Hold Fast

Great Quote

2007-10-01T08:28:00.000-06:00

"Sometimes the charge is leveled, 'If you're a believer in election, you won't evangelize'..... My concern is the opposite: if you don't believe that the gospel is the good news of God's action--the Father electing, the Son dying, the Spirit drawing--that conversion is only our response to God's giving us the grace-gifts of repentance and faith, and that evangelism is our simple, faithful, prayerful telling of this good news, then you will actually damage the evangelistic mission of the church by making false converts. If you think that the gospel is all about what we can do, that the practice of it is optional, and that conversion is simply something that anyone can choose at any time, then I'm concerned that you'll think of evangelism as nothing more than a sales job where the prospect is to be won over to sign on the dotted line by praying a prayer, followed by an assurance that he is the proud owner of salvation." (Mark Dever, The Gospel and Personal Evangelism)

Christ's happiness is our hope!

2007-09-23T20:18:00.000-06:00

As I was working on my sermon for today, I finally came to realize something that I had read before, but had never let sink in.

I was struggling to express hope and grace in the fact that God, at times, plans for evil to happen to us. (If you want a bit more explanation, see the sermon manuscript on the church website). I began with a basic answer - as with Job, God sends trials and struggles to test us and to sharpen and refine our faith and character.

But what makes that a hope and a joy, as opposed to something to which we simply, grudgingly, resign ourselves? Why are trials, and the experience of being on the receiving end of evil and wickedness, something that we should be happy about?

Well, as I meditated on the problem, I framed the issue like this: God sends trials and suffering to glorify Himself. And how does He glorify and exalt Himself in the lives of believers? He conforms them to the image of Christ.

And then it hit me - again, and for the first time. (I probably owe a great debt to John Piper's writings on this one, as he has made this point in many different ways). If we are to be like Christ in every human way, what about the joy of Christ? What about His happiness?

Is Christ joyful? Is He happy? You'd better believe it. He's God - nothing can thwart Him or frustrate Him. He does everything He pleases. He lives to please and glorify His Father, and in His life, death, and resurrection, He did so perfectly. The Father is exalted in Christ, and that makes Christ supremely joyful.

And if we are to be conformed to the image of Christ, that includes - especially - the joy that is so central to His being. In other words, God wants us to be happy because Christ is happy, and He wants us to be like Christ.

That puts suffering in perspective!

Habakkuk Kicks Off

2007-09-18T16:20:00.000-06:00

As promised, I've posted my first sermon on Habakkuk (chapter 1, verses 1-4) to the church website. It can be found here.

The passage is Habakkuk's first petition or prayer to God. Why is he crying out to God? I cover a bit of background to the book, and explain Habakkuk's problem. The whole book is an answer to this problem, and so understanding the problem is crucial fro everything that follows.

And - we all have the same problem...

A Devotional: John 3:16a

2007-09-17T11:45:00.000-06:00

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son… (John 3:16a)

Probably the most well-known verse of the Bible, John 3:16 contains Christ’s precious promise of salvation to all who believe. And yet there is so much more that we can learn from this beautiful passage.

One such gem is the true meaning of the English word, “so” – as in, “God so loved the world, that…” This is how most English translations read. Because of this, Christians are tempted to read the verse in the following sense: “God loved the world so much, that…” While it is certainly true that God loves His creation greatly and seeks to demonstrate this affection, it’s not the actual meaning of Jesus’ words.

A more accurate sense would be, “For this is how God loved the world,” as a footnote in the English Standard Version points out. The Holman Christian Standard Bible renders the phrase this way: “For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son…” In other words, John 3:16 is not trying to tell us how MUCH God loves the world, but in what WAY He loves the world.

Once we understand this difference, we realize that God’s actions are not simply the effects or results of His love. They are, in fact, that love itself. We are shown that God’s love for us, far from being a mere feeling or inclination, is an active love. God’s love is deeds, not just words or feelings. We see that God’s gift of Christ to the world was more than just a reflection or expression of love – this gift is love itself, love made real and concrete.

How Theology and Doctrine Matter in Daily Life

2007-09-16T21:59:00.000-06:00

A young boy wonders what is the right thing to do in response to teasing and bullying at school: argue back? Fight? Tell the teachers? Just take it?

An old man wonders what is left to live for after the death of his wife of 51 years.

A teenager struggles with his teacher’s assurance that evolution should not be a problem for a Christian to accept – after all, God could have used evolution as his tool to create, couldn’t he?

A young woman who has just miscarried wonders why God would allow such tragedy to come to such a young life.

A tired woman contemplating divorce from her distant and uncaring husband wonders what is the Christian thing to do.

A family offended by the careless words of another person in the church contemplates changing congregations to avoid further trouble.

An army officer wonders whether to obey his orders and abandon a fighting position that protects a village from genocide – or to disobey and risk his soldiers’ lives in an uncertain battle to protect them.

A second-year university student has no idea how to answer skeptical professors and classmates who deny the Creation of the universe in favour of a Big Bang.

An office worker struggles to witness to a coworker who, because of tragedy and trauma in her life, cannot accept the existence of God in such an evil world.

A shaken young couple is advised by their doctor to abort their unborn child, revealed by a test to be afflicted with a debilitating and likely terminal illness.

Christian voters at the polls wonder whether to support one party, which favours unrestricted abortion rights, or its main opponent, embroiled in a shocking corruption scandal.

An office manager wonders what to do with the employee caught stealing from the company – whose family lives in poverty and struggles to make ends meet.

These are hard questions. They are everyday dilemmas that many Christians have faced or can expect to face.

Furthermore, these are not merely academic or intellectual questions. Any response will relate to the duties of the believer to God. Any resolution will impact the Christian’s witness before others.

These are theological questions. They all relate to specific Christian doctrine. And when we fail to teach our people to think theologically, we leave them helpless to face some of the toughest questions of life.

Doctrine and theology matter. Do you feel ready to help a fellow believer in such situations?

Preaching Update

2007-09-16T21:44:00.000-06:00

I'm catching up on posting sermon manuscripts to the church website. I just put up a sermon on Psalm 15 from August 26, if anyone wants to check it out. I'm planning on having today's sermon (Habakkuk 1:1-4) up in the next couple days.

Why Calvinists Evangelize

2007-09-15T00:25:00.000-06:00

Several times I've run into the objection: "If you believe that God has already chosen those who will be saved, why bother evangelizing? Won't God just do it without us?" Here is my quick answer:

1. We evangelize because God tells us to.

The Great Commission is the reason the church has been left in the world. It is a command. It is not optional. So, first and foremost, evangelism is an act of obedience. It is more than that, for sure, but even if it wasn’t, the fact that God has commanded evangelism should be enough for anyone to obey – no matter how they understand the relationship of God’s sovereignty to human freedom. I’ve got no time for hyper-Calvinists for that reason.

2. Evangelism’s foundation is the total, absolute sovereignty of God.

Look at Matthew 28. The first words of the Great Commission are not, “Go and make disciples of all nations.” They are, “All authority (Greek exousia, “power” or “authority”) in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” Christ has the authority and power over us, to send us – that’s why we obey. He has all authority and power over the whole world – that’s why we’re authorized to go to them. And He has all authority over all people, all their hearts, including their wills – that’s why we go to them expecting any response to the Gospel at all. I see no limit on Christ’s authority or power in any sphere at all, and that is the foundation of evangelism.

3. Evangelism’s motivation is the glory of God.

We do all things to the glory of God. Preaching and proclaiming the Gospel is an end in itself, before we even consider the response to it. The very act of sharing the Gospel brings God glory, whether the person responds positively or not. The “success” of evangelism, therefore, should not be measured by numbers, but by faithfulness – faithfulness to the message, and faithfulness in diligently and persistently proclaiming the message. Hyper-Calvinists think you can somehow determine who is the elect before sharing the Gospel, and this is wrong – wrong because the evidence of election is faith in response to the Gospel, and wrong because it robs God of the glory he would receive in having His message proclaimed to every creature without discrimination. A rejected Gospel presentation is not a failure – it was an act of worship on our part, and a divine judgment on the sin of the unbeliever to the glory of God.

4. Evangelism is done for the sake of God’s elect.

However you define the “elect,” the Bible makes clear that Paul did all things for their sake (2 Tim 2:10, Tit 1:1). And when Paul was discouraged, facing stubborn Jewish opposition in his outreach efforts in Corinth, God reassured him by telling him, “Fear not – I have many people in this city” (Acts 18). Evangelism proceeds on the assurance that God’s elect, whoever they are, are out there and that they WILL respond (John 6:37-39). Election is a great encouragement to evangelize, because it is an assurance of success!

5. Human evangelism is God’s means to carry out His ends in election.

Much of the confusion over election and predestination is founded on a bad assumption. Why evangelize if the outcome is already decided? Why pray if the outcome is already decided? Because God has given us the privilege of participating in the outfolding of His plan. Or, to put it another way, God has ordained everything that comes to pass – not only the ends or results, but also the means by which they happen. God could have just “saved” His people without proclamation, by way of visions or dreams – but He didn’t. He has revealed in Scripture that the exclusive means by which people are brought to faith is through human evangelism (Romans 10:13-17). Our actions matter precisely BECAUSE God has ordained them as part of His plan, not in SPITE of election!

A Cry For A Clean Heart: Sermon on Psalm 51

2007-09-14T20:40:00.000-06:00

Below is a sermon I preached at Symons Valley Community Church on July 29. It was one of the congregation's favorites (by me, anyway).
_____________________________

I love the Psalms. They express the heart of God’s people. all the joy, all the sorrow, all the rage, all the love, all the anger, all the frustration, all the hope of a walk with God in a fallen world is on full display.
The Psalms are in a class by themselves as Scripture. While being God’s inspired and perfect words for us, they are also the words of men to God. Moved by the Holy Spirit, real believers facing real trials and struggles poured their hearts out to God in song and prayer. And this has given us a priceless treasure - an inspired hymnbook, full of inspiration and wisdom.
What makes them so edifying to us, I think, is the sheer variety we see in the Psalms. There are songs of praise. There are songs of thanksgiving. Cries for help and cries of joy. Words of anger and words of comfort.
Our text today is a song of confession and lament. Psalm 51. It is a well-known passage, and expresses better than perhaps any other writing the response of a believing heart to one’s own sin and wickedness.

CONTEXT
It must have been a hot day. It was in the spring, when, as 2 Samuel 11 puts it, “the kings go out to battle.” The beginning of the campaign season, when the rains have stopped and the roads can handle the heavy traffic that goes along with an army on the move. It was probably April or May, and in Jerusalem, that’s a warm time of year. Jerusalem is on a hilltop not far from the Mediterranean Sea, and not far from the desert, either. The climate would have been something like California.
And in an age without air conditioning, as Erin and I found out by experience last week, staying indoors is an ordeal to be avoided. I don’t blame David for going out on the roof, then. He was probably trying to get out of the stuffy halls of the palace and catch a nice breeze.
A twist of fate - well, in God’s world, there are no coincidences. Samuel tells us that Bathsheba was having a bath on the rooftop. And, as it happened, she was doing this at the same time David took his walk on the roof. By God’s plan, these two wound up on their rooftops at the same time. This was a test.
And think about who was being tested here. David was a man after God’s own heart. He was a firm believer in God, a faithful worshipper and servant. He was a prophet in his own right, who wrote dozens of Psalms we still read and sing today. Throughout the Bible, he is spoken of in glowing terms - a king held up as a model to be imitated, an example of living faith.
And yet David fails the test. He could have averted his eyes. He could have gone right back inside, found something else to busy himself. There was a war on, after all - maybe he could have gone over some of the messages from the front, or grabbed a horse and travelled up there himself.
The Bible reminds us that all sin is our own responsibility. God himself tempts no one, though he allows us to face temptation from others. And in every time of temptation, God ensures that we will face no more than we are able to bear. In fact, he gives us a way out. And like I said, David had a way out.
What a devastating fall. An astounding display of sin. We have lust. Covetousness. Adultery. Deception - trying to have Uriah think the child is his, remember? Betrayal. Murder. And so this psalm, even before we get into the text itself, has a vital lesson for us all in its historical context. David was one of the greatest heroes of the Bible, and he failed.Badly. His status as a prophet of God didn’t protect him. His character as a kind and generous man didn’t keep him safe. Within David’s heart was wickedness - the same evil nature that all of us still fight against in our daily walk. If David, of all people, could fall - despite his character, his knowledge, his wisdom, his grasp of the things of God - so could any of us. And not just into any sin - into adultery and murder. Some of the most shocking sins imaginable.
There’s our first lesson. If David could fall, so can we. If he were capable of such sin, so are we. Let us be warned.
Now, the psalm itself. As you read it, you can feel David’s anguish. He is a broken man. He has looked into his heart and examined his ways, and he is disgusted with himself.
There’s three things we can learn from Psalm 51 – three things that we need to hear and apply in our own lives. First, David has some important insights into his own sinfulness. Second, David cries out to God to change his heart. And third, the way David prays – how he approaches God and what he says – is a good example for us to follow.

WHY DAVID WAS PRAYING
First, David talks about his sin. His words about himself should not be taken as exaggeration or hyperbole. David has some valuable insights into sin that we need to recognize. Let’s start at verse 4:
“Against you, you only, have I sinned, and done what is evil in your sight.” That sounds a little odd, doesn’t it? Against God? God only?
Think for a moment. Just how many people did this sin affect? David was a married man, for starters. What about his wives? By this point, he had at least two - Michal, Saul’s daughter, Abigail, Nabal’s widow, and probably others. David surely sinned against them - breaking the covenant vows he had made to them to be their husband!
What about Uriah? Not only did David take his wife, he betrayed him, deceived him, and killed him.
How about Bathsheba? Whether she has some responsibility in this situation or not, the fact remains that David, like so many men today, looked on her and lusted after her. He treated her like a piece of meat, a means of pleasure. What about her?
What about David’s children? Their father - treating their mothers and his own family with such carelessness and disrespect?
The people of Israel? Their king has dishonoured himself and by extension the entire kingdom. How can David say that he had sinned against God alone?
Because all the people I just listed belong to God. A sin against them is fundamentally a sin against their Creator and Master.
Even more than that, though, is the nature of sin itself. Sin - what is it? It is a failure to meet the standard of God. It is missing the mark. Falling short of God’s expectations.
And so every sin is against God. He is the final Judge. The buck stops with Him. There is no court of appeal. Every single sin ever committed is ultimately and finally dealt with by God, and God alone. Every sin is ultimately and finally against God - and God will require an account for it. Don’t forget that.
That’s the first point about sin - it’s against God and God alone. We can’t blame God for it. There will be no room for excuses - even though God is sovereign, even though your actions are all a part of His plan, it is you who commits them. It is you who forms the desire in your heart - not God. It is you who gives in to temptation - not God pushing you into it. Like David said, “you are justified when you speak, and blameless when you judge.” Our sin is our own, and God will have nothing to do with it. His judgment is just.
Let’s read on: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.”
Is this exaggeration? David elsewhere speaks very highly of his mother. He was the youngest in his family - his mother and father were married. There was no sin in the way he was concieved.
What David is saying, then, is this. He was sinful from birth. This isn’t poetic exaggeration. Human beings are sinful by their very nature. Erin and I saw a little girl of only two or three years old on Friday, ripping a toy out of Caden’s hands at the photographer’s, screaming “No! It’s mine!!” Caden will have fits of rage if you try to take a remote control or set of keys out of his hands.
Sin is not a learned behavior, like talking or potty training. It’s innate and natural, like eating and breathing. We are not sinful because we sin - rather, we sin because we are sinful. The reason every single human being sins and is guilty in God’s eyes, no matter what culture they live in or life situation or upbringing they come from, is because their sinfulness is part of their very nature. Yes, from birth - from conception. And while a very young child, especially in the womb, may not be physically able to commit acts of sin, and while their actions may not be willfully sinful, their basic inclinations are still sinful. Their nature is sinful.
This is an uncomfortable teaching, because it feels wrong. Babies are cute - I know! I know it well! They’re beautiful. But they are also corrupt - born into spiritual slavery. Stillborn with respect to spiritual things. Children don’t grow up naturally generous and giving - these things have to be modeled and taught and enforced. They have to overcome a naturally selfish nature.
And it’s important for us to realize this - vital that we get this. If you don’t get sin right, you can’t get the Gospel right. And if you don’t get the Gospel right, there can be no salvation.
Listen - Jesus didn’t come to maximize some kind of natural human potential, like so many today believe. That’s a false gospel - it’s a lie. The only natural potential in mankind is toward greater and greater evil. No, Jesus came to SAVE us. From what? From sin - from OURSELVES! From what we bring upon ourselves - the punishment and wrath of an outraged and offended God.
That’s the second point about sin - sin is natural to human beings.
And sin must be dealt with. David cries out for God to purge him with hyssop. To purify him with hyssop. What does this mean? In ancient Israel, the Law of Moses prescribed certain rituals be performed for certain problems. David is referring to one of these - the rite of purification for leprosy. He’s comparing sin to leprosy.
In our age, a simple medication can stop the disease (though reversing its effects is a lot harder). In ancient Israel, if a person had recovered from leprosy, the victim was to go to the priest, who would perform this ritual, which I am reading from Leviticus 14: 2-7.
So not only does David compare his sin to leprosy, but he compares the purification from sin to that from leprosy. There’s a lot in common. An animal is sacrificed - a bird is killed - just as Christ had to die as punishment for our sins. The bird’s blood is sprinkled on the leper, just as Christ’s blood washes us clean. The ritual takes place over running water, a Biblical symbol of the water of life that flows from Christ in the form of His Holy Spirit.
David is crying for God to purify Him, to remove the guilt and the stain of his sin. That’s the third point about sin - it must be removed and cleansed by blood. This is what the Father did for us, sending His Son to shed His blood for our sin.

WHAT DAVID WAS PRAYING FOR
But not only must salvation be purchased by Christ on the cross - it has to be applied to the individual believer in his own life. The ritual we just talked about didn’t end with the death of the bird – its blood had to be sprinkled on the leper, applied to the leper. The work of Christ is followed by the work of the Spirit. It’s not enough that sin be paid for - the whole purpose of salvation is not just to rescue sinners from hell, but to restore them to the service of God’s glory.
David realized this. He dredged the depths of his own heart and brought up filth and evil. He was shocked and appalled at what he turned out to be capable of. Horrified and guilt-stricken, he turned to God in prayer, and asked - asked for what?
For help in doing better? No.For better luck next time? No.
No, David recognized the root of the problem. He saw the source of the evil in his life in his lyin’, cheatin’ heart. He didn’t adopt the twenty-first century attitude - that given the right conditions, the right encouragement, and enough self-esteem, that the good in him would triumph. David knew that there was no good in the heart of man, except for God’s grace.
And so he prayed for the only thing that would help - he prayed for a clean heart.
What I want to draw your attention to is the parallel between his appeal for a clean heart in verses 10-12, and his description of the heart the God desires in verse 17. There, David rules out the idea that sacrifices and rituals can cover sin or cause God to accept a sinner. What kind of sacrifice will God accept? A broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, he says.
Is he talking about two different things? Is he saying that he is approaching God with a broken and contrite heart, so that God will give him a clean heart? Well, David is certainly broken. He’s contrite – that means repentant and ashamed. But I don’t think these are two different things. David is ashamed and disgusted by the state of his heart right now – otherwise, he wouldn’t be asking for a clean one!
No, David is confessing that what God requires – a broken and contrite heart – is something he does not have. How horrible he must have felt here! Not only has his own heart, his own nature, betrayed him and thrown him into the depths of sin – he’s also realized that, as guilty and broken as he feels about that sin, it’s still only the guilt and shame and sorrow of a sinful and wicked heart. It’s not enough! A broken and contrite heart God will not despise – but my heart isn’t that! My heart led me into sin! My shame and my guilt are not enough!
As Paul said, “Who will deliver me from this body of sin and death?”
That’s why he cries out for mercy at the very beginning – he can’t earn God’s favor. All he can do is plead for God’s grace, in hopes that God will Himself make David acceptable in His eyes. That’s the essence of Christian salvation – and it’s the essence of the Christian life after the point of salvation, too. David recognizes that a willing spirit, one that desires to follow God, one that would be acceptable to God, is something only God can give him – “uphold me with a willing spirit.”
And there is hope. Yes, David knows his heart is unacceptable. But he is broken nonetheless. Not broken enough, maybe, not nearly as remorseful as he knows he should be. But there is shame and remorse, brokenness and guilt. These are signs that God is already beginning the process of reconciliation. If it is true that it is not I that does these things, but God working in me, that applies to guilt and shame as well.
Every one of us has screwed up, time and again. And when we do, it has consequences. We begin to doubt our own salvation – David says here, “Cast me not away… Take not your Holy Spirit.” When we fall into sin, God often will pull back from us a little, cause us to doubt and to search for Him again. God wants us in a position where we realize constantly that we need His grace to go on – that we simply can’t do it on our own.
There are Christians who believe that a sinless life is possible on this side of death. There is much truth in what they are saying – we all have the Holy Spirit, and God always gives us a way out. Sin is something that as believers we have power over – we don’t have to sin. But the Bible is quite clear that even Christians will continue to struggle with sin until death. The Apostle John wrote that “if anyone says he has no sin, he is a liar and the truth is not in him.”
This is not an excuse for accepting sin as inevitable, though. Rather, we should look at that truth as a motivation to keep crying out to God, as David did, that He might give us clean hearts, that he might uphold us with a willing spirit. We must never grow complacent – we must always be stretching our arms out to God and pleading with Him for grace.
That’s the second message this passage has for us. We need God to create in us clean hearts. We need Him to uphold us with a willing spirit – to keep us on the straight and narrow by His strength. We can’t do it on our own!

HOW DAVID PRAYED FOR IT
Finally, we could all use a reminder of how God is to be approached after sin. Psalm 51 is possibly the best advice anyone could offer to a Christian grappling with his relationship with God after sin. Is anyone struggling with their walk with God? Does anyone lack joy and wish for God to restore it unto them? If anyone here has sinned and wishes to restore their fellowship with God, this passage is for you. How does a Christian who has drifted from God restore that relationship? What should we ask for? Let’s walk through the psalm and point out a few valuable lessons.
First, notice how David begins his prayer. “Have mercy upon me, O God, according to your lovingkindness.” This is the Biblical sinner’s prayer – a heartfelt cry for mercy. We think of Jesus’ parable of the tax collector and the Pharisee in the synagogue, where the tax collector prays by saying, “Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner!”
David pleads for mercy because he knows he deserves punishment. It’s an act of humility. We would do well to remember that in our own prayers. Every breath we take is a gift from God’s hand, and when we sin, the only hope we have is God’s mercy. A humble reliance on that mercy is what we call faith. So that’s the first practical point – beg God for mercy. He is merciful and compassionate!
Next, he confesses his sinfulness. Not only does he confess the specific sin – he mentions bloodguiltiness in verse 14 – but he confesses and takes responsibility for his sinful condition. For his sinful nature. That nature belongs to all of us. It’s ours. And it is our responsibility to deal with it, in the power God provides. Confessing our sins and our sinfulness humbles us before God, because it reminds us that He is pure and perfect and that we do not meet that standard – that we need His help. That’s the second step – confess your sins!
Third, he asks to be purified – to be washed clean. For the Christian, forgiveness of sins is not enough. No – it’s not enough! Not only do we need forgiveness from sin, but we need freedom from it. Whenever the Bible talks about freedom, it means freedom from evil and sin. God has saved us for a purpose – to raise up a people for His own possession who are zealous for good works! Mere forgiveness would get us out of hell, but it won’t enable us to serve God or to live a life that glorifies him.
Forgiveness from sin is one thing – cleansing from it and the power to resist it are another. We need both, and we need to constantly ask God for both. We need to ask God to purify us from our sins.
Fourth, he does not complain about the consequences of his sin. David paid dearly for his sin. On top of losing a friend and a solid warrior in Uriah, he was publicly humiliated by the prophet Nathan. Worst of all, his infant son died after only seven days, just as God had promised.
David paid dearly for his sin. Did he object? Not in the least. He admitted that God was righteous in his judgment in verse 4. God was in the right, he said. Even more, in verse 8 he asked God that the bones that had been broken would rejoice – in other words, that David might be given strength and wisdom to rejoice in the discipline he had received! When God sends consequences our way, we drop to our knees, we confess that God is right in His judgment, and ask that we may come to accept and rejoice in the discipline that points us back to Him. We don’t complain – we rejoice in God’s discipline.
We’ve already looked at David’s request for a clean heart – one not only free from sin, but one that is as broken and contrite as God requires. Why does David ask this? For himself? Actually, no. The reason David gives for his prayers and requests is not self-centred. It’s God-centred. We would do well to pay attention here. Why does David ask for a clean heart, for a renewed spirit? Verse 13 – then I will teach sinners your ways, and they will be converted to you.” Verse 14 and 15 – that I might declare your righteousness and sing your praise. Why is David asking for a clean heart? That through him, God may be glorified! Do you want to teach sinners God’s ways? Do you want to see unbelievers come to faith?
Do you want your praise and worship to be meaningful and edifying? You need a clean heart and a right spirit. Cry out to God for it! Ask Him for it for His sake, not yours! Pray in His name – not yours! Even a prayer for restoration and forgiveness like this is done for God’s glory – like everything should be!
And finally, look to verse 18. David prays for Zion – that’s Jerusalem – that God might be good to them. David did not forget what we all to often fail to remember, and that’s this: Our sin has consequences not just for us, but for others as well. Our sin affects not just our own spiritual selves, but the spiritual walks of those around us. When our foolishness and selfishness brings calamity down, it often causes collateral damage. God warned His people that the punishment for sin would follow them down to the third and fourth generation. Don’t ever forget this, especially within the context of the church, and those who have wives and husbands and children. When we approach God to ask for forgiveness and restoration, we cannot forget those who have been affected by our sin.

CONCLUSION
We stumble and we fall. As long as we have sin in our hearts, as long as we live in this fallen world, we will struggle with temptation and sin, and sometimes we may lose the fight. And when that happens, our relationship with our Heavenly Father suffers. God grows more distant as the Holy Spirit is grieved. Psalm 51 teaches us that restoration and reconciliation are necessary – and that, for the one who cries for mercy out of faith in God, it is a sure hope.
Sitting here this morning, it might be you who has sinned and needs that restoration. Or you may be like the city of Zion, whose pain and suffering David also prayed for. Maybe you’re one of those harmed by the selfishness and thoughtlessness of another. And that sin committed by another has you struggling with your own relationship with God. You have the same hope! The same God who not only waits to hear your prayer, but moves to make your prayer possible in the first place! Who begins the process of healing and restoration before you even think to ask – for how could we ask at all, without the grace of God working through us? Perhaps you do not have because you do not ask. With God, all things are possible. Cry out to Him!
Don’t ever despair. David saw the worst of what man can do, and it came straight from the depths of his own heart. But God, who is faithful – remember, it depends on God – drew him out of the depths and restored him. If David could be restored after such a fall, then nothing you have done is beyond the healing power of God. Cry out to him! Cry for mercy!

