Anvil and Fire

“You believe that healthcare is a right, don’t you?”

2010-03-22T11:58:00.004-04:00

What a loaded question.

But, I have never heard a Republican answer it well. After America's tragedy last night, the answer may come too late.

But here goes:

Our rights have an order:

#1. You have to be alive to have any other rights: The Right to Life.

#2. You have to have Liberty before you can Pursue any kind of Happiness: The Right to Liberty.

#3. Life and Liberty make the Pursuit of Happiness possible: The Pursuit comes last.

These rights come from God. Government can only protect or violate them. It doesn't give or take away.

America's government was instituted to secure our rights by protecting the individual from tyranny.

Obamacare assaults our rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Life: Obamacare will most certainly fund abortion with the tax payer's money. Only those willing to be deceived (Bart Stupak, et. al), cannot see that. America has crossed many lines, but not this one--until last night.

Liberty: Isn’t it interesting how the “right” to healthcare has morphed into a “mandate?”

Healthcare is the only “right” I’m aware of that requires police and bureaucratic powers to force it upon us.

For the first time in history, Washington now commands every citizen to purchase health insurance--or else.

Or else what?

Or else seventeen thousand IRS agents will come threatening fines, or worse. If a citizen cannot see that this is oppressive, question his ability to see the self-evident.

Pursuit of Happiness: Inside this right is the right to property. Obamacare undermines that right by higher taxes. For examples, taxes on investment income--newly acquired property. So much for prosperity and social mobility.

Also, inside this Pursuit, is the desire for quality healthcare. It is axiomatic that government controlled healthcare will decrease quality. This won’t make anyone happy: from the unborn to terminally ill.

These are the beginning of our complaints.

Because Obamacare fails to secure our rights (indeed, it undermines them) we should repeal it immediately--and dismiss anyone from office who would force it upon us.

Let's not be deceived.

Welcome to Anvil and Fire

2007-05-19T13:46:00.000-04:00

Below are 84 posts distilled from the short life of this blog.

I may blog again one day, but until then you are welcome to read these book reviews, reflections on issues, conference notes, and other items.

If you'd like to leave a comment, please feel free to do so. I will get them.

Thanks for stopping by.

Why Good Arguments Often Fail

2007-05-08T11:04:00.002-04:00

James W. Sire, author of The Universe Next Door has written another worthy volume entitled Why Good Arguments Often Fail: Making a More Persuasive Case for Christ.

This book is an enjoyable read without a lot of the heavy technical work I have recently studied (more on the heavy stuff in a moment...).

In the preface, Mr. Sire discusses his good-faith efforts of arguing for Christ in conversations and lectures. He’s done his best to craft persuasive arguments, but:

...they have rarely sparked the response I have really wanted--vast masses of friends and enemies flocking to Jesus to repent and say, “My Lord and my God!” Why is this?”

The rest of the book attempts to answer the question.

I liked this book a lot. Part One, a discussion on “Common Logical Fallacies,” was fun to read. Chapter 2 is a short, humorous story by Max Shulman called “Love is a Fallacy.” This chapter was worth the price of the book. The “punch line” of the story made me laugh out loud. Every pastor should read Part One of this book. I’m afraid a lot of preaching today includes the logical fallacies Sire mentions. It is a vitamin for one’s credibility.

Part Two addresses “Good Arguments that Often Fail.” Mr. Sire reminds the reader that arrogance, aggression, and cleverness do not serve the cause of apologetics. Neither should a Christian misread his audience. This section reminds us to pay attention to whom we are talking! Ask yourself, “Where are they in their journey?” Communicate to people “where they are.” The author also discusses evolution, relativism, and the issue of moral blindness.

Part Three offers arguments “that work.” Paul’s argument on Mar’s Hill in Acts 17 is a model of how to address unbelievers. We can use this framework to talk to postmoderns of our age who ask the question “Why Believe Anything at All?”

The end of Part Three is an annotated bibliography directing the reader to valuable resources in apologetics. (This too is worth the price of the book.)

I appreciate the author’s work but have to critique his method on a couple of points. First, I feel that he concedes the issue of creation too quickly to the majority opinion. In fact, Mr. Sire suggested that we not address the questions of creation/evolution if we can help it.

”Christians like myself can appeal to the Behes, the Dembskis and the Johnsons rather than trying to deal in depth with the issue....In fact, some form of theistic evolution is still the dominant position of Christians who are scientists.... Let us let the whole issue of evolution remain unaddressed, therefore, except when it arises as a question. Then let’s keep our answer short and defer to Christian experts for detail. There are far more central issues to consider....”

On one hand, I respect Mr. Sire’s concern for thoughtful reflection on the issue of creation/evolution. I understand that influential people, like Francis Collins of the Human Genome Project (not mentioned in this book), are theistic evolutionists and many people will not listen to apologists who are not.

On the other hand, I feel that Mr. Sire is willing to give away Genesis 1-3 too soon in order to get a hearing for Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. There is something wrong with this position, although I am at a loss of words to articulate my concerns.

Also, in all of this book and its terrific bibliography, I found no reference to the transcendental argument offered by Van Til, Bahnsen, and others. I understand that much of the work can be heavy and difficult. I have had to make several passes through the material to start getting it into focus. And I plan a few more excursions--because I have not yet reached the summit.

I would think Mr. Sire would be aware of this material, but it is not included. Alister McGrath mentions it in his book Intellectuals Don’t Need God and Other Modern Myths. He raises the issue only to dismiss it (unfortunately), but at least he raises it. I couldn’t help but think Mr. Sire could have placed the Transcendental Argument in his section “Good Arguments that Work.” But, maybe he thinks it doesn’t belong there...

Anyway, I like Why Good Arguments Often Fail and recommend that you read it. College students, especialy, should have it on their shelves.

Mr. Sire has done well for us in writing this book.

Easter Enigma: Are the Resurrection Accounts in Conflict?

2007-04-19T09:38:00.000-04:00

This Easter season, I read John Wenham’s book Easter Enigma: Are the Resurrection Accounts in Conflict? It was one of the most enjoyable books I’ve read in a long time.

Chapter One lays out the map of Jerusalem and the surrounding area. Mr. Wenham does a fine job describing and mapping out the locations of the story. This is essential to understanding the flow of the Easter narratives.

The rest of the book discusses not only the key characters in the history of Christ’s resurrection accounts but also all the Resurrection appearances listed in the Gospels and 1 Corinthians 15.

The author shows how each narrative dovetails with the others. He potentially solves the “problems” and “discrepancies” from one account to the other.

The strength of the book is not that Wenham absolutely “figured it out.” In fact, N.T. Wright notes on page 614 of his book The Resurrection of the Son of God:

The harmony offered by Wenham 1984 is hardly over-simple, but not many have found it convincing.”

I think that many modern scholars may not “find it convincing” because of their presupposition of skepticism and the haunting spectre of form criticism--which should be considered long-since dead and buried...

The point is not that Wenham’s work is absolutely convincing. The point is that he highlights explanations that undermine the skeptics and encourage the believers. The reader sees the the nature of the case. The reader sees how fast events occurred that morning and how the disciples responded and informed each other of them. The disciples may not have been in one location--and the "comings" and "goings" were breathless. The Resurrection narratives are not contrived. They reflect the shattering effect on unbelief and despair that Christ's resurrection obviously had.

The benefit of Wenham's book is that we see how it could have been. And in seeing how it could have been, we need not feel cornered by skeptical answers that refuse any explanation but unbelief.

I have had a question about these matters since I was in high school (many moons ago), and I enjoyed a more complete answer than I’ve seen previously.

I think you’ll like the book.

Watching a Lousy Movie

2007-03-28T09:24:00.002-04:00

Last week, I watched the video The God Who Wasn't There. A family in our church had asked me to watch it, and--since I've been concerned for quite some time with helping young people engage the issues at hand-- I took the time to do it.

The following is what I recently shared with our church when discussing Romans 1:16:

"It was a movie designed to destroy the viewer's faith in or regard for Christianity. As I watched it, I found myself laughing at the totally empty and dishonest attacks that were dressed up as "arguments" against God and Christ. But as the video continued, I found myself feeling very sorry for the producer of the film. His misguided method of thought led him to a personal denial of Christ.

He made the movie to make Christians feel ashamed of the gospel--like he was. But all he could muster was a propagandistic hit-piece made of masterful accusations and faulty associations.

Logically, his movie skipped and popped like a scratched record from the old days.

In 1993 Alister McGrath published a book entitled Intellectuals Don't Need God & Other Modern Myths. He said:

"The idea that Christianity has become obsolete has itself become obsolete... The person who mechanically repeats the parrot cries of earlier generations---[such as] 'science has disproved Christianity'.... has become stranded in a time warp.... There has been a major shift of ideas.... It is a shift in favor of faith." (Intellectuals, p. 66.)

That's exactly how I felt when I watched this movie. It mechanically and mindlessly parroted the cries of those needlessly skeptical about Christ..

Throughout history, unbelievers have relentlessly attacked the gospel. But all the attacks have fallen away like straw. Christ still stands above the ages of men and calls us not to be ashamed of Him or His words.

Sometimes a skeptic will ask, "What scientific proof do you have to show that Christianity is true?"

May I give you one way to answer that question? Because people like this film-maker sometimes think they've asked you the "nuclear-powered" question. They think you're backed in a corner with nowhere to go. Well...

When they ask you their question, you need to make them clarify what they're saying. Just ask your own question by saying: "Well what kind of science are you talking about?

The Science of Physics? Because Christianity is not something you can burn in a beaker any more than you can burn democracy or the number 7 in a blue flame in a laboratory.

Or Maybe You're More Interested in the Biological Approach: But Christianity is not something you can dissect like a frog or a fetal pig in your high school lab class any more than you can dissect the history of Homer or Alexander the Great with scalpel and tweezers.

Are You Referring to the Study of History? Of course there is ample historical evidence for the life of Christ, his teachings, his crucifixion, and his resurrection. But I need to know what kind of history you want to talk about. Do you want to talk about textual history or archeology?

Or do you want to move on to another field altogether like Textual Criticism?

We could dig into some side issues: Like believing the existence of God in general. On this issue, we could discuss cosmology; we could discuss cytology; and we could discuss genetics.

But maybe you're more interested in tackling the issues of philosophy: Do you want to talk about the Enlightenment and its rationalism? Or how about a David Hume-like empiricism that collapses into complete skepticism? Or are you interested in the study of existentialism and its underlying despair? Maybe you have more classical interests in mind. If so, we could address the problem of the One and the Many...

So... What I need from you is an honest question that doesn't play games with different categories and approaches to knowledge so that we can we can sit down and have rational discussion."

-------------------
Now, I am not setting myself up as being thoroughly conversant in all the issues I just raised, but there are answers and many lines of discussion in them. It just takes a little study. There's a lot of material out there along these lines.

You see, maybe we should put the spotlight on our skeptical friend and ask, "Are you ever skeptical about your skepticism? How can you claim to know anything if the thoughts of your brain are nothing but the results of mindless matter in motion? If you don't have a rational mind that corresponds to a rational universe, how can you make any claims to knowledge at all?"

The fact is, people like the producers of this film are not honest in asking their questions. They're trying to move you onto the playing field of their own skeptical perspective without having to answer for the follies of their own philosophy."

I do feel for people that honestly struggle. I know what it is like to sift through issues myself. And maybe someone could have helped this film-maker when he was struggling. (Although it doesn't sound like there was much help available--and maybe it wouldn't have been effective since people often construct arguments around a settled position against God.)

On one hand, I believe we can use polemics against the products of people attempting to destroy the faith of our young folks. On the other hand, a movie like this can be a benefit because it raises issues exposing where the church and Christian educators often fail in teaching just what Christianity is and why we believe it.

There is more that could be said about this video.

Logically, it was a train-wreck, but I'm glad I watched it.

I'll be more prepared to answer some of the questions it raises.

Ligonier "Wrap Up" Post: Various and Final Comments

2007-03-20T09:44:00.000-04:00

If one really pays attention to each message given at a Ligonier conference, he will take a day or two at home to "come down" from the event. So many things barrage the mind that it takes some time to process one's thoughts.

I have a few odds-n-ends I thought I'd post about the conference.

1. At the top of the list is John Piper's message on "The Challenge of Relativism." I thought it interesting that the Hebrews did indeed think deductively--as was illustrated in the text in Matthew 21:23-27. Piper rightly noted that a thorough study of the Scriptures can defend us from the unbelieving sophistry of our day. Secularists and unbelievers like to read their thoughts back into the text of Scripture. But the Scriptures hold their own.

Piper's deconstruction of post-modernism's air of "humility" was especially helpful. People who wish to play fast and loose with the truth often do so with the flourish of humility. "Who am I to say what is right and wrong; what is true or false?" These same folks then turn to the Christian and accuse him of arrogance for thinking he knows a measure of truth. Yet post-modernis'ts uncertain epistemology simply serves as a smoke-screen for his desire to autonomously call his own shots--while the Christian seeks to submit to reality. Which is really the more arrogant way? "Creating your own reality like a god? Or submitting to the Reality that is?"

This insight is key in showing that the Post-Modern Emperor has no clothes. I think R.C. Sproul, Jr, spoke along these lines as well.

Anyway, Piper's message on this topic is extremely important. Everyone should hear it.

2. Ravi Zacharias has been a blessing to me for a long time. I've learned more from him and because of him than I think I can relate. In one of his messages, he told the audience that he is planning to write a book in response to the hard-boiled atheist Sam Harris. Harris wrote a book Letter to a Christian Nation. Ravi said he was going to respond by writing something like A Letter to Sam Harris on Behalf of a Christian Nation. I look forward to reading it. Somehow, I don't think Harris will stand long in the ring with Zacharias.

3. Someone asked in the first Q & A "What movement will follow post-modernism?" One of the answers was "Statism." I think this is true. With everyone doing his own thing, it will take an ever stronger government to keep any semblance of order. I was glad to hear good men say this, because an ever-growing centralized government is what I blog about here. This is a real threat everyone should be concerned about. Statism is on the rise because of the spiritual, moral, and intellectual collapse of the nation. The church is the only hope for spiritual, moral, and intellectual renewal in the years ahead. Pastors has better pay attention.

Along with the rise of statism, I think its possible that our secular society will try to move beyond relativism and obtain a moral realism based on unbelief. Sam Harris's book The End of Faith points to the trail-head of this path. A secular moral realism will be a scary thing indeed. It will require an intolerance and strength in government unseen on American shores thus far. Again, listen carefully to Harris in The End of Faith. His view of the world would also lead to An End of American Freedom.

4. The music at the conference was exceptional. I noticed they did not use soloists. I wonder if this is just how things played out, or if there is a certain musical philosophy excluding them. Regardless, the music of the Westminster Brass was God-honoring and powerful I even enjoyed the organ! (I really am not a fan of organs and hope to never see one in our church....) The singing of the "Hallelujah Chorus" following the last message (R.C. Sproul on "The Resurrection") was moving. Good job, music people!

5. I was impressed with R.C. Sproul, Jr. I have never heard him speak before, and I thought his insights were unique and Biblical. I can sense a strong presuppositionalism undergirding his approach to ministry.

His point on world-views was very good. We really should not seek a "world-view;" we should seek "wisdom." He did not elaborate on this point, but--it seems to me--he thinks the term "world-view" may play into the post-modernists hand. When we talk about "world-views," we set ourselves up for the response, "Well, that's your world-view. I have a different one."

Sproul, Jr. went on to say, "What we really need is wisdom." Again, I think he was telling us that wisdom seeks to understand reality-as-it-is and then conform to it. Metaphysically, there is only one "world-view." We need wisdom to understand it. Everything else is just deception.

I would like to hear him elaborate on this further. He pretty much made this comment in passing.

He also highlighted the fact that man does not construct his world-view and then fall into sin. Man sins and then constructs a world-view to justify his sin.

I think this is true.

6. I don't think anyone can "fake" being "well read." If anyone is well-read, it's Albert Mohler. Somehow, he knows something about everything: current events in pop culture, current philosophical output, the history of thought and theology, and the Scriptures themselves. No wonder he was made president of a seminary at age 33. At age 33, I was still trying to figure out what I want to be when I grow up. (How long does it take to grow up anyway?)

7. The conference was well organized, had a terrific spirit, and offered a lot to think about. I thank God for those who love Christ and work hard to stand strong in these incredibly difficult times. All of orthodoxy is going to need to stand together in the coming days. And as we do, maybe God will grant our nation a new birth of spiritual, moral, intellectual, and political freedom.

But if not...

Dr. MacArthur's Theodicy

2007-03-19T10:24:00.000-04:00

I really enjoyed my conference experience at Ligonier 2007. I'll post again on my impressions about the conference. I have so many positive things to say. However, right now I want to focus on a message John MacArthur brought on "The Problem of Evil."

I have a great appreciation for John MacArthur and men like him. I'm grateful to God for the heavy lifting they are doing in these spiritually vacuous days. The writing, speaking, and representing they do in our country is an important witness for Christ and the church.

Now, here comes the conjunction but....

I do need to get some thoughts written down after hearing Dr. MacArthur's theodicy (the justification of God in the face of evil).

You can read my notes on his message here. I hope I recorded them fairly and accurately. The basic outline of Dr. MacArthur's message was:

1. Evil Exists. This is axiomatic.
2. God Exists. That is, the Biblical God.
3. Therefore, God wills evil to exist; He ordains it.

Dr. MacArthur said some things like: "Now this is where Arminians become apoplectic. Their eyes roll back and their palms become sweaty. Panic sets in. So they have to reinvent God with a revisionist [hermeneutic.]" Both speaker and audience gave a knowing laugh at these comments.

Now, I do admit to having some emotional responses upon hearing Dr. MacArthur's words. To be sure, I was not apoplectic. I did not experience an increased heart rate or sweaty palms, or panic.

But I did feel a sadness, a deflation, and a wonderment at the presentation of his argument. I felt like, "If I believed this picture, I might as well go back to the hotel room and draw the shade."

The speaker and audience may laugh with the knowing chuckle of the truly initiated, but I think I can explain why some folks may struggle with this kind of theodicy.

When you deal with a man's view of God, you are dealing with the most important part of who he is. So we should not be surprised that emotional reactions may occur when God is painted in certain ways.

I have the following concerns with Dr. MacArthur's theodicy.

1. His argument comes very close to an eastern view of God--where good and evil have a common source. Hence good and evil become illusions surrounding the One of all things. Surely, Dr. MacArthur would deny that this is his view. However, to speak his way has the same blurring effect on the soul. It is a de facto equivalent.

Did not Christ tell us to pray "Deliver us from evil?" If God ordains evil, then where can a man go to hide from it? If the only refuge from evil is the source of evil, this is indeed a scary thing. Hence the suffocating effect on the soul.

2. In exalting one attribute of God above all others, Dr. MacArthur undermines God's love, justice, and power. Does a loving God create people solely for a pragmatic purpose of displaying His wrath? Does a just God hold creatures accountable for sinning sins that He ordained? Cannot a truly powerful God create people in His image without his sovereignty being reduced? According to Dr. MacArthur, a real person must be a threat to God's sovereignty. So I think Dr. MacArthur's view of God is too small. This leads me to the next point...

3. No matter how we address this issue, paradoxes will arise. A theology that appears to have it all wrapped up (making 90 yard touch-down passes) still results in paradoxes. Because Dr. MacArthur seems to despise the thought that Adam had a free will, he settles for statements like:

"God ordains evil but is not guilty of it."
" God is responsible but not guilty."

How is this any less a paradox than "Man can choose, and God is sovereign?"

4. In the Q & A about this issue, I believe it was Dr. Sproul who distanced himself from "determinism." And I noticed one of the nearby Table Talk magazine covers had a puppet with strings attached. The subtitle was, "What Reformed Theology is Not." But one cannot use the language of determinism and then cry foul at being perceived as deterministic!

So...

I have come to the conclusion that I will not know a complete answer to the mystery of evil. Therefore, I have to choose the best paradox-- one that addresses the whole counsel of God. Dr. MacArthur's view does not seem to encompass the complete picture of God in the Bible. For example, the Bible says that:

God Loves.
Man was created as a Real Person.
God is Just.
Man is Guilty.

I believe that God is Good. There is no shadow of turning in Him. If He cannot tempt men with evil, He surely doesn't direct them to commit it! I have to hold to a theology (paradoxical as it may be) that separates evil from a sovereign God--as the Bible does.

I believe that God created the world knowing full well that man would sin, but His love created a solution before the foundation of the world. But man's sin was against God's will.

I believe that when men are damned, it is because men are truly guilty. It's our fault. We have rebelled against our Maker.

I believe that God is sovereign when He chooses to act or not act--according to His own will. How is God's sovereignty reduced if He chooses to limit Himself in any way? If God chooses to make real persons in His image, isn't that His business? Why could not God ordain that people have a will? Dr. MacArthur sounds like God values evil more than creating amazing creatures in His image.

I have some follow-up issues with the theological perspective Dr. MacArthur represents.

1. I think Michael Horton, in the afore-mentioned "Table Talk" magazine, said their view of election brings great consolation to God's people. I've never found their view of election to bring consolation. I have known their view to bring the opposite. Their view of election puts my eternal destiny--not in the hope of the gospel, but in an impersonal and arbitrary Will. Their view of election is an amplification of God's sovereignty apart from the context of His personal nature, virtue, love, mercy, grace, and faithfulness. Their view of election erects a high, thick, circular brick wall on which I find myself pounding from the outside.

2. How does one know if he's elect? It seems that according to their view, you know if you're elect if you persevere in righteousness. I have found this to be a back door to legalism. Instead of trusting the promise of God in the gospel, I would find myself trying like mad to convince myself that I'm elect by looking at the subjective experiences in my life: my performance. No grounds for confidence there!

3. Sometimes, I sense a condescension in some folks I've met in Dr. MacArthur's theological camp. It is the air of being in the "know." I'm sure this is unintended on their part, yet I do perceive it. Maybe it comes from being in the inner circle of election.

However, I have very true and extremely valuable friends who are not this way. With the love of Christ, they listen to my concerns about their view. So I honestly try to see the "glory" of deterministic theology. I can tell it is a source of consolation and security for many.

4. I have heard some say that people don't like Dr. MacArthur's theology because it strikes at the pride in man. Well, I acknowledge pride needs to be stricken. However, I think I react against it because it strikes at my hope in God. If salvation is based on the Great Will instead of the Glorious Gospel of God, I know I have no hope.

5. It seems that Dr. MacArthur's view weakens the potency of both Good and Evil. God's love isn't really love. It's simply the execution of a personally pragmatic plan. Evil isn't really evil. We can just shrug off this week's atrocities in the news as "God's will." Under Dr. MacArthur's view, do we resist evil or not? Should we react viscerally against evil as reprehensible? Or do we register evil cognitively and put it in the ledger as "part of the plan"--and go about our determined day? Something about this minimizes the goodness of the good and the wickedness of the wicked...

6. I'm willing to be put in the same camp as "liberals," but I'm not sure how I could honestly be so labeled.

I affirm that God's eternal justice redounds to His glory. It is good that evil is finally destroyed from His presence. But the picture is bigger than this one aspect. And God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked.

I affirm that men's salvation redounds to God's glory in eternity, but it is in a context of God's love for real and responsible people.

I affirm that God is sovereign, in charge, and victorious. But He is not Fate. Creation is not a gray, two-dimensional, deterministic sketch. It is a wonderful three-dimensional world filled with people made in His image. Sin has effaced this image, but it is still there.

I affirm that justification is by faith alone--not by anything meritorious in a sinner.

I affirm that God is omnipotent.

I affirm that God is omniscient.

I affirm that God is sovereign.

I affirm that God wants to save me--nor is willing that any should perish; that He loved the world; that He is the propitiation for our sins, but not for ours only but for the sins of the whole world.

I deny works-for-justification, the loss of salvation, universalism, "open theology," and "process theology."

I hope I am not "revising" God. I hope I can honestly say, "I'm simply trying to account for the big, Biblical picture." Yet, in all this, I truly believe I have more in common with Dr. MacArthur than I have in distinction--namely, the Savior.

I recognize this little post on an insignificant blog must resemble a rat terrier yapping at the heals of a great theological mastiff. But, there you go.

And I'm brought full circle to thanking God for His good use of Dr. MacArthur in this needy world.

So.

It was a great conference.

I quickly shook off the air of sadness brought on by one sermon, escaped its great flattening of the world, and got back on track by rejoicing in the goodness of God--and the future destruction of evil.

Ligonier Conference: Entry #13

2007-03-17T12:39:00.001-04:00

March 17, Saturday
11:30 a.m.

R.C. Sproul addresses "The Resurrection of Christ"

Hymn: Were You There When They Crucified My Lord?

A couple of days ago, I read about the recently discovered bones of Jesus. The more bizarre the proposition, the more media it gets... The author acknowledged that the scholars scorn the "Lost Tomb" propostion. Poll: 78% of Americans believe in the Resurrection of Jesus. But the author inserted the phrase: "78% believe in the myth of the Resurrection."

Job asked, "If a man dies, shall he live again?"

BACKROUND

Two major events:

In the 70's (the 1770's) one major event took place, but it wasn't the Declaration of Independence. But something happened in Europe that had greater implications. One man, a professor in Prussia--in the field of astrophysics--who never traveled more than 100 miles from his birth place and took punctual afternoon strolls--had a name Immanuel. Immanuel Kant wrote the most definitive and comprehensive critique (The Critique of Pure Reason) of the arguments for God.

As a scientist, he argued that we cannot move from the visible world to invisible world. We cannot go from the phenomenal world to the noumenal world. He critiqued the classical arguments for God to save science from David Hume's skepticism.

This created an seemingly unbreachable rift between science and theology. He ushered God out the front door and tried to let God in the back door: not in metaphysical pursuit, but in practical thinking.

He was concerned about ethics and morality. It seemed that in man, there was a universal sense of duty--oughtness. The categorical imperative.

Pragmatically, Kant asked what would the necessary conditions be to make this sense of oughtness to be meaningful?

How can ethics be meaningful? The survival of civilization cannot survive long without an answer.

He said that there would have to be justice. Without justice, fulfilling our duty becomes a fool's errand. But justice does not always prevail in the phenomenal world. Why do the wicked prosper and the righteous suffer? For justice to be true, we must survive the grave. And beyond the grave, there must be a Judge who would mete out and dispense pure justice.

What are the necessary conditions for this Judge to mete out justice? He would have to be perfectly righteous and beyond reproach.

The Judge would also have to be omniscient to be free from misinformation. A just Judge cannot be susceptible to a miscarriage of justice.

But a Perfect Judge alone cannot secure justice. So the Judge would have to have all power and authority to mete out this justice. Metaphysically we cannot postulate this Judge, but for practical concerns, we must assume His existence.

So we must live as if there were a God.

This thought process held back a full torrent of skepticism. But the cracks in the dam soon gave way.

A metaphysical and ethical Katrina took place.

NOW: CONSIDER PARALLEL THINKING BETWEEN KANT AND PAUL

TEXT: 1 Corinthians 15:12

Verse 12: How can you have a Christianity without Resurrection from the dead?

Paul uses a common form of debate in the following passage: The Ad Hominem of Argumentation. Be careful.... Paul is not falling into the informal fallacy of the Ad Hominem Abusive. This fallacy is creating the criminalization of politics today. But Paul is not falling into this fallacy.

But there is a sound form of Ad Hominem reasoning: Arguing to the Man. I step into the shoes of my opponent. We stipulate agreement on certain premises, and then we see where the "granted premise" goes in its logical conclusion. This leads to the reductio ad absurdum. So Paul wants to show that Resurrection deny-ers will lead to absurd conclusions.

His opponent had an absolute position--a universal negative: Dead Men Do Not Rise.

So:
IF THERE IS NO RESURRECTION....
THEN CHRIST IS NOT RAISED... (a necessary inference).
THEN OUR PREACHING IS VAIN
THEN OUR FAITH IS VAIN

Let's face facts. Don't live in an Alice-in-Wonderland Theological Dreamworld.

If Christ is not raised, my preaching is worthless, and our faith is in vain--because you're faith is in a man "whose bones have just been dug up!" (Laughter)

ALSO: We're mistrepresenting God! We'd have to name ourselves "Jehovah's False Wintesses."

ALSO: We are still in our sins. We are contained, enmeshed, in jail to sin without bail. Because our justification does not end with the cross. Jesus was raised for our justification. The resurrection is God's apologia. Christianity stands for falls with the Resurrection.

ALSO: Our beloved who have died in the faith have perished.

This is the grim reality... if there is no resurrection.

If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people the most to be pitied.

I say to the enemies of the Christian faith, "If you don't like what we preach, don't hate us. Pity us. We forfeit whatever the world has to offer before going into a hopeless oblivion."

This is why the Bible says that without Christ we are without hope.

What has Paul just done? He has drawn a gastly picture of the consequences of no life after death. Life itself, under the sun, is meaningless.

As Kant understood, your ethic is meaningless. And society cannot last--we are doomed to barbarianism. Our nation is going to barbarianism with such velocity, we wonder if it can stop--apart from God's intervention.

The only thing left in life is to MAKE WHAT IS RIGHT BY YOUR MIGHT!

What Kant was saying was this: Since the alternative to Life-After-Death is so grim and meaningless, We must live as if there is a God!

Here is using God as a crutch!

But Nietszche comes along and blows Kant away. I'm not going to live with the assumption God just to make life bearable! Let's face the abyss! Let's face the nihil! The nothing.

This was affirmed by Jean Paul Sartre: Existence is Naseum.

Albert Camus said the only serious question left for philosophers to examine is the question of suicide.

So Kant's arguments didn't survive the next generation. Gird up your loins like a man, Kant! Face the inevitable.

Some would say that Paul is doing the same thing.

But Paul does not argue for the Resurrection because the Life's Hopelessness Without IT!!! No, this is not the foundation of his argument.

Paul uses nature as examples of resurrection: Seeds. And in like manner, when our bones go into the ground in mortality, they are raised in immortality. This argument closely resembles Plato's argument.

But Paul doesn't rest his case on analogies of the seed or of the butterfly.

Why Does Paul Assert the Reality of the Resurrection?

