When ever you see Christians looking to the arts for redemptive value, you can be sure they have lost the cross. God couldn't have been clearer - the cross is offensive. On it the Holy Son of God died a death of blood and grossness. In it, God displayed Himself in art that offends, and is offensive to look at.
The cross when properly seen also shows the ugliness of human pride, which is another way of saying it shows how ugly humanity is. And its far uglier than any human artist will ever be willing to show. Art can't reach human rebellion. Which is why it is worthless to redemption.
Those who are trying to reach the present generation through the arts leave the grossness God behind - the cross of God - and leave God behind. Art has never, ever, been a drawing tool used by the Holy Spirit The written and spoken word is. Even in the OT, all that was made in the tabernacle had to reflect symmetry and nature, not man's artistic aspirations. Nor did it ever identify with man's fallenness, as so much art does today. All of the tabernacle reflected heaven, Exodus 25:40. Art is fine for art's sake. Let's just not confuse it and make it more than it is.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Political v. Spiritual Leadership
“Where the Spirit of the Lord is there is freedom” (2 Corinthians 3:17). The freedom the Spirit gives is the liberation from sin and the flesh. No where is there more important than in those entrusted with leadership in the church.
Without The Titus Mandate, church leadership descends into the realm of the political. Below is a quick list of the differences between church leadership compromised with the world and sin, versus church leadership under the control of God’s Spirit.
Take a moment and reflect on the past few board meetings, and on the past few conflicts. Take a moment to honestly ask yourself where you may fall short, and where your church may fall short.
Those practices that mark the political church are marked by (P). Those that show the converse spiritual practice are marked by (S).
Without The Titus Mandate, church leadership descends into the realm of the political. Below is a quick list of the differences between church leadership compromised with the world and sin, versus church leadership under the control of God’s Spirit.
Take a moment and reflect on the past few board meetings, and on the past few conflicts. Take a moment to honestly ask yourself where you may fall short, and where your church may fall short.
Those practices that mark the political church are marked by (P). Those that show the converse spiritual practice are marked by (S).
1. Prefers man-made traditions over the Bible in solving church problems (P).
1. Seeks God's mind in all things (2 Tim. 3:16-17) (S).
1. Seeks God's mind in all things (2 Tim. 3:16-17) (S).
2. Resists Biblical teaching on divisive topics for fear of conflict (P).
2. Seeks God's mind in all things (2 Tim. 3:16-17) (S).
3. Deals with problems by going to votes (P).
3. Deals with problems by confronting the heart (Heb. 4:12-13, Rom. 15:14) (S).
4. Forms alliances and factions to promote agenda (James 4:1-4). Power is in numbers (P).
4. Seeks God's mind, even if having to be taught by the one who opposes you on an issue. Power is in God (S).
5. Hides agenda and resists openness (P).
5. Offers up one's life and decisions for examination (2 Cor. 4:2) (S).
6. In problem situations seeks to bind the conscience of the Christian to man-made documents (P).
6. Seeks to not bind the conscience of the Christian to man-made documents but to the Bible alone (Mat. 4:4) (S).
7. Exegetes man-made documents when conflicts arise (P).
7. Exegetes the Bible when conflicts arise (S).
8. Seeks to solve conflicts by appeasement and compromise (P).
8. Seeks to solve conflicts by faith and repentance to clear biblical principles (S).
9. Avoids the heart issues and struggles by storing up accusations for public meetings (P).
9. Deals with heart issues and struggles of fellow sinners first Gal. 6:1, Mat. 18:15ff (S).
10. Willing to accomplish agenda while bypassing biblical principles (Mat. 7:12) (P).
10. Changes agenda when biblical principles are threatened (Mat. 7:12) (S).
11. Views those in authority with suspicion whose power needs to be curbed (P).
11. Views those in authority with submission whose power is granted by God (1 Thess. 5:12-13, Heb. 13:17) (S).
12. Does not seek to understand problems first, but rather to make political gain by casting problems in a self-advantageous light (P).