Sorry It's Been So Long!

2007-09-14T20:26:00.000-06:00

I thought that I should pay more attention to my blog. I actually have another one, our church blog, where I post my sermon manuscripts. I plan on cross-posting a few of them here from time to time now.

Those of you who want to keep up with our life with our little boy (getting less and less little as the days go by!) can see some great work by my lovely wife here.

As for Hold Fast, I'm going to be better - I promise!

It's Been A While...

2007-02-22T22:31:00.000-07:00

I'm back!

There's more to come, I promise. But for now, instead of writing some long, drawn-out theological treatise, I thought I'd share a picture of my almost six-month-old boy:

The Lord Has Blessed Us!

2006-09-15T21:42:00.000-06:00

Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD, the fruit of the womb a reward. (Psalm 127:3)

Thanks be to God! At 9:47 PM on September 8, 2006, Erin and I were blessed by the birth of our son, Caden Joshua Jones - 21 inches long and 8 pounds, 15 ounces.

It was a long labour - about 30 hours, actually. Erin began having contractions at about 4 PM on the 7th, and we went to the hospital at around 10 PM. They continued all night and all the next day until the doctors noticed, around 8 PM, that the baby was coming down the wrong way. That, and a minor fever that Erin had developed, caused them to opt for the caesarian section. I'm so, so proud of my wife, who's been through more than I could ever handle. She didn't really enjoy the whole experience, but there's no complaining about the result!

It was the first operation I had ever been present for (like my new look??) It was scary. I confess that I am a bit of a control freak, and I like having things under my own control. This was one of those times that I could not do anything but trust the Lord - and I think that's something God was teaching me through this. God was good; the doctors were very quick and efficient, and had the baby out in no time! I'm happy to report that Erin is recovering even better than expected, and that little Caden is healthy and strong.

It is such an indescribable joy to be a parent! Caden, to us, is the most beautiful creature God has ever made. Yes, he wakes us up throughout the night, and neither of us sleep much. Two nights ago he fussed from 1:30 to 5 AM, keeping us both awake... He is strong-willed, objecting strenuously whenever we change him or bathe him. But he's so adorable. It's just so cute watching him - he doesn't have full control of his hands yet, and when he wants to suck on a finger, he chases his hand with his mouth instead of pulling it to his lips. His eyes are so big and full of curiosity. And the expressions on his little face - well, just look at this picture!

Again - praise the Lord. He is so good.

Of Slander, Judgment, and Discernment

2006-09-04T12:34:00.000-06:00

On Sunday, I led the Bible study at my church. My text was James 4:11-12:

Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?

The passage dealt with the sticky problem of slander and judging one another. The Bible has much to say about the use of human judgment with regard to others and their actions, and so our discussion was interesting. Where is the line between right judgment and slander?

1) First, I began by pointing out what slander is NOT:

Church Discipline - "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.” Matthew 18:15-17

As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him. Titus 3:10

Testing Teaching By Scripture - Now these Jews [in Berea] were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. Acts 17:11

From these passages and many more, we as Christians have a mandate to watch over one another and to correct them when their teaching or behavior crosses the line into sin. James is not forbidding such discernment.

2) We then discussed what slander and evil talk IS:

Lying about one another – “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” Leviticus 20:16

Gossip – “For I fear that perhaps when I come I may find you not as I wish, and that you may find me not as you wish--that perhaps there may be quarreling, jealousy, anger, hostility, slander, gossip, conceit, and disorder.” 2 Corinthians 12:20

Talk Designed To Hurt Others, Not Build Them Up - Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to build him up. Romans 15:2

3). We studied another clue to answering the question - the beginning of verse 12: There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. So - why is God the only rightful judge?

1) He is our Creator. He owns us and may do as He pleases with us.
2) He is the only God. There is no other.
3) God is the only one who can see and know the thoughts and character of a man's heart. Thus, He is the only one who can judge accurately.
4) As God, He is the only one who has the power of eternal life or punishment. No one else, even if they did know a man's heart, could enforce their judgment.

So it comes to this. How may we, as Christians, exercise right judgment and discernment, especially in the areas of church discipline and discernment of new teaching, without crossing the line into slander?

I boiled it down to three basic differences between right discernment and sinful judgment. These can be framed as three questions every Christian should ask himself as he exercises judgment on something:

I. What is my motive?

A wrong motive would be selfish:

What causes quarrels and what causes fights among you? Is it not this, that your passions are at war within you? You desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel. (James 4:1-2)

And / or a wrong motive seeks to hurt another person:

See that no one repays anyone evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to everyone. (1 Thessalonians 5:15)

On the contrary, a pure and rightful motive seeks to build one another up:

... let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins (James 5:20)

If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. (Matthew 18:15)

II. By what standard am I judging?

Or, put another way, am I submitting to the same standard I would have the other submit to? Failure to do so is hypocrisy, the sin Jesus condemned:

For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye. (Matthew 7:2-5)

This hypocrisy results when we arrogantly presume that we are above the law, and that it does not apply to us:

The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. (James 4:11b-12a)

Rather, we should humbly submit to an objective and higher authority: God --

Therefore it says, "God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble." Submit yourselves therefore to God. (James 4:6-7)

-- as He has revealed in His Word:

Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. (Acts 17:11)

III. Am I judging actions or the heart?

Man has no capacity to peer into one's heart:

For the LORD sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart. (1 Samuel 16:7)

And we are prohibited from basing judgment on mere appearance or outward impressions:

My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, "You sit here in a good place," while you say to the poor man, "You stand over there," or, "Sit down at my feet," have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? (James 2:1-4)

Rather, Jesus tells us that one's actions and behaviour - deeds, NOT appearances or assumptions about motive - are proper evidence for judgment:

Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits. (Matthew 7:15-20)

Christians are not prohibited from making any judgments at all. The famous phrase, "Judge not, lest ye be judged," is found in the same chapter - Matthew 7 - as His command to beware of false prophets and to know them by their fruits

Rather, we are commanded,

Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment. (John 7:24)

Sunday Devotional

2006-09-03T09:00:00.000-06:00

The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever. (Isaiah 40:8)

Every fall, the green grass undergoes a change. It yellows and dries out as winter approaches. The flowers, too, wither and disappear as the air grows cold. Nature reminds us each day that we are prone to change – that what this world does and builds is only fleeting and temporary.

God’s Word, though, isn’t like that. As God’s revelation of His infinite and unchanging self, His Word reflects His nature, being itself forever unchanging. God didn’t have to reveal Himself to us. He owes us nothing. But God chose to stoop to a human level and use the gift of human language – a gift He himself gave to us! – in order to make His purpose and will known to us. We call this gift, His Word written, the Bible. And this written Word, by telling us of God’s purpose and will for us, points to and is fulfilled by the Word made flesh – God in human flesh, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

As God’s communication, received by a limited and ever-changing world, the Word may be misunderstood, or twisted, or ignored by sinful human beings. But it remains true – and we remain accountable to God for following it. God has made Himself clear, on our level, through human language and human flesh, and thus we have no excuse for ignoring it. God has protected and preserved His Bible throughout the centuries, by the blood of martyrs and the sweat of scribes. We may be assured that, similarly, His purpose in our salvation will never waver or be defeated. That is our hope.

God bless you all this Lord's Day!

Question Their Deepest Assumptions

2006-09-02T13:48:00.000-06:00

The unbeliever tells you, "I just can't believe there is a God. We don't need God to explain our existence. We can explain so much with science now anyway, and what we don't know it will eventually find out."

How do you respond to an objection like this?

Well, let's first examine what's not being said here. Everyone has a worldview - assumptions and presuppositions that we use to filter and interpret information from the world around us. As Christians, the fundamental assumptions of our worldview are that there is and must be a God, and that this God had a purpose in creation, and that He created us as rational beings for the purpose of communicating this purpose to us in such a way that it would be understood. We filter all our knowledge and information through these assumptions.

Our unbeliever does not share these assumptions. Rather, the highest authority in his universe is unaided human reason - that is the standard by which he judges things. In particular, he trusts that expression of human reason called "science" as his hope for explaining all things - including how we got here, where the universe comes from, etc.

Let's take a closer look at those assumptions, though. Are they consistent? Are they coherent with each other? Or is his worldview riddled with contradictions?

Science depends on two things to make it work.

1) Science assumes the fact that the universe is an orderly place, where things follow laws and behave in consistent and predictable ways. If a scientist wants to test a theory, he sets up a controlled set of circumstances and repeats an experiment several times. The assumption behind this method is that the universe is an orderly, consistent place so that if all things are equal, the same result should happen every time.

But - how do I know these laws of nature behave exactly the same way, every single time? I can't possibly drop every ball in the universe, under every possible circumstance, to verify that it will fall to the ground every time. But, if I assume that the universe is fundamentally an orderly place, then it is a safe and reasonable thing to say that the ball will drop every time.

The unbeliever, though, has a problem. Science itself depends on this assumption - that the universe is fundamentally, at its most basic level, an orderly, law-abiding thing. But why should it be? If there is no intelligence or mind behind the universe, if there is no supernatural factor in play, and it's just a bunch of particles and energy bumping into each other, what reason to we have to believe that laws and principles, like, say, the laws of physics, are even possible?

In short, the unbeliever's assumption that there is no God is at odds with his assumption that the universe is (for some random reason?) an orderly, consistent, law-of-physics abiding place. That is an inconsistent worldview - the unbeliever is, in fact, "borrowing" the belief in the universe's orderliness from our worldview, where this belief actually makes sense!

2) Scientific research depends on honesty and accountability for results that can be trusted by society. But our unbelieving friend thinks there is no God. Where, then, does morality come from? If we are only the product of natural selection, and natural selection chooses those individuals who behave in a manner that improves their chances of reproduction, how do such values as honesty and truthfulness, self-examination and objectivity develop?

What if another Galileo appeared and proposed a similar, earth-shaking scientific theory that the scientific establishment didn't like? Galileo could have lost his life for his theories. Wouldn't natural selection have suggested a route against the best interests of science - after all, giving in would have guaranteed his survival!

Our unbeliever's God-free, naturalistic assumptions leave him with no way to explain why scientists should be honest in their scientific research, if it is in their best interest to fudge their data. So how can he trust science in the first place - unless, as above, he's "borrowing" something from another worldview? A religious one, perhaps? But then he'd be inconsistent, wouldn't he?

Some Great Books You Should All Read

2006-09-01T21:22:00.000-06:00

Those who know me well know that I'm a bit of a bookworm. And so, with the demands of school behind me, I spent a considerable amount of time this summer reading.

Most of the books were edifying and useful. I thought that I should recommend a few in particular, though.

These four are popular-level books that I cannot endorse strongly enough. If you get a chance, get to the bookstore and find these - or, order them:

1) Knowing Scripture, by R.C. Sproul

This short book is an introduction to biblical interpretation. It lays out very basic and extremely useful rules and guidelines for reading and interpreting the Bible. There are many wrong ways to interpret Scripture, and the results are not pretty - every cult got its start with people who did not know how to handle Scripture. It is a Christian responsibility to "rightly handle the word of truth (2 Tim 2:15)," and this book will go a LONG way to helping you. Sproul is an engaging writer and provides plenty of examples. More than any of the other books I'm going to mention here, this is a book every Christian should have on their shelf. It's worth it - BUY THIS ONE. There's no excuse - it's not expensive and I even provided the link from Amazon!

2) Whatever Happened to the Gospel of Grace?

This book by the late Presbyterian pastor James Montgomery Boice is a heart's cry for the evangelical movement to reconver the principles it once stood for. It covers the five "solas" that were the backbone of the Protestant Reformation - that one is saved by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone, according to Scripture alone, to the glory of God alone. All of these principles are being twisted or forgotten in one way or another by modern Christians, and Boice lays out the problem in his book and suggests solutions. While I can't endorse some of the historical figures he cites positively (John Paul II and Brother Lawrence, for instance) it does not detract seriously from the overall message. This will disturb and convict any serious-minded Christian who is concerned about the witness of the Church. Brothers and sisters, all is not well in contemporary Christianity, and this book will explain why.

3. Ready to Restore, by Jay Adams

Every one of us has been there: a Christian brother or sister has come to us with a problem or situation, and needs wise and godly counsel. No small problem, this fellow believer is grappling with a deep and persistent problem that makes you wonder, "How do I handle this?" Jay Adams, the author of this short book, makes a persuasive case that every Christian is called to be a counselor (read Galatians 6:1)- not a professional counselor, necessarily, but a "lay counselor" nonetheless. This book is a beginner's introduction to the biblical principles undergirding counseling. I read this immediately after I finished a seminary-level counseling course, and I wish I had read this first. Its chapters are very short and readable, and it is a very systematic treatment of the topic - perfect for church studies or small groups.

4. The Battle For The Bible, by Howard Lindsell

As far as I know, this book is out of print. And that's too bad. One of the biggest problems facing modern Christianity is the relentless assault on the truthfulness of the Bible from inside and outside the "evangelical" camp. This 1978 volume is still as relevant today as it was when it was first published. Lindsell explains why inerrancy - the doctrine that Scripture is absolutely true in everything it teaches, including where it mentions dates, names, and science - is critical for the church. He then looks at how the doctrine came under attack in the latter half of the 20th century. This book needs to be read again, as both liberal Christianity and the "Emergent" movement cast doubt on the authority and trustworthiness of the Bible in our day.

So how do we read it, if it's out of print? Easy - the whole thing's on the Internet. Click on the book title above. Absolutely no excuse here!

A Great Quote

2006-08-31T22:42:00.000-06:00

“Here, then, is the real problem of our negligence. We fail in our duty to study God’s Word not so much because it is difficult to understand, not so much because it is dull and boring, but because it is work. Our problem is not a lack of intelligence or a lack of passion. Our problem is that we are lazy.” (R.C. Sproul)

A Devotional - Jeremiah 29:11

2006-08-30T20:16:00.000-06:00

For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for wholeness and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope. (Jeremiah 29:11)

This is a well-known verse, often quoted to reassure someone that God has a purpose for their lives. In some translations, such as the NIV, “wholeness” is rendered “prosperity,” and some have used this verse to support the idea that God intends every Christian to have worldly wealth.

The problem with taking this verse as a personal promise from God, as many Christians do, is that it isn’t addressed to them. This is part of a letter from Jeremiah to the Hebrew exiles in Babylon (verse 1), which, among other things, instructs them to build homes, take families, and seek the prosperity of the Babylonian cities they live in (verses 5-7) and, in the verse immediately before, informs them that they will return to Israel after seventy years! (verse 10) Obviously, these are not instructions and promises for modern believers. In context, then, this verse is a promise for displaced and traumatized Jewish refugees, in a strange place far from home, that the Almighty God of their fathers has not forgotten them, and indeed, has a plan and a future for them.

Does this mean we can’t learn anything from this verse, if it’s not addressed to us? Absolutely not. The letter, in our Bibles, identifies God repeatedly as the LORD, an English word meaning Yahweh – God’s special, covenant name that He used with His chosen people. God was reminding his special people, the children of His unbreakable covenant, that He was still there for them. By using this name, he reassured them that His promises to Abraham, to make of him a great nation, were still in force. And that meant that He would protect and preserve His people, even in exile.

We, as Christians, are also in covenant with God: the New Covenant in Christ’s blood. God has one covenant people – those chosen by Him, who trust in Him by way of faith. As God’s covenant children, like the exiles Jeremiah comforted, we can be assured that God indeed does have plans for us, and a bright future. This is not because of a promise in a letter written to a specific group three thousand years ago, but something even deeper and better - God’s nature as a faithful, covenant God. He always cherishes those in covenant with Him.

My Summer In Review

2006-08-28T16:47:00.000-06:00

Well, I've been gone for a while, but I thought I should get back to the blog...

It's been quite the summer. I've had a fair bit of time to myself, as school has been out since the beginning of June. I've spent a fair amount of time helping out my church - we've run a basketball camp, a day camp, and a backyard Bible club - style Vacation Bible School this summer. The first two each took a week and ran almost all day, and took place in July. We had more than a hundred kids at the basketball camp and two dozen for the day camp - big numbers, considering our church has barely 25 members!

On top of the kids' stuff, the church entered a raft in the Legion's regatta on the Bow River in Cochrane. I watched, but didn't participate - the back's been bugging me this summer - and the team took first place overall. I've written a sermon under the supervision of the pastor, Jesse, and have led two services at the church already. We're doing a step-by-step, expository study of the book of James this summer; I'm preparing a study of James 4:11-12 for this Sunday, which I shall lead if I'm there (more on that in a minute). I might post some of my material on the blog.

We've had some family time this summer. Erin and I took a trip down to Vancouver to visit my mom; Erin fell in love with B.C. while we were there, and wants to move to the Okanagan or the Lower Mainland now! I don't blame her; having lived half my life in B.C., I'd say it's the most beautiful place on earth.

We also went camping with my brothers, sister, and dad at Writing-On-Stone Provincial Park, near Milk River, Alberta. There is a beautiful river there that flows through the hoodoos - I've put up a great picture taken by my sister Rebekah. It is blazing hot down there - I think it's technically desert, actually - but the water is so cold and so nice to float in. Erin loved it - even as pregnant as she was! We ate like kings, played lots of Kaiser (our family card game) and were very sad to leave.

Now, Erin is at nine months, and we're just waiting for baby to arrive. That's why I may not make church on Sunday. She's been doing a lot of reorganizing and cleaning - the "nesting" instinct. Fun for the hubby.... She looks so cute, waddling around with her big belly! She's all belly - hasn't really added weight anywhere else! The baby is an active little bugger, too. If Erin leans against my arm, I feel the baby kicking me - poor little thing's running out of room, and is a little protective of its space!

So please pray for Erin and for a safe delivery! It's all in God's hands, and I'd want it nowhere else.

Okay. This is really the last one on the women pastors thing....

2006-06-26T15:24:00.000-06:00

And, actually, they're not even mine. This is simply to direct attention to a couple really insightful articles I've seen recently.

First is by Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Read it here - he makes many of the same points I did, but better. His previous look at the newly elected female presiding bishop of the U.S. Episcopalian church also provides ample evidence that the issues of female leadership in church and acceptance of homosexuality are highly correlated.

And, just in case someone still thinks I'm only some bent-out-of-shape misogynistic woman-beater for holding this particular take on Scripture, take a look at Libbie's opinions here. Like Betty and Nicole earlier, she puts it plainly:

But always, it has come down to the scripture. My passion for scripture, and for those entrusted with the responsibilities of preaching to be faithful to it, demands that I am faithful too. There are passages that explicitly say that women are not to teach or have authority over men. They are not fuzzy passages that require a koine greek concordance to understand the plain meaning of them.

And that should be the final word for all of us.

One Last Note On Women Pastors

2006-06-07T01:51:00.000-06:00

I was deeply encouraged to see some of the comments on my last post of the "To Address Some Concerns" series, especially this one:

I agree. And I'm a woman, and I don't think you hate me :P Thanks, Betty!

Interestingly, it was all women who responded, and two of the three that did were strongly supportive (the second of the three, I must confess, left me rather confused...)

Betty's insights cut right to the heart of the issue. As she pointed out, our purpose as Christians is not self-fulfillment - though Christ is the most fulfilling of all things! No, our ultimate purpose is much higher than selfish concerns:

And most of all, it isn't about us anyway; it is for the glory of God, so to get caught up in it otherwise, I would argue, is selfish and missing the point of serving God. It isn't for self-fulfillment. It IS servanthood as you mentioned, and ultimately it is for God.

Nicole, for her part, directed us to look toward the danger of such practice:

I think it's a shame how our Christian churches today feel the need to put aside scriptural truths to make Chritianity more appealing and acceptable to the world. The Bible could not be more clear on this subject!!!

No, it could not. And this is what I was getting at when I said, "To explain away Scripture's commands about the function of women in the church and household is to do tremendous damage to the authority of Scripture, and opens the door for practically any other doctrine to be similarly 'contextualized' and ignored."

Am I simply being alarmist by pointing this out? I'm not. Consider this: in a poll released in January 2004, the Barna Group, which specializes in church statistics, determined that of the 601 Protestant pastors they surveyed across North America, merely 51% of them have a Biblical worldview (defined as belief in several key Biblical teachings, such as absolute moral truth, the Biblical basis of such truth, sinlessness of Jesus, existence of Satan, etc.) This is shocking in itself, but when broken down by gender, it gets far worse:

The survey brought to light some unexpected differences based on pastoral background... The largest gap related to gender. Whereas 53% of male pastors have a biblical worldview, the same can be said for just 15% of female pastors. (emphasis added)

Barely one in seven women who hold a pastoral role believe in fundamental doctrines of the Christian church. Why is that? Well, first of all, I hate to point out the obvious, but there are always people out there who will take what you say out of the context it's offered - and so I will say this clearly:

It is NOT because women are in some way less capable of grasping Biblical truth - they certainly are able to do so! Personally, I know many, many women who possess a biblical worldview and a firm grasp of Christian teachings. I'm married to one, and count many others as good friends and among my family. The Bible, by assigning the responsibility to older women of teaching younger women the Christian faith (Titus 2:3-5), presupposes that women are fully capable of grasping Scripture. The picture in Acts of Priscilla, together with her husband, correcting and instructing Apollos in the true message of the faith (Acts 18:26) should dispel this idea.

So why is it? It's quite simple: in order to justify allowing women to hold positions of authority in preaching and teaching in the church, one must adopt a method of interpreting Scripture that allows you to ignore and reinterpret teachings that contradict one's beliefs. Or, in other words, one must appeal to culture, or to secular philosophy, or a worldly assumption about the roles of women, and then impose that on Scripture.

And once this has been done for one issue, and the tacit admission has been made that the Bible must be interpreted by some external (and higher / more relevant / more enlightened) authority, this hermeneutic (method for interpreting Scripture) opens the door for practically any other doctrinal deviation - be it abortion, homosexuality, rejection of the sinlessness or even deity of Christ, etc.

To sum up: a person (it's not just women, by any means!) who believes that women should be pastors does not derive this belief from Scripture - where all our faith and practice must come from - but from elsewhere. That person, therefore, is not in submission to God's Word - he or she submits that Word to human wisdom and understanding.

The comments left on my post are examples of women who seek to please God more than human beings - even themselves. And there are others out there - I think of bloggers like the Mahaney girls, Carla Rolfe, and Rebecca Stark, just to name a few. They're living proof that holding a Biblical view of manhood and womanhood is the foundation of freedom and fulfillment. May their tribe increase.

What The Catholic Church Teaches

2006-06-06T16:52:00.000-06:00

Those of you who frequent this blog may remember that on October 31 of last year, I wrote a post commemorating Reformation Day. I thought that it would be instructive for people to realize that it's not just Halloween - something far more important happened on that day of the year.

In my post, I mentioned what the Reformers stood for and against and what they accomplished. It was a call to remembrance and to thank God for His protection of the message of the Gospel.

Now, I don't usually keep an eye on previous posts and their comments. And so when a friend pointed me to a response to that post, I went back and read it. The responder's name is David, and he runs a joint blog with my friend Betty. Their blog focuses on Canadian politics, and is (I think) quite insightful. David's comments on contemporary social issues and the link between legalization of gay marriage and polygamy are worth reading.

David, in his response to my post, disputed my assessment of Catholic beliefs. Now, as a Protestant born and raised, I have to be careful that when I describe Catholic beliefs, I do so fairly and accurately - and this requires doing my homework! So to me, this was a chance to review my facts, check my sources, and ensure I was not bearing false witness.

Also, it's vital that we conduct such discussions in a spirit of grace and gentleness. The truth is worth the discussion and debate, but that debate must be done in keeping with the example of Him we are seeking to honour. David disagreed with me, but he did so graciously and with respect. I pray I did the same.

If anyone's interested in my response to David, it can be found here in the comments thread:

Happy Reformation Day!

And, if anyone's interested, here are some sources I used in formulating my response:

Catholic:

Canons of the Council of Trent

Catechism of the Catholic Church

Protestant:

Cambridge Declaration of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals

Calvin's Statements on Grace Alone: Conversion of the Will, and Justification by Grace Alone

To Address Some Concerns (Part IV)

2006-06-02T23:17:00.000-06:00

Women in Ministry

A final concern raised by some when I made known my intent to attend a Baptist seminary was the question of women in church leadership. The concern stated was that Southern Baptists do not permit women to serve as pastors. This is an issue that has, indeed, been very controversial in the last century; the picture to the left comes from the magazine of a liberal mainline denomination that has grappled with this issue and settled on the side of embracing female pastors.

In Fredericton, I knew many who felt the same way. These people felt I should not attend a Southern Baptist seminary because their attitude towards women was wrong. One person, in fact, told me when I mentioned my decision, "You must hate women."

Yes, that's the level that theological dialogue and debate has descended to in the modern church.

So, first, I'll state categorically, as a happily married husband and as a Christian man, that I do NOT hate women. I believe God created man and woman in his image, not just man:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:27)

And in Christ, there is no male or female (Galatians 3:28). Christian women are equal in the eyes of God to Christian men - they are just as valuable.

Now, the issue of gender and church leadership must first be rooted in a Biblical construct of church leadership. The New Testament describes three offices of the church: apostle, elder/pastor/bishop, and deacon. Apostles passed away with the death of John at the end of the first century, as one of the qualifications of the apostolic office was to have seen Christ in the flesh (1 Corinthians 9:1, 15:7-9), and so there are no "apostles" in the New Testament sense today. (This does not mean that certain apostolic functions, such as of beginning new works and coordinating the efforts of different churches, no longer exists - only that the infallible authority of the original apostles does not reside in any church office today). The terms elders, pastors, and bishops are used interchangeably in the New Testament and early patristic writings, and refer to the same office. They are the spiritual leaders and shepherds of the church. Deacons are those who are appointed by the church to minister to physical needs - the term diakonos in Greek means, literally, "servant."

Now, can women serve in these roles? Let's look at Paul's instructions about elders first:

The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. (1 Timothy 3:1-3)

This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you-- if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God's steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. (Titus 1:5-9)

Note that Paul presupposes in his comments that the elders are men - "husband of one wife." More importantly, they must be "able to teach" and "give instruction." This is integral to the role of an elder. Particularly important with regards to this issue is this statement Paul made just a few verses before the qualifications found in Timothy:

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. (1 Timothy 2:11-12)

If women are not permitted to teach men, and the ability to teach and rebuke is integral to the office of elder, it logically follows that women are precluded from such roles.

