Carnivorous Caribou

Cold Front at Caribouyah

2008-02-07T09:55:00.000-05:00

If you follow this blog, you've probably noticed that the Day After Tomorrow has struck this site. Things have slowed down, and quite frankly, I don't see them warming up. But it doesn't mean I've cooled of blogging. However, due to greater passions, this blog will probably very rarely be updated.

If you enjoyed this blog (odds are I call you "mom" or "dad," but I degress), I would offer the following suggestions:

The Haphazzard Housewife

great

The Greenville Grace News Blog

gift of not getting a Ferrari

Perspicuous Perspectives

Preach the Word

His Word

So, while things may seem frosty around here, I certainly hope things are warming up!

Name That Quote...

2008-01-28T21:47:00.000-05:00

Let men who are desirous of glory be fed by their ambition, let them applaud themselves for their ingenuity; to you, let it be enough to devote yourself to your own salvation and that of the people.

If you must know...but don't try to claim credit for your "guess" if you check the link!

More on "A Common Word..."

2008-01-23T15:23:00.000-05:00

About six weeks ago, I posted an article about the A Common Word Between Us and You (a document written by 138 Moslem scholars) and the response by many Evangelicals.

While I am no expert in Islam, what I have studied seemed in contrast to the tone of the document. And what I know about Christianity appeared in contrast to the letter written in response. So, I was thankful to see the responses from:

John Piper

and

Al Mohler

________________________________________________________________
Both men clearly articulated their concerns graciously but firmly (Mohler even responds to Brian McLaren's rebuke of Mohler's perspective). Yet, what I truly appreciated is that both men understand the need for missiology, but start with theology...knowing that without proper theology, the missiology is pointless.

I especially appreciated Mohler's reminder from John 8 that Jesus claims that missing Him is missing God. He also reminds us that to claim Islam and a Judaism that denies Christ are "Abrahamic Faiths" is to misunderstand the nature of Abraham's faith. (My Dial-up Brethren will just have to trust me...each is worth the look/listen.)

"Pod Spotting"

2008-01-22T12:57:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to listen to the White Horse Inn. This season is entitled "Christless Christianity."

Michael Horton, Rod Rosenbladt, Kim Riddlebarger and Ken Jones discuss the evangelical phenomena of "assuming the gospel." In the first three episodes this year they paint a picture of American Christianity that looks eerily like some organizations I know. Check out the descriptions of their first three episodes:

Countless sermons in churches across the country focus on moralistic concerns and personal transformation. But has Christ gotten lost in the shuffle? Have we inverted Paul's warnings by intentionally preaching ourselves, and not Christ crucified? On this edition of the White Horse Inn, the hosts introduce the new theme for 2008: Christless Christianity!

Many Christian leaders today point to Jesus as a good moral guide (WWJD), an inspirational figure of self-sacrifice, or one who resolves our problem with loneliness. And in doing so, these shepherds have managed to avoid one of the most central teachings of the entire Bible; namely Jesus' atoning sacrifice for sinners.

Why is Joel Osteen so popular? Is he a faithful representative of the Christian faith, or is his message more about self-help and personal motivation? On this edition of the White Horse Inn, the hosts will examine the theology of this bestselling author as they continue their series "Christless Christianity."

What is humbling as you listen to these podcasts are that they show it is not just a message the radical extremes (like Osteen) or the Mainline Denominations need to hear, but it is a reminder to every church...The moment you begin to assume the gospel message for your listeners, you have begun the process of denial.

I'd encourage you to subscribe to the podcast. (Did I mention it's free?)

A Sign of the Times

2008-01-15T21:14:00.000-05:00

Today, our church staff drove past the following sign:

I'm not really sure what to say.

Are they just being honest about their expectation? Should there be a comma between "pretty" and "good." If so, are they claiming their people are pretty or the building is?

What do you think?

Careful, Careful, My Brethren

2008-01-03T21:07:00.000-05:00

Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment.--James 3:1

The James Frey controversy revealed "a new understanding of truth." When Frey's fabrications were revealed, some had the audacity to claim the inaccuracies actually helped him tell the story more truthfully.

This postmodern approach to truth has also crept into hermeneutics. Just as "higher critiques" of yesteryear claimed they still believed the Bible to be inspired, despite claiming it was inaccurate regarding science/history, these interpreters claim the passage to be teaching truth, even if the details cannot be trusted. Therefore, they avow orthodoxy (sometimes) but deny the accuracy of the passages used to defend the doctrines. These pastors play fast and loose with the Text, conforming it to their will, rather than vice versa.

This trend is easy to spot (if one is willing to ask difficult questions). When one begins to investigate their theories, nailing them down on specific texts, it becomes obvious that they are not practicing a Biblical hermeneutic.

Well, it would be easy if not for the secondary trend. When questioned, or especially when you point out the inconsistency of their theories/postulations/speculations/conjectures/guesses, they retort:

But, You Misunderstood Me.

I can handle hearing this phrase from time to time, but the regular barrage of supposed misunderstanding does become problematic. In my youth, I would play fast and loose with my words, and when called on it, I would reply with the similar retort: I was just kidding. It seemed the perfect alibi. I could make unsubstantiated claims. I could make outlandish boasts. I could take unprovoked stabs at others. Then, just as a person was going to lay blame on me, I could shift the focus...claiming they missed my humorous attempt. It really was perfect--until I read:

Like a madman shooting firebrands or deadly arrows is a man who deceives his neighbor and says, "I was only joking!"--Proverbs 26:18-19

I read that passage and was broken. I had not invented a clever technique to allude investigation, I had become a madman. My ways had to change immediately.

Likewise, an overused barrage of I've been misunderstood! is problematic for the following reasons:

1. It assumes no responsibility.--Stated in a passive tone, a person is still exonerated from any responsibility. They are not claiming I misspoke, thus assuming responsibility. Often times, when cornered on loose communication, the person will claim the problem really lies in the hearers listening skills. Rather than listening to what I meant to say, the person only examined what I actually said. Therefore, the speaker is not responsible to clear the air, but is left to do so, if they choose. And even clearing the air does not become their responsibility since they did not err. Any clarification is condescendence--for your sake, since you misunderstood in the first place.

2. Or, it's generally lazy. Now, I can incorrectly turn a phrase like anyone. (I will forever regret the time I used the word forthright instead of forthcoming with a beloved friend...thus creating an unintentional accusation.) Sometimes, we have to confess when we misspeak. However, the teacher/preacher should never be comfortable with this. I've yet to meet the perfect man, able to bridle the whole body as well (James 3:2). James says so himself, when he stated: For we all stumble in many ways. However, this does not mean we will not be judged more strictly.

When I exchanged forthcoming with forthright I did damage to a quality relationship. A simple, I misspoke was not enough. Though my friend was very gracious with me, the misunderstanding from my error caused some pain. As we worked through my mistake, I had to speak slowly and with much more precision (not for his sake...for mine). I sought to restore our relationship and never again use the words forthcoming and forthright without being deliberate. (In fact, I don't know that I'll use either term in front of this person ever again.)

Just this week, I was listening to an interview of NT Wright by a student of Southern Seminary. Wright was asked about his endorsement of Steve Chalke's book despite Chalke's disaster quote on the penal substitution of Christ. In Wright's explanation, he explained that Chalke simply lacked clarity in speech, and that this is understandable--he works with youth, isn't well trained and speaks with emotion. There was no hint of responsibility for Chalke, we should all just be understanding that he didn't mean what he said. Such a perspective does not seem to line up with Scripture.

If we find ourselves too often saying, "I misspoke," "I didn't mean what I said," or "I said that wrong" perhaps we need to either quit speaking...or seriously adjust the way we do.

3. It eliminates the capacity for tolerance. Not the hold-hands-ignore-our-differences-while-listening-to-Barry-White-singing-Kumbaya-style tolerance, but the original meaning for tolerance. (tolerance: a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own.) When you disagree with someone, and they simply say you misunderstood them, how do you work through the disagreement?

Whether arrogance, naiveté or an unwelcomed product of our postmodern society, the idea that someone might actually disagree with an opinion seems incalculable. Therefore, we cannot deal with our differences, discussing the texts, nuance and understanding. Instead, we are left to assume it is an issue of communication, and quite often are even encouraged to simply drop the matter--trusting that though it may seem otherwise, we're probably on the same page.

Telling a person they misunderstood you, rather than telling them you think they are wrong, certainly seems like a softer answer...but it is not genuine tolerance. And ultimately, the two cannot accept their differences, because they are to act like there is not difference at all. And if we ignore differences, it's not tolerance, it's neglect. And relationships (the supposed "Holy Grail" of this new approach) do not survive well in neglect. Working through disagreement may be some heavy lifting...but heavy lifting strengthens.

Therefore, be careful. For those considering teaching the Word, and for those who do teach, we should consider the stern warning of greater judgement. We should be setting the example for the Body by guarding our words closely and stating things as clearly as possible. (Certainly, when pastors engage in a theological "conversation," saying You've misunderstood me! should be at an absolute minimum.) The pastor/teacher should seek to be as clear, direct and accurate as possible.

For it's not just other people who are listening.

Betrothal View

2008-01-03T16:14:00.000-05:00

On December 9th, I got to enjoy presenting some answers during a "Question & Answer" Sunday School class. In that class, when asked about Marriage/Divorce/Remarriage, I made the (admittedly strong) statement "I can't think of any situation where I would ever encourage a person to pursue a divorce."

Unfortunately, many in the (universal) church erroneously support pursuing a divorce after a spouse has been unfaithful. Citing the "unfaithfulness clause" in Matthew 5 and Matthew 19, many think Jesus excused divorce after adultery. Instead, I believe Jesus was speaking in reference to the Jewish betrothal system.

In July 2006, I began a series of posts to explain this position. Since several after that Sunday asked for more information about hat perspective, I have reposted the links to those articles below:

Cultural Consideration With Sin
Marriage Killed by a Bad Hermeneutic
Who has Committed Adultery?
The Disappearing Exclusion
Did Matthew Put Words in Jesus' Mouth?
Who Said Anything about Adultery?
moicheuo
(editing correction)
porneia
Jews, Betrothal and Divorce
I Admit, I Don't Get It
A Heart Confession
The Gospel and Exceptions

___________________________________________________
In 2007, John Piper wrote an article advocating the "betrothal view," a perspective he has held since at least 1986.

A Believer's Approach to 2008

2008-01-01T00:13:00.000-05:00

As I was thinking about the New Year, here were some thoughts that came to mind. As we enter 2008, the believer should be:

His Humble Exaltation

2007-12-24T23:28:00.000-05:00

Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.--Philippians 2:5-11

Praying you are again amazed by His incarnation!

Preaching Sola Fide

2007-12-20T22:30:00.000-05:00

Whether Calvinist or Arminian, Cessationist or Pentecostal, Paedobaptist or Credobaptist, Dispensational or Covenantal, you have felt the effects from the Reformation. Even the Roman Catholic church has been forced to respond, though they remain in signficant error.

No matter what protestant background you come from, one of the greatest areas of influence is in the preaching. This can be seen even by the arrangement of the furniture in the auditorium. The table for the "sacraments" has been moved, and the "pulpit" became the centerpiece. While the furniture is insignificant (our church does not have a literal pulpit) that attitude is. We gather around the Word of God, to hear the Word of God and apply the Word of God. We have the Reformation to thank (at least in part) for helping remind us that the Word of God is central to our corporate worship. However, much of contemporary preaching ignores the heart of the Reformation (the "five solas") as they deliver their homily.

This post marks my last article on the five solas as they regard to preaching.

Sola Fide

Imagine a church where the pastor tells his church to abstain from all alcohol, avoid movies, enter their children in Christian schools and that women should only wear dresses.

Down the street, another pastor exhorts his congregation to get involved in environmental issues, invite your neighbors over to your house, seek to understand your surrounding culture and avoid a judgemental perceptions at all costs.

Which sermon is pleasing to the Lord? The conservative message? The trendy message? Both?

Possibly, neither. Consider:

But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.--Romans 14:23

Therefore, the pastor who calls his people to be separate from the world, giving guidelines for achieving moral purity may be calling his people to sin. Likewise, the pastor who challenges his people to be more tolerant, perhaps even more missional, laying out perfect strategies for connecting with lost people may be calling his people to sin.

Because avoiding movies is bad? Or conversely, is inviting your neighbors over to your house wrong? It is, if it neglects faith. Consider these words:

And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.--Hebrews 11:6

If faith is not the center of our motivation, we will not be pleasing God. Neither a full-fledged boycott of the things of the world, nor an unadulterated leap into your neighbors' lives means a thing if segregated from faith. This shouldn't stump us. For if God is most pleased by the perfect obedience of His Son, and if that obedience is credited to our account by faith, then that in my life which pleases the Father must purely be the reflection of my faith in His Perfect Son.

So what does this mean for preaching?

Application must aim at the heart. We are not called to be coaches for behavior modification. We are called to be heralds of the transformation producing Word of God. Our application should not be action steps or exterior based uniformity. To instruct our Body in ways to behave during the week without addressing the heart primarily is simply to attach the hose to the power washer so they can spray down their own tomb. No, our application must address who they are, and then speak to how they act in light of this truth. To do anything else is simply a different form of legalism, and is beating--not shepherding--your sheep.

Application must find its fulfillment in Christ. A quick glance at Matthew 5 will remind us that when Jesus focused the Law to the heart, the standards went up, not down. On the outside, a man may consider himself pure if he has never had a physical relationship with anyone other than his spouse. However, direct the Law to the heart and suddenly one act of lust reveals the adultery in his heart. The standard has been raised, and the man sees his guilty position.

At this point, the preacher must direct attention to Jesus Christ. God, in His grace, provided multiple opportunities for us to hear His pleasure with His Son (Matthew 3:17; John 17:5). Our preaching must proclaim Christ, so that when we present application, the listener understands that we live holy lives, not to earn our righteousness, but because He Himself is Holy. No sermon, whether in the Old Testament or New, can neglect Christ as the main character and be a sermon preaching application in faith.

Application must be grounded in the gospel. This statement should not be necessary. For if we preach at the heart, our people will understand they fall short of God's glory. If we preach Christ's perfect fulfillment, we've practically covered the entire gospel message. However, I am shocked how often this element becomes neglected.

I have noticed an odd phenomena. Those churches which most would label as "seeker-____________" or "missional" or "outward focused" are often pastored by men who think a clear gospel presentation is not necessary weekly. I really can't understand this. They strategize, plan and possibly even compromise some standards just for the sake of attracting an unregenerate crowd, and then once they are gathered, they neglect to lay the gospel out in full.

I believe the answer lies in the attraction mindset. When I gather the unregenerate (and focus my service around getting them there and keeping them coming) I must give them what they want. And the "natural man" does not want application aimed at his heart. The nonbeliever wants to hear a better marriage is achieved by committing to a weekly date night or learning the art of "active listening." They want to be told to get out a calculator and work through this formula to determine your charitable giving. They do not want to hear they must love their wife like Christ loves the Church. They do not want to be told their questions about charitable giving have more to do with learning contentment than debt reduction processes. Therefore, the pastor neglects to aim at the heart. Since application is not aimed at the heart, there is not need to look to Christ for perfect fulfillment. Since Christ is not necessary to achieve this standard, a gospel presentation would feel like an odd proselytization commercial, and would fall on deaf ears. Therefore, the gospel is alluded to, but not enunciated.

The preacher must present the gospel weekly. Not because their will be visitors there (though there will be, and they will have opportunity to hear). Not because they probably have false converts sitting in their midst (though any honest reading of the Scriptures will reveal they probably do). But because every person, unregenerate and regenerate alike, needs to hear the gospel. The nonbeliever must hear the words of Christ for their conversion. The believer must hear the gospel to be reminded that any application must be built out of what Christ has done and their full reliance on this message.

To do anything else is to neglect faith, and cause our people to not please God. To stand before people claiming to share the Word of God, and to instruct in a way that causes God displeasure is not the mark of a good shepherd.

Brothers, we must preach faith alone!

Sola Fide

2007-12-20T21:57:00.000-05:00

by Jason Bradshaw

“Faith is being exalted so high today that men are being satisfied with any kind of faith, just so it is faith. It makes no difference what is believed, we are told, just so the blessed attitude of faith is there. The undogmatic faith, is better than the dogmatic, because it is purer faith—faith less weakened by the alloy of knowledge.”
-J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism

It wasn’t more than a few months (June 20th article) ago that Danny posted the story of the woman priest who considered herself both Muslim and Christian. As blaring as these contradictions may seem to be, there are many who now pick and choose parcels from the religious smorgasbord for their spiritual diet—a slice of eastern mysticism with a few sides of Christianity. To be sure, spirituality is in.

On the other side of this coin is the attempt by the leaders of major world religions to synchretize their faith with other, formerly contradictory faiths. The rise of the Common Word document would seem to be a prime example; Islam and Christianity offering olive branches under the guise of a joint interest in responsibility to love God and love people. Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT) produced a document a few years back, stating the common ground held between Protestants and Catholics.

It would even seem that faith has even become an issue for the presidential ticket. If you go to Chrisitanity Today’s website right now, you will find a feature article on the faith of Hilary Clinton (insert joke here). GOP candidate Mitt Romney recently gave an address in regard’s to his Mormon faith (insert joke here). And, of course, all of this has not even acknowledged Mike Huckabee and President Bush’s not-so-hidden faith.

All of these examples would seem to center around faith. While many evangelicals have seen fit to celebrate these movements toward faith as victories, I remain hesitant. This, it would seem is the fatal error of evangelicalism; always expanding, never defining. Truly this has been the church’s history after the era of the Puritans- to include on the basis of commonly held beliefs but to ignore doctrinal distinctives.

Consequently, our world has taken to a faith that has no definition—a belief in the smoke and mirrors of religion. Like Todo pulling back the curtain of The Great Oz, these belief systems will one day be shown for what they truly are—a pathetic attempt to be something they were never meant to be. We Biblicists know that there is only one true faith, one true reality as defined by the Scriptures themselves—that is, that righteousness is only available through faith in Jesus Christ.

Dedinition of faith came when man needed it most. The Catholic Chruch had long placed an unattainable expectation upon men. Consider JI Packer’s assessment:

So, where Rome had taught a piecemeal salvation, to be gained by stages through working a sacramental treadmill, the Reformers now proclaimed a unitary salvation, to be received in its entirety here and now by self-abandoning faith in God's promise, and in the God and the Christ of that promise, as set forth in the pages of the Bible. Thus the rediscovery of the gospel brought a rediscovery of evangelism, the task of summoning non-believers to faith. Rome had said, God's grace is great, for through Christ's cross and his Church salvation is possible for all who will work and suffer for it; so come to church, and toil! But the Reformers said, God's grace is greater, for through Christ's cross and his Spirit salvation, full and free, with its unlimited guarantee of eternal joy, is given once and forever to all who believe; so come to Christ, and trust and take!

It was this conflict with the mediaeval message that occasioned the fivefold "only" in the slogans quoted above. Salvation, said the Reformers, is by faith (man's total trust) only, without our being obliged to work for it; it is by grace (God's free favor) only, without our having to earn or deserve it first; it is by Christ the God-man only, without there being need or room for any other mediatoral agent, whether priest, saint, or virgin; it is by Scripture only, without regard to such unbiblical and unfounded extras as the doctrines of purgatory and of pilgrimages, the relic-cult and papal indulgences as devices for shortening one's stay there; and praise for salvation is due to God only, without any credit for his acceptance of us being taken to ourselves.

It was in this conflict with The Roman Catholic Church that texts like Romans 4 became pertinent. Righteousness was no longer earned, as a wage, but was credited in line with one’s faith. Faith did not make one able to be righteous, as Rome had held, but rather, it gave one the righteousness of Christ. This emphasis on the dikaisune Theou (righteousness of God) became a point of separation. Previously, Luther had seen this as that which was condemning—a fearful thing. Now, in reinterpreting Romans, the righteousness of God was credited to us through faith. Writes Luther:

But the true gospel is, that the works of charity are not the ornament or perfection of faith: but that faith itself is God's gift, and God's work in our hearts, which therefore justifieth us, because it apprehendeth Christ our Redeemer. Man's reason hath the law for its object, thus thinking with itself: this have I done, this I have not done. But faith being in her own proper office, hath no other object but Jesus Christ the Son of God, delivered to death for the sins of the whole world. It looketh not to charity: it saith not, what have I done? What have I offended? What have I deserved? But what hath Christ done? What hath he deserved? Here the truth of the gospel answereth thee: He hath redeemed the from thy sin, from the devil, and from eternal death. Faith therefore acknowledgeth that in this one person, Jesus Christ, it hath forgiveness of sins, and eternal life. he that turneth his eyes from this object, hath no true faith, but a fantasy and a vain opinion, and turneth his eyes from the promise to the law, which terrifieth and driveth to desperation.

Wherefore those things which the popish schoolmen have taught concerning the justifying faith being furnished with charity, are nothing else but dreams. For that faith which apprehendeth Christ the Son of God, and is furnished with Him, is the same faith which justifieth, and not the faith which includeth charity. For a true and steadfast faith must lay hold of nothing, but Christ alone, and in the terrors of consience it hath nothing else to lean upon, but this diamond Jesus Christ. Wherefore he that apprehendeth Christ by faith, although he be never so much terrified with the law, and with the weight of his sins, yet may he be bold to glory that he is righteous. How or by what means? Even by that precious pearl, Christ Jesus , whom he possesseth by faith.

Now, faith had found definition once again in contrast to that which Rome had held. We possess Christ as we possess faith—and Christ is our righteousness. This is stated best in 2 Cor. 5:21 where Paul concludes his argument by saying that “He (God the Father) made Him (Christ) who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him (Christ).”