12. Seeks to solve problems within biblical guidelines, seeking facts first, speaking to all involved people first, all the while looking at how to apply the Bible (Gal. 6:1, Mat. 18:15ff) (S).
13. Seeks security in man-made methods (P).
13. Seeks security in God's pattern in the Scripture (S).
14. Creates a heart of self-righteousness and self-vindication (P).
14. Creates a heart of humility and fear of the Lord (S).
15. Seeks to create peace by compromise (P).
15. Seeks to create peace by righteousness (James 3:18) (S).
16. Qualified by popular election to serve (P).
16. Qualified by God's Word to Serve (1 Tim. 3:1-15) (S).
17. Promotes territoriality instead of servanthood (i.e., protecting a board) (P).
17. Promotes servanthood instead of territoriality (S).
18. Resists and criticizes Scriptural teaching that confronts political structure (P).
18. Seeks God's mind in all things (2 Tim. 3:16-17).
19. Resists and criticizes Scriptural teaching that confronts the sins that the political structure covers up (P).
19. Confronts the sins that the political structure covers up Mat. 14:3-4 (S).
20. Uses political means to take away oversight ministry (P).
20. Confronts wrongdoing to take away oversight ministry 1 Tim. 5:17-22 (S).
21. Resents and resists personal confrontation (P).
21. Welcomes personal confrontation (Mat. 5:3) (S).
2. Seeks God's mind in all things (2 Tim. 3:16-17) (S).
3. Deals with problems by going to votes (P).
3. Deals with problems by confronting the heart (Heb. 4:12-13, Rom. 15:14) (S).
4. Forms alliances and factions to promote agenda (James 4:1-4). Power is in numbers (P).
4. Seeks God's mind, even if having to be taught by the one who opposes you on an issue. Power is in God (S).
5. Hides agenda and resists openness (P).
5. Offers up one's life and decisions for examination (2 Cor. 4:2) (S).
6. In problem situations seeks to bind the conscience of the Christian to man-made documents (P).
6. Seeks to not bind the conscience of the Christian to man-made documents but to the Bible alone (Mat. 4:4) (S).
7. Exegetes man-made documents when conflicts arise (P).
7. Exegetes the Bible when conflicts arise (S).
8. Seeks to solve conflicts by appeasement and compromise (P).
8. Seeks to solve conflicts by faith and repentance to clear biblical principles (S).
9. Avoids the heart issues and struggles by storing up accusations for public meetings (P).
9. Deals with heart issues and struggles of fellow sinners first Gal. 6:1, Mat. 18:15ff (S).
10. Willing to accomplish agenda while bypassing biblical principles (Mat. 7:12) (P).
10. Changes agenda when biblical principles are threatened (Mat. 7:12) (S).
11. Views those in authority with suspicion whose power needs to be curbed (P).
11. Views those in authority with submission whose power is granted by God (1 Thess. 5:12-13, Heb. 13:17) (S).
12. Does not seek to understand problems first, but rather to make political gain by casting problems in a self-advantageous light (P).
12. Seeks to solve problems within biblical guidelines, seeking facts first, speaking to all involved people first, all the while looking at how to apply the Bible (Gal. 6:1, Mat. 18:15ff) (S).
13. Seeks security in man-made methods (P).
13. Seeks security in God's pattern in the Scripture (S).
14. Creates a heart of self-righteousness and self-vindication (P).
14. Creates a heart of humility and fear of the Lord (S).
15. Seeks to create peace by compromise (P).
15. Seeks to create peace by righteousness (James 3:18) (S).
16. Qualified by popular election to serve (P).
16. Qualified by God's Word to Serve (1 Tim. 3:1-15) (S).
17. Promotes territoriality instead of servanthood (i.e., protecting a board) (P).
17. Promotes servanthood instead of territoriality (S).
18. Resists and criticizes Scriptural teaching that confronts political structure (P).
18. Seeks God's mind in all things (2 Tim. 3:16-17).
19. Resists and criticizes Scriptural teaching that confronts the sins that the political structure covers up (P).
19. Confronts the sins that the political structure covers up Mat. 14:3-4 (S).
20. Uses political means to take away oversight ministry (P).
20. Confronts wrongdoing to take away oversight ministry 1 Tim. 5:17-22 (S).
21. Resents and resists personal confrontation (P).
21. Welcomes personal confrontation (Mat. 5:3) (S).
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Tiger, Buddhism, and Truth
If there is a living example of the truth of Christianity, its Tiger Woods. “What?,” you say.
