A Christian Response to the Freedom of Choice Act

It looks as though the Freedom of Choice Act is gaining ground now that our new President has taken office. I guess it should be no surprise and this was one of the reasons I didn't vote for him (I actually didn't vote at all, read this post on why I didn't). Here are some specifics, that I believe to be accurate, but if I am wrong please let me know:

If FOCA passes, pro-abortion principles will be codified into federal law. It would sweep away common sense regulations states have imposed, such as parental notification when minors seek abortions, waiting periods and counseling, or restrictions on state funding for abortions. It would also win the 'battle in the courts' by winning in the legislative venue.
American Issues Project (I don't agree with the whole article, because I think protesting with signs and marches is a little odd)

But, now that it is coming, what should the Christian do in response to this? Does this mean that I must pray for the demise of our President? Does this mean that I should not pay taxes? Below are some quick things I believe we should be doing as Christians.

We must still rely on our God that he is in control. We don't know why God would allow such a thing to be passed, but we do know that God works out all things for good for those who trust in Him. At this time we don't know how this could be, and we might never know. But if the FOCA passes, it does not negate the fact that God is in control of all things. Sometimes he allows evil to be done to work out his final will and his final purposes.

We must pray for our President. This does not mean that we pray that this passes, but we must pray that Obama comes to faith in Jesus Christ. We must pray for those Christians that come in direct contact with President Obama, like Pastor Rick Warren. We must pray that God would give our President knowledge and insight on what is right as our leader. We must pray that he would see the error in this legislation and change his mind. We must also pray that if this does go through that God's glory would be seen through this. Can God's glory be shown through evil? Yes, of course it can, sometimes we just can't see it right away.

We must still pay our taxes. This really stinks to be honest. I don't like the idea of my tax money to be paying for abortions, even though it has been for quite awhile since my taxes support Planned Parenthood. But, my taxes are also sent off to give Iraq by the millions every month too. My taxes help pay for overspending by our government, wars that I don't agree with and many other things that make me cringe. Not only this but Christ and Paul both said to pay taxes even while the governments they were involved with were highly scandalous. We know that the Holy Spirit inspired all of Scripture. Christ and Paul spoke of paying our taxes and afterwards, Christ was crucified and Nero burnt Christians at the stake to light up his gardens, all with tax money paid in part by Christians themselves. Think of this. Christ paid, in part, for his own crucifixion with the money that was found in the mouth of the fish. No doubt, we still have to pay our taxes. No doubt God's plan also came to fruition because of it.

Be careful how you speak to others about this. We need to be careful how we talk to others about this bill and about abortion in general. Do I believe that all abortion is sin? Yes, I do. Do I believe that it is murder? Yes, I do. But, the fact still remains that when I am speaking to others, I do not know their walk of life or what their past entails. I would hope that we would all be careful with how we speak to people who have had abortions in the past. Was it wrong? Yes. But, should we be gentle on how we broach the subject with them and show them their error? Yes. Too many times I have seen or found people to be very upfront with their thoughts on this that although their words are truth, the way that they go about it makes it sound like they should have a pitch fork and torch so that they can burn their enemies. This is why I am not a big proponent of picketing with signs and screaming. I just don't know how this helps. I believe how we can help is to speak to the individuals who are going through these decisions and tough times, but that would take some personal time from watching TV and finding all the verses in the Bible that shows you're right and they are wrong.

In the end, do I disagree with the FOCA? Yes. It really gives me a sick feeling of what it entails. Does this give me the right to pray for my President's demise or failure? I do not believe so. Does this make me long for the days of Christ's coming? Yes. Does this make me want to live more for Christ now, and proclaim his mercies and goodness to others? Yes.

I pray that we, as Christians, can be the salt of the earth and cities on the hill through this. I also pray that we wouldn't' be cities on the hill with high walls around us where we attack all those who come to our gates.

Soli Deo Gloria.

Read More......

Spurgeon Answering Why God's Desires Aren't Always Fulfilled

This is an answer that Spurgeon used when people spoke of God's unfulfilled desires:

'But if he wishes it to be so, why does he not make it so?' Beloved friend, have you never heard that a fool may ask a question which a wise man cannot answer, and, if that be so, I am sure a wise person, like yourself, can ask me a great many questions which, fool as I am, I am yet not foolish enough to try to answer. Your question is only one form of the great debate of all the ages, - 'If God be infinitely good and powerful, why does not his power carry out to the full all his benevolence?' It is God's wish that the oppressed should go free, yet there are many oppressed who are not free. It is God's wish that the sick should not suffer. Do you doubt it? Is it not your own wish? And yet the Lord does not work a miracle to heal every sick person. It is God's wish that his creatures should be happy. Do you deny that? He does not interpose by any miraculous agency to make us all happy, and yet it would be wicked to suppose that he does not wish the happiness of all the creatures that he has made. He has an infinite benevolence which, nevertheless, is not in all points worked out by his infinite omnipotence; and if anybody asked me why it is not, I cannot tell. I have never set up to be an explainer of all difficulties, and I have no desire to do so.
Charles Spurgeon, MPT, vol. 26, pp 49-52

Read More......

Holy Hip Hop

I love stealing from John Piper's Desiring God ministry. It wouldn't be hard to convict me of these crimes against them. So, why stop now. I saw the below video over there and I liked it, so in good total depravity form, I stole it. Enjoy.

Desiring God's Description of video:

In this interview, Thabiti Anyabwile reflects on what he calls "holy hip hop" and its connection to the resurgence of Reformed Theology in African-American and urban churches.

Read More......

Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism

This small book by Iain Murray is one that puts forth a history of Charles Spurgeon's preaching ministry in the midst of great fire against him by other churches in England that were Hyper-Calvinistic in their doctrines.

Iain Murray gives a quick biography on Spurgeon to give the reader a better understanding of where he came from and to catch the reader up to why this conflict was of a serious nature to the Baptist faith at the time. I found it amazing how much Spurgeon was having to fight off from guys that he deeply respected and found to be friends of some sort. The main quibbles that these men, James Wells in particular, had with Spurgeon was that Spurgeon believed in the following:

1. That the gospel should be preached to all men, not just those whom were the elect or had some sort of experience to tell them that they were being drawn by the Spirit

2. What we would call duty faith. Meaning Spurgeon believed in telling his hearers that they should repent, that it was their duty to believe in Christ, etc. Wells and others believed Spurgeon was charging men with something that they could not do.

3. Duty faith tied into human responsibility. Spurgeon believed that human responsibility was real and that it was their responsibility to turn from their sin and to love Jesus. Again, Wells and others believed that this responsibility was not for every man, only those who were "heavy-laden" and felt the Holy Spirit's working within them.

4. The last problem they had with Spurgeon was his belief that God desires for all men, not just the elect, to repent and be saved. This is still a huge discussion with many in the Reformed faith. Some siding with Spurgeon (myself included) and others still siding with Gill and Wells.


The book sets up to show the arguments against Spurgeon and the many writings against him in the various publications around England. There were many claims against Spurgeon because of the above stated beliefs. Because of this, many claimed that Spurgeon was an Arminian and did not believe in God's elected love or in total depravity.