Because Paul believes the Gospel he mentioned in the first part of the chapter: 1 Corinthians 15:3-4.

Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures. Paul appeals to the Scriptures. Paul's first line of apologetics is an appeal to the Bible. (That's why we must always defend the Scriptures...)

Christ died.
Was buried.
Rose again.

Then He appeared to Cephas

... Then to the Twelve....

... Then to over 500 at once...

... Then to James ....

... AND THEN TO ME (Paul) ...

We are declaring to you something of which we had an empirical experience. We beheld Christ's glory on the plane of history! (This happened in the phenomenological world - JR)

We found an empty tomb? What can it mean? The disciples did not proclaim the Resurrection based on the empty tomb! No it was the appearance of Christ!

The resurrection had over 500 witnesses--and the others.

But what I'm writing to you, my dear friends in Corinth, is not on the basis of hearsay (as good as the hearsay is....), but as one born out of due time.

The text is written is by an eye-witness of the Resurrection.

One reason the above news reporter says that the Resurrection is a "myth" is not that Paul was stupid, but because--judging from our 21st century understanding of biology--we know that when people die, they stay dead. Since it is impossible for the dead to rise, the New Testament story must be wrong.

What a different view of life is in the New Testament! In the New Testament, it was impossible for death to hold Christ! Our empiricism does show that dead people stay dead. But our empiricism is that the dead people were sinful people. So death must be inseparably tied to sin. It is the soul that sins who dies.

So if Christ had no sin, how can we expect Him to stay dead? It is remarkable that Christ died in the first place! But having paid the price and finished the work, the Father raised Christ from the tomb!

The Resurrection is God's Proof of the Person of Jesus!

Paul debated the Stoics and the Epicureans at Mar's Hill. He noted the "Unknown God." "What you worship in ignorance, I proclaim to you in power...." If you stumble at the Resurrection, how do you account for life itself! The necessary conditions for life are not found in us--or in the physical universe!

The only one who has the power of life, being, and motion is the eternal, self-existent God! He has the power of life and death. He holds the keys.

If Christ can raise Lazarus, His Father can raise Christ. What is so hard about that to believe? If there is life in the universe anyway, why is this so difficult.

It is impossible that Christ should not have risen from the dead.

BTW, it was abhorrent to the 1st century man that someone should rise as it is to us today. It was just as difficult to believe back then as it is now. It's not like they saw resurrections all the time!

The times of ignorance, God overlooked. Now He commands all people everywhere to repent because He has fixed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by the man He has appointed and given assurance to all in raising Him from the dead.

The Resurrection is the final apologetic. Is time for us to believe. God commands us to believe! He doesn't invite. He commands. The proof is given: BY RAISING HIM FROM THE DEAD!

Well, you may say, I wasn't there, so I can't holler glory. Send Christ back and show death and resurrection again.

No, Christ did it once for all.

God is going to judge us by this one act.

We don't believe in the Resurrection because the grimness of the alternative, but because of the testimony of its reality in Scripture.

Be unmovable, abounding in the Lord, because our work is not in vain!

GOD RAISED CHRIST FROM THE DEAD.

HALLELUJAH!!!

(Halleluhah Chorus)

Ligonier Conference: Entry #12

2007-03-17T10:37:00.001-04:00

Questions and Answers
Saturday, March 17
9:40 a.m.

INCOMPLETE NOTES (I'm going to try to keep up.) I hope I've recorded the basic ideas of the responses without misrepresenting them... - JR

Panel: Ravi Zacharias, Al Mohler, R.C. Sproul

Many Questions about the Origin of Evil and God's Role in It:

How is it possible to say that God is responsible for evil but not guilty for it?

RC: References Joseph's quote. "You meant it for evil, God meant it for good." When evil comes, it is truly evil. But when God decrees it, it is good that it occurs. This means it is good that evil exists, or it wouldn't be here. Evil is evil, but it is good that it is here, or God wouldn't ordain it. That isn't difficult! (Laughter).

Mohler: Rather than seeing God as essentially good. We abstract goodness and then measure God against it. But we don't know what good is. God defines what is good. Our human abstraction does not. We must have an eschatological view of this as well. J.M. Boice, "God's judgment in the end will be so absolutely perfect that the damned will agree with their damnation." We are dependent upon the eyes of faith on this. We cannot defend God against a human abstraction of good. His will is consistent with his character.

Ravi: The whole anti-theistic moving ties themselves into knots on this issue. We kick God out of Christmas and then the tsunami hits, and we wonder where God was. You cannot deny absolutes without smuggling it in the back door.

Is Evolution Compatible with Scripture?

RC: Distinguish between micro and macro evolution. Nobody denies micro. But macro evolution is a philosophical view. It is not compatible with the Bible, and it is not compatible with science. RC asked students why they believed in evolution.

They said "Science." But what is it that persuaded you?

"Well... all living things are made of the same base materials. Common substance=Common Source."

No other arguments were given. Finally, it came out: "That's what I was taught in my high school biology class."

The question of the origin of life is not by analysis a biological question. It is a historical question.

Mohler: The dominant model is naturalism/materialism. Let's remember that Darwin did not invent evolution. Darwin's grandfather was a notorious evolutionist. But evolution is really absolute naturalism. Evolution is not compatible with Christianity.

Ravi: You're right. Your right. The irony of this is to risk being a an outcast in academia. Liberalism is the most bigoted philosophy around today. Some Congressman took issue with Ravi on this. "If you truly are a liberal, tell me why when the conservatives were in control, students were taught the counter-perspective." This is not so today.

Ravi's friend did a dissertation on the Trinity, but the tribunal rejected it for publication because it was not gender-sensitive--referring to God in the masculine. When Oscar Wilde was dying, he asked for a minister. This stuff is not published.

The emperor has no clothes.

Mohler: ID is not the Christian doctrine of creation. The establishment should not be upset about ID, but as "fundamentalists," they cannot handle it.

Why Did the Bible Say the Spirit Hovered Over the Waters if they weren't made yet. And who did Cain marry? (An 8 year-old asks....)

RC: Cain married his sister. But the geneologies did not list women because they were not gender-sensitive. The prohibitions against consanguinity were not immediately given. They came in later.

The reason why the Bible talks about the "hovering" over the waters was that Moses went to sleep and forgot..... (Laughter).

The "deep" refers to abyss--the empty darkness. The Spirit hovered over it. The water was not the oceans and rivers and streams.

Ravi: The water was there but not separated. God separated water already there. Whoever you are as an eight-year-old, write to us. We want you on our team quickly.

Why Do Reformed Folks Seem So Gruff and All-Knowing? Is it possible that you may be wrong in your doctrinal positions.... (Laughter)

RC: Ravi might be. You might be wrong, Al. For me it is a manifest impossibility. (Laughter)

Mohler: The four of us are going to disagree on things, although we believe in the law of non-contradition. When I face judgment, I will no longer see through a glass darkly. We're embryonic compared to what we'll know and see in heaven.

RC: How can you be a Christian or a reputable scholar and not be aware that you might be wrong. By the way, our certainty level is not constant. Some we hold with great certainty.... Others not. Write down the 10 things you know for sure. On my list would be my certainty that God hates abortion... Regeneration must precede faith... Now I could be wrong. A high level of certainty does not prove....

Moderator: BIble-believing Christians are the last group who can have an honest disagreement.

Mohler: One thing we as friends up here is to check with in another. Some things I had to be corrected about such as complemetarianism of men and women against egalitarianism.

When Did Post-Modernism Start and By Whom?

Mohler: Before long, people are going to call Plato the first post-modernist! This is difficult to clarify. In our culture, it rose after WW2.

RC: It comes from the serpent in the garden.

Ravi: I think the word was first used by Toynbee (spelling?) in 1941.

What Are Diagnostic Symptoms of PM?

Mohler: The truth issue. This is the central issue. Truth is absolute and unchanging and language is capable of expressing it. Post-modernists deny this.

RC: And that's the collision course with the New Testament. The NT teaches there is a "real state of affairs."

What Are Your Thoughts on the Emerging Church?

Mohler: It can mean many different things: from merely a "mood" to the embrace of post-modernism. They react to the "overly cognitive." I would give strong warning, but the emergent brand is the hard-line form represented by Brian McLaren. He's right up front with rejecting law of non-contradiction and embracing relativism. The website named "The Ooze" is emergent. We need to be very careful about this because today's liberals were evangelicals yesterday. If you get the truth question wrong, you'll be abberant in the life of your church and personal walk with God. This is a new form of liberalism.

RC: This makes you wonder about the question, "Can you be wrong?" In Post-modernism, there is no category for right and wrong. And Post-mondernists are uncomfortable with a creedal posture. They have a built-in allergy to this.

Ravi: Vance Havner, "When the tide is low, every shrimp has its own puddle." This is one of those puddles. These men and women---are they bored with God? What brought this methodology into a theology? When you write a book called, "The Secret Message of Jesus?" You've discovered it after 2000 years? The problem is that non-critical people are absorbing this stuff. Just what does McLaren believe? He's always postulating doctrine against doctrine.

RC: This appeals to people who don't like doctrinal complexity and difficulties. If we disagree doctrinally, that 's a bad thing. But truth is too important to kill it in the streets for the sake of peace.

Mohler: In Time Magazine, McLaren was asked about his stance on homosexuality. He said something like, "I don't want to answer that because it will offend something..." This is an abdication of Christian responsibility and courage.

What About Seeker Sensitive Movement?

RC: It is a very, very bad thing. A fundamental error: Unbelievers outside the church are desperately seeking for God. And the error of thinking that the purpose of corporate worship on Sunday morning is for evangelism. (More...) Fundamentally, Sunday morning is for believers to gather to worship, learn, take the Lord's Supper. Our primary concern should be "What pleases God?" Not "What pleases the unbeliever."

Mohler: The language of this issue is dated. But the logic is not. Here's the logic: If you scratch where people itch, they'll be more open to the gospel. You'll earn their trust because you've met their needs and will be trusted for the Gospel. But this doesn't work. And we never get to preaching the gospel.

RC: "It is a strategy for unbelief." (Talks about Luther's concern for people being addicted to relics--like the pants of Joseph. What people are looking for is power. in the relics. Our relic is the "program.") The power is in the Word! If you want a power in your church, be an expository preacher. Preach the Word! (Applause)

Dr. Zacharias, Could You Share Your Experiences at the Mormon Temple?

Ravi: It was a tough invitation. When I heard from the Mormon offices, I wondered what this was about. I wanted a face to face conversation about this. I said, "Why are you asking me to do this?" "We respect you?..."

I wondered, "Am I going to be used here?"

I considered it under 1 condition: I select the subject: The exclusivity and sufficiency of Jesus Christ. And then 2nd condition, "I bring my own music---like Michael Card."

Then all of a sudden, the attacks started coming. Now I said, "I'm going to get shot at from the back!" I can only fight on one front at a time--was going to decline the invitation. But then I got letters from Dobson and Colson: "Don't turn this invitation down!"

Ravi's wife did not send the letter of declination!

RC: Is your wife my wife's sister? (Laugther)

Ravi: Others said "Go! Go!" 7000 people in the tabernacle. I got the whole hour. Faculty from Brigham Young was there. (Ravi describes the day...) The man who brought the World-Wide Church of God was there.... (He was used to bring the church into orthodoxy...)

Some marvelous responses! Go rzim.org and order the CD. Michael Card sang "I'm Not Supposed to Be Here."

Bloggers got busy... I just didn't read them. I'll go speak to any group that challenges orthodox Christianty.

Was the Catholic Church Ever the True Church?

RC: I assume you mean the Roman Catholic church... I would say so.... I think for many years the Catholic church was heroic in its defense of the truth...

Mohler: Institutionally, the difference between the visible and invisible church has always been an issue. God has always had his people... Not all Southern Baptists are Christians... But there are a lot of Christians who aren't Baptists. There are many who are not in "Evangelical" institutions who are Christians...

You can't look backwards and not be grateful for Nicea and elsewhere...

Ravi: If the Pope were married, he'd know he's not infallible.... (Quoting someone else. Laughter...)

Where Does One Start with Evangelizing a Muslim?

Ravi: Tough question.... My answer may be a bit controversial. Basically, the Muslim denies everything the Christian cherishes at the root. Let me tell you how God is scaling the wall here... (Story: Call Me Joshua, in Iraqi army. I was taught to kill without feeling and make false passports. I dreamed that Jesus was calling me to himself. His mother said, "Don't tell your brothers. They'll kill you." For 7 years, he had the same dream night after night. He's in seminary and planning to go back to Iraq.

God is working in those lands. What is reaching them is the love of God. The more you focus on the single distinctive between Allah and God, the more effective you can be: The Love of God!

The muslims view the cross as a losing symbol--how can God be beaten up? (Illustration: Little Boy Bullying Joe Lewis.) But we must show that the cross is the love of God.

Avoid criticizing Mohammed. That will come later. Focus on Christ.

How Can Martyrdom Authenticate the Word of God?

Mohler: It's not martyrdom in itself. Christianity centers on the fact that they were willing to be killed for Christ. They believed he was risen. The point was that lives were so transformed, it shows the power of the message.

The Resurrection was seen and testified to by witnesses! It encourages people not to fear death. Many differences between Christian and Muslim martyrdom.

Christian's must be willing to die for the faith, not kill for it.

Martyrdom is not the first proof. It is listed as the last.

RC: Ben Laden died, went to heaven. Was punched out by Washington and Lincoln... Spat upon by Patrick Henry. Ben Laden asked "What's this all about?" Peter told him, "It's 72 Virginians..." (Laughter)

Ligonier Conference: Entry #11

2007-03-17T09:25:00.000-04:00

March 17, Saturday
8:30 a.m.

Al Mohler addresses "The Holy Spirit and Apogetics"

Where else would you want to be on bright Saturday morning?

Parable of the Sower in Matthew 13:1-17

Why are those who believe and those who do not? A constant question.

Introductory Comments:

1. The world thinks we're nuts for being here this morning. They have no understanding for thousands to meet together on a day like this.

2. The church has always had a problem with the "crowd." There are many Christian crowds who think they are Christian churches. We have problems distinguishing between the crowd and the church.

3. The disciples had a problem with the question of why others don't believe. And they asked, "Why do you preach in parables?" But it really isn't a question. The disciples are confused about what Jesus is doing with parables.

Here is one of the largest crowds gathered together, and Jesus uses parables to speak to them! The disciples are ready to launch the crusade! This is amazing! And then, when they think that Jesus is about to announce the inauguration of the kingdom, He stands up and tells a story: hard ground, stony ground, shallow ground, and good ground. He who has ears to hear, let him hear. "You can go home now."

This perplexes the disciples! Why (in the world!) did you speak in parables?

Jesus says that it is not granted to them to understand. "You know the Bible. You should see in this the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy in chapter 6. We love the part where we see the holy God, the conversion of Isaiah, and the calling. But we struggle with the truth that Israel will keep hearing and perceiving, but they will not understand or see. They will not turn to be healed!

Why are there some who respond to the gospel in faith and are transformed, while others hear the very same words (with the same intellectual capacities) but do not hear or understand.

But if we understand what it takes for people to come to Christ in faith, we will not be surprised.

This is not a new problem. It is as old as the Christian church. Augustine addressed the issue: Why is it that two people hear: one despises and the other rises up. Only God knows. It is not to the credit of the one who believes, but it is to the judgment of the one who disbelieves.

It deals with the noetic effects of the Fall--the effects on the mind.

The Effects of the Fall are Many:
1. Death
2. Groaning of the Cosmos
3. Our inability to know the things of God. This is a deeply spiritual epistemological process.

Why do so many refuse to put the spiritual spectacles on? Why do they prefer the scattered bits of knowledge and idols? Because our crisis is deeper than we knew. We are entirely dependent upon the Holy Spirit.

See John 14:26ff.
We should expect this reliance upon the Holy Spirit. He will teach and bring to remembrance all of what Christ said. The Holy Spirit will teach us all things!

"Word" and "Spirit" are always conjoined. THe problem is not with the revealed Word. The problem is with the heart of man.

In this promise in John 14, we anticipate the writing of the Holy Scriptures.

John 16:5-15 The Holy Spirit is noted by the important title "Helper." He will convict the world of sin and righteousness and judgment. How else will the convicting take place? It is clear that this passage addresses the life of the church. In verse 13, the Spirit is known as the spirit of truth! He will no speak of his own initiative. We cannot sever the Holy Spirit from Scripture!

It is interesting how little material concerning the Holy Spirit is in the New Testament, but when we see that He comes to glorify Christ, we can understand this.

For the human life to be transformed, the Holy Spirit must do His work.

Trinitarianism is essential to Christianity. All the historic branches of Chrsitianity understand this, but so many evangelicals today do not.

1 Corinthians 2:1ff: Paul did not use rhetoric to preach the gospel. He came in weakness and in fear and trembling! He did not use persuasive words of men. He came to preach with a demonstration of the Spirit and power.

The Spirit came so we might know the things given to us by God, but the natural man does not receive these things. This is a humbling teaching of the New Testament. The only reason we see and hear what others do not is the sovereign grace of God. This grace was expressed in the work of the Holy Spirit: the internal testimony of the Holy Spriit.

This is not a form of enthusiasm where the Spriit comes to speak apart from Scripture, but to point our minds to the Scripture.

Saving faith (fiducia) comes from the Spirit. As lost men, we can know a great deal! We can make, organize, perceive, and observe many things! The unregenerate can grasp truths in Scripture and understand the facts of the gospel. But this is not fiducia.

The Holy Spirit does not open our hearts and eyes so we can embrace the irrational. No, he works so we can embrace what is plainly there! This is an important point. The spirit does not move us to believe against the evidence but to surrender to the evidence that is there.

We are not here because we escaped the effects of the Fall on our own! No, we see because the Holy Spirit caused us to see.

Why Are There People Who Know So Much Yet Know So Little!!!! Many believe in a creator! For example, the Intelligent Design movement. People can see that there is a creation, but this is not enough. Only the Spirit can show us God in Christ, God's church, and the Gospel itself.

Our reliance upon the Holy Spirit in life and apologetics is absolute.

It is by grace that we believe. It is an insult to grace to believe that people could come to Christ apart from the Spirit. His work is more comprehensive than we will ever understand.

In all His work, He points to Christ.

Think Particularly on the Union Between the Word and the Spirit. (Calvin)

We must read and hearken to Scripture to receive anything from the Spirit. - Calvin.
You want to be rescued from the chaos in contemporary evangelicalism? Understand that the Spirit and the Word are in union! The Word is the instrument that the Spirit is dispensed to believers.

The word becomes efficacious for our faith through the Holy Spirit. The mind is dull. WIthout the illumination of the Spirit, the Word can do nothing.

Implications of the Holy Spirit Work:

1. The Reality of the Outward and the INward Calling. The outward, public declaration of the gospel. When we converse with the lost, we are giving the outward call. Martin Luther (a seminary "president'). Many of Luther's students were enthusiastic and tearing out private mass alters from homes. Luther told them, you can tear down all the alters you want, but people will fall back and build them back. You must simply preach the word! Don't waste time tearing down alters! We have to let the Word do this thing! It is the only thing that can effect change.

Our job is to get the word from our mouth to people's ears. But only the Spirit can take the Word from their ears to their hearts!

Today, we have no clear outward call to the gospel. This is absolutely required, but it is not enough. Only the Spirit can reach where we cannot reach.

2. Our Absolute Dependence on the Spirit for Evangelism and Apologetics. We are not left without the Helper! Jesus said it was better for Him to go so the Spirit can come! Only He can break through the noetic effects of the Fall.

3. We must be clear about the nature of faith that saves. It includes a framework of true propositions. We must have more than assent. We must have faith (fiducia). It is a firm and certain knowledge that God has been good toward us in the freely given Christ, revealed to our minds and sealed to our hearts where these truths are confirmed within us through the Holy Spirit (Calvin).

4. Our knowledge of God's absolute sovereignty in the salvation of sinners. How do we explain why some believe and others do not? Why don't we understand that this is not merely a matter of the human will? Because it is all of grace. In John 6, people left Christ because they could not handle this truth. This (John 6) ought to the most humbling text to us. Without God's grace, we would

5. The Necessity and Utility of Expository Preaching. The Bible says, "Preach the Word!" The Holy Spirit uses this preaching to convict sinners and call them to Christ. Our job is to get God's word from our mouth to their ears. Only God can get the Word from their ears to their hearts. The disciples assumed that the Matthew 13 crowd assembled because they wanted Christ. But there were a variety of motives for their coming--only some wanted to know Christ.

6. The Law of the Ear: Those who hear get more. Those who do not hear lose what they have. The one who rejects the word ends up with nothing! This is why Christ spoke in parables. Those who hear to not perceive. The disciples did not believe because they were smarter than the rest! They were not "so spiritually sensitive." No the disciples of Jesus were not smarter or more sensitive. They were not the seekers. They were the sought.

We know so much more about the physiology of hearing (Mohler impressively and quickly describes the physical process of hearing---audience claps. "And I have no idea what I've just said!). We can know the auditory process and know nothing about the Gospel. There are those who have never heard (the deaf), but they hear the gospel clearly. There are those born blind but can see Christ.

Blessed are your eyes that see and your ears that hear!

Praise be to God.

Ligonier Conference: Entry #10

2007-03-16T20:26:00.000-04:00

Friday, March 16
3:35 p.m.

Al Mohler addresses "The Authority of Scripture"

Ok. So now I'm beginning to experience a brain melt-down. The all-night drive from East Tennessee, sleeping in an odorous hotel room (not the best accommodations in Orlando I'm sure...), and drinking from the theological fire hose (and enjoying it...) are beginning to catch up with me.

I was taking pretty good notes on Mohler's message, but I realized toward the end that my hand-writing was beginning to look like scribbles falling off the edge of the page. So-- here is a stream-lined notation.
-----------------------------------------------
Ice-Breaker: Sometimes the media just ask stupid questions. You can dance around some stupid questions and dress up others--but then the quintessentially stupid question is hard to respond to. When, at the age of 33, Mohler became president of Southern Seminary, a reporter asked, "Dr. Mohler, you are 33 years old. What are you going to do about it?" Mohler's only response was "I intend to age."

Text: 2 Timothy 3:14-17

Epistemology is the study of how we know everything. It seeks to explain the process, possibilities, and products of knowledge. And some issues are epistemologically complex. The more important the question, the higher are the epistemological stakes.

The issues of germs, global warming, and God's existence are all epistemological issues.

Every world-view must answer 4 basic questions:

1. When did everything begin?
2. What has gone wrong?
3. Can it be fixed?
4. When will it end (eschatology)

Marxism, humanism, naturalistic scientism, and eastern philosophies address these 4 questions one way or another.

We as Christians are inheritors of a world-view that answers the questions with beauty, symmetry, coherency, and correspondence to reality.

The image of God in us is expressed epistemologically. Animals do not ponder the 4 questions. When we go to the zoo, we read a humanly written guide to the animals--not a guide written by animals about humans!

Romans 1 reveals that the knowledge of God exists in our hearts, but we have corrupted that knowledge. Indeed, mankind has a quest for God, an impulse to worship, but it is corrupted and leads to idolatry. Our idols today are very sophisticated (many of them are digital), but they still have the stench of death around them.

No. As Francis Schaeffer has written, He is There and He is Not Silent. God has not left us alone in our epistemological crisis. And His revelation is not merely found in our intuition, ideas, concepts, or vague awareness. God has revealed Himself in WORDS.

Contrary to postmodernism, the "text" is not dead. We don't live that way in the real world. What is written actually reveals at the same time as it limits.

The God of the Bible is a speaking god. He intervenes and speaks. And, as Carl Henry mentioned, He "forfeited his own personal right to privacy so His creatures might know Him."

God's self-disclosure is a manifestation of God's grace.
God's self-disclosure is the inscripturated word.

The Bible is our access to the revelation of God in Christ. It is even better than the eye-witness testimony the apostles enjoyed themselves! Christianity is the only world-view with a complete account of revelation.

The Bible calls us to a Christological interpretation of the Old Testament. It is also profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training.

(Begin the Blogger's Brain Melt-Down...)

When we discuss the Bible, we mean the 66 books of the canon. And we are positive about this canon and negative about every other claimant to revelation (i.e. Koran or the Book of Mormon).

The 66 books did not come from one man, but many. It came over many centuries--verified by the generation that received it! It is written in differing circumstances, styles, and genres, yet it all coheres and corresponds to reality.

It makes historical claims at the time that the recipients would have known about. Again, it was verifiable by those who received it.

It is preserved by God through successive generations. It is a book of antiquity.

The more textual history is known, the more the Bible is confirmed.

Archaeological discoveries continue to confirm Scripture. Example: While excavating for a new airport, remnants of Molech worship were discovered: remains of human sacrifice of children under the age of two. In the past, skeptics said there never was Molech worhip. Such talk was merely Jewish propaganda against the Canaanites.

Predictive Prophecy also shows the supernatural truthfulness of Scripture.

SO: When Scripture Speaks, God Speaks.

This philosophy/truth is immediately a limiting factor! We must limit ourselves to the Scriptures of God--or we will be "seeking uncertain deities by devious paths (Calvin)."

God's Word reveals and limits at the same time.

Calvin's Proofs of Scripture Are:

1. Content.
2. Antiquity.
3. Miracles.
4. Prophecy Fulfilled.
5. Preservation.
6. Martyrdom: People have given their lives in loyalty to the truthfulness of Scripture and the truth of Scripture.

Other signs of the Bible Authority are consistency, coherence, candor (it shows the heros of the Bible with their flaws...), the Focus on Christ, and the display of Promise and Fulfillment.

Sola Scriptura!
Norma Normons Non Normata!

-------------------------------------------------

The End.
My Brain is Dead.
See You Tomorrow. - JR.

Ligonier Conference: Entry #9

2007-03-16T19:39:00.000-04:00

Friday, March 16
2:30 p.m.

Ravi Zacharias addressed "The Existence of God."

R.C. Sproul introduced Ravi Zacharias as someone who does not sit in an ivory tower simply talking about apologetics. He practices apologetics in the most hostile of atmospheres. Sproul mentioned that Zacharias has a "rapier intellect," and he uses it with "a singular grace." "His person is as much an apologetic as his message..."

A very good introduction.

Here are the notes:

1. Philosophical Problems Arise from Denying God's Existence. Nietzsche (1844-1900) popularized the phrase "God is Dead." And he tried to live out his nihilism consistently. Nietzsche understood the consequences of denying God. He wrote the Parable of the Madman (which you can read here.)

If God is dead, then we have to redefine everything.

We have intense problems with defining morality. How can we make any moral pronouncements if there is no God? But the problem of evil is something that people use to deny God's existence. However, the existence of evil must presuppose the existence of good. And "good" must be defined by an objective standard--a moral law. And if there is a moral law, there must be a moral law-giver.

"Pure practical reason....will not lead you to morality..."

We have intense problems with positing any meaning.

We have intense problems with having any hope. Ravi mentioned that one Iraqi pastor he recently talked to was almost blown-up in a terrorist's bomb. Ravi asked him if what America did in invading Iraq was right. The pastor responded that before America came, we live with constant pain. Now we live with pain--but we have some hope. People need some hope! Atheism has no hope to offer.

2. We Should Demonstrate the Existence of God. The following points come from Dallas Willard:

Stage 1 Nothing in the physical universe has its ground for existence within itself. We must have a self-existent cause which is not physical. (My notes do not treat Ravi's message fairly. - JR)
Stage 2 The Argument TO Design. Evolution is not an explanation for ultimate origins. What caused the Big Bang? The Big Bang didn't evolve!

Lee Strobel asked his son what is the difference between a philosopher and a large pizza? Answer: A Large Pizza Can Feed a Family of Four. :) :)

But we must consider the philosophical issues!

When Francis Collins looked at the human genome--our DNA, he said, "I felt like I was looking at the book of life."

Stage 3 The Course of Human Events (Historical, Social, and Personal) demonstrates the existence of God.

How do you explain history if there is no God? (Ravi then discusses John Frames response to Antony Flew's Parable of the Gardener.)

Why Does the Gardener (Christ) Reveal God?

1. He Describes the Human Condition Accurately. Just as He knew the Woman at the Well, He knows every human heart. No other religious figure can do this like Christ.

2. The Coalescing of Absolutes Is Found in Christ. Evil, Justice, Love, and Forgiveness are absolutes and they are fully displayed in the crucifixion of Christ! The Cross was the true Cosmic Drama.

3. He Discloses Reality: You came to the conference because you want to go deep. There is sublimity and the simple. Christ addresses Nicodemus and the Child. The sublime and the simple interact with each other in Christ. Such as:

The Trinity: The Trinity is the only possible answer to the old problem of the "One and the Many." The world is an expression of unity and diversity. And the effect must reside in the cause. If unity and diversity are in the effect of creation, they must exist in the cause of creation--God.

The Resurrection of the Body In God the physical and the spiritual are brought together in a sacredness. We must respect the human body as well as the human mind/soul.

Ravi then finishes with a quote from Reagan: "Serve the atheist a fine dinner and ask him if he believes in a cook"

Ligonier Conference: Entry #8

2007-03-16T19:07:00.001-04:00

Friday, March 16
11:30 a.m.

John MacArthur addresses the "Problem of Evil."

The problem of evil is one of the major justifications people have for rejecting the Christian faith.

Not only does evil exist, massive evil exists, indeed dominant evil exists.

So here's the problem:

1. If the Biblical God is Loving...
2. If the Biblical God is Good...
3. If the Biblical God is Holy...
4. If the Biblical God is All-Powerful...

Yet evil exists....
THEREFORE: The Biblical God Must Not Exist.

Liberalism tries to "rescue" God from the "charicature" of Him that is found in Scripture. God is not really God, but He is now a symbol around which we structure our ethical principles.

So, is the Bible believer--in football parlance--on 4th down with 40 to go? Is punting the only option in the face of such strong opposition? Is there no 90 yard touch-down pass we can use to win the game?

Yes--we have a BIG PLAY to use to "win the game." And the answer is found in the Bible. It is something we can indeed know.