Christianity deals with sin and repentance. Buddhism deals with sorrow, and inner tranquility. Buddhism points to resolving one’s inner conflicts within oneself. Christianity points to resolving one’s conflicts with those sinned against. Guess which world Tiger is actually living in?
Jesus didn’t say to look inside and find rest. He said, “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.”
I sure hope Tiger and his wife raise their children together, and especially, grow old together. But I can’t help but see Tiger walking down a 500 mile cul-de-sac with an impassable brick wall at the end called “self.”
Maybe if he turns to the Lord, and confesses his transgressions against Him, will he be spared a long and fruitless trip down life’s slow lane. But better, he will given grace that is greater than all his sin.
Christianity deals with sin and repentance. Buddhism deals with sorrow, and inner tranquility. Buddhism points to resolving one’s inner conflicts within oneself. Christianity points to resolving one’s conflicts with those sinned against. Guess which world Tiger is actually living in?
Jesus didn’t say to look inside and find rest. He said, “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.”
I sure hope Tiger and his wife raise their children together, and especially, grow old together. But I can’t help but see Tiger walking down a 500 mile cul-de-sac with an impassable brick wall at the end called “self.”
Maybe if he turns to the Lord, and confesses his transgressions against Him, will he be spared a long and fruitless trip down life’s slow lane. But better, he will given grace that is greater than all his sin.
Monday, February 15, 2010
John 17:1
"Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You
John 17:1
Where do we see God’s glory best?
In skies and oceans blue,
In soaring mountain’s view?
In our newborn baby’s face,
Or in costly redeeming grace?
Above all earthy treasures, we see God’s glory best in the cross of Jesus Christ. When Jesus prays, “Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son,” He speaks of the hour of the cross as the time perfectly suited for the Father to showcase His Son’s glory.
The glory Jesus speaks of here is the exact glory He always had before the Father – eternal glory. This is the glory angels are denied in heaven. They simply aren’t able to withstand it. Jesus isn't referring to an earthly glory, but the glory He has eternally derived from the Father, and now is asking for. For the first time in over thirty years, God the Son will again be clothed in His eternal glory as He hangs and suffers for our sin.
On the cross God’s Son will display heaven’s best treasure. On the cross holiness, truth, love, and sovereignty will magnify each other. Wrath will meet mercy and patience will meet judgment. All these aspects of God, and more, will be displayed for all to see. If you want to see God’s glory best, look at the cross.
While thinking about these aspects of God on a cross, don’t miss the Father and Son relationship shown there. The Son dies because He loves to do His Father’s will – because He loves His Father unreservedly. Jesus highest goal in the cross is to display His Father. Thus John 17:1 finishes, “that the Son may glorify You.” Jesus knows His death’s highest motive is to bring His Father glory. His Father is glorified by glorifying His Son whom He judges in our place. Jesus’ submission and love for His Father, eternally true, is our sacrifice before God. The cross displays God exactly as He has been, is, and ever shall be.
John 17:1
Where do we see God’s glory best?
In skies and oceans blue,
In soaring mountain’s view?
In our newborn baby’s face,
Or in costly redeeming grace?
Above all earthy treasures, we see God’s glory best in the cross of Jesus Christ. When Jesus prays, “Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son,” He speaks of the hour of the cross as the time perfectly suited for the Father to showcase His Son’s glory.