In response to the false faith which they had seen in Catholicism, Luther and Melancthon saw three aspects to saving faith; notitae, assensus and fiducia. Notitia refers to the content of the gospel—the 1 Corinthians 15:1-7 necessities of the gospel. Christ had died, been buried and was raised again, according to the Scriptures and did so for the sins of mankind. Assensus would seem to point to the idea of belief, not just the comprehension of notitae but a step further toward belief. And finally, fiducia refers to the commitment to the gospel, a trust in the person and work of Jesus Christ. To possess only two of these three was not saving faith.

Such distinction to the concept of faith was meant to contradict mere mental assent to ideas of faith and promote reliance in the work of Christ. This gospel was laden with ideas of repentance and trust, a far cry from our modern understanding of faith.

Hebrews 11 tells us that faith is being sure of what we hope for, “the conviction of things not seen” (Heb. 11:1). Of course, the postmoderns among us love this verse because, on the cover, it seems to speak of mystery. But note that the author does not call faith unknowable but rather simply “not seen”. There is certainly mystery in Christianity—I don’t understand how God is one but also three—but yet there is also, definite, real truth.

The Reformers had a very real understanding that the important thing about faith was it’s content. The box for my wife’s engagement ring was very nice, but nearly so nice as the ring which was inside it. Such is the state of faith—it is only valuable when it is centered in Christ. All of our other “faiths” fall short.

In fact, if we look closer at Hebrews 11:1 we find an interesting paradigm. Faith is the conviction of “things”—that is real, existent. Therefore, if our faith does not hold to this real, true faith, it ceases to be faith at all. (In one of life’s many ironies, this word for “thing” is a form of the word pragma, from which I can only assume we would derive our word pragmatism.)

If faith does not treasure Christ, it is not faith—this is what the reformation brought back to the church. This is what was carried on in the line of the Puritans, and this is what God has desired that we carry on in His church today.

_______________________________________
Jason's article provides the last installment of my guest reformation posts. His article really wasn't as far behind as it seems...I held onto this one for a while. However, the content of his post seemed to fit much of the discussion on this blog lately. Jason Bradshaw serves Greenville Grace as our Music Pastor and resident theologian.

A Common Word

2007-12-11T14:31:00.000-05:00

Today, I heard the testimony of a dear brother who has lived in an Islamic state. He did not mince words or try to claim that Christians and Moslems should be seeking unity. He does not applaud their monotheism...for they worship a false, non-trinitarian god.

However, there are some Moslems who think we should celebrate our similarities: A Common Word

What is their motivation? Could it be an underhanded move to catch Christians off guard? Possibly. Could it be that they simply don't understand the differences in our faiths? Apparently. Is it understood by the fact that "the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of God in the face of Christ? Certainly (see 2 Corinthians 4:4).

Whatever their motive, we should not be surprised. However, if evangelicals then wrote back to them, applauding their efforts...now that would be troubling.

What, you say? That has already happened!

So the real question must be asked, "What is their excuse?" (By the way, read the full article with list of signatures here to see if your favorite author/speaker/advocate or your child's dean/professor signed the document.)

There was an urgency to this brother since he had seen the persecution first hand. He did not try to pretend it is a religion of peace. He did not try to portray a "positive spin" to Islam. Bottom line: Islam, like all faith systems that deny the Biblical portrayal of Christ, is Satanic.

And why has the church lost her urgency to say so? Somethings wrong if a field trip would have to recovery it.

The Golden Compass

2007-12-05T10:27:00.000-05:00

Excellent article written by Al Mohler found here.

Blog Spot

2007-11-29T21:12:00.000-05:00

Since he is apparently helping people refinance now, I'm giving Jason a little more time to write his article on Sola Fide. (How's that for applying the screws?) So I thought I'd take the chance to point out some other things out there on the internet:

re:greek
A great study tool for work in koine. Has a great concordance. NASB. ESV. KJV. It will even help with parsing!

studylight.org
Another great study search tool. Also lays out greek text and will parse!

the_equipper
Keith Shearer has returned to the blogosphere. It should be required reading for all pastors. There is an excellent post up now regarding the Distinctions between Israel and the Church.

WOW!--Awesome Video available here.

Preaching Soli Deo Gloria

2007-11-22T23:25:00.001-05:00

Whether Calvinist or Arminian, Cessationist or Pentecostal, Paedobaptist or Credobaptist, Dispensational or Covenantal, you have felt the effects from the Reformation. Even the Roman Catholic church has been forced to respond, though they remain in signficant error.

No matter what protestant background you come from, one of the greatest areas of influence is in the preaching. This can be seen even by the arrangement of the furniture in the auditorium. The table for the "sacraments" has been moved, and the "pulpit" became the centerpiece. While the furniture is insignificant (our church does not have a literal pulpit) that attitude is. We gather around the Word of God, to hear the Word of God and apply the Word of God. We have the Reformation to thank (at least in part) for helping remind us that the Word of God is central to our corporate worship. However, much of contemporary preaching ignores the heart of the Reformation (the "five solas") as they deliver their homily.

As time permits me, I hope to tackle each of the solas, as they regard to preaching.

Soli Deo Gloria

If a preacher were simply a coach, a motivational speaker or a drill sergeant, the call would not be too intimidating. Work up some emotion, appeal to logic, and convince people they can get it done. Behavior modification becomes the name of the game.

But we've been called to preach to the glory of God. When we understand that calling, we take our own calling more serious. Consider Paul's commissioning:

Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body, which is the church, in filling up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions. Of this church I was made a minister according to the stewardship from God bestowed on me for your benefit, so that I might fully carry out the preaching of the word of God, that is, the mystery which has been hidden from the past ages and generations, but has now been manifested to His saints, to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. We proclaim Him, admonishing every man and teaching every man with all wisdom, so that we may present every man complete in Christ. For this purpose also I labor, striving according to His power, which mightily works within me.--Colossians 1:24-29

We can learn a lot from Paul's example...

1. Paul embraced suffering. (24)

We all gravitate toward comfort. It is easy for us to arrange our lives in a pattern of least resistance. Then, when we've found a comfortable position, we tell ourselves it is God's favor for our "sacrifices" of ministry. We can often embrace to old McDonalds' slogan, You deserve a break today!

But Paul did not share a similar attitude. He did not consider himself deserving a peaceful life. There was no guarantee of health and happiness. In fact, the guarantee was quite the opposite. In fact, he entered the ministry knowing the suffering that would come. Yet, Paul did not merely learn to accept the suffering, he learned to rejoice in it! He undestood that his suffering was for the glory of God and would result in the growth of His church.

If a pastor is to preach to the glory of God, he must learn to rejoice, not merely accept suffering. Our congregation learns lessons of God's sovereignty when we celebrate adversity, rather than whining about it, calling for revenge, or stating to our people, "Yeah, but you don't realize how hard we have it."

2. The ministry is not Paul's. (25)

The business card has your name. The yellow pages ad lists your name along with ministry times and dates. The sign out front may even have your name. Other pastors ask how things are going at "your church." If left to our sinful tendencies, we can actually start to believe the church is ours.

But we didn't buy it, so we certainly don't own it. Paul says we are stewards, not owners. A steward was simply a manager. The assets of the owner are entrusted to another. That is why elders will give an account. The sheep belong to the Chief Shepherd. Paul's managerial status did not place himself as the benefactor of the services of the church. Instead, he understood that the stewardship was for their benefit.

A pastor should enter the pulpit with a fear of the task. It is not his to use as a laboratory or his hobby. The pastor must preach to the congregation, not as a club or gathering, but as the people of Christ.

3. Paul embraced the Word of God. (25)

We live in a world of pundits. Our era allows specific experts in all kinds of criteria. Each of us can sucessfully find a unique niche that allows us to claim ourselves as an "expert" in some field. In a world where most want to ignore spiritual issues (or merely muse about them), a pastor can be tempted to present himself as an expert on spiritual issues.

But the preacher is not standing before people simply as a religious guy. He is not to use his degree or years experience as his resume. His stewardship is not found in his philosophy or deeper thoughts. The benefit for the Body is not from his sound advice or practical behavior modification. He call is directly tied to the Word of God. Paul understood it was his call to carry on the Word of God, through preaching.

What are we thinking if we come into His pulpit, before His people, in a ministry He established with our thoughts and advice? Instead, our people need to see the glory of the Living and Active Sword...applicable to their everyday life.

4. Paul loved his era. [dispensation, anyone?] (28)

Too much focus on modern media outlets can cause us to lament the day we live in. Yes, there is much to have us discouraged and disappointed. Like the Scriptures say, things will go from bad to worse. Yet, is there any other time we'd want to live?

Imagine being a prophet who longed to look into the things of Christ, yet was left with incomplete answers (1 Peter 1:10-12). Imagine not getting to experience the joy and privilege of the Holy Spirit's indwelling (John 16:7). Imagine not having the completed Canon, let alone that it is available in our language and in stores nation-wide. Imagine not having the technology that allows us to disseminate the gospel world-wide. Paul understood there was a great cloud of witnesses, who understand the gospel to be glorious, especially now that it has been revealed.

It is also important to note the mystery is revealed. In an era which now proclaims certainty overrated, the church has the opportunity to step forward, declaring the revelation of the great mystery. We stand in awe of God's redemptive plan, but we do not stand in uncertainty. In fact, the glory of the message, for Paul, was that this mystery has been made known.

We should never preach the gospel or our commissioning as stale information. It is amazing that God has reconciled us, and has called us to be minister's of reconcilation. We should remind our people that this is the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints. That the ministry of the Old Testament saints was left incomplete, apart from us (Hebrews 11:39-40). We are part of God's timestretching redemptive history...and that should also stretch our minds.

5. Paul loved to proclaim Christ.

Paul's call was for people to see the glory of Christ. To quote from Keith's excellent article, Even the application of the ultimate "sola" - soli Deo gloria - is accomplished through Jesus Christ alone. Put quite simply, if we do not preach Christ, we are not preaching to God's glory. (Shortest point, not because it is least important...hardly. Short point because my other brothers have well evidenced this throughout the series.)

6. Paul understood progressive sanctification.

If we leave the carrot of a better marriage, well behaved kids, or more joy in our job before our people...they will be disappointed. If we call people to simply change their behavior, they will fail. If we call people to follow our advice, they will see us, not God's glory.

But when we present Christ, and we call people to submit to Christ, they see the glory of Christ working in them. Paul understood that his ministry was to proclaim Christ, through instruction and exhortation, so that men would be found complete in Christ. This is not the facade of "life change," this is the glory of regeneration. Through Christ, we receive a new heart, which then causes us to begin living more like the Savior we worship. But Paul understood this is not merely Christ motivated self-will, it was actually Christ working and moving within us. Paul knew this, for he understood Christ was the One working mightily in him.

A preacher must not preach for people to dig deep and look within themselves. He must call people to submit to the glorious Christ, allowing Him to do the work in us.

All this did not cause Paul to shrink back. He understood the stakes and he understood his responsibility. He also understood that left alone, he'd be inadequate for the task. But God has ordained for His glory to be known through preaching, therefore, even the foolishness of preaching (when done Biblically) reveals God's glorious ability to take that which is foolish and make it wise.

We should both preach of the glory of God and preach to the glory of God.

Awake, my Soul, and with the Sun

2007-11-22T16:55:00.000-05:00

Awake, my soul, and with the sun
Thy daily stage of duty run;
Shake off dull sloth, and joyful rise,
To pay thy morning sacrifice.

Thy precious time misspent, redeem,
Each present day thy last esteem,
Improve thy talent with due care;
For the great day thyself prepare.

By influence of the Light divine
Let thy own light to others shine.
Reflect all Heaven’s propitious ways
In ardent love, and cheerful praise.

In conversation be sincere;
Keep conscience as the noontide clear;
Think how all seeing God thy ways
And all thy secret thoughts surveys.

Wake, and lift up thyself, my heart,
And with the angels bear thy part,
Who all night long unwearied sing
High praise to the eternal King.

All praise to Thee, who safe has kept
And hast refreshed me while I slept
Grant, Lord, when I from death shall wake
I may of endless light partake.

Heav’n is, dear Lord, where’er Thou art,
O never then from me depart;
For to my soul ’tis hell to be
But for one moment void of Thee.

Lord, I my vows to Thee renew;
Disperse my sins as morning dew.
Guard my first springs of thought and will,
And with Thyself my spirit fill.

Direct, control, suggest, this day,
All I design, or do, or say,
That all my powers, with all their might,
In Thy sole glory may unite.

I would not wake nor rise again
And Heaven itself I would disdain,
Wert Thou not there to be enjoyed,
And I in hymns to be employed.

Praise God, from Whom all blessings flow;
Praise Him, all creatures here below;
Praise Him above, ye heavenly host;
Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Soli Deo Gloria

2007-11-21T16:30:00.000-05:00

by Brad Peppo

To the Glory of God Alone

Usually listed last, but arguably the most foundational of the five solas, the Latin phrase Soli Deo Gloria stands for the idea that all glory ought to go to God and to God alone. In this post I aim to provide an examination of the meaning and the biblical basis of this doctrine.

Gloria

I begin by considering the end of the Latin phrase—the word translated glory. Clearly, an adequate understanding of this fifth sola will be difficult without a firm grasp of the concept underlying this final term. Like so many other words, however, that permeate our Christian vocabulary, the word glory is often thrown about without much thought as to its meaning. Therefore, it should be worth while to start with some definitions.

The Hebrew and Greek words translated glory are used in the Scriptures in a number of different but closely related senses. The first sense is illustrated in Exodus 33 where Moses asks to be shown God’s glory. To this God answers, “I will make all my goodness pass before you…and you shall see My back, but My face shall not be seen.” In this passage, God uses glory as a synonym for His goodness—but here, His goodness translated into visible form. We see the word used in this same sense in Exodus 24:16-17, which describes the devouring fire that descended upon Sinai; in 2 Chronicles 5:14, which presents the overwhelming cloud that filled the temple; and in Luke 9:32, which refers to the dazzling brilliance that shone forth in the transfiguration of Christ. In its first sense, then, glory refers to the goodness and greatness of God visibly manifested.

In another sense, the Scriptures use the word glory to refer to the goodness of God as it is revealed, not visibly, but rather logically; not by His immediate presence, but rather in His wonderful works. It is what appears in the overthrowing of His enemies (Ex. 14); it is what is revealed in the miracles performed by Christ (Jn 2:11); it is what is evidenced in God’s saving, delivering and atoning work on behalf of His people (Ps. 79:9). In this sense, glory is synonymous with God’s greatness, His power, His majesty and His excellence (1 Chr. 29:11; 2 Peter 1:3). It is closely associated with God’s name (Ps 102:15) and with His fame (1 Chr. 22:5). Glory in this second sense, then, denotes the sum total of God’s awesome attributes as they are made known in His mighty deeds.

In its third sense, glory refers to the response that God’s self-revelations call forth from His creatures. It is in this sense that the Scriptures repeatedly command men and angels to “give” God glory, (Ps. 22:23; 29:1-2) to declare it (Ps. 96) and to sing it (Ps 66:2) It is in this sense that glory is “due” to His name (Ps 19:2; 96:8). To give God glory in this way is to acknowledge His worth and to give Him the credit He is due. This, men do by talking of His wondrous works, by singing His praises, and by giving Him thanks (1 Chr. 16).

Thus, when the scriptures refer to the glory of God, they are speaking sometimes of the visible manifestation of God’s presence, sometimes of the revelation of His attributes through His mighty works, and sometimes of the praise and thanks that men owe Him in response thereto. As it is used in the doctrine of Soli Deo Gloria, the word is to be understood primarily in connection with the latter two of these senses.

Deo

What, then, is meant by Deo, the second word of our Latin phrase? What do we mean when we say that glory is “to God?” This second word stands for the notion that glory belongs to God (Rv 19:1), that it is due His name (Ps 19:2), and that He is worthy to receive it (Rv 4:11). In other words, it is good and proper that God make His greatness known, and it is right that men should worship Him in response.

We can first see the propriety of giving God glory by first looking at how fervently God seeks it for Himself. It would appear that glory is the primary end He seeks in all of his works. He created the heavens to bring Himself glory (Ps. 19:1). He hardened and overthrew the Egyptians to bring Himself glory (Ex. 14:4-17). He created His people Israel to bring Himself glory (Is 43:7) He alternately punished and blessed Israel throughout their history to bring Himself glory (Nu 14:20-22; Is 26:15). Even in glorifying Christ, the Father’s object was to glorify Himself (Jn 17:1). Finally, we see that glory is the end God seeks throughout the entire process of our salvation in Christ (Eph. 1:3-14). How do we know that glory properly belongs to God? He seeks it for Himself.

Secondly, we have the direct commands of the Scriptures that we are to give God glory (Ps 22:23; 29:1-2). His people are instructed to declare His glory among the nations (1 Chr. 16:8-36; Ps 96). The nations themselves are commanded to give Him glory (Is. 24:15-16; 42:12). We are told to do good works so that He might receive glory (Mt 5:16). We are called to glorify Him in our bodies (1 Cor. 6:20), in what we eat and drink, and in whatever it is we do (1 Cor. 10:31). Finally, we have the example of Christ who obeyed this command and considered glorifying God to be the primary purpose of His earthly ministry. “I glorified You on earth, having accomplished the work that You gave Me to do” (Jn 17:4). Why ought we to glorify God? He commands us to do so.

Soli

Finally then, we come to the first word of the phrase: soli. For we say not only that glory ought to go to God, but that it ought to go to Him “alone;” that is, to Him and to no other. For this notion, we have the clearest statements of Scripture, as God Himself declares, “I am the LORD; that is My name; My glory I give to no other” (Is 42:8). And “For My own sake, for My own sake I do it, for how should My name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another” (Is 48:11). We see God’s jealousy for His glory graphically represented in the example of Herod who, when he accepted the praise of men and did not rather give glory to God, was struck down by God and eaten by worms (Acts 12:23). When it comes to receiving glory from men, God alone is worthy, and He will accept no rival.

We further see this principle operating in the way God has saved us. It was said before that God saved us in Christ to bring Himself glory. We see also in Ephesians that He saved us in such a way as to prevent glory from going to any other.

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. (Eph 2:8-9).

God does not just want some of the glory in our salvation, He wants all the glory. He accomplishes this goal by saving those who have no hope of saving themselves and no cause for bringing any attention to their own works.

Certainly though, nowhere is the principle of Soli Deo Gloria expressed more clearly than in the incarnation of Christ. Christ, who was Himself the radiance of God’s glory (Heb 1:3) who was equal to God, and had every right to seek His own glory, nevertheless set aside that glory and took upon Himself the form of a servant (Philip 2:4-8). In His earthly ministry, He refused to seek His own glory and instead, sought only to bring glory to His Father (Jn 8:50). If not even Christ, the glorious Son of the glorious God, sought His own glory, how could we, as mere men, possibly ever justify doing so ourselves? Glory is due to God and to God alone.

In sum, then, the phrase Soli Deo Gloria stands for the biblical doctrine that God alone is good, that He seeks to make His goodness known, and that men are duty bound to praise Him for His goodness, taking no credit for themselves. It was this understanding, no doubt, that led the psalmist to proclaim:

Not to us, O LORD, not to us, but to your name give glory, for the sake of your steadfast love and your faithfulness!” (Ps 115:1)

May our prayer be the same.

_________________________________________________________________________________________
With law studies, a teaching career, church participation and a young family, Brad Peppo is a very busy man. It is a joy to see a brother I have known since adolescence walk with the Lord, and that walk has caused us to have greater fellowship in recent years.

Preaching Sola Scriptura

2007-11-15T08:17:00.000-05:00

Whether Calvinist or Arminian, Cessationist or Pentecostal, Paedobaptist or Credobaptist, Dispensational or Covenantal, you have felt the effects from the Reformation. Even the Roman Catholic church has been forced to respond, though they remain in signficant error.

No matter what protestant background you come from, one of the greatest areas of influence is in the preaching. This can be seen even by the arrangement of the furniture in the auditorium. The table for the "sacraments" has been moved, and the "pulpit" became the centerpiece. While the furniture is insignificant (our church does not have a literal pulpit) that attitude is. We gather around the Word of God, to hear the Word of God and apply the Word of God. We have the Reformation to thank (at least in part) for helping remind us that the Word of God is central to our corporate worship. However, much of contemporary preaching ignores the heart of the Reformation (the "five solas") as they deliver their homily.

As time permits me, I hope to tackle each of the solas, as they regard to preaching.

Sola Scriptura

The Bible, the whole Bible and nothing but the Bible. The first time I remember seeing this phrase was leaving the auditorium (which has since become the gym) of my grandmother's church. At the time, I remember a rush of courage flowing through me. It seemed like such a bold, right, strong statement to make. Yet, I must admit that later on I started to find the statement embarrassing. Assuming it was borrowed from our judiciary process (Swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth...an odd connection it seemed for a non-swearing tradition), it just seemed like another example of Christians borrowing something from the world, slightly adapting it, and calling it creativity. I have since come full circle in my view, cherishing the motto.

Like all things theological, a banner, sign or poster will not fix the problem...especially if we are not preaching Sola Scriptura.

Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep;...1 Corinthians 15:1-6

About four months ago, I was sitting with a group of pastors and preaching came up. Since this has become a great love of mine, I enthusiastically began to plead with my brothers to preach Christ exalted. In shock, one brother stated, Well, I think you can preach Christ, but it doesn't have to come from a particular passage. To my shame, I offered no rebuttal, for by the time I recovered from such a statement, the conversation had moved on.