There are short-sighted answers to this problem--such as saying:

1. God is not responsible for evil. Adam and Eve are.
2. God is not responsible for evil. Lucifer is.

But these short-sighted answers only back the question up a step. Why did God create if he what Lucifer, Adam, and Eve would do?

No. The simple fact is that sin started in heaven. We find our way back to God with this issue, and you have to build your answer to evil upon God Himself.

That's why we have to call our answer theodicy. How can we count God as "righteous" in the face of His responsibility for evil?

Here's what we know:

1. Evil Exists: This is axiomatic--self-evident (unless your a Christian Science kook...) No. Evil is a metaphysical fact.

There is natural evil: This is impersonal and external to ourselves. For example: tsunamis, viruses, volcanoes.... We live in a fallen creation susceptible to physical corruption.

There is moral evil: This personal and internal to who we are. We are susceptible to an unceasing lust that conceives sin and brings forth death.

There is supernatural evil: This is demonic. It is led by Lucifer. These are spiritual beings that are as old as creation. They are wicked, skilled, and have delegated, temporal sovereignty in the world system. They are temporal but formidable. They work to exacerbate the moral evil already inherent to human beings.

There is eternal evil: It is exists eternally in hell. Hell is without God, without righteousness, and without holiness. It is where God is not.

Evil in all its manifestations is a MASSIVE REALITY.

2. God Exists: This is the God of the Bible. He is the all-powerful, all-knowing, good, loving, and sovereign God. And His sovereignty is absolute, infinite, and irresistable. (1 Chron. 29:11-12, Psalm 115:3, Dan. 4:35, Deut. 32:39, Psalm 105:16, 2 Kings 17:25, Lam. 3:37-38).

God drowned the entire human race, minus 8.
God takes full responsibility for everything--including evil. He is not asking to be delivered from the Biblical caricature. He is the only potentate.

But God made all things knowing that sin and evil will come. He is not conflicted or duplicitous about this fact. He is unequivocating, fixed, and unchanging.

God laid the foundations of the world exactly how He wanted them, and evil does not disturb His plan at all.

So: Evil exists. God exists. This is manifestly so...

3. God Wills Evil to Exist: There is no other possible option to this. God wills evil to exist without being evil Himself. Now this is where Arminians become apoplectic. Their eyes roll back and become sweaty. Panic sets in. So they have to reinvent God with a revisionist hermeneutic.

For example: Some deny God's power. Or, some say God simply does not use His power in order to preserver the higher good of free will. Others deny God's knowledge and fall into process theology and/or open theism. (God is really trying to do better, folks...)

All of these "revisions" lack a God-centered view of reality.

Some a give a metaphysical theodicy--a dualism that is clearly unbiblical.
Others use an autonomous theodicy where evil comes from the abuse of free-will. Here, free-will trumps evil in God's value scheme.

But God Ordained Evil. He did not create it. He ordained it.

Why? To display (to DEMONSTRATE) His glory:

His Glorious Wrath: Romans 3:5, "But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unjust who inflicts wrath?"

His Glorious Love: Romans 5:8 "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us."

His Glorious Wrath and Mercy: Romans 9:22-23 "What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory..."

God has the right to display all His attributes for all of eternity.

This is why evil exists.

Ligonier Conference: Entry #7

2007-03-16T18:24:00.000-04:00

Friday, March 16
8:30 a.m.

A late start (this is a euphemism...) and the absence of parking (this is an excuse...) made me miss the first half of the first session this morning by John MacArthur.

This session dealt with The Challenge of Science.

I will have to send anyone who may still read this blog to Tim Challies' post about this session. Tim Challies is also here blogging about the conference.

Ligonier Conference: Entry #6

2007-03-16T18:16:00.000-04:00

John Piper on "Faith and Reason"
Thursday, March 15, 8:45 p.m.

John Piper brought this message just less than a week after the passing of his father. I was glad to be able to hear him preach tonight, although I did not really expect him to be at the conference.

One thing I've learned quickly about John Piper (this is the first time I've heard him preach in person...) is that he knows exactly what he wants to accomplish each time he enters the pulpit. This helps the audience learn because everything is so clear.

Tonight, Piper wanted to discuss Reason, Faith, and the Relationship Between the Two.

Here is the text (duplicated with their permission):
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Our theme is faith and reason. We’ll begin with reflections on reason and then on faith and then on the relationship between the two in the awakening of saving faith.

Reflection on Reason

Let’s begin our reflection on reason by looking at Matthew 16:1-4.

And the Pharisees and Sadducees came, and to test him they asked him to show them a sign from heaven [in other words, some evidence that would help them believe]. He answered them, “When it is evening, you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.’ And in the morning, ‘It will be stormy today, for the sky is red and threatening.’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times. An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah.” So he left them and departed.

When I was in seminary, there was much talk about Hellenistic thinking versus Hebraic thinking. An example of Hellenistic (or Greek) thinking would be Aristotelian logic, which has the syllogism at its foundation: “All men are mortal; Plato is a man; therefore, Plato is mortal.”1 The point of this distinction between Hebraic and Hellenistic was that the Bible tends to be Hebraic, but we tend to be the heirs of Hellenistic thinking. So if one uses Aristotelian logic in understanding the Scriptures, one is presumably historically uninformed. The Bible does not have its roots in linear, Aristotelian (sometimes called “western”) logic, they said, but in relational, experiential knowledge.

I always thought those distinctions were misleading and unhelpful. This text is one of the reasons I wasn’t impressed with those distinctions. It is a great philosophical gift to grow up in a Bible-saturated home. One is spared many wasted years of dead-end detours.

What is Jesus saying to these Pharisees and Sadducees? He says in verse 2, “When it is evening, you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.’” What does that mean? It means that these Hebraic Pharisees and Sadducees are thinking in Aristotelian syllogisms. Premise #1: Red skies in the evening portend fair weather. Premise #2: This evening the skies are red. Conclusion from these two premises: The weather will be fair.

And again in verse 3a: “And in the morning, ‘It will be stormy today, for the sky is red and threatening.” Again they are thinking in an Aristotelian syllogism. Premise #1: Red skies in the morning portend stormy weather. Premise #2: This morning the skies are red. Conclusion from these two premises: The weather will be stormy.

Jesus responded to this use of observation and reasoning in verse 3b: “You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky.” In other words, you know how to use your eyes and your minds to draw right conclusions when it comes to the natural world. In other words, he approves of their use of empirical observation and rational deliberation. In fact, it’s precisely this approval that makes the following disapproval valid. He says in verse 3c, “But you cannot interpret the signs of the times.” And when he says, “You cannot,” he does not mean you don’t have the sensory and rational capacities to do what needs to be done. He just showed them that they do in fact have the sensory and rational capacities to do what needs to be done. They are very adept at observation and deliberation when it comes to getting along in this world.

Why then can’t they use those same faculties to interpret the signs of the times? The answer is given in verse 4: “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah.” What does this mean? What does being adulterous have to do with their inability to use their eyes and their minds to interpret the signs—that is, to recognize Jesus for who he is?

Jesus described himself elsewhere as the bridegroom (Matthew 9:15; 25:1ff.) who has come into the world to obtain his bride—his chosen people. But the people who thought they were the people of God were by and large unwilling to have him as their husband. He was not what they expected, and they did not want to be his people or his bride (see Luke 14:18-20). They were, in that sense, adulterous. Their hearts went after other spouses—other gods, other treasures (see Luke 16:14; Matthew 6:5).

This is why the Pharisees are asking for a sign when they have all the signs they need. They are asking for a sign to give the impression that there is not enough evidence that Jesus is the Messiah and so they are justified not to receive him, when the problem is really a spirit of adultery. They don’t want this bridegroom. They prefer another. But Jesus’ response is to show them that they have all the signs they need and they are perfectly able to use their senses and their minds to make valid judgments when they are trying to draw valid inferences about what they want. The explanation of their skepticism about Jesus’ is not lack of evidence or lack of rational powers. The explanation is: They are adulterous. They don’t want Jesus as their bridegroom. Their heart is evil, and their evil hearts disorder their rational powers and make them morally incapable of reasoning rightly about Jesus.

This is what Paul said in Ephesians 4:18 about fallen man in general: “They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart.” In other words, at the bottom of human irrationality and spiritual ignorance is hardness of heart. That is, our self-centered hearts distort our reason to the point where we cannot use it to draw true inferences from what is really there. If we don’t want God to be God, our sensory faculties and our rational faculties will not be able to infer that he is God.

In 2 Corinthians 3:14, Paul says the mind is “hardened” (epōrōthē). In 1 Timothy 6:5, he calls the mind “depraved” (diephtharmenōn). And in Romans 1:21, he says that thinking has become “futile” (emaraiōthēsan) and “darkened” (eskotisthē) and “foolish” (asunetos) because men “by their unrighteousness suppress the truth” (Romans 1:18). In other words, unrighteousness disorders the capacity to see the truth. The corruption of our hearts is the root of our irrationality.

We are an adulterous generation. We love man-centered error more than Christ-exalting truth, and our rational powers are taken captive to serve this adulterous love. This is what Jesus exposed when he said, “You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times.” In other words, your mind functions just fine when seeking out a partner in adultery, but it cannot see the signs of Christ-exalting truth.

Nevertheless, the New Testament speaks of the use of our minds everywhere in the process of Christian conversion and growth and obedience. For example, at lease ten times in the book of Acts, Luke says that Paul’s strategy was to “reason” with people in his effort to convert them and build them up (Acts 17:2, 4, 17; 18:4, 19; 19:8, 9; 20:7, 9; 24:25). And Paul said to the Corinthians that he would rather speak five words with his mind to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue (1 Corinthians 14:19). He said to the Ephesians, “When you read this, you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ” (Ephesians 3:4). In other words, engaging the mind in the highly intellectual task of reading and construing Paul’s language is a pathway into the mystery God has given him to reveal.

And perhaps most helpful of all is the word to Timothy about the relationship of reason and divine illumination. In 2 Timothy 2:7, he says, “Think over what I say, for the Lord will give you understanding in everything.” So many people swerve off the road to one side of this verse or the other. Some stress “think over what I say.” They emphasize the indispensable role of reason and thinking. And they often minimize the supernatural role of God in making the mind able to see and embrace the truth. Others stress the second half of the verse: “And the Lord will give you understanding in everything.” They emphasize the futility of reason without God’s illumining work. “The Lord will give you understanding.”

But Paul will not be divided this way. He says: not either-or, but both-and. “Think over what I say, for the Lord will give you understanding in everything.” The willingness of God to give us understanding is the ground of our thinking, not the substitute for our thinking. “Think over what I say, for the Lord will give you understanding.” There is no reason to think that a person who thinks without prayerful trust in God’s gift of understanding will get it. And there is no reason to think that a person who waits for God’s gift of understanding without thinking about his word will get it either.

Paul commands us to think about what he says. Use your mind. Engage your reasoning powers when you hear the word of God. Jesus warned what happens if we don’t and what blessing may come if we do. In the parable of the soils, he said concerning the seed sown on the path: “When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart.” Understanding with the mind is not optional. Our lives hang on it. And concerning the seed sown on good soil, he says, “This is the one who hears the word and understands it. He indeed bears fruit and yields, in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty” (Matthew 13:23).

It is true that, as Paul says in Romans 10:17, “Faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.” But Jesus says that hearing without understanding produces nothing. When we hear the word of God, Paul says, we must “think over” what we hear. Otherwise, we will fall under the indictment of Jesus: “Hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand” (Matthew 13:13).

So, even though our natural minds are depraved and darkened and foolish, nevertheless, the New Testament demands that we use them in coming to faith and leading people to faith and in the process of Christian growth and obedience. There is no way to awaken faith or strengthen faith that evades right thinking.

Before we ponder how that can be, in view of how corrupt we are, we turn briefly from the focus on reason to consider the nature of faith.

The Nature of Faith

The only kind of faith that matters in the end is saving faith—the faith that unites us to Christ so that his righteousness is counted as ours in justification, and his power flows into us for sanctification. In other words, I am not interested in faith in general—the faith of other religions that is not faith in Christ, or the faith of science in the validity of its first principles, or the faith of children in their parents, or any other kind of faith that is not in Christ. I am only interested in the faith that obtains eternal life. The faith that saves. The faith that justifies (Romans 3:28; Galatians 2:16) and sanctifies (Acts 26:18; 1 Peter 4:11).

To get at the nature of that faith, it is helpful to ponder why faith alone justifies. Why not love, or some other virtuous disposition? Here’s the way J. Gresham Machen answers this question in his 1925 book, What Is Faith?

The true reason why faith is given such an exclusive place by the New Testament, so far as the attainment of salvation is concerned, over against love and over against everything else in man . . . is that faith means receiving something, not doing something or even being something. To say, therefore, that our faith saves us means that we do not save ourselves even in slightest measure, but that God saves us.2

In other words, we are justified by faith alone, and not by love, because God intends to make it crystal clear that he does the decisive saving outside of us and that the person and work of Christ are the sole ground of our acceptance with God. A hundred years earlier Andrew Fuller (the main rope-holder for William Carey in England) gave the same explanation.
Thus it is that justification is ascribed to faith, because it is by faith that we receive Christ; and thus it is by faith only, and not by any other grace. Faith is peculiarly a receiving grace which none other is. Were we said to be justified by repentance, by love, or by any other grace, it would convey to us the idea of something good in us being the consideration on which the blessing was bestowed; but justification by faith conveys no such idea.3

So, what sets faith apart from other graces and virtues is that it is “a peculiarly receiving grace.” That’s why Paul says in Ephesians 2:8, “By grace you have been saved through faith.” Grace from God correlates with faith in us. And the reason is that grace is God’s free giving and faith is our helpless receiving. When God justifies us by faith alone, he has respect not to faith as virtue but faith as a receiving of Christ. So it is the same as saying that not our virtue but Christ’s virtue is the ground of our justification.

Now the key question is: What does faith receive in order to be justifying faith? The answer, of course, is that faith receives Jesus Christ. “Believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31). “To all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God” (John 1:12). Faith saves because it receives Christ.

But we must make clear what this actually means, because there are so many people who say they have received Christ and believed on Christ, who give little or no evidence that they are spiritually alive. They are unresponsive to the spiritual beauty of Jesus. They are unmoved by the glory of Christ. They don’t have the spirit of the apostle Paul when he said, “I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ” (Philippians 3:8). This is not their spirit, yet they say they have received Christ.

One way to describe this problem is to say that when these people “receive Christ,” they do not receive him as supremely valuable. They receive him simply as sin-forgiver (because they love being guilt-free), and as rescuer-from-hell (because they love being pain-free), and as healer (because they love being disease-free), and as protector (because they love being safe), and as prosperity-giver (because they love being wealthy), and as Creator (because they want a personal universe), and as Lord of history (because they want order and purpose); but they don’t receive him as supremely and personally valuable for who he is. They don’t receive him as he really is—more glorious, more beautiful, more wonderful, more satisfying, than everything else in the universe. They don’t prize him or treasure him or cherish him or delight in him.

Or to say it another way, they “receive Christ” in a way that requires no change in human nature. You don’t have to be born again to love being guilt-free and pain-free and disease-free and safe and wealthy. All natural men without any spiritual life love these things. But to embrace Jesus as your supreme treasure requires a new nature. No one does this naturally. You must be born again (John 3:3). You must be a new creation in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17; Galatians 6:15). You must be made spiritually alive (Ephesians 2:1-4).

Therefore, saving faith is a receiving of Christ for who he really is and what he really is, namely, more glorious, more wonderful, more satisfying, and therefore more valuable than anything thing in the universe. Saving faith says, “I receive you as my Savior, my Lord, my supreme Treasure; and I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord.” Which is why Jesus said, “Therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:33). And again, “Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me” (Matthew 10:37). And again, “The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up. Then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field” (Matthew 13:44).

The infinite glory of Jesus makes him infinitely valuable and infinitely satisfying. Saving faith receives this Christ. Not that we experience the fullness of joy now, or the climax of satisfaction in this life, but we taste it (Psalm 34:8) and we know where it is found (John 6:35) and we “press on to make it [our] own, because Christ Jesus has made [us] his own” (Philippians 3:12).

The Relationship Between Faith and Reason

Which brings us now to the relationship between faith and reason as we have described them here. What we have seen concerning the nature of saving faith determines what will be a sufficient and reasonable ground for such faith. Saving faith cannot rest only on the ground of raw facts—facts like Christ lived a perfect life, and Jesus is the Messiah, and Christ died for sinners, and Christ is God, and Christ rose from the dead. The devil believes all those facts.

The nature of saving faith demands more than facts as a ground—not less, but more. We have seen that saving faith is not the mere receiving of facts. It is the receiving of Christ as infinitely glorious, and wondrously beautiful, and supremely valuable. Therefore, the ground of such faith must be the spiritual sight of such glory and beauty and value. This sight is not separate from the narration of historical gospel facts. We must tell the old, old story. But the sight of Christ’s divine glory in the gospel is not identical with seeing the facts of the gospel. Therefore, human reason—the use of the mind to explain and defend the facts of the gospel—plays an indispensable, but not the decisive, role in the awakening and establishing of saving faith. We must tell the story and get the gospel facts and the doctrine right. But the decisive ground of saving faith is the glory of Christ seen in the gospel.

Here is the key biblical text to make the point I am making:

The god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. 6 For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. (2 Corinthians 4:4-6)

Six Observations

Consider six observations from this text.

1. The Glory of Christ Is Seen in the Gospel

Verse 4 says that the gospel is the “gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” This is what must be seen for saving faith to respond to the gospel and receive Christ for who he really is—infinitely glorious. Jonathan Edwards commented on this text to the same effect. He said, “Nothing can be more evident, than that a saving belief of the gospel is here spoken of . . . as arising from the mind’s being enlightened to behold the divine glory of the things it exhibits.”4 In other words, the ground of saving faith is the glory of Christ seen in the gospel.

2. The Glory of Christ Is Really There

This divine glory is really and objectively there in the gospel. Otherwise, Paul would not speak of the god of this world blinding the minds of unbelievers. If something is not really there, you don’t need to be blind to miss it. But if it is really there, you must be blind to miss it. Therefore, the “light of the gospel of the glory of Christ” is really there. It is a self-authenticating divine glory. Jonathan Edwards calls it an “ineffable, distinguishing, evidential excellency in the gospel.”5
3. Seeing the Glory of Christ Is From the Holy Spirit

Verse 5 makes plain that the sight of this “distinguishing, evidential excellency”—the glory of Christ in the gospel—is not seen in a vision or a dream or a whispered word from the Holy Spirit. It is seen in the biblical story of Christ as the inspired apostle preaches the gospel of Christ. Verse 5: “What we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus; sake.” Here is the place of reason. Paul uses his mind to proclaim and explain and defend and confirm the facts of the gospel. He argues that Jesus is the Christ and that he rose from the dead and that he died for our sins. He does the sort of thing we read in the book of Romans and Galatians and Ephesians and Colossians. He reasons with facts and arguments and sets Christ forth. Therefore, we know that the sight of the self-authenticating glory of Christ is not separate from the rational presentation and demonstration of the truth of the gospel. That is indispensable.

4. Reason Is Not the Decisive Ground of Saving Faith

But this indispensable use of reason in proclaiming the gospel is not the decisive and unshakable ground of saving faith. That ground is the “light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” And seeing this unshakably compelling and authentic light is a gift of God. This is the point of verse 6: “God, who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.”

In verse 4, we could not see this “light of the gospel of the glory of Christ who is the image of God” because we were blinded by the god of this world. No amount of reasoning or historical argument could produce spiritual sight in the blind. Nevertheless, the rational proclamation of the gospel in verse 5 is indispensable.

But now the decisive change happens in verse 6. God, who speaks and causes light to happen, opens our blind eyes, and amazingly the gospel of Christ crucified and risen (and rationally set forth in preaching and teaching) is now radiant with “ineffable, distinguishing, evidential excellency”—with the glory of God in the face of Christ. The glory of Christ seen in the gospel is the decisive ground of saving faith6 because saving faith is the receiving of Christ as infinitely glorious and supremely valuable. It cannot be grounded on anything less.

5. Saving Faith Is Reasonable

This ground of faith is a reasonable ground and the conviction that flows from it is a reasonable conviction. It goes beyond what mere reasoning upon the facts can produce, but it is itself reasonable. Jonathan Edwards explains, “By a reasonable conviction, I mean, a conviction founded on real evidence, or upon that which is a good reason, or just ground of conviction.”7 Nothing is more reasonable than that saving faith, as the receiving of Christ as infinitely glorious, must be grounded on the spiritual sight of his divine glory.8

6. This Is the Only Path to Spiritual Certainty

The reason this understanding of the relationship between faith and reason is so important is that the great mass of ordinary people (and I count myself in this number) cannot come to an unshakable conviction about the truth of Christianity any other way. If our only confidence rests on rational historical argumentation, we will only know probabilities, but no spiritual certainty. But the apostle John said, “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life” (1 John 5:13).

Jonathan Edwards had a brilliant mind. No one could out argue Edwards. But what drove at this point on the relationship between faith and reason was his burden for the Houssatunnuck Indians. And what should burden us on this issue is not only how to commend and defend Christianity to intellectuals, but how to proclaim it among a thousand unreached peoples around the world who cannot wait for generations of education. This is what drove Edwards and what drives me on this issue:
Unless men may come to a reasonable, solid persuasion and conviction of the truth of the gospel, by the internal evidences of it . . . by a sight of its glory; it is impossible that those who are illiterate, and unacquainted with history, should have any thorough and effectual conviction of it at all. They may without this, see a great deal of probability of it; it may be reasonable for them to give much credit to what learned men and historians tell them. . . . But to have a conviction, so clear, and evident, and assuring, as to be sufficient to induce them, with boldness to sell all, confidently and fearlessly to run the venture of the loss of all things, and of enduring the most exquisite and long continued torments, and to trample the world under foot, and count all things but dung for Christ, the evidence they can have from history, cannot be sufficient.9

But this is why I have come. I only want to produce that kind of Christian. Fearless, venturing the loss of everything, ready to endure the worst hardships for Christ, trampling the devil underfoot, counting everything dung for Christ’s sake, and when death comes in this cause calling it gain.

So yes, we must use our minds. We must exercise our reason in the proclamation and explanation and confirmation of the gospel. We must contend for the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3). We must be ready, like Paul, to go to prison “for the defense and confirmation of the gospel” (Philippians 1:7).

That is indispensable. But as we use all our renewed mental powers for Christ, we must pray with Paul that the Holy Spirit would attend the preaching of the gospel and that the God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” would shine in the hearts of our hearers to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” Only when that happens will true Christians be created who say, “I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord.”
-------------------------------------------
1 In his Prior Analytics Aristotle defines syllogism as: “A discourse in which, certain things having been supposed, something different from the things supposed results of necessity because these things are so.” (24b, 18–20).

2 J. Gresham Machen, What Is Faith? (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1991, orig. 1925), p. 173, emphasis added.

3 Andrew Fuller, The Complete Works of Reverend Andrew Fuller, vol. I, Joseph Belcher, (Harrisonburg, Virginia: Sprinkle Publications, 1988), p. 281. “By faith we receive the benefit; but the benefit arises not from faith, but from Christ. Hence the same thing which is described in some places to faith, is in others ascribed to the obedience, death, and resurrection of Christ.” p. 282.

4 Jonathan Edwards, Treatise Concerning the Religious Affections, ed. by John E. Smith, in The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Vol. 2, (New Haven, Yale University Press, 1959), p. 298.

5Religious Affections, p. 300.

6 “Thus a soul may have a kind of intuitive knowledge of the divinity of the things exhibited in the gospel; not that he judges the doctrines of the gospel to be from God, without any argument or deduction at all; but it is without any long chain of arguments; the argument is but one, and the evidence direct; the mind ascends to the truth of the gospel but by one step, and that is its divine glory.” Religious Affections, pp. 298-299.

7 Religious Affections, p. 295.

8 “There is no spiritual conviction of the judgment, but what arises from an apprehension of the spiritual beauty and glory of divine things.” Religious Affections, p. 307.

9 Religious Affections, p. 303. “Miserable is the condition of the Houssatunnuck Indians, and others, who have lately manifested a desire to be instructed in Christianity, if they can come at no evidence of the truth of Christianity, sufficient to induce them to sell all for Christ, in any other way but this.” p. 304

© Desiring God
Permissions: You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in any format provided that you do not alter the wording in any way, you do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction, and you do not make more than 1,000 physical copies. For web posting, a link to this document on our website is preferred. Any exceptions to the above must be explicitly approved by Desiring God.
Please include the following statement on any distributed copy: By John Piper. © Desiring God. Website: www.desiringGod.org. Email: mail@desiringGod.org. Toll Free: 1.888.346.4700.
--------------------------------

The Text and Audio of the message is posted here.

Ligonier Conference: Entry #5

2007-03-16T11:30:00.000-04:00

R.C. Sproul on "The Task of Apologetics"
Thursday, March 15, 7:00 p.m.

This was a lecture rather than an exegesis.

Text: Exodus 4:1-12 and Moses' Question to God: "Suppose They Will Not Believe Me?"

Moses had two major apologetical tasks:
1. Get an Appointment with Pharaoh and Declare: "Let My People Go."
2. Convince the Hebrews that God Spoke to Him and that They Should Follow in an Exodus.

God gave two signs to Moses, but the miracles were not to prove God's existence. They were validate Moses as an agent of of God's revelation. God is presupposed in Moses' interaction with Pharoah and the Hebrews.

Sproul then addresses Paul's apologetic at Mar's Hill and Justin Martyr's apologetic to Antoninus Pius. They both clarified and then defended the Christian faith.

In every generation, the Faith must be defended. For example, Aquinas defended against Muslims who were integral Aristotelians who said "what is true in faith is not true in reason." (A contemporary falsehood still!)

Sproul then addressed the nature of saving faith in three parts:

1. Notae: The Data of Christianity. This is the content. The Kerygma. Therefore, we do not affirm faith in anything. The message of Christianity must be clear. The issue is "faith in what?"

2. Assensus: Intellectual assent to the truthfulness of the content (notae). We assent to certain propositions. The difference between faith and credulity is found in this category. We are not asked to believe or assent to absurdities. The will is useless here. We are not taking a "leap of faith" against our minds. If one does, he is on the way to schizophrenia!

3. Fiducia: This is the personal trust in Christ. This is the transaction where one trusts his eternal soul to the Christ.

Apologetics applies to Notae and Assensus, but it cannot compel Fidcuia. Apologetics does not prove the "sweetness" of Christ.

So pre-evangelism is clarifying data, giving rational answers for assent, and getting out of the way for "fiducia."

Calvin distinguished between Proof and Persuasion. You can give a compelling proof and still have people not persuaded by it. For example, the more proof Christ gave of Himself, the more people hated Him! "Arguments are sufficient to objectively prove the case, but God the Holy Spirit must pierce the heart."

So we don't leap over the evidence. We surrender to the truth.

The most valuable role of apologetics is to build up the Church. Moses was an apologist to his own people.

We must unmask the false ideas of our culture and defend the "two towers of Christianity's truth claims:" The Existence of God and the Authority of the Bible.

So get 'er done!

Ligonier Conference: Entry #4

2007-03-16T10:42:00.000-04:00

I just heard one of the most important messages against relativism I've ever heard. John Piper preached on Matthew 21:23-27 where the chief priests and elders acted as de facto relativists in response to Christ's question about John the Baptist's ministry.

This message is going to posted in its entirety at Desiring God, so I will not post the fullness of my notes. But I do want to say that everyone needs to hear and meditate on this message. This post skips the order of preaching in the conference schedule, but I wanted to highlight these thoughts now while they're fresh in my mind.

Here is the basic outline of Piper's message:

Relativism is:

1. "There is No Objective Standard of Truth."
2. OR, "You cannot know an Objective Standard of Truth."
3. OR, "You cannot know what the Objective Standard of Truth Means."
4. OR, "I Don't Care If the Standard is There or What it Says."

The chief priests and elders were concerned to protect themselves from shame and harm, so they bent their view of truth.

Relativism:

1. Commits Treason Against God.

2. Cultivates Duplicity.

3. Conceals Doctrinal Defection: Language no longer is a hand-maiden of truth. It becomes a power-broker.

4. Cloaks Greed with Flattery.

5. Cloaks Pride with the Guise of Humility: I believe this section of the message is one of the most important points. It must be absorbed by the church and re-articulated to the world.

6. Enslaves People.

7. Leads to Brutal Totalitarianism: When everyone does what is right in their own eyes, anarchy is the result. The only two responses to anarchy are moral revival or dictatorship. The latter is what is developing in our world.

Again, the entire text of this message will be posted soon at Desiring God.

Get it.

Ligonier Conference: Entry #3

2007-03-15T22:19:00.000-04:00

Ever took a drink from the the forceful waters of the Niagra Falls?

Welcome to the theologically flowing force of a Ligonier Conference.

Tonight we heard from R.C. Sproul and John Piper--separated by a paper on "Why Should We Read the Puritans?"

Excellent stuff.

Here is a summary of R.C. Sproul, Jr.'s discussion from this afternoon on "Post-modernism and Christianity."

Text: Genesis 3:1-10

THE SERPENT IS CRAFTY:

Satan's philosophies are not necessarily to keep the lost lost. They are to keep the church confused, distracted, and ineffective. Just as the serpent spiritually attacked the 1st Adam's wife, he now assaults the 2nd Adam's (Christ's) bride--and he is very crafty. He has seduced the church to fight modernism while embracing a more subtle philosophy: post-modernism

Many times, the newest, cleanest buildings in rural America is the building for the Board of Education (or such...). Education is the great sacrament of our secular religion. But man can never return to Eden by this way.

Yet many times, the church believes that the lost merely need better spiritual education--arguments--in order to get to God.

According to Romans 1:

1. Man Rejects God.
2. Man is Given to a Depraved Mind.
3. Man then constructs his world-view to rationalize and justify sin.

"We do not construct a world-view and then fall into sin." We align ourselves against God and construct our world-views accordingly. Therefore, education is not the decisive need. "Smart" is not listed among the fruit of the Spirit.

The Bible calls us to wisdom, not to world-views.