After the charges are shown, the arguments are then put forth to show Spurgeon's responses to these charges, which mostly come from his sermons. I found this to be of great help in the understanding of God's desire for all and also a return to the days of old when verses that included the term "all" were not twisted to mean "some sorts" or "some sorts of different classes of men" etc. Throughout the book Spurgeon shows his honesty in the difficulty of putting all these doctrines together and that there is a good middle ground between the Arminian and the Hyper-Calvinist.

Spurgeon also shows great respect for both the Arminians and the Hyper-Calvinist. Where James Wells said that John Wesley went to hell, Spurgeon gives praise for the gospel preaching of Wesley. Also, John Gill is referred many times as the teacher for the Hypers and at one time called the proverbial head of Hyper-Calvinism, yet Spurgeon still shows much respect for him and also his contemporaries that held to Gill's positions.

The sub-heading for this book is "The Battle for Gospel Preaching" and I found it to be a very appropriate title. If anyone is interested in what historic Calvinism teaches, this is a great primer on the understanding. I would disagree with Spurgeon and Murray's thoughts on the extent of the atonement, but because of their graciousness and admittance that they didn't/don't understand how it could fit with the universal call, I can still recommend this book. They, Murray and Spurgeon, are very honest with their confusion of how limited atonement works within God's universal call for all to repent.

This book deals openly and honestly about the hard doctrines of the faith. It deals honestly with passages like John 3:16, Matthew 23:37; 2 Peter 3:9; 1 Timothy 2:3,4 and the hoops one has to jump through to make this fit within their theology if they don't take 'all' to simply mean, 'all.'

If you have been approached by a Hyper-Calvinist, want a defense against a Hyper-Calvinist, or you just want to understand more of the heart of true Calvinism, I would highly recommend this book. Spurgeon is very gracious in his defenses, yet puts forth the truth. Link to Buy.

Read More......

Spurgeon vs. James White

I am basically done with the book Spurgeon vs. Hyper-Calvinism, as I only have the last part of Spurgeon's exegesis on 1 Timothy 2:3,4. The book is written by Iain Murray and I have found that if I merely started with this book it would have made more sense the fallacies that James White has been putting forth for some time. I am basically continuing something that I read from Kevin Williams in his post "Calvin disagrees with James White on John 3:16." This post could very well be Spurgeon, Iain Murray and T.J. Crawford disagree with James White on the desire of God, the well meant offer, John Gill and the exegesis on John 3:16, Matthew 23:37; 2 Peter 3:9; 1 Timothy 2:3,4 and any other verses on God's desire. But that would be a very long post heading. What is interesting is that what I, and others, have been saying is exactly what Spurgeon said of Gill in trying to explain his position on God's desire and love for the reprobate. Here is Spurgeon explaining some of Gill, whom Spurgeon and Murray both declare to be a Hyper-Calvinist (Gill is someone who White leans on and defends)

Very seldom does he allow himself to be run away with by imagination, except now and then when he tries to open up a parable, and finds a meaning in every circumstance and minute detail; or when he falls upon a text which is not congenial with his creed, and hacks and hews terribly to bring the word of God into a more systematic shape
Charles Spurgeon; Commenting and Commentaries, P. 9

Spurgeon basically says that instead of allowing Scripture to speak for what it says, Gill has to hack away at it so badly to fit into his creeds, that it makes no sense at all anymore. This is what we have seen when dealing with others as we try to look at John 3:16; Matthew 23:37; 2 Peter 3:9 and 1 Timothy 2:3,4. It is laughable, except they don't seem to get the joke.

T.J. Crawford (1812-1875), Professor of Divinity at the University of Edinburgh speaks of the desire of God in this way:

It may be alleged, however, that the invitations of the Gospel, besides being expressive of the undisputed fact that whosoever complies with them shall obtain the offered blessings, are also indicative of a desire on the part of God that all sinners to whom they are held out should comply with them; and how, it may be asked, can such a desire be sincere, if it be the purpose of God to confer only on some sinners that grace by which their compliance will be secured?

Now, without pretending that we are able to give a satisfactory answer to this question, we are not prepared to admit, what the question evidently assumes, that God can have no sincere desire with reference to the conduct of all His creatures, if it be His purpose to secure on the part of this desire. For how does the case stand in this respect with His commandments? These, no less than His invitations, are addressed to all. Both are alike to be considered as indications of what He desires and requires to be done by all. Nor are there wanting, with reference to His commandments, testimonies quite as significant as any which are to be found with reference to His invitations, of the earnestness and intensity of His desire that the course which they prescribe should be adopted by all who hear them. Take, for example, these tender expostulations: 'O that there were such a heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children forever!' 'Oh that my people had harkened unto me, and Israel had walked in my ways!' 'O that thou hadst hearkened to my commandments; then had thy peace been as a river, and thy righteousness as the waves of the sea!'

But while the commandments of God are thus indicative of what God desires, approves of, and delights in, as congenial to the goodness and holiness of His moral nature, they are certainly not declarative, at the same time, of what He has fixedly purposed or determined in His government of the universe to carry into effect. For if they were so, it is certain that they would be unfailingly and universally obeyed by all His creatures; whereas they are frequently violated, without any interference on His part to secure their observance. Doubtless it is an inscrutable mystery that things should thus be done under the government of the Almighty which are in the highest degree displeasing and offensive to Him. It is just the old mystery of the existence of moral evil, which no one has ever been able to explain.

It is clear through the reading of this book that Spurgeon, Murray and others believed that God has a true inner desire for the reprobate and that those who oppose this idea are those believing in a tenant of hyperism. Murray quotes many men in this respect and labors to make the point clear. What I also found interesting is that when Spurgeon continued to make the point of God's desire and duty faith that he was called an Arminian, or at least one with some sort of Arminian leanings. This is exactly what I find every time I bring up these points. That if I believe that God has a true desire for something that does not come to pass, then I am an Arminian. I would rather stand on the Scriptures with Spurgeon on this, than what was historically labeled as Hyper-Calvinism.

One last note, and we'll be done. When speaking on 1 Timothy 2:3,4 Spurgeon makes this comment:

What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which is fairly bears? I trow not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends (he is speaking of James Wells, Gill and other hyper-Calvinists) deal with this text. 'All men,' say they, - 'that is, some men': as if the Holy Ghost could not have said 'some men' if he had meant some men. 'All men,' they say; 'that is, some sorts of men': as if the Lord could not have said 'All sorts of men' if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written 'all men,' and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the 'alls' according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth...I never thought it to be any very great crime to be so inconsistent with myself, for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it is a great crime to seem to be inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it, 'God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.'

Does not the text mean that it is the wish of God that men should be saved? The word 'wish' gives as much force to the original as it really requires, and the passage should run thus - 'whose wish it is that all men should be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.' As it is my wish that it should be so, as it is your wish that it might be so, so it is God's wish that all men should be saved; for, assuredly, he is not less benevolent than we are.

Charles Spurgeon, MTP, vol. 26, pp. 49-52

It is undeniable what Spurgeon thought on the desire and love of God and also his thought that Gill was a Hyper-Calvinist. He would disagree with James White on this understanding and would also say, as I have said, if you do not believe in the fact that God desires the salvation of all men, including the reprobate, that is a tenant of Hyper-Calvinism. Not only this, but he would also exegete all the major passages of the love of God differently than James White and would say that White is hacking away the word of God to fit his creeds.

Again, I pray that James White would see his error in this and turn from it. I thank God that White believes in the preaching of the Gospel to the reprobate (and he does so mightily) and I also thank God that James White believes in duty-faith (which he also faithfully proclaims). I just pray that he could see the love that God has for all people and the true desire that He has for their salvation.