It's interesting to see Paul's appeal to the church in Corinth. Near the end of his letter, he reminds them of that which is most important. His message is gospel-centric (the gospel which I preached to you--v1). His message is Christocentric (notice, he does not say the death of Christ, placing the authority on the event or action, but instead says Christ died, keeping our attention on Him). Yet, we cannot ignore, his message is also Bibliocentric.

According to the Scriptures--Paul is not asking the Corinthians to believe the gospel due to Paul's persuasive abilities. He is not calling on them to even research the facts or recollect the events as they witnessed them. He drives them back to the Word of God to develop their confidence. How do we know Christ's death was for our sin? We are told so. How do we know He would be raised three days later? Again, we are told (and Jesus grounds His claim in Old Testament authority).

In fact, it is worth noting Paul's pattern.

1. He states the fact.

2. He draws the authority from Scripture.

Then

In our culture, we could expect one to make the claim, but then be driven straight to the evidence to prove the point. We would run to achaeology. We would appeal to logic. We would quote contemporary authors. All of these things we would do to try to convince a person of their need for Christ. But a person does not need to be convinced of the facts, they must be called to submission to them. And quite frankly, you and I do not have the authority to call any person to submission. It must generate from the Word of God alone.

Christ is the Word of God and every preacher is solemnly charged to present Him as such. We can claim to preach the Word. We can enter the pulpit with Bible in hand. We can even read from it during the message. Yet, our message may not be stemming from the authority the Word of God alone can provide. The following are some principles to preaching with sola scriptura in view:

Expositional preaching--It is impossible to establish the Scriptures as the authority when we place it in submission to our own thoughts. It is not enough to dance from text to text, proving our opinions. Our messages must be born out of the text itself. This means the bulk of our preaching should be lectio continua. And in the moment we determine a topical message is necessary (which, contrary to what some believe, I do allow for, though do not regularly recommend), we should only speak from what a particular Scripture says about the topic. (This does not mean we avoid cross references, or avoid an approach based on the "whole counsel of God," but it does mean that their should be a primary text that is determining our points, subpoints and even application.) To do anything else is to claim that Scripture is the authority...and that you should see it as such because I said so.

Christ centered preaching--Just as it is improper to present Christ without Scripture, it is equally improper to present Scripture without Christ. To say Christ is not central to a text is to ignore a critical text (John 5:39 among others). It is also to ignore the authority of Christ, who gave us our hermeneutic. If we claim to preach the Word, but deny preaching the Word who became flesh, we deny the true meaning (and thus the authority) of the text.

Incorporate Biblical Language--In our era, contextualization has become the buzz word. Certainly, we all contextualize to some extent, for we not only preach in the language, but often in the dialect of our audience as well. However, our call is not to conform the Scriptures to the audience, but for the hearer to be transformed by renewing our mind. Part of this process means our people must develop a biblical vocabulary. This does not mean etherial language which our people cannot comprehend. But it does mean using biblical language, and defining it for our people. Part of thinking biblicallly is seeing the beauty of the language the Bible employs.

Search the Original Language--Often used as the "great intimidator" by pastors, the languages should be used to make the Bible more accessible to men, not less. In our preaching and teaching class, we were reminded this week that John Calvin preached in French from the original Hebrew (Old Testament) or Greek (New Testament) text. Yet, rarely did Calvin ever utter "the greek here says..." or even pronounce the word in greek. We should not use it it intimidate our people (making it seem we are the only ones able to "decipher" the Bible), but should share it in a practical way. But to show the Scriptures as authoritative, we should handle them with the respect demanded by searching out the original language.

Encourage Bereans--Similarly, our preaching should never isolate us from questions. Our people should be encourage to come to us and question our meaning or interpretation. (Just not during the message, thus creating confusion.) We must preach in such a way that reminds people that the Word (not the preacher) is the authority, and that if we are not accurate to the Word, we (like our congregants) need to repent and celebrate the grace of God. Yet, we often preach in such a way, or parade around our credentials, scaring the body from ever investigating what we say. Yet, those who are more noble-minded search out the Scriptures. We encourage our people to see the authority of the Word of God when we call them to hold us accountable to it.

Equip Bereans--Therefore, it should be our intention that our body becomes more and more skilled in their understanding of the Word. We should seek to not only provide the ministry of the Word, but teach them how to engage the Word. As languages are important in preaching, we should also teach their importance in personal study. This does not have to be intimidating, for we can introduce them to things like a Strong's Concordance or websites like biblestudytools.net or studylight.org (each allows you to explore the original languages). We should seek to be the training ground for workers unto the harvest field, which we should be praying for. We remind them that we are not the authority due to our degree, title or "special annointing." We simply serve as ministers of the Word, the Word which is equally available to them.

When we see the glory that God would be willing to condescend to present Himself to us in written and living form, we then realize the question is not "Can I preach Christ without using a text?" but the question becomes:

Why would I want to? Then we realize it is not enough to say The Bible, the whole Bible and nothing but the Bible. We also realize it is critical that we preach the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible.

Jesus Loves Me

2007-11-15T08:14:00.001-05:00

Jesus loves me this I know
For the Bible tells me so
Little ones to Him belong
They are weak but He is strong

Yes, Jesus loves me
Yes, Jesus loves me
Yes, Jesus loves me
The Bible tells me so

Jesus loves me
He who died
Heaven's gate to open wide
He will wash away my sin
Let His little child come in

Yes, Jesus loves me
Yes, Jesus loves me
Yes, Jesus loves me
The Bible tells me so

Jesus loves me
He will stay
Close beside me all the way
He's prepared a home for me
And some day His face I'll see

Yes, Jesus loves me
Yes, Jesus loves me
Yes, Jesus loves me
The Bible tells me so

Sola Scriptura

2007-11-15T08:09:00.000-05:00

by David Mohler

By Scripture Alone

“Where there is no vision, the people are unrestrained, but happy is he who keeps the law.” (Proverbs 29:18 NASB)

The verse above seems apropos this Reformation Day because of four words: “vision”, “unrestrained”, “happy” and “law”.

VISION

My, how the centuries have produced an unending supply of self-professing visionaries. I don't mean inventors who apply God's laws of physics to developing insightful and futuristic apparatus, but rather the so-called visionaries who spoon-feed their contrived dung to the church. We have pithy books which turn scripture (e.g., 1 Chronicles 4:9-10) into a selfish mantra (did not Satan do the same thing when he tempted Jesus in the wilderness?); or books about a mythical neo-Orthodoxy that is supposed to help the Church be more relevant tot he world; or Joel Osteen's self-centered "A Better You". Christians have learned how to replace Scripture alone with things like referent worship (using pagan images to refer to Christ, in violation of the principle illustrated through Israel in Deut. 12:30-32); or use statistics to "plant churches" and Jung typology testing to choose "church planters". In the Church, Scripture alone is being abandoned so that we can learn the deep things of Satan (Rev. 2:18-29), and the mere suggestion that we are failing in this regard seems to raise Pharisees from the dead.

When the revelation (the literal meaning of the Hebrew word translated "vision") is set aside for any reason, the people are in grave danger. It is vogue today for pastors to arrogantly congratulate themselves, from the pulpit, for preaching the gospel (so they say) without referring to the Bible. Even many evangelistic methodologies based on "relationship" suggest that the Bible should not be the first thing a Christian brings up. You were an anomaly, Mr. Eunuch (Acts 8:27-40.)

Not only is the revealed Word of God the first thing we should bring up, it is the only thing we need to bring up. Without it, people perish.

UNRESTRAINED

The Hebrew for this word literally means “let go”. Without vision, people are left to themselves, unmoored, and utterly blind. It is no coincidence that this is the characteristic of the church in Laodicea, the final one where Christ is seen shut outside the door knocking for entrance. Christ said to that church, "you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked." Why were they so blinded, and why were they repugnant to Christ (v. 16)? Because their testimony had become ineffective, irrelevant, and of no value - even though they claimed otherwise.

Notice very carefully: they claimed to be effective (v. 17: "Because you say"), basing that claim on the "vital statistics" of their budget and material abundance. They claimed to be rich and in need of nothing - espousing their own self-worth, claiming a relevance that Christ indicates was so utterly irrelevant that He would spit them out of His mouth. It takes a great deal of effort not to see that same, vapid characteristic in today's Church. The riches of today are the programs, resources, methods, budgets, and plans of man all designed to make himself feel like he is doing something effective and relevant.

But those plans are so utterly irrelevant that they go out of style in a matter of months. As a result, the sheep in the church are driven in circles from one lukewarm purpose to the next, unrestrained by the security and accompanying peace of the Gospel itself.

HAPPY

I am not a linguist, so I cannot speak to a reason why translators have replaced the word “blessed” with “happy”, when the literal rendering in lexicons seems to prefer “blessed”. I am reminded of the simple, authoritative, and theological instruction given to the Church regarding feetwashing. Scripture alone defines what we do in terms of picturesque practice. In the case of illustrating the work of sanctification by grace, Jesus instituted the washing of feet, and he told Peter that he would not understand this until sometime later. But the promise of knowing was absolute, as indicated by Jesus in John 13:17: "If you know these things, you are blessed if you do them.”

And what is it, ultimately, that we know which results in blessing? It is, in fact, the Law of the Lord, which delights the soul.

We are unhappy today unless we see quantifiable results now. We measure our results against George Barna's statistics; we ascend the hill to meet with church planting gurus who themselves are failures in matters of ecclesiology, forgetting that unless the Lord builds the house, they labor in vain who build it. We are cursed by these clouds without rain (Jude 12) wandering across the ecclesiological sky claiming to bring a new moisture to the soil. Where's the rain? Indeed, where even is the seed in the soil, which is the Word of God?

We have wandered into the desert chasing after a vision that is a mirage, and missing the blessing of the supernatural work of Jesus Christ building His true Church. In this desert, the people are bathing in sand, drinking whatever drop of arid vapor they can with a thirst that is never quenched. Give us the Word! Give us only Word that He might sanctify and cleanse us! (Ephesians 5:26)

LAW

Of course, the Hebrew word for law is torah. The Torah is a measuring rod; a rule; an instructive plumb line which defines the benchmark for holiness and blamelessness. That standard, contrary to much shallow, evangelical thought, has not been canceled or stowed away because of the New Covenant. Blessedness in life, indeed utter happiness, hinges on the preservation of the Law in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It behooves us to know the un-changing character and standard of Almighty God if we want to be relevant and effective in our churches and culture today.

The law of the LORD is perfect, restoring the soul; The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. The precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; The commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring forever; The judgments of the LORD are true; they are righteous altogether. They are more desirable than gold, yes, than much fine gold; Sweeter also than honey and the drippings of the honeycomb. Moreover, by them Thy servant is warned; In keeping them there is great reward." (Psalm 19:7-11)

SOLA SCRIPTURA TODAY

The ebb and flow of erosive tides against Sola Scriptura have raged for centuries, washing ashore an ideology that desperately wants extra-biblical sources to have a place, a usefulness and, ultimately, an authority in the presentment of the Gospel. This idolatry persists in varying forms, whether prayer beads, rituals, minute books, Jabez coins... In the lifetime of my father and myself - just two generations - the fomentation of ancient and ethereal rubbish of mystical meditation (e.g., Yoga) are now actually taught in the Church. Unwary minds embrace movies insomuch that the claim is made, by pastors, that movies can preach. The sacred desk is being eaten away by termites.

And such is the depressing result of unrestraint in the life of the Church when the vision has vaporized.

Dr. Herb Samworth, the curator of the Scriptorium Center for Biblical Antiquities, has written:

In one sense it is impossible for the Gospel to be lost. The Gospel is God’s good news and He has promised that none of His words will be lost. The message of redemption is His message and He has promised that He will carry it out to a successful conclusion.

However, there is a sense in which the Gospel can be lost. History does not always advance directly, it can be cyclical in nature. For example, a study of the Book of Judges reveals a cycle of sin, chastening, the raising up of a judge, deliverance from the oppressor, and then a return to sin. This could be depressing reading but we can glean important lessons for our own day.

It was apparent that the Gospel was nearly lost during the times of the Middle Ages. There are a number of reasons for this: ignorance of the clergy, papal corruption, the Church becoming the mediator between God and man, and the teaching of non-biblical doctrines.

When it comes to men who would have us peer into the garbage can for soul-food, we do not need George Santayana to remind us that "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Jesus told us that very clearly 2,000 years ago: "See, I have told you ahead of time." What did He tell us? He told us that "false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect." We are virtually there, folks. Christians are being guided by their shepherds to abandon Sola Scriptura for a more pragmatic approach to life. That's what happens when people want their "best life now", and preachers acquiesce to scratching that itch instead of preaching the Word (2 Timothy 4:1-4.)

This is why every Christian needs to embrace for dear life the truth of Sola Scriptura. In the fellowship I was raised in, the motto used to be, "The Bible, the Whole Bible and Nothing but the Bible." That motto was embraced and proclaimed de facto three generations ago. But over time until today, it is not only not the advertised motto, it is avoided by a third and fourth generation of men who seem cowardly and embarrassed to defend it. Jesus cried to the Father, "Sanctify them in the truth; Thy word is truth." (John 17:17) It is the Word, the Whole Word, and Nothing but the Word!

As Dr. Samworth pointed out, the middle ages were a period of time where the Church did not have the Word at their disposal and were left in the dark. But, today, we are confronted with a progressive replacement of the Gospel with everything but the Gospel. Salvation without repentance is virtually assumed for every person, an assumption that is reinforced by men like Joel Osteen; the return of Christ has been fictionalized into a book series that adds to the Revelation, in violation of Revelation 22:18-19 itself - and pastors don't even blink an eye as their people base their theology on such fiction; Prayer has been reduced into a formula like a magic Jabez-wand, while Christians still cannot actually answer the question, "What is the gospel of Jesus Christ?"

The Gospel of Jesus Christ begins and ends with Scripture Alone.
_____________________________________________________________________________
David Mohler is a shepherd at Brethren Reformed Church while also running ClearLogic, a company God provided to allow him the freedom to pursue ministry.

Preaching Sola Gratia

2007-11-09T00:28:00.000-05:00

Whether Calvinist or Arminian, Cessationist or Pentecostal, Paedobaptist or Credobaptist, Dispensational or Covenantal, you have felt the effects from the Reformation. Even the Roman Catholic church has been forced to respond, though they remain in signficant error.

No matter what protestant background you come from, one of the greatest areas of influence is in the preaching. This can be seen even by the arrangement of the furniture in the auditorium. The table for the "sacraments" has been moved, and the "pulpit" became the centerpiece. While the furniture is insignificant (our church does not have a literal pulpit) that attitude is. We gather around the Word of God, to hear the Word of God and apply the Word of God. We have the Reformation to thank (at least in part) for helping remind us that the Word of God is central to our corporate worship. However, much of contemporary preaching ignores the heart of the Reformation (the "five solas") as they deliver their homily.

As time permits me, I hope to tackle each of the solas, as they regard to preaching.

Sola Gratia

Most churches would assert they proclaim "grace." Just a casual search of the yellowpages yeilded 5282 entries when "Grace" and "Church" were searched together. (When searching, "Grace Brethren Church" 199 entries came up.) Another quick search will tell you the churches are all over the map, denominationally. So how do we preserve the message of grace in our preaching?

Certainly, as Chris Cobb laid out, there are groups whose doctrine completely misrepresent grace. (The Mormon "Church," for example, has been pestering evangelicals to see them as a group who proclaim "salvation by grace alone" for several years now, despite their doctrine to the contrary.) Certainly, our church must be aligned not just with those who preach grace (of some form) but of grace alone.

But does this mean every church from a "reformation tradition" is preaching grace alone?

Hardly. In fact, though a Statement of Faith, Articles of Confession or Core Beliefs may boldly proclaim "grace alone," our pulpits can cry out something far from it. Even the preacher who affirms "grace alone" may find himself stating something seemingly different. The culprit can often come from two avenues; Psychology and Motivation.

For who regards you as superior? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?--1 Corinthians 4:7

Psychology--If Paul were to ask that question in a church today, the congregants would have a plethora of answers...TV pop psychologists, secular books, my parents, my teachers, and even "Christian" literature. From Barney to Veggie Tales to Osteen, the name of the game seems to be building up a person's "self esteem." But is there room for man to be exalted and God at the same time? Consider John's observation: He must increase, but I must decrease.

John is not making two separate casual observations. He understood that for Christ to truly be exalted, he would need to diminish. In our attempt to boost other's self worth, we leave them feeling as if they have earned part of their salvation. After all, if I'm not that bad, He didn't have to do that much, right?

I cannot see His grace as great when I think I am.

Motivation--when we fail to see our sin nature, we then overestimate what we are capable of. We read a passage about sanctified living, and assume we can obtain it. Therefore, we preach to our congregation about what they should do, and shouldn't do...all the while, leaving them the impression they are capable of change on their own.

But what have we earned? Everything we have we have received. No merit. No earning it. No justification on our own. We were helpless, dead and blind. We only see Christ as precious because God revealed Him as such to us. We only desire to conform to His image, because He places that desire into us. We can only strive if He is working within. Consider: For this purpose also I labor, striving according to His power, which mightily works within me.

So often we emphasize grace on "the front side of salvation," yet we often neglect it when speaking to the believer. We lay out application and then simply tell our people: "Now get to it." We present practical elements as if sheer will power or self generated holiness is enough to produce God-honoring results. However, we can't stand before God with any boast, but in Him alone. Proper preaching means we remind our people that nothing they have (whether before or after regeneration) which is good has been earned by their own merit. We truly have been given more than we deserve.

Our sign may say "Grace." Our Scriptures are saturated with verses about grace. Our sermons may even extol congregants to be gracious. But when we must first stroke the ego before calling upon the troops to muster up enough energy to obey...we deny the very grace we claim.

We've got to preach Sola Gratia!

Grace Greater than Our Sin

2007-11-08T07:58:00.000-05:00

Marvelous grace of our loving Lord,
Grace that exceeds our sin and our guilt!
Yonder on Calvary’s mount outpoured,
There where the blood of the Lamb was spilled.

Grace, grace, God’s grace,
Grace that will pardon and cleanse within;
Grace, grace, God’s grace,
Grace that is greater than all our sin.

Sin and despair, like the sea waves cold,
Threaten the soul with infinite loss;
Grace that is greater, yes, grace untold,
Points to the refuge, the mighty cross.

Grace, grace, God’s grace,
Grace that will pardon and cleanse within;
Grace, grace, God’s grace,
Grace that is greater than all our sin.

Dark is the stain that we cannot hide.
What can avail to wash it away?
Look! There is flowing a crimson tide,
Brighter than snow you may be today.

Grace, grace, God’s grace,
Grace that will pardon and cleanse within;
Grace, grace, God’s grace,
Grace that is greater than all our sin.

Marvelous, infinite, matchless grace,
Freely bestowed on all who believe!
You that are longing to see His face,
Will you this moment His grace receive?

Sola Gratia

2007-11-06T21:10:00.000-05:00

by Chris Cobb

You have won a free gift!

"Yeah, right," I thought to myself as I continued to read the letter. My cynical skepticism was justified when I discovered that in order to enjoy my free gift, I would have to pay inflated shipping and handling fees. No thanks. Free means free - otherwise it is not free at all.

Whether or not we have to attach a "shipping and handling" payment to the free gift of salvation through the work of Christ has been a point of contention in the church since at least the fifth century, when a fellow named Pelagius was teaching that man has the ability to keep God's Law if he so desires. According to Pelagius, God's grace was not actually necessary if one wanted to go to heaven; man was capable of being sufficiently moral to enter God's holy presence on his own merits. Pelagius denied that the guilt of Adam's sin and its ensuing moral corruption was imputed to all mankind. Augustine, the Bishop of Hippo, decisively refuted Pelagius and his teachings at the Synod of Carthage (418). Augustine made the biblical point that mankind was incapable of rising out of sin, that the death of Christ was necessary to vanquish sin, and that God's grace alone is the beginning, middle, and end of salvation. Grace alone - Sola gratia - was required if man was to be saved.

Within a hundred years, the corruption of grace had returned to the church in a form known as "Semi-Pelagianism." According to this teaching, God's free grace is absolutely required for salvation. But so are man's own efforts. God's grace does the heavy lifting through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ (the free gift). But I must cooperate with what God is doing (shipping and handling charges) in attaining salvation by responding by my own free will to the gospel, and by doing good works to complete my salvation. Semi-Pelagianism was condemned in the Council of Orange in 529. But it eventually returned to trouble the church again.

One of the main points of contention in the Protestant Reformation had to do with whether or not we are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, or whether we must add something to the work of Christ. The Roman Catholic church had been teaching (and still does) that the works done after initial justification by cooperating with God's grace actually merit final justification. This is seen especially in the sacrament of penance, which involves in some degree a satisfaction and atonement for sins committed after being initially justified. This is salvation with an asterisk, or a footnote, or fine-print. This is a "free gift" that comes with shipping and handling charges.

Sola gratia is the biblical doctrine that teaches that we are saved by God's grace alone, apart from any effort, any initiation, or any congruous work of our own. The scriptural support for the argument is actually quite simple. The Bible teaches that unredeemed man is dead in trespasses and sins (Eph 2:1), we are "children of wrath" (Eph 2:3), we do not understand or seek God (Ro 3:10), we do not do good (Ro 3:11), even our righteous deeds are filthy in God's sight (Is 64:6), we are hostile against God and unable to subject ourselves to the law of God (Ro 8:7), and that we cannot please God (Ro 8:8). Now that's a pretty comprehensive list, and is actually just a tiny portion of the overwhelming Biblical data regarding man's inability to come to God. Jesus plainly declares that no one can come to Him for salvation apart from the Father drawing him (Jn 6:44). The bottom line of this is that while man is truly responsible for obeying God, he is completely and totally unable to do so because of his sinful nature. Condemnation is assured and cannot be avoided. Being by nature hostile against God and dead in trespasses and sins, man can not even cooperate in saving himself. He is at war with God; the last thing he wants to do is draw near to an infinitely holy and righteous God.