Notice furthermore that the teaching requirement is not repeated for deacons. The diaconate is not a teaching body:

Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. (1 Timothy 3:8-12)

So, although Paul presupposes men as deacons here as well, the deacons do not hold a teaching or authority role. Furthermore, Paul demands that the deacons' wives must meet the same standards - a requirement not expressly stated for elders. It is as if he expected husband-and-wife teams to cooperate in such service. If so, we would expect the New Testament to refer to female deacons - and, actually, there is such a reference:

I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deaconness of the church at Cenchreae... (Romans 16:1, Revised Standard Version)

Most contemporary versions render Phoebe's description as "servant," but as stated above, the Greek for servant is the same as for deacon - hence my choice of the RSV.

So, in short, women may not serve churches in positions of teaching or other authority over men. This is stated repeatedly by Paul:

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. (1 Timothy 2:11-12)

As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. (1 Corinthians 14:33-35)

This precludes women from being pastors, or elders, or bishops in the church. Also forbidden, then, is the curious role - increasingly seen in charismatic and non-denominational churches - of women as "co-pastor" alongside their husbands.

Womens' submission is not, as is argued by some, simply an effect of the Fall and thus voided by salvation in Christ. This argument is based on a reading of Galatians 3:28 that ignores its context - it speaks of equality in salvation, not equality of function or the end of physical distinctions. Rather, Paul stresses that the functional differences between men and women - and a woman's submissiveness - are, in fact, God's design and rooted in creation itself, prior to the Fall:

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve... (1 Timothy 2:11-13)

Furthermore, the submission of women to their husbands and in church life is NOT simply a peculiar feature of the first-century context. I have heard many people argue that Paul's instructions addressed a particular situation in a particular historical and geographical context, and thus is not normative today. This view is wrong - not only does it sound eerily similar to liberal arguments against the Bible's prohibitions of homosexuality, but as observed above, the distinction and function of men and women is rooted in Creation itself. It has been applicable ever since. Finally, Paul repeated his commands about women in submission not to just one church, but to churches in Corinth, Ephesus, and Colossae, to Timothy and to Titus, and even Peter affirmed the doctrine in his letter! To explain away Scripture's commands about the function of women in the church and household is to do tremendous damage to the authority of Scripture, and opens the door for practically any other doctrine to be similarly "contextualized" and ignored.

Now, does this mean women cannot serve in ministry? Not at all!

First, as stated above, I see no Scriptural reason why women cannot serve as deaconesses. Now, many Baptist churches, for instance, use the deacons as a ruling body and invest them with authority and teaching responsibility. If this is the case, these "deacons" are closer to elders in their responsibilities, and such a church would be precluded from allowing women to serve as "deacons." But in churches that recognize the Scriptural qualifications for deacons and use them accordingly, without teaching or ruling authority, women can (and should!) be called as deacons.

Second, Paul tells Titus - and us - that one of the responsibilities of older women is to teach and shape the younger women of the church:

Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled. (Titus 2:3-5)

Therefore, there is certainly a Scriptural mandate for women to serve in positions of authority over other women - as, say, women's ministers. Such a position would not be an elder's or pastor's position - for that would entail authority over the church in general and men in particular. Rather, it would be a particular service to the church, and could be described as a deaconness' role.

Third, there is no Scriptural prohibition of women serving as children's ministers - again, as a particular type of deaconness. Remember that the spiritual development of children is first and foremost a family matter, not a church responsibility - and so is ultimately something God will hold their parents, and particularly their fathers, accountable for. Any church activities like childrens' Sunday School or Vacation Bible School could certainly be organized and taught by women, though, as long as the priority of family is recognized.

Southern Baptists have historically recongnized these truths. I agree with them. This issue, for me, served to confirm my seminary choice - the Bible's views on women in leadership are hardly politically correct, and so standing against the culture on this issue shows a respect for God's Word - respect that I looked for in making my decision.

Additional Resources

The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood - an organization that promotes Biblical teaching on gender and the church.

The Danvers Statement - a declaration summarizing the Biblical view on this issue.

To Address Some Concerns (Part III)

2006-05-30T00:00:00.000-06:00

I said previously that I would cover the whole question of tongues and SBC policy pertaining thereto in separate posts. However, if I don't just get on with the issue, it'll never get written, and so I've decided to just write one post about the question of charismatic gifts and my seminary choice. Next time I'll cover the women as pastors issue.

My attitude towards charismatic gifts today? In short, I haven't come to a settled theological opinion on the matter. I guess I'd be in the "open but cautious" camp described in Zondervan's "Are Miraculous Gifts For Today?" by Robert Saucy.

I have no desire to put God in a box. I do not see a clear Scriptural case for the outright cessation of miraculous gifts, and without one I must be open to the possibility of God's working in such manners. I've read both Reformed (e.g., Richard Gaffin's) and dispensationalist (e.g., John MacArthur's) cases for cessationism, and while they make many good points, I am not convinced. I have known personally people healed miraculously - but always in answer to prayer, and not through a human agent or "faith healer."

On the other hand, I am EXTREMELY skeptical of the alleged manifestations of the gifts I saw during my time in charismatic circles. I see no Scriptural reason to believe that tongues are anything other than interpretable human languages (how else could Paul have commanded an interpreter be present?) and, even more important, most of the charismatic churches I have personally experience utterly ignored Paul's instructions on their use in church (no more than three people, always with an interpreter, etc.).

And, I don't speak in tongues. I never have. I have never felt any desire to seek that gift - and I see Paul commanding us to seek higher gifts than tongues in the New Testament. In short, a Baptist education is not going to change my mind, or cause me any "cognitive dissonance."

With respect to prophecy, I am increasingly worried by the number of people I see - even in Baptist circles! - claiming "words from the Lord." To me, that is the claim of a prophet, and to speak in such a manner without being willing to stake one's life on it (that's the Deuteronomic test) is to treat the Lord's name far too casually. It risks breaking the commandment about taking God's name in vain.

And I do reject outright the idea common in charismatic circles - and championed by Wayne Grudem, among others - that New Testament prophecy is fallible. This would, first, render the whole New Testament questionable in terms of its accuracy (because the process of enscripturation is a form of prophecy, being inspired writing and speech); it would make any Scriptural test of a false prophet (such as that given in Deuteronomy) utterly useless; and it would remove the seriousness of false prophecy and allow untrue words to be casually dismissed as a natural consequence of the prophetic process. I find the arguments based on Agabus' alleged "wrong" prophecies untenable in much the same way as I am unconvinced about cessationist claims that 1 Corinthians 13 predicts the end of prophecy. In short, if there's prophecy today, it has to be perfectly accurate and its deliverer will be in absolutely no doubt about the message's origin - the same as it's always been.

(A short word, though, on the Southern Baptist International Mission Board's new policy for its missionaries. The IMB last year approved a policy forbidding any person who speaks in a "private prayer language" or who has been baptized in a church not holding to eternal security from being an IMB missionary. I find this policy reprehensible, because in my view the IMB is a servant to the churches, not their watchdog or master. It has no right to dictate to churches, who in Baptist ecclesiology have the right to nominate and recommend missionaries, what doctrinal standards must be met by their nominees beyond the statement of faith of the SBC, approved by those churches. And the Baptist Faith and Message is silent on the issue of tongues, and does not link the issues of eternal security and baptism - else it would require that Christians joining SBC churches from Pentecostal and other Arminian denominations be rebaptised. This it does not do, and so I share my friend's concern for the IMB's policy.

And, for that matter, so do many others in the SBC. I would not be surprised to see the policy eventually rescinded. After all, the present head of the IMB is on record as using a private prayer language. And though I disagree with him about that [see my comments on tongues as human language above] I support his right to hold that view in the SBC - because our statement of faith is silent on the issue.)

That's my short take on the charismata. Again, I'm not settled on the issue, and I think both sides are wrong in different areas, so I am open but very cautious. I believe that a pastor's primary preparation has to be in rightly handling Scripture, and not the charismatic gifts, and with that as my highest priority, I chose a Baptist seminary.

A Great Quote

2006-05-28T20:07:00.000-06:00

"While there is a great deal of mysticism among modern faith healers, they actually eliminate mystery from miracle, making healing predictable and, in fact, inevitable (naturalistic). No longer is a miracle the spontaneous and surprising work of God, but the right use of means, as predictable as any other scientific law. When God heals, it is not an interruption of natural laws. At its core, the faith healers proclaim a naturalistic faith. Salvation and healing are both human achievements." (Michael Horton)

Grieving a Friend

2006-05-22T07:08:00.000-06:00

When a person joins the military, we call the commitment made "signing on the dotted line." The phrase calls to mind the sacrifices made and risk assumed by the person signing. Anyone who joins should "count the cost," so to speak, and I thought I did. I knew being a soldier could be dangerous; I knew it could get me hurt or killed.

Sadly, though, most of us who joined don't count the emotional cost of being a soldier. Military life doesn't just carry the risk of being hurt physically. Over the course of a career, you meet people and form relationships with many of them. The high-pressure environment of military life forges friendships like few other circumstances can. And since the risk to those friends is as real is the risk to oneself, military life means the virtual certainty that you will lose people you care about.

And being out of the ranks and backin civilian life does nothing to insulate you from that risk. Last Wednesday, I casually checked the news, and saw that another Canadian soldier had been killed in Afghanistan. When I opened the story, it was like a punch in the stomach. I recognized the picture before I read the name.

Nichola Goddard was a classmate, and a fellow soldier and gunner. But more than that, she was my friend.

I met her in my first year at Royal Military College in the fall of 1998. She was an outgoing, gregarious person with a big smile. One of the things that stands out in my memories the most is that, in a place where the use of last names was the norm even between close friends, she would always say, "Hey, Jeff!" as we passed in the hallway between classes. And we sat (suffered!) through many a class together, being both in the Arts stream at the College.

It was the following summer, though, where we came to know each other well through mutual friends. Nic had been in the same basic training platoon as my best friend, Kevin Laffin, and was in the same cadet squadron as my fellow drummer Mitch Rivest. As a result, when most of my first-year class went off to Saint-Jean-sur-Richilieu, Quebec for French training in the summer of '99, we wound up spending a considerable amount of time together. I remember various things: waking up at 5 AM for fire drills, standing outside the barracks shivering and swatting mosquitos; sitting with a bunch of buddies at our hang-out, Beethoven's, over peanuts and drinks, and Nic and her boyfriend Jay joining us even though it was their first anniversary going out together; my first visit to Ottawa on Canada Day '99, along with Nic, Jay, Mitch, and my buddy Bill Prince. I still have a picture of "Princess" and I all painted up for the occasion, me carrying a big Canadian flag - and if I recall correctly, it was Nic who took the picture.

It's funny how you remember all the little things at a time like this. Nic fretting, at the airport, over whether the airline would give her trouble for her biathlon rifle; the two of us being nominated for some Artillery regimental prize while at the College, and agreeing to decline because we were not trained as gunners yet; her advice to me about what to expect on Artillery training because she got the course before I did. The last time I saw her, she was finishing her temporary position as a training officer at Gagetown's Artillery School, where I was the Assistant Adjutant, and we were discussing public affairs and administrative issues.

All those memories sharpen the loss by themselves. Even sadder for me personally, I was privileged to catch a glimpse of her family life. Through the years I knew them, she and her husband Jay were literally inseparable, so much so that my buddies and I rarely ever referred to them separately; they were "Nic n' Jay." They met on basic training and had been going out ever since. I saw a comment Jay made to the media a couple days ago, saying that he had lost his best friend. He literally did.

She and her family were close. I recall a fencing tournament in my fourth year of College where she showed up, all excited, to watch one of the women's matches. Turned out her sister Victoria ("Tori") was fencing against the RMC team - that was the first of her family I met. And just two and a half years ago, Nic and Jay were in Calgary visiting her parents, and Mitch and I were invited to spend New Year's Eve (if I recall correctly) with their family. It was a privilege to meet them all.

Yes, she took pride in her work. She was a solid leader and as professional as they come. Everyone I knew at the Artillery School - and I knew practically everyone - had the highest respect for her. She cared deeply about her troops and about the mission she was on in Afghanistan. I'm sure, though, that it would have saddened her greatly to leave her family behind. It's the risk any soldier takes, and she knew it as well as anyone, but dying in battle would not have been her first choice. It's a testament to her love for the Army and her concern for her soldiers that she assumed that risk anyway. I'm sure she would have been proud that, in that last battle, all her soldiers made it out alive and that the Canadians defeated the Taliban soundly. She loved her job, and she died doing what she loved.

I'll keep Jay and her family in my prayers, and I'll be at the funeral Friday, God willing. As for Nic, it was a blessing to have known her, and I sincerely and painfully regret not having taken the opportunity to know her better. It really does take a loss to understand what you once had. Through times like this, we're reminded that every day really is a gift from above, and that we cannot take anything for granted.

Nic, good shooting. Stand easy.

I Know It's Been A While...

2006-05-21T21:57:00.000-06:00

What a semester!

I have not had time to write anything, it seems. My first semester of seminary is over, and it's time to update a few things...

First, Erin's pregnancy is still going well. Her belly is getting bigger and her appetite is impressive. Unfortunately, the frequency of her trips to the bathroom has also increased... Not a night goes by where she doesn't stumble out of bed and stagger next door. Poor girl...

Life in Cochrane and at the seminary is a blast. I am loving every minute of it. The work is hard but fair, the professors knowledgeable and caring, the students sharp and congenial. I can't say I agree wholeheartedly with everything I've been taught, but I'm here to learn and that requires I face positions I might not agree with and seek to understand them. It's been a very worthwhile semester, in all.

Erin and I have been attending a new church over the last two months. It's called Symons Valley Community Church, and it is a church plant about a year and a half old. The church planter who's led the startup is a really gregarious and dedicated fellow, and his wife is a sweetheart. They are actively recruiting me to fill a hole that will open up in July when their current teaching / preaching "pastor" (a fellow student) leaves for other pastures. I would have very big boots to fill, and so Erin and I are praying about this decision.

I still intend to finish my series "To Answer Some Concerns;" I just haven't been able to devote the time to it yet. I will soon - there is one other, more immediate and sombre item I intend to address this week.

In short, God has been good and his grace has been more than sufficient. So stay tuned - if anyone's still out there....

To Address Some Concerns (Part II)

2006-02-25T20:19:00.000-07:00

Returning to my series on why I chose to go the route I did, tonight I hope to explain why I chose to go to a Southern Baptist seminary. (There's a picture of CSBS to the right, from their website)!

As I stated earlier, I've seen Christians go off to Bible college or seminary, and then be taught questionable things. A statement of faith is often not enough to guarantee an orthodox understanding of Christianity. The sight of acquaintances and friends under the instruction of people who, say, believe Christians are entitled to physical health and worldly prosperity, or who exalt emotional experience and spectacular gifts over the study of God's Word, served as a cautionary note to me.

So first and foremost, I wanted to be taught by people who believe strongly in the centrality of Scripture, and particularly in its inerrancy (that the Bible is absolutely true in all it teaches, being inspired and guided by God Himself). I wanted a school that emphasized the Christian duty to evangelize and spread the Gospel. And I wanted assurance that the school had high and recognized standards of education.

My last post of the series explained why I decided to follow the Baptist route. In order to find seminaries, I made a point of learning which group or agency accredits seminaries. Thus, I used the Assocation of Theological Schools' website as a starting point in my research.

After considering and rejecting several schools, I noticed a small Southern Baptist seminary in Cochrane.

The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC)

I had some knowledge of Southern Baptists. Obviously, Billy Graham is a very well-known figure of Southern Baptist background. Though I wouldn't agree with him on various matters (cooperation with churches that deny the Biblical gospel, stress on the human decision instead of the power of God in evangelism, etc.) he certainly is an example of the evangelistic spirit of Southern Baptists.

In researching the Canadian Convention of Southern Baptists, I found that they have a very active church planting program (with a very ambitious target of 1000 by 2020). As Canada is increasingly secular, this fills a deep and real need, and again shows their evangelistic emphasis.

In Fredericton, I regularly listened to a radio program called "In Touch," with Charles Stanley. His teaching was edifying and encouraging, not only to me, but to most of my Christian friends (including those who were concerned about my decision!) Well, Dr. Stanley is a former president of the Southern Baptist Convention. You'll notice on my sidebar that I've linked Albert Mohler's blog. He is the president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and has ably defended and explained the Christian Gospel in the public realm (including on Larry King Live). I've also been greatly encouraged and built up by Founders Ministries, a group of conservative Southern Baptists also linked on my sidebar, and by Dr. James White at Alpha and Omega Ministries, a Reformed Baptist who was raised Southern Baptist and who is still a professor at an SBC seminary. In short, Southern Baptists have contributed greatly to my personal spiritual development through books and websites I've read.

This high standard of Biblical scholarship impressed me, as did the clear emphasis in SBC life on religious education. They run 6 huge seminaries in the United States, and their missionaries run others abroad - including my own in Cochrane. This emphasis was EXTREMELY attractive to me, as I had perceived an anti-intellectual spirit among some of the charismatic believers I knew.

Although I'm personally Calvinist in my theology, most of the SBC is not. However, there is a prominent and active group of like-minded people working in SBC circles (see the Founders above) and the SBC statement of faith is not only compatible with my theology, but in certain places (Article 4 on salvation, for instance) takes an overtly Calvinistic position. In short, I wouldn't be way out of place there. (Also, the more Arminian theology of the majority would serve to sharpen and challenge me while in seminary).

Finally, the SBC has the distinction of being the only large denomination in North America to have addressed and turned back a slide towards theological liberalism. We now see many large Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian and even Baptist bodies in the U.S. and Canada waffling on or even accepting such doctrinal evils as homosexual pastors. The SBC was, indeed, heading in this direction in the 1970s as SBC leaders and professors downplayed the accuracy and authority of Scripture. The conservatives actually won the ensuing fight for the denomination and have come out clearly in support of the centrality and authority of Scripture. Perfect they are not - but this was a key factor in my decision. I could be assured of professors and teachers who acknowledged the true place of the Bible.

Other Reasons

Other important factors need to be considered when choosing a school. CSBS has perhaps the lowest tuition rates of any Canadian seminary, due to subsidization by the SBC. Newly married and having just left the Army, financial considerations were important - and are more so now that we are expecting!

The location of the seminary was extremely attractive. Alberta has the lowest taxes in Canada and is the nation's hottest economy. Erin would easily be able to find emplyment as a nurse in the Calgary area, have the highest salary in Canada, and be taxed the least for it. Finding a part-time or summer job for myself would not be difficult. A native Calgarian, I knew the area very well and my family was nearby. The army was offering me an all-expenses-paid move back to my place of enrolment. Cochrane is a beautiful town with a breathtaking view of the Rocky Mountains - having been born in those mountains, I have a strong emotional connection to the area. And closeness to a major city would provide limitless ministry opportunities, as well as access to a major airport (I was tired of doubling my airfare for the privilege of flying out of the tiny Fredericton airport).

Finally, the seminary itself has a very experienced and well-qualified faculty. It is a very small school, providing a close-knit family atmosphere. I can already attest to the support they can give - the people there have been very good to both of us, supporting us earnestly in prayer and helping us fit into the Cochrane community. And the small class sizes allow for a very dynamic learning environment.

Those are the reasons I chose CSBS.

Specific Concerns By Others - Upcoming Posts

There were three major concerns raised by others when I told them about this seminary:

1. First, the lack of a charismatic emphasis (the implication from one individual concerned was that Baptists would brainwash me). I've already touched on my view on this in my previous post, but I'll develop this concern in more detail in my next post. There is a personal element in how this concern was expressed that concerned me greatly - the individual didn't take it to me directly, actually - and I want to address this.

2. Another good friend of mine alerted me to a new Southern Baptist policy regarding foreign missionaries and the use of tongues. This is a related but separate issue, and since this concern was conveyed to me in a God-honoring manner (as opposed to the one above), I wish to deal with this specific concern separately.

3. Finally, the SBC does not ordain women as pastors. I'll explain my view on this issue in the last post of the series.

Cancer As A Gift From God: John Piper's Testimony

2006-02-21T20:44:00.000-07:00

If I had to name one book that had effected an utter change in my life, other than the Bible, it would be John Piper's Desiring God. (That book is available online at this link). This book defined, for me, a life lived to the glory of God. Piper is a pastor with a passion to glorify God, and his writings have been a great encouragement to me.

Recently, he was diagnosed with prostate cancer. On the eve of an operation, he wrote an incredible meditation on God's will in his cancer. I'm happy to say that Pastor Piper's surgery went well, but my main point in this post is to point out his incredible, God-honouring attitude as he faced what might be a terrifying time for anyone.

I STRONGLY urge you to read his article here.

(H/T Centuri0n.)

To Address Some Concerns (Part I)

2006-02-19T13:37:00.000-07:00

Why a Baptist Seminary?

More than a year and a half ago, I first broached the idea of my possibly attending seminary to a group of trusted Christian men. These friends were cautiously positive about the idea, and promised to support me in prayer. As that hard-to-define sense of call began to firm over the next few months, I actively began investigating seminaries. Eventually, I settled on Canadian Southern Baptist Seminary.

Having committed to a course of action, a seminary, and thus the theological outlook of that particular denomination that runs the seminary, I nevertheless began to face some concerns held by other friends of mine. I do thank God for this, as it demonstrated their Christian concerns for my spiritual well-being. It is a good thing to be sharpened by others, and we are all called to exercise Christian discernment, even on behalf of others. Nevertheless, I feel I owe these people an explanation.

This series of posts has several aims, then, but one of them is NOT to complain that others disagree with me or to belittle their Christian responsibility to speak their convictions. Rather, I hope to accomplish several things:

1. First, explain why I chose a Baptist seminary...

2. ...and a Southern Baptist one at that.

3. I will (graciously and lovingly, I hope) address one particular approach or manner, in which some concerns were expressed, that I considered very inappropriate.

4. I'll talk about a particular concern raised with me about Southern Baptists and tongues.

5. Finally, I'll address another particular concern about the SBC view of women in ministry, and how this impacted my decision.

Why a Baptist Seminary?

I have seen people pick a Bible college or seminary rather carelessly, seemingly on the assumption that if the place has a seemingly Christian statement of faith, it's safe to attend. I believe that the choice of seminary or Bible college, for one who has the call of God on their life, requires prayer, discernment, and careful investigation. Furthermore, it requires knowing one's own spiritual walk. It requires a knowledge of one's own theological views. And finally, the school should be one that has high standards of education, and be recognized in the Christian community as such.

And so I began, even before I became aware of a call to ministry, to figure out who I was as a Christian.

So why a Baptist seminary? After all, this came as a surprise both to my own circle of friends (mostly charismatic / Pentecostal) and to my family (mostly infant-baptist Reformed). Thus, my answer has to address two issues: baptism, and why I didn't choose a charismatic school.

The answer on baptism is quite simple. First, I was baptized as an adult at 23, after coming to the conclusion that believer's baptism is the Biblical model. Why? Many reasons:

First, no example or command to baptize infants is given in the New Testament.

Second, baptism does not save or regenerate a person. Salvation comes by grace alone through faith alone. Thus, I don't agree with those who think that infants are somehow made more likely to be saved by baptism.

Third, when Christ gave the Great Commission, He commanded us to make disciples and baptize them. The fact that Christ mentioned discipleship first is significant. An infant simply cannot be a disciple, for discipleship implies awareness and understanding of faith. Infants have neither until they grow up.

Fourth, when the apostles baptized, a clear connection between baptism and repentance (and other evidence of salvation) can be seen (Acts 2:28, 8:36-38 [even without the disputed verse 37], 9:17-18, 10:47-48). In many cases, baptism is explicitly administered as a clear response to the work of the Spirit in a person's life.

Fifth, those who argue that baptism has replaced circumcision as a seal of the covenant forget that the New Covenant involves circumcision of the heart, and that those so circumcised are the true Israel. Or, put another way, while the Abrahamic Covenant was with a man and his physical descendants, the New Covenant is with his spiritual descendants. Circumcision was therefore tied to ethnicity, while baptism is tied to faith. Jesus and Paul spent much of their time disabusing Jews of their notion that ethnic membership in the covenant guaranteed them God's favour - why should members of the church then adopt the same idea regarding their own physical descendants? To me, it defeats the point.

A more detailed defence of believers' baptism can be found elsewhere easily. Suffice to say, I'm with the Baptists on this one.

So why a specifically Baptist seminary, instead of one that more resembled my Fredericton church in its beliefs (specifically about the charismata?)

Well, first, I'd make a pretty bad Pentecostal. See, I've never spoken in tongues. I've never been tempted to. I am convinced that tongues are utterly unnecessary for salvation (remember, by grace through faith!) and that there is no Biblical reason to expect that every believer, or indeed even most believers, should speak in tongues (1 Corinthians 12:30). Paul commands us to seek the higher gifts - and if you read his letters, he compares tongues with prophecy, preferring the latter. In short, tongues is not high on my priority list, and to those who measure spiritual maturity by tongues-speaking, read Paul again.

Furthermore, a keystone of Pentecostal theology is the idea of a second and subsequent "fillings" of the Holy Spirit. I believe every true believer is filled with the Holy Spirit at conversion (indeed, before conversion, for without the Spirit no one can even believe in Christ at all - 1 Corinthians 2:14). Once the Spirit is there, He's there to stay. But Pentecostals generally believe salvation is a state that can be lost. I disagree.

See, salvation is the Lord's work. No one can be saved at all unless the Father draws him to Christ (John 6:44). All those so given to Christ will come to Him (John 6:37) and those who come to Him will never be cast out (John 6:38-39) - for this would violate the Father's will and make Christ a failure. And all of these who come to Christ WILL be raised to eternal life on the last day (John 6:44).

In short, it's God who saves. Since a person's decision is not the decisive factor (though it is a step in the process) then salvation is by God's grace alone. And if grace makes one "saved," then grace will keep one "saved." Or in other words, if one's sin wasn't an obstacle to salvation at time of conversion, why would it reverse it later?

I'm not saying that a Christian can sin with impunity. On the contrary, persistent sin is evidence that one is not saved at all! (1 John 1:6, 2:4-6, 3:6). But there's my point - behaviour is evidence only. It is not a contributor to salvation. Again, this is because salvation is a work of God, not man.

By now, discerning readers can guess I'm a Calvinist. That's not a popular position in Pentecostal circles.

I did briefly consider a Christian Missionary Alliance seminary. However, I could not have signed their confession of faith (unlike my present seminary). They believe physical healing is a provision of the atonement, which I disagree with (God's concerned with sin, and a quick look at the Bible shows that many Godly people never had healing) and they make premillennialism a requirement of fellowship. Not only am I not a premillenial, but I think that making ANY end-times scheme a test of fellowship is wrong.