Read More......

For the Sins of My Father

I found this book while searching around on amazon.com and for some reason, probably because of the "biblical" title, it caught my eye. As I picked up the book and started to read, the first thing I noticed was the fact that the author, Albert DeMeo, was trying to convey something that I figured was going to be a theme throughout the book, which was family is everything.

Albert DeMeo, the author, is the son of notorious killer Roy DeMeo from the Gambino Crime Family in New York City. The story starts by showing the author in his naive youthfulness around the ages of 5 and 6 years old. But then he started to notice that he was different when he got odd stares and glances from other cousins as they watched a mob movie. It seemed as he was the butt of a joke without knowing it. DeMeo tells of his early life learning that he had a lot of "uncles" that weren't kin to him and that were spread throughout the city, as he watched his dad collect envelopes and given much respect wherever they went. Not a normal respect, but a suspicious one.

As the story unfolds, DeMeo tells of his life of becoming a young wiseguy and the rise of his father as he becomes a capo in the Gambino Crime Family. The story mainly takes place in the 70's and early 80's and is very detailed on many accounts of the day to day life of his father "passing down the business." It feels like a confession of sorts in story form. I will say that DeMeo does not seem to hold anything back about his dad. He tells of his dad's car theft ring that was the largest in New York City, loan sharking, filthy prostitution and sex shop business and the impact that it had on Albert as he watched this filthy business unfold. I was surprised at how even one that had witnessed many things in his life, still found the sex shops and theatres that his dad owned and did business with as polluted filth.

Behind all this, the reader finds a deep relationship between father and son. It was actually one that was very well described and one that was also very troubling. Although Roy DeMeo took care of his family in one sense, he put them in harms way with the work that he did and the absent nights away as he went on killing sprees and took care of other business. Yet, I found myself fond of the relationship that Roy DeMeo had with his family and especially his only son.

What I find most sad is the deep impact that this played on Albert throughout his life. Although he was never deeply involved within the crime family, the parts he knew and lived made much of an impact until even now. Through all this, even in the deepest despair, he never goes to where he should have gone a long time ago. To Christ. Albert speaks of his mom sending him to confirmation classes in the Catholic church because she wanted him to have good morals and learn about God. But, this saddens me to think that the reason to send someone to church was merely to learn to be "good" instead of going to find Christ. This was obvious as Albert continued to look to himself in despair, without hope and even using Scriptures in the book as quotes that were obviously meaningless as he uses these alongside quotes from Machiavelli and Shakespeare's Julius Caesar.

The only Scripture that he uses that speaks volumes is the one that adorns the front of the book as the title.

Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Exodus 20:5

The book is actually very well done and speaks volume to the insides of the mob and the families that are affected. I pray for Albert DeMeo and hope that the verses that he uses in his book would have more of an impact than mere recitations for chapter headings. Albert seems to be very honest with his life and his father's life that he lead. I pray that Albert can forgive himself and look to the cross of Christ and know that his sins have truly been paid for. In the end, if one wants an honest description of mob life, I would highly recommend this read as it shows all parts, not just the glamorized ones. Highly Recommended (with caution, adult material in parts)

Read More......

Is Drinking Alcohol a Sin?

I have been having a little discussion with James in my post on the 10 Steps to Become a Legalist. He is doing well with the 10th point of becoming a legalist. He is following it well and even trying to state his case on why he is allowed to be a legalist in this area. Instead of answering his questions in the combox, I decided to make a post answering his last questions. You can check that post to see our discussion, but I wanted to get these answers to these common objections to drinking alcohol in post form. Again, I want to stress that if you have a conviction to not drink yourself, more power to you, I respect your decision. My problem comes when someone calls it sin or then tries to put that yoke on others. Below is the Q and A that we have been discussing. Sounds like a lot of my readers will be reading it while drinking and smoking a good cigar. Hope they both go down well.

James: Ok, here we go Seth:

I start with this verse.
Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: Whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise
Proverbs 20:1

Seth: This verse is one that is not that difficult when you look at its intent. The reason is that the first part of the verse gives the conclusion to what happens in the first part. Wine can become a mocker and strong drink is raging if someone is "deceived" or better put in what the original Hebrew is getting across, the NASB states that these things happen, when you are "intoxicated" by it. Here is how the NASB reads: Wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler, And whoever is intoxicated by it is not wise. Which I agree with, don't get drunk with wine or strong drink because then you become mocked and beyond angry.

James: There was a day & time when it was commonplace for Christians of all denominations to abide by the Biblical conviction that no person should drink alcohol. In recent years, the radical grace movement, with it's extreme teachings concerning Christian liberty, has spread across America. With this self-centered view of Christianity many Christians have left behind their convictions concerning intoxicating drinks. The sale of Alcoholic beverages has risen by 40 percent, in the last 25 years, which is an epidemic problem that has made it's way into our churches.

Seth: This is almost a completely made up statement. History tells us that most Christians, for 2000 years, have always drank wine, beer, etc. It is only since the prohibition where people started to go against it, which they should have not taken drinks when it was illegal.

James: Leaders should avoid alcohol.
Proverbs 23:31 says,Look thou not upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth it's color in the cup, When it moveth itself aright. (fermenting) It says NOT to.

Seth: I wonder if you read context. The reason that it says to stay away from it, is because of the previous verses of those who misuse alcohol. Who get drunk with it. He just got done talking about those who "linger" over it. And then afterwards talks about wine making people see strange things, uttering perverse things, etc. Meaning that the person is drunk, not merely drinking some wine. The term "do not look at it when it is red" is speaking of it being inticing to a drunk that can't wait to get his hands on the drink. This comes from the most respected Hebrew scholars in Keil and Delitzsch. It could be this or just the use of hyperbole, because the context is clearly speaking of a drunk. Think of when Paul says in 1 Corinthians 8:13 that he would never eat meat again if it were to make his brother stumble.

James: There are many spiritual leaders who abstained from drink.
1. Nazarines (Nazarite vow) Numbers 6:1-4
2. John The Baptist (He followed the Nazarite vowel.) Luke 1:15

Seth: Are you going to also never cut your hair, pledge not to touch a dead animal or eat locusts and wear camel hair? Or can we be more knowledgeable and try and understand that the Nazarite vow is no longer a vow to be followed and John the Baptist was a special prophet among God's people? If not, can I be the first to buy a ticket to your circus in the desert while you wear camel hair, eat bugs and drink grape juice?

James: 3. Deacons/I Timothy 3:8

Seth: This verse says that deacons shouldn't be addicted to wine. What is your point? You can drink wine without being addicted.

James: Leaders should not encourage others to drink. (Habakkuk 2:15-16)

Seth: Did you read this verse? It is speaking of drunkenness. I don't remember the last time I saw someone sip on some wine at dinner and then get naked. Maybe our experiences have been different.

James also lists off Isaiah 5:11 & Proverbs 31:4,5

Seth:

1. Isaiah 5:11
Again, this is speaking of pursuing strong drink and being inflamed with wine, both showing an uncontrollable urge with drinking instead of fearing the Lord. Again, context. Look at verse 12...these people cared more about getting drunk than keeping the deeds of the Lord.