In Modernism, we have distorted view of certainty.
In Post-Modernism, we have a pile of uncertainty.

And we can become post-modern to fight modernism. As a result the church loses its boldness.

One fallacy of post-modernism is that it equates uncertainty with humility. But how can we be humble when we say that We Create Our Own Reality? Is it not more humble to acknowledge that there is truth we can know and submit ourselves to?

No, we must speak truth.

Note: When Peter preaches the Gospel in Acts, he speaks historically. He does not rely on mere personal testimony. He is telling The Story---not just his story....

THE SERPENT PERSEVERES:

We Bible believers can triumphalistically rejoice in the demise of classic, liberal churches; however, the threat has moved into "evangelicalism." We are tainted with post-modern thinking.

Also, we should not fight post-modernism with modernism.

Eve did not need a graduate degree in philosophy to ward of Satan. All she needed to do was to believe God.

The underlying problem of modernism and post-modernism is one: Neither believe God.

Let's believe God.

Ligonier Conference: Entry #2

2007-03-15T18:35:00.000-04:00

Al Mohler brought the second message of the pre-conference schedule.

Concerning post-modernism, Mohler acknowledged what everyone knows: seismic shifts are rocking our culture, yet postmodernism can be hard to define.

Postmodernism is:

1. A Desconstruction of Truth: If truth is a socially constructed grasp for power, then liberty is found in "deconstructing" any truth claim. The result is that truth must be viewed as relative.

2. The Death of the Meta-Narrative: Only "oppressors" use a meta-narrative, an over-arching story that seeks to "explain" reality. Both marxists and Christians use meta-narrative to explain where we came from, why we have the problems we do, and where history is going.

3. The Denial of the Objective Text: The author's intended meaning is lost to any text. Meaning no longer resides in the text; it resides in the reader. So.... deconstruction is also applied to any text.

This kind of attitude is also present in many home Bible studies. Folks gather to study the Bible, and--almost inevitably--the host asks, "Bill what does the text mean to you? Christians should be asking, "What does the text mean?" Not "What does the text mean to me.

4. The Dominion of Therapy: If truth is gone, the only question left to ask is, "What makes me feel good?" Hence the endless therapeutic search. The thought is "Everyon is either in therapy or in denial."

5. The Decline of Authority: All authority is to be rejected in texts, authors, and traditions. This is exemplified in the treatment of texts like the U.S. Constitution. There is not inherent authority in the text. The authority is in the reader of the text.

6. The Displacement of Morality: If deconstruction is successful, we are left with almost total anarchy. Postmodernists will indeed use the language of morality, but it is always the language of liberation from truth claims masking a grasp for power. The demand-to-transgress is embedded right here. The only way to show the truth-claims of morality to be false to to transgress them.

Good News: Hard-line post-modernism is mostly in the Academy.

Bad News: Post-modernism is filtering down into society through art, theatre, cinema, photography, music, literature--and even architecture. The goal of post-modernism in "the arts" is often to be shocking and subversive.

But this cannot be consistently applied. People may want a post-modern architect, but not a post-modern engineer. Nobody wants a post-modernist banker or cardiologist.

Our job as Christians is to subvert subversion.

Ligonier Conference: Entry #1

2007-03-15T14:58:00.000-04:00

This is the first conference I've attempted to blog--and we are asked not to tax the bandwidth for those viewing the conference with live-streaming. So I ask veteran conference-bloggers to be gracious.

--------------------------------------------------
In the first two sessions Ravi Zacharias spoke on "Postmodernism and Philosophy," and Al Mohler addressed "Postmodernism and Society."

Both sessions lasted about 45 minutes and were very insightful.

Zacharias: Postmdernism and Philosophy

Ravi mentioned that "Everyone's worldview changes dramatically 30 minutes after lunch (a G.K. Chesterton reference...)," but he held everyone's attention in his usual manner. Here is a summary of his main points:

Postmodernism is an important issue. We need to obtain more than a surface understanding. Last year, he spoke at John Hopkin's on the topic What Does It Mean to Be Human?" "Here we are in 2006, and we still don't know what it means to be human!"

Postmodernism Rose Well Before 1989. The subversive seeds were sown decades before, but the philosophy gained contemporary currency as early as the 1970's. The results of this philosophy spurred Malcom Muggeridge to say that it appears that 20th century man has decided to abolish himself.

Postmodernism has its roots in Genesis 3 where Satan asked Eve, "Yea, hath God said..." The meaning of words and language is subverted allowing Eve to claim her autonomy.

Here are the major tenets of post-modernism:

1. There is No Objective Reference for Words: The ground underneath language is constantly shifting. There is a "limitless instability of words."

2. There Are No Indubitable Laws of Logic: The 4 Basic Laws of Logic (Identity, Non-Contradiction, Excluded Middle, and Rational Inference) are denied.

Ravi mentioned that when he got saved in the 1960's, people would ask him for "reasons" to believe. But now nobody cares. "Reason" is abandoned. "When we beat them at their own game, they change the rules."

3. There Are No Boundaries for Meaning: This is an extremely sad point for those who have lived out the philosophy of post-modernism. The leaders of this philosophy betray a lost and misplaced outlet for their genius.

4. There Is No Meta-Narrative: Our lives are reduced to little stories detached from the over-arching story of meaning. It can be a blessing to know your family tree, your family history--a sense of family connection. But, as a society, we are a people who have lost any sense of where we came from and where are going.

The bottom line is that post-modernism is bad news. As Christians, we must stay with the Word of God and reason.

My notes from Al Mohler are upcoming....

Modern Fascism, by Gene Edward Veith, Jr.

2007-02-06T14:21:00.000-05:00

I just finished reading an important book entitled Modern Fascism by Gene Edward Veith, Jr.

The author follows the history of ideas that led to the rise of Hitler and the atrocities of the Holocaust. These ideas have not exited the world stage, and they are closer to home than we might like to admit.

We must know what fascism is so that we can recognize it when we see it. This will mean undoing certain misconceptions. Fascism is not conservativism. It is not the "right" wing" as opposite of the "left wing." Such simplistic definitions and neat dichotomies may carry some truth, but they hide more than they reveal. Specifically, they hide the moderness of fascism, its appeal to progressives and the avant-guard. Fascism has always been on the cutting edge. p. 13.

As this is a book recommendation--not a review, I won't spend much time delving into Veith's thesis. But I do want to say that pastors, teachers, and youth workers should read this book with pen in hand.

Fascism denies objective morality, obtains its own view of knowledge, descends into group-think and race-based perspectives, affects the arts, and promotes "image" over "word."

These are all realms that ministry must speak to--opposing fascist thought by consistent, Biblical thinking, preaching, and acting.

Veith discusses the concordance post-modernism can have with fascism. His discussion will move the savvy reader to think about current issues of post-modernity in ministry and music.

The reader will also gain insight into the absurd, twisted, "alternative-universe" thinking that labels Christianity as fascist and Nazi.

Get the book.

Read it.

Larry Mize Shares the Gospel

2007-01-23T13:40:00.000-05:00

Last night, I went to Wallace Memorial Baptist Church in Knoxville to hear Larry Mize give his testimony about his experience in the PGA and his relationship with Christ.

He did not present himself as a high-and-mighty success story but was very down to earth. His authenticity was refreshing. He briefly told his life story--weaving the themes of Christ, family, and golf together in one presentation.

He said that Christ was his source of satisfaction, security, and significance.

At one point, he mentioned that we (Christians) are all in the land of the dying going to the land of the living--not the other way around. I liked that.

The evening was a good time of bar-b-que, fellowship, and and encouraging Gospel presentation.

What Does Nativity Mean?

2006-11-30T10:15:00.001-05:00

Of course nativity speaks of birth. But “The
Nativity” speaks of Christ’s birth. What does
Christ’s birth mean for us?

Christ was born of a virgin. He was the
“seed of the woman” promised in the beginning of
the Old Testament (Genesis 3:15)

Christ was (and is) God-become-Man.
“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among
us.” (John 1:14). God took on a human body, a
human soul, a human mind. As a child, He
learned and grew. As a man, He felt temptation
and weakness (hunger, thirst, exhaustion). He also
suffered and died--all without sin or hint of failure.

This Christ can bring a person back to
God. One man said, “God treated Christ as
though Christ lived my life, so that He could treat
me as though I lived Christ’s life.” This exchange
is declared by God when the sinner puts faith--and
faith alone--in the God-Man: Jesus Christ.

This is part of what “Nativity” means.

DO CHRISTIANS EVER DOUBT?

2006-11-20T13:22:00.000-05:00

Yes, Christians can struggle with doubts about Christianity. Near the end of his life, John the Baptist, one who believed in Christ had to ask Jesus, “Are you the Coming One, or do we look for another?” Jesus simply encouraged John.

Doubt is a part of being human.

C.S. Lewis said:

“Now that I am a Christian I do have moods in which the whole thing looks very improbable: but when I was an atheist I had moods in which Christianity looked terribly probable. This rebellion of your moods against your real self is going to come anyway. This is why Faith is such a necessary virtue: unless you teach your moods “where they get off,” you can never be either a sound Christian or even a sound atheist, but just a creature dithering to and fro, with its beliefs really dependent on the weather and the state of its digestion.”*

Be encouraged. Search for truth. Christ is well able to help us see Him for who He is.

*C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York; Macmillan, 1960), pp. 123-124.

Why Does God Seem to Hide?

2006-11-09T10:58:00.000-05:00

Some folks don’t believe in God because He
seems to be “hidden.” “Where is He?” they ask.
“If God exists, why doesn’t He come down and
say something?”

But this is exactly what the New Testament
says has happened! God came into human
history and spoke. God, the Son, walked among
human beings revealing to us what God is like.
Yet--even then--Christ spoke in parables. These
stories accomplished two purposes:

1. To reveal His message to willing listeners.
2. To conceal it from the unwilling. (Matthew 13:10-15).

The evidence for God’s existence does not
grab us by the back of the neck and shake us. But
God has given plenty of evidence in nature and a
storehouse of truth in Scripture to make our belief
rational. God is not hiding. He’s looking for willing
eyes and ears.

If we humble our hearts and seek
Him, we can find Him.

Can the Material Universe Tell Us Something of God?

2006-10-11T12:22:00.000-04:00

Point #1

I often hear that science--systematic observation of the material universe--can tell us nothing about God. "If you ask science anything about God, you are asking the wrong question." This philosophy reinforces the "impenetrable" wall between faith and and science.

Some who desire a negative philosophy of God like to lay claim to all proper belief about and use of science. The skeptics are the "scientific" ones. The believers are irrational faith-leapers.

But are not the skeptics just as philosophical in their metaphysics as a Christian? What science is there that justifies a belief in multiple universes, confidence in human intuition, or the proposition that we must "save the human race from self-destruction?"

Where is the science that lays out such philosophies and metaphysical beliefs in terms of physics, etc.?

I don't believe there is any. A belief in multiple universes, the reliability of human intuition as a basis for ethics and moral realism, philosophical naturalism, or the obligation to distribute wealth fairly comes from philosophical conclusions held with confidence. Some would call philosophical conclusions held with confidence the same thing as faith.

So the philosophical naturalist and the theist are both believers--apart from science.

Point #2

Here's something from the Apostle Paul:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools...Romans 1:18-22

Ever since the beginning of the world, God has made manifest--within mankind--knowledge about two of His invisible qualities--and He uses the material universe to do it. The universe can tell us basically two things about God:

1. He is All-Powerful.
2. He is Divine (Worthy of Worship).

That's it. It is not everything, but it is a starting point.

So I look around the best I can and compare notes with Paul. I listen to others. I see nothing irrational about believing the universe had a beginning. It appears to be the case. It is also sensible to believe that things that begin have a cause. So the universe had a cause. The cause must be immense. The organization within the universe betrays a personal cause. A personal cause this immense would fall into the category "divine."

I see nothing irrational about this. People may not like it. People may not agree with it.

But those who disagree with me have no grounds for hyperventilating over my conclusions--my agreement with Paul. Their beginning points are just as philosophical as mine. Just as unscientific as mine.

Naturalism is just a philosophy.

I don't see how naturalism is more "rational" than theism--when one strips away emotion, politics, and equivocation in using the word "science."

I'm all for science, but I disagree with philosophical naturalism.

Can we not be civil about the disagreements?

Maybe not.

I suspect the issue isn't over rationality.

Our heated debates appear to be fueled by politics.

Ah! There's the rub.

Out of the Mouth of Babes

2006-09-06T12:32:00.000-04:00

My four year old son recently asked me two profound questions:

1. Do cows lay eggs?
2. Are those buzzards? What makes them buzz?

He does ask some pretty profound questions though. Recently, he asked these two:

1. Why does God hate sin so much?
2. How did God get to be so holy?

The first two questions were easier to answer. The last two took a little more thought. That is why I answered the first two and left the others to his mother :)

Today, my two year old daughter picked up a book and said she was going to preach. Her topic? "Sin and God!"

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. said...

2006-07-24T09:38:00.000-04:00

”Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble. You may kick it about all day, like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."

Our world does kick the truth around. We stretch it, shade it, slice it into halves. But eventually the truth shows us how tough it can be.

Strangely enough, many of our leading thinkers tell us that there is no such thing as truth--that we should deny its existence altogether. But truth continues to show itself stubborn.

The fact is, we live under the reality of truth. Somethings are right. Somethings are wrong. Some things are just true.

Pilate once asked Jesus Christ, “What is truth?” But he did not stay for an answer. If he had, maybe he would have heard Christ repeat Himself: “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.”

Is John Piper the Best Answer to Emergence and Postmodernism?

2006-06-02T11:06:00.000-04:00

This is a meditative post.

I look at where our culture is and is going, and the church's responsibilities in the midst of it--and I wonder: Is John Piper's dedication to God's glory our first, best, and only hope to reach today's world?

As U2 sings, the world--and many Christians--still haven't found what they're looking for.

The world's fatigue with the rationalistic, the foundational, the certain, the modern, and the "religious" (organized) leaves so much to be desired.

It is a world of the mind without the affections.

The blame for all this emptiness is now laid definitively at the feet of conviction, truth, and certitude. The lack of mystery--and hence, the lack of worship--leaves people looking for more and concluding that the journey is more important than the arrival.

Uncertainty is preferred because it still leaves the door open for mystery. And mystery can still inspire the affections--which have been literally starved in (and maybe by) our institutions.

But what if we could have an arrival that is is just as satisfying as a journey? What if we could gain a grasp of truth that does honor the mysterious--that can enrapture the affections, and thus, feed the soul. Would we then really see the problem in terms of "truth"?

What if the whole problem is that we haven't had enough truth? What if our churches have been short-shrifting us? What if we have settled for far too litte?

Enter John Piper.

His book, Desring God, reintroduces something to us today that used to be known by the "ancients:" That God is desirable, infinitely mysterious, resplendent in His beauty, satisfying to the soul, the ultimate source of deeply fulfilling joy--and we can know Him.

In John's words, here is why he wrote Desiring God:

1. It's My Pleasure.
2. God is Breathtaking.
3. The Word of God Commands Us to Pursue Our Joy
4. Affections Are Essential to the Christian Life, Not Optional.
5. Christian Hedonism Combats Pride and Self-Pity
6. Christian Hedonism Promotes Genuine Love for People.
7. Christian Hedonism Glorifies God.

I wanted to zero in on Reason 4 as it applies to "emergence" and our "post-modern" age.

It seems to me that one reason "uncertainty" is now deemed to be a virtue is that it opens the door to the mysterious--which opens another door to a part of our hearts that has been starving. If so, would not a reclaiming of the affections side of life without abandoning the cognitive side be a better answer? Can we not have grace AND truth?

Here's what Piper said:

"It is astonishing to me that so many people try to define true Christianity in terms of decisions and not affections. Not that decisions are unessential. The problem is that they require so little transformation to achieve. They are evidence of no true work of grace in the heart. People can make "decisions" about the truth of God while their hearts are still far from Him."

Norman Geisler, in his systematic theology, points out that the mysteries of God should not lead us to more extensive study but more intensive study. And as soon as the boundaries of orthodoxy are established, the mysteries should lead to more worship--not more scholarship.

Why? Because we have just bumped into God with our minds. The next response is to kneel before Him with our hearts...

...and be filled awe, joy, and woship.

Isn't this what the world is looking for?

Should we not be able to have it all?

Is there an arrival that is as good as--even better than--the journey?

An Anti-God State of Mind

2006-05-02T09:36:00.000-04:00

I am currently preaching through the book of Exodus, and I had to choose my approach concerning the 10 plagues. 10 separate messages did not seem feasible...

A lot of things were happening during the plagues. God was identifying Himself with the Hebrews. He was revealing Himself to the nations. He was displaying His power to the world. He was also preparing a picture of Mercy against the backdrop of Judgment.

But, I chose to look at Pharaoh's heart as Egypt experienced the plagues. Pharaoh's problem was that he had a hard heart against God. He reminded me of the kind of person Paul wrote about in 2 Thessalonians 3:1-2: "Finally brethren, pray for us...that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked me; for not all have faith."

This was not God's "fault." I remember reading years ago that "the same sun that hardens clay, melts wax." The problem is not in the nature of God. It is in the nature of man.

Here are 7 Signs of a Hard Heart:

1. It Trusts in Man: INDEPENDENCE

“Then the magicians of Egypt did so with their enchantments; and Pharoah’s heart grew hard, and he did not heed them, as the Lord had said. And Pharaoh turned and went into his house. Neither was his hear moved by this.” 8:22-24.

If Man can Explain it.
If Man can Achieve it.

Man can Resist it.

2. It Scrambles for Relief: MANIPULATION

“But when Pharoah saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and did not heed them, as the LORD had said.” 8:15

3. It Stands on Its Own: STUBBORNNESS

“Then the magicians said to Pharoah, ‘This is the finger of God.’ But Pharoah’s heart grew hard, and he did not heed them, just as the Lord had said.” 8:18.

4. It Bargains with God: NEGOTIATION

“So Pharoah said, 'I will let you go, that you my sacrifice to the LORD your God in the wilderness; only you shall not go very far away. Intercede for me.'” 8:28

5. It Continues in Sin: RESOLUTION

“And when Pharoah saw that the rain, the hail, and the thunder had ceased, he sinned yet more; and he hardened his heart, he and his servants.” 9:34

6. It Makes False Confessions: ACCOMMODATION

“Then Pharaoh called for Moses and Aaron in haste, and said, 'I have sinned against the LORD your God and against you. Now, therefore, please forgive my sin this once, and entreat the LORD your God, that He may take away from me this death only.'”

7. It Ultimately Suffers Loss: DESTRUCTION

God sent the 10th Plague: Judgment on the Firstborn

The root of this hard heart is PRIDE:

“The essential vice, the utmost evil, is pride. Unchastity, anger, greed, and drunkenness are mere flea biters in comparison. It was through Pride that the Devil became the Devil. Pride leads to every other vice. It is the complete anti-God state of mind... As long as you are proud you cannot know God. A proud man is always looking down on things and people. And, of course, as long as you are looking down, you cannot see something that is above you.” - C.S. Lewis.

How Do We Fight Pride? I have no formula, but here are four suggestions:

1. Put Your Hand Over Your Mouth: Proverbs 30:32, “If you have been foolish in exalting yourself, or if you have devised evil, put your hand on your mouth.”

2. Bend Your Knees: Philippians 2:9-10: “Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth...”

3. Plead for Mercy: Luke 18:9-14 Also He spoke this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: "Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, 'God, I thank You that I am not like other men--extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.' And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise 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, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

4. Wait for God: 1 Peter 5:5b-6: “...and be clothed with humility, for God resists the proud, But gives grace to the humble.” Therefore humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God that He may exalt you in due time.”

The End of Faith: A Short Response

2006-04-25T12:55:00.000-04:00

Through an interesting series of events, I found myself holding a book entitled The End of Faith (New York; W.W. Norton & Company, 2004), written by Sam Harris. The back of the book has endorsements by Alan Dershowitz, Joseph C. Hough, Jr., and Peter Singer.

My first and last "technical" description is”Wow!” Acording to Harris, it seems that I myself, personally, have become an extremely dangerous element in society and should be neutralized--in the realm of influence--as soon as possible.

Reading the book, I felt like a man on a wanted poster (only my mug shot would reveal a wide-eyed soul pointing at himself as if to say, “Who? Me?”) Shucks. I thought I was just living life, paying taxes, loving my wife and kids, recovering from an appendectomy, and enjoying The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe by Disney and Walden Media with pizza from Papa John’s... I had no idea I had been lumped in with the misery of the Black Death, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, September 11, anti-Semitism, and Nazism. No wonder I’m exhausted these days.

So, in the interest of piling on oneself, I’ll take responsibility for slavery, the Batan Death March, the Federal Debt (and Deficit), and the common cold. Whew! I’d say it’s nap time already.

Sam’s book is like drinking from an anti-theism fire hose. His writing is interesting, and I even found myself laughing (not mocking, but laughing) at how he words some things. He anticipates some arguments used by Christian apologists and answers them head-on. (By answering, I do not mean refuting.) At least he has listened--somewhat. I found Sam Harris to be thoughtful (not always, but mostly in Chapter 6) and extremely intelligent.

As a limited response to The End of Faith, I wanted to mention just a few of things.

Mr. Harris portrays faith as holding to a belief without evidence--or even in the face of evidence:

In fact, every religion preaches the truth of propositions for which no evidence is even conceivable. p. 23.

...the truth is that religious faith is simply unjustifed belief in matters of ultimate concern... p. 65.

Credit goes to Christopher Hitchens for distilling, in a single phrace, a principle of discourse that could well arrest our slide toward the abyss: “what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.” Let us pray that billions of us soon agree with him. (p. 176).

The author’s view of faith seems to be simple and total. Faith is an unwarranted belief period. And this applies to all of every different kind of faith.

If Mr. Harris is saying that everything proposed by the evangelical faith is without evidence, I would have to respond as Tom Gilson (see here also) did and ask if he has considered the numerous books for Christian evidences. My impression is that he disregards them wholesale. And I would remind him that simple disregard does not constitute an argument.

I believe that there are evidences for Christianity that have built up a framework of credibility supporting other propositions of the Faith that are not evidenced in a historical or scientific way. Some will simply dismiss me here, but I would point them to the last sentence in the previous paragraph. Yet at the bottom of this Christian, theistic framework is an assumption that our reasoning is valid. Many theists have reasons for what they believe. But these reasons and reasonings will never be “good enough” to someone who has made a prior philosophical commitment to naturalism.

Yet, I may have found some common ground with Mr. Harris in his following paragraph on intuition (the basis of his hope for a science of right and wrong):

...”intuition” is a term that we simply cannot do without, because it denotes the most basic constituent of our faculty of understanding. While this is true in matters of ethics, it is no less true in science. When we can break our knowledge of a thing down no further, the irreducible leap that remains is intuitively taken. The traditional opposition between reason and intuition is a false one: reason is itself intuitive to the core.... One often hears scientists and philosophers concede that something or other is a “brute fact”--that is, one that admits of no reduction. The question of why physical have causes, say, is not one that scientists feel the slightest temptation to ponder. It is just so. To demand an accounting of so basic a fact is like asking how we know that two plus two equals four. Scientists presuppose the validity of such brutishness--as, indeed, they must.

The point, I trust, is obvious: we cannot step out of the darkness without taking a first step. And, reason, without knowing how, understands this axiom if it would understand anything at all.... (p. 183)

In chapter six, Harris proposes that we can avoid the relativism and pragmatism that plague secularism today. He proposes that we develop a science of right and wrong. What is the basis for this science? The intuition described above.

Now this is where I really question Harris. If people of faith are to be dismissed because they hold to propositions without evidence, I have to ask the author, “Where is your evidence to validate such a confidence in intuition?” In the immediate context, he says that intuition has helped mathematicians do their work. But this is a circumstantial, experience-based appeal, is it not? Where are the controlled scientific studies that prove intuition exists, and where are the studies that show its measured reliability? This is an honest question.

My point is that Harris appears to have a strong confidence in the moral reasoning of man based on his intuition. The naturalist, atheist, or strong agnostic may howl at my next point, but I really hope to get a hearing: a strong confidence in a philosophical assumption like “man’s intuition can serve as a basis for a science of right and wrong” is faith.

Yes, it is.

I agree that our world-views have to take a “first step.” But Harris verbally clubs those who take a different first step than he. He’s free to do so, but he is no more free from placing his confidence, his faith, in something than we theists are.

Mr. Harris’s naturalism is a philosophy. Naturalism is simply a belief. And I have yet to be shown that it is inherently better than theism. The hard truth of it all is that naturalists hold to their belief the same way theists hold to theism: with confidence--faith --in a basic starting point.

As an author, Harris is refreshing and perplexing at the same time. I’m glad he sees the futility of relativism and pragmatism. Yet, I am perplexed at his belief that science can discover right and wrong (morality)--given a naturalistic world-view. Its like a sailor who denies the stars--and calls the sky pitch black. The sailor can hang a lantern (intuition) on the mast to replace the stars, but he’d still be as much at drift.

This “science of right and wrong” seems utopian to me. I have no confidence in an optimistic future for moral realism based on naturalism and a faith in man’s intuition. I am not convinced that science can discover morality. As one who also believes in preserving our race, I say we can’t afford to wait for science to discover right and wrong. Indeed, science needs to be guided by ethics now.

Yet, Harris is not all wrong. Despite his thought that theists only find moral maxims in an ancient text, we believe in the conscience. Although it is flawed, it does remind us that we live in a moral universe. Maybe what he calls intuition, we call conscience. The ideas of right and wrong are inside us as well as listed in the despised ancient texts of Scripture. However, I believe the secular intuition has no basis for knowing its own existence or trustworthiness. Why trust the conclusions of a mind kick up into the universe by chance?

It seems to me that much of Harris’s appeal to a naturalistic, rationalistic world-view is based in moral outrage for the past and fear for the future. He lists many historical injustices as evidence of the danger of faith. (He even sweeps the Nazis and the Communists under the rug of faith. Very convenient). He then expresses fear that future injustices based on faith may actually destroy the human race. But what reason does Harris give that preserving the race is good or necessary? And if there is a reason to preserve the race, what scientific, rationalistic evidence is there to back that reason up? Others who hold a common world-view with Harris have concluded that the human race simply isn’t worth much (see this article).

The End of Faith has other problems: The author's generalizing interpretation of history, holding Christianity as inherently anti-Semitic, the thought that one’s faith must put others outside the circle of one's moral concern, etc. But I will leave them for other theists to respond. In fact, our smart people better get to it.

I have googled for Christian responses to this book and have found extremely few. I may be wrong, but if Harris is the philosophical picture of the near future, relativism and pragmatism could become passé. We may be looking at an intolerant, secular moral absolutism that carries an open disgust for all people of every faith.

We need our smart people (I wish I were one...) to get crackin’.

Is Theology Poetry?

2006-03-07T10:48:00.000-05:00

Before turning out the light last night, I read C.S. Lewis's essay entitled "Is Theology Poetry?" An excellent essay on the rationale for theism and Christianity. He discusses the "scientific outlook" which has become naturalism firmly planted on the Grand Evolutionary Myth. Lewis describes the myth as a great Elizabethan tragedy "where the protagonist's [i.e. man's] career can be represented by a slowly ascending and then rapidly falling curve, with its highest point in Act IV." Lewis elsewhere differentiates between the Grand Myth and variations in biology. Anyway, I encourage you to read the selection below and then buy the book from whence it comes:

On these grounds and others like them one is driven to think that whatever else may be true, the popular scientific cosmology at any rate is certainly not. I left that ship not at the call of poetry but because I thought it could not keep afloat. Something like philosophical idealism or Theism must, at the very worst, be less untrue than that. And idealism turned out, when you took it seriously, to be disguised Theism. And once you accepted Theism, you could not ignore the claims of Christ. And when you examined them it appeared to me that you could adopt no middle position. Either He was a lunatic, or God. And He was not a lunatic.

I was taught at school, when I had done a sum, to “prove my answer.” The proof or verification of my Christian answer to the cosmic sum is this. When I accept Theology I may find difficulties, at this point or that, in harmonising it with some particular truths which are imbedded in the mythical cosmology derived from science. But I can get in, or allow for, science as a whole. Granted that Reason is prior to matter and that the light of the primal Reason illuminates finite minds, I can understand how men should come, by observation and inference, to know a lot about the universe they live in. If, on the other hand, I swallow the scientific cosmology as a whole, then not only can I not fit in Christianity, but I cannot even fit in science. If minds are wholly dependent on brains, and brains on biochemistry, and biochemistry (in the long run) on the meaningless flux of the atoms, I cannot understand how the thought of those minds should have any more significance than the sound of the wind in the trees. And this is to me the final test. This is how I distinguish dreaming and waking. When I am awake I can, in some degree, account for and study my dream. The dragon that pursued me last night can be fitted into my waking world. I know that there are such things as dreams; I know that I had eaten an indigestible dinner; I know that a man of my reading might be expected to dream of dragons. But while in the nightmare I could not have fitted in my waking experience. The waking world is judged more real because it can thus contain the dreaming world; the dreaming world is judged less real because it cannot contain the waking one. For the same reason I am certain that in passing from the scientific points of view to the theological, I have passed from dream to waking. Christian theology can fit in science, art, morality, and the sub-Christian religions. The scientific point of view cannot fit in any of these things, not even science itself. I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.

The Weight of Glory: "Is Theology Poetry?"

Essential

2006-01-23T10:19:00.000-05:00

HUMILITY IN THE CHRISTIAN LIFE:

Essential for UNITY.
Essential for REPENTANCE.
Essential for LEARNING.
Essential for LOVE.
Essential for WORSHIP.
Essential for LEADERSHIP.
Essential for FOLLOWERSHIP.
Essential for SERVICE.

Essential to receive God's grace in our lives.