Eventually, I settled on Baptists for the following reasons:

1. The theological position I resemble most closely is that of Reformed Baptists.

2. Baptists believe in the inerrancy and sufficiency of Scripture (that is, that the Bible is true in all it teaches, and that it is all a Christian needs to be fully equipped for ministry.) I find many mainline churches don't believe the first part; I fear many charismatic and evangelical churches downplay the second.

3. Baptists are warmly evangelical and committed to sharing the Gospel.

So why Southern Baptists? That's the next post.

A Link To Our New Home

2006-01-02T21:27:00.002-07:00

I was going to do this, but my darling wife beat me to the punch. You can see pictures of our new place at her site. God has blessed us indeed!

A Loooooooong Trip...

2006-01-02T14:09:00.000-07:00

Well, after 4500 km, nine days, eight nights, Erin and I finally arrived at our new home in Cochrane.

It was the first time either of us had driven across Canada, and as expected, it had its moments of excitement as well as its times of utter boredom. I thought that, instead of doing a step-by-step account of the whole trip (which might at points be as boring as northern Ontario) I would instead share some of the highlights of the trip.

1) Old Quebec City

I had been here before, during my college days with the Royal Military College Band for a performance. I had enjoyed the visit, for the history, the quaintness of the city and its architecture, and the cultural experience, and so I wanted to show Erin around a bit. And as expected, she enjoyed it too - she really loved window shopping in the Old City (guys, if you're ever in Quebec with your ladies, take them there!) To the left is a picture of me in the Old City during Erin's shopping rampage, and at right is Erin in front of the world-famous Chateau Frontenac hotel.

2) Royal Military College, Kingston, Ontario

RMC is my alma mater, and so I'd always wanted to show my little girl around my old stomping grounds. RMC is quite old, having been founded in 1876, and is Canada's only military academy. It's situated on a beautiful peninsula across from downtown Kingston, jutting out into Lake Ontario. I've included pictures of the College from its website, as Erin and I didn't take any while we were there, but we both really enjoyed the stop.

3) The Algoma Water Tower Inn, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario

The Water Tower Inn was probably the best part of our whole trip! My buddy Kevin Laffin recommended the place to us from his previous excursions across the country, and so Erin and I stopped here. And we were glad we did. As you can see at the left, our bedroom had its own old-fashioned gas fireplace; the hotel was right across the road from a Taco Bell (I'm a Tex-Mex addict) and, better yet, has its own Lonestar restaurant! All for a regular hotel price (Her Majesty paid, but that's all right.)

The best part, though, was the pool / spa. They have a great indoor swimming pool, indoor waterfall, sauna, TWO hot tubs, heat lamps, exercise, room... And one of the hot tubs (which are huge, by the way) is outside! Erin and I would relax out in the tub, snow falling around us, clouds of steam rising from the hot water, our hair freezing as we admired the beautiful garden built around the tub.... Trust me - if you're ever in "the Sault," stop at this place. You will not regret it. Click on the title above for the link...

4) Snow Squall Off Lake Superior, Wawa, Ontario

The scariest moment of the trip was when we were caught in a storm sweeping in off Lake Superior. The lake was terrifying to look at - at times, it seemed the water was trying to jump out and grab you! Erin managed to get a picture of the Lake, seen at left; you can see it boiling and frothing. I kept thinking of the awesome power of God, as shown through nature. It's great having Him on your side, that's for sure. In a matter of minutes, visibility went down to zero - I could not even tell where the edges of the road were, or see obstacles. Oncoming traffic could only be seen about 20 feet away or so.... Still, by the grace of God, we made it through. And we had good weather for the rest of the trip.
There's Erin's look of mild concern during the storm.

5) The Manitoba Border

We took our sweet time going through Ontario - four days, to be exact. And three of those were spent in Northern Ontario - Sudbury, the Sault, Thunder Bay, Kenora, etc. By day four, we were SICK of it - I just kept thinking of that Arrogant Worms song: "There's..... rocks and trees and trees and rocks and rocks and trees and trees and rocks and rocks and trees and trees and rocks and rocks and trees and trees and rocks and.... WATER!!!" Needless to say, we were overjoyed to see the sign for Manitoba. At right is one reaction: tears of joy...

6) Mother of All Breakfast Cereals, Saskatchewan

The Praries can be a dull drive. It's flat, there's few significant landmarks, the roads are straight to the horizon, and the scenery just doesn't change. Be that as it may, I thought I'd share a couple of photos...

You know how a farmer can make a pumpkin grow to immense proportions? The farmers of Saskatchewan have done much the same thing, but not with pumpkins. I give you... the world's largest Kellogg's Frosted Mini Wheats!!!

Yeah, I was bored.

7) West Edmonton Mall, Edmonton, Alberta

We stopped in Edmonton to visit Erin's sister Holly, who works at the WEM. It was a fun visit, and a great chance to finish our Christmas shopping! The world's second-largest shopping mall (I think it's been surpassed by the Mall of America) is truly a sight to behold. An indoor amusement park, indoor waterpark, indoor minigolf, skating rink, aquarium, pirate ship, hotel, and, of course, hundreds of stores... Now, I like visiting the place simply because of the waterpark. I'm a sucker for waterslides, and the gigantic wave pool's something to see... I've included a picture from the mall's website.

We stayed in the Fantasyland Hotel, in a theme room. Ours was a Roman room, and the picture speaks for itself. A big jacuzzi, pillars, mirrors everywhere... We loved it!

So, those were some of the high points of the trip...

Posts Coming Soon...

1) Our New Home - I'll have pictures!

2) To Answer Some Concerns - a couple posts to reassure some friends who have raised concerns about my choice of seminary.

I'm Still Here!!!

2005-12-20T18:59:00.001-07:00

My wife and I just finished settling in after our big move to Cochrane, Alberta. I haven't totally dropped off the face of the earth...

More posts will follow shortly. Stay tuned....

Goliath's Name Found On Pottery

2005-11-15T17:44:00.000-07:00

More archaeology! Researchers have found a pottery fragment at a mound near the Israeli city of Tell es-Shafi, a mound widely accepted to be the site of the ancient Philistine city of Gath.

Gath, by the way, was one of a confederacy of five Philistine cities that gave Israel no end of trouble in Old Testament times. The pottery fragment had an inscription in an ancient Semitic script reading "alwat" and "wlt," which researchers believe to be Philistine spellings of the name of Goliath.

The full story can be found at Yahoo, here.

What makes this find even more intriguing is that the Bible clearly states Goliath was from Gath:

And there came out from the camp of the Philistines a champion named Goliath of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span. (1 Samuel 17:4)

This is a spectacular find, because it is the first extra-biblical evidence to suggest that Goliath actually existed. Granted, it does not "prove" the Biblical story to a skeptic's satisfaction, but it certainly adds a lot of credibility to the Biblical account - Goliath is proven to be a Philistine name, and the name is connected with his Biblical hometown!

The shard dates from 900 BC, well after Goliath would have lived, but that doesn't detract from the value of the find at all.

I liked this quote from NineMSN:

"I haven't found Goliath's skeleton with the hole in the centre of his forehead, but it's the first archaeological evidence form a Philistine site which lends strong credibility" to the story...

Ancient Church Found in Israeli Prison

2005-11-07T17:19:00.000-07:00

Prisoners digging in part of their prison compound have uncovered what could be the oldest existing Christian church.

The find is quite incredible, as indicated by pictures taken at the site.

The picture at left (from Reuters) clearly shows the ancient Christian use of the fish as a symbol, as well as Greek script at right. I wish I could read it - the time will come, God willing...

At right (AP photo) here is another mosaic found at the site. Again, I really can't read Greek, but the last four letters of the third line read theos - God in English.

Archaeologists believe the church, found near the town of Megiddo (Armageddon) dates from the third century AD. This estimate is based on pottery fragments found at the site, as well as the style of Greek used in the mosaics. Furthermore, the use of the fish as a symbol as opposed to a cross indicates an earlier date.

The full story may be found here.

Why is this important? Well, Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code has been the hottest bestseller of the last couple of years, and will be released as a major movie next spring. Central to the storyline is the idea that Christ was not actually divine; rather, He was a mere mortal, Brown claims, marrying Mary Magdalene and fathering a child before He died.

Brown introduces his book with an assertion to the effect that although the story itself is fiction, it is based on historical fact. Obviously, a denial of Christ's divinity is serious, and Brown makes the astounding claim in the novel that Christians prior to the fourth century did not worship Christ as God. He states that the Church only began teaching that Christ is divine at the Council of Nicaea, and that the Emperor Constantine pushed this idea onto the Church. In short, according to Dan Brown, the reason we worship Christ as God today is because Constantine won out at Nicaea.

How does this find fit in? One of the mosaics clearly refers to Jesus as God - and the church dates from before both Nicaea and the reign of Constantine!

So, as James White pointed out at his blog today, the dating of this site is yet more blatant proof that Brown has no historical credibility whatever. If you want a closer look at the issue, I recommend Dr. White's running series on the Da Vinci Code (start here, and then read Parts I, II, III, IV, and V).

And yes, I am happy I finally figured out the pictures function!

Poor kitties...

2005-11-04T08:38:00.000-07:00

As Erin and I are moving across the country shortly, we had to answer the question of what we would do with our bratty little pets, Felix and Willow.

We decided, on the advice of several friends and family, to ship them by air. This would allow Erin and I the opportunity to enjoy a leisurely, all-expenses-paid nine-day drive across Canada - without the dubious pleasure of their company. Just imagine - two cats (and a litterbox) cooped up with you in a little Grand Am for a 4500 km drive...

They aren't the best-behaved cats in the world either. Erin says Willow, who was her cat before we met, is morally depraved because she was raised by a single mother. And as we bought Felix just before we were married, he was conceived out of wedlock. Not a great start.

Willow frustrates me because she has not grasped the most elementary of feline instincts: covering the stuff she leaves in the litterbox. Not that she doesn't try; but she ignores all the litter provided for that purpose, choosing instead to paw at the unyielding plastic sides of the box and the very solid floor outside of it. Now, I won't comment on her intelligence, other than to point out that this is an instinct, not a learned behaviour, and that she doesn't even have that figured out...

Felix, for his part, styles himself as a cheetah or jaguar on the hunt, and tears around our small apartment accordingly. Erin can't wrap herself in a blanket in his presence, because he'll attack anything that moves underneath it (elbows, toes, etc.) And when, at 0200 hours, he is bored, he beats on our bedroom door or a closet. Thump thump thump thump thump thump thump thump until you chase him and lock him up. For five or six months now, we've squirted him, soaked him in the sink, doused him in the shower, yelled at him, smacked him, and locked him up - he just won't learn.

I've finally figured him out. He isn't a bad cat; this would imply a standard of behaviour. He's not immoral, in other words. He's amoral - that is, he has no sense of right and wrong whatsoever, and coupled with a total inability to make even the simple connection that Pavlov's dog accomplished ("Event A leads to event B") between his behaviour and the unpleasant consequences that follow, he drives me insane.

But, other than threatening to barbecue him or holding him under the tap in the bathtub, I have been unable to truly have my revenge upon these cats. Until today.

See, I finally made the arrangements to ship them. And because of flight times and connections, the trip will take no less than 11 hours - six hours of that a layover in Montreal! That's a bad enough arrangement for a human traveller. They'll be in cages in cargo compartments.

I really do love them, and I pray they make it safely. But I just can't help a little vindictive satisfaction when I ponder the LOOOOOOONG day they'll have 25 November.

Have a nice flight!

Can Salvation Be Lost? (Part III)

2005-11-01T07:12:00.000-07:00

Christianity is not a religion of works; it is the religion of grace. Ours is not a faith where we make ourselves worthy of salvation; ours is a faith in God’s granting us salvation because of Christ’s worthiness. It’s not what we do; it’s what He did.

So does this mean that a Christian can do whatever he likes, and he’s safe?

NO.

Even Paul recognized that there would be those who would ask this question:

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. (Romans 6:1-4)

“God's grace has covered all my sin - I'm in the clear!!” There are many who call themselves Christian and take God's grace as a licence for immorality. Paul, in this passage, says NO! We have “died to sin, he says” - a true believer has put his sinful nature to death. The chains of sin have been broken in the life of a true Christian. To continue to serve sin would be proof that one is still sin's slave - and no man can serve two masters.

Yes, Christians are saved by grace. It is a gift of God, completely undeserved, totally unearned by human behaviour. God's grace does NOT depend on how good we behave. BUT -- Paul also says we are saved by grace THROUGH faith. God's grace works through genuine faith. And James, in his letter, tells us what true, saving faith looks like. “So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead,” he says (2:17). A faith that does not reveal itself through actions is no faith at all. It is a dead faith. It is a false faith. “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?” (2:14) No!

So many Christians I know have a firm understanding of the relationship of works to faith. They say, correctly, that true faith will show itself by good works. Why is it so hard to go one more step and see the application of this Biblical truth to the question of salvation? A saved person will prove his salvation by his faith, and thus by his works and the fruit of the Spirit.

So though grace does not depend on good behaviour, good behaviour certainly depends on grace. Or, in other words, we are unable to honour God without His grace - and if His grace is in our lives, that grace WILL produce good behaviour. Genuine faith produces genuine fruits in a person's life. Jesus said, “A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.” (Matthew 7:18-20)

We have a similar saying these days: “If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.” A true Christian will be identifiable by his fruits: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, self-control. A true Christian will prove it by his lifestyle.

A person who says he holds to “once-saved, always saved,” and thinks he can sin without consequence, provides serious grounds to doubt whether he is saved at all. A saved Christian will have the Holy Spirit – he will have been regenerated, had his heart of stone replaced with a heart of flesh. The Spirit will, over time, change the person to be more and more like Christ. And so a truly saved Christian abhors sin; he hates evil, detests wrongdoing, despises that part of his nature that tends toward sin. A true Christian fears sin and works to avoid it - not because he fears punishment and hell, but because sin is repellent to him. A “Christian” who thinks sin is of no consequence does not have God's view of sin - and this begs the question: has he truly repented, if he doesn't appreciate just how horrible sin is?

Now, this doesn’t mean that a Christian who stumbles is lost and is not saved. As long as we live in this world, we will have a sinful nature and will feel its effects. Christians will struggle with sin, and temptation, as long as they have a sinful nature - remember James' words? He who claims to be without sin lies. But a true Christian will not persist in a lifestyle or pattern of sinful behaviour. For a saved Christian, sin will always result in conviction by the Holy Spirit, and will always lead to repentance. An unrepentant sinner cannot be a Christian.

So we see that the Biblical position – that held by the Reformers – is the “middle ground” between two extremes: one which holds that one’s own efforts to keep himself in a “state of grace” is vital for salvation, and the other which claims that salvation merely requires belief in Christ and that sinfulness doesn’t matter anymore afterward.

A true Christian will watch for sin in his or her life, continually confessing it to God and praying for His grace to fight it. A true Christian strives to live a truly holy life, not to earn or keep one’s salvation, but because sin offends him or her, because it is repugnant and disgusting to him or her. True Christians, that have been washed in the blood of Christ, indwelt by the Holy Spirit, love Christ their Saviour like a bride loves her bridegroom. No girl wants to be filthy and repellent to the man she loves, and no Christian wants to appear soiled and dirty with sin before the Bridegroom of the Church.

Jesus said, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” (John 14:15) THIS is the Christian motivation for holiness – love, not fear of the loss of one’s salvation. And this heartfelt, abiding love for Christ, this disgust for sin, this deep respect for God’s holiness is a fruit of the Holy Spirit – and a mark of a saved Christian.

Happy Reformation Day!

2005-10-31T09:02:00.000-07:00

Today marks the 488th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation.

On October 31st, 1517, an Augustinian monk named Martin Luther nailed his now-famous "95 Theses" to the door of the Castle church in Wittenberg, Germany. The controversy he started shook the very foundations of Western civilization and broke the power of the Roman Catholic Church in Europe.

But how many Protestants today realize how important this day truly was? How many know what a gift God gave His church that day?

When Luther nailed his Theses to that door, he intended them as debating points. He hoped to begin a discussion that would reform the Catholic Church from within, not split it. The refusal of the Church heirarchy to consider and sddress the problems he raised led Luther and his followers to reject the authority of the Catholic Church.

And what were the issues that touched off the Reformation? There were many. One of the most well-known is the matter of Indulgences.

An "indulgence," very simply, was a slip of paper that promised to release a person from purgatory straight into heaven. The Catholic Church was selling these to the public to finance the construction of Saint Peter's Basilica in Rome and to try to get the Pope's finances back in balance (years of warfare by Popes had bled the treasury severely). These indulgences were sold by corrupt priests and bishops, using such slogans as Johann Tetzel's famous "When the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from Purgatory springs!" The Church "sold" entrance to heaven to the masses in this way, sparking Luther's observation that if the Pope truly did have such power, why did he not issue a general indulgence to all souls in purgatory, for free, as an act of Christian mercy? (Read the "95 Theses" here for more)

Luther furthermore denounced the growing obsession with "relics." Relics were items associated with Christ, the apostles, and other saints. The market for these items had gone far out of hand - it was speculated that there were enough pieces of the True Cross and nails from Christ's crucifixion floating around Europe to enable one to build a ship. There were at least three alleged heads of John the Baptist at different places in Europe. Besides the fact that most of these items were obviously frauds, Luther and his followers pointed out that this veneration of relics amounted to idolatry.

But the most important result of the Reformation was the recovery of the True Gospel.

The Catholic Church held (and still does today) that salvation is a matter of God's grace combined with human works. Only through the sacraments of the church could one gain salvation, the Catholic church taught. Christ's sacrifice on the Cross did not save sinners; it enabled them to cooperate through the institution of the Church to earn merit for salvation. The ceremony of the Mass, a re-enactment of the Crucifixion, meant that Christ had to be sacrificed again and again.

The Reformers, men like Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, John Calvin, Philip Melancthon, and John Knox, denounced the whole Catholic system as being without Scriptural support. The Catholic church elevated tradition to an equal authority with the Scriptures; the Reformers denied this, saying that the sole sufficient and infallible authority of the Church was the Bible.

The Reformers held that salvation could not be earned. Salvation is God's work alone, they said; human cooperation with God not only stripped Him of the glory rightfully due Him, it is impossible in the first place, because of our sinful nature! Salvation could not be worked for or merited or deserved in any way. Rather, salvation is a free gift of God's grace alone, and only by trusting in Christ and His work could anyone be saved. The Cross was a completed work of God, the Reformers taught, and so the Catholic Mass denied the power of the Cross. As God did all of the work in salvation, the Reformers taught, only God alone deserves the glory.

The Reformation gave us Bibles in our own language and in our own hands. It took the focus of salvation away from human activites in the Church and placed it back on the Cross. It stripped every last bit of the credit for anyone's salvation away from man and gave it back to God.

So take a moment today to ponder your faith, and praise God for what he did through Martin Luther that fateful day. Thank Him for the sacrifices of all those who stood for God's truth during the Reformation. Thank God for your right and opportunity to read the Bible in your own language. Thank Jesus that He did all of the work for your salvation, and that you don't have to depend on human priests and earthly institutions for it. And give God all of the glory.

Can Salvation Be Lost? (Part II)

2005-10-29T11:38:00.000-06:00

Last time, I made the case that true salvation cannot be lost, using John 6 and Romans 8 as proof. I was going to move on to the "other extreme" of this issue - that is, those who believe that once they believe in Christ, they can do anything they want and grace will "cover it." That is a vitally important issue, and I will get to it next time (God willing). But my brother Brad brought up a good point in a comment to my last post, which I've copied here:

Jeff, I agree with you, but what is your take on Hebrews... chapter 6 is it?

Brad is right - I really can't move on until I've dealt with some of the verses commonly cited by the other side! So we'll look at Hebrews 6, but first...

An issue central to this whole problem is the question of "false faith." In other words, the Bible clearly teaches us that a person can have a kind of "faith" that is not a saving faith. One of the clearest Scriptural examples is the Parable of the Sower, found in three of the four Gospels. Here is Mark's version:

"Listen! A sower went out to sow. And as he sowed, some seed fell along the path, and the birds came and devoured it. Other seed fell on rocky ground, where it did not have much soil, and immediately it sprang up, since it had no depth of soil. And when the sun rose it was scorched, and since it had no root, it withered away. Other seed fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked it, and it yielded no grain. And other seeds fell into good soil and produced grain, growing up and increasing and yielding thirtyfold and sixtyfold and a hundredfold." (Mark 4:3-8)

Here is Jesus' explanation of the parable:

"The sower sows the word. And these are the ones along the path, where the word is sown: when they hear, Satan immediately comes and takes away the word that is sown in them. And these are the ones sown on rocky ground: the ones who, when they hear the word, immediately receive it with joy. And they have no root in themselves, but endure for a while; then, when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately they fall away. And others are the ones sown among thorns. They are those who hear the word, but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches and the desires for other things enter in and choke the word, and it proves unfruitful. But those that were sown on the good soil are the ones who hear the word and accept it and bear fruit, thirtyfold and sixtyfold and a hundredfold." (Mark 4:14-20)

What does this story teach us? It's clear from this passage that faith can be false. A person may appear to be Christian, but his faith "has no root" - that is, it may be based NOT on the work of the Holy Spirit in the person in softening and changing their heart (that is, being born again), but rather may be a mere intellectual assent to the truths of the Christian faith, or a love for the earthly benefits (fellowship, a sense of purpose, etc.) that membership in the church brings. Or the "faith" of a person may be shaken and choked out by worries and worldly affairs.

Incidentally, this proves the foolishness (so popular today) of measuring a ministry's effectiveness by the number of "decisions for Christ". These decisions can clearly be false.

Now, by itself this passage doesn't prove that salvation can't be lost. But what it does prove is that what we, from our point of view, may think is "saving faith" may not be at all. True faith is proved by perseverance.

Now let's move to 1 John. Keep in mind the context; at the beginning of this book John squashes the idea that sinless perfection is possible. In chapter 1:8-2:1, he says,

If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

If Christians - to whom John was writing! - cannot claim to be without sin, and if John admits they can sin by telling them of their Advocate, Christ, then it's abundantly clear that "sinless perfectionism" is impossible in this life. "Good behaviour" by God's perfect and holy standard is thus impossible even for saved Christians, and so if salvation depended upon it, we'd all be lost. That being established, read this passage:

Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us. (1 John 2:18-19)

The false teachers of whom John spoke had obviously been a part of the church. They had appeared to be Christian; they had shown evidence of faith. When they left, though, John does not say they "lost their faith," or that they had "given up salvation." He said - note this - that they never belonged in the first place! If they really did belong - if their faith was true and genuine - they would have remained.

Or, in other words, a person who apostasizes - falls away from the faith - proves he was never a true Christian at all.

Remember my point from before? From Romans 8 and John 6, justification - God's declaration of a Christian as righteous - is a one-time, non-repeatable, infallible event. It cannot be reversed or proven wrong! And in case someone thinks justification is something that happens at the Final Judgement, look at Romans 8:29-30 again. Paul speaks in the past tense, of a completed event! Even glorification - eternal life - to Paul is a thing so assured, so certain, that he speaks of it as having already happened!

So justification cannot fail. It only happens once, during a person's life, and always results in eternal life. And as we've just seen, the appearance of saving faith in a human being can be false. And a person who falls away was never "of us", was never a real Christian, at all.

This established, now let's move to Hebrews 6.

For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they then fall away, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt. For land that has drunk the rain that often falls on it, and produces a crop useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed, and its end is to be burned. (6:4-8)

The author is speaking here of people who had sat under the instruction of the Word, had been given the Good News, had understood it, and had been active members of the Christian fellowship. These people then left, departed the faith. Or, in short, the same people Jesus had spoken of as having "received the word with joy," and then fallen away. The same antichrists John spoke of in his letter. Nowhere does it say these people are "saved," or "justified." It fails to prove the point, if one tries to prove salvation can be lost.

But they "tasted the goodness of the word of God!" They "shared in the Holy Spirit!" Doesn't this language indicate they were truly saved?

Not at all. An unsaved person who acts like a Christian and is active in a congregation does share in these things. They hear the Word of God, a blessing in itself. The Word even causes some growth - but the faith is still false. Remember the example of Saul, in the Old Testament? The Spirit came on him, and he even prophesied - yet he eventually was lost.

The Spirit is God, and may act on anyone - even an unsaved person - as He will. And this principle, of God's absolute control and sovereignty in our lives, is reinforced by verse 3 of this same passage: And this [that is, move from elementary to mature things] we will do if God permits.

The author here is warning his readers to be careful to hold to the teaching they had been given - to persevere in the faith. In the same vein as Christ's warnings that things would be worse for Capernaum than for Sodom because they saw Him and rejected Him, the author of Hebrews is warning that the punishment for those who reject the clearest, most explicit revelations of God's truth will be far worse than for the "average sinner."

Remember - although true, saving faith will always result in eternal life, only God knows for certain who has that faith. So we are to test ourselves to prove this faith in our own lives, and to live in accordance with the Word we have been given.

Read what comes after this passage:

And we desire each one of you to show the same earnestness to have the full assurance of hope until the end, so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises. (Hebrews 6:11-12)

Notice the points here:

1) We inherit the promises through "faith and patience," NOT works (verse 12)
2) We show the same earnestness (that is, holy living) to have assurance of hope, not to have salvation. (verse 11)

And what is assurance? Certainty that one is saved, that one is safe in the hands of God. Certainty that one's faith is the real thing, not a false faith. This certainty is a privilege, not a right - it is not automatic with salvation, but comes to those who strive to demonstrate their faith in their lives. Not all saved Christians have assurance, then, but the author's point is that it is available to them! But my point is this: if sin can "cost one his salvation," and if none of us is without sin, then assurance is impossible! Even Hebrews 6 proves this idea wrong!

The author moves on to speak of the certainty of God's promise, pointing out that God swore by himself (verse 13), the unchangeable character of his purpose (verse 17), that it is impossible for God to lie (verse 18), and that our hope is a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul (verse 19). Why would the author be speaking of God's sure promise and unchanging purpose as a basis for our hope, if we can lose salvation through our own actions?

So how does Hebrews 6 fit into the doctrine of eternal security? First, by warning of the deadly consequences of false faith, as a way of reminding us that we cannot afford to assume that our own, personal faith is the real thing - it must be tested! And second, by showing us how we can have assurance of our eternal security and salvation - through "earnestness," by proving our faith to be genuine through our lives. And third, by showing the basis of our assurance:

God's unchanging promise, and Christ's completed work on our behalf.

So Sad, Yet So True

2005-10-27T12:47:00.001-06:00

I've commented many times to friends and family about how amazed I am that modern Christians don't have any sense of their history as a church. It boggles my mind that most professing Christians don't know what sets them apart from Mormons, or why the Reformation happened, or even what it means to be "congregational" as opposed to "presbyterian" or "Methodist" as opposed to Calvinist.