2. Proverbs 31:4-5

Again, keep reading. I never have known people to forget what they have said, when drinking in moderation. This again, is speaking of the dangers of getting drunk. Verse 5 speaks of someone forgetting what is decreed and perverting the rights of the afflicted. Again, drunk, not simply drinking.

James: * in ancient times, wine (as we would call it) was mixed with water in an eight-to-one mixture for purification purposes. The Bibles word wine does not have the same connotation as alcoholic beverages. When water purification was a problem, people would add crushed composites of a grape-type syrup called wine for the purpose of purifying water from parasites. When the Bible talks about wine it is not talking about intoxicating substance at all; it is speaking of treated water in some instances.

Seth: Where did you find this material? I have heard this to try and be explained, but just read the Bible to find it to be false. Because I find it interesting that you keep saying that the wine was not intoxicating, yet you just listed off many verses that speak of wine being intoxicating, making one forget, perverting justice, being a mockery, etc. So, which is it? Intoxicating or not?

James: In reference to spiritual leaders read I Timothy 3:3- Not given to wine...

Seth: Do you know what "given" means? It is the Greek word "paroinos" which means addicted or drunk. So, this isn't speaking of abstinence either.

James: More of what scripture says:
1. Condemns drunkenness/Eph. 5:18

Seth: We are speaking of drinking alcohol at all, not getting drunk. I agree that to get drunk is wrong.

James: 2. Warning/Pro. 23:19-21

Seth: Be consistant. It also speaks of gluttons here. So, are you going to abstain from food too? Just because some abuse it doesn't mean that you MUST abstain. Your logic is very flawed at this point.

James: 3. Recommended to go ahead and drink wine. Don't think this is a loop-hole. I Timothy 5:23- In this verse where wine is mentioned it is commended for medicinal use. Because of the condition of the water in that day, it is believed that Timothy suffered from infirmities relating to his stomach and intestines. so Paul told Timothy to use a little wine for his stomachs sake. Again, this instruction was related to the syrupy grape juice mixed in with water for purification and medicinal purposes.

Seth: This does nothing for your point. This same term of "oinos" which is the same term that people could get drunk on in Ephesians 5:18. Again, I will trust the original Greek instead of your thoughts on the matter.

James: Scripture warns of Alcohols dangers.
1. It hastens ruin/Pro. 23:31-32
2. It enflames lust/Pro. 23:33
3. Destroys families/Genesis 9:20-25

Seth: Correction. This isn't the dangers of alcohol, this is the dangers of the abuse of alcohol. There are also dangers of eating too much and overindulging in money as well (greed) are we supposed to abstain from these as well? How do you get around this?

James: Is today's wine the same as Bible times?
1. No it is not. The majority of the O.T. usages of the word wine comes from a Hebrew word that means "boiling up". Does that sound like intoxicating beverages, yes it does. But that is not what it means. "Boiling up" comes from the idea of boiling grape juice into heavy syrup to use as a mixture in water.

Seth: According to actual scholars in this area, which I quoted to you before, you are not correct here. The Hebrew word that is used speaks of being drunk with wine...again, how do you get drunk from grape juice? I mean, you just quoted a lot of OT verses where people get drunk, is this supposed to be people overindulging in grape juice? Just wondering. Also, for your information, the noun used in the Septuigant for the Hebrew word for "wine" was translated into the Greek as...yep...oinos. The same that is used throughout the NT.

James: Proverbs 23:30- They that tarry long at the wine; they go to seek mixed wine.

According to this verse, some people would drink to much of this mixture deliberately seeking to become intoxicated; but the original intent was for water purification. The second Greek word used for wine simply means "nonintoxicating syrup". We often read about wine in the Bible. When Jesus turned the water into wine, I do not believe that he turned the water into rotten grape juice(fermented wine)that would intoxicate any who drank it. He turned the water into a safe, purified, and refreshing beverage that was non alcoholic. I believe in John 2 when the scripture speaks of Jesus' good wine, it speaks of the drinks mildness as a water like substance. In ancient times the process of fermentation may have begun because of lack of refrigeration. Today's wines, beers, and mixed drinks are highly intoxicating and very dangerous for families, and they are processed to be such. This is definitely different from what the Bible refers to when it teaches about wine.

I hope this enough scripture and evidence for you Seth.
James

Seth: This is completely unfounded with what we find in the Scriptures. The original Greek could not be more clear in this area. Context and the many usages of wine speak of us enjoying wine in heaven (Isaiah 25:6-9; Jeremiah 31:12-14), that wine was given to us for our joy (Judges 9:13; Zechariah 10:7; Ecc 10:19) and that Christ drank this wine at the Last Supper and turned the water into wine at Cana. The warning is that this same wine, this same "oinos", if overindulged is a sin and is very dangerous. We see this in many other ways in the Bible with food, sex, money, anger and the tongue. But we are not told to abstain from eating, sex, making money, righteous anger or talking. Why do you think it is okay to present a double standard where your logic is completely fallacious? If you think it is wrong to drink because it leads to drunkenness, which is exactly what all of the verses you listed are saying, you then better live consistantly and stop having sex with your wife, stop eating, making money or talking.

At least be consistant.

Read More......

The Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy

Since there is a certain reader that I have confused, which wasn't that difficult, I figured I would put up the articles of the Chicago Statement here. If one needs further clarification, click here, to see some other remarks as they considered these articles.

Articles of Affirmation and Denial

Article I.
WE AFFIRM that the Holy Scriptures are to be received as the authoritative Word of God.

WE DENY that the Scriptures receive their authority from the Church, tradition, or any other human source.

Article II.
WE AFFIRM that the Scriptures are the supreme written norm by which God binds the conscience, and that the authority of the Church is subordinate to that of Scripture.

WE DENY that Church creeds, councils, or declarations have authority greater than or equal to the authority of the Bible.

Article III.
WE AFFIRM that the written Word in its entirety is revelation given by God.

WE DENY that the Bible is merely a witness to revelation, or only becomes revelation in encounter, or depends on the responses of men for its validity.

Article IV.
WE AFFIRM that God who made mankind in His image has used language as a means of revelation.

WE DENY that human language is so limited by our creatureliness that it is rendered inadequate as a vehicle for divine revelation. We further deny that the corruption of human culture and language through sin has thwarted God's work of inspiration.

Article V.
WE AFFIRM that God's revelation within the Holy Scriptures was progressive.

WE DENY that later revelation, which may fulfill earlier revelation, ever corrects or contradicts it. We further deny that any normative revelation has been given since the completion of the New Testament writings.

Article VI.
WE AFFIRM that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration.

WE DENY that the inspiration of Scripture can rightly be affirmed of the whole without the parts, or of some parts but not the whole.

Article VII.
WE AFFIRM that inspiration was the work in which God by His Spirit, through human writers, gave us His Word. The origin of Scripture is divine. The mode of divine inspiration remains largely a mystery to us.

WE DENY that inspiration can be reduced to human insight, or to heightened states of consciousness of any kind.

Article VIII.
WE AFFIRM that God in His work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared.

WE DENY that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose, overrode their personalities.

Article IX.
WE AFFIRM that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak and write.

WE DENY that the finitude or fallenness of these writers, by necessity or otherwise, introduced distortion or falsehood into God's Word.

Article X.
WE AFFIRM that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.

WE DENY that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.

Article XI.
WE AFFIRM that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses.

WE DENY that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated.

Article XII.
WE AFFIRM that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.