Into this tragic impossibility, God comes, bringing salvation (Matt 19:26). Paul puts it this way in Ephesians 2:4-7 (NASB):

But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places, in Christ Jesus, in order that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. (emphasis added)

It is made clear in Romans 8:29-30 that God sovereignly causes salvation by His foreknowledge. God's foreknowledge is not the same as human foreknowledge. If I talk about my own foreknowledge of something, it is nothing more than "prior awareness". God's foreknowledge is different. It is actually the driving force that causes the object of His foreknowledge to be actualized in reality. This can be seen by simply examining Matt 7:23. That text is not saying God had no knowledge of those condemned; it is saying that He never foreknew them in the sense of electing them to salvation. In 1 Peter 1:3, Peter tells us that God, by His mercy begot us, or caused us to be born again. It was an act of God, not of man. The same truth appears in Jn 1:13.

To summarize then, Sola gratia is the biblical teaching that we are saved on the basis of God's grace alone. At every step of the way salvation is of the Lord (Jonah 2:9). Not only did we need God to favor us by providing an atoning sacrifice, we needed God to favor us by bringing to life our spiritually dead hearts, opening our spiritually blind eyes, and causing us to trust in His dear Son.

We are saved by grace alone!
_____________________________________________________________
Chris Cobb is the Senior Pastor of Bible Fellowship Church. He not only faithfully shepherds his flock, but he's been a source of Biblical counsel and warm friendship for me.

Preaching Solus Christus

2007-11-02T09:11:00.001-05:00

Whether Calvinist or Arminian, Cessationist or Pentecostal, Paedobaptist or Credobaptist, Dispensational or Covenantal, you have felt the effects from the Reformation. Even the Roman Catholic church has been forced to respond, though they remain in signficant error.

No matter what protestant background you come from, one of the greatest areas of influence is in the preaching. This can be seen even by the arrangement of the furniture in the auditorium. The table for the "sacraments" has been moved, and the "pulpit" became the centerpiece. While the furniture is insignificant (our church does not have a literal pulpit) that attitude is. We gather around the Word of God, to hear the Word of God and apply the Word of God. We have the Reformation to thank (at least in part) for helping remind us that the Word of God is central to our corporate worship. However, much of contemporary preaching ignores the heart of the Reformation (the "five solas") as they deliver their homily.

As time permits me, I hope to tackle each of the solas, as they regard to preaching.

Solus Christus

As Keith so wonderfully presented, all of our attention should be directed to Christ. There are just too many verses in Scripture to ignore this point. Many pastors will affirm Colossians 1:16 when speaking of creation, salvation and even world politics, yet often neglect this principle in their own messages. I believe this error stems from two mistakes, in hermeneutics and presentations.

Hermeneutics--If the meaning of the text is the text (as many affirm), it is critical that we understand the point of the text. If we distort the meaning of the text in our presentation, we cannot claim claim "thus sayeth the Lord." And regarding Christ-centered preaching, Jesus Himself gave us the hermeneutic:

You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me;--John 5:39

Jesus affirms here that the Scriptures are written about Him. He is the focus and the fulfillment of their message. This is not an isolated proof-text, for Jesus confirms this hermeneutic in Luke 4:14-21 (for example) and countless other places.

Yet, some today boast a "higher wisdom." Claiming to be faithful to authorial intent, they determine that passages in the Old and New Testament alike are not Christ centered. It sounds impressive as they quote first century rabbis and Jewish texts. However, as Mark Driscoll reminded a group recently, if the rabbinical interpretation caused the leaders of that time to reject Jesus Christ, then we should not be interested in their hermeneutic. To the person who claims to hold to authorial intent (in their denial of Christ in a passage), Jesus would simply remind them that "All Scripture is God-breathed" and therefore, The Author intended it to speak of Him.

Recently, I've been told by more than a few pastors that I draw my circles too small. By this, they mean that my expectation for other pastors is too rigid and does not allow enough grace and diversity. I know this can possibly be my tendency, so I only want to speak where Scripture speaks. Therefore, I can allow a man to simply be a "4-point Calvinist" and still hold a pulpit. Despite my attitude toward altar calls (as recently posted), I'm not going to claim a man disqualified if he uses this approach. However, I told the fellow pastors who were present, "I am not interested in a fellowship of pastors who do not agree that the Scriptures speak of Christ and we should preach in such a way. (The district comment was made in reaction to some discussions recently about what tolerence we should give alternative views to ministry.) To see any other conclusion from the Scriptures is simply dead wrong.

Presentation--Ultimately, I hope most pastors (who have not been sucked into high-academics) would affirm such a hermeneutic. After all, it is probably their great affection for Christ that drew them into the ministry, therefore, it is their great delight to speak of Him. However, our studies may be faithful to this principle, but again, our presentation can betray it.

If the assessment of a sermon is based upon the reaction of the unregenerate, we are going to be pressured to avoid Christo-centric preaching. After all, Jesus stated: If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you.--John 15:18. Should we be surprised if the world does not want to hear about Him? Therefore, to attract the lost, we are encouraged to preach bullet-point sermons laying out "5 ways to get along with coworkers" or "3 ways to have a better marriage." Eventually, the world tires of this too, and prosperity preachers arise...itching ears with the message that God wants them to pursue their lusts. Even an "orthodox" pastor who recognizes the deadly poison of properity gospel, may think the answer is to get more edgy. Perhaps a sermon series on better sex will attract?

Many people hear the term "man-centered" and assume that means "lawless." But that is not always the case. Many preachers see the dwindling numbers, apathy for the lost and lack of moral foundation in congregants, and respond accordingly. Often, the bullet points are kept, but the application is changed. "5 Steps to Growing this Church." "Eight Ways to Reach Your Neighbor for Christ." "How to Kick the Porn Habit." (Undertstand that I am not opposed to steps or points, Scripture itself will lay out application principles, but more reacting to the self-help style of exhortation prevalent today.) Such preaching seems sanctified, for who could argue with a robust church full of soul winning pure people?

But such preaching is "pure" legalism. When we call people to action, or even a standard, but neglect the foundation in Christ, we fail to bring them the biblical message. It remains man-centered, for it calls men to recognize and avoid sin completely on their own. Using church growth, evangelism and pornography as examples, consider the following questions:

Who's church is it?

Who is the One who said, 'I will build My church?"

Who does evangelism seek to win the person to?

Who do we depend on to do the work of regeneration?

Who of us is truly pure?

Who is our standard of perfection, having lived yet never lusted?

What has He done for my lack of moral perfection?It is critical that our preaching blaze light on the fact that He is the only perfect fulfillment of God's standards, that He propitiates our violation of God's standards and that He empowers the reborn to now live according to those standards. Any preaching that neglects Christ becomes theistic moralism...at best.

Every true believer should celebrate the work of the Reformation. The Reformers did not discover "new truth," but rather brought truths only held by a small remnant out to the fore. I am thankful that the church is no longer held hostage to the false expectation of priests to mediate on our behalf through the sacraments. However, we do still need a High Priest.

Today, the sacraments have been moved out of the spotlight. In many churches, the pulpit still is what draws the eye. We've abandoned the mediatorial system of sacraments, however, in the name of scholarship, church growth or self-esteem we've also neglected to mention our Great Mediator.

I for one, do not want to step into a pulpit without Him!

In Christ Alone

2007-11-01T10:07:00.000-05:00

In Christ alone my hope is found;
He is my light, my strength, my song;
This cornerstone, this solid ground,
Firm through the fiercest drought and storm.
What heights of love, what depths of peace,
When fears are stilled, when strivings cease!
My comforter, my all in all—
Here in the love of Christ I stand.

In Christ alone, Who took on flesh,
Fullness of God in helpless babe!
This gift of love and righteousness,
Scorned by the ones He came to save.
Till on that cross as Jesus died,
The wrath of God was satisfied;
For ev'ry sin on Him was laid—
Here in the death of Christ I live.

There in the ground His body lay,
Light of the world by darkness slain;
Then bursting forth in glorious day,
Up from the grave He rose again!
And as He stands in victory,
Sin's curse has lost its grip on me;
For I am His and He is mine—
Bought with the precious blood of Christ.

No guilt in life, no fear in death—
This is the pow'r of Christ in me;
From life's first cry to final breath,
Jesus commands my destiny.
No pow'r of hell, no scheme of man,
Can ever pluck me from His hand;
Till He returns or calls me home—
Here in the pow'r of Christ I'll stand.

_________________________________________________________________
Words and Music by Keith Getty & Stuart Townend
Copyright © 2001 Kingsway Thankyou Music

Solus Christus

2007-10-31T00:01:00.000-05:00

by Keith Shearer

CHRIST ALONE (Hebrews 1:1-4)

Superior to all other forms of God's Self-revelation is His revealing of Himself "in His Son" (Hebrews 1:2), the Lord Jesus Christ.

While God has spoken clearly and inerrantly in the Scripture, the Bible Itself owes its authority to the Lord Jesus Christ (Hebrews 1:1-2). It was Jesus Who affirmed the completed Old Testament (see Matthew 5:17-18, Luke 24:25-27 and 44). If any content would have been contained in the Old Testament that should not have been, surely Jesus would have corrected it. If anything was missing from the Old Testament, surely Jesus would have added it. But, clearly Jesus affirmed the Old Testament as it is. It is Jesus Who authorized the New Testament by granting Apostolic authority to eyewitnesses of His identity, teaching, and accomplishments (Matthew 10:40, Luke 10:16, Second Peter 1:16-21 and 3:15-16), and Who sent them His Spirit to superintend their memory processes so that they would inerrantly record the words of Jesus, the events of His life, death, and resurrection, and the implications of the Gospel and the Church in the New Testament (John 14:26, 16:13). So, even Sola Scriptura owes its authority to the superiority of our Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus said of the Scriptures, "It is these that bear witness of Me" (John 5:39).

While God's Creation powerfully speaks to make Him known (Romans 1:20, Psalm 19:1ff.), nothing in all of Creation exists apart from Jesus Christ. It is Christ Alone "through Whom also He made the world" (Hebrews 1:2). "All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being" (John 1:3). It is fascinating that in Hebrews 1:2 God the Father's appointment of His Son to be "heir of all things" occurs before the Creation. The Father did not search through the world and then select Jesus to be the heir. Rather, Jesus has been the "Heir of all things" from before Creation. The very purpose of the existence of anything is to be the inheritance of Jesus Christ. "All things have been created by Him and for Him." (Colossians 1:16).

While the intricate preservation processes working in people, plants, animals, gravity, weather, etc. display the wonders of the power of God, Hebrews 1:3 significantly states that none of these processes occur without Jesus, but rather "He upholds all things by the word of His power." Colossians 1:17 phrases the concept this way, "In Him all things hold together." Whether the most magnificent sunrise, or the most awesome lighting strike; whether the destructive hurricane, or the long, slow rain in the time of drought; whether the impressive strength and health of the Olympic athlete, or the frailty and disease of the cancer patient; nothing occurs without the power of His involvement. As the possessor of all of the same glorious attributes as God the Father, Christ alone, above any other means of Divine revelation, is "the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature" (Hebrews 1:3). Jesus alone can say, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father" (John 14:9). Even the application of the ultimate "sola" - soli Deo gloria - is accomplished through Jesus Christ alone.

While the Old Testament Law has a necessary and holy function (Romans 7:12-13), it could never make "purification of sins" (Hebrews 1:3). Neither the ministry of Levitical priests ( Hebrews 7:27), nor the slaughter of millions of sacrificial animals could ever take away sins (Hebrews 10:4). All of the attempts and works of all humanity fail to take away sins (Isaiah 64:6, Romans 3:10-20). But Jesus alone, in the completed, decisive work of the Cross, "made purification of sins". Observe the tense of the verb - "had made". Purification of sins was completed on the Cross. Jesus made complete sacrifice for sins "once for all when He offered up Himself" (Hebrews 7:27). The Cross is not only a display of God's love in providing salvation, the Cross is also a display of God's hatred of sin and the necessity of His judging sin with holy wrath. This He did by requiring the death of His Son to satisfy His Own justice (Propitiation - Romans 3:24-26).The applied benefits of justification from sin occur instantaneously, once and for all, at the instant one trusts upon Christ through the regenerating gift of the Holy Spirit (Hebrews 10:14). The offering of Christ's body, the shedding of His blood, was an accomplished,once -for -all (Hebrews 10:10ff), non-repeatable, only satisfactory purification of sins. To have sins forgiven one can only look in faith to what Jesus accomplished at the Cross, not anything occuring in the present. In Christ alone is justification and forgiveness.

While martyrs have given their lives for various causes, some even for the glorious cause of the Gospel of Christ, only One's death made satisfactory payment for sin. As a result, only Jesus was raised from the dead, ascended, and then "sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high" (Hebrews 1:3). Jesus, in His glorified and ascended session, is the "one Mediator" between God and man (First Timothy 2:5). He "was raised because of our justification" (Romans 4:25). "He is able to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them" (Hebrews 7:25). Therefore Jesus has "inherited a more excellent name" (Hebrews 1:4) than angels, prophets, priests, kings, etc. Because of Christ's incarnation and crucifixion, God the Father has exalted Jesus in in resurrection and ascension, granting Him "the name which is above every name" - The Lord Jesus Christ (Philippians 2:9). Before this name every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (Philippians 2:10-11).

In Christ alone is creation, existence, preservation,representation of Father God purification of sin bringing forgiveness, resurrection, eternal life, glorification, and the true worship of the majestic God to Whom belongs all glory.

Solus Christus.
_________________________________________________________________
Keith Shearer is Senior Pastor New Beginnings Grace Brethren Church in Myerstown, PA. On the side, he also spends a significant amount of time shepherding me.

DJW, Altar Calls & Gospel Preaching

2007-10-28T21:16:00.000-05:00

I reproducing the reasons from Preaching & Preachers that Martyn Lloyd-Jones used to explain why he did not regularly practice altar calls. As I've stated earlier, some misunderstand a lack of altar calls as an apathy for soul winning. It's important to understand reasons why ML-J resisted this newer (relatively) practice. Reasons 1 & 2, Reason 3, Reasons 4 & 5, Reason 6, Reason 7, Reasons 8 & 9 and Reason 10 have already been addressed.

I don't presume to be on any level comparable to Martyn Lloyd-Jones. I completely agree with all 10 (well, 9) of his reasons. Yet, I'd like to add one more reason that ML-J did quite address. (Perhaps we can pretend it was the elusive number eight).

Altar calls diminish the need for clear gospel preaching.

At first, this seems counterintuative. Messages that are followed with altar calls are typically considered quite evangelistic. However, many times, the sermon itself is not evangelistic, but simply the altar call is.

I remember listening live to the "pastor" of America's largest "church." As he waxed on about Christians having better fuel economy, surrounding ourselves with more positive people and overcoming obstacles, he completely neglected any mentions of Christ, the cross, sin or grace. His "sermon" did not deal with man's depravity, God's righteousness or the great exchange. No mention was made of heaven or hell or even life beyond the grave. Not only did the message lack biblical accuracy, but it's complete avoidance of the gospel prevented even a remote assessment of it being evangelistic.

However, then came his altar call. As he called people to stand and act, he then laid out certain terms (yes, he called for action before he even explained toward what). Within the altar call, he then spoke of sin, Christ, the cross...he even uttered the word "repentance." Suddenly, he's got a group of people standing and responding to a message that seems to include elements of the gospel.

But would Paul simply rejoice that the gospel was preached? Shouldn't we just celebrate that elements of the gospel were present?

Well, techinically, the gospel was not preached. The gospel was given a brief moment. The gospel was quickly presented. The details of the gospel were shared, but it was not preached. In essence, an altar call can often allow us to mop up the damage from a message that was not centered on the cross. However, because people were challenged to trust Jesus, most would never think to examine the message. Consider some of the problems if the gospel is not made clear until and altar call:

1. Again, the sermon and altar call become two separate entities. The "action" does not even derive from the sermon.

2. The gospel is given very short treatment. It is not developed over the course of the message, but handled quickly at the end.

3. The challenge becomes only immediate and introductory.

4. The gospel challenge appears to be severed from the text which was preached.

5. Any action/challenge given during the sermon is separated from the gospel. To call people to action outside of understanding the gospel is legalism.My experience has been that messages with altar calls typically to do not call upon the sinner to repent until during the altar call. Proper preaching requires that the call be rooted in the gospel. This call should come the whole time as the preacher is working through the text.

To return back to the question of Paul...Yes, I think he would rejoice whenever the gospel is preached. But when it is actually preached, an altar call is not necessary.

ML-J, Altar Calls & Decisions

2007-10-26T20:34:00.000-05:00

I'm reproducing the reasons from Preaching & Preachers that Martin Lloyd-Jones used to explain why he did not regularly practice altar calls. As I've stated earlier, some misunderstand a lack of altar calls as an apathy for soul winning. It's important to understand reasons why ML-J resisted this newer (relatively) practice. Reasons 1 & 2, Reason 3, Reasons 4 & 5, Reason 6, Reason 7 and Reasons 8 & 9 have already been addressed: (ML-J's thoughts in black, mine in blue).

10. No sinner ever really 'decides for Christ'...A sinner does not 'decide' for Christ; the sinner flies to Christ in utter helplessness and despair saying--Foul, I to the fountain fly, Wash me, Saviour, or I die.

No man truly comes to Christ unless he flies to Him as his only refuge and hope, his only way of escape from the accusations of conscience and the condemnation of God's holy law. Nothing else is satisfactory. If a man says that having thought about the matter and having considered all sides he has on the whole decided for Christ, and if he has done so without any emotion or feeling, I cannot regard him as a man who has been regenerated. The convicted sinner no more 'decides' for Christ than the poor drowning man 'decides' to take hold of that rope that is thrown to him and suddenly provides him with the only means of escape. The term is entirely inappropriate.

Amen!

ML-J, Altar Calls & Regeneration

2007-10-25T22:01:00.000-05:00

I'm reproducing the reasons from Preaching & Preachers that Martin Lloyd-Jones used to explain why he did not regularly practice altar calls. As I've stated earlier, some misunderstand a lack of altar calls as an apathy for soul winning. It's important to understand reasons why ML-J resisted this newer (relatively) practice. Reasons 1 & 2, Reason 3, Reasons 4 & 5, Reason 6 and Reason 7 have already been addressed: (ML-J's thoughts in black, mine in blue).

8. There is no eight.
Preaching & Preachers is actually a transcript of some lectures. In this segment, he skips right from point 7 to point 9. There is no telling if an eighth point actually existed, or if ML-J simply miscounted.

9. Does it not raise the whole question of the doctrine of Regeneration? This, to me, is the most serious thing of all. What I mean is this, and it covers this point and the previous one, that as this work is the work of the Holy Spirit, and His work alone, no one else can do it. The true work of conviction o sin, and regeneration, and the giving of the gift of faith and new life is solely the work of the Holy Spirit. And as it is His work it is always a thorough work; and it is always a work that will show itself. It has always done so. You see it in a most dramatic form on the Day of Pentecost in Jerusalem as recorded in Acts 2. Even while Peter was preaching, people cried out under conviction of sin. 'Men and brethren, what shall we do?' Peter was preaching in the power of the Spirit. He was expounding the Scriptures and applying them. He did not employ any techniques and there was no interval between the sermon and the appeal. The mighty work of conviction was going on, and it showed itself, and it invariably does show itself.

ML-J, Altar Calls & Salvation

2007-10-24T22:14:00.000-05:00

ML-J, Altar Calls & Conviction

2007-10-23T20:03:00.000-05:00

I'm reproducing the reasons from Preaching & Preachers that Martin Lloyd-Jones uses to explain why he does not regularly practice altar calls. As I've stated earlier, some misunderstand a lack of altar calls as an apathy for soul winning. It's important to understand reasons why ML-J resisted this newer (relatively) practice. Reasons 1 & 2, Reason 3 and Reasons 4 & 5 have already been addressed: (ML-J's thoughts in black, mine in blue).

6. This method tends to produce a superficial conviction of sin, if any at all.

Actually, MLJ said: Most would agree with my sixth point which is that this method tends to produce superficial conviction of sin, if any at all. MLJ uses an illustration in which he saw a man who appeared convicted during his preaching. He was tempted, after the service, to press the man for a response. He did not, but did run into the man the next day. Sure enough, the man told MJL, "You know, doctor, if you had asked me to stay last night I would have done so." MLJ invited the man to his study to discuss things that day, but the man refused. To which MLJ said: My dear friend, if what happened to you last night does not last for twenty-four hours I am not interested in it. If you are not ready to come with me now as you were last night you have not got the right, the true thing. Whatever affected you last night was only temporary and passing, you still do not see your real need of Christ.

But what did others do?

From ML-J: That is the kind of thing that may happen even when an appeal is not made. But when an appeal is made it is greatly exaggerated and so you get spurious conversions. As I have reminded you even John Wesley, the great Arminian, did not make appeals to people to 'come forward.' What you find so often in his Journals is something like this: 'Preached at such and such a place. Many seemed to be deeply affected, but God alone knows how deeply.' Surely that is very significant and important. He had spiritual understanding and knew that many factors can affect us. What he was concerned about was not immediate visible results but the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration. A knowledge of the human heart, of psychology, should teach us to avoid anything that increases the possibility of spurious results.