The glory Jesus speaks of here is the exact glory He always had before the Father – eternal glory. This is the glory angels are denied in heaven. They simply aren’t able to withstand it. Jesus isn't referring to an earthly glory, but the glory He has eternally derived from the Father, and now is asking for. For the first time in over thirty years, God the Son will again be clothed in His eternal glory as He hangs and suffers for our sin.
On the cross God’s Son will display heaven’s best treasure. On the cross holiness, truth, love, and sovereignty will magnify each other. Wrath will meet mercy and patience will meet judgment. All these aspects of God, and more, will be displayed for all to see. If you want to see God’s glory best, look at the cross.
While thinking about these aspects of God on a cross, don’t miss the Father and Son relationship shown there. The Son dies because He loves to do His Father’s will – because He loves His Father unreservedly. Jesus highest goal in the cross is to display His Father. Thus John 17:1 finishes, “that the Son may glorify You.” Jesus knows His death’s highest motive is to bring His Father glory. His Father is glorified by glorifying His Son whom He judges in our place. Jesus’ submission and love for His Father, eternally true, is our sacrifice before God. The cross displays God exactly as He has been, is, and ever shall be.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
New Book
I'm thinking about writing the next book...
As many of you know, my favorite topic, my favorite EVERYTHING, is the Trinity. So I'd like to put together a book called something like "The Devotional Trinity."
Essentially, each page will be a self-contained unit of one Scripture verse, or portion of Scripture verse, along with interpretation, meditation and application. It will be a little guide for those who want to love God the trinity and wish to muse devotionally upon His glory and greatness.
It will essentially be a book to feed and nurture God's worship.
At the same time, it will fortify the soul with mind-blowing truth.
"When I say God, I mean trinity" - Gregory of Nazianzus - d. 389.
As many of you know, my favorite topic, my favorite EVERYTHING, is the Trinity. So I'd like to put together a book called something like "The Devotional Trinity."
Essentially, each page will be a self-contained unit of one Scripture verse, or portion of Scripture verse, along with interpretation, meditation and application. It will be a little guide for those who want to love God the trinity and wish to muse devotionally upon His glory and greatness.
It will essentially be a book to feed and nurture God's worship.
At the same time, it will fortify the soul with mind-blowing truth.
"When I say God, I mean trinity" - Gregory of Nazianzus - d. 389.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Six Boasts of Every Christian - Romans 5:1-11
I count 6 boasts of every Christian described in Romans 5:1-11 - Here they are, with the text underneath. Enjoy -
An Unshakable Foundation (Romans 5:1-2a)
Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand
An Invincible Destination (5:2b-4)
and we exult in hope of the glory of God. And not only this, but we also exult in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance; and perseverance, proven character; and proven character, hope;
An Undeniable Consolation (5:5)
and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.
An Inexplicable Demonstration (5:6-8)
For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
An Unbreakable Connection (5:9-10)
Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.
An Unmistakable Exultation (5:11)
And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.
Every one of these boasts was earned by Christ on our behalf!
An Unshakable Foundation (Romans 5:1-2a)
Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand
An Invincible Destination (5:2b-4)
and we exult in hope of the glory of God. And not only this, but we also exult in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance; and perseverance, proven character; and proven character, hope;
An Undeniable Consolation (5:5)
and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.
An Inexplicable Demonstration (5:6-8)
For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
An Unbreakable Connection (5:9-10)
Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.
An Unmistakable Exultation (5:11)
And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.
Every one of these boasts was earned by Christ on our behalf!
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Eldership Testimonial - Hope Bible Church
Here's a nice testimonial to the value of eldership from Maryland:
Hope Bible Church , Columbia , MD
Check out their web page and pastor, Tom Leake:
http://www.hopebiblechurch.org/
I submit myself to elder-governed churches because, assuming the church follows strict biblical guidelines for selecting elders, you know that men of spiritual maturity and integrity are leading the flock. Unlike congregation-governed churches, you do not have immature Christians (or sometimes unbelievers) making critical spiritual decisions for the church. Since the majority of the responsibility falls on the shoulders of the elders, this fosters discernment as well as humility among the elders of the church. Under this type of leadership, the members are properly cared for (no one puts his personal agenda ahead of the work of the church) and spiritually led (mature men making spirit-filled decisions), and Christ is glorified in the relationship between the leaders and members of the church.