WE DENY that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

Article XIII.
WE AFFIRM the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.

WE DENY that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.

Article XIV.
WE AFFIRM the unity and internal consistency of Scripture.

WE DENY that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not yet been resolved vitiate the truth claims of the Bible.

Article XV.
WE AFFIRM that the doctrine of inerrancy is grounded in the teaching of the Bible about inspiration.

WE DENY that Jesus' teaching about Scripture may be dismissed by appeals to accommodation or to any natural limitation of His humanity.

Article XVI.
WE AFFIRM that the doctrine of inerrancy has been integral to the Church's faith throughout its history.

WE DENY that inerrancy is a doctrine invented by scholastic Protestantism, or is a reactionary position postulated in response to negative higher criticism.

Article XVII.
WE AFFIRM that the Holy Spirit bears witness to the Scriptures, assuring believers of the truthfulness of God's written Word.

WE DENY that this witness of the Holy Spirit operates in isolation from or against Scripture.

Article XVIII.
WE AFFIRM that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture.

WE DENY the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims to authorship.

Article XIX.
WE AFFIRM that a confession of the full authority, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture is vital to a sound understanding of the whole of the Christian faith. We further affirm that such confession should lead to increasing conformity to the image of Christ.

WE DENY that such confession is necessary for salvation. However, we further deny that inerrancy can be rejected without grave consequences, both to the individual and to the Church.

Read More......

Can a Woman Baptize People?

Last night I taught on water baptism and then I opened it up for questions. We had many good questions about baptism but the one that struck me was the question of, "Is there anything wrong with a woman who baptizes someone?"

From my studies on baptism I noticed one thing that was apparent in Paul's ministry. He did not put much attention on the one doing the baptism. So much so, that he made sure to condemn those who were caught up and bragging about who baptized them.

Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.” Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.
1 Corinthians 1:12-17

Paul is trying to explain that the person who baptized you is not the most important, but as he says in verse 17 speaks of, the gospel is of the utmost importance, not baptism. Paul says that Christ sent him specifically to preach, not baptize. This does not mean that baptism is not important, but the gospel is of first importance.

In my old churches that I have spent time in it was always the lead pastor who baptized people, which is fine, but he is not the only one who should be allowed to baptize. We find in the Scriptures that Philip the deacon baptized the Eunuch in Acts 8 and that in all probability Ananias baptized Paul (even though we do not know for sure). Ananias was just called a "disciple" meaning he was no more than a mere Christian in the early church and yet he was commissioned to baptize someone who was going to write most of the New Testament.

The point is that those who we find baptizing people were not only elders in the New Testament. We also find no where in the Scriptures that forbids the woman baptizing anyone. What we do find is that those who lead the person to a faith in Christ was more than likely the one who would baptize someone. Because I have no issue with women teaching Sunday school, sharing the gospel and being on the mission field, there would be many instances where someone would feel compelled to have that woman baptize them.

In the end, I have never seen a woman baptizing another, but as long as she is humble, like any man should be when baptizing, I find no Scriptural basis on why a woman couldn't baptize someone.

Read More......

10 Steps to Become a Legalist: Step 10

Well this is the last of the steps. I am sure there are many more steps one could take, but these are the ones that I could think of as I have lived my life and watched others live theirs with angry scowls at me as I don't live the way they want me to. This post is one that is going to require you to have a sense of humor, especially if you abstain from alcohol. I will say that the people that I am writing about today are not those who abstain because of their own conviction, but those who not only abstain, but try and convert others to become hall of famers with Welch's Grape Juice alongside them. I will be following this post up with a conclusion, but this will be the last of the steps.

This last step is "People need to abstain from everything...well except food and money"

To be a good legalist, you really have to major on the minors and minor on the majors. If you are scratching your head in confusion because you don't understand the last phrase, your tie is on too tight and you need to put down your King James Bible. Maybe if I said, "If thou desireth to becometh a good legalist, make sureth you overemphasizeth the smalleth things and underemphasizeth the largest of things." Got it? Alright good. For sure this is what will take place as look to how to become a legalist in our last step.

To be a good legalist, find something to abstain from. Whether it be alcohol, smoking or for most of you, sinners. Find something to abstain from, and don't just abstain from them but be a good legalist and find converts for the cause of yourself. You could be the yoke around their neck...errrr...I mean banner of love over them that brings them from sinner to saint. To do this you will have to take verses that speak to certain points and overemphasize them to show that you are right and everyone else is wrong. You will have to take verses and outlaw every use of things to make them sin by just participating instead of what the verse is meant, which is to be careful of over consumption or overuse.

One of the most popular things to abstain from is alcohol. Now, those people that merely abstain for personal conviction are not true legalists, and the reason that you are reading this is not to become a person of conviction, but a person with yokes to hand out. So, take the verses that speak of drunkenness and make it so that it speaks of consumption in any way. Come up with theories that speak of the wine in the biblical times of being watered down and more like grape juice than today's wine. Find these things and harp on them. Make them the center of your ministry and make sure that those who go to taverns, bars or those type of dirty sinful establishments understand that they are going to the den of thieves and robbers. These places are merely the gates to hell. It is your duty to stand on your stool outside, yelling through your bull horn while handing out tracts with the flames of hell on them.

Remember, because the Bible only speaks of drunkenness being wrong, you must take those verses and make them sound like drinking of any kind is sin. Not only do you have to do this but you must make up some very good stories of why we will be drinking wine in heaven, why it was made for our joy, why Jesus drank wine and why he made water into wine as his first miracle. This can get tedious, but if you're desire is to be a good legalist and you have followed the first 9 steps, you should be well on your way of speaking out of both sides of your mouth while proof texting your 1611 King James Bible.

If this isn't going to be your soap box there are many more things that you can abstain from. Smoking is a good one as well. Although smoking is never mentioned in the Bible, don't people know that their bodies are the temple of God? Never mind the passage is dealing with prostitution, remember ignore that and focus on the "temple of God" part. If you quote it enough with a scowl and a finger pointed at people, anything can sound right. Especially if you throw in a "don't be like the world" at people. Just be careful because they might point a certain finger right back at you.

Speaking of "don't be like the world" this comes to the next thing that you can really set your life apart with. Abstain from sinners. Now, you can preach at them, and casually talk to them at the bus stop, but don't let them be your friends. Because if you are friends with them, people might think you are just like them. I mean, what would Pharisees, oops, I mean your congregation, think if they saw you with sinners. Abstain from the sinner, don't let them corrupt you and your family. You are to be holy, not like them or with them. To do this you will have to ignore that most of the apostles were gross sinners and most of those that Christ hung out with and befriended were the worst of sinners. But hey, you have become just like Thomas Jefferson at this point, just cut out those parts of the Bible that do not fit within your new found Christianity. You might have miracles and Jesus in your Bible, but you will have to cut out all the people that were affected by the miracles. No big deal though, God doesn't do miracles anymore anyways, he has you, why would he need miracles?

So, find something to abstain from. Whether it be alcohol, smoking or sinners, find something. Preach on it like Benny Hinn does on money. He might not be in a dark suit, but he could really teach all us legalist how to focus on one thing and make it our ministry.