ML-J, Altar Calls & Implications

2007-10-21T21:17:00.000-05:00

I'm reproducing from the reasons Preaching & Preachers that Martin Lloyd-Jones uses to explain why he does not regularly practice altar calls. As I've stated earlier, some misunderstand a lack of altar calls as an apathy for soul winning. It's important to understand reasons why ML-J resisted this newer (relatively) practice. Reasons 1 & 2 and Reason 3 have already been addressed: (ML-J's thoughts in black, mine in blue).

4. This method surely carries in it the implication that sinners have an inherent power of decision and of self-conversion.
MLJ reminds us that a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God. Not every preacher who uses altar calls denies this truth, but MLJ reminds us: That is the history of the origin of this practice [altar calls], and it is important that we should know it. It is not an accident that it came in with Finney, because ultimately this is a matter of theology. At the same time it is not only a theological question; and we must never forget that an Arminian like John Wesley and others did not use this method.

I recently heard John MacArthur sharing another statement from Martin Lloyd-Jones. The Doctor was reminding his congregation that you can choose to become a buddist. You can choose to become a Muslim. You do not choose to be a Christian. You become born again.

5. I suggest that there is an implication here that the evangelist somehow is in a position to manipulate the Holy Spirit and His work.
Have big name preachers who make such an appeal ever seen a low response? It seems the formula is Big Preacher + Big Appeal = Big results. Does the Spirit really work that mathematically? We can claim the Spirit must work for conversion to take place, but if we think for one second that we can manipulate (or control) the Spirit...it is no longer the Spirit we submit to, but He who submits to us.

ML-J, the Sermon & the Appeal

2007-10-19T21:55:00.000-05:00

I'm listing out the reasons why Martin Lloyd-Jones does not regularly practice altar calls. As I've stated earlier, some misunderstand a lack of altar calls as an apathy for soul winning. It's important to understand reasons why ML-J resisted this newer (relatively) practice. Reasons 1 & 2 have already been addressed: (ML-J's thoughts in black, mine in blue).

3. The preaching of the Word and the call for decision should not be separated in our thinking.
MLJ offers this observation: I remember being in an evangelistic meeting in which I, and others, felt that on that occasion the Gospel had not really been preached. It had been mentioned, but it certainly had not been conveyed, it had not been preached; but to my amazement a large number of people went forward in response to the appeal at the end. While some claim this is the sign of answered prayer, we must observe that God desires for faith to come through the hearing of the Word of Christ.

I remember one year at BNYC, our group arrived late and had to sit near the back of the gathering. The group in front of us spent the entire message talking amongnst themselves. It didn't matter whether the speaker was quoting Scripture or explaining the passage, the students (and the youth staff!!!) continued talking, laughing and passing notes. But then something interesting happened. The speaker closed his Bible and moved away from the podium. He began to appeal to the students that they needed to apply his message. Suddenly, these students stopped and listened. Sure enough, when the music started, and the speaker called for a response, several students from this group went forward. And as they returned, their youth leaders cried and hugged on them.

Even my youngest teens in our group recognized this was a bit off. I don't blame the conference. I don't blame the speaker, even. I just think this is an example that an altar call can almost feel like a second sermon. When people can casually pay attention at the beginning, but tune in near the end for the specific challenge, we cause the person to make a decision toward action without the foundation. And to get people to follow a rule or action without the contextual understanding of why is simply legalism.

Instead, our appeal should be found throughout the message. As we walk through the text, the Word of God can be doing its convicting work. People should be called to action, but it should happen within the preaching of the text.

ML-J, the Will & Altar Calls

2007-10-18T23:24:00.000-05:00

I mentioned earlier, I plan to examine Martin Lloyd-Jones' thoughts on altar calls. His first two reasons dealt with the will. (ML-J's comments in black, mine in blue.)

1. It is wrong, surely, to put direct pressure on the will.
MLJ explains from Romans 6:17: In other words the obedience is not the result of direct pressure on the will, it is the result of an enlightened mind and softened heart. The altar call aims squarely at the will, instead of letting the sermon work through the mind, which will soften the heart, and together impact the will.

2. I argue that too much pressure on the will--there is inevitably an element of this in all preaching, but I say too much pressure--or too direct pressure, is dangerous, because in the end it may produce a condition in which what has determined the response of the man who 'comes forward' is not so much the Truth itself as, perhaps, the personality of the evangelist, or some vague general fear, or some other kind of psychological influence. MLJ provides an illustration of a pastor who became irratated because his altar call did not immediately follow his sermon, but had to endure 30 minutes of singing first. This preacher admitted his delayed altar call created lesser results.

Perhaps Carbon Dating?

2007-10-18T23:07:00.000-05:00

This new brethren group seems to exude much of the old brethren heritage.

So, do you call them "new" or "old?" (Perhaps further investigation is needed.)

(HT: Dunker Journal)

Stand: Session 4

2007-10-16T21:09:00.000-05:00

I'm briefly summarizing the messages from Desiring God's most recent conference.

Certainties That Drive Enduring Ministry, Part 2

John MacArthur continues his message from 2 Corinthians 3 & 4, having listed four certainties in his previous message, he lists another five:

5. Embraces the reality that the results of his ministry do not depend on him.

6. Embraces the reality of his own insignificance.

7. Embraces the benefits of suffering.

8. Embraces the need for bold conviction.

9. Embraces eternity as his priority.

MacArthur spent a significant amount of time on point five. He laid out that the major concern with the market-driven church model is that it assumes that consumer barriers are our major obstacle of bringing a person to Christ. However, MacArthur reminds us how the Bible describes this task:

Preaching the gospel is "foolish"

because we are preaching to those who are dead and blind

a message that is a stumbling block or folly

while we, as messengers are foolish, weak, base and despised.Numeric Review: 9 of 10 (highly recommended)

_____________________________

Other Reviews: Sessions 1 & 2, Session 3

Analyzing Altar Calls

2007-10-14T19:54:00.000-05:00

I've finished Preaching & Preachers by Martyn Lloyd-Jones. I didn't agree with certain segments, but overall I found it a very solid read...one I wish i had read fifteen years ago.

At one point, ML-J begins to deal with altar calls. He makes the following observations:

This is a subject which has gained considerable prominence at the present time, and therefore we must deal with it. In any case it is a problem that faces every preacher. I have often had to face this problem. People have at various times come to me at the close ofa service and chided me, indeed sometimes reprimanded me, because I have not made an appeal for immediate decisions. Some of them would go so far as to say that I had been guilty of sin, that an opportunity had been created by my own preaching but that I had not taken advantage of it. They have said, "I am quite sure that if you had only made an appeal you would have had a great response"--that kind of argument.

Lloyd-Jones continued:

In addition to that I have been told by a number of minister within the last ten years or so that they have been told by people at the end of a service that they had not preached the Gospel, simply because they had not made an appeal...I once met three men, three ministers, who had virtually been given a call to minister in certain churches, and who were on the verge of accepting, when someone suddenly asked the question: Did they give an 'altar call' at the end of every sermon? And because these three particular men had said that they did not do so, they had not received the call, the decision was reversed.

I am not stating that altar calls are evil nor that the men who practice them are. However, I have felt the inverse. I have been challenged that a message was incomplete or not evangelistic since it lacked an appeal at the end.

Altar calls are not only an emotional time in the service, but the discussion of the practice involves emotion as well. ML-J provides ten reasons why altar calls are not a typical practice in his preaching. I originally had all of them listed in one post, but it made for a post that exceeds the wise limits for a blog. Therefore, I plan to list each of his reasons individually, followed by brief comment of my own.

Not to try to convince others to "stop the evil practice of altar calls," but to explain why I do not find them to be a wise part of my preaching.

2 for 3 Aint Bad

2007-10-12T22:16:00.000-05:00

The following came across my Fact of the Day Widget

Inventor Gail Borden, Jr invented condensed milk in the 1850's and later the Lazy Susan, but he struck out with one other invention: the poorly-received "meat bisquit."

Stand: Session 3

2007-10-12T21:22:00.000-05:00

I'm briefly summarizing the messages from Desiring God's most recent conference.

Four Essentials to Finishing Well--Jerry Bridges

Since Jerry Bridges has been serving the Navigators for fifty-two years, he is certainly one who can speak of enduring faith. Bridges begins by contrasting Demas and Paul from 2 Timothy 4:7-10. He then laid out Four Essentials to Finishing Well:
1. Daily time of personal communion with God.
2. Daily appropriation of the gospel.

3. Daily commit yourself to God as a living sacrifice.

4. A firm belief in the sovereignty and love of God.

Bridges certainly presented four important elements to finishing well. It was a delight to hear Bridges share a similar testimony to mine (that in fact, he once thought the gospel was simply a message necessary to bring a person to salvation...yet now sees the glory for the believer to focus on the gospel continually). However, my grand expositional bias (as some would find annoying) found this message lacking a bit of punch. The four elements were valid and Scripturally supported, but not necessarily tied together with a passage. In my mind, I find myself asking, "Why these four elements? Are these the only four? If not, could these be just four of ten, and possibly not the most essential four?" I realize these questions are entirely unfair, as a conference message does not have to be expository...again, it just shows my bias.

Numeric Review: 7 of 10 (encouraging/edifying but not expository)

_____________________________

Other Reviews: Sessions 1 & 2

Stand: Sessions 1 & 2

2007-10-12T20:12:00.000-05:00

As I mentioned earlier, I had hoped to listen to Piper's Stand: A Call for the Endurance of the Saints. I didn't listen to as much of the conference as I had hoped by now, but I plan to review the messages briefly on my blog (in case you do not feel like listening without knowing what you would be listening to):

Session One: Certainties that Drive Enduring Ministry, Part 1--John MacArthur

From 2 Corinthians 3-4, Dr. MacArthur shared four key elements of the enduring life.

The enduring life is one that:

1. Embraces the staggering nature of the New Covenant.

2. Understands that all ministry is undeserved.

3. Embraces the need for internal purity.

4. Certain of the responsibility to accurately handle the Word of God.

Numeric Review: 9 of 10 (highly recommend)

_____________________

Session Two: A Conversation with John Piper and John MacArthur

In a relaxed Q&A format, Justin Taylor facilitates a conversation between MacArthur and Piper. The two John's share about their fathers (wonderful stories of enduring faith) and about how they met each other. They share similarities and differences in both their ministries and their perosnalities.

Numeric Review: 6 of 10 (interesting/entertaining but not essential)

Perseverance

2007-10-11T06:54:00.000-05:00

I'm listening to the messages from Stand: A Call for the Endurance of the Saints, so I'm sure I'll have more to state on this topic. However, in my sermon preparation, I ran across this brief, yet crystal clear quote:

Election predestines to faith and therewith to obedience.
--TDNT, p145, "τηρων"

Or consider Jesus Christ's words:

I have manifested Your name to the men whom You gave Me out of the world; they were Yours and You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word.
--John 17:6

Two Wrongs Don't Make a Wright...

2007-10-06T08:53:00.000-05:00

but two Wrights make a Malachi!

Malachi Joel Wright
8lbs 12oz/ 21.25in
October 3, 2007

This shot pretty well sums up the attitude of the other monkeys, who have been very well behaved since Malachi's arrival.

(more pics here)

What I'll Be Chewing On...

2007-10-02T13:01:00.000-05:00

Hopefully, some Chipotle. But I'm not one of those black and white guys, I'll take whatever I can get.

But more significantly, I hope to also chew on

this

and

this.

(HT:JT)

Pray for Us

2007-10-02T12:31:00.000-05:00

Lord willing, tomorrow will mark the day that the 6th Wright from our household is foisted upon this world. Please pray (especially for my wife).

On second thought...maybe I should be praying for you!

Thinking Right [Orthodox]

2007-09-29T21:52:00.000-05:00

Apparently, there is some advantage to calling Jesus a heretic or unorthodox which I have yet to discover. I tried discussing this idea with such a person on his own blog. However, I couldn't figure out if I was being condescended, missing the person's attempt at humor, or if the person just writes on a wavelength entirely higher than mine. So, instead of clogging his comment section, I decided to post a view thoughts here.

The idea of orthodoxy is greatly missed by many today. Observing some general definitions, we see one states: having the right opinion.

Now, some will get downright giddy over this definition. It seems, from the Greek, that orthodoxy is merely an issue of opinion. Conspiracy theorists will immediately wonder if "the establishment" isn't beating the little man down. The double-minded will simply sit back, waiting for the majority decision on orthodoxy to shift. The opportunist will quickly look for a small group they can influence, pursuade and conform to their view...thus producing the orthodox view for that fellowship. If orthodoxy is simply opinion, then it is simply defined by who we ask.

But orthodoxy does not just mean "opinion." It means "right opinion," or "true opinion," or "straight opinion." We are not left to gather a caucus to determine orthodoxy. We are to search out that which is true, straight, right. But how can one do this?

It may behoove us to consider the approaching Reformation Day. Were the reformers the majority opinion of that day? Certainly not, for even today the Catholic church would boast more participants than the protestant church. So what makes there perspective (on issues concerning the gospel) orthodox? Their influence? Their philosophic genius? The fact that their opinon matches mine?

Or could it be that the genuine authority speaks on their behalf? It should not be considered coincidental that the reformation came at a time that the Word of God became more available. Men came to the true opinion when they understood the truth revealed in the text. They did not take a revote, finding they developed the majority opinion. They read the text and conformed their understanding to the text...the right/straight/true opinion.

So, could Jesus ever have uttered a word that would be deemed unorthodox? This would require one to state that Jesus spoke words that were not right and true. Thus leading one to C.S. Lewis' axiom: If Jesus spoke false words, He would have to be a liar or a lunatic...but He could not be Lord. A statement some may be willing to making, ironically leading them into heresy.[This is not to be confused with the question: Did Jesus ever speak words that some considered unorthodox? On several occasions, heretics {for they did not hold to the truth} picked up stones to kill Him. Some may have thought Him a heretic...but this did not make Him a heretic.]

Contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints (Jude 3). That can't be done if the faith can't be known.

For me, it seems to make much more sense to label Jesus as orthodox and seek to conform my life to the standards of the Word, thus allowing the Holy Spirit to purge me of any unorthodoxy. [But if you want to wait and see what the majority position is...just remember, the Eternal Life always holds the majority opinion.]

Name That Author

2007-09-27T21:07:00.000-05:00

"Another form which this thinking takes is to emphasize that modern sophisticated man has a particular dislike of dogmatic assertions, and that he will not tolerate the old dogmatic pulpit pronouncements. He is a learned man and is not to be 'talked down to;' he is equal of the man in the pulpit, possibly his superior. He believes in examining things carefully and rationally and scientifically and putting up the different possible points of view. Indeed I read in a magazine belonging to an evangelical students' organization recently a plea to the effect that what the pulpit should be doing now is to read out the portions of Scripture, particularly the newer translations, make a few comments, and then invite questions and have a discussion. So you would have an 'intelligent service' instead of one man standing up and laying down the law as it were, and telling other people 'all about it.' Participation by the people in the pew is essential. So the man in the pulpit is really just there to read the Scriptures in an intelligent slow manner, according to these different translations, and then the discussion takes place. Exchange views, confrontation, dialogue are the order of the day."

[Hint: The author was not in favor of this "trend."]

Ohio Gourd Show...

2007-09-25T13:14:00.000-05:00

is happening this weekend.

Why does that matter?

Because the Ohio Gourd Show means it is "pumpkin roll season." (And there is a rumor it may make an appearance at a certain workshop I know about.)

Why Has Evangelism Declined?

2007-09-19T07:41:00.000-05:00

Mark Dever offers:

Let me be clear. If you don't think membership [in a local church] is very important, I think you are typical of why the world is not being well evangelized. I want to be that clear about it. I think churches that think membership is just so-and-so--it doesn't really matter much, it's just a matter of names on a list--I think they're missing something very important in the New Testament. And I think it hurts world evangelization greatly.

I'm out speaking to missionaries all the time. I was in Greece this month, speaking to 300 missionaries in Eastern and Central Europe and the most important thing I talked to them about was membership. And that's what they would tell you. In the churches they are establishing, if they cannot distinguish between what it means to be a Christian and not a Christian, and have that visible in a community of people set up for the world, then the Christianity they are speading is just one more track to another person and a mental game they are playing. It's not being lived out socially in the community in a way that can be seen. And that means commitment and being public about it and that means membership--which is not just a later idea--it's in the New Testament.

_____________________
* from The Source of a Healthy Church, empasis added.

2 Timothy 4:2

2007-09-14T13:35:00.000-05:00

PREACH the Word

preach THE Word

preach the WORD

You know, when you look at it, that really says it all, doesn't it?

Great Family Adventure

2007-09-13T07:08:00.000-05:00

As our church prepares to enter I John, we've developed our children's curriculum to follow through the text with us. Therefore, during Children's Church, our kids will be learning from the same passage as the adults. Hopefully, this will make the "What did you learn in church today?" discussion a little easier.

Along with the curriculum, we also developed a page, called "Table Talk" for fathers to take home and use with their children. The concept is that during four occasions of the week (typically meals) a family can discuss the text from the sermon (and their children's church). A time of worship with the family is a beautiful thing, but it can take an unusual shape, so I thought I'd give a Wright family status report.

Table Talk: Day One

To be honest, I have not been good at teaching my family. On an Ephesians 6:4 scale, I tend to dish out a lot of discipline but have often neglected the instruction. I'm not sure what to expect, but I head toward our lunch table, Bible in one hand and "Table Talk" in the other.

We start with me explaining what we are going to do (which God graciously allowed my children to be excited about), and tell them that anytime we open the Bible we should first ask God to help the Bible make sense for us. Rachel prays first; a very sweet prayer to God, thanking Him for giving us the Bible and asking Him to open our eyes. Zeke followed with a very staccato-style prayer to God. He basically reiterates everything I said about prayer...almost verbatim (I guess he is listening). Karis closes our time in prayer...honestly, quite a bit of babbling that doesn't really make sense, but it is so sweet to hear her say "Jesus."

I'm feeling good. I open my Bible to John 15:12-17 (the text for the first day) and begin reading. The kids are paying attention and seem to understand the concept of Christ calling us to love. Then, somewhere in the middle of the reading, Zeke notices that he does not have his sippy-cup of choice. Our sweet time of fellowship around the word is interrupted with a high decibel screech for the purple cup (for the dinosaur cup just wouldn't do).

Fortunately, I am not accustomed to such distractions while preaching on Sunday morning, so it took me a while to recover. But, we settled him down, reminded him the proper way to ask for the purple cup, and then proceded into the text. We finished with them grasping some good concepts:

Jesus says we should love each other.
Jesus showed us His love by dying for us.
Because Jesus died for us, we can be His friend.
If we are His friend, we will obey Jesus. (Which means we will obey mommy and daddy...we always have to sneak that one in.)

Table Talk: Day Two

We skipped a day, due to schedule conflicts, and picked up again at dinner last night. I briefly quizzed the kids about our last "Table Talk" and they remembered most of the concepts. We opened again in prayer, and I got the sense the kids tried to duplicate the last time of prayer (since they could tell mommy and I found it special, and probably heard us telling others about it) rather than actually talking to God--proabably a typical issue with children this age.

We continue into John 15, this time covering verses 18-21. At the time I wrote the curriculum, it made perfect sense to me. At the end of John 21 (the text we discussed last Sunday, as introduction to I John), Peter is concerned with John's destiny. Jesus calls him to not worry about John but to follow Jesus instead. It seemed in my preparation that John 15:18-21 was the perfect follow-up from the day before.

Jesus calls us to be His friends and to keep our focus on Him.
There are those in the world who will not be Jesus' friend, and they will tell us not to follow Him.
We should not listen to those people but listen to Jesus instead.

But as I'm reading the text to the kids, I can tell the concept of persecution is a tough one for our five year old, an inconceivable concept for our three year old, and at this point, our two year old is just rubbing the rice and chicken in her hair. This is going to be hard. How do I explain to my children that someone as lovely as Christ is rejected by some? How do I teach them that Christ is precious and explain that most of the world does not see Him that way?

I stumble, stutter, fumble and bumble our way through the text and the questions. We get to the end and I try to regroup.

How can we be Jesus' friend? (They answer, "By loving Him.")

How did Jesus show us He loves us? (They answer, "By dying to take away our sins.")

Does everybody love Jesus? (They answer, "No.")

Should you listen to those people? (They answer, "No," but I can tell they are a bit confused. To be honest, so am I. Deeper questions flood my mind like, "Will they now think they don't need to obey their teacher or a police man if that person is not a Christian? By not listening to them, will they think I'm saying to ignore those who don't love Jesus, rather than evangelizing them? And perhaps the most pressing question: Good grief, the oldest one is five, are the kids even remotely thinking the things I'm worried about?

The kids look about as confused as I am. 1 Peter 4:16 comes to my mind (yes, I actually like the NIV rendering better in this verse...shocker!)

However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name.

I try to adjust using their shirts as examples. Both of the older kids are wearing red shirts in preparation for "Patriotic Day" at Awana that evening. I ask them how I can tell they like the color red. Since they are wearing red, I can tell they like red. But if I don't like red, I won't like their shirts. (It appears that they are getting this concept.) So, I try to tie it all together.

How can people tell you love Jesus? (By obeying Him.)

If someone doesn't like Jesus and they see you obey Jesus, they may not like you...but you should keep loving Jesus and be glad someone can tell you do.

Not sure it stuck.

Table Talk Recap

As Charity drives the kids off to Awana and I prepare our house for LIFE Group, I'm left to assess the damage. If the dinner table had been a Sunday morning sermon, it would probably be a good idea to polish my resume. The reading would get interrupted (sometimes by our having to remind our kids to keep eating), some questions received no answer but a blank stare, I started some illustrations only to stop half-way through and redirect. Was this time a success or a failure?

Then I consider what my children have seen. Mommy and Daddy love them. Jesus loves them. Mommy and Daddy love Jesus. Mommy and Daddy love God's Word. These are good things...and I'll count it a success.