We live in a fast-food culture with a fatally low attention span. That's why history is so neglected in schools - and why we wind up repeating the same lessons over and over. Anyone who doubts my point needs only look at the history of warfare in the twentieth century alone - we needed two world wars to get the message that war is a bad thing, and even still we armed ourselves to the teeth with nuclear weapons and prepared to do it again for the rest of the century. Or, how about genocide? Take the Armenian genocide by the Turks, followed by the Holocaust, followed by the slaughter of Cambodians by Pol Pot, followed by the Rwandan genocide, and now the growing Darfur crisis in Sudan.

In the modern church, it's the same problem. We wind up facing the same heresies and attacks on the faith over and over, because Christians don't think church history and theology is important. Examples include the Da Vinci Code (renewed paganism and Gnosticism), Oneness Pentecostalism (renewed Sabellianism), the Jehovah's Witnesses (the new Arians), and the Latter-Rain / New Apostles movement (the old Marcionite heresy).

This lack of attention to church history translates into an unspoken, unacknowledged assumption that Pentecost was just a few years ago - obviously, because to most Christians church history basically started in the fifties (that's where we left those boring old hymns behind!) How many professing Christians today know what Martin Luther did that touched off the Reformation? How many know why it happened at all? How many know how we got our Bible in the first place? How many know why there's an Eastern Orthodox Church, and why it's different than Catholics and Protestants?

Here's a particularly blatant example - a quote by "sammac" in response to a post at Tim Challies' blog (it's an excellent blog, by the way - check it out sometime!):

I was talking with a Southern Baptist the other day who thought that his denomination had been started by John the Baptist and that the early church used the King James translation of the Bible. When I mentioned the Crusades he thought I was talking about Billy Graham. This is a guy who fixes very complex electronic equipment. He isn't stupid at all, just ignorant.

Enough said. Guys - don't let that be you!

Can Salvation Be Lost? (Part I)

2005-10-27T12:47:00.000-06:00

Today I'm bringing up another important topic. Controversial as it is, the question of whether one can “fall from grace” has a great impact on a person's spiritual life. So, as usual, I'm jumping into this minefield with both feet.

My view? In short, I cannot agree that anyone can “lose” their salvation.

Remember my series on justification? (Click here for Parts I, II, III, and IV) In Part IV of that series I referred to Romans 8:30 - and I made the point that justification is once and for all. Let's revisit that verse, in context:

And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. (my emphasis)

Again, I'll point out the flow of Paul's argument. Everyone who is justified - that is, declared righteous by God - is glorified (has eternal life). No exceptions. One cannot be declared righteous by a perfect, holy God and wind up in hell anyway - if that were to happen, God's declaration of righteousness (justification) means nothing. God would be shown a liar! And furthermore, the justified sinner suffering in hell would be suffering for the same sins that God counted as punished in Christ!

Remember the basis of salvation - the blood of Christ. If a justified sinner can be lost, the sinner's sins would be punished twice, the punishment borne by both Christ and the sinner, and then Christ's suffering and death on that person's behalf would be in vain. With respect to that individual, Christ's blood would be wasted. God would have failed.

Consider this Scripture as well:

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. (John 6:37-39)

Jesus makes the following points:

a) Everyone given to Christ by the Father will come to him. No exceptions. (verse 37)
b) Whoever comes to Christ will NEVER be cast out (verse 37).
c) It is Christ's mission to do God's will (verse 38)
d) It is God's will that NONE of those given to Christ, who come to Christ, will be lost (verse 39)

So we see that if anyone were to come to Christ and then be lost, the Father's will would NOT be done, and Christ's mission would fail. God does not fail! A person who truly comes to Christ, then, is eternally secure - because this is God's will.

Why? Because salvation is the Lord's. It depends on God, not man.

Think about it. If salvation can be lost because of a person's behaviour and actions, what does that salvation depend on? God's grace? Or human effort? If human behaviour can “lose” salvation, then salvation is dependent on human effort. This is wrong – salvation is by God’s grace alone. It is a gift that is unearned, unmerited, and undeserved. If you never earned salvation in the first place, then how can you “unearn” it and so lose it?

The idea that sin can cost you salvation is bad theology, for two reasons. First, sin is the problem we are being saved from in the first place! If it wasn’t an obstacle to one’s salvation when he was first saved, then why is it now? Was the person less sinful before, and now is more sinful? If that’s the case, then only those who are less sinful can be saved. But where’s the line? At which point does sin become so serious that the person is unsaveable?

Second, and more seriously, the idea that salvation can be lost equates to salvation by works. Think about it – in this view, salvation is no longer dependent on God’s grace and mercy. It’s now dependent on human behaviour. Such salvation is no salvation at all – it is conditional at best. It’s like “salvation” is actually a probation period, at the end of which (presumably at death) if you’ve been good enough, God will save you.

I once spent a week in Morocco, a Muslim nation. I had the opportunity to ask many questions about Islam, and let me tell you – this view is identical to the Muslim view. What kind of assurance is that? How can even the best Christian be sure of his salvation, since we all sin?

What use is the Cross, in this view? What does Christ’s sacrifice actually accomplish? How powerful is it, if a person can enjoy its benefits one moment and the next his sin becomes so strong and rank it overpowers the Cross?

What’s the logical result of this theology?

How is one saved? “Easy – just stop sinning!”

This view repudiates the Protestant Reformation. It is, in fact, very similar to the Catholic view, in which “mortal” sins can put a Christian in peril of hell, where the person has to do good works to balance out sin, and where the person must go to Purgatory to work out residual sin before entering heaven. Both views depend on the same, unscriptural presumption: that human effort must be added to Christ’s work on the Cross, in order to be effective.

No. The Cross doesn't merely make a man SAVEABLE, if he adds his own effort. The Cross SAVES.

Jesus said, on that Cross, “It is finished.” I believe Him.

Next time, I'll deal with the equally wrong idea that a Christian can believe and then go on sinning without fear...

The Arrogance of Atheism

2005-10-26T10:44:00.002-06:00

“There is no God.”

Some would hail this realization as the outstanding philosophical achievement of our age. We’ve grown up; we’ve moved beyond primitive superstition and ancient folklore. We can cast off the shackles of redundant tradition and embrace a new era of liberty and freedom.

“There is no God.”

What a statement! The rallying cry of all atheists, the comfort of the unrepentant sinner, a soothing balm for the committed materialist. Don’t worry – live your life the way you want, because that’s all that matters. Have as much fun as you like, because this is the only chance you get.

“There is no God.”

What an arrogant statement this is!

That’s an inflammatory way to put it, but it’s true! Think of what such a stance honestly requires. How can it be proved?

Not scientifically.

The scientific method requires that one make observations and hypothesize a theory about the results. Sadly, many atheists jump straight to the second step – the hypothesis (“there must not be a God”) and then backtrack to the first step, observation, in order to find a lack of evidence for God. That’s not science, guys. The scientific method, properly followed, requires observations, hypotheses, empirical tests, and conclusions. But if God is invisible, and transcends (that means, is independent of and is above and beyond) the physical universe, then He cannot be scientifically measured or observed, nor can He be empirically tested. Even if He could, how would one prove He doesn’t exist? Science has a very difficult time proving negatives. How would one prove there are no space aliens, for instance?

In short, one would have to replicate God in order to disprove Him scientifically. “Jenkins, hand me that test tube – be careful, though! It’s powerful stuff...”

When a man like Stephen Jay Gould, the noted evolutionary biologist and an icon of the scientific community, stands up and declares that there is no God, people listen to him as if he is an expert. This baffles me, though. We give far too much authority to his words, simply because he is an accomplished scientist. “There is no God” is not a scientific statement! No matter how good a scientist Gould or any other noted atheist may be, they are just as qualified as you or I to make that statement.

We, in our technology-obsessed Western culture, have an unfortunate tendency to equate science – at least our Western conception of it - with knowledge. This is not true. Not all knowledge is “science,” although all science is knowledge. Knowledge is more than the professional journals and laboratories and doctorates and conventions that form the collective straw man that the Western mind associates with the word “science.”

Theology, for instance, used to be known as a science. Philosophy used to be thought of as a science. The Latin root of the word “science,” scientia, actually means “knowledge,” and applied to far more than knowledge of the physical world. Now that we in the West have equated “science” with the “scientific method,” we have shaved off an entire realm of human knowledge from the idea of “science.” And it is our loss.

What about history, for instance? Can it be observed directly? Of course not. Can it be tested and replicated? How about law? Poetry? Fun? Are these types of knowledge somehow less legitimate because the scientific method is inapplicable for such research? If not, then why is theology and religion any different?

Some people say, “Well, you can’t prove God exists.” Well, you can’t prove He doesn’t. So at the very least, religious belief is as valid and rational as is atheism. But let’s take the “you gotta prove it to believe it” idea as far as it goes. I can’t prove Julius Caesar lived. Yes, we see things he allegedly wrote, and many historical figures talk about him, but these might all be forgeries and lies. There’s no scientific way to “prove” him – we can’t test him, can’t replicate him.

You know what? I can’t prove you exist, either. Yes, I can touch and hear and see you, or even smell you, but what does that prove? My body could be playing tricks – amputees “feel” lost limbs, schizophrenics “hear” voices that aren’t there, sleep-deprived soldiers on exercise see little men with blue baseball caps that aren’t there (trust me on this one). Senses can be fooled, and so all information I collect via those means cannot be “proven” to an exact certainty. I know I exist – that’s the only thing I can thus “prove.” So if I say only I exist, how can you prove me wrong? (And if you think this is laughable, there’s a philosophical position called “solipsism” that believes exactly that).

And even then, how do I know for sure that I am what I think I am? Let me challenge you to do something: Prove that you’re not just a brain in a jar. Prove that everything, including your physical body, isn’t just an illusion, a series of impulses sent by wire to your brain from outside the jar.

Bottom line: the scientific method proves or disproves nothing about God. It is irrelevant to our discussion.

Think about it. How much knowledge of the world do you, personally, have? Even if you’re a noted, intelligent man like Gould, you don’t possess more than a tiny fraction of a fraction of a fraction of all the knowledge humanity has accumulated. Even if Gould – or you – find no evidence of God in all the knowledge you have accumulated, who are you to say that the evidence cannot possibly exist in the other 99.999999999999999% of humanity’s collective knowledge that you do not possess?

If I say that there is not a town somewhere in North America called “Saint-Louis de Ha! Ha!” because I have never seen it on a map, never heard tell of it, never seen a road sign, never met anyone from there, does that mean it’s not true? Maybe I live in Indonesia and don’t have the opportunity to verify this claim. Maybe I live in Ontario, and yet cannot be bothered to look deeply into the question because I don’t think it affects me that much. The fact is, though, knowing that the town doesn’t exist requires that I have comprehensive knowledge of all of North America’s geography and be familiar with a list of all its towns. North America’s a big place – that’s a fair bit of knowledge. But to know that it does exist, I need only be exposed to that little bit of knowledge – I need not know the rest of the continent!

In short, one requires omniscience – full and comprehensive knowledge of all things – to say with “scientific certainty” that God does not exist. Put another way, to disprove God, one must be God. And that’s why it’s such a hypocritical, arrogant statement.

Fraternitas Blogitas

2005-10-26T05:21:00.000-06:00

I know I've been gone for a while.... I plan on doing more writing in the future, I promise!! More to follow....

My brother Brad, who some of the readers of my blog know, has "caught the virus" and joined the blogosphere. He's a pre-seminary student at Reformed Bible College in Michigan. His blog, "ePyrus," is now one of my links. I'll forgive him for choosing the same template....

He had a fantastic devotional to share Saturday. Give it a read. And drop him a note - he is craving attention right now....

Phos Hilaron

2005-10-01T16:24:00.000-06:00

Recently, we bought "Hymns: Ancient & Modern," a Passion-series collection of hymns rewritten in contemporary format. It is a really good album, especially in a day when the modern church seems obsessed only with what's new and contemporary. Hearing the rich, deep teaching of the old hymns in a new light was a treat.

On that album was a song called "Phos Hilaron." I had never heard this before. It is an ancient creed dating from before the third century. According to the album jacket cover, it used to be part of a tradition held in Jerusalem called the "lighting of the lamps." At nightfall, a single candle was carried out of the empty tomb of Christ to represent His light to the world, and this hymn would be sung or recited.

I did a little digging on the Internet, because this old, old piece of church history intrigued me. Phos Hilaron, named after the first two Greek words of the song, means "Gladdening Light" or "Joyous Light." It has been attributed to Athenogenes, who was martyred in 305 AD, but it was mentioned earlier, by Basil (who described it as already centuries old) and by Justin Martyr, around 150 AD. Tradition has it that it was sung in the catacombs during the Roman persecutions. If you want to look at it in the original Greek, with a transliteration and a different translation, click here.

Here are the words, as translated by John Keble in 1834. Read this ancient hymn, thinking of our rich and ancient history as a Church, and just think of this: those who sang this hymn in the catacombs were saved by the same glorious God as we, worshiped the same Saviour as we, were indwelt by the same eternal, unchanging Holy Spirit, and will worship Him forever, together with us, in the same assured, everlasting future.

Hail, gladdening Light, of his pure glory poured,
Who is the immortal Father, heavenly, blest,
Holiest of holies, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Now we are come to the sun's hour of rest,
The lights of evening round us shine,
We hymn the Father, Son and Holy Spirit divine.

Worthiest art thou at all times to be sung
With undefiled tongue, Son of our God, giver of life, alone:
Therefore in all the world thy glories, Lord, thine own.

Further to my last...

2005-09-29T09:37:00.000-06:00

Well, I've been Blogspotted.

For those who aren't familiar, that's what you usually get for linking to PYROMANIAC, the blog of the redoubtable Phillip Johnson. Every so often, he does a round-up of those blogs that mention him for one reason or another.

I mentioned his take on the "Biblezine" craze in my last post, and, true to form, he noticed. Check out his comment here. It's worth the look - he included yet another hilariously funny parody "Biblezine" cover that cracked me up yet again...

Now there's a bright idea...

2005-09-28T07:20:00.000-06:00

Now, I'm not a huge fan of the "Biblezines" and other worldly ways of repacking God's Word, in order to make it more "appealing" or "user-friendly." Some of these marketing ploys are just sad, or even offensive.

(By the way, want a good laugh? Then read Phillip Johnson's (he of PYROMANIAC fame) look at one such attempt here, and then read this unforgettable and hilarious post on his blog from a couple days later. These are from a couple months back. I was crying...)

Too much of the English Bible industry out there is motivated by money, and any new gimmick that will sell more items seems to be okay these days. Even if it means dumbing down the words of Scripture (often in the name of making it more readable) to the point that many so-called "Bibles" out there are more products of interpretation than they are of translation, and really would be more honestly sold as Bible commentaries than as "Bibles" (paraphrases like The Living Bible and The Message come to mind).

However, I have to admit that I'm really intrigued by this idea.

For once, an innovation that's actually practical and doesn't make a tabloid or other mockery out of the Bible. It doesn't seem to add a whole lot of bells and whistles to make the Word more alluring (no lipstick hints here, thankfully), and it's a good translation - the Updated NASB is possibly the most literal, word-for-word English translation out there. This would be great for camping, hiking, etc., especially if you're doing it as a family or church activity. And as a soldier, I like the idea of a Bible that could withstand tough field conditions.

Just bring along some Staedtler permanent overhead pens to make notes, and some nail polish remover to erase them...

A Book Preview

2005-09-24T07:32:00.000-06:00

Humility: True Greatness

Thanks to Sovereign Grace Ministries, I was one of 50 bloggers blessed with the opportunity to preview a not-yet-released book: "Humility: True Greatness" by C.J. Mahaney. This is the completed book review.

Summary

In short, I loved this book. I will go over the reasons why in more detail below, but for now, I wish to say that I strongly recommend this book. Much of Christian publishing these days is filled with man-centred philosophy and little Biblical theology, and the Gospel of Christ Jesus is increasingly a rare focus. I was happy to find that Humility was not only Biblically solid, but that it was absolutely centred on the Cross and Gospel of Jesus. The author’s enthusiasm for the Cross jumps from every page – a beautiful sight to behold.

About the author

The author, C.J. Mahaney, is a founder of Sovereign Grace Ministries, a growing network of evangelical churches founded in 1982. They may not be very well known, but the musical arm of their ministry has written some very popular songs in contemporary worship music today, such as "Stand in Awe" and "How High and How Wide." Mahaney himself was, until recently, the pastor of Covenant Life Church in Gaithersburg, Maryland, and serves on the Council of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals and the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

I had not read any of Mahaney’s works, such as The Cross Centered Life or Sex, Supremacy, and the Glory of God, until I read Humility. Now that I know what I've been missing, I fully intend to.

Highlights

Mahaney is a very skilled and engaging writer. The reading level of Humility is such that any adult Christian would have no trouble reading the book. It was a joy to read – Mahaney keeps the book down-to-earth, avoiding heavy theological language while introducing and defending deep doctrinal concepts. The language is smooth and flowing, almost conversational in tone. The author’s use of stories – particularly personal anecdotes – easily and effectively introduced and illustrated the points he made.

As suggested by the title, Humility is a Christian examination and guide to the issue of pride and humility. Mahaney begins with a look at Isaiah 66:2, which reads:

But this is the one to whom I will look: he who is humble and contrite in spirit and trembles at my word.

Mahaney’s central theme in the book is that true humility draws the attention and favour of God. He helpfully (and Biblically) defines humility as "honestly assessing ourselves in light of God’s holiness and our sinfulness." This understanding is key to his whole thrust – the idea that all men are sinners, and have nothing to be prideful about. We stand before a perfectly holy and all-powerful God, having nothing of our own that God did not Himself give us – save our own sinfulness. And it was this stress in Mahaney’s work that I truly appreciated, because this humiliation of man before God, this stress that all we have and are is from Him alone, is often missed in our self-centred, experience-driven Christian subculture.

Pride, Mahaney tells us, was the first sin, and indeed is the root of all sin. Sin is rebellion against God, and rebellion is the practical result of rejecting our dependence on God. The author quotes John Stott making the point that pride is not merely just another sin, but is indeed the essence of all sin. Put in this light, all sin is really an expression of human pride and hubris. And, Mahaney says, this is why God so passionately HATES pride.

The book moves from this definition into God’s solution to this problem – Jesus Christ. Mahaney repeatedly stresses that true greatness is servanthood and humility, and points to the only One who perfectly modeled these qualities: Him who died, innocent and pure, in the place of proud and haughty sinners. Mahaney contrasts Christ’s sacrifice with the pride and ambition of his own disciples James and John, who are jockeying for a place of honour in His kingdom. If Christ’s own disciples, the future apostles themselves, fell to such pride, how are we any different?

The Cross, Mahaney points out, was true greatness defined because it was true humility displayed. And so the author takes a whole chapter describing the Cross and the good news of freedom from sin in light of Christ’s humility. This chapter was beautiful, a far more powerful and eloquent presentation of the Gospel than I have seen in any tracts and altar calls. In relating his whole book, every theme, to the Cross and Gospel of Christ, Mahaney truly glorifies God.

Having laid a firm foundation at the foot of the Cross, the rest of the book is largely practical advice. His first suggestion is constant meditation on the Cross of Christ – regular, unceasing consideration of true humility and true greatness. From there, Mahaney effectively ties humility as a spiritual practice into other spiritual disciplines. Without being dogmatic, he introduces several practical ways in which a Christian can increase his own awareness of the pride in his life and strive for humility in his walk. While emphatically stating that he is only giving suggestions, he prescribes beginning each day with acknowledgement of our need of God, and thanks for what He has done. He examines daily prayer, worship, and Bible study as means of increasing our awareness of God’s greatness and our own insufficiency. In a somewhat tongue-in-cheek manner, he even recommends taking up golf as a way to humble yourself!

Mahaney also succeeds where all too many have failed, giving a clear, coherent, PRACTICAL motivation to study theology and doctrine. In particular, he describes three areas of particular importance for developing spiritual humility: study of the attributes of God (his omnipotence, eternity, omniscience, etc.); the doctrines of grace (God’s sovereignty in salvation and our dependence on Him for it); and the doctrine of sin, where we discover how truly needy and unworthy we really are. Without falling into heavy words and concepts, he points out what a humbling and revitalizing effect on one’s spiritual life can result from in-depth study of theology.

Tiny little quibbles

I only had two minor quibbles with the book, neither of which detracted from the author’s aim or my enjoyment of and edification from the book. They were not disagreements or issues of substance, merely questions of emphasis. First of all, Mahaney stresses that humility will bring grace to him that practices it. This is a biblical message, to be sure – God gives grace to the humble. Humility brings the approval and blessing of God, for it gives Him His due. I just felt that the author might have reinforced his point further by stressing that humility in a sinful person, like faith and repentance, is itself a work of God’s grace in his heart, and that it is indeed impossible without it. Mahaney does touch on this issue, of course, in explaining that only Christ perfectly fulfilled Isaiah 66:2 and in mentioning man’s depravity; I only thought he could have emphasized further the role of God’s grace as not just a reward for, but also the necessary precondition for, humility. Humility as God’s gift - that, truly, is a humbling truth.

Secondly, a stress on humility bringing reward detracts somewhat from the truth that the most sincerely humble heart is motivated by love. A Christian is humble not simply because God deserves it from him – although that certainly is enough – but also out of love for God. We deflect praise and honour to God not just because He alone deserves it, but because our love for Him compels us to see Him glorified. Mahaney could have emphasized this point, having laid an excellent foundation for a detailed look at a relationship between love and humility. Maybe in another book…

Why you should read this book

Those minor points aside, I found that the book forced me to be aware of a problem that I grapple with (as do we all). I fight pride on a daily basis. Mahaney points out that the Bible says, "Knowledge puffs up;" and as I am the type of guy who expresses enthusiasm for a subject by reading everything I can get my hands on about that topic, I find I’m particularly prone to this kind of pride.

Perhaps my favorite of Mahaney’s list of practical suggestions is to "look for evidence of grace in all others." Not just Christians – God has showered grace on everyone. And as a recently married man, this challenged me to look at the things I said to and noticed in my wife’s life. Pointing out to someone that "I see God’s hand on you, in this way" is unbelievably encouraging to that person.

There are many more gems like this one in Humility: True Greatness. It comes out in late October. Trust me - this one is worth buying, folks. You will not regret it.

Other information on this book:

Sample Chapter (Multnomah)
Justin Taylor's interview with C.J. Mahaney
Tim Challies

My Wife Joins The Blogosphere

2005-09-21T09:20:00.000-06:00

I just thought I'd point out that my lovely wife Erin is now a blogger.

It's kind of strange that I jumped into it before she did, actually. Erin has always been a diarist and journaler - when I first met her, she kept a log of her prayer life in her journal. As for me, I don't even write down the tasks I have to accomplish half the time! (This is a constant source of frustration to Erin, of course, as my memory isn't all that great...) Of course, she's a little more private than I am, but I expect she'll be posting more personal or emotional reflections than I tend to. Should be a nice counterbalance to my heavy theological approach...

Erin, good luck with your blog!

Thoughts on Katrina

2005-09-18T07:49:00.000-06:00

It's been a couple weeks since Hurricane Katrina bulldozed the U.S. Gulf Coast. I initially decided to remain silent about it, because many with much more experience in the faith than I have said a lot. However, a comments by a leading "evangelical Christian" lately made me grouchy, and so I decided to write an article addressing the issue. It's long, and extremely politically incorrect, but please take the time to read.

(A much better treatment of the issue can be found here - a webcast by Dr. James White discussing the issue. Erin and I both found this very helpful.)

First, read the words of our Lord about His control and power over all things:

And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not, therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows. (Matthew 10:28-31)

Here, Christ reminds us that our concern for our earthly lives is misplaced. We are not to be concerned about physical death. Eternal death in hell, however, is our concern. Therefore, our life on earth must be lived in fear of the God who makes that decision, in abandonment of earthly things.

And to reassure Christians in troubled times, Christ reminds us of the Father's absolute sovereignty. Even the tiniest details of life - such as the death of a tiny sparrow - are all under God's control. Nothing comes to pass, nothing at all, outside of His plan and will. God is in full control, and we can trust that no matter what happens, He is still there and He has a purpose.

Now read these comments by Tony Campolo, one of the leading lights of the "emerging church" movement (complete article can be found here):

But when the Bible tells us about the grace of God, it is giving us the good news that our loving God does not give us what we truly deserve. Certainly, God would not create suffering for innocent people, who were--for the most part--Katrina’s victims.

Perhaps we would do well to listen to the likes of Rabbi Harold Kushner, who contends that God is not really as powerful as we have claimed. Nowhere in the Hebrew Scriptures does it say that God is omnipotent. Kushner points out that omnipotence is a Greek philosophical concept, but it is not in his Bible. Instead, the Hebrew Bible contends that God is mighty. That means that God is a greater force in the universe than all the other forces combined.

This comment truly saddens me. Campolo denies God His omnipotence and omniscience, rendering Him a hapless and helpless spectator to natural events. I disagree with him in his characterization of the Old Testament's picture of God, but that aside, Campolo's supposed to be Christian! He's got the whole New Testament - the Greek Scriptures - to call upon! Compare his comments to this Scripture passage, and judge for yourselves:

On that day, when evening had come, he said to them, "Let us go across to the other side." And leaving the crowd, they took him with them in the boat, just as he was. And other boats were with him. And a great windstorm arose, and the waves were breaking into the boat, so that the boat was already filling. But he was in the stern, asleep on the cushion. And they woke him and said to him, "Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?" And he awoke and rebuked the wind and said to the sea, "Peace! Be still!" And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm. He said to them, "Why are you so afraid? Have you still no faith?" And they were filled with great fear and said to one another, "Who then is this, that even wind and sea obey him?" (Mark 5:35-41)

There's no denying that God has power over the weather, as this Scripture demonstrates. So why does Campolo deny God's own word? His own comments contain the answer:

Certainly, God would not create suffering for innocent people, who were--for the most part--Katrina’s victims.

There it is - innocent people. Campolo is not judging the event by Scripture, but by his own philosophical outlook. Campolo here thinks that, in God's eyes, there is such a thing as an "innocent person." And this is why he's forced to deny Scripture - although the Biblical view of God, of man, of sin, and of calamity all say exactly the opposite of what Campolo is saying here, he refuses to give God His sovereign right to deal with His creation as He pleases.

Mark my words: this is heresy. Nothing less.

There are no innocent people!! Remember the words of Paul: For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." (Romans 3:9-12)

If Campolo were right, and there are "innocent people," then Christ's blood was wasted. I guess we can do it on our own after all.

"But what about all the Christians? Their sins are covered - why would God punish them with the rest?"