Captured

2006-01-05T10:16:00.000-05:00

I have looked at world religions.
I have studied politics of the age.
I am aware of the culture’s hedonism.
I am sobered by realities of life and death.
I have read writers past and present.
I understand the world’s skepticism.
I hear the world’s anger and distrust.
I desire a day of peace and rest for all.
I believe in political freedom.
I stand for religious liberty.
I have considered the realms of secularism, atheism, and agnosticism.
I wonder at the Problem of Evil and Suffering.
I have studied atheists who have become Christians.
I have seen Christians who are now atheists.
I am not satisfied with pat answers.
I am not eager for foolish hopes.
I admit my own failings.
I do not know all the answers.

Yet, in all these things, I have been captured by Christ.

He engages a man’s reason--and transcends it.
He stokes the flame of faith--and tests it.
He entered man’s suffering--and absorbed it.
He received the world’s guilt--and cancels it.
He experienced death--and conquered it.

He gives clear answers to some.
He speaks obscure statements to others.
He is rejected in all times and all places.
But He will not go away.

There is evidence to support the Faith--though it is not coercive.
There is reason for those who will listen.

He said, “I am the light of the world.”

Christmas, Chick-Fil-A, and Something Lost

2005-12-27T08:39:00.000-05:00

The Christmas season was another great time with family, gifts, and--most of all--thoughts and affections centered on Christ.

Christmas morning, we had our own family gift exchange with the children and the reading of the Luke 2 account of Christ's birth. We then drove over to Ruth's folks for time with extended family. On the way over, I noticed how empty the roads were. Businesses were closed. All was quiet. I saw two other cars on a highway that usually swarms with vehicles.

I liked it.

I like how Christmas pretty much shuts everything down.

Each year I'm reminded that the quietness of Christmas was, for the most part, the way every Sunday was--years ago. I don't remember it in my lifetime, but older folks will tell us that everything pretty much shut down on Sunday.

Because of what such a phenomenon in society would indicate, I find myself wishing for that Sunday quiet again.

I know--and am a defender of--the idea that days are to be regarded by the individual conscience of the believer (Romans 14). But I still have to honor what a business like Chick-Fil-A does each Sunday: Close Up Shop.

Everything changes, people say. But not always for the better. Sometimes good things get lost.

It's Christmas Time in the City or Peace on Earth Goodwill Toward Men

2005-12-22T10:42:00.000-05:00

Took a trip to Knoxville yesterday. The whole city was shot full of people. Traffic was thick. But I've never before seen so much courtesy in a town full of drivers. Several times, people stopped to let me turn into the traffic. Found myself doing the same for others. It was like we had a collective understanding that, "Ok, we're all in this together, so we'll make the best of it." I was really impressed. Good job, Knoxville.

Now, was all this courtesy due to Southern hospitality or was it "Christmastime in the city?" Did the season afford us "peace on earth, good will toward men" at traffic lights?

What did the messengers mean when they first proclaimed, "Peace on Earth, Goodwill Toward Men?"

Well, "Peace on Earth, Goodwill Toward Men" is not the basis of a Coke commercial where we sing together at a candlelight vigil and pause for refreshment and group hugs.

The peace expressed that first Christmas night was God's goodwill toward humanity.

Why would it be so remarkable a statement?

Because men are sinners and rebels against this good, holy God.

God created man to be in perfect fellowship with Him, but we spurned Him and chose our own way. We established hostility toward God in our hearts. And we see it everywhere.

There is much to show that God made obedience easy. He created man without a sinful nature, placed him in an ideal environment, provided for all his temporal needs, endowed him with strong mental powers, gave him work to engage his hands and his mind, provided a life-partner, warned him of the consequences of disobedience, and entered into personal fellowship with him. Surely, God cannot be blamed for man's apostacy. - Henry Theissen.

We are foolish enough, in the midst of all this, to believe that we actually have a case against God. We blame Him. We blame others.

We want to blame crime on poverty. We want to blame child abuse on one's background. We want to blame terrorism on the existence of capitalism and a free society... The list goes on and on... I am not saying that environment has no influence on people, but it is never a root cause. We must take personal ownership of our transgressions, because sin is a willful transgression of the law. We established "enmity" against Him in our hearts.

I cannot place the blame for my particular set of sins on anyone else: It falls to me.

Until a person recognizes that his sin problems are rooted in rebellion for which he or she is morally responsible, there is no hope for that person to be released from his or her bondage. It is a problem between the person and God.

"Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be, So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God." -Romans 8:7

C.S. Lewis put it to a point when he mentioned that man is not simply a weak creature who needs rehabilitation. He is a rebel who must lay down his arms.

The wonderful scandal of it all is that God justifies and forgives rebels--at a high price to Himself: the sending of His Son.

"Peace on earth, goodwill toward men" is not referring to a heart-felt cry for human to human reconciliation, or courteous driving, as nice as those things are.

"Peace on earth, goodwill toward men" is the great truth that God is willing to be reconciled to rebels who have dishonored His glory and had murderous intentions toward their Creator.

Christ Himself is God's goodwill towards men.

Christmas launched the ministry of reconciliation in the life of the Messiah.

Amen.

A Great Article by Janie B. Cheaney

2005-12-12T10:00:00.000-05:00

"Loud shouts and lack of knowledge disfigure today’s attempts at discourse."

I’d like to direct folks to Janie B. Cheaney’s recent article in World Magazine. It is fitting for our day: a time when reasoned discourse is well-nigh impossible. Evoking Plato’s Republic, she likens today’s left wing (and I’m sure she’d include some from the right) as people in the cave with no fire behind them. Everyone’s in the dark screaming over each others’ voices.

Her quotes range from Socrates to Garrison Keillor to Solomon in a very enlightening way.

Check it out Here.

Jean Dublog

2005-12-09T14:12:00.000-05:00

I recently came under the scrutiny of Jean Dublog. He had some fair criticisms of Anvil and Fire. The reason I mention that is to let those who saw it know that I'm linking to him again.

He has a very interesting post about ethics and blogging. I think all the bloggers that come here will find it thought provoking.

I really think we should all read it.

Here it is.

Oh Good Grief...

2005-12-07T09:55:00.000-05:00

By Joe Raedle, Getty Images

This is an ax-grinding post (or chain-saw grinding--depending on how you look at it...) Forgive me in advance. Allow me one rant. (Do we do that in the blogosphere?) I may need one of those indulgences that Steve and Jeremy Weaver got. Some guys have all the luck.
---------------------------------------------------------
I recently read this article on wood burning in USA Today.

I had just spent some time cutting and splitting wood to get ready for winter when I found Traci Watson's piece. I don't have anything against Watson, but I did find myself saying "Good grief! What are they going to regulate next...I can see it coming."

It seems to me that some people (I'm not necessarily referring to the author of the article) who don't have anything better to do simply want to find a hidden crisis in the mundane. Let's see here... how long has mankind been burning wood?

This seems to be the spirit of the day: "Let's find people with initiative (people who get up, go outside, and get what they need for their families...)--and hinder them, blame them, and eventually regulate them. We can't have people just going out and doing stuff, can we? Where will that lead?

I mean, we can't actually have freedom. What will the environmentalists think?

When will it end?

Good grief.

The Twilight of Atheism

2005-12-06T00:28:00.000-05:00

From the Flap: The Twilight of Atheism will unsettle believers and nonbelievers alike. A powerful rebuttal of the philosophy that, for better or for worse, has exerted tremendous influence on Western history, it carries major implications for the future of both religion and unbelief in our society.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Twilight of Atheism ^* is a history of atheism in Western culture. The author concedes that the book could not be an exhaustive study; however, McGrath tries to use “snapshots” in history to give a basic understanding of atheism’s rise.

SUMMARY

Part 1: The High Noon of Atheism

Alister McGrath takes his readers back to the French Revolution of 1789 to start the discussion:

“The French Revolution had shattered the tired old political framework of Europe, sweeping away its outdated, tradition-bound practices and beliefs, and opening the way to a bright new future. A new dawn seemed to be at hand, promising to usher in an era of hope and opportunity (pp. 21-22).”

The beams of a sunrise were rising over a worn-out horizon. The new secularism promised to usher in freedom and peace. In spite of the Revolution’s Reign of Terror, atheism maintained an increasing favor.

McGrath follows this introduction with a discussion of Ludwig Feuerbach, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud and their influence that laid intellectual foundations for atheism in the twentieth century. “A major cultural shift began, in which culture decisively moved its trust from the dogmas of religion to the theories of science. The transition is neatly summarized in the words that Sir Richard Gregory (1864-1952), one of Britain’s leading scientists, proposed as his epitaph:

My grandfather preached the gospel of Christ;
My father preached the gospel of socialism;
I preach the gospel of science (pp. 77-78).”

Hence a warfare between the natural sciences and religion began. In tracing the battlefronts of this war, McGrath writes about the war’s origins. John William Draper’s History of the Conflict between Religion and Science and Andrew Dickson White’s History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom drew the battle lines. “Both works reflect a strongly positivist view of history and a determination to settle old scores with organized religion (p. 85).” The author’s then focuses on the contributions to secularism by William Kingdon Clifford, Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, Richard Dawkins, and Stephen Jay Gould--among others.

McGrath also shows how a dead, dry Protestantism--devoid of imagination--left a vacuum in Europe that fertile, atheistic minds were more than willing to fill. The literary class seized the mood and the moment in Victorian England and elsewhere to paint a picture of atheism’s hope and freedom. The stage was being set for atheistic states to rise to power in the 20th century.

Part 2: Twilight

“By 1970 many had come to the view that religion was on its way out (p. 174).” John Lennon’s song “Imagine” seemed to reflect the spirit of the age. But as the century started to draw to a close, a resurgence of religion once again captivated the minds of millions. McGrath argues that atheism is now experiencing a twilight. It is a force of the past--much like the old political systems before the French Revolution. It is no longer on the cutting edge.

Why?

1. Intellectually, the “philosophical argument about the existence of God has ground to a halt. The matter lies beyond rational proof, and is ultimately a matter of faith... (p. 179).” McGrath tells the reader that belief and disbelief are both positions of faith. The current rational/philosophical fight has both boxers exhausted in their respective corners. Atheists like to assume the intellectual high ground but often ignore the circular reasoning underpinning their positions.

2. Morally, atheists like to blame religion for war and suffering while ignoring atheism’s contributions to the same: “It is only fair to point out that those who planned the Holocaust, and those who slammed shut the doors of the Auschwitz gas chambers, were human beings--precisely those...declared to be the new ‘gods’ of the modern era, free from any divine prohibitions or sanctions, or any fear of future divine judgment (p. 183).” Mankind without any fear of God “has much to answer for--more violence, bloodshed, and oppression than any naive Victorian optimist could ever have imagined (p. 184).”

Atheism, when implemented in the centers of power, did not follow through on its promise of freedom, peace, and hope.

3. It seems that dry, dusty Christianity discovered a sanctified imagination as atheism lost its imaginative appeal. Alister McGrath then turns his reader’s attention to the worldwide movement of Pentecostalism as one example of why atheism is waning. Pentecostalism offers a direct, experiential relationship with God--and it is a global movement. It captures the imaginations and hearts of people. “There is a rebirth of interest in the spiritual (p. 189).”

The author argues that unimaginative Protestantism may have actually helped atheism rise to its “high noon.” However, Christianity has a way of adapting to the “times” without abandoning its core beliefs. This can be very frustrating for atheists who find Christianity to be a moving target.

Finally, McGrath relates that atheism has primarily been a philosophy of modernity. Now that the world is breathing “postmodern” air, atheism is increasingly out of touch. It recedes with all things modern and “totalizing.” In America the movement has atrophied into a squabbling special-interest group vying with everyone else for media time. The shadows are lengthening.

McGrath is quick to point out that atheism is not going to go away. The future is terribly difficult to predict. Conditions, such as a corrupt and powerful Church, can always make atheism attractive. But for now, it looks like atheism has been marginalized.

STRENGTHS

This book is another excellent primer on the historical developments that have produced today’s atheism. McGrath’s bibliography for this work is thorough; however, the book is not a dry academic offering. I found the book to be a fast and interesting read.

The book is not a philosophical banter set about to prove the existence of God. The author stays to his purpose of following atheism’s history. He treats the subject matter fairly. With an honest and authentic tone, McGrath admits his own emergence from atheism to theism. The work may be difficult for an atheist or agnostic to read, but I believe atheists and agnostics will find the author to be a person with whom they can interact.

This book also sets the record straight on a few issues. Two examples follow.

First, McGrath shows that Voltaire was not an avowed atheist, but one who sided with those resisting a corrupt Church:

“Voltaire regarded atheism with about as much enthusiasm as he did the teachings of the Christian church. In the place of both he urged the reconstruction of religion on the basis of the Supreme Being disclosed in nature....[H]e offered a strong defense of the existence of a supreme being, who was inadequately and falsely represented by the great positive religions of the world, especially the French Catholic church and its leading representatives (pp. 25, 26).”

Second, Bertrand Russell popularized a notion that John Calvin rejected Copernicus’ revolutionary breakthrough by quoting Psalm 93:1. However, McGrath shows that Russell’s account of Calvin as an “obscurantist” is simply a myth. “Take the Calvin myth. The intellectual authority of the great atheist writer Bertrand Russell was such that few bothered to check out his assertions (p. 81).” The myth’s origin is traced as far back as possible, and McGrath must finally conclude, “The remark attributed to Calvin thus had to be dismissed as pure invention (p. 81).”

McGrath also critiques Christianity’s failings that aid the expansion of atheism. Such critiques are difficult for a Christian reader to hear, but they are worthy of consideration. Chapter 8 is devoted entirely to this.

“To suggest a link between Protestantism and atheism might, at first sight, seem improbable, perhaps even bizarre. How could a movement so dedicated to the propagation of the Christian faith conceivably be said to have encouraged the rise of atheism? In making this suggestion, I am drawing together a number of scholarly studies of the origins and development of Protestantism, which indicate that there is a significant link between the movement and the emergence of atheism (pp. 198-199).”

The Christian Protestant reader may disagree with the analysis of chapter 8, but the thinking Christian will want to consider it.

WEAKNESSES

The author cites one Christian doctrine that is repulsive to atheists: eternal punishment. McGrath seems sympathetic to the atheist’s view on this point without offering an apologetic for God’s judicial sentiment. He states, “Christian apologetics cannot hope simply to assert such doctrines as eternal damnation and expect Western culture to nod approvingly (p. 275).” This I already know. But he continues to show how this offends an atheist’s view of fair play. McGrath pretty much leaves the issue “there” making me wonder what he believes about a point that Christ Himself talked so much about.

RECOMMENDATION

As I read McGrath’s argument for the “fading appeal of atheism,” I found myself hopeful and skeptical at the same time. Several parts of the book will encourage the Christian reader.

However, I do not accept the premise completely. I personally believe that atheism retains a subtle, but powerful, hold on even the postmodern mind. Underneath the culture’s belief system, lies a practical atheism that continues to fuel existential pursuits. The American culture claims to be “Christian” but in a vacuous and hollow way. It is not the Christian faith that is sweeping the land, but an existentialism that includes pieces a long-since crumbled Christian movement.

Atheism as a modern, totalizing philosophy may be in its twilight, but atheistic nihilism serving as a jumping point for personal “leaps of faith” is as strong as ever. Which is worse?

Nevertheless, I highly recommend this book. It is a great--well written--history of atheism.
----------------------------------------------
* Alister McGrath, The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World (New York; Doubleday, 2004)

Gabriel's Poem

2005-11-29T10:28:00.000-05:00

The third poem in the play, "A Christmas Celebration"
See my last post for an explanation...
----------------------------------------------

Gabriel’s Poem

Proud kings and fierce emperors wage their wars.
Nations rage and rebel through the ages.
Man thinks of himself, of himself alone
As wise ones, scholars, masters, and sages.

The sun rises then sets to rise again.
Wind pursues the south to whirl around north.
Rivers seek seas that refuse to fill up,
Returning to homes from whence they came forth.

Infants commence to grow up in this world.
Children enjoy its innocent pleasures.
Strong men, young women enter their sorrows.
Ancient ones find how short a life measures.

“Are we here for a reason?” man inquires.
“Is there hopeful purpose beyond ourselves?
Does life merely cycle and cycle on?”
Into these questions the human heart delves.

Though the years show the sky to be silent,
The plan of redemption is unfolding.
Carpenter, maiden, and shepherds make part
Of eternal ways God is revealing.

Take hope! Take hope! Lift up your sad faces.
Dare to hear the prophetic word of old.
To Bethlehem Ephratah God will come,
Just as the true prophet Micah foretold!

4th - 6th Grade Sing: Come Thou Almighty King
------------------
Written by John Rush

These poems are copyrighted by John Rush 2005.
If you would like to use them, just let me know. I know they’re not the "end all" of holiday poetry and I’m not charging anything for my plays/programs. But I would like to know if they’re being used.

Christmas Season Upon Us

2005-11-28T09:03:00.000-05:00

Christmas time is a busy time. From company parties to school plays to church programs--everyone is under the gun to get it done! I thrive on it. It does not depress me at all. It just wears me out in a good, wholesome, exhausted sort of way.

The last few years, I have written Christmas programs and simple plays for a Christian school in the area. This year, the school and my church are performing the same script for their respective programs. The play, for now, is called "A Christmas Celebration." It contains a modern day story juxtaposed (good word, huh?) with the Christmas story. It has transitions where children quote poetry and sing (You've never seen anything like that before, I'm sure...)

Anyway, in the interest of the holiday season, I thought I'd post the three poems I wrote into the play. The first poem reflects the flow of the script and is quoted by our really, really little kids. Hence, it is not too complicated. Here goes...
-----------------------------------------------

CHILDRENS CHORUS

I’m thankful Mary desired to obey.
She trusted the Lord to work in her life.

Her heart would break before it was over,
But God would answer man’s sin and man’s strife.

God speaks, and the world will not be the same.
Poor common people a part of His plan,

Eternity breaks a sin blasted world--
God our Beloved One now as a Man!

Chorus Sings: The Doxology -Praise Him, Praise Him medley.

------------------------

I guess I'll call the next one "Mary Rejoices." It is for the older students around 2nd-3rd grade.

MARY REJOICES

Mary rejoices in God.
The commandment she obeys.
Favored among all women,
Trusting her Lord’s sov’reign ways.

Joseph, hurting but faithful,
Loves his Lord and loves his bride;
Not knowing his crucial role,
His sorrow he seeks to hide.

Gabriel gives God’s message.
The angel declares the Plan.
Not grasping God’s great wisdom,
Obeys and brings hope to man.

Humbling Himself for all men,
Christ willingly suffers loss.
Found in fashion as a man--
Born to die upon a cross.

God the Father loves the world,
Sending His beloved Son.
Judging our great transgressions,
A vict’ry o'er death He’s won!

Adam, to Moses, to Christ,
God’s mercy and law and grace,
Are shown to Jew and Gentile
To redeem our helpless race.

Eternal to eternal,
The story in time now starts.
Millions gladly received it,
Yet it waits for your own hearts.

Sing: Tell Me the Story of Jesus

-----------------------
I'll save the last poem for another post....
Anyway, that's the start of my Christmas spirit blogging...

These poems are copyrighted by John Rush 2005.
If you would like to use them, just let me know. I know they’re not the "end all" of holiday poetry and I’m not charging anything for my plays/programs. But I would like to know if they’re being used.

Thankful for Christ

2005-11-23T10:31:00.000-05:00

When I think of the Lord Jesus Christ, I am thankful that:

He Humbled Himself: Christ said, “He who sees me, sees the Father.” He claimed equality with God. And rightfully so. He is the Second Person of the Godhead. Co-equal with the Father in power, glory, knowledge, holiness, justice, righteousness, beauty, creative action, humility, and joy. Yet He did not cling to this standing. He did not grasp after it. He was willing to humble Himself and be found in fashion as a man.

In every way, He was human--but without sin. He could smell the stench in the barn the night he was born. He knew hunger and thirst. He knew what it was like to want to rest his feet after a long journey. He felt the sense of accomplishment after a day’s work. He needed his naps. He felt pain.

He humbled Himself. From the highest heights to the lowest depths. He came to the lower parts: the earth. He pitched a tent among us and lived a while. Before He died, He looked forward to returning to the glory He had with the Father. But He never ducked or dodged his mission: to become fully human while remaining God all the while--and make His way to Calvary.

He Fulfilled the Law: Jesus said that not one minute point of the Mosaic Law would go unfulfilled. The countless masses of humans, from the very beginning, failed to meet the standard. Not only did we fail, we rejoiced in our failure. We stoked it into rebellion. We even found a way to be angry at God because He was so right--and we so wrong. It's not our fault, and He has no right to judge!

Some became proud because they actually thought they could meet the standard--and religion was born. I know this temptation. Paul knew this temptation. But God in His mercy took the Law and showed us our failure. The 10 Commandments are an MRI for the soul--a CAT Scan for the inner man. Paul confessed that without the high demands of God righteous standard, he would never have known he was covetous. When Paul realized his sin, he then claimed to be the chief of sinners. If he lays claim to that position--I must admit to running a very close second. (I am a Christian because I DON’T measure up. I’m NOT better than anyone. I DON’T meet the standard. I DON’T pass inspection. I’m guilty and worthy of rejection by a holy God. This is true.)

But Christ does meet the standard.

He surpasses it. He excels. He never had one deviation from absolute conformity to God’s law. Not one microscopic speck of corruption was in Him.

1. As a man, He always worshipped the true God with all His heart and all His soul.

2. Of course, He never considered a false god. He knew that not all paths lead to God. God defines Himself for us. We do not define God for us.

3. He never used God’s name in a profane or common way.

4. He knew the true sense of the Sabbath and kept it in His heart.

5. He honored His parents, even when He felt the need to get about His Heavenly Father’s business. He went down from Jerusalem and was subject to them.

6. He never murdered and cursed anyone in His heart.

7. He never lusted. Period. Adultery was far from Him. His purity is blinding white.

8. He didn’t steal. Even when He hungered 40 days, he refrained from using His power amiss to make bread.

9. He always told the truth. When He told His disciples that He would make a place for them He said, “If it were not so, I would have told you.” Simple.

10. He never coveted. The very point to which even Paul admits failure. This point where the best of men show themselves to be men at best. He never longed for what was not His. (After all, He had already willingly forfeited the highest glories in heaven!)

Christ amassed enough merit, enough righteousness as the Second Adam to redeem the entire human race. In Adam all die. In the Second Adam--all who come to Him--can live.

He Atoned for My Sin: Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin. The Old Testament sacrificial system trumpets this truth. Why? Because the wages, the due results, of sin is death. Since the life of the flesh is in the blood, blood must be poured out. A death sentence must be executed.

God, in His wisdom, allowed for substitutes. But the substitutes had to be innocent and spotless. Lambs. Lambs are innocent. And only the spotless ones will do. These sacrifices never took away sin, however. They pointed to the true sacrifice. Christ, the Lamb of God took my place. His pure blood was poured out on my behalf. He absorbed God wrath against John Rush. John Rush is guilty. It was my fault.

The wisdom of God has decreed a way for the love of God to deliver sinners from the wrath of God all the while upholding the righteousness of God.” - John Piper

I thank God for this.

He Rose Again: His sacrifice was accepted. He body resurrected. He conquered death. Up from the grave He arose... after three days. He delivers us from the fear of death. He said, “I am the resurrection and the life.” He is the first-born out from the dead.

Is it hard to believe that God can and will raise the dead? It was just as hard to believe this in the first century as it is now. Yet the gospel swept the world. Although relatively few bow the knee to Christ in comparison with the world’s population, millions have--and will continue to receive Him until He comes.

The death, burial, and resurrection of Christ is rooted in the space/time continuum. If it is false, all of Christianity is a fraud. We admit this. But we stake our lives on it.

He Saves Sinners: Like I said, I am a Christian because I am NOT good enough. I can’t meet the standard. But Jesus did not come into the world to condemn the world, but that the world could be saved through Him. How is this done?

Not through religious schedules.
Not through religious ceremonies.
Not through self-help advancement.
Not through effort.

It is done by faith. Faith is not taking a blind leap into a self-created existence. It is trusting someone. In this case--Christ.

Faith is not faith mixed with works. It is faith alone. If I had to work or produce one unit of merit in order to be brought to God, I would fail miserably.

Christ is willing to put His merit on my account and cancel my sin debt.

The transaction is a transaction of faith alone. That’s how someone as unworthy as I am can be brought to God.

I thank God for this.

Pastor's Log for November 2005

2005-11-21T11:13:00.000-05:00

About every three months, I print a tri-fold for the church called "Pastor's Log." (How original is that!) Our church just recently adopted bylaws, established membership, and is now in the process of selecting its leadership. Lord willing, we will have three elders, two deacons, one minister of finance, and one minister of records, and a partridge in a pear tree...

I have spent the last several months preaching through 1 Timothy (see sidebar) hoping to lay the groundwork for our future ministry according to Scriptural principles. We are always open to innovation, good ideas, and fresh perspective; however, I want to be rooted in Scripture rather than current fads or hard-headed tradition for our philosophy of ministry.

I have recently been convinced of the plurality of elders that should lead a local assembly. I believe it is Scriptural and carries with it many benefits.

Anyway I thought I'd post a short 2 paneled section of the Pastor's Log.

What Are Elders and Deacons?

Elders Lead the Church:

Acts 20:17, 28 show the three words for the same office: Elder, Bishop, and Pastor

From Miletus he [Paul] sent to Ephesus and called for the 1 elders of the church... Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you 2 overseers (bishops), to 3 shepherd (pastor) the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

The rest of the New Testament continues to use these words to describe the spiritual leaders of a local congregation.

Elder: This word speaks of spiritual authority rooted in spiritual maturity. He is an example of a believer in the assembly.

Bishop (Overseer): This title reflects the responsibility of overseeing the church. A bishop cares for souls and sets the direction of the church while providing spiritual protection.

Pastor: A pastor is a shepherd who feeds the flock and tends to the health of the congregation. It is a noun form of the verb “to shepherd” or “to feed.” Pastor’s teach.

Notice how the apostle Peter uses the same three terms describing one office in 1 Peter 5:1-4.

The 1 elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed: 2 Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as 3 overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly; nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock; and when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that does not fade away.

Notice that elders are in the plural. Philippians 1:1 also follows a plurality of elders. Here Paul uses the word bishop.

Paul and Timothy, bondservants of Jesus Christ, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:

Paul refers to bishops and deacons as plural. There was more than one elder/bishop/pastor at Philippi--as well as more than one deacon.

Deacons Support the Church:

The idea of serving makes up the word deacon. Deacons serve the church by supporting the elders in the “physicality” of the ministry. Acts 6:1-7 lays the groundwork for this office. Deacons were to execute the church’s ministry to the needy. Deacons were just as godly as elders; however, the qualifications for elders require that elders must be “able to teach.”

They're At It Again

2005-11-17T10:47:00.000-05:00

I wanted to write about this little controversy over The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe by C.S. Lewis when I first heard of it; however, Gene Edward Veith has done a much better job here.

It seems that secularists want to restrict young minds, once again, from the freedom of expression in literature. Honestly, I see secularism as a force of repression and ignorance in its own right. It seems like some, if they had their way, would take all the color out of the world.

My Sixth Look at Buddhism: The Last of the Three Marks: Not-Self

2005-11-15T22:33:00.000-05:00

The Three Marks that characterize life within the Buddhist philosophy are Impermanence, Suffering, and Not-Self. This post discusses Not-Self.

Buddhism admits that this is the most challenging of the three marks to understand. It’s basic thought is that we do not have an essential self or personality that continues on without change. This is a tenet that distinguishes Buddhism from many other religious systems.

Buddhism teaches that five factors comprise an individual:

1. The body or material form.
2. Feeling.
3. Perception.
4. Thought/Decisions
5. Consciousness (Self-awareness)

These five aspects of individuality do make a person unique--but not permanently so. The Buddha taught that when a disciple considers each one of these five “components” of personhood, he should say:

This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.

In this life, a person does not remain who he has been. The adult is not the child he once was, for example. Yet this belief extends even into other lives. (Buddhism, like Hinduism teaches reincarnation--the continuation of many lives. The two appear to have different views of the same basic belief.) The personality changes when it leaves this life and enters another life in the world. This puts a personality in a continual process of change. Therefore, all that I consider to be me is really not me. I am not myself.

Not-Self is antithetical to Christianity.

What would Christ say of Not-Self? Obviously, Christ did not deal with Buddhism per se. However, His life and words do speak to the issue of a person’s soul. Does a person remain who they are after death?

One day, a group of Sadducees came to Christ to trap Him with a “discussion” of the resurrection. The Jews had a custom that if a man died without a son the next of kin would marry the widow and name the son from that marriage after his deceased brother. This kept inheritances and family names going. It was called Levirate Marriage.

The Sadducees told Christ that a man married a woman then died. His brother married her, and he died. This sad turn of events kept going until seven brothers were laid in the earth. Finally, the poor woman keeled over herself. (How many marriages can one person stand?) The Sadducees, who didn’t believe in resurrection anyway, wanted a lesson from Christ about this story. One obvious lesson would be, “Don’t marry that lady!” but Jesus went right to the heart of the matter.

He said, “Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God.... But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine. (This story is in Matthew 22:23-33.)

Abraham lived around 2000 years before Christ. Jesus points out that God did NOT say “I was the God of Abraham.” He said, “I am the God of Abraham.” This means that Abraham is alive in the presence of God. And he is still Abraham. Isaac is still Isaac. Jacob is still Jacob.

When Christ was transfigured on the mountain, Moses and Elijah appeared with Him. They had not lost their personalities. They still bore their names and were known by the disciples through some intuitive means.

God is in the business of loving, redeeming, and glorifying individuals.

This does not mean that we don’t change or grow. One of the purposes in our salvation is to be conformed to the image of Christ. Yet the Scriptures show us that even in that process, we remain who we are.

This is true in hell, as well. Dives was still Dives there. He is who he was.

Buddhism has a solid view of reincarnation and karma. Karma dictates the good and the bad consequences a person experiences in the next life for the deeds done in this life.

However--and this is an honest question--if the personality is Not-Self from life to life:

How is it just that someone else (not myself) be punished for my “sins” in this life?

How is it just that someone else (not myself) reap the benefits of my good actions done in this life?

It sounds like the karmic record-keeping would be a horrible mess.