And I'll pray the other father's in our church are finding the same reward in their homes.

Gentle Wounds

2007-09-11T20:33:00.000-05:00

Iron sharpens iron, So one man sharpens another.

Why is it that we question a person's credentials when they critique us

but consider them an expert when they compliment us?

We're really not that different from King Ahab. So how do we determine if we're hearing from Zedekiah or Micaiah?

This week, I had a brother confront me in an area he'd observed. He laid out his argument and presented his concern. As I listened, I was convinced he was well-meaning but dead-wrong. He didn't know me that well. He doesn't see the situation closely enough. He's not aware of the relationship dynamics. While I appreciated his concern for me, I was confident he really had no authority in this situation.

Then he did something unfair...

He quoted Scripture. Not just a "pithy prooftext" here and there. But he quoted Scripture in regard to the issue we were discussing with the original intent of the Biblical author.

And that's when I realized the wound was good. A double-edged sword was being used to extract dead tissue. It may be painful but was beneficial. Yet the compliment without any biblical merit may have no "medicinal value."

[UPDATE: I'm not the only one who feels this way.]

IBM Pastor's Conference

2007-09-09T14:00:00.000-05:00

So I'm on ESPN.com to see if the Browns and the Wolverines are actually the same team, and an IBM video plays. Picture two men sitting by each other:

How was the Innovation Workshop?

Innovative.

Funny. What'd they talk about?

It was an Innovation Workshop. They talked about innovation.

Did they talk about execution?

No.

Too bad.

It then flashes two texts up:

Of course, there is a conference for those who want to do.

Preaching Ambiguity

2007-09-05T07:54:00.000-05:00

In an era that craves ambiguity and avoids answers, this quote from RC Sproul, describing Luther's work in The Bondage of the Will is especially timely:

...when Luther was responding to the attacks of Erasmus, he quoted Erasmus where Erasmus said that on matters of difficult doctrines like predestination, election, and issues of freedom of th will and so on, he (Erasmus) preferred to "suspend judgment," and that the proper academic posture of the scholar, when investigating issues like this, is to be very cautious, to reserve judgment, and to hesitate from coming to firm conclusions. Erasmus said that he would prefer not to make assertions. When Erasmus said to Luther, "I would prefer not to make assertions," Luther became apoplectic. He said, "You would prefer what? You don't want to make assertions? Take away assertions, and you take away Christianity. The very mark of the Christian is that the Christian bodly makes assertions before the world." Then, in his passion, Luther said, "The Holy Spirit is not a skeptic. And the things that He revealed are more certain than life itself. Away with the skeptics! Away with teh academics!" Luther would have none of the spirit of those who are always learning and never coming to a knowledge of the truth. The early truth was built on the blood of martyrs, and the reason why it was so bloody was because the apostles didn't go into the market place saying, "Well, maybe Jesus rose from the dead and maybe He didn't. You need to examine this, and suspend judgment."--Feed My Sheep, p139-140 (emphasis added)

The Cross: My Worth or His

2007-09-04T13:39:00.000-05:00

I once heard a preacher explain Jesus' payment on the cross with this statement:

For Jesus, the idea of living without you was more painful than enduring the cross.

Sorry, should have introduced that with a "barf bag alert." When stated that bluntly, we realize the perspective cannot be accurate. Was I the "joy set before Him" (Hebrews 12:2)? Consider this quote, from The Supremacy of God in Preaching by John Piper [p35-36]

It horribly skews the meaning of the cross when contemporary prophets of self-esteem say that the cross is a witness to my infinite worth, since God was willing to pay such a high price to get me. The biblical perspective is that the cross is a witness to the infinite worth of God's glory and a witness to the immensity of the sin of my pride. What should shock us is that we have brought such contempt upon the worth of God that the very death of His Son is required to vindicate that worth. The cross witnesses to the infinite worth of God and the infinite outrage of sin.

Preaching, the impossible

2007-09-03T20:41:00.000-05:00

From Feed My Sheep, Chapter Preaching to Suffering People by John Piper:

This is why preaching is not mere communication and why "communication theory" and getting scholarly degrees in "communication" are so far from the essence of what preaching is about. Preaching is about doing the impossible: making the rich young ruler fall out of love with his comfortable lifestyle and into love with the King of kings so that he "joyfully" sells all that he has to gain that treasure (Matt 13:44). Jesus said very simply, "With man this is impossible" (Matt 19:26). The aim of preaching is impossible. No techniques will make it succeed. "But with God all things are possible."

Mother Teresa's Redemption?

2007-08-30T13:59:00.000-05:00

I was first introduced to Mother Teresa's "crisis of faith" over at The Other Mohler's blog. In his article, he pulled out some intriguing (and disturbing) quotes that caused me to read the entire article.

As I read the article, I was struck by the absolute void of the Word of God. It is not mentioned. It is not quoted. It is not even alluded to. Mother Teresa's religion seemed to be separate from the searching of the Scriptures. It was so sad and baffling as I read it that I couldn't really get my thoughts out into words.

But Rick Phillips does say it in an excellent way.

Watered Down...

2007-08-30T08:48:00.000-05:00

Imagine your outrage if you found out the local gas station was watering down their petroleum. You're paying $3/gallon for gas mixed with well water. You'd be irate.

What if you went to pour milk on your cereal, and discovered the farmer had diluted it down with water? You'd probably be indignant.

Now suppose you had medication you needed for your health. The pharmaceuticals are already making money hand over fist. But suppose a company decided to make even more money by thinning out the medication. You're health is at stake. Think that would get your ire up?

I remember discovering this during the winter. My truck is now at the point where it regularly needs topped off with antifreeze. I stopped into a parts store to buy a couple gallons to keep in the truck. To my surprise, the only thing available on the shelf was 50/50 (a mixture of antifreeze and water) for about $5/gallon. Now, our store didn't even sell 50/50, and the straight 100% antifreeze was only $3.98/gallon (I remember, because with tax it was $4.25). How was it that people were willing to pay a dollar more for half the product? At first, it bothered me and I was a little upset. But, what could I do? I walked up to the counter and paid my five bones.

_________________________________

Boy, we'll get mad when it's gas, milk, perscriptions or even antifreeze. But why such apathy when it is the gospel that is getting watered down?

How is it possible that we can consider a pastor good if they refuse to speak of sin and repentance? How can we not consider a pastor negligent in his task if he does not open the Scriptures? How can some think you can actually preach Christ without having to preach a text? How can we think that a pastor is simply "fulfilling the calling God may have specifically directed for his church" when it is void of Christ, the gospel or Scripture?

I'll be honest. 2Timothy 3:13 is not that hard for me to understand. I get that there will be men who deny the true calling to pursue their own desires.

2Timothy 4:3-4 is the hard one for me to understand. How is it that we can be so outraged when we receive a dilluted product in areas of minutiae, but have such complacency when it comes to the words that give life!

_________________________________

I guess it is a lot like antifreeze. It's worth something when it's hot or cold, but pretty much worthless when it is lukewarm (Revelation 3:16).

Quick Update

2007-08-29T15:27:00.000-05:00

It's not typical that I go 9 days without an update, so I thought I'd just throw some things out:

a) I said I would not blog angry, and there is a recent situation that really got my ire up. (Plus, it is fresh enough that the people invovled would probably think I'm scolding them, not my desire.)
b) Daughters birthdays within 5 days of each other makes for some extra events.
c) The fall is coming, so I've been swamped with preparation.
d) I wanted the Preaching Workshop post to stay up front for a while. Yes, that is an actual class. No, it is not a newpaper ad I scanned. Yes, there is still time to sign up, but not much.

Preaching Workshop Offered

2007-08-20T22:40:00.000-05:00

Who's Responsible for the Pulpit?

2007-08-18T12:49:00.000-05:00

From Feed My Sheep, chapter one (The Primacy of Preaching), Al Mohler says:

Secondly, if we are genuinely servants of the Word, it means that our congregations are aware of this priority and honor it. The congregation needs to understand that preaching is not merely the preacher's responsibility; it is the congregation's responsibility. It is the congregations responsibility to see that it is fed. It is the congregation's responsibility to see to it that it calls a preacher who will preach the Word. Then, it is the congregation's responsibility to hold him accountable for that preaching and to measure his effectiveness and his faithfulness to, of all things, the pulpit ministry.

A couple of thoughts this quote (and even the whole chapter) brought to my mind:

A) I am thankful for a church that cares about the preaching, and holds me accountable.
B) Once a church has let that go, how hard is it for the congregation to notice the void, let alone correct it?
C) Do most congregants really believe preaching should be the pastor's primary task?
D) Do most pastors believe it is his primary task?
E) Would most of the pastors' conferences go bankrupt if preachers would just return to this concept?

It's Beginning to Look Alot Like Christmas...

2007-08-15T08:40:00.001-05:00

Waiting for me in my office...

Elizabeth Pierce Update

2007-08-14T20:19:00.000-05:00

From Elizabeth's blog today:

Elizabeth and Dan met with the doctors at Duke today. The doctors examined the MRI that was taken last week. In the words of the doctor "there is no sign of the tumor." We are still trying to comprehend the good news but needless to say there has been great joy and excitement over what God has done!

Elizabeth must still complete another round of chemo which is part of the original treatment plan. Chemo should not have the devastating effects that she experienced during radiation.

Please pray:

1) for relief from the headaches that still appear on occasion

2) for no side effects from the chemo

3) that the tumor will not return. Tumors can return within the first two years after successful treatment

4) give thanks to God for His faithfulness and answering the prayers of many people

Please give praise to God and continue to pray for this family!

McClain on the Beautiful Word

2007-08-12T12:44:00.000-05:00

Following up from the last post, In Law and Grace by Alva J McClain, he states:

In this connection I would like to encourage Christians who delight in finding the Lord Jesus Christ upon every page of Scripture. Do not permit yourselves to be frightened by those overcautious souls who cry against what they call "too much typology." Doubtless there are some things which may properly be catalogued as "types" and others not. But whatever you may call it, it is the privilege and highest duty of the Christian to discover and behold the face of the Lord Jesus in Scripture--everywhere! Far better to break a few rules of classical hermeneutics than to miss the vision of His blessed face.

We need only one caution--let us be sure that what we find is always true to the historic revelation of the Son as recorded in the New Testament. With this safeguard, there is no end to what we may find in the inspired record of the infinite and incarnate Son of God. And by finding Him throughout Scripture, we shall be finding the perfect will of God in the wonderful context of His grace. For grace reigns "through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord" (Romans 5:21)--p67-68

privilege...

highest duty...

deepest joy!

Beautiful Word of God

2007-08-09T13:21:00.001-05:00

The great beauty of the Word of God (text) is that it speaks about the Word of God (Christ). Tim Keller, in his message during the Gospel Coalition makes this observation:

The basic subject of every sermon ought to be Jesus. Doesn't matter what passage. Doesn't matter Old or New Testament. It's got to be about Jesus. And by the way, before you say, Oh, this is about Old Testament hermeneutics, no, my friend Sinclair Ferguson says, "Most evangelical preachers don't preach Christ. Not only don't they preach Christ from the Old Testament, they don't preach Christ from the New Testament."

Keller then acknowledges this is a bit of an "intramural debate." There are "good men" who deny this issue in preaching and say that Jacob wrestling with God has nothing to do with Christ and should just be about wrestling with God. Keller acknowledges that these are good, intelligent men, but he also states he believes they are wrong.

Keller then spoke of the transforming nature of revealing Christ in the passage. He shared that people are truly transformed when they see God's standard, they see their inability to meet it, and then are met with the fact that Christ fulfilled God's standard. The listener then has hope and desires to please God. It ceases to be out of obligation. Keller continues:

Your preaching with never be doxological and won't even be central unless it is Christo-centric.

Keller explains that at the root of every sin is an inadequate worship of Christ. We got to get them to Jesus. If not, Keller says you will just be "beating on their wills."

Keller then offers this quote from Ferguson:

The preacher has looked into the text, even in the New Testament, principally to find himself and his congregation, not to find Christ. You can even do that in the New Testament, even in the Gospels. The sermon, therefore, is principally about the people in the gospels instead of the Christ Who is the gospel! The more fundamental issue is this question: What is the Bible really about? Is the Bible basically about me and what I must do, or is it basically about Jesus and what He has done. Is the Bible basically about the objective and indicative?

Keller, and Ferguson for that matter, are not advocating sloppy hermeneutics. They are not claiming you "find Jesus in every little twig." You must follow the trajectory of the text to Jesus (which I suppose means you also have to believe the trajectory is toward Jesus).

I have begged others to see this beauty. However, Keller and Ferguson claim this is more of an instinct than a trained discipline. It's not about hermeneutical principles. Do you believe the Bible is basically about you, or about Him?

I believe that once you grasp this, the Bible becomes all the more beautiful. Consider this example from Keller:

Jesus is the true and better Adam

who passed the test in the Garden, His Garden, a much tougher garden, and whose obedience is imputed to us.

Jesus is the true and better Abel

who though innocently slain has blood that cries out not for our condemnation, but for our acquittal.

Jesus is the true and better Abraham

who answered the call of God, to leave all the comfortable and familiar and go into the void, not knowing whither He went.

Jesus is the true and better Isaac

who was not just offered up by His Father on the mount, but was truly sacrificed for us all. While God said to Abraham, "Now I know you love me because you did not with hold your son, your one and only son, whom you love from me," now we, at the foot of the cross can say to God, "Now we know that you love me, because you did not with hold your Son, your only Son, whom You love, from me."

Jesus is the true and better Jacob

who wrestled and took the blow of justice we deserved so that we, like Jacob, only receive the wounds of grace, that wake us up and discipline us.

Jesus is the true and better Joseph

who is at the right hand of The King and forgives those who betrayed and sold Him and uses His power to save them.

Jesus is the true and better Moses

who stands in the gap between the people and the Lord and who mediates a New Covenant.

Jesus is the true and better rock of Moses

who struck with the rod of God's justice now gives us water in the desert.

Jesus is the true and better Job

who is the truly Innocent Sufferer who then intercedes for and saves His stupid friends.

Is that a type? See this is not a type, it's an instinct.

Jesus is the true and better David

who's victory becomes the people's victory, though they never lifted a stone to accomplish it themselves.

Jesus is the true and better Esther

who didn't just risk losing an earthly palace, but lost the ultimately heavenly one. Who didn't just risk His life, but gave His life. Who didn't just say, "If I perish, I perish," but said, "When I perish, I'll perish for them, to save My people."

Jesus is the true and better Jonah

who is cast out into the storm so that we could be brought in.

He's the real Passover Lamb.
He's the True Temple.
The True Prophet.
The True Priest.
The True King.
The True Sacrifice.
The True Lamb.
The True Light.
The True Bread.

Wow, isn't it beautiful?

or more appropriately...

Isn't He beautiful!!!

Should the Gospel be in Every Sermon?

2007-08-08T20:54:00.000-05:00

I've had some pretty intense conversations lately as to whether a preacher should be expected to preach the gospel during his sermon. While some seem to believe it is safe to neglect a gospel proclamation, it seems to me that this is poor preaching.

I found it interesting that after having this conversation, our elders began their study in Romans. It seems obvious from the first chapter of Romans that Paul wanted to visit the gentile believers in Rome, that he wanted to preach to them, and that his content he wanted to preach was the gospel.

If that is not enough to remind pastors that the believers in the congregation desperately need to hear the gospel, D.A. Carson also offers this thought (in his message, What is the Gospel? from the Gospel Coalition Conference):

Perhaps more common today is the tendency to "assume the gospel"...whatever that is, while devoting creative energy and passions to other areas. Marriage. Happiness. Prosperity. Evangelism. The Poor. Wrestling with Islam. Bioethics. Pressures of Secularization. Dangers on the Left. Dangers on the Right. The list is endless.

But this overlooks the fact that our hearers inevitably are drawn toward that of which we are most passionate. Every teacher knows that. My students are unlikely to learn all that I teach them. I've resigned myself to that for a long time. They are most likely to learn what I am excited about. If the gospel is merely assumed, while relatively peripheral issues ignite our passion, we will train a new generation to down play the gospel and focus in on the periphery. It is easy to sound prophetic from the margins. What is urgently needed is to be prophetic from the center. What is to be feared, in the famous words of T.S. Elliot, is that the center does not hold.

Moreover, if in fact we do focus on the gospel and understand it aright, we shall soon see how this gospel, rightly understood, directs us how to think about and what to do about a vast array of other kinds of issues.

Where are the pastors who echo with Paul:

For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast of, for I am under compulsion; for woe is me if I do not preach the gospel!--1 Corinthians 9:16

What Builds a Church?

2007-08-07T21:25:00.000-05:00

I'm not saying these words are bad. However, I don't see the following words listed in Scripture as virtues or targets the church should aim for:

Creative
Fresh
New
Relevant
Fun
Exciting
Innovative
Entertaining
Casual
Funny
Edgy
Accepting
Techno-savvy
Big

Perhaps one of these words describes a church...I don't believe that is necessarily wrong. But if a pastor (or any advocate for that church) then tells others that a particular adjective (not found in Scripture) is the key to the effectiveness of their church, are they by nature denying that it is Christ who builds His church. (And if conversely, a method or key adjective built the church, does that mean it must not be Christ's?)

More on McClain

2007-08-07T08:56:00.000-05:00

Earlier, I posted some things about grace, quoting about and from Alva J McClain. Last night, I finished reading "A Saint in Glory Stands." (My wife is worried about my descent into nerdhood. I didn't tell her my next read is, "Doctrinal Treatise--Old German Baptist Brethren.")

Near the end of the book (p 120), the author states (speaking of McClain):

He embraced moderately the Calvinist TULIP (Total depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible grace, and the Perseverance of the saints) but did not believe in eternal securityat the expense of holy living. He called for a balance between divine sovereignty and human responsibility. He embraced a balanced dispensationalist view of the Bible, but believed a difference had to be made between Israel and the Church.

Maybe it's wishful thinking, but it seems that the biography lays out a Calvinism similar to John Piper's (God's sovereignty should be emphasized, as we call upon people to repent and trust Christ), while having a dispensationalism similar to John MacArthur's (Israel and the Church are different, but the book stressed pre-millennial views more than pre-tribulational).

Of course, McClain went to Antioch College (1917), so who really knows?

Caribou FM

2007-08-02T21:08:00.000-05:00

I received a phone call last week. Someone in our church nominated us for the JOY FM Church Spotlight.

Apparently, next Tuesday, Jason and I will enter the studio and speak with David Emerson about our church (I keep forgetting to tell Jason...oops).

The interview is scheduled for 8 am on August 7.

My only other radio experience is that I once called in sports radio in Columbus.

Any advice? (C'mon, Roy, if you're going to comment on David's blog regarding Passover & Last Supper, surely you'll throw me a bone now?)

Caribou Equip Log

2007-08-01T21:15:00.000-05:00

Jason and I headed up to Equip07 this morning. We were not able to stay for any classes, but we did make lunch, which seemed to be a great time to mill around. Some Highlights:

I got to see this guy (don't bother clicking the link, it hasn't changed since April 06).

I got to see Charity's aunt and uncle, always a delight.

I got to hold a really cute baby. Apparently, it was this guy's. I don't know. I don't think I've ever met him and I hadn't met the mother until after I was already holding the baby. (It did get me a little more ready for October, though).

Was able to bump into another gbc blogger. Bump may not be fair, since we planned it in advance...but it was nice to finally meet.

Met a couple other GBC pastors who told me they've heard good things about Greenville. My thought is always three-fold when I hear this: a) How nice of them to make that up. I could be a jerk by asking right now, "Oh yeah, like what things?"; b) they're probably just thinking of the fair; or c) that was before Daniel left.

I also learned that their must be some major confusion regarding the Caribou.

No one seems to know what the Caribou would have made of this session. Within 20 minutes, I received the four following comments:

Were you there for Brad Powell? (I answered, "no.") Oh, that's too bad, you would have loved him. He was right up your alley and says many of the things you say regarding church marketing and such.

Were you here Monday night for Brad Powell? (I answered, "no.") Oh, you should do whatever you can to get your hands on the manuscript or a recording. It was exactly what you need to listen to and I believe you would benefit greatly from it.

It was OK. (This time answering my question about the session.) I don't think you would have thought anything either way.

and lastly,

Be glad you were not at the session Monday night. You would not have liked it.

My point is obviously not to assess the work Pastor Powell did. I have no idea, I was not there. Apparently, one can not get their hands on the contents of his message since it largely mirrors a book he is currently writing and there are copyright issues at hand. Therefore, I don't think I'll ever be able to evaluate his message.

But I found it baffling that four men, who know me better than most in the fellowship, could have such divergent views on me.

Have I not been bold enough? Do I need to speak more clearly?

Equip?

2007-07-30T10:53:00.000-05:00

A couple of guys have asked about my plans for this year's Equip07 conference.

We have some significant health concerns within our Body that will keep me around the area for the week, however, I am currently planning on roaming Winona Lake on Wednesday (unless a surgery date conflicts for a church member).

I'm not registered and I have not signed up for any classes.

Therefore, I you see me, I'm just there to see folks like you. Please approach me and let me know if you read caribouyah.

Like Death Eating a Cracker...

2007-07-27T10:07:00.000-05:00

That phrase is just one in a long directory of odd phrases I grew up hearing from my dad.

I don't think I ever understood what it really meant....

until this strand of the flu bug went pompei upon me.

ugh

Junk Mail

2007-07-24T07:50:00.000-05:00

In the years Daniel was here, he always had my back. I never realized the amount of junk mail our church received until he left town, and I got to sift through it. The other day, I received a card that said:

The 4 most powerful words you can say about Greenville Grace Brethren Church are...