A fair question. But remember, in Scripture, there are many examples of large-scale catastrophes befalling God's people - the Assyrian conquest of Israel, the Babylonian conquest of Judah, the locust plague described in Joel, and so on. God's punishment was on the nation, the whole people. As it affects individuals, it may or may not be intended as punishment on them. God never promised a free ride for the righteous - remember Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Shadrach, Meschach, Abednego, Mordecai? All these lost their homes, their possessions, their country, probably many family members in the Babylonian Conquest. All (except Jeremiah) went into exile with everyone else. Don't forget, too, that Jesus and Paul both spoke of suffering as the Christian's lot.

God is sovereign. What does that mean? He is King. He is Lord. His Word is Law. His will WILL come to pass. And, as the Creator of us all, He has every right to take the lives of His creatures when He wills. Remember, our Christian faith does not confer immortality in our present bodies. Even Christians still die, because of the curse of Adam.

And in the case of the righteous, those made right in God's eyes through faith in Christ, if God chooses to take them earlier than expected, all glory be to God. They have joined Him - we should be happy for them.

Sadly, Campolo knows the truth. Earlier in the same article, he wrote:

Unfortunately, there are a lot of bad answers. One such answer is that somehow all suffering is a part of God’s great plan. In the midst of agonies, someone is likely to quote from the Bible, telling us that if we would just be patient, we eventually would see "all things work together for the good, for those who love God, and are called according to His purposes." (Romans 8:28)

And later: There are still other religionists who take the opportunity to tell us that God is punishing America for its many sins. Undoubtedly, there are some al-Qaeda fanatics who right now are saying that Katrina is the hand of God, striking America for what we have done to the people of Iraq and to the Palestinians. Furthermore, there are Christians who, in the weeks to come, can be counted on to thunder from their pulpits that Katrina is God’s wrath against the immorality of this nation, pointing out that New Orleans is the epitome of our national degradation and debauchery. To all of this I say, "Wrong."

No, Dr. Campolo. You're wrong. Those answers you casually dismiss ARE the right answers. Look at the Scriptures - those Hebrew Scriptures that "don't speak of God's omnipotence:"

I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me, that people may know, from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is none besides me; I am the LORD, and there is no other. I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things. (Isaiah 45:5-7)

Is a trumpet blown in a city, and the people are not afraid? Does disaster come to a city, unless the LORD has done it? (Amos 3:6)

Anyone who would deny God's sovereign right over His own creation is no Christian.

Campolo would have us believe in a god who stands helplessly by and watches as his creation flies out of control. A god who weeps, but can do nothing to stop what he wants to prevent. How is that supposed to be a comfort or encouragement to anyone? "God weeps with you, but he couldn't do anything to stop it. I'm sorry." Why trust in such a god to raise people from the dead? Why trust such a god for eternal life? I just cannot see how, whether philosophically, ethically, or most important of all, Scripturally, Campolo's god is worthy of worship at all.

No. Campolo's god is not the God I believe in. My God is worthy of glory and honour and praise.

So what of Katrina? I see it as a wake-up call, visited on a sinful nation. No country on earth is as "Christianized" as the United States. No nation has been blessed with such power and prosperity. No nation has such unfettered access to God's truth. And yet that nation pumps out more filth, more violence, more pornography from its culture than any other nation on earth. Americans kill more than a million helpless unborn children every year because they are "unwanted." No nation, save perhaps my own and a couple of other Western countries, has been given so much and done so little for so few. And God cares about this.

Katrina is a reminder by God: "I'm still here." He is still in control. And Americans would do well to realize this. As a Canadian, I see my own nation as possibly even more morally bankrupt, and I shudder to think of what God's judgment on Canada might be, if we do not repent and turn to Him.

It comes down to this, guys. Either God couldn't do anything about Katrina, and is therefore no God at all; or He had a purpose in the storm. Go to your Bibles. Pray about it.

And when it gets tough, remember the words of Paul: And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. (Romans 8:28)

And, beware of false teachers.

Vacation

2005-09-14T18:55:00.000-06:00

It seems like I haven't blogged in forever... Now that I'm back, I figured I'd spend a post on more personal matters, for a change.

I was on vacation for a couple of weeks - most of it spent in the Fredericton area, mind you, but I just tried to lay around and relax with Erin (when she wasn't working). I needed the break, I'll tell you - I have this way of biting off way more than I should, and I can wear myself out if I'm not careful (as my darling wife keeps telling me...)

But we did get out of our usual stomping grounds for a couple of days. Erin and I went camping at Parlee Beach Provincial Park, near Shediac (on the coast of the Northumberland Strait, in southeastern New Brunswick). It was great - we camped in the middle of the week, and so the campground was almost empty and we got a great spot.

The beach itself was fantastic. We had perfectly clear blue skies and temperatures near 30 degrees (that's in the 90 range for any American readers). We lay out on the beach and read books, and swam. Erin got burned all over her back and shoulders, though. But we loved it. The water was fantastic - Parlee Beach is supposed to have the warmest water north of the Carolinas, or so I was told by a local (there must be an element of truth to it, if ocean water off Canadian coastlines is enjoyable in September!)

Two minor mishaps made the trip interesting, though. The campground had showers, much to Erin's joy (I don't know why girls don't seem to fully accept the "get out of civilization and into nature" idea behind camping, but I digress) but her joy soon turned to horror as we took our first showers. The stalls were individual and opened to the outdoors (you can lock the doors) and are not ventilated. So the campground staff have to keep them open between showers, so that they stay safe and free of mold and mildew. Well, that meant (of course) that these stalls develop their own communities of insects and spiders. I remember waiting outside Erin's stall for her to finish her shower (having swatted several moths and flies out of the place before she went in) and suddenly hearing a scream, followed by a plaintive wail:

"Jeeeefffffff!!!!!!!"

She emerged in short order, almost in tears and shaking. I went in to look, and discovered two craneflies - totally harmless, of course, but scary to look at. For those who aren't familiar, craneflies look like gigantic, six long-legged spiders with wings. These two, perched on the walls, had a leg-span of about four inches. They had flown out of nowhere and buzzed her in the shower. Erin didn't fully buy my assurances that they were harmless...

We eventually moved to a Holiday Inn in Moncton, however, because both of our backs were bothering us (we've both managed to wreck them working our respective jobs - I've developed a disturbing ibuprofen habit, and that at just 25!) and our air mattress had sprung a leak. I took Erin to Old Navy to make up for the cranefly incident - guys, that's the BEST way to make a girl feel better. No substitute. We felt sad coming home - we had a great time.

That's all for now, I guess. Back to regularly scheduled programming tomorrow, God willing.

Thoughts on the Abortion Controversy

2005-08-27T13:02:00.000-06:00

Over the last few days, the abortion controversy has raised its head once more.

An article was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, studying the question of whether an unborn child feels pain during an abortion. Their conclusion was that before the 29th week of gestation, an unborn child is incapable of feeling pain. Predictably, reactions were loud from both sides of the debate...

And, initially, I couldn't understand why this article touched off a controversy in the first place! The issue of abortion isn't whether it's a painful procedure or not. The issue is whether it's murder or not!

Whether or not the baby (and that's what it is, people!) feels pain during an abortion is absolutely irrelevant to the debate. If, in fact, a fetus is a human being, as Christians believe, then the painfulness of the procedure is irrelevant. If I were to pump carbon monoxide into a sleeping man's bedroom, knowing that carbon monoxide poisoning is painless, I would still be committing murder. The issue is the intrinsic nature and worth of human life.

Now, I've learned that it's an issue in the US, where pro-life legislators wish to make it mandatory for abortion providers to ask the mother whether she wants her baby to receive an anaesthetic prior to the procedure. The pro-life side wants this to be law in hopes of encouraging mothers to realize that they are cruelly killing another human being. In that light, I can understand the controversy...

Interestingly, I read an article on Albert Mohler's site that two of the article's researchers are active in the abortion-rights movement! It seems that one researcher directs an abortion clinic, while another is an attorney for the National Abortion Rights Action League.

The funny thing is, that attorney apparently isn't a very good one. No one involved with the article thought to make note of the conflict of interest. Apparently, they don't think this situation qualifies. In my opinion, I hardly think that they'd hold the same view, if a JAMA article proved that a fetus could feel pain, and if two of the researchers worked for Focus on the Family or another pro-life outfit. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

But, of course, NARAL and the rest of the infanticide movement has a major problem with consistency anyway.

In another related, and sad, note, Mohler ran an article about the abortion rate in Russia. I thought the Canadian rate was awful (it was 22% of all pregnancies in 1995). It appears that in the former Marxist paradise, there's about 1.7 abortions for every live birth there, and that rate's been consistent for decades. Funny how so many university professors and left-wingers still dearly love Marxism - if their parents had lived in that place of "collective freedom," the odds of them actually being born would have been only a little more than one in two...

A final thought: It's horrifying, but Russian kids probably would have had a better chance of survival, had they been born in ancient Canaan to a family of Molech worshipers. They only slaughtered their firstborn.

Pray that the Gospel becomes known in that country, and in our own....

(EDIT, 14 September: I changed CO2 to carbon monoxide, which is what I meant, after my brother Mike pointed out my error. I'm an artsman - what can I say? My face is red, especially since chemistry was one of my best high school classes. Thanks, Mike. I'm really not that bad a scientist.... really.... )

JUSTIFICATION: Part IV - Once and For All

2005-08-26T04:44:00.000-06:00

5) In justification, Christ’s righteousness counts as our own, by way of our faith.

He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. (1 Peter 2:22)

Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. (Romans 5:18)

And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness... (Romans 4:5)

That is why his faith was "counted to him as righteousness." But the words "it was counted to him" were not written for his sake alone, but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord... (Romans 4:22-24)

Last time, we examined how our sin is laid on Christ. Today, we look at how His righteousness is counted for us. Christ lived the perfect, blameless life that we could not. God demands perfect sacrifices for sin, and Christ was the only man who fit the bill. When we put our faith in Christ, His perfect life, His obedience of the law, is "transferred" to our account. Under His blood, not only is our sin stripped away, but we are counted as obedient and perfect before God, due to Christ’s work.

So, not only does God remove the negative side of our account with Him – our sins – but He even counts Christ’s righteousness on our behalf! To use an analogy, not only does God pay our debts, bringing our balance to zero, but He gives us an undeserved grant that puts our account balance "in the black." This is grace.

6) Justification is a one-time declaration, not a process.

Note that it is a "free gift," from God through Jesus Christ, that brings justification. It’s from God – not from or by us, in any way. Not actions, or good deeds, or righteous living on our part.

Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. (Romans 5:18-19)

...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus... (Romans 3:23-24)

And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. (Romans 5:16)

Justification is once and for all - it only happens once in a person’s lifetime. Paul says in Romans 8:30 that those God "justified he also glorified." Notice here that Paul equates justification and glorification. They aren’t the same, but they are linked - if the one happens, it is always accompanied by the other. "Glorification" is eternal life in heaven, and so we see that justification leads directly to eternal life.

Paul says, clearly, that the same people who are justified are also glorified. Only those who are justified have eternal life, and all of those justified have eternal life. None - not one - of those who are justified will not attain eternal life! And so, from this we understand that justification is a one-time event.

Remember, our sins were "transferred" to Christ’s account, and He was punished on the Cross for them. As we stand before God, our sin does not count against us only because it has already been punished in Christ. God does not punish sin twice – to do so would be unjust! Think about it - if a person were justified, and then was not saved, this would mean that:

a) The sinner is now suffering in hell after being declared righteous by God; and
b) The sinner is now suffering for the same sins and sinfulness that were laid on Christ, meaning that both Christ and the sinner were punished for the same sin. In short, Christ suffered for no purpose, and God's declaration of righteousness proved to be wrong.

So, again, we see that justification can only be a one-time event. Everyone who is justified, whose sins are paid for by Christ, will attain eternal life.

Let me stress, one more time, for clarity: since justification is an act of God, occurring outside of ourselves, taking Christ’s performance into account instead of our own, our behaviour, performance, and obedience of God’s Law has nothing to do, at all, with justification. It’s not by works!!!!

It’s important, then, to understand that justification is an event, not a process. Very often, Christians confuse it with that process by which God conforms us to His likeness, making us more like Christ – that is sanctification, which I’ll cover next time. The two, like justification and glorification, are linked, but they are not the same. Justification occurs outside of a person – being a declaration by God about us. Justification is objective. Sanctification is subjective – it is the work of the Holy Spirit within a justified believer, by which, over time, a believer becomes more and more like Christ. Justification is the legal basis of salvation; sanctification follows – is subsequent to – justification. It has to be - otherwise, salvation would be dependent upon behaviour and personal performance.

Make no mistake, though - this is not to be taken as permission for a Christian to do "whatever he wants" after he puts his faith in Christ. Everyone who is justified, will be sanctified. This is why a person who professes faith in Christ, but shows no evidence of Christ in their life or behaviour, may very well not be justified at all. Remember what James said - "Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works." (James 2:18) A Godly, holy, sanctified life is the fruit of, and evidence of, justification.

That sums up my (lengthy) look at justification. The next word, coming soon, will be "sanctification," now that we've already had a brief look at it.

JUSTIFICATION: Part III - Justice and Faith

2005-08-25T05:06:00.000-06:00

3) Justification is a judicial declaration – that is, a declaration having to do with God’s justice and God’s law.

The Rock, his work is perfect, for all his ways are justice.A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and upright is he. (Deuteronomy 32:4)

But the LORD sits enthroned forever; he has established his throne for justice, and he judges the world with righteousness; he judges the peoples with uprightness. (Psalm 9:7-8)

Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins shall die. (Ezekiel 18:4)

For the wages of sin is death... (Romans 6:23)

...since it is written, "You shall be holy, for I am holy." (1 Peter 1:16)

God is perfectly holy. He cannot tolerate sin and injustice without violating His own nature. Therefore, His wrath against sin must be satisfied. A guilty sinner He will never accept, unless their sin has been punished.

Justification has to do with how a perfectly Holy God can accept and adopt, as His own, human beings tainted with sin. And so the salvation of man must be consistent with God’s Law – that is, that sin must be punished with death, and that only holiness and perfection can be tolerated in God’s presence.

Justification is God's solution to this dilemma. God's holiness and justice are respected and fulfilled; His wrath is appeased; His mercy and love are expressed.

4) In justification, God does not count our sins against us, but declares our sins punished in Christ.

Blessed is the man against whom the LORD counts no iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no deceit. (Psalm 32:2)

...that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. (2 Corinthians 5:19)

Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin." (Romans 4:4-8)

Paul, in Romans 4, points out why justification is all of God, and why it cannot be earned or deserved in any way. He points out that if it were by works, God would owe something to us and that we would have something to boast about (verse 2). But he immediately describes how it actually works - instead of condemning us for our sins, God does not count our sins against us, because they are "covered". Isaiah 53 tels us that they are "covered" by being laid on Christ:

All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. (Isaiah 53:6)

And notice Paul's comment in verse 5 - our faith counts as righteousness. Not because our faith is righeousness, but because it gives us access to Christ's. Our trust in Jesus Christ is the means, the vehicle, the hand by which we lay hold of Christ's work on our behalf:

Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. (Romans 5:1-2)

Justification comes through faith. Why? Because faith is trust in another, not yourself. Faith is belief that Christ already suffered our punishment. When we put faith in Christ, we are attached to and identified with Christ.

A VITAL thing to remember: we are not justified / saved because of our faith; we are saved because of Christ's work on our behalf. Faith is not a deserving act in itself; it does not earn salvation, or merit justification in any way. An army officer who has faith in his men doesn't win the battle because of that faith; he wins because of the training and performance of the object of that faith - his men. God doesn't save us because we have faith; he saves us through our faith and trust in Christ and God's grace, so that we have no reason to boast. He receives all the glory.

More on this in the next installment!

JUSTIFICATION: Part II - A Declaration by God

2005-08-24T04:33:00.000-06:00

1) Justification is an act of God – not man!

Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one. He will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith...(Romans 3:29-30)

And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed." (Galatians 3:8)

Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. (Romans 8:33)

Justification is an act of God. We do not justify ourselves. God is our judge, and He is the one who will declare us righteous. A criminal does not judge and justify himself, nor can he contribute to the judge's decision in any way - these are the judge's responsibilities.

Remember, the basis of our justification is Christ’s work – His perfect, sinless life and His death on the Cross. This is a free, unearned, unmerited gift to us – that is, a work of God’s grace. And this work is complete – it cannot be added to in any way.

2) Justification is a declaration about a person, not a change of the person’s nature – that is, it happens outside, not within, a person.

If there is a dispute between men and they go to court, and the judges decide their case, and they justify the righteous and condemn the wicked (Deuteronomy 25:1, NASB)

Woe to those who are heroes in drinking wine and valiant men in mixing strong drink, who justify the wicked for a bribe, and take away the rights of the ones who are in the right! (Isaiah 5:22-23, NASB)

He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the LORD. (Proverbs 17:15)

These verses show an essential truth of justification: a man "justified" by men can still be guilty, regardless of his justification. This is because when we "justify" something, we do not "make" it right. We only "judge" or "declare" it to be so. A judge in a courtroom, when he pronounces the verdict, does not cause the accused to be innocent or guilty, he only makes a legal declaration, or judgment, that they are guilty or innocent. Because of this, as is evident in the verses above, human beings who "justify" can be wrong, making false judgments that do not reflect the true nature of the person. This is a very important distinction!

In the same way, when God "justifies" us, declaring us guiltless and righteous before Him, He is not causing or making us to be innocent or holy, in and of ourselves. He is recognizing, rather, that Christ is innocent and that Christ is perfectly holy, and because of this God declares us to be in right standing before Him in spite of our sinfulness. We are righteous in His sight because our sins were laid on Christ, but justification itself does not make us inherently more holy or good - that is a different process, a work of the Holy Spirit called "sanctification" (which I'll deal with later).

JUSTIFICATION: Part I - An Introduction

2005-08-23T08:14:00.000-06:00

"Justification." We often use this term in daily life. News stories carry commentary asking whether George W. Bush was "justified" in attacking Iraq, or if the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank was "justified." We ask whether a friend’s reaction to an event was "justified," or whether the stern words a teacher used with our children were "justified."

We have a good grasp of "justification," I think, as long as it’s applied to verbs – to us, actions can be judged right or wrong, depending on circumstances. Justification, to the average person, means that a person was right to do what he did, that their action or words were warranted under the circumstances.

However, the Bible speaks of people being justified, not actions:

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it-- the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:21-25)

What we see here is that justification of people is the same as of actions. When we say an action is "justified," we declare it to be right or proper. Biblically, a person who is "justified," similarly, has been declared right before God.

Here’s an illustration:

Picture a heavenly courtroom, filled with light. God Almighty Himself is seated as the Judge. Trembling, you are walked in to face God’s judgment for a life of sin and rebellion.

You know you are guilty, a sinner, and deserving of death. "What have you to say for yourself?" asks the Judge. You know His judgment will be fair; you recognize how filthy and sinful you are. You know that the Judge is perfectly just and perfectly strict with the Law. You know that you have no hope of arguing the verdict, and you know that the damage has been done, that you can never make up for the sins you have committed.

Instead of trying to defend yourself, you look to the One standing beside you – your Advocate, the Mediator between God, the Eternal Judge, and yourself. Jesus looks at you, and says, "Believe in me." You trust Him, that He has already taken care of the matter, that you are safe with Him. You have faith – that Jesus has already paid the price. And Jesus, standing next to you, steps forward.

He says, "Father, this is one whom You gave to me. Although she is a sinner, and deserves death, the debt has already been paid. I died on her behalf. And further, my perfect record I give to her, to count as her own. This woman is righteous only because of Your gift of mercy, in sending me to take her place. She is mine, and I have set her free."

And the Judge says to you, "Therefore, I declare you to be righteous in my sight. Righteous, not because of anything you have done, but because My Son has purchased you with His precious blood. You are His, for I have given you to Him. Your sins are forgiven. I adopt you as my child… Welcome to my kingdom."

This is a metaphor of justification – a courtroom scene, where we are pardoned of our sin on account of Christ’s work.

So justification is central to salvation. It is the point at which we become acceptable to God, at which we become good in His sight. The one who is justified, is saved. Period.

If you remember nothing else, here is a definition:

Justification is an act of God, by which He declares a sinner to be in right standing before Him, where through the sinner’s faith Christ’s righteousness is counted on behalf of the sinner, and the sinner’s punishment is laid on Christ, once and for all.

I’m going to look at justification in depth over the next couple of days, covering the following points:

1) Justification is an act of God – not man!
2) Justification is a declaration about a person, not a change of the person’s nature – that is, it happens outside, not within, a person.
3) Justification is a judicial declaration – that is, a declaration having to do with God’s justice and God’s law.
4) In justification, God does not count our sins against us, but declares our sins punished in Christ.
5) In justification, Christ’s righteousness counts as our own, by way of our faith.
6) Justification is a one-time event, not a process.

More to follow...

Big Words Made Easy: An Introduction…

2005-08-22T08:05:00.000-06:00

I’m a guy who reads a lot, and I have an unfortunate habit of picking up nifty multi-syllable words along the way. I come from an Army background, and the military practically has its own language; and I love reading theology. Sadly enough, this often means that words like “logistical,” “supralapsarian,” “geo-political,” and “imputation” creep into normal conversation.

Among others, this annoys my wife, Erin, greatly, because she often misses what I’m talking to her about. The sad thing is, I really should know better... See, my lovely wife, being a nurse, often falls prey to the same thing, using words that I don’t understand. The medical profession has its own lingo, and lots of big, intimidating words.

Even worse, asking Erin (or any other nurse!) to explain their lingo carries its own risks! If you don’t know what I mean, and run into some medical professional using such delicate and meaningful words like “disimpacting,” “suppository,” or “colostomy”, I humbly suggest you refrain from asking! I’ll never forget one friend of mine, a nursing student, who, in an obvious state of excitement, told her husband and I over supper (with considerable glee!) all she had learned about “pinworms” that day. A pleasant meal, to be sure…

So a challenge for anyone involved in the theological field, as I hope to be shortly, is to communicate big Biblical words and terms in a manner understandable to the average person. And all of you unfortunates who actually read my blog will suffer through my attempts to learn this delicate art….

Today, I’m kicking off a series on theological terms. Words like “justification,” “sanctification,” “imputation,” “original sin,” and others carry a lot of meaning and are very important to a solid understanding of the Christian faith. Many non-denominational, evangelical Christians, however, don’t have a good grasp on what these words mean. I didn’t for years… So, this is my humble attempt to help.

I will start with the word “justification,” in my next post.

The Oldest Scriptures in Existence

2005-08-17T08:22:00.000-06:00

I really find archaeology to be fascinating. Not so much that I'd like to do it, personally, but it's amazing and humbling how discoveries made in archaeology confirm the Biblical record. I've posted previously about the discovery of the Pool of Siloam and about the confirmation of Edom's existence in David and Solomon's time, and since people seem to find these interesting, I thought I'd present another discovery that I noticed earlier this year.

In 1979, tiny silver scrolls were found in Jerusalem during an archaeological dig. At the time, the technology to fully analyze these artifacts didn't exist yet. Well, it does now, and last October Israeli and American researchers used a new photographic technique to reveal Hebrew inscriptions on the scrolls. The complete story can be found at the Discovery Channel website, at VOA News, and some really nice pictures can be seen here.

One of the scrolls records the Priestly Benediction from Numbers 6:24-26: "The LORD bless you and keep you; the LORD make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; the LORD lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace." The other scroll's inscription reads "May he/she be blessed by Yahweh, the warrior/helper, and the rebuker of Evil."

This find caused a great deal of excitement in the Biblical studies community. Why?

A quick history lesson (bear with me)...

The books of the Old Testament were originally written in Hebrew (and some Aramaic), over a period between 1700 BC and 400 BC. However, prior to this find, the earliest complete Hebrew copy of the Old Testament dated from around AD 930. The earliest complete Old Testament in existence for the longest time was a Greek translation done shortly before Christ's birth. Earlier manuscripts include the Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls which, although incomplete, date from between 300 to 200 BC.

See the problem? If the first five books of the OT were written around 1700 BC, there is a gap of at least 1400 years between that time and the earliest Hebrew manuscripts. Now, normally this wouldn't pose a problem for historians; the earliest surviving copies of Aristotle, for instance, were written 1400 years after his death, and no one doubts that they're legitimate. But the implications, if the Bible is accurate, are far more uncomfortable for many, of course.

And so secular historians have been very skeptical of the traditional Biblical dates. Some German critics in the last century even suggested that the Old Testament was written after the period of the Captivity in Babylon, and so around or after 500 BC - thus denying that Moses, or David, or Joshua actually wrote the books attributed to them and implying that the OT is a collection of fiction and folklore. This theory became very popular.

Well, these scrolls date from 600 BC, the time of King Josiah and the prophet Jeremiah - during the First Temple period, and before the Babylonian captivity. These scrolls are older than Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, and most of the 12 minor prophets! While not proving that the Penteteuch - first five books of the Bible - was written in 1700, it strongly suggests that they were already complete and widely known in the pre-Babylonian era.

Bottom line: These scrolls are the oldest copies of Scripture in existence.

And another secular theory sustains a mortal wound...

American Lutherans Replace "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"

2005-08-16T05:53:00.000-06:00

The madness continues... The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA) approved a new hymnal last Wednesday that "offers alternatives" to the "male-dominated Trinitarian image" of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

So now, to avoid offending people, ELCA churches have the option of using the replacement terms "Holy Eternal Majesty, Holy Incarnate Word, Holy Abiding Spirit." Not only hymns and songs are affected; the ELCA is modifying the version of the Apostle's Creed used in their churches to read "God's Only Son, our Lord" rather than "His Only Son, our Lord."

Click on the post title for the complete story.

I suppose this shouldn't be a surprise. Even here in Canada, the United Church uses a hymnal called "Voices United," in which (on page 916) an "alternate version of the Prayer of Jesus" begins, "Our Father-Mother, who is in the heavens..." On the same page, the "paraphrase" of the prayer refers to the "Eternal Spirit" as "Father and Mother of us all."

I suppose God just made a mistake referring to Himself thousands of times using male pronouns. Or maybe He was just so sloppy that He overlooked how those misogynist prophets and apostles continually used those terms over 1800 years of writing Scripture. How could He have used such unenlightened, barbarian oppressors of women as His messengers!

Let's overlook those parts of Scripture, because they're obviously "less inspired." Nobody thinks that way anymore, do they? While we're at it, what about all those so-called miracles? Science has proved them to be impossible, hasn't it? Jesus couldn't have been resurrected...