A Fifth Look at Buddhism: Suffering, One of the Three Marks

2005-11-14T12:32:00.000-05:00

As mentioned before, Buddhism says that life is suffering, and suffering comes from desire. Life can never really satisfy us; therefore, we should not cling to the objects of our desire. If we do, we will hurt ourselves. We must overcome our desires.

This philosophy reminded me of some dialogue in the last of the Star Wars prequel. Anakin Skywalker was afraid he was going to lose everything he wanted: namely his wife. He was told he had to let her go--give her up. This was the only way to save her and himself. He had to overcome his desire. But he didn’t. He inordinately grasped and held to his longings. This turned him to the Dark Side, and he became Darth Vader.

Is it true that suffering is rooted in our desires? It seems that it is true, to a degree. But I would have to qualify this thought in a couple of ways.

God created the world to be a place that fulfills desire. Food was abundant because man was made to desire it. Marriage was instituted because man had a desire for companionship and physical relationship. And God was to be man’s ultimate desire. He satisfied that desire with an immediate presence.

But things changed.

The Biblical account of life tells us that suffering comes, not from desire itself, but from wrong desires and weak desires.

WRONG DESIRES

The doctrine of Original Sin explains how moral evil entered the human race. It came through rebellion in man’s heart. The allure--the temptation--was rooted in man’s awakened desire to be “as gods.” Man wanted to have what was forbidden because that one fruit was apparently “good for food, pleasant to the eyes...and to be desired to make one wise (Genesis 3:6).” This is when all the suffering began. It came in with the Fall of Man. It came from wrong desires.

Desires become wrong, not because they are desires, but because they are twisted, misplaced, or excessive. God’s will is that we straighten, properly place, or reign in our desires. Only His grace can put us right; however, He has not condemned us for being creatures who desire. It is the exact opposite. He created us to have desires.

WEAK DESIRES

Weak desires also plague us. We are not satisfied with anything in this life because our desires for the objects that can fulfill us are too weak. Here is another quote from Lewis:

“If there lurks in most modern minds the notion that to desire or own good and earnestly to hope for the enjoyment of it is a bad thing, I submit that this notion has crept in from Kant and the Stoics and is no part of the Christian faith. Indeed, if we consider the unblushing promises of reward and the staggering nature of the rewards promised in the Gospels, it would seem that Our Lord finds our desires not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.”¹

John Piper uses the above quote to set the stage for his philosophy of finding joyful fulfillment in God. He couches this philosophy in provocative terms, but I cannot find the following points to be unbiblical (the points are tightly woven together and won’t stand without each other):

1. The longing to be happy is a universal human experience, and it is good, not sinful.

2. We should never try to deny or resist our longing to be happy, as though it were a bad impulse. Instead we should seek to intensify this longing and nourish it with whatever will provide the deepest and most enduring satisfaction.

3. The deepest and most enduring happiness is found only God. Not from God, but in God.

4. The happiness we find in God reaches its consummation when it is shared with others in the manifold ways of love.

5. To the extent we try to abandon the pursuit of our own pleasure, we fail to honor God and love people. Or, to put it positively: the pursuit of pleasure is a necessary part of all worship and virtue. That is, The chief end of man is to glorify God BY enjoying Him forever.²

God is happy in Himself. He rejoices in the eternal fellowship of the Trinity. Out of the abundance of His joy, He created all that we see. He created us to enter into His joy. We refused to do so, choosing to live in the darkness and disappointment of life on our own. We are left with desires that can never be fully satisfied. So we twist them hoping to find some fulfillment. We misplace them and create false gods to worship. We live in excess but find diminishing returns in our pursuit.

All the while, Christ has come to redeem us from a life of futility offering everlasting water to quench our spiritual thirst--our desire. “Blessed are they who hunger and thirst after righteousness...”

In the swirl of all this, we never hear God say, “Squelch your desires. Escape from them into the void.” Rather, He promises Himself to us in redemption. In heaven, the immediate presence of God will be the fullness of our joy. Of course, even as Christians, we will never find our complete satisfaction in this life. We have some waiting to do. Lewis addressed this condition:

“Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists. A baby feels hunger: well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim: well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire: well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world. If none of my earthly pleasures satisfy it, that does not prove that the universe is a fraud. Probably earthly pleasures were never meant to satisfy it, but only to arouse it, to suggest the real thing.”³

The “real thing” is found in God. All other holy pleasures simply point to Him.

Our problem is not desire. It is where we place our hopes for fulfillment. Seeking to escape or negate our desires is not good enough. We must have them sanctified and fulfilled. The psalmist said it well: “As for me, I will behold thy face in righteousness: I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with thy likeness.” Psalm 17:15.

---------------------------------------
¹C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York, Collier Books; MacMillan Publishing Co.,1952), 120.

² John Piper, Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist (Sisters, Oregon, Multnomah Books, 1996), 23.

³ C.S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses (San Francisco, HarperSanFrancisco, 1980), 26.

A Fourth Look at Buddhism

2005-11-09T11:41:00.000-05:00

Through the lens of Buddhism, one sees life as having three major characteristics: Impermanence, Suffering, and Not-Self. These issues will make up the next three posts (if inspiration doesn’t interrupt). Today’s post deals with impermanence.

Just for the record--again--I am not an expert on Buddhism and am open for clarification. I am simply responding as a Christian to my first real voyage through this land.

The idea of impermanence states that everything is in a state of change. Nothing is static. From the smallest level of life to the largest, change dominates the essence of life. These changes can be extremely subtle or mammoth in nature. They may be slow or sudden--but change of some sort constantly affects existence.

Suffering is enhanced when change is not accepted. We would do much better in life if we accept the moments as they are, take the joys as they are, and let them pass away--awaiting for new ones to come. If we try to hold on to something hoping that it won’t change, we only hurt ourselves.

This idea is simple but profound--and easy to forget. Buddhism reminds us of a truth here. I have seen people hold on to happy, old memories or hurts, playing “I wish” or “What if.” These folks are truly hurting themselves. (Have done some of that myself too.) My brother-in-law, a great friend and counselor, has often said, “You have to deal with what is.”

Now, Buddhism seems to view life “under the sun.” It is atheistic having no real place for a personal God. If there is a God, it apparently would be pantheistic. (Also--someone can help me out with this--was George Lucas reflecting Buddhism in Star Wars? It appears to me that he was.)

If one does look at life “under the sun” he is going to agree with Buddhism that everything changes.

However, if we say--and mean it categorically--that EVERYTHING changes, Christ and His Scriptures would disagree because there is a category that doesn’t change. Actually, it is a person.

The Bible teaches the Immutability of God. One author wrote, “God’s immutability is due also to his necessary being and self-existence. That which exists uncaused, by the necessity of its nature, must exist as it does. It is due also to his absolute perfection. Neither improvement nor deterioration is possible. Any change in his attributes would make him less than God...”¹

James, the half-brother of Christ reminds us that “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning (James 1:17).”

The author of Hebrews is very direct and states: “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever (Hebrews 13:9).”

In a world of constant change, Jesus offers Himself as an anchor for the soul. We can hold on to Him as unchanging without hurting ourselves. We can still deal with what is, because He always is who He is.

His kingdom is eternal as well. Abraham, the father of many nations, understood this “for he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God (Hebrews 11:10).” This city, this kingdom, has eternal foundations. They can never be shaken or changed.

In this life, everything changes. But we must broaden our view to the eternal.

----------------------------------------------
What other Scriptures reveal the immutability of God?
How does the idea of impermanence in this life help us or hurt us?
Can you see the Uncaused Cause? The Self-existent One who transcends our changing world?
How can we all be ultimately following the same thing if these two views of life are so different?
-----------------------------------------------
¹Henry Clarence Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, Michigan; William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1949), 83.

Constructive Criticism

2005-11-08T10:46:00.000-05:00

A Break from Buddhism

I recently came across some very fair criticism of Anvil and Fire. An objective third-party perspective always helpful.

A blogger named John recently did a “compare and contrast” of a couple of Christian blogs, including this one. He said,

“The blogosphere, of course, does not belong solely to those who are skilled in edgy and tight blogspeak, but most of us seem to agree that adherence to this blogging aesthetic is more likely than not to increase the blogger's sphere of influence by making the blog more eye and ear-catching. Anvil & Fire has plenty of passion, of a kind, but this Tennessean of faith seems more fond of sermons than conversations.”

I would probably have to plead “guilty as charged.” My training and experience has primarily been in sermon preparation and delivery, among other things. My calling and occupation is that of a pastor/teacher/preacher. So, I think in terms of studying the texts of Scripture, trying to delve into the context of a passage, getting a handle on the Greek underlying it--for the New Testament (I struggled a lot learning the Hebrew, so I am more comfortable in the New Testament...), and seeking to deliver the message in an interesting way. Pastoring includes so much more than this, but this process is definitely in the core.

So I may have been blending the two avenues of communication: blogging and preaching. A natural error....IF blogging is supposed to fit a certain mold.

I have never taken a class on blogging. It is probably a good idea to do so. I have read Hugh Hewitt’s book, but that is about it. At that time I didn’t really plan to blog. I was more intrigued by how the bloggers nailed Trent Lott and Dan Rather. Now those were power bloggers!

I really have to blame Steve Weaver and Phil Rogers for pushing me into this. I never would have blogged if they hadn’t forced me.

No. I guess that won’t do. I blog because I do want to try to communicate to a broader audience the things that I think, feel, and experience. It is kind of a gut thing. But I admit that sometimes I try to speak to a non-Christian audience, then zig back to those who have come from a similar background, and zag over towards “everyone”--just nailing my thoughts on the door for any passer by to read. Sometimes, I have simply adapted some sermon notes and flung ‘em up on the cyber wall.

Now, I am grateful to John for pointing out a reason why the Anvil and Fire circle is so tight. Maybe Anvil and Fire should seek more of a “conversation.” Preaching and conversing don’t blend well. But two issues arise:

1. I have a life to lead with people close at hand. If I constantly converse with the friendly folks who visit Anvil and Fire, I will not spend enough time with family, friends, and the church folks for whom I am responsible. I know of one guy who quit blogging because it took too much time.

2. The computer I use for blogging is not at my home anyway. Talk about time consuming! I can’t drive back and forth to respond to comments. I already have too many outstanding projects around the house: Have to finish putting polyurethane on an old kitchen table today, Have to cut wood (its supposed to be cold this winter), Still haven’t bagged my deer this season, and Christmas is just around the corner. How many shopping days left?...

I think there is a third reason why Anvil and Fire is a small blog. Others are good at it, and I’m not. But can’t resist trying. If you want to see a solid Christian blog, try Phil Johnson's at PyroManiac. He's a Calvinist. But He's a good Calvinist.

John goes on to contrast Anvil and Fire with another blogger who “understands the nature of the beast and he does desire to speak to a wide audience of people who also ponder how to be a religious person not in the mold of the Christian right” [in contrast to Anvil and Fire, I infer.]

Now we wax a little more philosophical. My goal in ministry and writing is not to move people into a nebulous subculture known as the “Christian right.” I really resist the idea of simply seeing people as groups, subcultures, or herds simply making truth claims that mask a will to power. I don’t deny group dynamics in living, but if that is all we see, then we miss the individual. (Let me “step in it” a little by saying this is major difference in how “liberals” and “conservatives” see the world. But you don't have to be politcally "conservative" to know Christ.) My core desire is to point individuals to Jesus Christ. They individually must decide what to do with this Person.

My blog represents the variety of my thoughts. So I guess it will ramble some. At least I'm not attempting to make money at it! Whew! I'd be in the poor house.

Anyway, I must say that John pegged me pretty well. I will try to be more conversational and audience focused, if I can swing it. But as the great philosophical cartoon character said: “I yam what I yam.” Yet there’s always room for improvement, and I have John to thank for some very constructive criticism.

Thanks, John!

A Third Look at Buddhism

2005-11-06T17:06:00.000-05:00

For my third look at Buddhism, I want to quote C.S. Lewis who said the following concerning “Rival Conceptions of God:”

I have been asked to tell you what Christians believe, and I am going to begin by telling you one thing that Christians do not need to believe. If you are a Christian you do not have to believe that all the other religions are simply wrong all through. If you are an atheist you do have to believe that the main point in all the religions of the whole world is simply one huge mistake. If you are a Christian, you are free to think that all religions, even the queerest ones, contain at least some hint of the truth. When I was an atheist I had to try to persuade myself that most of the human race have always been wrong about the question that mattered to them most; when I became a Christian I was able to take a more liberal view.¹

When reading about Buddhism, I remembered Lewis’ statement. Buddhism seems to begin with an honest evaluation of life, and I agree with it to a point: Life is Suffering. So Buddhism is not “wrong all through.”

Honest people from all walks of life, religion, or non-religion have to acknowledge--in one way or another-- the difficulties of life. I was saddened for the three children a mentally ill lady recently threw into San Francisco Bay. I feel sorry for the thousands of people killed, displaced, or suffering from post-earthquake issues in Pakistan. People in our own country have suffered from hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Wilma, and all their “fallout.”

Christians categorize these sufferings under the heading The Problem of Evil. Moral evil encompasses the wrong actions of humans against humans. Natural evil is the disease, disturbances, and distresses of this life.

The Problem of Evil is a serious and difficult problem. It refuses shallow answers but demands an answer nonetheless. Christians who act like they know all the answers to this problem are either un-tempered idealists or arrogant jerks. Other Christians offer “magic” as an answer. They claim that Christ came to make us healthy, wealthy, and zit-free. The prosperity gospel claims that a simple “word of faith” will make the monsters go away. Preachers of this gospel mislead--and often fleece--people encountering desperate times. These people are just selling a scam wrapped in "Bible." Because of these people, the way of truth is evil spoken of, as the apostle Peter would say.

The Buddha made an honest attempt in two ways. First he identified the Problem of Evil. Second, he tried, out of compassion, to help people deal with the Problem of Evil. Some Buddhists may challenge my terminology, but I think we’re close.

Now we come to a parting of the paths. It seems to me that Buddhism is inherently pessimistic. Buddhism appears to see life as fundamentally a place of suffering, delusion, and selfish desire. This life may have some beauties on the surface. We may behold these beauties and appreciate them, but we must let them go and pursue enlightenment. The attainment of Nirvana is the ultimate escape from this existence of suffering.

Christianity sees life as suffering because we live in a sin-cursed world. At first, God created everything and called it good. The created order was to be a place of blessing. The original view was optimistic. However, man made the decision to sin against God. As a result, this perfect world was cursed. The ground does not easily yield its fruit. Childbearing is now painful. Suffering entered full-force. The universe “cracked” in a sense.

God’s plan of redeeming man and creation now comes to the front. God sent Christ to redeem man from his sin and promised to restore the created order. He said, “In the world ye shall have tribulation²: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world (John 16:33).”

Christ conquered the sin and the suffering of this life by becoming a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief (Isaiah 53:3).

This truth is especially important to me. I am vulnerable to the Problem of Evil and know what it is like to doubt God at every level because of it. I knew that this was not the best of all possible worlds! When I came to the conclusion that God is the one who has suffered most (think crucifixion and its spiritual ramifications for the Son) I was able to stay grounded in the faith. God got close. He entered fully into suffering--and conquered it. Otherwise, I wouldn’t be a Christian.

Now we wait for a new heaven and a new earth.

So suffering is not a fundamental element God put into the world. It is upon us like a freeze. Christ will thaw this freeze. In the meantime, we groan. “For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now (Romans 8:23).”

We never see the suffering as useless, however. For the Christian, sufferings here compound into an eternal weight of glory later (Romans 8:18-19). We believe in alleviating suffering for ourselves and others. However, we may have to choose suffering for the cause of Christ, not escape it. Christians of the past and present have made this choice. Without Christ, death is the ultimate suffering (for some, dying is a close second).

Christ conquered death. The good will be restored--and we can experience some of it now. This is our hope.

Do you know Him?

-------------------------------------
1. C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York; Macmillan Publishing Company, 1952), 43.
2. thlipsis : This word comes from the idea of “pressure” or being “squeezed” like in a winepress. Nobody likes it. We all seek to escape it at some level. What we really need is a resolution of it.

A Second Look at Buddhism

2005-11-03T09:58:00.000-05:00

Picking up where I left off, I want to finish a brief post on the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism. The stuff on the First Noble Truth is repeated, but this post contains the last three truths:

Let me paraphrase what the First Noble Truth teaches in a nut shell (because that’s all I can handle.) Here it is: LIFE STINKS. It is suffering through and through. It begins in suffering, prolongs itself in suffering, and it ends in suffering. Any momentary pleasures or joy is exactly that--momentary. Pleasure and joy only serve to add to suffering because they are illusory.

Where does this suffering come from? The Second Noble Truth answers this question. Suffering is rooted in the human tendency to DESIRE. We desire but cannot attain fulfillment. Life is dissatisfying, ultimately. If we can overcome these desires, instead of seeking their fulfillment, we will be well on our way to enlightenment.

The Third Noble Truth teaches us that, we can escape suffering by attaining Nibbana (Nirvana). This is apparently a state of mind where all the plagues of being unenlightened are pushed back, and a complete state of mental health is attained. The person is in the now. He or she has finally escaped.

The Fourth Noble Truth is a Path that leads to Nibbana. If we want to get there, we have to know the way, right? So the Fourth Noble Truth telescopes Buddhism into several more insights, including an apparently strong morality.

I hope I have fairly communicated these introductory concepts.

As I read them, a blizzard of responding thoughts kicked up in my mind. Christ has given us a completely different vew of the nature of suffering, the source of suffering, and the deliverance from suffering. I’ll post some thoughts on these later.

Anvil and Fire: A Wholesome Place for Bloggers

2005-11-02T09:16:00.000-05:00

My First Serious (but Basic) Look at Buddhism

2005-11-02T09:01:00.000-05:00

Close to where I live, a Buddhist Peace Pagoda is being established. This seems a little odd for us folks in the Smoky Mountains.

Maybe some Buddha, sitting under a tree somewhere, asked himself,

“Where can I find a culture most antithetical to eastern thinking and is thus unenlightened (in my view)....?

Ah, East Tennessee! I will take Buddhism there.”

So. It is here--and could be quite an opportunity.

Now, I have looked at eastern thought in general terms before, but now, as a pastor, I feel a need to look more seriously at Buddhism in order to prepare myself to answer the inevitable questions.

So. What is an unenlightened, black powder, muzzle-loading, hick-on-the-mountain to do?

What else? I went to About.com and read the web pages there. The pages are like a “Buddhism for Dummies”--so I related to them fairly quickly--and gnawed on some venison jerky while gazing at the screen. (Not really. We haven’t made any for a while.)

Anyway, I am aware that About.com may not be the best way to get my feet wet, but it does look like the folks over there put some thorough work into explaining the basics of Buddhism.

I thought I would blog a little about my initial responses as a Christian. Any reader should keep in mind that I do not consider myself to be an expert on Buddhism, but I do have some grounds from which to form a Biblical response to the basics.

This issue will take several postings. How hard can it be? (Don’t answer that...) Is not the Prime Directive of us WWW writers, “If it’s interesting, blog.”

You can read the short bio about the first Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama ) for yourself. He was a man seeking to make sense of life the best way he knew. His experience told him that life was not satisfying. In fact, he saw that life is inherently filled with suffering. One day, while sitting under a tree, enlightenment came to him during meditation. (“Buddha” means one who is “enlightened” or “awakened.”) He decided to share his enlightened understanding with others. This was a pursuit of compassion on his part.

Buddhism includes, among other teachings, the Four Noble Truths of:

Suffering

the Origin of Suffering

the Extinction of Suffering

the Path that leads to the Extinction of Suffering

Just for today, let me paraphrase what the First Noble Truth teaches in a nut shell (because that’s all I can handle.) Simply put: LIFE STINKS. Life is suffering through and through. It begins in suffering, prolongs itself in suffering, and it ends in suffering. Any momentary pleasures or joy is exactly that--momentary. Pleasure and joy only serve to add to suffering because they are illusory.

Buddhism seeks to bring enlightenment about and escape from suffering.

More on this next time.

God's Tender Mercies: Some Devotional Thoughts

2005-11-01T08:36:00.000-05:00

Do you see God as a Father filled with tender mercies for His children? In our quest for truth, righteousness, and obedient commitment, we should never forget that God has pity on the just and the unjust--especially the just.

Richard Sibbes said in A.D. 1630:

Physicians, though they put their patients to much pain, will not destroy nature, but raise it up by degrees. Surgeons will lance and cut, but not dismember. A mother who has a sick and self-willed child will not therefore cast it away. And shall there be more mercy in the stream than in the spring? Shall we think there is more mercy in ourselves than in God who plants the affection of mercy in us?

From Genesis to Revelation, we can readily see God’s desire to favor mankind. Several verses came to mind as I meditated on this topic:

• Genesis 16:13 And she called the name of the LORD that spake unto her, Thou God seest me: for she said, Have I also here looked after him that seeth me?

• 1 Kings 19:5 And as he lay and slept under a juniper tree, behold, then an angel touched him, and said unto him, Arise and eat. 6 And he looked, and, behold, there was a cake baken on the coals, and a cruse of water at his head. And he did eat and drink, and laid him down again.

• Psalm 37:23-24 The steps of a good man are ordered by the LORD: and he delighteth in his way. 24 Though he fall, he shall not be utterly cast down: for the LORD upholdeth him with his hand.

• John 21:9-10 9 As soon then as they were come to land, they saw a fire of coals there, and fish laid thereon, and bread. 10 Jesus saith unto them, "Bring of the fish which ye have now caught. " 11 Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great fishes, and hundred and fifty and three: and for all there were so many, yet was not the net broken. 12 Jesus saith unto them, "Come and dine."

• Romans 14:4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

• Revelation 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

• Revelation 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

Spurgeon reminds the Christian that “No saint shall fall finally or fatally. Sorrow may bring us to the earth, and death may bring us to the grave, but lower we cannot sink, and out of the lowest of all we shall arise to the highest of all. For the Lord upholdeth him with his hand....Even in our falls the Lord gives a measure of sustaining....It is not that the saints are strong, or wise, or meritorious, that therefore they rise after every fall, but because God is their helper...”

These hopeful words leads me to a few conclusions I like to share with people:

I. God knows our struggle against sin. Romans 7:21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. ....24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord...

A. The Curse of the Law is Lifted.
B. God not merely chastens but conforms His children to Christlikeness.
C. There is no such thing as a perfect Christian--only growing Christians.

II. God knows our struggle against Satan. Luke 22:31 And the Lord said, "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

III. God knows our struggle in being human. Psalm 103:13-14-- 13 Like as a father pitieth his children, so the LORD pitieth them that fear him. 14 For he knoweth our frame; he remembereth that we are dust.

Apply this to your prayer life “A Christian complains he cannot pray. ‘Oh, I am troubled with so many distracting thoughts, and never more than now!’ But has he put into your heart a desire to pray? Then he will hear the desires of his own Spirit in you...God can pick sense out of a confused prayer. These desires cry louder in his ears than your sins.” - Richard Sibbes

SO WHAT?

1. Commit Yourself to this God.
2. Do not wait for perfection in yourself to step out for Him.
3. Do not wait for perfection in others to express love for them.
4. Be thankful you dwell in such a “land.” Breathe the free air.
5. Know that all of this is available to us through the death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Wonder

2005-10-31T08:57:00.000-05:00

Wonder is a hard feeling to describe. Wonder is that fleeting moment when man's eyes are finally off of self and on to something truly grand and beautiful. For some, this sense of wonder is felt in deep, majestic, and moving music. For others, it is found in the masterpieces of art. For all of us, I'd say, it is in some form of the beauty of Nature. The Rockies have captivated my thoughts since my youth.

I recently bought a bicycle for my son Ethan who, at the time, did not really know much about bikes. When we went into Wal-mart and I pointed out the rows of bikes hanging on the ceiling, he pointed up in wonder and said, "What's that, Daddy."

"Bicycles, Ethan. And Daddy is going to get one for you."

His eyes went wide. His wonder was at the bicycles. My wonder was at the joy one can feel for the love of a child.

Sometimes I feel silly to admit that my favorite authors are authors of fairy tales and myths. But then, again, I recognize that what these writers stir in me is a sense of wonder, a calling back to that childlike view of the world where everything is a glorious and major event. And, for the good authors, their stories point to the Great Story we are living in. Sometimes their writings trigger a flash of emotional memory, a reminder of a childlike perspective.

I believe that Wonder is one trait of good character, and we must develop it. It is a character trait because Wonder helps us to get our eyes off self--and self-focus is character-destroying.

A soul that has lost its capability to wonder is a soul that has lost its ability to worship. For worship is the ultimate act of placing our thoughts and visions off of self and on to ultimate beauty: God Himself.

What does God wonder at? What captivates His fancy? There is nothing and no one higher, grander, or more beautiful than Himself. Therefore, He rejoices in Himself. This is not ego. This is true worship of the one and only God. God wonders at, rejoices in, and is happy because of Himself! We were created to take part of His wonder.

If this is true, what happened? John Ortberg remind us, "There is a being in this universe who wants you to live in sorrow, but it is not God."¹ Satan deceived us and plunged us into sin and, as a result, sorrow.

Have you grown too melancholy? Too sorrowful in this life? Too old? Because of our sin, we lost our capacity to enter into God's joy. G.K. Chesterton wrote:

"Because children have abounding vitality, because they are in spirit fierce and free, therefore they want things repeated and unchanged. They always say, "Do it again"; and the grown up person does it again until he is nearly dead. For grown-up people are not strong enough to exult in monotony. But perhaps God is strong enough to exult in monotony. It is possible that God says every morning, "Do it again" to the sun; and every evening, "Do it again" to the moon. It may not be automatic necessity that makes all daisy's alike; it may be that God makes every daisy separately, but has never got tired of making them. It may be that He has the eternal appetite of infancy; for we have sinned and grown old, and our Father is younger than we."²

God is the Ancient One in that He is eternal, timeless. We humans simply get old, creaky, crusty, and cranky. I am not talking about chronological age. Sin stoops the back of any soul regardless of how long it has crawled around under these skies. Sin drains our ability to rejoice because sin kills life.

Jesus said we must come to God as a little child. The ability to do so is the gift of repentance. The blood of Christ can restore our spiritual youth--the ability to wonder and rejoice in God.

This is the hope for our souls, for our eternal destiny, and for our created purpose.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
¹ John Ortberg, The Life You’ve Always Wanted (Grand Rapids, Michigan; Zondervan, 1997), 68.
² G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (Colorado Springs, Colorado; Waterbrook Press, 1994), 61.

The Good Life

2005-10-26T11:50:00.000-04:00

The Good Life
by Chuck Colson
Tyndale House Publishers
Wheaton, Illinois

FROM THE FLAP

“Do you wonder if you can figure out the world and your place in it? Do you question how your life can be truly significant? Reflecting on his own story and the story of others, Chuck Colson examines the beliefs and assumptions that form the fabric of our lives.”

SUMMARY

Directing its readers to pursue a life of significance, The Good Life contains four sections:

1. Searching for the Good Life.
2. Giving to Others.
3. Searching for the Truth.
4. Living the Good Life.

The author relates various stories in the first section to frame the issue of his book. What is the good life? Is it the pursuit to change the world for the better--and using power to do it (as Mr. Colson experienced in what became the infamous White House of Richard Nixon)? Is it clamoring after money and pleasure like L. Dennis Kozlowski, the former CEO of the Tyco corporation? Or is the good life to be found in standing firm against oppressive regimes as Nien Cheng of China did for six and a half years in prison? The book goes on to compare and contrast other views and stories of what it means to live well.

The section “Giving to Others” moves the reader to conclude that the good life is found in giving one’s life away for the sake of others. On page 144, the author states:

“Giving to others brings the greatest satisfaction. It’s one thing to write a check, but sometimes we have to give ourselves. I mean, totally, including life itself. When we do, there’s no limit to the way others’ lives can be changed and our culture transformed.”

Colson supports his conclusion by relating the true story of Earnest Gordon’s experiences in a Japanese prisoner of war camp.

The transition to the third section, “Searching for Truth,” reminds the reader that pie-in-the-sky altruism is not what the author is advocating: “So sacrificing ourselves for others gets us only part of the way. The most important question is whether what we sacrifice for is the truth. Therefore, we need to ask ourselves, Is there such a thing as truth, and can we know it (p. 156)?”

“Living the Good Life,” the last section seeks to inspire the reader to pursue giving one’s life away for the sake of truth. The doctrine of God’s Providence can give us confidence that God is directing the lives, and the deaths, of His people for the good. Seeking to inspire his readers, Mr. Colson shares the stories of Christians like Bill Bright and others who lived and died well. He then shares how God has brought the author full circle. He found himself back at the place of his fall in the Watergate scandal.

“That’s why I can say to you...that the good life is near at hand. It’s both God’s will for you and His free gift to you (p. 365).”

CRITIQUE

Strengths:

The section “Searching for Truth” is the book’s backbone. It contains and arranges material in a unique and helpful way. How people can give themselves “to great causes” while becoming monsters is highlighted in the story of Albert Speer, a principal war criminal during the Nuremberg trials after World War 2. Living to change the world is dangerous if one does not have a handle on truth. The author relates how even he was misled in his desire to change the world for the better--and fell in the Watergate scandal. Any cause that is disengaged from the truth leads to ruin.

Colson also challenges the philosophy of the ethicist Peter Singer who, with an air of respectability, advocates for euthanasia and infanticide. Colson’s treatment of this matter is effective and worth the price of the book.

The rest of this section includes discussions on Intelligent Design, morality, beauty, and the ability to know truth. Mr. Colson’s experience and ideas will encourage the reader to believe that truth not only exists but that it can be known. Some readers will easily see Francis Schaeffer’s influence on the author.

The book also contains an important story about Randy Thomas and his deliverance from a homosexual lifestyle. The reader will gain insight into the struggles of many homosexuals. Randy’s story offers the hope and confidence that people with this difficulty can be delivered. In the current philosophical climate, this kind of writing is rare and daring.

Weaknesses:
Colson seems at times to fall into using his life story to “set the record straight” about Watergate rather than supporting his thesis; however, he does so in a way worthy of the reader’s forgiveness.