..."10 Years of Experience."

Apparently, just the fact that we've survived generates the four most powerful words about our place. "Hey, I guess when Jesus said, 'I will build My church,' He really meant it, and He's been doing it. See, I have the seal to prove it."

Oddly, since this ad is a bulk production and sent out to mostly businesses, it also states:

Your 10 years of valuable experience can be the single most important factor for others when they are deciding where to spend their money.

Sadly, I wonder if that was the sentence that caught some pastors' eyes.

In the end, they make one last push for their product through flattery:

P.S. Send No Money. As an organization that's been successful for 10 years, your credit is good with me.

Clearly, this ad is usually sent out to businesses. I don't expect a secular resource to come to me with theological accuracy (In fact, I would suggest the Biblical thing is to expect secular resources to NOT have biblical accuracy).

These sort of marketing business techniques are visible. But what other practices do we borrow that assume success to be something it isn't, or assume the power for success to come from somewhere it shouldn't? Daniel used to be able to protect me from receiving this type of mail. Of course, the Word of God is what can protect us from accepting this sort of philosophy.

*I am not critiquing the use of these seals. If your church is using/has used them, I am not condemning that. (The caption for the graphic is purely in jest.) However, if you bought the seals believing this is the way God desires to build His church...I am critiquing that.

NANC Classes Offered

2007-07-23T07:39:00.000-05:00

For those living in the Darke County (Ohio) area, Beamsville Christian Church will be offering Nouthetic Counseling classes. These classes are quite affordable and help move a person closer to NANC certification.

I personally have benefited from this training (in ministry and faith) and several in our church have benefited from Nouthetic training. (Nouthetic comes from the greek word "noutheteo," which means to admonish, train or instruct.)

Steve Short (instructor) has divided the class into two parts, informal and formal counseling. These classes meet every other Thursday from 6-9 pm. Part 1 (which is required before Part 2) will meet September 6, 20, October 4, 18, November 1, 15 and December 6.

If you are interested, contact Steve at 937.547.0009 (and tell him I sent ya. You don't actually have to do that, but I've always wanted to say it).

40milesNorth Coming!

2007-07-19T21:27:00.000-05:00

This Sunday evening, 40milesNorth will be in concert at Greenville Grace. The concert is scheduled for 6:30, but you'll want to get there early to get a seat.

While we have always enjoyed Jeremiah and Marcie's sound (men and women from our church, of all ages have complimented their music), that isn't the greatest part of their ministry. Charity and I have known Jeremiah and Marcie since our college days. While they are extremely talented and have a tremendous harmony, they are most marked by their ministry hearts. It's a delight to know that the words that come from their mouths are truly the overflow of their heart.

Come join us and see!

Locution Confusion--Part 7

2007-07-19T06:51:00.000-05:00

I recently offered several quotes from others, claiming McClain's perspective on soveriegn grace. But did McClain actually say anything that would lead to these conclusions?

Among careful students of the Scriptures and church history, regardless of their theological bias, there has always been general agreement that if there is any outstanding characteristic term in Christianity, that term is "grace." In much of the New Testament this term becomes almost a synonym for Christianity itself. Thus in some of the Pauline epistles there are benedictions which mention "grace" alone, with the implication that this term covers everything in the Christian faith, and that if we have "grace" nothing else is needed.

As to the meaning of the term as used in the New Testament writings, there is also general agreement. Grace is the unmerited favor of God in Christ. Salvation by grace, therefore, is not of ourselves, not of works, but the gift of God (Eph. 2:8-9). And if Christian salvation is by grace, then it is not of works; "otherwise grace is no more grace" (Rom. 11:6)--Alva J McClain, "Law and Grace" p1

"Unmerited favor" may be considered a rather incomplete definition. Some may decry the definition as simplistic or overly reductionistic.

As a matter of fact, all of the Old Testament quotation in verses 25-29 are brought in to support the entire foregoing argument of Romans 9, namely, a divine election within the historical nation of Israel based on sovereign grace.--Alva J McClain, "The Greatness of the Kingdom" p297

Since McClain believed that Old Testament salvation came by sovereign grace, perhaps examining Romans 9 will give some further explanation.

God has the right to reject Israel if He wants to; He has the right to choose one man and reject another. It may not sound right, and to most people probably doesn't seem right. But neither how it sounds to men nor seems to their finite comprehension changes the fact. The doctrine of election is hard to recieve, but remember that God has a sovereign right over His creatures.--Alva J McClain, "Romans--The Gospel of God's Grace" p174

Again, McClain sees election as a critical understanding to sovereign grace. Consider:

That is the answer to the Jew. God chooses according to His own sovereign will and sets aside all human ideas of merit and superiority.--Alva J McClain "Romans--The Gospel of God's Grace" p180

While some may consider such a view to be harsh and loveless, McClain reminds us that election is the only way mercy has come in the past.

Paul says, if you are going to say that God is unrighteous because He chooses one man and not another, then God was unrighteous at Sinai when He let you all live. Everybody should have died then, but God said, "I will have mercy." Grace, mercy, lovingkindness were the only reasons. If you do not like the doctrine of sovereignty and election, just remember that the only reason the nation was not absolutely destroyed was because of the sovereign mercy of God.--Alva J McClain, "Romans--The Gospel of God's Grace" p181

Such a view concerns some, for they believe defining grace with election is simply "head knowledge" and has no practical effect. Yet, McClain offers:

This context of grace is the only environment in which the will of God can be most fully realized in the Christian life. In this context of grace we grow (2 Peter 3:18); we stand (1 Peter 5:12); we are built up (Acts 20:32); we are made strong (2 Tim. 2:1); we are made perfect (1 Peter 5:10); we find freedom from sin's dominion (Rom. 6:14); we find complete liberty from legal bondage (Gal. 5:1-4); we find a sufficient motive for doing the will of God (2 Cor 8:9); we find an enabling power for Christian living (2 Cor 12:9); we find recovery when we fall (Heb 4:16); we find assurance as to the final outcome of the Christian life (Acts 20:32).--Alva J McClain, "Law and Grace" p68

He named us the Grace Brethren.

Perhaps we should consider how he used the word.

Bengals Acquire Michael Vick

2007-07-18T13:26:00.000-05:00

LOVELAND, OH--Due to an NFL policy (apparently inacted about 4 years ago), the Atlanta Falcons are required to trade Michael Vick to the Cincinnati Bengals at "bargain basement" price, according to an unnamed official. This transaction must be made in regard to other recent new developments.

Carson Palmer, when asked if he was nervous about Vick's arrival simply stated, "Not unless they move our training facility a little further north."

According to another unnamed official, Vick could have also ended up with the Cleveland Browns, however NFL commissioner Roger Goodell stepped in and blocked any transactions stating, "It would probably be inappropriate to send Vick to a team nicknamed the dawgs, even if misspelled, at this time."

I Said I Wouldn't Blog Angry, But...

2007-07-18T09:28:00.000-05:00

I can't contain it. Excuse my rant for a moment:

Fazoli's Now Charging for Breadsticks

Our family has always enjoyed hitting Fazoli's. Where else can a family of 5.5 (you can decide if a pregnant Charity or if I account for the extra .5) people eat from just three meals. Sure, we may be taking years off our children's lives, but kids are resillient...they'll bounce back from any strokes or heart attacks caused by clogged arteries or faulty digestive systems. We typically spread one lasagna out between three children by making every other bite come from a buttery breadstick.

Well, no more...

Last Saturday, after doing some shopping, we decided to hit a close Fazoli's to feed the family lunch. At the conclusion of our order, the girl at the register gives her usual upsale pitch (like a large drink? a dessert? a commemorative Fazoli's jetliner? stock in Fazoli's?) when they hit me with an unexpected offer. Would you like to pay $.25 each for unlimited breadsticks?

ARE YOU KIDDING ME? NOT ONLY ARE THEY CHARGING A QUARTER FOR EVERY MEMBER OF MY FAMILY, THEY ARE EVEN CHARGING THE SAME AMOUNT FOR ME (at age 31) AND MY DAUGHTER (at age 1.75). IN ADDITION, THE BREADSTICKS ARE NOT AS GREESEY AS THEY USED TO BE (read: not as good), NOR DID "STICK-CHICK" (the girl who passes out breadsticks) MAKE HER ROUNDS AS OFTEN AS SHE USED TO.

McDonald's Killing their McCookies.

I noticed a couple days ago that the marquee on the McDonalds sign stated "Fresh baked Cookies." Of course, I am never opposed to the idea of fresh baked cookies, but I already thought McDonalds had a good thing going with their shortbread cookies. Then, this morning, I noticed the display of about 50 chocholate chip cookies below a glass case (mind you, when you order one of the "fresh baked" cookies, I saw them under a display at 6:15 am), and asked the lady behind the counter, "You didn't get rid of your old shortbread cookies, did you?" Certainly, I thought, this would be impossible, for the shortbread cookies are a staple, they're even in the shape of McDonalds characters. The register lady simply stated glumly, "Yeah."

WHAT IS COMING OF THIS WORLD? WHAT USED TO BE FREE FOR OUR CHILD'S SIZE SAMPLE IS NOW CHARGED TO US. AND DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE IT IS "FRESH BAKED?" THESE THINGS HAVE BEEN SITTING IN THIS DISPLAY ALL DAY. FURTHERMORE, THE HYPOCRISY OF YOUR "HEALTHIER MCDONALDS" KICK IS CLEARLY EXPOSED WHEN THIS ONE COOKIE IS MUCH LARGER THAT THE THREE SMALL COOKIES COMBINED. NOW I CAN NO LONGER BRING MY KIDS HERE TO FURTHER CLOG THEIR ARTERIES, SOOTHING MY SOUL WITH THE FACT THAT AT LEAST WE GOT FREE COOKIES. MAY YOUR STINKIN COOKIES GO THE WAY OF THE MCPIZZA! GRRRRR.

To those who have wondered if I've written other posts in anger, I will simply state that there is plenty happening in the American church front that is/has making/made me angry, however, I choose not to write about it, or I atleast wait until I have cooled off. This (RED, ALL CAPS, TELETYPE) is what it looks like when I'm angry. (And yes mom, when you send me emails in all caps, it feels like you are yelling at me.)

Locution Confusion--Part 6

2007-07-16T15:38:00.000-05:00

As I've been trying to establish, words may change over time. We may become loose with a definition, or slang usage may taint its original intent. Other words may become obsolete with their lack of use. However, the obsolete words tend to preserve their meaning longer. We've examined the words in the title Fellowship of Grace Brethren Churches to see if this plays out. I suggested that the words go from most clear to least clear in the following order:

Brethren, Fellowship, Churches, Grace

My suggestion is that with its frequent use (in and out of religious discussion), the word grace may have connotations not originallly intended. In the comment section of that post, Dr Peppo rightfully asked, "Are there any historical documents to shed light on what the founders of the Fellowship may have meant by "Grace?"

Great question my baby-sprinkling-friend.

Consider the following statements about McClain, offered by others...

While the Brethren movement was a Pietist-Anabaptist movement reacting to what had become the deadness of the Reformation, it is not to be forgotten that the Brethren were heirs, or "stepchildren" of the Reformation. The doctrinal emphases of the Reformers were shared by the Brethren to such a degree that there was little debate. The deity and authority of Jesus Christ (sola Christus), the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible (sola Scriptura), the doctrines of grace (sola gratia), justification by faith alone (sola fidei), the power of the Holy Spirit working for God's glory (soli Deo Gloria)--all of these appear without question or hesitation in the Brethren Movement.--Keith Shearer, "Childlike Faith" p8

It was the renewal of the Reformed doctrines of grace in the teaching emphasis of Alva J McClain (1888-1968) that marked the Grace Movement among the Brethren. Historically speaking, the Grace Brethren are theologically both Reformed and Brethren--a unique and happy combination indeed.--Keith Shearer, "Childlike Faith" p10

The Grace Movement, now the Fellowship of Grace Brethren Churches, arose as the next phase of the Brethren movement, largely because of a "difference in how to view God's grace and the nature of salvation." Alva J McClain, the first president of Grace Theological Seminary, "emphasized the believer's assurance of salvation, the believer's security, the premillennial, personal return of Christ for His Church, and the outlines on the brilliant arguments of the Apostle Paul in The Epistle of Paul to the Romans on law and grace.--Keith Shearer, "Childlike Faith" p11

But tensions under the surface of The Brethren Church were increasing. On one side there was a growing movement, particularly under the teaching of Dr. McClain, that wanted to identify Brethrenism with a more Calvinistic, premillennial, fundamentalism. The Progressives had moved into mainstream evangelicalism at a time when dispensationalism and fundamentalism were growing movements on the American scene. These movements had a deep impact on many of the Brethren pastors and leaders, particularly through a series of strong pastors in the First Brethren Church of Philadelphia where McClain himself had pastored.--David Plaster, "Finding our Focus" p97

These are observations of McClain, but did McClain say anything himself? to be continued...

The Conversation is Clear as Mud

2007-07-14T21:05:00.000-05:00

Russell Moore has been hosting the Al Mohler Radio Program while David's cousin vacations. While it is Al's show, Russell brings a unique and equally entertaining twist. Never afraid to tackle a difficult topic, Moore invited Tony Jones to join the conversation.

It is not the first time Moore invited a interviewee with a different perspective. Charity and I listened to the interview during a drive today. This exchange seemed to summarize the entire interview:
Moore:

Tony, you and I have been talking about your understanding that you ought not to have necessarily a central, defining confession of faith. You ought not to see orthodoxy as something that is settled, but orthodoxy, instead, as something we are moving toward. I wonder, Tony, in a local church, or even in the emerging church conversation, what if you have an emerging wing of Jehovah's Witnesses? Where are the boundaries, the doctrinal boundaries and how are those decided if you don't have a common confession?

Jones:

Well, that's a great question, Russell. I was listening to your show on Wednesday, the call-in show, and somebody asked you about interracial marriage. You expressed that basically the truth is that we are all created in the image of God, and that there's nothing against a person of one race and of another race marrying one another. Now there was a time, of course, when the Southern Baptist Convention would have said, "This is truth, that an African-American and a white should not get married." This is something that in time, as we've learned more about human beings, and I would like to say, I you'd probably agree, we know more about who we are as creations in the image of God, and we know more about God's truth (Moore interjected, "I don't believe that's what happened at all."), we have come to realize that we were wrong, and there's nothing Scriptural precluding two people of two different races from getting married. So, this is a situ...it's not relativism. It's not anything goes. It is a deliberate process by which we listen to God's Spirit, we live together in communities of faith, and we have a different opinion about a particular area of truth than we had, say, one hundred years ago.

Moore suggested he does not belive Jones' depiction of the interracial marriage issue is completely accurate. Largely, he pointed out that it was because the SBC had a confession of faith, that others were able to appeal back to it and show the convention where they were being inconsistent. This was done as they examined Scripture and saw where they were falling short. (Moore did not excuse their previous stance, instead, he said they were "liars" when it came to their declaration of what God's Word had said regarding the prohibition for interracial marriage and had to repent of that.)

Granted, this was a live radio show, so Jones did not have time to prepare his answers. However, this should be a question he has fielded before, or atleast has thought about. A few of my observations from his answer:

directly

2. I believe the interracial issue was actually handled on Thursday and not Wednesday's show.

3. While the SBC certainly had it wrong, regarding their former "official position" regarding interracial marriage, is Jones really putting interracial marriage on the same level as understanding the Trinity, how one becomes saved or even the nature of Scripture...all debates (but not all the debate) between orthodox Christianity and Jehovah's Witnesses?

4. Jones places the change not in understanding the Scriptures better, but in numerous studies that grew our knowledge about being the image of God and truth.

5. While he asserts it is not relativism or anything goes, he presents a process that diminishes our ability to place faith in what we call truth. Is he really saying that because the SBC missed it on interracial marriage (at one time), that they may be wrong about the Trinity and JW's may be right?

6. It may seem nitpicky, but I'd like to know if God's Spirit is his way of referring to the Holy Spirit. If it is, that is a leaky way to refer to a member of the Trinity and could expose why he has trouble saying the JW's are wrong.

7. He never said JW's were wrong.

8. He never said JW's could not be part of the Emerging Conversation.

9. He never stated he disagrees with JW doctrine.It's an interesting interview. I'd recommend you download it and give it a listen. I find it odd that when asked what "emerging" or "emergent" means, the director of Emergent Villiage struggled to define it. Not surprisingly, Jones pleaded a couple of times that he and Moore were more on the same page than Moore realized. Each time, Moore responded that he doesn't see the similarity.

Now that's the conversation I seem to be having a lot lately.

10 Best Years...

2007-07-11T22:24:00.000-05:00

In the last ten years, I've had:

4 different homes

worked in 3 different ministries

in 4 different positions

in 2 different statesI've grown in:

my library

my theology

my passion for Christ

my family (by 4!)

Virtually everything has changed in some way, except:

1 amazing wife.

July 12, 1997 marked the beginning of the best 10 years in my life.

Did I Miss Something?

2007-07-10T22:15:00.000-05:00

Consider the following paragraphs from an article:

LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy — Pope Benedict XVI reasserted the primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released today that says other Christian communities are either defective or not true churches and Catholicism provides the only true path to salvation.

The statement brought swift criticism from Protestant leaders. "It makes us question whether we are indeed praying together for Christian unity," said the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, a fellowship of 75 million Protestants in more than 100 countries.

I know nothing about the World Alliance of Reformed Churches (other than that the name itself garners suspicion), but I have to ask...

Why are they surprised by this statement?

Are we really in such a p.c.-driven culture where everyone "just needs to get along" to the point that the REFORMATION is relegated to a secondary difference? These are issues of justification by faith, relating to the gospel, relating to our salvation.

Should I be praying for unity (without repentance) with the Catholic church?

Seems to me that an Alliance of Reformed guys wouldn't think so.

(HT: DJ)

Locution Confusion--Part 5

2007-07-09T21:04:00.000-05:00

As I've tried to lay out in this series (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4), language can be tricky. There are certain words we just don't use much anymore. This can cause intimidation (as we have to search a dictionary to find out the term) but rarely create confusion. However, old words, with slightly different definitions, create great confusion.

For discussion sake, let's again consider the FGBC. In my humble opinion (I have no statistics or surveys to back my perspective), confusion with each term in our name is directly proportionate to its frequency of use in society. In order of least used/least confused to most used/most confused:

BrethrenAs I've stated before, I do not believe there is a lot of confusion in regard to the term brethren. A person uses the term "brothers" and we may be confused as to what is meant. Some people consider all mankind to be brothers and sisters. However, when the term "brethren" is used, it seems that most understand this is a term reserved exclusively for the bond found in Christ. (Of course, it also conveys a richer meaning when we know the term is derived from Matthew 23:8, thus it is an affirmation of the priesthood of every believer. Still though, I do not believe the issue is confused, but rather, the deeper meaning may be lost on many.)

FellowshipThis term speaks against denominationalism, yet speaks to cooperation. It conveys that we have no cardinal or pope above us, yet that their is accountability with others. We are not alone and the church extends far beyond geographic borders, but God's mission for the Church involves His work in individual churches. Autonomy, yet partnership. Even more so than brethren, the word "fellowship" can miss much of its deeper meaning.

ChurchAt this point, the terms become more clouded. Do we mean a collection of regenerate people? Do we mean a congregation of saved and unsaved alike? Do we mean the building where the group meets? Beyond that, are we speaking of one small collection of believers or the Universal Church? (Notice each question could be answered adequately in the affirmative. However, I would state that the second question is not closely enough investigated that while nonbelievers may be attending our congregation and may consider themselves part of the church, and the church may even be confused as to their spiritual status, they are not actually part of the Universal Church and according to 1 John 2:19 should cease to be identified as part of the church the moment their true identity is revealed...but that run-on sentance is a digression for now. Perhaps another series will come later.)

We may be confused as to the word "church," certainly more so than "brethren" or "fellowship," but this is not the most confused term from our name.

GRACE

What exactly do we mean by that term? (I think there is an answer)
How do we get to the bottom of figuring that out? (I think there is a way)
Is the term simply up for each person's own perspective? (I don't believe so)

more to come...

Locution Confusion--Part 4

2007-07-08T14:38:00.000-05:00

We're blessed that Koine and Ancient Hebrew are extinct. Their obsolescence is our gain, for it preserves the words, and their attached meanings for all time.

Even in English, the church can take advantage of words that have died out. As society avoids the terms, and terms only become "church-words," the church can again preserve her intention. We should not shrink away from using such terms, but should embrace them; giving our people definitions and teaching them to add it to their vocabulary.

Consider the name: Fellowship of Grace Brethren Churches

I grew up "in the fellowship," yet always struggled with the word "brethren." I wasn't sure why we didn't just use the term brothers. I didn't even know how to spell brethren.

I remember using a church Bible one week in Sunday School. For some reason, I had forgotten my Bible and the teacher handed me one from the class room. It was simply a paperback (I thought all Bibles were printed with leather covers at that time), but it's back cover intrigued me. It had a picture of our church building and near the top it stated: This Bible is a gift of Brookville Grace Brethern Church.

"Wow," I exclaimed, "these Bibles have our church's picture on them. Why don't we pass them out?"

"Because our church's name is misspelled," she calmly answered.

Now, it's nothing for me to miss a typo (A real shock for anyone who has read this blog!), so I looked over the Bible again. Now I knew the name of our church was misspelled so I had it narrowed down to four words. I scanned over it again.

Brookville

Nope. That was spelled right.

Grace

Another easy one. Clearly it was spelled correctly too.

Brethern

Seemed right to me. At least that seemed to match the way most people pronounced it.