Here's my point. Either:

a) you believe that God is both capable and interested enough in us and in our lives to have taken the time and effort to perfectly record His Word for us; or

b) you believe He really didn't care how we perceive Him and understand Him, and was willing to allow big errors to creep into the process, obscuring our picture of Him, or that He was impotent and incapable of communicating Himself clearly.

Now, which God sounds more logical? Which God seems more loving? Which God is mroe "relevant" to our lives? And which God is worth devoting our lives to?

And liberal "Christian" denominations wonder why they're losing members at the astronomical rate they are...

More Evidence of Biblical Accuracy

2005-08-15T15:08:00.000-06:00

The recent post I made about the Pool of Siloam discovery, and the picture I found of the site, reminded me of another similar discovery made back in March 2005.

Archaeologists from the University of California at San Diego found Edomite ruins dating from the 10th century B.C. - the period of King Solomon and King David. Who would have thought? The complete story can be found here.

Some highlights:

New archeological research from modern-day Jordan indicates the existence of the biblical nation of Edom at least as early as the 10th Century B.C., the era of kings David and Solomon, and adds to the controversy over the historical accuracy of the Old Testament... The new study, under the direction of University of California, San Diego, Professor of Archeology Thomas Levy, contradicts much contemporary scholarship which had argued that, because there had been no physical evidence, no Edomite state had existed before the 8th Century B.C. Until the current discovery many scholars had said the Bible’s numerous references to ancient Israel’s interactions with Edom could not be valid...

These results push back the beginnings of Edom 300 years earlier than the current scholarly consensus and show the presence of complex societies, perhaps a kingdom, much earlier than previously assumed. Previous investigations in Edom had been carried out in the Jordanian highland zone and had put the rise of the Edomite kingdom during the 8th to 6th centuries B.C. But the new work presents strong evidence for the involvement of Edom with neighboring ancient Israel as described in the Bible.

It amazes me that embarrassing discoveries keep happening, confirming the Biblical account, and yet secular historians and scientists persist in denying the Bible the benefit of the doubt in its assertions. Again, though, as Christians we can be confident that the Bible is truth.

Here's a nice picture of the site, by the way, and another of artifacts found there...

"Just The Way I Am?"

2005-08-15T12:06:00.000-06:00

Recently, we had a big concert in Fredericton. It was an outdoor affair involving seven bands, including Zoegirl and Big Daddy Weave. Between 2000 - 3000 people came out for the occasion. The weather was perfect - sunny and bright - and everyone seemed to have a blast.

My wife and I came late to the event (she's a nurse and works 12-hour shifts), and we caught the last two bands. We were present for the whole set by Big Daddy Weave. Now, these guys are great musicians, have a very engaging and charismatic stage presence, and know how to get the crowd into the act.

One of the songs, however, made me think. It was titled, "Just The Way I Am."

Here are the lyrics (courtesy www.lyricsmania.com)

Unbelievable, I’m blown away it’s true
By the matchless love that I’ve found in You
Undeniable, the change in me
I’ve never felt so free

It makes me want to dance
You make me want to dance
When I think about how

(chorus) You love me, You love me
You love me just the way I am
You love me, You love me
You love me just the way,
Just the way I am

Ever patiently accepting me
You love in spite of everything I do
But oh so faithfully
You’re committed to the process that makes me like You
And I feel like I can dance
Oh You make me want to dance
When I think about how

Not when I’m good enough
Not when I clean my act up
Not when I cross that line the thousandth time
And become a better man
Your grace is more than enough
To cover all my sins You washed them away
So right here today
You love me just the way I am

Now, the song is about God's love for us, and how His love is unaffected by how filthy we are in our sins. They make this clear in the line, "in spite of everything I do..." and speak of God's process of SANCTIFICATION (big theological word!!) in the line, "But oh so faithfully/You’re committed to the process that makes me like You..."

It got me thinking, though, how much I hear in different Christian circles, or read in different Christian publications, the phrase, "God loves you just the way you are." And I wonder: is this perhaps the best thing to be saying to an unbeliever?

Now, there is no doubt that God loves everyone. And there can be no doubt that His love for us as human beings, as His image-bearers, is unaffected by our sinfulness.

But think about this for a moment...

Let's say you tell someone - say a girlfriend, or husband, or child, "I love you - just the way you are!"

What are you actually saying?

Isn't it more often along the lines of, "I love everything about you?" or, "I wouldn't change anything about you?"

I could be wrong, but this seems to me to be the usual meaning of "loving someone just the way they are." That's the way the average English-speaking unbeliever will probably understand that phrase. And that, I believe, is the wrong thing to say to an unbeliever.

See, God loves the person, but He definitely does NOT love "the way they are." All people are sinners; unbelievers, especially, are corrupted and enslaved with a sinful nature that is abhorrent to God. This nature renders them dead to the things of God, in total rebellion against Him. And a holy God cannot love a person "just the way they are," if that's they way they are!

No, God loves His people much He's willing to change the way they are! He loves people in SPITE of the way they are, NOT "just the way you are." Big Daddy Weave's song, in the second verse, recognizes this fact, but many Christians aren't that careful in the way they describe God's love.

And the consequences are serious. The Gospel isn't a self-help program that aims to help a person accept himself - it confronts the sinner with their sinfulness! It convicts! The Gospel should bring repentance, and loathing of one's sinful nature! And as evangelists, the LAST thing we want to communicate to a lost sinner is that God's happy with them "as they are," in the condition they are in. Such "assurance," I fear, downplays the utter necessity and urgency of repentance. One cannot come to Christ unless they recognize their own sinfulness, and that they are UNACCEPTABLE "the way they are!."

The true love of Christ is this: that He loved His sheep so much that He died to FREE them from being "just the way they are."

Just a thought. But remember that the next time you share the Gospel.

Photo of Siloam Pool

2005-08-12T05:10:00.000-06:00

More information is out about the Pool of Siloam. If you want to see a picture of this site, check it out by clicking the title of this post.

As Dr. James White said at aomin.org, it's strange - it's right where John said it it was....

Final Thoughts on Prayer

2005-08-11T18:00:00.000-06:00

It's my opinion that we in the evangelical church have little sense of history anymore. A great deal of this, I think, is because we've become a "fast food" culture with short attention spans and little patience. We don't want long or complex answers to our questions - we want things made simple. As for actually studying past answers to our questions?

"Well, that takes work... and my opinion's as good as anyone else's..."

And so we lose our history. Few evangelicals ever read a catechism or confession of faith - most, I suspect, haven't even read the statements of faith of their own churches, having just walked in the door and stayed. I know I didn't bother for two years after I joined my present church!

It's too bad, because the great Protestant confessions, written in the century following the Reformation, are a treasure trove of knowledge. And it was to one of these I went to find perspectives on prayer: the Westminster Longer Catechism.

(One of the nice things about the old confessions and catechisms is that the writers included a vast number of supporting Scriptures for their points. They make excellent Bible study aids, as well as containing great wisdom themselves).

Here's question 178:

Q: What is prayer?

A. Prayer is an offering up of our desires unto God, in the name of Christ, by the help of his Spirit; with confession of our sins, and thankful acknowledgment of his mercies.

Scripture Proofs:
Psalm 62:8, John 16:23, Romans 8:26, Psalm 32:5-6, Daniel 9:4, Philippians 4:6.

This is REAL prayer - an offering! Not a legal claim; not a spiritual lawsuit; not a demand for blessing. We offer our desires to God, acknowledging before Him our wrongdoing - thus admitting to Him our unworthiness and lack of entitlement - and thanking Him for everything He gives us!

Question 184 should be required reading and memorization in Word-Faith churches:

Q: For what things are we to pray?

A. We are to pray for all things tending to the glory of God, the welfare of the church, our own or others, good; but not for anything that is unlawful.

Scripture Proofs:
Matthew 6:9, Psalm 51:18, Psalm 122:6, Matthew 7:11, Psalm 125:4, 1 John 5:14.

All things tending to the glory of God! How is God glorified by Rolls-Royces like some Word-Faith teachers drive? Multi-million dollar estates when people don't have houses on North American streets (let alone the rest of the world?)

1 John 5:14, one of the verses referenced by the Catechism in question 184, gives good instruction:

And this is the confidence that we have toward him, that if we ask anything according to his will he hears us.

According to his will. It's God's kingdom that's being built. Our own kingdoms aren't, and won't outlive this world.

The Purpose of Prayer

2005-08-10T07:46:00.000-06:00

What is prayer for?

Many Christians seem to regard prayer as a religious formula for getting what they want. The Word-Faith movement, in particular, views prayer as a formula to "make real" personal desires for health, wealth, and happiness. To a Word-Faith believer, prayer is essentially a spiritual "order form" where you "speak into existence" those things you want or need - provided, of course, that you have strong enough faith and that you don't "cancel" the process by making a "negative confession."

This is a very self-centred way to look at prayer. Assuredly, that is not how God looks at prayer.

Even many orthodox Christians don't have a disciplined prayer life. I have to confess that I personally have a lot to work on in this area, as well. Many of us find ourselves swept away by the cares and concerns of worldly life, and remember to pray only when things go wrong or we begin to worry. Consequently, we often treat prayer as a "Batphone" to call for help. Sadly, I've noticed that in my own prayer life, I often fall into this trap.

So what is a Biblical view of prayer and its purpose?

Consider the Lord’s prayer. How does it start? "Pray then like this: 'Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.'" (Matthew 6:9-10)

Look also how Christ starts His great prayer in John 17:1-5: When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, "Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed."

The first thing Jesus does in these prayers is to praise and glorify God: "hallowed be your name," "that the Son may glorify you." Now, consider the words of Paul: "To this end we always pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his calling and may fulfill every resolve for good and every work of faith by his power, so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ." (2 Thessalonians 1:11-12)

The first purpose of prayer is the same as our first purpose in life: to glorify God! Any request in prayer that does not have God and His glory as its object cannot be described as a prayer of faith. Look at Hezekiah’s prayer in 2 Kings 19 – in verse 19, he prays: "So now, O LORD our God, save us, please, from his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that you, O LORD, are God alone." God answered Hezekiah’s prayer, and the result – the destruction of the Assyrian forces – glorified God, not Hezekiah.

There are other purposes for prayer: to grow closer with God, to express our feelings to Him, to intercede for others, etc. Ultimately, all these things, properly done, glorify God. And so, if we are to ask God to listen favourably to our prayers, we must first ensure that they have God’s glorification as their object. Ask yourself: "Will what I’m asking God for glorify and increase God and His Kingdom, or is it primarily for my own benefit?"

I don't mean "ask for things that glorify God - because it'll make Him more inclined to say yes." Trying to "glorify" God as a means to our own ends is still selfishness - and that doesn't glorify God in anyway. No, God's glory is an end in itself. God doesn't have to give to be glorified - our honour for Him is NEVER bought, it is demanded by His holiness. We should humbly pray, asking that God be glorified, and know that even if He doesn't give what we request, He is still glorified in our humility before and dependence upon Him.

So what about God’s reasons for rejecting our requests? Is it only because of our own failings that He says no?

Previously, we looked at lack of faith and sin in people's lives in relation to prayer. We saw that even prayers of people of great faith are sometimes turned down, and calamities befall people who didn't do anything to directly deserve it.

So, what of God’s sovereignty?

God said to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." (Romans 9:15 - see Exodus 33:19) Paul also notes that "So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills." (Romans 9:18) In his rebuke of Job (Job 38-41) God speaks of His sovereign power, proclaiming that He alone rules the earth and that Job, a mere man, has no place to question Him. Job’s response is very instructive: "I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted. 'Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?' Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know." (Job 42:2-3)

The overwhelming testimony of Scripture speaks of a Sovereign, Almighty God who answers to no one, who rules the earth, heavens and everything within them unquestionably and absolutely, who causes to happen whatever He wills, who cannot be thwarted, and to whom we owe everything. Our prayers to Him are worship.

And if prayer is worship, as indeed our whole lives are called to be worship, then there can be no entitlement - save only God's entitlement to our prayers and worship. Prayer is never, ever a demand or claim. Demands and claims assume that the one who demands or claims somehow has a "right" to what he seeks. A demand presumes one's entitlement to what is demanded. And what are we entitled to? What do we have, that God did not give us? What could we possibly deserve from God? In what way is He indebted to us?

Again, God owes us one thing, and one thing only: judgment and eternal punishment for our sinfulness. The only reason he spares some from their deserved fate is because of His love and mercy, through Christ's sacrifice at the Cross.

God owns us, and is entitled to do what he wills with us (Romans 9:19-21), and we have no place to question God’s purposes.

Therefore, God reserves the right to say "no" without explaining why. We may never know why He does not answer prayers that seem perfectly reasonable and God-honouring to us. But that is His sovereign prerogative. To deny that – to state that God must give us what we ask for, as long as we ask it properly – is to deny His Lordship over us. That is rebellion, and that is blasphemous.

Our hope and assurance is rooted in God’s perfection, and in the perfection of His will. God’s plan is perfect, and so we can trust Him that no matter what, God "works all things according to the counsel of his will." (Ephesians 1:11)

Pool of Siloam Found in Jerusalem

2005-08-09T11:58:00.000-06:00

Again, archaeologists have confirmed details of the Biblical record! A sewer line repair team in Jerusalem found the Pool of Siloam last fall and called in archaeologists to take a look. You can read more here:

http://http://www.religionnewsblog.com/11950/Biblical-Pool-of-Siloam-Uncovered-in-Jerusalem/

The Gospel of John records an incident that took place here:

As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. And his disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" Jesus answered, "It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him. 4We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming, when no one can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world." Having said these things, he spat on the ground and made mud with the saliva. Then he anointed the man's eyes with the mud and said to him, "Go, wash in the pool of Siloam" (which means Sent). So he went and washed and came back seeing. (John 9:1-7)

In typical fashion, secular scholarship had belittled John's story as merely a moral lesson with no basis in fact, saying there was no proof that the place even existed.

I'll also take the chance to tie this story into my running assault on the Word-Faith movement. Their doctrine of "positive confession" holds that if one says or believes negative things about one's own circumstances, this gives Satan the opportunity to move into one's life and cause evil (disease, financial difficulty, etc.) to happen. In short, the Word-Faith movement believes that Christians have a "right" to physical health, and that therefore no one should be sick. Illness is evidence of a lack of faith. Some even deny sickness exists, dismissing illness as merely a "spiritual symptom" sent by Satan to trick the believer into making a negative confession and thus open the door to a spiritual attack.

It's easy to see where this doctrine leads. Real, physical ailments are dismissed as a lack of faith, and often a trip to the doctor is seen by members of this movement as a "negative confession." The consequences of the Word-Faith movement's heretical theology has been deadly at times, as several people have died in the last twenty years by refusing treatment for sickness. If you doubt me, find and read the heartbreaking book "We Let Our Son Die," by Larry Parker (Harvest House, 1980, ISBN 0890812195). It's out of print, unfortunately, but it's a chilling account by a father who withheld insulin from his diabetic son thinking that such an act would be a lack of faith and prevent true healing.

See, the story at the Pool of Siloam utterly refutes the Word-Faith notion that human sickness and suffering is a direct result of one's own lack of faith. Jesus answers his disciples' questions by declaring that the blind man could not see because it was the Father's will that he be blind. God used the blind man as a means of demonstrating His glory and ownership over all creation, as well as Jesus' authority over even injury and disease. Now, we must recognize, of course, that all sickness and pain in the world is ultimately the result of the curse of the Fall, and thus of human sinfulness, but the Bible is abundantly clear that individual calamities are not always punishment. (Needless to say, Word-Faith teachers have a lot of trouble with the book of Job, and not many positive things to say about him).

John, in His Gospel, paints a clear and unavoidable picture of God's absolute sovereignty over all things. The Pool of Siloam was one of the stages for this glorious story. Praise be to God that this stage has been uncovered once more, and that those who oppose His Word have been humbled yet again.

Prayer and the State of One's Heart

2005-08-09T06:03:00.000-06:00

How does the state of our hearts affect prayer? What factors in our lives are spoken of in the Bible as having an effect on prayer, besides faith? Though not exhaustive, here are a few thoughts to ponder.

One thing to consider when approaching Almighty God in prayer is our motive:

You desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel. You do not have, because you do not ask. You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions. (James 4:2-3)

If there is one way to waste our time in prayer, it is by asking for things we have no need for. God did not create us for our own pleasure, or to glorify ourselves; He created us to glorify Him, in fellowship with and service to Him. No matter what the Word-Faith teachers claim, God is not glorified when we ask for Rolls-Royces for ourselves when a Chevy will do; He is not glorified when we build expansive houses for ourselves when others shiver in the streets. As James said, "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world." (James 1:27)

The Word-Faith idea that God will give us anything we want, because He is glorified in our earthly prosperity, is one that has become far more popular in the evangelical church over the past couple of decades. According to this view, God wants us to be materially successful, because we are the "King's Kids," and we are entitled to such benefits by virtue of our faith. As such, earthly blessings beyond measure are available to us - if we only claim what is rightfully ours! And so Word-Faith teachers and churches focus overwhelmingly on "positive confession" - that is, declaring with confidence that one will receive what he wants, and avoiding any negative thoughts or words about the matter. And many of the leading lights of this movement are incredibly wealthy (due primarily to the so-called "seed" offerings of their followers) and flaunt their wealth in their lifestyles and sermons.

But this greedy and materialistic worldview reduces God to the level of a cosmic vending machine, spitting out the tokens we want if we put in the appropriate number of "faith-filled words." In this view, God serves us, not the other way around. Many Christians do seek material wealth out of an honest desire to do good with it, but in far too many cases it turns out to be a subtle trap of the devil. Because of our sinful nature, it is far too easy to make that pursuit of success our god, instead of focusing on glorifying God Himself.

Another motive that offends God in prayer is pride:

"And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you." (Matthew 6:5-6)

and:

He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: "Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.' But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner!' I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted." (Luke 18:9-14)

In these two examples, Jesus heavily criticized those who pray for appearances. The Pharisees, Sadducees, and other religious leaders of His day made a habit of flaunting their piety. Jesus challenged His followers to be different. Praying in public can be edifying to others (1 Corinthians 14:13-17) but if done as a "show" to others, then our focus is no longer on God but on ourselves. And that is idolatry.

The second example also points to a self-righteousness in prayer. None of us deserves to call himself righteous before God; we are all sinners. God seeks humility in His children (Luke 7:7-10). Righteousness is our duty - that is, something expected of us; we deserve no special recognition or reward for doing what is simply our duty. And because, as sinners, we cannot even be righteous of our own ability, we should be all the more humble before Him who credits His own righteousness to us!

Besides our attitudes towards God, material things, and ourselves, our relationships with others have an impact on the state of our hearts – and thus on our prayer lives. Jesus told His disciples: "And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses." (Mark 11:25) We are to forgive others their sins – as the passage in the Lord’s Prayer affirms: "...and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors." (Matthew 6:12) Our relationship with God centres around his forgiveness of our sins, and God expects us to forgive others in the same way. If we do not, on what basis can we expect God to listen to our requests favourably?

One other thought relating to prayer may be found in 1 Peter 4:7: "The end of all things is at hand; therefore be self-controlled and sober-minded for the sake of your prayers." Paul alludes to two important concepts here. Sober-mindedness has to do with the fact that we are called to edify our mind as well as our spirit through prayer (1 Corinthians 14:15). Our mind is a gift from God; our capacity to reason and think is one of the things that sets us apart from the animals, and is part of the "image of God" that we reflect. Our spirits and minds are to be of one accord in worshiping God.

The other concept Paul speaks of in 1 Peter 4:7 is that of self-control, an idea that he, again, spoke of elsewhere in his writings. Paul speaks of self-control being a "fruit of the Spirit":

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit. (Galatians 5:22-25)

Here Paul speaks of "walking by the Spirit," an idea that closely parallels the concept of "praying in the Spirit" spoken of in Ephesians 6:18: "...praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints..." Praying in the Spirit is also spoken of in Romans 8:26, 1 Corinthians 14:15, and Jude 20, and essentially means that a Christian who is right with God will be filled with the Holy Spirit, exhibiting the fruit of the Spirit in his or her life. That Christian will naturally seek, in prayer, those things God the Holy Spirit wishes him or her to ask of God the Father.

All of these factors and considerations may be summed up by one short verse, Psalm 34:15: "The eyes of the LORD are toward the righteous and his ears toward their cry." This verse is quoted in 1 Peter 3:12. We are called to righteousness in every aspect of our lives, including in prayer. God listens to the righteous.

And this is why prayer calls for humility: our righteousness, the very reason God listens to us and is inclined toward us, is not our own.

It is His.

The Relationship of Prayer and Faith

2005-08-08T11:27:00.000-06:00

I'm still grumpy about what I witnessed last night, and so I intend to devote a couple of posts to the subject of prayer, and why we don't always receive what we ask for. My aim here is to debunk the Word-Faith movement's doctrine of faith and prayer, in favour of the Biblical model.

In the world we live in, we are often faced with daunting circumstances. Our friends and family get sick. Problems arise at home and at work. Stress, injury, and fatigue take their toll on us. And in the face of these problems, the Bible calls us to prayer:

...do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. (Philippians 4:6)

So why do so many prayers seemingly go unanswered? We pray for sick people, and they still die – many good Christians among them. We pray for success in our endeavours, and they fail miserably. We pray for the salvation of our friends and family, and yet they continue in sin. Doesn’t God hear?

Many say that the reason prayers "fail" is because of a lack of faith on the part of either the person praying, or the person prayed for. Proponents of this view call on Biblical teachings about prayer for support:

"Truly, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, 'Be taken up and thrown into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says will come to pass, it will be done for him. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours." (Mark 11:23-24)

And Jesus answered them, "Truly, I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, 'Be taken up and thrown into the sea,' it will happen. And whatever you ask in prayer, you will receive, if you have faith." (Matthew 21:21-22)

Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray. Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing praise. Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. (James 5:13-16)

So, the first question we must ask is: Do prayers fail for lack of faith?

Yes – they can, and they do. Throughout the New Testament, Jesus, James and others talked of the importance of faith in prayer. James had this to say:

If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind. For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways. (James 1:5-8)

Jesus did not perform many miracles in his hometown because of a lack of faith:

...and coming to his hometown he taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, "Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works?... And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household." And he did not do many mighty works there, because of their unbelief. (Matthew 13:54, 57-58)

Mark 6:5, in fact, says Jesus could not do miracles there because of the lack of faith.

(Now, it’s important to point out here that Jesus was not unable to perform miracles, as if the faith of others somehow grants Him power. That is a blasphemous notion - one of the many reasons why the Word-Faith philosophy is heretical. God is NOT dependent on us in any way, unlike what the Word-Faith preachers claim - look at Acts 17:25 for proof. No, Jesus could not reward a lack of faith with a miracle in this case, because it did not suit His purpose.)

The Old Testament also speaks of the importance of faith and trust in God to answer prayer. In 1 Chronicles 5:20, God answers the prayers of the Israelites because of their trust in him.

So does this mean that, like the Word-Faith teachers believe, we can have anything we want, if we have enough faith? Is it true that faith is all that’s required?

Word of Faith adherents, as well as metaphysical cults such as Christian Science, the Unity School of Christianity, and the Mind Sciences would all say yes. But is this a biblical view?

What about Paul? He grappled with a "thorn in the side" for years, begging God in prayer no less than three times to take this affliction away (2 Corinthians 12:7-9). God refused to heal him – because His strength was made perfect in Paul’s weakness. That is to say, not only did it force Paul to rely more heavily on God, but it glorified God by showing His strength in supporting Paul through his trials.

Paul’s companions were by no means exempt from sickness. Timothy suffered from a stomach ailment that, presumably, had been prayed for but not yet healed; Paul prescribed wine for this condition! (1 Timothy 5:23) If faith were all that is required for healing (or any other answer of prayer) then why had the prayers of Paul, perhaps the greatest evangelist of the early church, or Timothy, clearly a man of great faith, been denied? Paul also mentions that he left Trophimus behind sick (2 Timothy 4:20) and mentions the sickness of Epaphroditus, who almost died! (Philippians 2:25-30) Surely a prayer with sufficient faith would have prevented the disease from reaching that point, would it not?

Or consider the following examples from Matthew 26:

And going a little farther [Jesus] fell on his face and prayed, saying, "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will..." Again, for the second time, he went away and prayed, "My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, your will be done..." So, leaving them again, he went away and prayed for the third time, saying the same words again. (39, 42, 44)

And going a little farther, he fell on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. And he said, "Abba, Father, all things are possible for you. Remove this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will." (Mark 14:35-36)

Here our Lord is praying to the Father to spare Him the suffering He was to undergo, if it were possible. Of all examples, our Lord and Saviour, the Son of God and God incarnate, Jesus Christ, surely would have been granted His wish – IF faith was all that was required. Who could have perfect faith, if not God Himself? Jesus could have had no less than complete faith in His Father. But God clearly said "no"; Jesus went to the Cross in accordance with His Father’s will.

So, it has been clearly demonstrated that Biblically speaking, "having enough faith" is by no means a guarantee for receiving what we ask for in prayer. God can and will say "no." He is sovereign - meaning, He owns all of Creation and may do what He pleases with it. And this is the very heart of the matter.

The Word-Faith movement would deny God His sovereign right to say no. Just read some of their literature - it's full of "claims" and "demands," declarations that they are entitled to things. But the only thing God owes to any human being, save His own Incarnated Son, is wrath and punishment.

Remember that. When you pray, ask God for things in all humility and thankfulness for the blessings you have already received. NEVER claim or demand, in the blasphemous manner of the Word-Faith movement. Yes, we can approach His throne with confidence - but that is no warrant for such impertinence. Biblical faith, in prayer, is a trust in God to answer according to His will, belief that Jesus' sacrifice has entitled us believers to approach God directly in prayer, and confidence in His power to grant our request - should He so choose.

What a disgusting message...

2005-08-07T19:26:00.000-06:00

I just arrived home from an event hosted by a local church (not my own), and I'm grouchy. The whole experience left me with a bad taste in my mouth.

Turns out this event was hosted by one of the two "Word-Faith" churches in the Fredericton area. I didn't know that when I came, but found out upon arrival. As it was free, I decided to stick it out and see how things went.

First, during the worship music time, one of the musicians made a statement to the effect that the "old hymns" aren't great for today's worship. Now, that's intelligent - a hundred years from now, someone might disparage the music you're playing as passe.

I have no objection to writing and singing comtemporary worship music. Even Isaac Watts' great hymns were contemporary in his time, right? But this woman's comments betrayed a lamentable lack of historical awareness. The old hymns and anthems of the church represent a priceless trove of Biblical teaching and commentary. They are a treasure! We don't sing them enough these days - and the results are sad, as much of the music we play in church today is more shallow and simplistic than the Sunday School songs I grew up with. We could use more of the old hymns, I think - maybe the distressing lack of basic Christian theology evident in the church today might be alleviated somewhat.