The theme of the book is living for others based on truth. The thesis is sound as far as it goes. However, I found myself thinking that there is still more to finding the good life. Colson could have taken his thoughts to the higher level of living for and enjoying the glory of God. It seems that Colson emphasizes the second of the greatest commands, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. ” I wish he had started his thoughts on the good life by using the first commandment, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God...” and then moving on to the second.

To use movie parlance: If we could have had a “Chuck Colson meets John Piper” publication, it would have been a blockbuster.

CONCLUSION

The Good Life deals with profound issues in a conversational style. While the book could have been more, it is a worthy read. I recommend it highly.

Money and Eternity

2005-10-21T09:15:00.000-04:00

Message Notes Delivered October 16, 2005
by John Rush

Theme: View Money in Light of Eternity.

Introduction:
Howard Dayton writes of the story of “A young Roger Morgan [who] came out of the Appalachian Mountains with the sole purpose of making a fortune. Money became his god, and he became worth millions. Then the stock market crash of 1929 and the Great Depression reduced him to utter poverty. Penniless, he took to the road. One day a friend found him on the Golden Gate Bridge staring down into the waters of the San Francisco Bay, and [his friend] suggested they move on. “Leave me alone,” Roger replied. “I’m trying to think. There is something more important than money, but I’ve forgotten what it is.”¹

Let me ask you a stupid question: Have you ever thought what it would be like to be rich?

Solomon was rich:
- Annual Income of over $25 million
- His palace took 13 years to build
- He owned 40,000 stalls of horses
- He sat on an ivory throne overlaid with gold.
- He drank from gold cups.
- The daily menu of his household included 100 sheep, 30 oxen, plus deer and fatted fowl.²

Here's what Solomon said about money: “Whoever loves money never has money enough; whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with his income. This too is meaningless. As goods increase, so do those who consume them.” Eccl. 5:10-11

Who are the wealthy?

Those who have enough money to pay for their needs and have discretionary dollars left over.

This means us. We are rich in this world. And this morning, I have commands for the wealthy.

Text: 1 Timothy 6:17-19: 17 Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; 18 That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate; 19 Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.

God does not rebuke the rich for being rich. He warns the rich about the dangers of wealth and encourages the wealthy to invest their money wisely. Why? Because money can be a source of trouble instead of blessing. Solomon also said, “There is a sore evil which I have seen under the sun, namely, riches kept for the owners thereof to their hurt.” Jesus put it in more dire terms: "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God (Mark 10:25).”

These verses tell us that our view of money has spiritual consequences.
What about people who are saved and have wealth?

View Money in Light of Eternity:
Think Right. Do Good. Invest Wisely.

Exposition:
I. Think Right:
A. You Will Be Tempted with Pride:

Proverbs 28:11 The rich man is wise in his own conceit...

Job 31:24-25, 29 “If I have put my trust in gold or said to pure gold, ‘You are my security,’ if I have rejoiced over my great wealth, the fortune my hands had gained...then these would also be sins to be judged, for I would have been unfaithful to God on high.”

Daniel 4:30-321: 30 The king spake, and said, Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of my power, and for the honour of my majesty? 31 While the word was in the king' mouth, there fell a voice from heaven, saying , O king Nebuchadnezzar, to thee it is spoken; The kingdom is departed from thee.

B. You May Misplace Your Confidence:

There’s Only So Much Money Can Do, Even in This Life:

“The futility of riches is stated very plainly in two places: the Bible and the income tax form.”³

Someone wrote: Money can’t buy you friends, but your enemies treat you a little better.⁴

Money will buy: A Bed but not sleep; Books but not brains; Food but not an appetite; A house but not a home; Medicine but not health; Amusement but not happiness; A crucifix but not a Savior.⁵

Proverbs 11:4 Riches profit not in the day of wrath: but righteousness delivereth from death.

Proverbs 11:28 He that trusteth in his riches shall fall...

Proverbs 23:5 Wilt thou set thine eyes upon that which is not? for riches certainly make themselves wings; they fly away as an eagle toward heaven.

Ecclesiastes 5:12 The sleep of a labouring man is sweet, whether he eat little or much: but the abundance of the rich will not suffer him to sleep.

Money is so alluring because it is TEMPORAL POWER. It is the key to power in this temporal age. If you live for this age, you will have to live for money on some level. However, there is:

A TWO-FOLD problem with money:

1. Wealth is Fleeting in this Age.
2. The Age Itself is Passing Away.

“That money talks I’ll not deny,
I heard it once, it said, “Good-bye.” ⁶

C. You Can Find True Security: The Living God.

What is Your View of Economic Resources?
The Pie:

"I have a Big Piece of the Pie and Am Working to Keep it for Myself."
"I have a Small Piece of the Pie and Am Scrambling to Get My Share."

The Engine:

The Engine of Capitalism Works!

The Cogs of Good Ideas + Pistons of Hard Work + Widgets of Thrift= Wealth Cranked Out!

God transcends the economy because He can make multiple pies and provide when the engine conks out! Deut. 8:18 But thou shalt remember the LORD thy God: for it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth...

God is to be our trust, our refuge, our hope, our security, our exceeding great reward.
God Lavishes His Gifts on Us: This is not some sort of legalism or ascetisim.
Nor is it a guilt-based message.

II. Do Good: Verse 18: That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate...

A. Do Good: v. 18
B. Be Rich in Good Works
C. Ready to Distribute
D. Willing to Communicate:

“Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds and to be generous and willing to share.” (NIV)

Mark Hambourg said, “Money is a wonderful thing, but it is possible to pay too high a price for it.”⁷

We pay too high a price when we do not invest our resources in light of eternity.

III. Invest Well:

It is possible to have many dollars yet be poor because we are not rich towards God. The story goes of a very privileged girl at an elite school wrote a composition for her class. It went like this: “Once there was a poor little girl. Her father was poor, her mother was poor, her governess was poor, her chauffeur was poor, her butler was poor. In fact, everybody in the house was very, very poor.”⁸

How can we avoid this kind of poverty? By living in light of the eternal. It will bring blessing to our homes and make for a better entrance into the kingdom of God.

A. Lay Up Store: To Amass a Treasure!

Years ago I read where “J. Robertson McQuilkin, president of Columbia Bible College, pointed out in a speech that if members of the Southern Baptist denomination alone would give an average of $100 per year to foreign missions, over $1.4 billion per year would be given. They are nowhere near that level now. If they were, the fulfillment of the Great Commission could probably be financed rather easily in this generation by one denomination!”⁹

B. Good Foundation: The Wise Man Built His House Upon a Rock. The Foolish Man Built His House Upon the Sand.

C. Time to Come: There is a New Age Coming. God’s eternal kingdom.

D. Lay Hold of Eternal Life: The New Kingdom will not be temporal, but eternal. This is life indeed. This is where we should invest.

Revelation 21:1-5: 1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. 2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. 4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. 5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

Conclusion:

Use Your Money to Advance the Kingdom of God Here and Now before It Comes Crashing In In Its Fullness.

Jeremiah 9:23-24 Thus saith the LORD, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches: But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD...
----------------------------

¹ Howard Dayton, You Money Counts: The Biblical Guide to Earning, Spending, Saving, Investing, Giving, and Getting Out of Debt (Gainesville, Georgia; Crown Financial Ministries, 1996), 147.
² Dayton, You Money Counts, 147-148.
³ Dayton, You r Money Counts, 147.
⁴ James S. Hewett, ed., Illustrations Unlimited (Wheaton, Ill.; Tyndale House, 1988), 369.
⁵ Dayton, Your Money Counts, 148.
⁶ Roy B. Zuck, ed., The Speaker’s Quote Book, (Grand Rapids, Michigan; Kregel Publications, 1997), 258..
⁷ Roy B. Zuck, ed., The Speaker’s Quote Book, (Grand Rapids, Michigan; Kregel Publications, 1997), 258.
⁸ James S. Hewett, Illustrations Unlimited, p. 373.
⁹ Ron Blue, Master Your Money (Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1997), 18-19.

Eat My Flesh. Drink My Blood

2005-10-19T10:44:00.000-04:00

In speech classes, teachers instruct students to use various methods to gain an audience’s attention. One of those methods is called the “startling statement.” Jesus used the startling statement to its full effect when he said:

“Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you (John 5:53).”

That statement is just as startling today as it was 2000 years ago. It is startling because we don’t talk in terms of eating one’s flesh and drinking one’s blood. In fact, some during the years of the early church thought Christians were practicing a form of cannibalism. They were clearly confused. Nevertheless, Christ said that unless we consume His flesh and blood, we are eternally lost, without life, forever.

Jesus had been talking to the Jews about the nation’s experience during their wilderness wanderings centuries before. The Passover had been eaten. The Red Sea had been parted. Pharaoh’s armies had been drowned. They went to Mount Sinai to receive the Law, the priesthood, the sacrificial system, and the tabernacle. Later, they unfortunately, decided to rebel against the Lord by refusing to conquer Canaan land at the right time. God condemned that generation to wander the desert for forty years. How can a large crowd of almost 2 million people survive desert life like that?

Exodus 16 tells how God provided for His chosen people, the Hebrews, during their wilderness trek. Each day, He miraculously provided a bread from heaven called manna. The meaning of the name manna is close to the question “What is it?” The Scriptures say, “It was like coriander seed, white; and the taste of it was like wafers made with honey (Exodus 16:31).” Every morning, the Jews could go outside and get their daily bread. They could not store any of it, except for the Sabbath, lest it rot. God showed his lovingkindness to the nation. “Man did eat angels' food (Psalm 78:25)

They had manna for breakfast, dinner, and supper. They had it for snacks, hors d’oeurvres, and desserts. They ate it poached, pureed, sliced, diced, sautéed, and grilled. Their cookbooks had only one main ingredient, and everyone knew how to get it. Every so often, the Jews would think of eating something different--the food of Egypt.

“We remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlick: But now our soul is dried away: there is nothing at all, beside this manna, before our eyes (Numbers 11:5-6).”

God had to deal with their grumbling spirits as well as their grumbling bellies. In it all, He was laying the groundwork for Christ’s statement centuries later.

In John 6, Jesus tells the Jews that real life is found in Him, and he uses the illustration of bread--manna--to do it.

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world (John 6:47-51)."

We know that Jesus is not talking about eating literal flesh and drinking literal blood because later, in this very text, He tells His disciples, “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life (John 6:63).” He is not even talking about the church ordinance of communion here because it had not yet been established. He is talking about how eternal life is received (something not even communion can impart).

How does one eat His flesh and drink his blood? Again, Jesus provides the answer in John 6:29, “"This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." The word believe is the verb form of faith. One trusts in Christ alone for eternal life. The act of believing, trusting, faith-ing is the act of eating and drinking. In order to take Christ in for ourselves, we must know with whom we are dealing!

Who is this Jesus? Who is this one who says "For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed (John 6:55). Here is a short list of who Jesus is:

1. Jesus Created You: John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

2. Jesus Sustains You: Colossians. 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

3. Jesus Will Judge You: John 5 :22 "For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: "

Revelation 1:17-18 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, "Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.”

4. Jesus Loves You: John 6 :33 "For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world."

5. Jesus Sacrificed for You: John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life "

6. Jesus Will Save You: John 3:17 "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved."

It is this Jesus who gives Himself for you to eat and drink.

Eating and drinking is a personal thing. I don’t like to have people push something right into my face and try to make me eat it. (One-year-old girls and three-year-old boys are known for doing such things to Daddy.) I like to choose what I eat and when I eat it. Some spiritual parallels apply:

1. What You Take In Becomes a Part of You. The knowledge of Christ is not a mental process of acknowledgment. You have to take Him in! He has to become the sustenance of your life.

2. Nobody Else Can Eat or Drink For You. Family, friends, colleagues, your church. Everyone can hope and pray that you’ll come to Christ. In the end, you must do your own eating.

3. Spiritually, Nobody Can Force Feed You. When I was in high school, I spent a week at a camp near Kansas City and wrangled their horses (not that I am a horseman). In the morning, I, with the other wranglers, saddled the horses, took campers on rides, and tended the horses in the evening. One day, I actually tried to make a horse drink. It doesn’t work. The old cliché about horses and water holds true. We cannot make people into Christians. People must come willingly and take Christ in. They themselves must eat his flesh and drink his blood.

4. Spiritually, Only One Food Will Work. Such talk is offensive to many people. It was when Christ spoke as well.

“From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, "Will ye also go away?”

Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God (John 6:66-69).”

Do you see the faith of Peter? He said, “We believe.” They had eaten Christ’s flesh and had drunk His blood. In this statement Peter recognizes that eternal life is found only in Jesus Christ.

This is a difficult statement, and many could not accept it. So they left. Jesus did not soften His position at all though. He simply asks, “Will ye also go away?”

And that is our choice. We either find life in Christ, or we “go away.”

For those who don’t know Christ, the Scriptures are here saying that Christ is the only source of life. You must take Him in.

Christian: Why Feast at Another Table?

1. This world has nothing to offer.
2. Jesus is just as satisfying as he’s ever been.
3. If we have become bored or unsatisfied, it is because we have become worldly.

Abandon pride. Return to faith, not sight.

The Storm Is Over

2005-10-04T08:54:00.000-04:00

The Storm is Over (Thoughts on the Doctrine of Propitiation), by John Rush

I had gone away. I strayed off.
Home and safety and warmth of love
Were nowhere in sight. My dark path
Split and split again, and above
Me rolled the distant clap of wrath
From Heaven.

He was angry, but He was right.
Criminal, Rebel, Fugitive
Were my names. And in the true sight
Of God, I had no right to live.
I tried to run, and found no light
From Heaven.

His wrath raged. His glory thundered.
Flashing fury burst and vanished.
Faltering, fleeing, I pondered
My soul’s lost state. I was banished
From Him. Alone, I now wandered
From Heaven.

He was upon me now. Judgment
Rained around me. Holy, pure, white,
God came. I knew this surely meant
My end was near--eternal night.
I fell. He spoke. The verdict sent
From Heaven.

I raised my hands to stop the gale
By works, effort, and religion.
But my striving was sure to fail.
Too sinful was my condition!
His judgment continued to hail
From Heaven.

But, through the flashes, I could view
A crucified and bleeding Form
Raising His two hands. Then I knew
That only He could calm the storm
That crashed, and fell, and justly flew
From Heaven.

“Peace be still!” I could hear Him say.
“It is Finished!” I heard Him cry.
Only the Son of God could pay
My sin debt. And now I see why
He is the Life, the Truth, and Way
To Heaven.

I knelt down with great hope and fear,
In repentance and faith to trust
Him only. God’s great love came near
To make me live--to make me just.
My sins are gone. My way is clear
To Heaven.

His storm broke up and rolled away.
Each day, in Christ, I now abide.
Above me is the clear, blue day.
I know His wrath is satisfied.
Secure in Christ, I’m on my way
To Heaven.

The Storm is over.

Ultimate Discussions 10

2005-09-29T09:29:00.000-04:00

(See Ultimate Discussions 1, below, for Introductory Material)

The Ultimate Happiness: Heaven

One of the Old Testament songs contains these lyrics:

Thou wilt show me the path of life:
In thy presence is fullness of joy
At thy right hand there are pleasures
For evermore.¹

C.S. Lewis said, “Joy is the serious business of heaven.”² If I could describe heaven in one word, it would be life. Hell is the exact opposite, death. In fact, it is called the second death in Scripture. The ultimate result of man’s rejection of life. In heaven, God banishes everything that corrupts and tends toward death. The following passage of Scripture describes heaven.

And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes;
And there shall be no more death,
Neither sorrow,
Nor crying.
Neither shall there be any more pain.

For the former things are passed away.³

Heaven is not the stereotypical fairy tale told to children at funerals to comfort them in their immaturity. To understand heaven requires a good deal of thought. Heaven is the reversal of the curse that came upon man and creation due to sin. It is the restoration of the order. It is the result of Christ’s victory on the cross when death was conquered. Christians must be resurrected with new bodies just be able to withstand and partake of heaven’s joy, its “serious business.” Heaven is the eternal exploration of the infinite horizon that God is. Heaven is eternal celebration. (That is why singing and music are so often mention in heaven.) Heaven is where man and God meet without any mediation. All distances are removed. And heaven, life, can be experienced a bit even now. Christians get a down-payment on heaven when they receive Christ. But only Christians can understand what that is.

Thank you for listening to these short discussions. My desire in writing, recording, and copying all these things is to share with you how to know God and go to heaven. The last chapter in the Bible contains a simple invitation. It says:

And let him that is athirst come.
And whosoever will,
Let him take the water of life
Freely.⁴

I encourage you to respond to that invitation by acknowledging your sins, laying down your arms, and placing your faith in Christ and receiving the gift of a right relationship with God.

It is absolutely free.
--------------
¹ Psalm 16:11
² C.S. Lewis, Letters to Malcolm, Chiefly on Prayer (New York, Harcourt Brace & World, 1964), 93.
³ Revelation 21:4
⁴ Revelation 22:17

Ultimate Discussions 9

2005-09-28T09:22:00.000-04:00

Please see Ultimate Discussion 1 for introductory material

The Ultimate Choice: Salvation

The chasm between God and man is as wide and deep as eternity. Yet Christ closed the gap by becoming, Himself, the way across. The bridge spans the depths, and at its foot, the sinful person stands, on this side, the far side of the chasm.

His side is overcast and desolate, blasted, rank, and lifeless. It flashes with neon light and spinning whirligigs in the distance but holds no real life--just a market place of broken promises and deadly consequences. Although ugly, it’s comfortable and sometimes fun. The sinner knows its nooks and crannies--and even still has a heart for it, man’s side of the chasm.

Here everyone is his or her own boss. But the boss of what? There really is nothing here. Just passing fancies that dissolve like cotton candy in the rain.

Now he looks across the bridge over to the other side. On the far side, the clouds pull back revealing a blue sky that creates a shimmering, vivid contrast with a grassy, green horizon. An assortment of white towers, walls, gates, and strongholds stand together punctuating the skyline with a sense of the eternal. And the trees--huge, timeless, and deep-rooted, provide fruit and shade from a gentle sun. This is God’s kingdom. Over there is life eternal and abundant. But there is only one boss, one king. To go over there means to become a subject. The sinner asks himself, “Should I cross the bridge and become a subject to that King?”

Becoming a Christian strikes at the pride in man’s heart. To cross the bridge means to repudiate what is on man’s side: sin. Man does not become a Christian by saying, “I could have done better.” Or by saying, “It was not my fault.” Or by saying, “I am not that bad, I just need to adjust my thinking here.” He must simply and honestly say, “I was wrong.” C.S. Lewis said, “Fallen man is not simply an imperfect creature who needs improvement: he is a rebel who must lay down his arms [emphasis added].”¹

The sinner may say, “I don’t know if I can? I want Christ. I trust Christ. I receive Christ. I want to be cleansed from my sin. I want to come to the other side. I am willing, yet still so sinful.” The wonderful truth is that such a heart has already taken the first and last step across the bridge. The bridge is not a system. He’s a person. The bridge is not a long journey. He’s a person. The bridge is not a rule book; again, He’s a person. Actually, a better word-picture than a bridge would be a door: A door from man’s side to God’s side. Not a process, not a journey, but a step of the heart. Here is what the Scriptures say:

“The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that is the word of faith which we are preaching--that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses resulting in salvation. For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed. For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; for whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.”²

Faith in Christ saves the soul from eternal death and gives him eternal life. Will you call upon Christ now? One man simply prayed, “God, be merciful to me a sinner.”³

And he crossed over.
----------------------------
¹ C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, (New York, Collier Books MacMillan Publishing, 1943), 59.
² Romans 10:8-13 NASB<
³ Luke 18:13 KJV

Ultimate Discussions 8

2005-09-27T10:47:00.000-04:00

The Ultimate Sacrifice: The Crucifixion
Please see Ultimate Discussion 1 below for Introductory Material

When they came to the place of the Skull, there they crucified him...”¹ That is a pretty simple, straightforward sentence, yet it contains a lifetime of study. When we consider Christ’s death on the cross and His resurrection three days later, we are getting to the climax of history, the heart of the issue, and the power of God for your life. It is the Good News we need to hear after seeing God’s holy nature and man’s sinful heart. At the cross, God’s anger was satisfied, and His love was expressed--all at the same time.

For centuries, the Jewish people were under the command to bring sacrifices to the priest to pay for sins. No sin could be cleansed without the shedding of blood. Sometimes our sophistication makes us think that such a system is barbaric, and I can understand that. The priests of God did butcher thousands of spotless and innocent lambs over the centuries. But why? Why was that? It was not just barbarism of an ancient time. The sacrifices of the Old Testament were to teach all of us several truths through a graphic and bloody lesson.

We see just how much God hates sin. His justice and rightness react violently against it! To slash an animal to bits and burn it over a fire shows us God’s holy and right response to sin.

We learn that sin results in death. Obviously, the sacrifices never lived through the process.

We understand that sacrificial lambs were substitutes. God, in His mercy, allowed the animals to dies in the place of people who actually committed the sins.

We discover a picture of what the ultimate sacrifice was all about. A violent, bloody, substitution.

We celebrate God’s acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice in His bodily resurrection.

The author of the New Testament book called Hebrews argues that the blood of animals never really removed the sins of man. What we need is an ultimate sacrifice. Since it was man who sinned, a Man must be sacrificed. So God provided His own Son as the final and effective sacrifice for man. John the Baptist rightly called Jesus Christ the “Lamb of God.”

Jesus Christ: The Creator, the Second person of the Trinity, the Virgin-born Son of God lived a sinless life for 33 years. He never worshipped a false god. He never misused God’s name. He never broke the Sabbath day. He never dishonored His parents in thought or attitude. He never killed or hated anyone. He never committed adultery or had the desire to do so. He never stole anything. He never, ever lied. He never coveted anything that was not His. In every point where we are sinful, He was sinless--making him the perfect substitute. Absolute goodness walked the face of the earth, and we couldn’t stand it.

So we killed Him.

But ultimately, it was God who killed Him. God the Father sent God the Son to be the sacrifice for man and the receiver of God’s wrath against sin. In this act, God expresses His love for man: “For God did not send his Son not the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him.”²

So Jesus Christ died on the cross where God’s hatred for sin and His love for man were expressed.

He bridged the gap.

And He did all this for you.
------------------------
¹ Luke 23:32
² John 3:17

Ultimate Discussions 7

2005-09-26T11:24:00.000-04:00

The Ultimate Rebellion: SIN
See Ultimate Discussion 1 below for introductory material

When I lived in Idaho a few years ago, I went to the local animal shelter to find a dog. The people there let a pack of assorted canines wander loose in the building. A large black dog stepped out of the pack and came right up to me. His name was Zeke. And we became good friends from that moment. He trusted me, and I enjoyed him. Sometimes we would drive my Jeep into the Sawtooth National Recreation Area to go exploring in the Rockies. With the Sawtooth Mountains rising above us, I’d open the back of the Jeep and release Zeke into the wild, and he’d run off into the sage brush.

One day I watched Zeke run into the distance and disappear all of a sudden. Then I noticed all four paws flailing away just above the sage, and I figured he had found something putrid to roll in: usually some filth that the elk had left behind. I knew it was going to be bad. He soon returned to me--proud of himself that he’d collected a store of slime on his collar and shoulders. Then he jumped up and wanted me to pet him. The words rank and rancid only begin to describe the stench. I had no way of cleaning him up out there--so it was a long forty minute drive home.

I’ve often wondered why dogs love to roll in filth. One time, I saw Zeke roll on a dead fish that washed up on the shore of a lake. Why is that? I can only conclude that dogs and men have different natures. What appeals to canines repulses humans.

So it is when it comes comes to men and God. What appeals to men is repulsive to God. Just as I did not want to get close to Zeke until I cleaned him up, God cannot get close to man until man is cleaned up. Man must be purged of his sin.

In our last discussion, we mentioned the distance, between a holy God and sinful man. That distance came about when the head of the human race rebelled against God.

On day six of the Creation week, God made Man and Woman and placed them in the Garden of Eden. This garden was lush and full of trees that had all kinds of fruit. Traditionally, people assume that God commanded them not to eat from an apple tree. The Bible does not say what kind of tree was forbidden to the first couple, but God was clear in saying, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.”¹

Genesis chapter 3 introduces the person of Satan who tempted our first parents, Adam and Eve, to sin. I thought James Montgomery Boice described well what Adam’s response could have sounded like: “I don’t care if I am allowed to eat of all the trees north of here, east of here, south of here, and west of here. So long as that one tree stands in the garden as a symbol of my creaturehood, so long as it is there to remind me that I am not God, that I am not perfectly autonomous--so long as it is there, I hate it! So I will eat of it and die, whatever that means.”²

Adam rebelled against a holy God, and sin entered into the human race.

Theologians debate exactly how Adam’s sin was transmitted to you and to me, but the Apostle Paul is clear: “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned.”³ The Scriptures teach, (and we all know) that every man is sinful. And this sin separates us from God, for time and eternity. He cannot get close to us--nor we to him.

Thankfully, God is willing to deal with the sin of man. He said, “Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord. Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool.”⁴ How God cleanses sinners--and closed the distance between us--is the topic of our next discussion.

------------------------
¹ Genesis 2:16-17
² James Montgomery Boice, Foundations of the Christian Faith, (Downers Grove, Illinois; Intervarsity Press, 1986), 195-196.
³ Romans 5:12
⁴ Isaiah 1:18

Ultimate Discussions 6

2005-09-24T16:44:00.000-04:00

The Ultimate Perfection: God's Holiness

See Ultimate Discussions 1 for introductory material

If you have ever studied a foreign language, you know that it can be tough work. When I was in high school, I studied German for a semester and then Spanish for two years. Spanish seemed a lot easier to learn than German. German, for me, was a little too “foreign.” When I got to college, I started studying Greek. Now that was a challenge. But it began to open up for me, and I enjoyed delving into it. Finally, as an upperclassman, I took a semester of Hebrew. Talk about a foreign language! The letters were completely different--and the writing went from right to left instead of the good ol’ western method of left to right. I have to admit to you that I still know nothing about Hebrew. At best I think I remember most of its alphabet.

When we consider the holiness of God, we are approaching the foreign, the hard-to-comprehend, and the truly alien.

What does the world holy actually mean? In his book The Holiness of God, R.C. Sproul helps us by writing that the “primary meaning of holy is separate. It comes from an ancient word that means ‘to cut’ or ‘to separate.’ To translate this basic meaning into contemporary language would be to use the phrase ‘a cut apart.’ Perhaps even more accurate would be the phrase ‘a cut above something.’”¹
It means that God transcends everything. He is above all.

Henry Thiessen says that holiness “denotes the perfection of God in all that he is.”²

Putting these two thoughts together, we can see that God is unique and totally separate from us in His perfection. Everything about God is completely other. He is a category all by Himself. God told the prophet Isaiah, “For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place.”³

So God’s very name is holy. Holiness is God’s primary attribute. I like to say that holiness is the dye that colors everything God is: His justice is perfect justice. His love is perfect love. His purity is perfect purity.

Isaiah saw a glimpse of God in a special vision. He saw the blinding white purity of God’s character. He also saw angels flying above the throne of God crying out “Holy! Holy! Holy!” Isaiah got a close-up view of God’s holy purity. He could only respond by saying, “Woe is me!” when he saw his sinfulness in contrast to God’s holiness. If we can see a glimpse of God’s holiness, we too will respond in a holy fear. Our knees will tremble a bit, and we’ll become very sober-minded because holiness elevates our thinking and subdues our flippant attitudes. A.W. Tozer put it in poetic terms: “Before the uncreated fire of God’s holiness, angels veil their faces.”⁴

R.C. Sproul continues: “I am convinced that [holiness] is one of the most important ideas that a Christian can ever grapple with. It is basic to our whole understanding of God and Christianity.”⁵

Understanding holiness means that we see the chasm between God and man. Another Old Testament prophet said to God, “Your eyes are too pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate wrong.”⁶ Man’s pride in his own goodness collapses at the sight of God’s holiness. How can a sinful man bridge the chasm to get to God? We’ll talk about that. But in our next discussion, we must study the chasm just a little bit more.

--------------------------------------------
¹ R.C. Sproul, The Holiness of God, (Minneapolis, Grason Publishers, 1985), 54.
² Henry C. Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology, (Grand Rapids, Michigan; Eerdman’s, 1949), 84.
³ Isaiah 57:15
⁴ A.W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy (San Francisco, Harper and Rowe Publishers, 1961), 177.
⁵ Sproul, 24.
⁶ Habakkuk 1:13

Ultimate Discussions 5

2005-09-23T08:43:00.000-04:00

The Ultimate Presence: God's Omnipresence
Please see Ultimate Discussions 1 below for Introductory Material

About a thousand years before Jesus Christ was born, Israel’s King Solomon built a temple and dedicated it to God. In his dedication prayer, Solomon recognized that God does not need a building to dwell in. He said, “But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built!”¹ Solomon understood that God is beyond the universe we live in. And yet he also knew that God fills the universe we live in.

Imagine with me an empty Coke bottle sitting open in a parking lot. Obviously, we know that the bottle is filled with air. Part of the earth’s atmosphere is inside the bottle. Now imagine that the bottle is shattered and scattered away. Has the earth’s atmosphere been lost? Of course not. Nothing in the atmosphere is changed. In a similar way, God fills our universe. But if He were to destroy the universe, nothing in God is changed.

In this discussion, we are trying to get a hold of the idea of God’s omnipresence. Omni means “all.” Put it with the word presence, and we meant that God is everywhere present at once. Our illustration of the Coke bottle is a little misleading, though, by making us think that only part of God fills the universe like part of the atmosphere filled the bottle. The truth is that all of God is present everywhere within and outside the universe. He is above the universe and separate from it; and yet, he is in and throughout it. Kind of makes you dizzy, doesn’t it?

Solomon’s father, King David, wrote a song along these lines:

Such knowledge is too wonderful for me,
Too lofty for me to attain.
Where can I go from your Spirit?
Where can I flee from your presence?
If I go up to the heavens, you are there.
If I make my bed in the depths, you are there...
If I rise on the wings of the dawn...
Even there your hand will guide me...²

Lofty and wonderful describe it well. William Evans points out that God is our nearest environment.³

This truth about God will subdue and comfort us at the same time. If God is everywhere, He sees the evil and the good. Makes us think twice to know a just God is everywhere. And it also comforts us to know that a loving God knows where we are.