Church

Now, even today, I often type "chruch" when I"m typing too quickly. I double checked the spelling, but it was correct.

Dazed, I just stared at the teacher. This was the moment I was introduced to our church fellowship. We are Grace Brethren A name that carries back to 1708.

For years, I wondered about the name "Brethren." Isn't it time to replace it with a more contemporary word? Could we call ourselves the Fellowship of Grace Brothers or Grace Brothers Fellowship? In fact, is the word "brethren" necessary when you've already used the word "fellowship?" In fact, wouldn't "Brothers of Grace" be a cool name? Many times, I looked at the name of our fellowship and thought we had to change our name to be relevant or to have any chance at survival.

But then I realized something. Of the four words in our fellowship, "Brethren" is probably the least misunderstood word of them all. It's another example of how an obscure word actually conveys the original meaning best.

Locution Confusion--Part 3

2007-07-06T14:36:00.000-05:00

Lest someone misunderstand a previous post, I do not believe the church should preach and teach in Greek/Hebrew. Obviously, pastors should be working in the original languages, but we should always communicate that work in clear and attainable ways. Preaching to a German/English/Spanish/Chinese congregation in Latin was ludicrous, we should not seek to return to that form.

I am not suggesting you literally say, "hamartolos" when speaking of John Piper's condition.

However, if we only used the word "bad," we would be missing the boat. There are words that the church uses, which may seem obscure to others, but those words say precisely what we mean. Some words the world may not use, but the church sure should (a very incomplete list):

sin
righteousness
justification
sanctification
glorification
atonement
Lord
slave
shepherd
suffering

Someone may protest: But won't such language seem pretentious? Couldn't we miss our entire audience? Won't such language make the church seem stiff and rigid? Won't the new person be confused, or worse yet, offended?

Not if done properly. I'll admit it, I occasionally consult a thesaurus when writing blog articles (you didn't really think I say "locution," did you?). But I don't advocate using a thesaurus for preaching. The glory is not in our oratory, but in the Savior, revealed in the gospel. However, there are some words which have retained the purity almost because of their obscurity. The pastor should not hesitate to use biblical language, understanding he may need to define it for the listener. And the listener should not hesitate to reuse the word, for it is not pastoral language, but biblical language.

Why Contend?

2007-07-02T07:55:00.000-05:00

Ever see a church building and assume all if fine?

Take a closer look:

[And let us not forget, the "church" that preaches a social gospel, legalistic mandate or diminishes the work of Christ on the cross is preaching just as damning a message as Islam.]

We shouldn't be playing around.

(HT: 9marks Blog)

Grace Algebra

2007-06-28T13:26:00.001-05:00

With apologies to my mother-in-law, I have never cared for algebra. But as I was reading McClain's Law and Grace, the following equation came to mind:

Answer in the comments.

Locution Confusion--Part 2

2007-06-28T08:14:00.000-05:00

Anyone who reads this blog or hears me preach knows that I have yet to master the English language. I've come a long way (marrying an English education major will have that humbling effect on you), but still have a very long way to go. Therefore, it should not surprise anyone that Hebrew and Greek were quite the challenge for me. (Especially considering that Hebrew involved a 7:30am starting time.)

In my Greek grammar book Mounce would speak often of "the fog;" the hazy nature of some of the linguistic concepts. The hope was, as you continued to study, "the fog" would eventually lift. (Of course, a decade later and I'm still waiting for some clouds to ascend.)

At one particularly "cloudy" moment, I remember lamenting to the professor, "Why couldn't God have preserved the language? Why'd He have the authors record the Word in a language no one ever uses? Why didn't he just keep Koine Greek alive and used today?"

To this point, Greek had been a drudgery to me. It had been a code language the Bible was written in. I viewed my class as the development of my "secret decoder ring" all the while wishing God had just written the Bible in English and we could skip the laborious step. (Possibly the only time in my life the KJV only perspective looked attractive, for atleast then I could have pretended Peter had truly spoken in those exact terms.)

Patiently, my professor opened my eyes to see the Lord's grace that the Scriptures were recorded in ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek, and even His grace in "killing" each language. When these languages "died" they were then preserved. Once removed from common society's use, they were not subject to the same dilution, distortion, dispersion and disintegration of our current vocabulary. In a sense, by removing the language from common use, God kept it alive for all of eternity.

In English, when John Piper says he is bad, we may be confused as to what he means.

But in Greek, when John Piper affirms "hamartolos," we can know exactly what he means.

At this point I began to realize, those words (or languages) we consider to be obsolete may be a blessing, not a curse.

Locution Confusion--Part 1

2007-06-27T11:26:00.000-05:00

John Piper is bad!

Imagine removing this statement from all context and eliminating tone. Extract from all surrounding indications, and try to figure out its meaning. For argument's sake, imagine seeing John Piper is bad! scribbled on a bathroom stall. What would the reader be subject to conclude?

1. John Piper is deficient. He is not good at what he does.

2. John Piper is below average. He may be able to complete his task, but in a bare level, understated way.

3. John Piper is sick or ailing.

4. Ironically, the least likely answer would probably be that he is morally depraved.
Things get even foggier. Tell the person that John Piper made the statement (or wrote the sentance on the stall) or even allow them to watch the small video (linked above) and they will come to yet another conclusion. In fact, not only will they come up with another explanation, they will come to a completely opposite perspective:

5. John Piper is good, even possessing a superior edge.Overtime, words often pick up new meanings or inflection. Over a great period of time (or unusual cultural shift), words may even take on contrary definitions. This can make language increasingly difficult, especially when one considers that words are being invented (and becoming obsolete) at the same time.

For the church, this has thrust a new word into our regular vocabulary:

Contextualize

I'm not going to debate fully the issue of contextualization (so step away from the keyboard if you were going to type, "Hey, we all contextualize, you hoser!" I don't want to deal with every nuance of "contextualization." However, I do hope to tackle two similar questions:

Is it bad if we have some unique words you will only hear in church?
Should we do all we can to replace them or change them?

[I should also point out that this video can answer what Piper meant, if you still are not sure. I also point out that Piper has an amazing book sale going on now through Thursday.]

Blogging Pastors

2007-06-25T22:05:00.000-05:00

Local pastor Greg Hyre, of Castine Church of the Brethren was quoted recently on the Dunker Journal.

Local pastor and author, Darby Livingston, has a blog on "all things marriage from a Christian Hedonist, gospel-centered perspective" at profoundmystery.blogspot.com.

Mark Dever and friends have opened a blog at Church Matters. A recent post stated:

Have you ever thought how long you will stay committed to your church? American society is very transitory. Often people leave their church to move to another part of the country because they’ve accepted a better paying job. They are moving up on the corporate ladder, buying a bigger house, and enjoying life with more disposable income.

Here’s a novel idea: Why not turn down a job promotion in order to stay committed to your local church? That is, make your church more of a priority than your career.

Of course, the post was not only speaking to laypeople, but went on to state:

Now you might think I’m just talking about laypeople, but I’m also thinking about pastors here. Researchers say that on average, pastors stay at churches for only 3.5 years. Too many pastors are eager to “move up” to bigger churches with bigger sanctuaries, bigger salaries, more staff, and more ministries.

There is only so much you can do if you stick around for just a few years. In contrast, when you stay in a local church for a lifetime, you can think, plan, and act with a long-term vision. You can build relationships over the long haul. You can commit to transforming one community for a lifetime. A long-term vision with a long-term commitment can make a tremendous difference.

These guys show blogging doesn't have to be the bane of our ministry. Perhaps, I can too???

The Joy of Joshua

2007-06-25T13:42:00.000-05:00

This last Sunday, I preached my final message from the Book of Joshua. It was "bitter-sweet" as I don't believe I have enjoyed preaching through a book as much as Joshua. The final breakdown of the Book of Joshua (for LIFEGroups) was:

27 sermons

24 chapters

658 verses

129 cross references

within 31 books of the Bible.
I didn't just enjoy preaching through Joshua. I didn't just enjoy the content of Joshua, or the lessons available. I truly LOVE the book of Joshua now. I completed this book with a greater affection than any other book I've ever preached through. As I tried to think about why, I came to a couple conclusions:

not

2. When I did preach through a book, it was with students, rather than many generations. Nearly five years ago, I finally caught on and started working through books of the Bible. I've preached through Judges, Galatians and half of Luke. Of course, this directly correlates to when students' lives started becoming sanctified. It was wonderful, however, it is limited when your teaching is to only one generation than seeing the application and relevancy of the text to all generations.

didn't

Though preaching through Joshua was different than the above three experiences, I don't think that is the major reason for my affection. The greatest difference by far was done to me. Today, I am not the same guy who first started digging into the book of Joshua...and Joshua has played a large part in that transformation.

Our evening classes begin with a corporate time of singing and sharing. I asked people to share their favorite book of the Bible and to share why. From several, the answer came out, "the book I've been studying most recently."

I trust that will be the case. (I know just from studying Romans 1:1-3 with our elders has caused a sermon on that text to burn within me.) Someone shared that 1 John is their favoite book because, "pretty much every issue regarding salvation can be answered in that book." He's probably right. And I imagine that at this time next summer, 1 John will be my favoite book too.

Are You Kidding Me?

2007-06-20T19:52:00.000-05:00

This report is just ridiculous.

A woman priest is now Muslim AND Christian.

Sadly, her overseer "the Rt. Reverend Vincent Warner of Seattle, says that Rev. Redding's declaration that she is both a Christian and a Muslim to be exciting in terms of interfaith understanding."

What would lead to this kind of perspective? I don't think it's surprising that Rev. Redding said:

I don't think God said, "Let me send this special person so that I can kill him for the benefit of the rest of humanity." That's not the kind of sacrifice I think that God desires.

Once you've constructed the cross without penal substitutionary atonement, I guess a Muslim/Christian mix isn't that crazy.

Homosexuality and Genetics

2007-06-19T15:40:00.000-05:00

I completely agree with Al Mohler's perspective on "the Gay Gene." Though the "evidence" is shaky, the Christian should not be rattled if they discovered a genetic influence toward homosexuality. Mohler reminds us:

Conservative Christians believe that homosexual behavior is sinful, not because of scientific evidence or the absence of a biological basis, but because the Bible is so clear in its condemnation of all homosexual acts, and even of homosexual desire (Romans 1: 27). The Rice and Ebers study does reveal the weakness of the biological argument put forward by homosexual activists, but evangelicals must be cautious in denying the possibility of any biological factors related to homosexuality...

...The doctrine of total depravity reminds us that no part of ourselves is free from sin and its injury. That certainly includes our genetic code as well. As the church father Ambrose of Milan (340-397) stated, "Before we are born we are infected with the contagion, and before we see the light of day we experience the injury of our origin." In the end, the scientific evidence is not morally important, though it may be medically useful.

That said, our brother at Dunkard Journal has been keeping readers updated on the mess that is the Unofficial Brethren Position Paper of the Church of the Brethren Standing Committee. In a recent article, he quotes a medical doctor's article in the "Messenger." In the quote, the doctor states:

Social Psychology has not been able to find any evidence that homosexuality is inborn or hereditary. If it was hereditary, it would follow family patterns and family history and would not vary over time. There is no evidence that people have any inborn gender preference.

This got me to thinking (and may have been a point from the medical doctor, unfortunately, his article is not linked)...

If homosexuality is genetic, then it is passed down hereditarily. If it is passed down hereditarily, then a person with the homosexual gene must be engaged in a heterosexual relationship. Therefore, shouldn't the incidences of homosexuality decrease over generations as those with the gene do not produce offspring?

Perhaps, one could argue that our world's narrow-minded view of homosexuality has caused those with the gene to procreate with heterosexuals, thus continuing the gene. However, in our age of "tolerance," wouldn't more people with the gene indulge their impulse and enter into a homosexual relationship, thus eliminating their ability to procreate...thus eventually eliminating the gene?

Again, IF homosexuality had any genetic influence, the Christian should not panic or find his position shaken. The Word of God has spoken. But, IF homosexuality is genetic, shouldn't that mean it is headed for extinction?

Click, Read, Pray, Study, Comment

2007-06-19T14:22:00.000-05:00

That's your assignment.

Matt Harmon, Associate Professor of New Testament Studies at Grace Seminary recently posted:

Getting to Christ from Genesis 16. Matt preached on Genesis 16 at his in-laws church and would like to hear feedback about the text.

This should be what every believer loves to do! Click the article, read it, pray for wisdom, search the Scriptures and then comment on his blog!

.com Generation

2007-06-16T21:25:00.000-05:00

As my daughter was playing in a tree house with my son tonight, she pretended they were making monkey food.

She then asked me if I wanted to buy some from her. When I said yes, she told me:

"You can buy it at www.monkeyfood.com."

That's right, my four year old is already considering starting a dotcom.

Huh.

Redeeming Downtime

2007-06-15T21:44:00.000-05:00

My eyes anticipate the night watches,
That I may meditate on Your word

--Psalm 119:145

the Wisdom that Leads to Salvation

2007-06-13T20:31:00.000-05:00

and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.--2 Timothy 3:15

Recently, a couple entered my office wanting to be baptized. In our church, such a request requires a detailed interview to make sure they understand the gospel and the purposes for baptism. As they shared, they understood the work of Christ, but struggled with its application. Neither could be sure of their salvation, since each were mixing works with Christ's substitution. I'd reply with the gospel and then ask some questions. Works. I'd reply with the gospel and ask some questions. Works. We repeated this pattern a couple of times...then the dreaded question.

So, when can we get baptized?

Oi Vey!

Here's the rub. This couple was interested. They've been attending services, classes and devouring resources. They're a sweet couple and have even sought to eliminate some bad habits. They're in my office asking to be baptized, for Pete's sake! It would have taken minimal effort to get them to pray a prayer. I could have tweaked their statements and coached them through a more accurate answer. (Uh, but we all know that wouldn't have been right, right?)

Sadly, I'm not sure what I would have done last year. I've shared the gospel and there is no response. I may have caved and tried to justify they "just couldn't articulate what they really believe" and proceeded to baptize. I may have assumed that if they haven't understood it by now they probably won't and given up. I may have asked them to come back in a week and see if repeating the process would have a different result.

I praise God that I receieved some NANC training from Steve Short. In a nutshell, you're encouraged to give hope and let the Bible do its work. So, I encouraged them that God is quite possibly drawing them to Himself, and asked them if we could meet again. I also gave them some "homework." I asked them to read John 3. I tried to share gently that I didn't think they were ready to be baptized yet, but I believe John 3 could clear things up.

Here's the Kicker...

I had an opportunity to meet with the couple again. They shared verses from John 3 they found significant. As they shared (and explained the texts), I started to wonder, "has the light come on?" I asked them to explain the gospel and they nailed it! There was not a touch of "works" in their answer, and they had assurance of their salvation. With zero coaching, they had gone from darkness into light.

Do you know what I did? Nothing.

They didn't "get saved" in my office. I didn't "win them to the Lord." I simply asked them to read the most relevant thing they could get their hands on. Prayerfully, they'll never set it down.

to the praise of the glory of His grace!

Separated at Birth?

2007-06-12T22:25:00.000-05:00

I'm not an fan of either...but as the night got later on an already long week, I started to wonder?

Sasha Pavlovic

Wentworth Miller

Ageless Gospel

2007-06-12T20:41:00.000-05:00

Our elder team is beginning to walk through Romans. (Hopefully, going through chapters 6 & 7 will help me get my hands around the sanctification issue a little better). This quote came from McClain's Commentary:

Paul, on the first mention of the gospel of God in that book of Romans, hastens to add that this gospel is no novelty. It is as old as the universe, "promised before," long before the apostle sat down to explain it. Paul demonstrates this to be a fact throughout the Roman epistle by quoting constantly from the Old Testament, sixty-one times altogether...Besides these sixty-one quotations, the book is full of indirect allusions to Old Testament history, type, and doctrine. Truly the gospel of God was "promised afore in the Holy Scriptures"! Only eyes closed by willful blindness could fail to see this.--p37

Our church finishes the book of Joshua next Sunday. It has been a remarkable blessing to see the gospel in each account in this Old Testament book. I hope our people have seen that this book is about Yeshua, just not the one who immediately succeeded Moses.

Can't I Do Anything Right?

2007-06-08T09:32:00.000-05:00

In my previous post, I stated: If we want to lift Jesus high by exalting the glory of grace, then we must not be afraid to plunge to the depths of our depravity. My point being that grace is diminished if I fail to see the severity of my depravity. I used a John Piper quote, explaining depravity as our undervaluing God to what He is worth. If I follow his definition (which I do), then I realize I sin regularly. The idea of a believer going a day without sin is impossible. (I'd say laughable, except such a concept is tragic.)

In that post, I even state that our righteous works are like filthy rags.

Does this mean the believer is incapable of good works?

Before we answer that question, let's ask a few more.

Who requires good works?

As obedient children, do not be conformed to the former lusts which were yours in your ignorance, but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; because it is written, "YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY."--1 Peter 1:14-16

Who established our good works beforehand?

For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.--Ephesians 2:10

Who began, continues and will complete the good work?

For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.--Philippians 1:6

Who should get credit for our works?

Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.--Matthew 5:16

Who is really at work when we do good?

For this purpose also I labor, striving according to His power, which mightily works within me.--Colossians 1:29.

Now, before we look at another text, let's consider an illustration.

Hal the pizza chef.

Hal doesn't make just any pizza, he makes the best pizza. Hal uses Lou's oven, Lou's tools, Lou's recipe, Lou's ingredients and Lou's facility. Should we really credit Hal for the pizza?

Consider finding Hal standing at the corner of Schaumburg and Roselle, just after his shift has ended. You ask Hal to make you a pizza. He may know the ingredients necessary, and be able to obtain them at a store. He may know the proper oven settings and could take you back to his house to prepare it. He may be able to make you something just like a Lou Malnati's pizza, but he can't actually make one of Lou's pies.

Not sure? Check your visa bill. Your transaction was not received by Hal, but rather by Lou Malnati. Just imagine that while on the job, Hal makes the perfect creation. The cheese (both layers) are perfectly cooked. The pepperoni is perfectly placed. Even the sauce is to a ideal proportion. Hal may be staring down at the perfect pie, yet he must ring the bell and call out, "Order up!" Hal cannot set that pie aside and prepare another for the customer. It is not his, it is Lou's, soon to become a specific customer's.

Delicious illustration, but does the Word of God say anything? Consider:

Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.--John 17:17

Sanctify--2nd Person/Singular/Aorist/Imperative. Jesus calls upon God to do the sanctifying work. It is His Father's task to accomplish.

Them--Pronoun/Personal/Plural. Jesus has a specific recipient in mind. He is calling upon the Father to sanctify His disciples. Christ has trained them, lived with them and discipled them. Yet He places them in the Father's hands to do His sanctifying work.

Word--Noun/Nominative/Singular. Jesus states that God will use a change agent in the process. He calls upon God to sanctify His disciples by the Word of God (truth).

Notice: The disciple does not sanctify himself.
Notice: The Word does not sanctify.

God sanctifies the disciple through the Word of God.

One man may claim, See, I pick up the Book and read it to be sanctified. But we cannot produce our own sanctification. An atheist can pick up the Scriptures daily, parsing the greek and researching the context, yet it does not produce a fruit to righteousness.

Yet another man will protest, But if God is the One who is doing the work, why bother reading my Bible? But God has decreed that He will sanctify through His Word. If we do not pick up the Book, by what right can we ask for His sanctification?

And so we return:
Does this mean the believer is incapable of good works?

By myself? Absolutely. In my own power? Without a doubt. Responsible for the results? Then I don't stand a chance.

I don't own my good works. I do not supply my good works. I can't accomplish my good works. I'm not responsible for the result of good works. And I wouldn't want it any other way. For His name is then attached to the product, not mine.
Cultural Reference Warning:
(Albeit, Christian culture)

I'm so thankful
That I'm incapable
Of doing any good on my own!

How Deep is Your Grace?

2007-06-07T09:10:00.000-05:00

Just the other day, in the midst of a sermon about grace, I heard a pastor speaking on sanctifying grace. In the midst of his point, he made the following statement:

Dear friends, I don't know if you've come to understand the fact that this room is filled with sinners. A bunch of saved sinners, but we still fail. We still fail the Lord often. I don't say everyday, because I don't believe every Christian fails the Lord everyday...thats' an irrelevent statement...assessment to begin with.

It was an interesting statement for me to hear, since I had just heard a message on the nature of our depravity. In that message, John Piper states:

The reason people are not stunned by the grace of God and their own salvation is because they have never felt how inveterately sinful they are everyday because they have not been taught well what sin is. They've grown up in Christian homes, they've never committed adultery. They've never stolen anything, they've never killed anybody. They're scratching their head, saying, "When have I sinned last? I can't remember when I sinned last."

We've all been there. We've all been there. Everybody says, "Let's have a five or ten minute time here of confession." And you're thinking, "Uh, let's see..."

Listen, if you catch on to what I've said...3 seconds ago you were sinning. Did you love Him, did you prefer Him in proportion to His worth? His infinite worth?

Here's the thing. Piper's message was on "The Nature of our Depravity" and it was gloriously grace filled and Christ exalting. The first message I quoted was intended to be all about grace, yet by stating that sin may not happen daily (or atleast that the discussion is irrellevent) I believe he missed some of the glory of sanctifying grace. When we see our sin simply as actions we do (or thoughts we have), it is possible to think there are moments we need grace and moments we don't.

If we want to lift Jesus high by exalting the glory of grace, then we must not be afraid to plunge to the depths of our depravity.

Oh what a wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!--Romans 7:24-25

[Post has been modified. In good integrity, I do not wish to secretly "correct" a post. If you would like more information, there is an explanation in the comment section.]