That was just the beginning, though. The attendees were handed some papers when they came in - a flyer describing the sponsoring church, which included a "Prayer for Salvation and Baptism in the Holy Spirit," another flyer advertising an upcoming event, an offering envelope, and some other documents.

The period of singing ended, and the period of offering began. I say "period," because it took at least half an hour. The male head pastor of the church got up and held up one of the offering envelopes, asking us to turn to the packages we had been given. He declared firmly that the envelope was the most important thing in that package!

Now, anyone familiar with the Word-Faith movement knows its unhealthy obsession with money and "seed" offerings. It isn't called the "Prosperity Gospel" for nothing. But this is the most blatant and sickening statement of the like I have seen or heard. In that same package was a flyer with a "prayer for salvation" (I don't think it was a good prayer, but I'll get to that in a minute, and it's beside the point here) - a prayer that is designed to introduce an unbeliever to a saving faith in Jesus Christ, and yet that pastor dared state that the offering envelope was the most important document?

Absolutely shameful. If you're reading this, and you're not familiar with Word-Faith teachings, this is a great example. This "church" exists to spread the "gospel" of positive confession and worldly wealth, not the Gospel of salvation from sins. At least that's the message I get when the pastor places an offering envelope higher in importance than a salvation message.

The male pastor then handed over to his wife, his "co-pastor," who spoke at length about God's desire to bless us financially and materially, as well as spiritually and physically, and who promised that God WILL return our "seed" offering in blessings to us. Again, a patently unbiblical message. We give not in hopes of being rewarded - this would reduce God to a metaphysical investment package, or worse, a cosmic vending machine! - but in gratitude and humble recognition that everything we have is from Him. We give as a sacrifice - not to earn favour or buy God's affection, or to "plant seed," but as a lesson to ourselves that God deserves the firstfruits of EVERYTHING we do. We give as a regular reminder that God is the source of all blessing.

The last thing that really irked me was reading through the "salvation prayer," and hearing the pastor's call at the end for unbelievers present to be saved. The written prayer simply noted Acts 2:21 and asked Jesus to come into the heart of the one praying and be Lord of their life, followed by the reading of Romans 10:9 and a confession for the reader to state that Jesus was raised from the dead and that He is Lord. It then transitioned into a declaration for the reader that they are now Christians!

What's wrong with this? It misses the entire point of salvation - that is, being saved. What is the reader being saved from? The prayer doesn't say. There is not one mention of sin, or of iniquity, or wickedness, or wrongdoing - certainly no mention of hell and judgment! Not even a mention that Christ died as a sacrifice for sin! The prayer is simply a declaration that Jesus is Lord and then assures its reader that he is "born again."

One cannot put true faith in Christ unless he realizes that he is helpless and lost in sin; that he cannot save himself (again, this helplessness isn't mentioned at all); that Christ died in the place of sinners; and that His righteousness is reckoned to us by way of our faith. The prayer mentions that the reader is now "righteous," but it doesn't say how or why, much less why this is somehow a change from the reader's initial condition!!

You cannot, CANNOT, EVER preach the Gospel without stressing sin and the need for repentance. This "salvation prayer" falls far short of the mark. And sadly, this is not a problem confined to Word-Faith circles - it is endemic to the evangelical church today.

I'm tempted to take back what I wrote above - that offering envelope was probably far more useful than this prayer. Such a "prayer of salvation" runs a serious risk of giving assurance of salvation to a person who never has geniune faith or understanding of Christ.

I left shaking my head and lamenting the condition of the modern church. If this focus on the physical earth and its material blessings and prosperity is to become the norm in the church, and especially if the lack of a coherent Gospel message that induces awareness of personal sinfulness remains our evangelical focus, then we are to be ashamed. No doubt our Lord will hold us to account.

Kyrie eleison...

DOCTRINE (Part 3) - The Essentials

2005-07-30T18:49:00.000-06:00

[Edit, 13 August 2005: I am indebted to Matt Slick( http://www.carm.org/doctrine/essentials.htm ) for much of this argument. I will state one MAJOR reservation I have, however. Slick believes that one can be a universalist and still be Christian - in other words, you can believe everyone will be saved. I STRONGLY disagree - a person who thinks everyone will be saved does not understand the full severity of God's wrath against sinners, and thus cannot fully comprehend his / her own fallenness.

Slick, by the way, is not a universalist - he merely says universalists can be Christian, because he believes that the doctrine of Jesus as the "only way" is not essential. I disagree - a person who is a universalist believes (in essence) that there are other ways than Christ, and this is an implicit denial of Christ's Lordship and His death on behalf of sinners. Slick's error is serious - it risks giving false assurance to those who do not follow Christ.

A solid discussion of this issue may be found at Carla Rolfe's site, Reflections of the Times, where I first noticed mention of Slick's error. Slick's materials are generally solid and very useful, but as with any teacher (including myself!), I urge that Christians exercise discernment when using his materials.]

As I wrote previously, the Bible is full of doctrine. And all of what the Bible teaches is important and relevant. There is no such thing as unimportant doctrine. The Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the Bible to write to the Church, and He would not have done this for no reason. Every teaching and all theology found in the Bible matters.

That said, we are imperfect, fallible human beings – even the Spirit-filled members of the Church. As Paul said, "For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away." Until we join Christ after this life, we will not fully be able to resolve all of our differences. Disagreement on Scriptural matters is inevitable, so what can be done about this?

The first thing we have to remember is that it is our Lord’s will that we in the Church be united:
"I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me." (John 17:20-23)

God’s design for the Church is that we be united. The fact that we are divided into hundreds of quarreling denominations should be a matter of great sadness and shame to us all.

Make no mistake – sin is the root cause of division in the Church; sin in the lives and hearts of its members. Personality conflicts, refusal to heed correction and Biblical teaching, pride in our own cleverness, and our inability to put one another first all feed into the denominational problem.

So we must all, as Christians, humbly seek God’s forgiveness for the divisions in the Church, and seek His guidance and wisdom in addressing our problems with one another. We must pray for humility, to be willing to accept where we are wrong, and for discernment, that we would know the truth. We MUST strive for unity in the Church – unity of purpose, of teaching and doctrine, and of fellowship.

The second thing we must remember is this: We are at war. War means that the enemy is actively seeking to divide and destroy us. He will use any tool he can to do so. And so we must be aware that while we strive for unity, we must do so on God’s terms, or our efforts will be in vain. We must not settle for unity for its own sake. Unity must be based on truth.

Like in marriage, our unity must reflect the nature of God’s truth. Yes, we are called to love one another, and we must love everyone. But love is not a sufficient basis for unity! If our foundation for unity is simply a desire to be together, and our effort to show love, it will fall short of God’s standard.

I heard it said once that church unity is like marriage in that, like love, if it is not based on truth, is adultery. Our unity must be based on the truth of the Word of God – nothing less will do.

Now, as Christians, we recognize that in this life, we may never fully resolve our differences in interpreting the Bible. In Romans 14, Paul recognizes that differences will arise among true Christians, and identifies the cause: weakness of faith. In other words, spiritual maturity and strength varies from person to person, and some Christians will be earnestly mistaken. Paul exhorts us to tolerate minor differences of opinion.

Therefore, if we are to do so and retain our unity as a Church, and our identity as Christians, it is vital that we know which doctrines are non-negotiable. All the Bible’s teachings are important and true; certain teachings are so vital, however, that without them our faith falls. There are certain beliefs that are essential, without which a person cannot be considered a Christian.
In my view, the essentials of the Christian faith are as follows:

1). There is only one God.

God has made this so abundantly clear throughout Scripture that to deny it is to deny God’s Word. "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me." (Isaiah 43:10)

2). God is a Trinity – One God in Three Persons.

The Trinity is a difficult doctrine to comprehend – probably beyond our full comprehension. I will study the Trinity and its importance in greater detail another time. The Bible is abundantly clear, however, about the facts that make up the Trinity:

a). There is only one God (as stated above).
b). There are three Persons called God: the Father (Philippians 1:2), the Son, Jesus Christ (John 1:1, Colossians 2:9) and the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3-4).
c). These three Persons are distinct in that they enjoy relationship with one another, speak to one another, and love one another (John 17:1-5, 26, Romans 8:26, John 14:16-17).
d). The three Persons are eternal (John 1:1, Micah 5:1-2, Hebrews 9:14). The Persons thus cannot be temporary, or merely offices, or roles, or manifestations – they are an eternal and inseparable fact of God’s nature.

God is a Trinity. This is fundamental to His nature, and to an understanding of Christian salvation. If God is not Triune, Jesus cannot mediate, the Spirit cannot intercede, and the Father could not punish the Son for sin. So, to deny the Trinity is to deny Christianity, and the Church has recognized this officially since the Council of Nicaea in the fourth century. This does not mean we have to fully understand it – this is probably impossible – but we but acknowledge and accept it.

3). Jesus Christ is fully God.

This is discussed above, as implicit to the Trinity.

4). Jesus Christ is fully man.

This is crucial to our salvation. Christ had to become flesh, a human being, in order to pay for sin committed by human beings (Romans 5:15-19) and to be a mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5).

5). Sinlessness of Christ.

Christians are only counted righteous in God’s eyes because Christ’s righteousness is credited to their account (Romans 5:12-21). If Christ was not sinless, as the Bible says He was (1 Peter 2:22) then there is no human righteousness available to us, and we are all lost.

6). Christ’s death on the Cross as a substitutionary sacrifice.

For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person--though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die-- but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)

Christ died, suffering the wrath of God against sin that rightfully should have been borne by us. For this reason, Paul boasted in the Crucifixion: "But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world." (Galatians 6:14) If Christ was not crucified, God’s wrath against us has not been satisfied, and we are lost.

7). Christ’s resurrection.

Paul put it best: "But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised.

In short, Christ’s resurrection is God’s guarantee that Christians will have eternal life. Without that, we have no hope whatsoever, and Christianity is pointless.

8). Salvation by grace alone through faith alone – not works!

The Apostle Paul was so dedicated to this doctrine, he wrote the whole letter of Galatians refuting salvation earned by human actions, and Paul is so clear about this matter that at its beginning, he said that anyone who denied this doctrine was "anathema" – cut off from the Church! (Galatians 1:6-9)

…yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified… I do not nullify the grace of God, for if justification were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose. (Galatians 2:16, 21)

If we have to earn our salvation by our actions, or add to Christ’s work, then we "nullify" Christ’s work. Salvation HAS to be by grace (the undeserved mercy and favour of God) through faith (our trust in Christ’s work for us) because in and of ourselves, we are powerless to save ourselves!

9). Christ is the only way to salvation.

Jesus said this Himself (John 14:6) and Peter later confirmed it (Acts 4:12). It’s self-evident – if there was another way to be saved, Christ didn’t have to die, and His sacrifice was wasted.

To these nine, I will add that all these doctrines are rooted in Scripture. Therefore, it is implied that we cannot deny Scripture, the Holy Bible, as the final authority of the Christian faith and still hold these beliefs.

As a Christian, I can call any person who believes these things my brother in Christ. We may disagree on other things – the proper method of baptism, for instance, or what kind of music to use in church. But we both have the same Lord and Saviour.

If a person denies ANY of these doctrines, I cannot call them Christian, and cannot have Christian fellowship with them. A Mormon cannot be my brother in Christ, for he denies the first point (that there is only one God). A Jehovah’s Witness cannot be my sister in Christ, for she denies that He is fully God. A Oneness Pentecostal cannot be called my brother in Christ, because he denies the Trinity. Many liberal "Christian" scholars cannot be considered believers, because they deny the resurrection. I must, will, and do love them as fellow bearers of God’s image, but they are among the lost and so are targets for evangelism, not fellow believers.

God has drawn these "lines in the sand" and explained them in the Bible. These are not our own rules, they are His. And these must be the fundamental basis of unity.

That Dirty “D” Word – DOCTRINE.... (Part 2)

2005-07-29T19:48:00.000-06:00

Interestingly, another profession that uses the term "doctrine" is the military.

In the profession of arms, doctrine is a nation’s systematic approach to the problem of warfare. It is influenced by the organization’s history and experience; it is developed by professionals who have studied and practiced warfare.It explains the fundamental principles of conflict and it provides an organizational point of view on how war should be fought.

Military doctrine dictates how a nation fights. For example, the old Soviet Union, knowing that technologically they trailed the West, recognized that their superior numbers and lack of human rights constraints could be made an advantage. So they built a war machine that relied heavily on overwhelming numbers of cheap, simple, rugged, easy-to-use tanks and other equipment, that required far less training and maintenance than did the sophisticated Western systems, and that could be used by large numbers of quickly (and poorly) trained draftees. The soldiers were subjected to draconian discipline, discouraged from thinking for themselves, so that the Russian generals would be able to control their troops more completely. They hoped that they could overwhelm the NATO forces with sheer numbers, knowing that they would suffer terrible losses
but certain that they would outlast the smaller Western armies.

NATO, for its part, decided that highly trained and skilled troops were worth the investment, and the nations of the Alliance were more prosperous and could afford more complex equipment. The more individualistic Western societies encouraged their soldiers to think for themselves and to take initiative, making for a more flexible and adaptive military.

Although the two sides never fought, the results of the two schools of thought played out in the Arab-Israeli conflict. The Soviet-backed Arab nations were defeated again and again by the much-smaller but more innovative and technologically advanced Western-influenced Israeli forces, which had taken German tactics from the Second World War as their model (isn’t that ironic?).

Now, think of the Christian life as war. That’s what it is, isn’t it? We have an enemy. He probes us for weaknesses and attacks us. Only by working together, and following our instructions from our Divine Commander, the Lord of Hosts, can we survive.

It’s interesting that, along with his repeated and impassioned calls to hold fast to sound doctrine, Paul compared the Christian’s preparation for the spiritual battlefield to the equipment of a Roman soldier:

Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and, as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace. In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one; and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. (Ephesians 6:11-18)

Notice that the first metaphor Paul uses here is that of a belt – the belt of truth. The truth of Christianity is Christian doctrine. When we teach truth in our churches and Sunday schools, we are instructed in Christian doctrine. So why does Paul compare it to a belt? Well, the Roman soldier’s equipment – the breastplate, his clothing, his sword and dagger – would have all been held together by the belt. Even modern soldiers wear what’s called a Webb belt – off of which hangs pouches for a water canteen, ammunition, gas mask, and most of the other things a soldier requires in combat.

In short, truth holds together all of a Christian’s spiritual combat gear. Without truth, you’re useless on the battlefield and much of your spiritual equipment is useless. How can one be righteous if one has no truth, or follows false doctrines? How can one carry his weapons into battle, the message of the Word, if one has not learned the truth?

And our truth is Christ. "I am the way, the truth, and the life." Without an accurate understanding of the truth of Christ, as described in the Bible, we find ourselves useless on the spiritual battlefield.

Do you have a commitment to truth? Is the truth you hold completely in accordance with God's Word? Have you read the verses about sin, and salvation? Can you explain them? Defend them against those who would distort them?

Just as a soldier must remember and act upon his training to fight, a Christian must know and be skilled in applying, living, and explaining the truth of Christ - our Christian doctrine.

That Dirty “D” Word – DOCTRINE.... (Part 1)

2005-07-29T09:57:00.000-06:00

Oh, how I used to hate that word and what I thought it stood for!

I was raised in Reformed churches. When I was between eleven and thirteen, I really didn’t like going to church. To me, the sermons were long, and dull, and boring, and full of "legalistic" doctrine.

When my parents moved us to a nondenominational community church, I thought I was in heaven. Finally, it seemed like fun to go to church! The music was contemporary and upbeat, and I didn’t have to worry about any of that stuffy doctrine stuff. No one was trying to make me memorize creeds, or confessions...

Fast forward ten years. I’d just arrived in the Fredericton area, and by then I had been drifting in my faith for some time. My lifestyle was decidedly non-Christian, and I felt deep down inside that something was wrong. I found a new church in Fredericton to go to, where the people were open and friendly, committed to Christ, and enthusiastic about spreading the Gospel. The teaching from the pulpit was, and is, solid and Biblical. God used this church to draw me back to Himself.

That said, however, when I first arrived, I began attending the young adults group. One of the first times there, the small group leader, who was probably my age, said something that I KNEW was wrong. She didn’t believe people were born evil. She thought everyone was basically good.

Those of you reading who know something about Church history and theology recognize this girl’s position – the “doctrine” she was teaching. (I’ll stop and point out quickly that this is decidedly NOT the doctrine taught by my church – this girl was simply a university student with little theological knowledge, who was acting as a facilitator.) She was teaching (unknowingly) the heresy of Pelagius – the idea that there is no original sin, that the Fall had no effect on anyone else, that everyone is born morally innocent and that therefore God’s grace isn’t required for salvation. The heresy Augustine fought so hard against. The heresy condemned by the Church at the Councils of Orange, Florence, and Carthage, and still considered heretical by most Protestants and Catholics alike.

At the time, though, I didn’t know all that stuff, and I had been gone from church so long and was now so Biblically illiterate that I couldn’t come up with any verses to back myself up. I tried to argue, but my argument was disorganized and unconvincing, and I had to give up. I just knew it was wrong, but I couldn’t really say why. And I couldn’t understand how anyone could believe something that seemed, to be, to be a self-evident part of the faith. How could anyone believe human beings are basically good, looking at the world we live in? How could anyone be born good or neutral, if everyone – no exceptions (Romans 3:23) sins?

Since then, I’ve found that many people in the evangelical church – including many Baptists, Pentecostals, and others I have the opportunity to meet from time to time – have very little appreciation for the ancient doctrines and confessions of the church. Their theology tends to reflect the songs popular in the church today – short, repetitive, and very little profound teaching – than it does the old catechisms and confessions. And that’s a shame.

Ask yourself, while you read this: Can I explain what these words mean? I’m convinced the average Christian in a contemporary, evangelical church these days would not be able to define words like Atonement, Justification, Sanctification, Propitiation, or Glorification. And these “big theological words” are vital to a correct understanding of the most important issue there is – human salvation!

The poor girl didn’t know, and probably doesn’t to this day, the Biblical teaching about man’s sinful state. Most evangelical Christians these days, especially in non-denominational churches, but increasingly in the mainline denominations, aren’t taught a confession, or a catechism, or any system of theology or doctrine. When pressed, most couldn’t explain why, for instance, it was important that Jesus be born of a virgin. An understanding of doctrine would go a long way toward restoring the health of the Church.

Why the anecdote? Well, those “boring and dull” sermons, the congregational responsive reading of the Heidelburg Catechism that I didn’t really understand, the history lessons about all those heretics and controversies and doctrinal battles – they sunk in! By the grace of God, and without realizing it until much later, I had been taught enough of the fundamental Christian doctrines to discern and keep myself from error.

Doctrine sounds so stuffy and boring to many Christians. But it’s so vital.

Satan has used heresies to confuse and divide the Church ever since the beginning. The Arians tried to convince the Church that Jesus wasn’t fully God. The Gnostics claimed that hidden knowledge imparted to a select few was the key to salvation. The Pelagians, saying that humanity is basically good, went so far as to say that there are people who could live sinless lives without God’s help!

The way to stay safe from heresy, and to ensure that our beliefs reflect the Bible, is to pay attention to sound doctrine. This concept is so vital that the Apostle Paul spoke of good and bad doctrine no less than ten times in the Epistles – and half of those to Timothy and Titus, men he was training to be pastors!

“But doctrine divides!” Yes! It does! That's the point!!

It divides truth from error. It is the line between accuracy and falsehood. It is the difference between orthodoxy and heresy. If preaching doctrine is divisive, it isn’t the fault of doctrine – it’s the fault of the heresy or inaccurate theology that tries to change the teaching of Christ.

When you play hockey, you follow the rules and regulations (the "doctrine") of hockey. If you try to pick up the puck and skate with it, it's wrong and it's not part of the game. You're importing rules ("doctrine") from other sports, like rugby and football, just as heresies import foreign doctrines into Christianity. Now, if the referee blows the whistle on this behaviour, does the player have any right to complain, "Your rules are divisive! I should do what I want!"? Of course not!

If you want to play hockey, follow the rules of the game. If you want to be a Christian, heed its teachings and submit it its doctrines - you can't import your own.

“Don’t give me doctrine – just give me Jesus!”

A Jesus without doctrine... So why not the New Age Jesus? Or John Dominic Crossan's Jesus, who never rose from the dead and was eaten by dogs? Or how about the Jehovah's Witnesses' Jesus, who wasn't eternal, but was a created being, and thus isn't God?

"Wait, that's not what I meant..." Exactly! - without doctrine, you don't mean anything! "Jesus" becomes just an empty word, without meaning.

With apologies to James, you show me Jesus without doctrine, and I will show you Jesus BY my doctrine. Just as faith without works is a dead and false faith, so Christianity without doctrine is not Christianity at all. Doctrine is truth, and is our standard when judging truth. For the Christian faith to have any meaning, for the word “Christian” to actually mean anything at all, there must be a system of truth that it represents. And that truth can’t be simply whatever we want it to be – it must defined by the teaching of Scripture.

Now, in another post I’ll talk about the distinctions between essential and nonessential doctrine. Not every difference is worth a battle or a separation. But make no mistake – the Bible is a book full of doctrine. If we want to know God better, we should strive daily to understand His Word accurately and truthfully.

If You're Not Christian, Please Read This!

2005-07-27T17:52:00.000-06:00

If you’re a non-Christian reading this, you have probably heard Christians talking about "salvation," the "Gospel," "sin," and "giving your life to Jesus." You may understand them, but chances are that you may not.

What does it mean to be Christian? First and foremost, a Christian has heard and responded to the Gospel message. And what is that?

I’ll let the Bible explain for itself.

1) There is only one God, creator of heaven and earth.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.(Genesis 1:1)
…know therefore today, and lay it to your heart, that the LORD is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other. (Deuteronomy 4:39)

2) God is perfect and He is holy – that is, there is no injustice or wrong in Him.

"Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!" (Isaiah 6:3)
"The Rock, his work is perfect, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and upright is he." (Deuteronomy 32:4)

3) Because He is Holy, He expects nothing less than perfection from us.

Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matthew 5:48)
For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. (James 2:10)

4) Humanity is lost in sin, because of the actions of Adam. As a result of his sin, we all sin.

"but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die’"… she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. (Genesis 3:3,6b)
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned… (Romans 5:12)
…for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God… (Romans 3:23)

5) We are all condemned to death for our sins - every human being. Furthermore, God punishes the wicked eternally in hell.

Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins shall die. (Ezekiel 18:4)
For the wages of sin is death… (Romans 6:23a)
…and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever… Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. (Revelation 20:10, 14-15)

6) No human being can save himself. Even our good deeds can't make us right with God.

We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away. (Isaiah 64:6)
Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil. (Jeremiah 13:23)
For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight... (Romans 3:20a)
For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. (Romans 8:7-8)

7) Because of our fallen state, Jesus Christ became a man, lived a sinless life, died on the Cross, and after three days, rose again from the dead.

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)
He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. (1 Peter 2:22)
Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word 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 in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures... (1 Corinthians 15:1-4)

8) Jesus Christ, God incarnate, was a perfect sacrifice to pay the price for sin. Innocent, He stood as a substitute for sinners, facing God's wrath on their behalf.

But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. (Isaiah 53:5-6)
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. (John 3:16-17)
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit... (1 Peter 3:18)

9) There is no other way than by God's mercy and grace, through faith in Christ alone. Obedience and good deeds cannot save you.

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)
"And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)
But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, 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, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 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. (Ephesians 2:4-9)

10) Those who put their faith in Jesus Christ will be saved and enjoy eternal life with God.

"For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." (John 6:40)
And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. (John 17:3)
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 6:23)

Please, if you haven't come to Christ, listen to what I say. We have all sinned - that means, every man, woman, and child among us has defiled the image of God Himself, the image in which we were all made! This is a capital crime.

Think of vandalism. If a vandal spraypaints a beat-up Dodge Aries, it's wrong. If a vandal spraypaints the roof of the Sistine Chapel, or the Mona Lisa, his act is far more serious. Why? Because of the VALUE of that which is defaced.

And our rebellion against God, our rejection of Him and disobedience towards Him, is a crime against that which is eternally perfect and holy, and of infinite value - God Himself. This calls for no less than eternal punishment.

I am deadly serious. Search yourself. Examine your life, your heart. Have you ever done anything wrong, against anyone else? Of course - we all have. And this is your death sentence.

Like everyone else, you are a sinner. Confess your sinfulness to Him, admit that you cannot save yourself or live up to His standard. And trust in Jesus Christ. Have faith that He is who He said He is, that His death has paid the price for sin, and that He will take you in His arms and keep you.

This is the only way!

Welcome to Hold Fast!

2005-07-27T15:34:00.000-06:00

Welcome to my new blog!

I’ve named this little corner of the Internet "Hold Fast." This is a command found throughout the Bible – to hold fast to one’s wife, to the Christian faith, to what one has been taught, and finally to God Himself.

In a world gone mad, filled with terror and crime, depraved and unjust, Christians are called to be a light in the darkness. We are called to show the hope we have in Christ. This requires an ironclad commitment to the truth found in the Bible – the message of humanity’s wickedness, God’s resolve to punish all wrongdoing, the work of Christ to pay the price for the sins of those who believe, the promise of salvation by God’s grace through faith, and the hope of resurrection and eternal life for God’s people.

This is not a popular message. Even within the church, increasing numbers of people are uncomfortable with the clear, hard message God has for humanity. The temptation to compromise our beliefs in exchange for acceptance and tolerance by our sinful, fallen world will be strong. It is more and more attractive to downplay the tougher elements of the Christian message – the reality of hell and eternal punishment, the fact that Christ is the ONLY way to God, the requirement for men to confess and repent of the sins in their lives, and the call to take up our cross, deny ourselves, and follow Christ.

This we cannot do. For the sake of God’s glory, for the sake of the Cross, for the sake of the world around us, we MUST present our message clearly and completely, regardless of the consequences.

So why the address "against-the-world?"

In the early centuries of the Church, a man in Alexandria, Egypt, by the name of Athanasius, stood for God’s truth. In his day, the majority of the teachers in the Church were denying that Christ was fully God, that He had always existed – indeed, denied God’s nature, the Trinity, itself. Athanasius was banished from his city no less than six times, and never gave up his dogged fight for truth.

When he died, the heretics of the day were still immensely powerful. Yet by the grace of God, Athanasius’ firm stand for truth was heard. Today, the Church fearlessly teaches that there is one God, in three Persons.

Athanasius was not a popular man. In his day, he was called "Athanasius contra mundum" – Athanasius against the world.

Christ calls us to stand firm. Christ calls us to stand against the world.

There’s more to come. Hold fast.