talking over the cheif priests and calling on the crowd (9, 12, 14), and Pilate "wishing to satisfy the crowd" (15).

Man of sorrows, what a name
For the son of God Who came;
Ruined sinners to reclaim,
Hallelujah, what a Savior!

Each exchange gets progressively more shameful for Jesus Christ while the others gain honor at His expense. Very sad, Very heavy.

Part 1 was 2-8-09. Part 2 is 2-15-09. Pray for me, that I may accurately and powerfully portray the glory of Christ to all who hear, that they may be greatly influneced to worship and honor Jesus Christ.

Election and Child Raising

In Mark, Jesus welcomes children into His arms (10:14). How appropriate. Children are just so wonderful, and utterly huggable.

Parents that embrace the doctrine of election have struggled with how to raise their children for the Lord in that light . After all, what if my child is not elect?

I've seen three strange ways to deal with that tension.

First Strange Method: Infant baptism. Not to offend, but how many people have been sprinkled as infants and gone to perdition? The Bible teaches baptism only for those who profess faith and are able to be taught all that Jesus commanded (Mat. 28:19). Don't try to resolve the tension by “sprinkling” your precious baby and thinking that gets them into a covenent. It doesn't. They will enter the covenent by the narrow gate just like you. Problem is, a lot of kids thus sprinkled fight the Lord and grow up nastily reprobate. Infant baptism doesn’t resolve the tension, and it falsely trains parents to think the kid is better off than before.

Second Strange Method: Fear. Ever heard of people telling their little kids not to pray because their little reprobates who have yet to ask Jesus into their heart? Sad but true. So the parent, not wanting to offend God tries to get the child to do something to get saved, as if the kid can do anything anyway. Salvation by prayer ruins the cross. Teach your child to pray about all things, and don't be looking for "transaction with God," instead, look for transformed heart.

Third Strange Method: Don’t teach the child repentance, for they can do nothing to effect God’s election, and teaching them holiness might only frustrate God’s work in their life since He is the only One who can make holy. So you hear of reformed parents who let their 13 years olds play spin-the-bottle upstairs while the parents have Bible study downstairs. By age 16, the kids are gone.

So what is the right way?

Jesus meant is when He said, “Permit the children to come to Me; do not hinder them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these” (Mark 10:14).

From day one, teach the child that Your Father is their Father (is He not?) Teach them that Jesus is their Savior (have they any other?). Teach them repentance, hold them accountable for their sins in the wisdom of confrontation, chastisement, and reconciliation. For you are raising people to live out Christian lives. Why else did God give them to you, but for the expectation that He intends to make good His election of them.

“What is the One God seeking? Godly offspring" (Mal 2:15, ESV).