Alright, enough of the actual post and a little more thoughts on the issue as a whole. I find it interesting that people abstain from alcohol and smoking (I have some close friends abstain, but they aren't legalist in their convictions) don't use the same logic with other things that are spoken of in the Bible. If we are to abstain from alcohol because someone might stumble if they see us drinking, why don't we stop eating around fat people? Why don't we stop spending money in front of people that struggle with greed? You see gluttony and greed are actually named as sin in the Bible where merely drinking and smoking are not. But, what I find is more people have conviction over alcohol and smoking than they do with those things that are mentioned far more often and actually named as sinful. This is a huge deal that is overlooked. What is usually pretty funny is that it is fat preachers, in pin stripe suits, with big houses that tell you that you shouldn't drink or smoke.

Not only are most legalist saying that you must not drink or smoke in front of those who struggle with it, but you must abstain completely even when you are not with those who struggle. So you are to never smoke or drink. Again, take this same logic with those that struggle in other ways. Am I to never eat, because my brother that struggles with gluttony? Am I to never make money or spend it because my brother struggles with greed? Am I never to have sex with my wife because my brother struggles with lust and sex? People need to use some logic here. What about this. I have a neighbor who is a vegetarian. He is not saved, but when they come over, we always eat vegetarian with them. They have told us it is no big deal, but we want to make sure that we are being a good witness of brotherly love. Does this mean though, that I never eat meat? No, but I do it as a witness to them when they come over.

In the end, what seems to happen is that the overuse of anything becomes sin. For whatever reason people have chosen to really harp on smoking and alcohol. Some say it is because they have had some personal experience in dealing with its affects. I have to ask again, "do we do things and put yokes on others because of experience or the Scriptures?" We have to remember that some people have had their lives ruined with money and parents dying because of overeating and heart attacks. Does this mean we have a campaign against eating and money? This would never happen. Historically, drinking alcohol has been a part of life for everyone, but since the prohibition, it seems as though this "sin" has been elevated to an extreme part in people's ministry as they forget the other parts of the Bible.

I have no problem if someone has a personal conviction to abstain from anything. I just beg the question, "Why do you have to put that on others?" Use your own logic with other things and you will find that your personal conviction is just that...personal.

Read More......

What is Calvinism?

If Hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism are as described here, then what is Calvinism?

In my personal beliefs of correct, historic Calvinism, it would be:

The house that is built with Christ as its cornerstone, the prophets, apostles and saints as its bricks, with the Messiah as the door, God its builder and the Holy Spirit the sign welcoming all to come in and take rest.

Read More......

Hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism

Hyper-Calvinism is all house and no door; Arminianism is all door and no house.
John Duncan

Read More......

Phrase Abuse: Part II

My first post focused on a couple of the phrases that I abuse most often, and now I turn the table on a couple phrases that I hear all the time that have seemed to lose some of their meaning. I would ask people what they mean by these two phrases, or if they truly mean it when they use them, but then I would be seen as more of a jerk than I already am. So, I just stay silent and hope that they "mean it" when they say it. The two phrases that I hear most often that make me wonder on their meaning are "God is good" and "Thank God". One has a lopsided use and the other I just don't know if its use is really appropriate.

The first one that we'll look at is "God is Good"

We know that this is definitely true. Literally, God IS good. He gives meaning to what is good and what is evil. He is not merely an abstraction to the term, He is the term. Without Him there would be no case for what is good and what is evil. They end in their definitions with Him. So, the term is not in itself a bad one or a false one, I just believe it is lopsided in its use.

Being that God is eternal, knows what we need, what we do not need, He desires for our joy to be full and knows how to and will determine the means for our greatest good on this earth, we need to accept, that although some bad things happen to us, God is ALWAYS good.

What I find most often within this term is someone saying that God is good, because God has made something good happen within their lives. So, you get a raise, "God is good." You find a job, "God is good". Your wife washed your underwear, "God is good". But, what about when we get pay decreases, we lose our jobs or our underwear wasn't washed by the underwear fairy? What then? When we do not exclaim, and truly believe that God is good during these times , we are practically refuting Romans 8:28

And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.

Although a situation or trial may come and look truly evil to us, and actually could be in of itself evil, we should still exclaim that our God is good and that in turn he will transform this evil into good, because we love him. These are the times that make the world turn their heads. When evil happens and we stand firm that our God is good. What good is it to only make claims of God's goodness when we find favor in our lives? How are we different than those caught up in the health and wealth gospel that treat God as a holy ATM worthy of our praise if he keeps spitting out Benjamins?

We must be steadfast in our understanding that our God is good at all times. Struggles and trials come daily but our God is immutable in His goodness. When we exclaim this to the world, that is when they see the glory of our God.

The second phrase that is abused is the term, "Thank God."

I wonder if this is a phrase that is used in reverence or blasphemy? When people use it, it seems to be more in the way of slang instead of reverence and thankfulness to the Creator who made their mouths. Although, saying "thank goodness" is not a great substitution either, which seems to suggest thanking some kind of pantheistic being or karma for our good fortunes.

What bothers me about the phrase, "Thank God" is when the Christian uses it without really thinking about what they are saying. Are they truly thanking God for what he has done in their lives, or are they using an empty phrase because it is habit?

I would find another way to use this phrase or truly emphasize the thankfulness one has to God when using this phrase. It seems like it is used like "God bless you" after one sneezes. Which I like Jerry Seinfeld's suggestion on that one, let's start using the term "You're sooooo good looking." At least we aren't making God seem like a small figure in our lives and language.

I might be getting nitpicky with these things, but it just seems like the name of our God has become small, when in history His name has been used primarily for reverence. His name was the only thing that was used of the term "awesome". His name was determined to be unpronounceable by the Jews, hence YHWH. Scribes would use different quills reserved only for His name when transcribing the Torah and New Testament. When Scribes were doing their, errr, scribing, they would not look up when the king walked in the room because reverence for merely writing the name of God was far more important than showing respect for a king. Which would normally carry a sentence of death.

Where is this reverence now? If Starbucks still has my favorite Christmas coffee when I go in I say, "thank God". When someone is saved I say, "thank God". When I find the new release at Blockbuster, "thank God". When the Seahawks actually win, "thank God."

Does this not seem a little off? Does this not seem as though God's own name has lost its luster? Take a look at this found in Isaiah when God speaks:

For when he sees his children,
the work of my hands, in his midst,
they will sanctify my name;
they will sanctify the Holy One of Jacob
and will stand in awe of the God of Israel.
Isaiah 29:23

Maybe we don't understand the work of God's hands, because if we did, we would sanctify his name and stand in awe of the God of Israel. Just a thought.

Read More......

Some Places to Find Me...

I am not sure what most of you log into when you get on your computer, but I figured I would give you some different ways to get in touch if you would like. New for me is twitter. I am going to give it a try and see what comes of it.

But, here are the ways you can hit me up for some conversations, etc.

Contend Earnestly Blog Network

Facebook Profile

Twitter Profile

MSN Messenger: sdmcbee at hotmail dot com

Yahoo Messenger: istillhatepayrod (don't ask)

Read More......

Thinking About Some Urban

I need some thoughts on something that I have been thinking about for a while. I work in a suit and tie everyday, I hate it, but what can you do? What I have been doing for the past 6 months is taking a bus to work. When I transfer in the afternoon it is in Renton which is very urban and very hip hop. White, black, whatever, but very urban, with many young junior highers and high schoolers who are hanging out at the transfer station. As I stand there sticking out like an intelligent person at Yankee stadium, I have been thinking about how I could reach them. I look like a dork. I stand there with my laptop bag and suit, reading theology books, but banging hip hop on my iPod. Pretty funny picture if you think about it.