Check out their web page and pastor, Tom Leake:
http://www.hopebiblechurch.org/
Monday, January 11, 2010
Generation Malachi - Malachi 2:13-16
Every Generation Malachi likes two things, religion and marriage. As long as both worship and marriage are formed to meet their wants, Generation Malachi comes back for more. As long as worship and marriage remain tools to manipulate God and spouse, Generation Malachi will invest millions of dollars and thousands of hours to get what they want.
Through religion, God is manipulated to gain spiritual gratification. Through marriage, one’s spouse is manipulated to gain relational gratification. But when either God or spouse lets you down, you do what you have to in order to gain a more satisfying experience, and if that means exchanging either of them, then so be it. Let it be done.
This is Generation Malachi.
Check out http://www.gracechurchministry.org/ after January 11, 2010.
Through religion, God is manipulated to gain spiritual gratification. Through marriage, one’s spouse is manipulated to gain relational gratification. But when either God or spouse lets you down, you do what you have to in order to gain a more satisfying experience, and if that means exchanging either of them, then so be it. Let it be done.
This is Generation Malachi.
Check out http://www.gracechurchministry.org/ after January 11, 2010.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Eldership Testimonial - Redeemer Bible Church
One of the great things about elder-led churches is the effect it has on people’s lives. Check out this testimonial below from a woman at Redeemer Bible Church in Minnetonka, MN. This church is led by a wonderful group of mature men, including one special pastor, Bob Glenn – check them out at http://www.redeemerbiblechurch.com.
Until I came to Redeemer four years ago, I had attended congregational model evangelical churches. In one case, the pastor was a weak leader. The "church council" was composed of men who served brief (one or two year) elected terms. They were well intentioned men who loved the Lord, but they had no training in leadership and no long term commitment to their roles. Many were not talented or gifted in the areas in which they were serving. In retrospect, I see that the life of the church was essentially ruled by the strong personalities within the congregation. The brethren were not shepherded, and there was little growth in grace among us. There was no attempt at church discipline. Personal crises among the members were met with sympathy, but no constructive counsel or true help.
In the second case, the senior pastor was a very strong leader. The elected Board of Elders functioned as a sort of friendly Board of Directors to support his initiatives. Over time, those initiatives became less concerned with the Biblical mandates for God's Church in the world and more concerned with his own power, prestige, and popularity. He was not held accountable by the Board, who were allowed no real window into his heart or life. The elders had no shepherding role within the congregation. Church life was chaotic and strongly dependent on the individual to seek out true teaching and shepherding from within or often from outside of the church.
Despite having been an adult Christian for almost a quarter of a century, I came to Redeemer with no idea of what true Biblical leadership looked like. I have been blessed beyond measure to live, serve, and grow under that type of leadership over the past four years. Our elders are men who sense God's call on their lives to vocational or avocational leadership. Their gifts and calling are evaluated and confirmed by other leaders and brethren. They are extensively educated, trained, and discipled as leaders by the current eldership. They are given increasing shepherding responsibilities as they grow in their roles. They serve together as a plurality, making decisions by consensus. They are openly accountable to one another and to the congregation as a whole, not only for their leadership decisions but for the whole of their lives. They proactively and sacrificially care for and bear the burdens of their sheepfolds. With the goals of repentance and restoration, they engage in the process of church discipline when necessary. They are purposeful in teaching and modeling the one another’s of Scripture. They do not 'serve a term,' but rather are ordained to a position of authority in the local congregation that continues indefinitely.