Do you have a relationship with God, your closest environment?
-----------------------------
¹ 1 Kings 8:27
² Psalm 139:6-10
³ William Evans, The Great Doctrines of the Bible (Chicago, Moody Press, 1912), 34.

Ultimate Discussions 4

2005-09-22T08:59:00.000-04:00

The Ultimate Knowledge: God's Omniscience
Please see Ultimate Discussions 1 below for introductory material.

Saturday morning, February 1, 2003, I picked up my one year old son. While holding him in my arms, I grabbed the remote control and clicked on the television. The screen showed a clear blue day with a bright streak of light careening across the sky. It was the space shuttle Columbia breaking apart right before our nation’s eyes. Later that day, President Bush made a radio address at 2:04 EST. I had driven to Oak Ridge, Tennessee by that time to run an errand. I listened to his speech just before stepping out of the car. His comments were short, but I will never forget how he closed them.

He said, “In the skies today we saw destruction and tragedy. Yet farther than we can see there is comfort and hope. In the words of the prophet Isaiah, ‘Lift your eyes and look to the heavens. Who created all these. He who brings out the starry hosts one by one and calls them each by name. Because of His great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing.’ The same Creator who names the stars also knows the names of the seven souls we mourn today.”

Those comforting words were based on Isaiah chapter 40 and verse 26. Isaiah was a major prophet of the Old Testament. The passage teaches us that God knows the names of each and every star. Just two verses after, Isaiah goes on to write, “Hast thou not known? Hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? There is no searching of His understanding.”

God’s knowledge is infinite and complete. We use the word omniscience to describe God’s knowledge. A.W. Tozer put it this way: “To say that God is omniscient is to say that He possesses perfect knowledge and therefore has no need to learn. But it is more: it is to say that God has never learned and cannot learn.”¹ That’s a powerful statement, but it makes sense. Since God has all knowledge, He does not need to learn anything. One of the New Testament writers put it plainly, “...He knows everything.”² Jesus told us that God knows the number of the hairs on our head.³

Obviously, this means that God is not like we are. We feel the limitations of our knowledge and assume that God may be like us. But, just as God’s power is displayed without effort, God knows all things at once without effort. If there were one shred of knowledge that God did not know, He would not be God at all. But He knows everything at once and forever. This is a divine characteristic. We are nowhere close to being in His league. Nobody is. He’s God!
Now, what does this mean for you and me? It means several things at once:

1. God’s judgment is based on complete knowledge. He will be just.
2. God’s love is unconditional. He knows everything about us--that means everything. And He still loves us.
3. God’s care is perfect. He knows everything we need before we ask Him.
4. God is worthy of worship. Who else is like Him?
5. God cannot be fooled. Why should we even try?

Let me close by going back to A.W. Tozer. He said, “In the divine omniscience we see set forth against each other the terror and the fascination of the Godhead.”⁴ That’s well stated. Anyone who knows all the stars by name--and all the humans that would like to explore them--deserves our awe-stricken respect.

------------------------------
¹ A.W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy (San Francisco, Harper and Rowe Publishers, 1961), 90.
² 1 John 3:20
³ Matthew 10:30
⁴ Tozer, 93.

Ultimate Discussions 3

2005-09-21T09:33:00.000-04:00

See Ultimate Discussions 1 for Introductory Material

As a boy of seven or eight years, I was intrigued with the life of Steve Austin--the bionic man. He was faster and stronger than anyone else. I loved the way he could lift cars, beams, or people with that strong right arm of his. Children and adults enjoy these stories about people with extraordinary powers. Comic book heroes like Superman, Batman, and Spiderman live large in our pop culture. Movies such as Harry Potter, the Matrix, and X-Men have swept away the imaginations of millions of Americans.

What makes us so vulnerable to such fantasies? First I would say that people have always been vulnerable to a well crafted story. Yet there is another reason. I think people are always intrigued by the thought of having more power than reality gives them. We have to imagine heroes with special powers because we humans are really weak creatures in many ways. Charles Hodge wrote, “Power in man is confined within very narrow limits. We can change the current of our thoughts, or fix our attention on a particular object, and we can move the voluntary muscles of our body. Beyond this our direct power does not extend.... We cannot will a book, a picture, or a house into existence. The production of such effects requires the protracted labor and the use of diverse appliances.”¹ In other words, we have to make machines to do the heavy work.

God is not like that. He is not limited to quirky comic book powers or to machines and tools to do His will. He has all power. A better way to put it is that he is omnipotent--and it is no fantasy. Only an omnipotent God could create such a universe as we live in. Hodge goes on to describe this omnipotence: “God can do whatever He wills.... With God means are unnecessary. He wills, and it is done. He said, ‘Let there be light; and there was light’.... This simple idea of the omnipotence of God, that He can do without effort, and by a volition, whatever He wills, is the highest conceivable idea of power, and is that which is clearly presented in the Scriptures.”²

An Old Testament prophet named Jeremiah accurately told God in a prayer, “Ah Sovereign Lord, you have made the heavens and the earth by your great power and outstretched arm. Nothing is too hard for you.”³

Jesus told His followers, “With God, all things are possible.”⁴ When an angel came to Mary, the mother of Jesus, he told her, “For nothing is impossible with God.”⁵ And the apostle Paul wrote in the New Testament book of Romans that the father of the nation of Israel, Abraham, was “fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised.”⁶

Of course, God only promises and does things according to His personality or nature. He cannot tell a fib or do anything absurd or illogical like making a round rectangle or annihilating Himself. All these things are against His perfect nature.

So, God is omnipotent. He can do whatever He wants according to His nature and with no effort. He wills, and it is done. Talk about power!
----------------------
¹ Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, reprinted 1997), 406-407.
² Hodge, 407.
³ Jeremiah 32:17
⁴ Mark 10:27
⁵ Luke 1:37
⁶ Romans 4:21

Ultimate Discussions 2

2005-09-20T12:15:00.000-04:00

Creation: The Ultimate Foundation, by John Rush (see Ultimate Discussions 1 post for intro material)

Bang. Bang. You’re alive. The Big Bang Theory says something blew up a long time ago, and now you’re stuck in traffic. That is an unfair way to put it, but it illustrates the heart of the issue. Everything came from nothing

But is that how it really happened? Absolute nothing fluctuated at the quantum level, created a dense ball of matter that blew up; the residue turned into gas which turned into stars which spun out the planets that had goo on them. The goo on earth turned into single-celled organisms that evolved into animals--and now we humans are in charge? Can it be?

Obviously, many people think that evolution is a fact. Just watch TV. We are led to believe that the issue is a slam dunk. No question about it.

Actually the debate between creation and evolution is alive and well. And, contrary to stereotype, there are plenty of intelligent people who are on the creation side. People have good reason to be skeptical about evolution. I like what John MacArthur said in his book The Battle for the Beginning: “It’s hard to imagine anything more absurd than [evolution’s] formula for the origin of the universe: Nobody times Nothing equals Everything. There is no creator, there is no design or purpose. Everything we see simply emerged and evolved by pure chance from a total void.”¹ I think he was right to use the word absurd.

Arthur C. Custance also found evolution hard to swallow. He had his Ph.D. in Anthropology, was a member of the Canadian Physiological Society, a fellow of the Royal Anthropological Institute, and a member of the New York Academy of Sciences. He wrote, “If evolutionary theory was strictly scientific, it should have been abandoned long ago. But because it is more philosophy than science, it is not susceptible to the self-correcting mechanisms that govern all other branches of scientific enquiry.”² So the debate goes on.

In the middle of all the debate, the Scriptures unwaveringly say: “In the beginning God created....” Creation here means that by the power of God’s word, He caused the universe to spring into existence out of nothing--but God was the cause of it all. Genesis chapter one teaches the Six Days of Creation:

Day One: God created the heavens and the earth and light.
Day Two: God created the atmosphere.
Day Three: God brought the dry land out of the waters and clothed it with all the plants.
Day Four: God created the Sun, Moon, and Stars continue the light that was made on day one.
Day Five: God created the creatures of the sea and sky.
Day Six: God created the land animals, and then He made Man.
Day Seven: He ceased from His creative activities.

And He called each step of His creation “good.”

From this creation we see that God is an architect designing mind-blowing complexity into the universe. We also see that God is an artist abounding in creative power and scope. We see that God is a person with mind, emotions, and will--evidenced in human-kind, because we are made in His image with our own minds, emotions, and wills.

Creation is foundational to Christianity. The God we worship is the Creator of all.

One final thought: Scriptures reveal that God is not distant and unreachable. The great teacher of Christianity, the Apostle Paul, spoke of creation and said, “God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each of us. For in him we live and move and have our being...we are his offspring.”³

I would encourage you to seek God and reach out and find him. He is not far from you.

---------------------------

¹ John MacArthur, The Battle for the Beginning: Creation, Evolution, and the Bible (W. Publishing Group, 2001), 31.

² John Ankerberg and John Weldon, Ready With an Answer (Eugene, Oregon; Harvest House Publishers, 1997), 150-151, quoting Arthur Custance, “Evolution: An Irrational Faith” in Evolution or Creation? vol. 4--The Doorway Papers (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1976), 173-174.

³ Acts 17:27-28

Ultimate Discussions 1

2005-09-19T09:03:00.000-04:00

Ultimate Discussions and The Ultimate Topic by John Rush

The following posts (about 10 of them) over the next few days will contain the scripts of an audio recording I made a couple of years ago. I wanted to make a CD that I could give to people as a way of telling the Gospel to people. It is a personal evangelism project. These CD’s have gone out to many places I know not of. My prayer is that the Lord will use the audio recordings to bring people to Himself. My brother-in-law provided the transition music between each track--classical guitar.

The CD’s are low-key and a one-to-one conversational style. Here is the Introduction Script and the first Ultimate Discussion: The Ultimate Topic: God.
-----------------------

Introduction:

This CD is entitled “Ultimate Discussions.” The American Heritage Dictionary defines ultimate as “representing the farthest possible extent of analysis.” Well, that definition obviously does not apply here. I cannot cram the farthest extent of Christian analysis into these discussions for two reasons: First, I’m not smart enough to know that kind of analysis. And secondly, even I were, it would not fit on one CD. So I have purposefully gone the exact opposite direction--keeping each track between 3 and 5 minutes.

The dictionary does give another meaning of ultimate defining it as “fundamental; or elemental.” I think that best describes these talks. I want to talk about only some of the basic and elemental understandings of Christianity with the hope of encouraging you to consider the claims of Christ and the Bible even further--on your own.

Thanks to Steve Nichols for the musical backgrounds and transitions to help keep the content of this CD moving and interesting. Let’s get started...

The Ultimate Topic: God

Thousands of books have been written over thousands of years about the ultimate topic: God. You can pile up whole forests worth of paper arguing for and against His existence. Even people who claim not to believe in God still have to think about Him long enough to make their arguments. When the topic comes up, I doubt you will ever find anyone respond with a blank stare and tilted head saying, “God? I’ve never heard of the concept.” I have seen people obsessed with disproving His existence. The impression I get is that they protest too much and exhaust themselves in the process.

It is an old, but true, argument that nature itself tells us of God’s existence. According to one of the New Testament writers, “...since the creation of the world, God’s invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made (Romans 1:20, NIV).” We can see the design that makes up creation and intuitively know that there is a Grand Designer.

Nature is not the only proclaimer of God’s existence. Somewhere in the deepest core of ourselves, we humans know that God--whatever He is like--is out there. We hear a small, whispering, sometimes wordless voice when we pillow our heads at night: this is conscience. It says, “What about God?” Some listen and try to answer the question. Others of us simply try to turn it off. And we have all kinds of duct tape to slap on that voice to shut it up. Some have shut that voice up for years, but if they would reflect for a moment, they could easily remember what it sounded like. Augustus Strong wrote, “The existence of God is a first truth; in other words, the knowledge of God’s existence is a rational intuition.”1 I think he is right. The awareness of God is not just an emotional twinge that tugs at us. Our minds know that God is there.

Because creation and conscience declare the existence of God, the Bible does not actually try to prove the point. William Evans wrote, “It does not seem to have occurred to any of the writers of either the Old or the New Testaments to attempt to prove or to argue for the existence of God. Everywhere and at all times it is a fact taken for granted.”2

This is the point of my discussion: The question of God’s existence is important enough to move us to make an exerted study. And I want to encourage you to think about it, read about it. One book that is easily found in most bookstores is called Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. Lewis was an atheist who became a Christian by thinking through the issues. Of course, the best book you could read is the Bible itself. But that is another discussion...

------------
1. Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology: 3 volumes in 1 (Valley Forge, PA; Judson Press, 1907), 52.

2. William Evans, The Great Doctrines of the Bible (Chicago, Moody Press, 1912), 13.

Women's Role in the Church 1 Tim. 2:9-15

2005-09-16T09:11:00.000-04:00

Sermon Notes. Delivered Sunday, May 15, 2005.
1 Timothy 2:9-15

OPENING QUIZ:

1. Is the doctrine of the Trinity important?
2. Is the doctrine of the Father important?
3. Is the doctrine of Christ important?
4. Is God the Father Superior to God the Son?
5. Is Christ inferior to God the Father?
6. Did Christ ever become the Son of God?
7. Is Christ of different substance than God the Father?
8. Is Christ a created being?
9. Is God the Head of Christ?
10. Does conflict reside in the Godhead?

How did you do? (Answers at Bottom)

TODAY’S TEXT: 1 Timothy 2:9-15 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. 11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

KEY FOUNDATIONS

1. Headship and Submission is found in the God-head.

1 Corinthians 11:3 The head of Christ is God.

“When did the idea of headship and submission begin then? The idea of headship and submission never began! It has always existed in the eternal nature of God Himself. And in this most basic of all authority relationships, authority is not based on gifts or ability (for the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are equal in attributes and perfections). It is just there. Authority belongs to the Father, not because He is wiser or because He is a more skillful leader, but just because He is the Father....They don’t differ in any attributes, but only in how they relate to each other. And that relationship is one of leadership and authority on the one hand and voluntary, willing, joyful submission to that authority on the other hand.” - Wayne Grudem

CHRIST’S SUBMISSION HAS BROUGHT ABOUT YOUR ETERNAL REDEMPTION!

2. Men and Women Are Equal in the Eyes of God:

A. Both in the Image of God: Gen 1:27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

B. Both important in receiving the Holy Spirit: Acts 2:17-18 “...I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy...”

C. Both important in Baptism: “They were baptized, both men and women.” Acts 8:12

D. Both stand equally before God: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither MALE NOR FEMALE, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Gal. 3:28.

3. 1 Timothy is talking in the context of the assembled Church:

3:14 These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: 15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

A. Priscilla taught Apollos the Way more perfectly.
B. Women can make great theologians and author books.
C. Women can teach other women.
D. Women can share the gospel with men.
E. Other areas of contribution... Personal testimonies, singing,

KEY WORDS

ADORN: Κοσμεω: “To arrange, to put in order, to make ready.”

MODEST: κοσμιος: well-arranged; well-ordered, moderate: “The word here rendered modest, κοσμιος, properly relates to ornament or decoration, and means that which is well-ordered, decorous, becoming. It does not, properly, mean modest, in the sense of being opposed to that which is immodest, or which tends to excite improper passions and desires, but that which is becoming or appropriate....The word here used, κοσμιος shows that there should be due attention that it may be truly neat, fit, decorous.” - Barnes

SHAMEFACEDNESS: αιδος “Modesty: The word connotes feminine reserve in matters of sex. In the word is involved an innate moral repugnance to the doing of the dishonorable. It is “shamefastness” which shrinks from transgressing the limits of womanly reserve and modesty...” - Rogers/Rogers. p. 490

SOBRIETY: σοφροσυνη Self-control. “It stands basically for perfect self-mastery in the physical qualities; as applied to women it too had a definitely sexual nuance. It is that habitual inner self-government, with its constant reign on all the passions and desires.” Roger/Rogers. p. 491.

1 Peter 3:3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; 4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

“A woman should examine her motives and goals for the way she dresses. Is her intent to show the grace and beauty of womanhood? Is it to show her love and devotion to her husband and his goodness to her? Is it to reveal a humble heart devoted to worshiping God? Or is it to call attention to herself, and flaunt her wealth and beauty? Or worse, to attempt to allure men sexually? A woman who focuses on worshiping God will consider how she is dressed, because her heart will dictate her wardrobe and appearance.” - J. MacArthur.

Andree Seu wrote an article entitled “Beauty at Any Price” (World Mag, May 7, 2005). "When Jehu rides his chariot to come kill Jezebel, “she coolly makes her way to the vanity table, calmly...regards her visage in the looking glass, and paints her eyes in antimony....In the remaining half hour of her life, looking square in the maw of death, when her options are whittled down to futile resistance or repentance, the woman is concerned that she look “hot.” Summer is upon us, and men have no idea what women in this far-flung land go through...We have mainstreamed the magic formerly affordable only to the stars--taking out a line of credit to tuck, tighten, suction, implant, and inject poison, all a devil’s bargain for a few weeks of looking like Gwyneth Paltrow (if Gwyneth Paltrow even looks like Gwynethsa Paltrow.) I have a cure, ladies. Here it is. It’s seeing life from The Other Side...Much of what we crave we would not crave; much of what we fear we would not fear. And looming summer days would hold no terror to our souls.”

LEARN: μανθανω God does want women to be educated. Ephesus and Education. Grudem vs. Rogers

SUBJECTION: υποταγη Submission. Yielded.

SUFFER NOT OR ALLOW: PRESENT ACTIVE INDICATIVE: Continual action and abiding attitude toward the subject.

TO TEACH: To be a teacher. A DISTINCTIVE ROLE OF AN ELDER IN A CHURCH.

USURP AUTHORITY: αυθεντεω: Simple idea of exercising authority. Period. It's not allowed.

KEY CONCLUSIONS

I. Problems come from the reversal of the roles between men and women in church life.

I do not see anything in this passage that shows that women are more gullible than men. This seems to me to an unnecessary and hurtful stereotype. Paul is reminding us that tragic consequences arise when there is a role-reversal in the matters of spiritual leadership. By reminding us of Creation and the following sin in Eden he establishes several things:

A. The roles of men and women are based on Creation. The differing roles are not influenced by divers and changing cultures. He did not say, “Women should be in subjection because of your unique culture in Ephesus.” He says that women should be in subjection because Adam was created first and Eve was created second. -Grudem

B. Even in Sin, we see the created order: Eve allowed herself to be deceived and stepped out of her God-given role of submission. Adam openly rebelled by reliquishing his role of God-given leadership. Eve rose. Adam caved. They both sinned in different ways; BUT the human race was not plunged into darkness by Eve’s sin. It was plunged into darkness by Adam’s sin. Why? Because he was the leader! Even in sin, he was the leader!

C. Life now is not made right by continuing the role-reversal. Eve’s sin was one of merely being deceived. She was more innocent. Nor can we say, "Adam should not have rebelled; therefore, his sin was worse. Because Eve was more innocent, and Adam was more guilty, Eve, and her daughters, should take on the role of spiritual leadership."

D. Life now is made right by pursuing our God-given roles: Eve’s daughters should step back into their role of submission. Adam’s sons should step back into their role of leadership. This restores the power of their God-given influences. Women, have you believed the lie that influence is to be found solely in the leadership roles of family and church? You have been deceived by Satan.

E. SAVED: Means Preserved. By seeking to restore themselves to their original role of being keepers at home, loving their husbands and loving their children--and having children--women will be preserved in their dignity and influence in raising up a godly seed.

“In a coming day, at the Judgment Seat of Christ, it is faithfulness that will count, and this is something which can be exhibited in the home as well as in the pulpit.” - W. MacDonald.

“Men are to be the leaders in the church and the family. Women are kept from any accusation of inferiority through the godly influence they have in the lives of their precious children. For the church to depart from this divine order is to perpetuate the disaster of the Fall.” - J. MacArthur

II. MASCULINE AND FEMININE MUST BE PRESERVED IN THIS WORLD:

A. If something of God’s image is revealed in the authority of the man and the submission of the woman, then that vision of God is lost in this world if we refuse the masculine and feminine.

1. This affects society.
2. This affects children who gain impressions of God from parents.
3. This affects the power of Christ’s church in the world.

“...When we begin to dislike the very idea of authority and submission--not distortions and abuses, but the very idea--we are tampering with something very deep. We are beginning to dislike God Himself.” - Wayne Grudem

B. Women, if you refuse to accept that women and men are equal under God’s arrangement, you may as well say that Christ is not equal to God the Father.

C. Women, if you disregard the value of your God-given role, you will miss out on what God could do with power in your life.

D. If you truly believe and yield to the word of God in this issue, you will be different from the society around you:

DIFFERENT: NOT IN AN EXTREME, EXTERNAL AND SHALLOW WAY BUT IN A SPIRITUAL, PROFOUND, AND POWERFUL WAY.

You will never know the extent of your influence, but it’s repurcussions will be felt in eternity.

E. Husbands should not believe that wives are inferior just as they should not believe Christ is inferior to God. By doing so you live a lie, dishonor God, and hurt your family and church.

F. Wives should not usurp authority any more than Christ would usurp the Father’s leadership.

G. We should find Joy in the way God made us, not give up the ideal because of abuses:

“A given man may make a very bad husband; you cannot mend matters by trying to reverse the roles. He may make a bad male partner in a dance. The cure for that is that men should more diligently attend dancing classes; not that the ballroom should henceforward ignore distinctions of sex and treat all dancers as neuter. That would, of course be eminently sensible, civilized, and enlightened, but...not near so much like a Ball.” - C.S.Lewis.
___________________
QUIZ ANSWERS: (1-3 is YES; 4-8 is NO; 9 is YES; 10 is NO)

Interesting Note: I know this link is old news, however, this is another example of how one can be reviled for preaching the Bible. Click Here

Honor Widows Indeed: 1 Timothy 5:3-16

2005-09-14T08:52:00.000-04:00

Text: 1 Timothy 5:3-16
3 Honour widows that are widows indeed. 4 But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to shew piety at home, and to requite their parents: for that is good and acceptable before God. 5 Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day. 6 But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth. 7 And these things give in charge, that they may be blameless. 8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. 9 Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man, 10 Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work. 11 But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry; 12 Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith. 13 And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not. 14 I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully. 15 For some are already turned aside after Satan. 16 If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.

* Aid Widows Indeed
* Employ Older Widows
* Exhort Younger Widows

Theme: God Cares for Widows. The Church Should Too.

Exposition:

I. Aid Widows Indeed: Verses 3-8

A. Honor Widows that are Widows Indeed: (vv. 3, 5)

3 Honour widows that are widows indeed.
5 Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day.

B. Remind Families of their Godly Responsibilities: (vv. 4, 8, 16)

v. 4 Piety = Reverence to one’s responsibilities. It is the same root for the word “godliness.”
v. 4 Nephews = Grandchildren
v. 4 Parents = Parents/Grandparents

C. Discern the Godly Widows from the Ungodly Widows: (vv. 6-7)

v. 6: Living in Pleasure. The selfish pursuits of one’s own way are a way of death.
v. 7: Charge them to live blameless lives.

II. Employ Older Widows: Verses 9-10

A. Enroll them on the list. v. 9. καταλεγεσθω: “It is a technical term for being placed on a recognized list or catalogue.” - J.N.D. Kelly. A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles. Black’s New Testament Commentaries. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1972.

B. Examine their Qualifications. v.9-10.

1. Faithful in Marriage: One Man Woman. Similar to the requirement for elder/deacon.

2. Faithful in Ministry: She is Well-Reported: Others can witness to her character.

a. Since she has brought of children.
b. Since she has lodged strangers
c. Since she has served the saints: washed feet.
d. Since she has been diligent to good works.

III. Exhort Younger Widows:

A. Refuse them for the list. v.11-12. Being put on the list may put them in a difficult situation:

1. They may be tempted to remarry: “Wax Wanton” = From a root word that has been used to describe an animal trying to get out of its yoke.

It also speaks of the impulse of desire.

2. They may cast off their “first faith” or pledge: v. 12

This pledge apparently was to not remarry and to devote themselves entirely to an active ministry during the later years of their life.

3. They may be tempted to idleness: v. 13 As Paul Speaks, think about these temptations that may appear in our own lives now...

a. They learn to be idle: Their full time work, of which they made a study, was to be idle. Not working.

b. Wandering about from house to house: Misusing opportunities of service and ministry (Guthrie)

c. Tattlers: “Gossipy loose talkers; i.e., babbling out whatever might come into their mind (Fairbairn). A “bubbling out.”

d. Busybodies: “The word marks a meddling habit, a perverted activity that will not content itself with minding its own concerns, but must busy itself about with those of others (Ellicot; s. 2 Thess. 3:11) Overly concerned about insignificant or inappropriate matters.

e. Speaking Unnecessary Things: “It takes serious-minded, mature, godly women to minister in homes to women and families. The secrets and problems of those families would be safe with them. For those reasons, as well as the danger that they will abandon their commitments to Christ, Paul forbids younger women to be put on the list.” - J. MacArthur, p. 212.

B. Encourage them to remarry: v. 14

1. Bear Children:

2. Guide the House: Administrate their duties. Rule the house

3. Live Above Reproach. No occasion to the adversary; some have turned aside after Satan.

Speaking of False Teachers: 2 Timothy 3:6 "For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts..."

False teachers were apparently taking advantage of these widows who had made themselves vulnerable to an ungodly lifestyle.

Paul recognizes that the schemer who wants to destroy these useful people is Satan.

Note: The List was of qualified widows who would dedicate themselves to the service of God for the remainder of their days. This dedication, or pledge, was reserved for those who could keep that commitment. Younger women are protected from making a commitment they may regret later, when they really should have remarried in the first place. Each widow, young and old, is different; however, these general principles serve as guide posts to help them order their lives.

Lessons to Learn: Here are some General Principles from Today’s Message:

1. God expects the church to help and guide the vulnerable in her midst.

2. The Church is not required to give long-term support to unqualified people. This is not a government program guided by the rules and expectations of the modern welfare state. We are called to discern and discriminate the moral track record of these widows.

3. God has moral expectations for the lives of his people. The fulfilling or denying of these expectations has consequences.

4. If God does not want older folks to fall into the temptations we’ve listed today, He does not want younger people to fall into them either. I remember what one of my college professors said in class: “You are what you have been becoming.”

5. Pray for your elders. Recognize the responsibilities of the elders and deacons who will be discerning these issues.

6. Not all widows will need financial support. But all widows need honor and care. We must weave this into the life of our church.

7. God does not expect anyone to retire from His service. The later years are really a time of great usefulness to God.

“It has been my experience in three different pastorates that godly widows are a ‘spiritual powerhouse’ in the church. They are the backbone of the prayer meetings. They give themselves to visitation, and they swell the ranks of teachers in the Sunday School. It has been my experience that, if a widow is not godly, she can be a great problem to the church. She will demand attention, complain about what the younger people do, and often ‘hang on the telephone’ and gossip.” -Warren Wiersbe.

8. Children and Grandchildren: If you do not think ahead, plan, and make provision for your parents or grandparents, You have denied the faith. You are worse than an unbeliever in your actions. You may not be able to personally provide for all medical care, but you have got to be a part of the planning and foresight of your family's care. You are to be involved. You are first line of defense. And you are to learn how to take this responsibility on.

John’s Thoughts on the Issue of Widows in 1 Timothy 5:3-16
-------------------------------------
* Wife of One Husband = One-man-woman (Faithfulness.) This phrase cannot mean “marital status.” It must mean “personal character” of people legitimately married. The Bible does not hold a second marriage of a widow as less valuable. (Romans 7, 1 Corinthians 7, 1 Timothy 5:14.) If Paul wills that the younger widows marry again, then the second marriage is honorable. The second marriage, if lived well, also becomes the basis for being accepted as a ministering widow in the future should her second husband die.
If we hold to the understanding of “one marriage only,” then, widows who married, legitimately, the second time would be deemed unworthy of ministering as a widow when she is older and widowed again by her second husband--after having been encouraged by the Holy Spirit to marry the second time. Does God disqualify a person from future ministry because she obeyed at an earlier point in her life?

--------------------------------------
Considerations on the Category of “Ministering Widows" as a separate group from "Aided Widows:"

* There must have been a “category” of ministering widows. The Greek word speaks of enrolling into a category, marking down. Later in the text, there seems to be a pledge that the women 60 years and older would make. This pledge would include singular devotion to Christ in His church, and an expectation not to marry. According to MacArthur, the early church did function in this way.

* Women Under Sixty, who are μεμονωμενη, would continue to be desolate. In light of other Scripture texts? Is this God’s meaning? i.e. James 1:27; Galatians 6:10, and others.

* Women over Sixty who wished to Marry Again someday would also be excluded from aid. The pledge in this regard would precede aid given by the church.

10 Reasons Why I Like Fall

2005-09-13T09:36:00.000-04:00

1. Dry Air. After having lived in high desert country in the Rockies, I found the humidity in East Tennessee to be a real challenge!

2. Fires. I like the smell of burning leaves, camp fires, and wood stoves. I like to stand by a good fire and look at the sky at night.

3. Cool Air. Just something about it.

4. Fewer Bugs. I hate bugs.

5. Harvest Theme. East Tennessee knows how to decorate for fall like I’ve never seen. The pumpkins, corn stalks, squash, bails of hay. My wife is good at putting these together.

6. Thanksgiving. Call me “out of step,” but I’m stupid enough to love my country--and I’m thankful for her heritage.

7. Waiting in the Woods. I like seeing the black starry sky turning grey, yellow light coming up gradually over a green field in the distance. Blue sky, white clouds. Good stuff.

8. Muzzleloader Season. I enjoy the process of hunting with black powder.

9. Rifle Season. I enjoy the high powered report of the rifle.

10. The Surprise Appearance. Deer have a way in the woods. Sometimes you can see or hear them coming, but often they just appear. A terrific animal.