I have seen some faithful guys from Way of the Master stand around trying to hand out tracts, but to be honest, little happens within the kids trying to just kick it with their friends before they head home. My question is, "How do I reach them?"

I wonder if I should try in my suit, or if I should just try to visit at a different times dressed like I usually do. It's not totally urban, but it's not a monkey suit with pin stripes either.

I have been thinking about picking up the "Before You Die" tract from ReachLife Ministries. I have one that I picked up at the Resurgence Conference and it is very good. I am just not sure how economical it is to spend $3.50 per tract (there is a CD insert) but this is probably exactly what I am looking for.

Anyways...any thoughts from my readers? Or you could just go to the site and order me some. :)

Read More......

Hip Hop and Christianity Finally Mix

In my years I have been a huge fan of everything urban, the scene, the people, the music, etc. The problem is that the music was so obscene I have had to stop listening to most of it. I had given up on the Christian scene within hip-hop after someone tried to convince me that DC Talk was a good alternative. Ummmm...no.

It actually took Lecrae and Tedashii coming to Mars Hill's Resurgence Conference for me to see that hip hop has made up major ground within the Christian context. What is interesting is that the guys who are making a major impact are Reformed. The beats are sick, the lyrics are on point and the gospel is being spat. I know most of my readers are not fans of hip hop, which is fine, but these guys make most of the Contemporary Christian Music scene look like nursery hour in a seeker church. I highly, I mean highly commend their records and am very excited that their CD's are making moves on the iTunes best sellers for hip hop overall. Talking about making a dent for Christ. Keep it up guys. Not only are they putting out records, but they are having conferences, putting out curriculum, having concerts and also have tracts for the gospel. These guys are legit in every sense of the word. So legit that they have Piper, Mahaney and Driscoll piped into their songs with excerpts of their preaching. Piper has had interviews, Dricsoll has had interviews...I am telling you, they are making a huge impact. Below is where you can find them and the records that I personally own that have very much enjoyed.

Reach Records

Lecrae: Rebel

Trip Lee: 20/20

Sho Baraka: Turn My Life Up

Reach Life Ministries

Reach Life Tract

Lamp Mode Records

Shai Linne: the Atonement and Storiez

Shai Linne's blog

Cross Movement Records

Flame: Our World Redeemed (he's up for a grammy)

Go check these guys out. What is great is that when you read the lyrics they are spot on. So, not only do you get good beats, but good lyrics.

Hope you enjoy.

Read More......

The Witness of Christianity

I know that we will always say, "why can't we be like those people" etc. and it always seems like we live in the very worst times of Christian piety. I also know that there have always been issues with the witness of Christians among the pagan world as shown clearly to Paul's letters to the Corinthian church. I also know that our shortcomings are even more clear today because of the sheer number of Christians in the world and the media who love to portray us in the most negative sense possible. But, I still find this quote from probably the 2nd or early 3rd century one that probably would not be repeated by 90% of the unsaved.

For Christians cannot be distinguished from the rest of the human race by county or language or custom. They do not live in cities off their own; they do not use a peculiar form of speech; they do not follow an eccentric manner of life. This doctrine of theirs has not been discovered by the ingenuity and deep thought of inquisitive men, nor do they put forward a merely human teaching, as some people do...They busy themselves on earth, but their citizenship is in heaven. They obey established laws, but in their own lives they go far beyond what the laws require. They love all men, and by all men are persecuted. They are unknown, and still they are condemned; they are put to death and yet they are brought to life. They are poor, and yet they make many rich; they are completely destitute, and yet they enjoy complete abundance. They are dishonored, and in their very dishonor are glorified; they are defamed, and are vindicated. They are reviled, and yet they bless; when they affronted, they still pay due respect. When they do good, they are punished as evildoers; undergoing punishment, they rejoice because they are brought to life. They are treated by the Jews as foreigners and enemies, and hunted down by the Greeks; and all the time those who hate them find it impossible to justify their enmity.

Anonymous, "Letter to Diognetus"

Read More......

A Christian Manifesto

This book was definitely one of the more political ones of Schaeffer's. This came towards the end of his life when he was very upset, understandably, over Roe v. Wade and the abolition of anti-abortion laws by the U.S. Supreme Court. It was done well and one that had many great arguments of why we shouldn't really be surprised at what is happening because of the allowance of secular humanism becoming so rampant in our schools and among our society as a whole (in practice anyways).

Like most of Schaeffer, he does very well at showing historically why we are dealing with these issues as a whole. He shows how this country was set up, although not as a Christian one, one that obviously drew from a distinctively Christian mindset. From there, he shows the historical shift that began to take place when the humanist manifesto made it's debut in 1933 and from there the downfall was set in motion. From there, the 1st amendment started to be interpreted differently than the Founding Fathers had in mind and then the 60's started living out the humanist manifesto and we, as a nation, never looked back.

Schaeffer shows why it is necessary for countries to believe in a moral law giver and not in the humanist call that every man decide, in their context, what is right and wrong. Schaeffer actually shows masterfully why abortion is the greatest way that the humanist manifesto has shown itself in our culture. What else should we expect from people who believe that it is up to the person to decide what is right and wrong? Now one can murder their child, because they deem that it is right within their context and for their life. Although deplorable, should not surprise us.

From there Schaeffer gives a historical and biblical understanding of when it is okay to show civil disobedience to a government who goes against God's decrees. Although I don't agree with all his points and he even admittedly states that some will take what he writes beyond the bounds he means them to go, I can see the fruitfulness of this discussion and his reasons.

The one thing that I found to be disturbing within the context of abortion is that he gives four defenses that all Christians should take up for the child. The problem is that these four defenses are all against the government and none against the actual people murdering their children. He points to how to try and fight against a government who allows this murder to happen, but does not show anyway to rise up against the actual murderers of their children. He does this throughout the book on the whole though. He talks about government as a whole, instead of the individual. This is definitely a short coming in the book. Until people are transformed, we can try and change as many laws as we want, but we will come up well short of the overall goal: transforming people to live for the glory of God.

Overall, the book is definitely a political one more than an apologetics book. It is a book where I found myself in agreement and also disagreement, but overall found it useful. As usual Schaeffer wrote this and it sounds like he was living today and not close to 30 years ago. Most of what Schaeffer has forecasted is now happening and it is very close to come to a place to where the Christian voice will be silenced completely. Until then, we must preach, teach and transform the lives of people, not just government. Recommended. Link to Buy

Read More......

Porn-Again Christian by Mark Driscoll

I took some time yesterday to read Driscoll's online book, Porn Again Christian. This is a small booklet speaking about an issue that most pastors get caught doing more than they preach against it.

Driscoll who took a small hiatus from crass and sharp words in his book "Death by Love" comes back hard against all the pansies with their hands down their pants while looking at women that aren't their wives. I mean Driscoll brings it hard and I personally believe that this kind of wording is exactly what these guys need that are hooked on porn.

Driscoll shows why porn is a sin, both outside of marriage and outside of marriage. he not only shows why it is wrong, but he also shows some of the affects of porn on society as a whole and some aftermaths because of it. Namely in the story of Ted Bundy, prostitution, sex slavery,etc.