Our elders have been used by God to contribute in significant ways to my own growth in grace. During a time of upheaval and conflict in our small group, my husband and I requested to transfer to a different group, earnestly believing this would result in the best possible outcome to the situation. The elders denied our request, but also committed to stand by the group and work to resolve the situation Biblically. An elder actually took over leadership of our group for a season. He patiently taught all of us, during small group meetings and at other times, about conflict and our own hearts, desires, and idols. Our group came through the process intact, each of us with greater insight into our own sin and God's work on our behalf and with greater love for one another. Even now, two years later, I am continuing to learn and see more things about myself through these events and their resolution. During another time of painful personal decision making, an elder listened carefully to my dilemma, challenged my thinking and expressed personal care and concern for my difficulty. He displayed great wisdom as he discerned my true need in the situation and gently but persistently pointed me to Christ through it. I thank God for my church and for the elders that God has called to serve us.
CC, Redeemer Bible Church, Minnetonka MN
Until I came to Redeemer four years ago, I had attended congregational model evangelical churches. In one case, the pastor was a weak leader. The "church council" was composed of men who served brief (one or two year) elected terms. They were well intentioned men who loved the Lord, but they had no training in leadership and no long term commitment to their roles. Many were not talented or gifted in the areas in which they were serving. In retrospect, I see that the life of the church was essentially ruled by the strong personalities within the congregation. The brethren were not shepherded, and there was little growth in grace among us. There was no attempt at church discipline. Personal crises among the members were met with sympathy, but no constructive counsel or true help.
In the second case, the senior pastor was a very strong leader. The elected Board of Elders functioned as a sort of friendly Board of Directors to support his initiatives. Over time, those initiatives became less concerned with the Biblical mandates for God's Church in the world and more concerned with his own power, prestige, and popularity. He was not held accountable by the Board, who were allowed no real window into his heart or life. The elders had no shepherding role within the congregation. Church life was chaotic and strongly dependent on the individual to seek out true teaching and shepherding from within or often from outside of the church.
Despite having been an adult Christian for almost a quarter of a century, I came to Redeemer with no idea of what true Biblical leadership looked like. I have been blessed beyond measure to live, serve, and grow under that type of leadership over the past four years. Our elders are men who sense God's call on their lives to vocational or avocational leadership. Their gifts and calling are evaluated and confirmed by other leaders and brethren. They are extensively educated, trained, and discipled as leaders by the current eldership. They are given increasing shepherding responsibilities as they grow in their roles. They serve together as a plurality, making decisions by consensus. They are openly accountable to one another and to the congregation as a whole, not only for their leadership decisions but for the whole of their lives. They proactively and sacrificially care for and bear the burdens of their sheepfolds. With the goals of repentance and restoration, they engage in the process of church discipline when necessary. They are purposeful in teaching and modeling the one another’s of Scripture. They do not 'serve a term,' but rather are ordained to a position of authority in the local congregation that continues indefinitely.
Our elders have been used by God to contribute in significant ways to my own growth in grace. During a time of upheaval and conflict in our small group, my husband and I requested to transfer to a different group, earnestly believing this would result in the best possible outcome to the situation. The elders denied our request, but also committed to stand by the group and work to resolve the situation Biblically. An elder actually took over leadership of our group for a season. He patiently taught all of us, during small group meetings and at other times, about conflict and our own hearts, desires, and idols. Our group came through the process intact, each of us with greater insight into our own sin and God's work on our behalf and with greater love for one another. Even now, two years later, I am continuing to learn and see more things about myself through these events and their resolution. During another time of painful personal decision making, an elder listened carefully to my dilemma, challenged my thinking and expressed personal care and concern for my difficulty. He displayed great wisdom as he discerned my true need in the situation and gently but persistently pointed me to Christ through it. I thank God for my church and for the elders that God has called to serve us.
CC, Redeemer Bible Church, Minnetonka MN
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
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).
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
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
Saturday, December 5, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
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
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.
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.
Monday, August 3, 2009
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.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
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).
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).
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
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
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
Friday, March 20, 2009
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 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).
Monday, March 2, 2009
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)
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)
Saturday, February 21, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