Driscoll lays out first and foremost some straight up theology on the fear of the Lord. He starts here as this is where wisdom begins. He then works from here to why porn is wrong within the context of understanding that it is intertwined with lust which is condemned by Christ. After this he goes into masturbation, both the ways that it is sin and the way that it is NOT sin. The ways that he deals with in the context of correct usage of masturbation is within the context of marriage.

The next chapter deals with some very frank questions and answers that are harsh at times and just straight up funny. One of the questions comes from a husband that asks, "What do I do if my wife wants to have more sex than I do?" Driscoll answers, "Don’t tell your buddies or they will mock you incessantly for the rest of your life after staring at you blankly without blinking for about an hour in total silence. Do have sex with your wife as often as she likes and thank God."

He ends his main part of the book with those who believe they are the exception to lust and porn. He does this by putting forth an excerpt of James Dobson's interview with Ted Bundy before he was to be executed. I have seen the interview before, but the reminders were astounding to read once more. For one to think they are the exception to the rule with porn is a slippery slope to get to.

After the last chapter, Driscoll has an appendix with 5 different topics. He does this because of how many of his readers and listeners are overseas in the military. He really drives home the point of the prostitution and sex slavery that happens around the military bases. These different appendixes were very eye opening and disturbing as well. The hope is make sure that the military men stop with these acts of indecency, understanding that they are not only hurting themselves but actually supporting sex slavery around their camps.

This book does not hold back. I would reserve this for men who are at least 18 years old to read on. The only time I would think it would be okay for someone younger is if the parent is willing to read and discuss with their child as well. I greatly appreciate Driscoll for not caring what is the norm with preaching but instead, doing what he knows is right in the eyes of God. This subject affects about 50% of males, so to not talk about it is like ignoring half the flock of God. Highly Recommended (with caution).

Read Online: Porn Again Christian

Download PDF: Porn Again Christian

Buy the Book: Porn Again Christian

Read More......

Joyful Noise: Flame; Lecrae; John Reilly

Thanks to Pastor Dave for making me spend another $10 on an album, but this song is sick. Enjoy. For all you reformed white dudes...sick means that this is a song that you won't find in the Psalter but is still godly and off the hizook. Ha ha...enjoy.

Read More......

Phrase Abuse: Part I

I don't know about you but I use some phrases without really thinking about what I am saying. Some of them are shared with society and Christendom and some are just my own terrible usage and abuse of them. I like to point these things out to portray my true self for the use of repentance and also to hopefully open the eyes of our filthy selves to see how brutal we can be at times. Today I will put up some of the terms that I say flippantly and then will turn the tables to point out some that the evangelical community abuses too often.

The first term that I abuse often is the simple, "How you doing?"

Honestly, I really don't care how you are doing. I am just being nice so that there isn't that awkward silence as you walk by someone in the halls. Whether in church or at work as I pass by people I simply smile and ask, "How you doing?" and then I keep walking hoping that they simply say, "good". I should simply say, "hello" so not to give the thought that I care how one is doing as I hurriedly go about my day and the tasks that I have at hand. Because when someone surprises me with an "okay" and are noticeably upset, instead of stopping and speaking with them, I just smile and keep going like I am on speed in need of my next fix.

Instead of changing my phrase, I need to change my attitude and understanding of my role in the scheme of God's plans. I need to be ready to stop what I am doing and speak to the person who is not really okay, but is in need of a gracious ear. The problem is I really don't care for the person, but I need to start. I know this sounds brutal and blunt, but you know you do the same thing but you are just pasting your smile on your face and faking it. :)

As I start my day, I need to simply pray that God would use me how he would want me. I need to expect my day and my running to the bathroom to be interrupted with a real person with real problems. I need to not only do this, but I need to even ask the question, "How you doing?" with sincerity in my voice so that the one that I would usually trample over on the way to Starbucks has the sense that I really want to know how they are doing.

So, the next time you see me and I ask, "how you doing?" shock me and say, "okay" to see if I respond or walk by like a dog getting a stick without a care for you. I pray that I will actually care, but I can't make crazy promises like that yet.

The second phrase that I abuse way too often is, "I'll pray for you"

If you get me to actually stop and talk to you, which is difficult, and you have some things that need to be prayed for, I will definitely tell you, "I'll pray for you". I have to be honest. I probably won't. This just what I say so that I look spiritual. I mean I am supposed to be spiritual. I preach, teach, write, I am a lay leader and the youth director at our church. If I were to actually tell you, "I hope that works out for you" you would probably look at me like you would if you saw a republican helping the poor or a democrat caring about an unborn baby. (sorry, I love potshots) The spiritual thing at this point in the conversation isn't "I'll pray for you" but "Can I pray with you right now?" I speak to many people who tell me many things that need prayer and I can't possibly remember them all. So, I just lie and tell them that I will pray for them and then go about my day that will definitely involve reading about theology and ministry and forgetting about the theology and ministry that is happening right in front of me.

I know this sounds just brutal. But, if you read this blog at all, you know I am honest. This is something that bothers me a lot with myself. I need to be diligent in keeping a prayer journal and regular and sporadic prayer times. I need to act like an Arminian and believe that if I don't pray that God can't do anything. I need to believe that if I don't pray then then the hand of God can't move. I need to be that diligent, but sadly I am not. I actually, in practice, become a fatalist. Which sucks.

So, how do I fix this? I need to really stop at any point and simply ask the person if we can pray right then and there. Yes, my coffee might get cold, but prayer is much more important and if God predestined my coffee to get cold, whom am I to stop it? I also need to keep a pen and paper with me to write down prayer requests as people ask. I then need to continue to pray for them and ask for updates to the prayer requests. How odd would it be if someone asked me to pray and I actually did! Not only that, but I followed up with them to see what God's answer was to our praying together. This would seem that this would only make our relationships stronger, but would also make our understanding of prayer and the sovereignty of God more accurate. We could weep together, take joy together or just wait for God's answer together.

These are my two most abused phrases that I personally use. I know they are brutal and probably make you respond in either laughter or "I can't believe he just admitted that!" Either way, I hope that you will actually pray for me in these areas and not just tell me your on your way to getting your latte.

Let me know also what your most abused phrases are and we can all start praying that we take every thought captive and not just spout off whatever rolls off the tongue.

Read More......

On the Incarnation

I was parusing the local "Christian" book store, I put that in quotes because when you have TD Jakes on the shelf one has to wonder where this store draws the line. I am guessing it is drawn on profit margin. Anyways, I found a small book on their "classics" bookshelf by Athanasius. I wanted to pick up this book so that I could read one of the greatest defenders of God incarnate in our history. I have read many quotes by Athanasius and also read some biographies on Athanasius, but I had never taken up the task to read any of his works. I am glad I decided to do so.

On the Incarnation is very well put together and I wish that more people would put together their argumentation for Christ in this way. Athanasius wrote this book sometime probably in his youth in the early 4th century to his friend, new to the faith, named Macarius.

To prove the incarnation of God the Word, Athanasius starts at Creation and the Fall, continues with the Divine dilemma and its solution in the incarnation, the death of Christ, the resurrection and then ends with refuting the Jews and Gentiles.

The letter to his friend is very easily set up and the use of logic as a defense and offense of argumentation is done very well. He not only does this, but also uses the Scriptures (a lot) and external proofs to lay out his argumentation for the incarnation of God through Christ.

I was expecting this read to be very laborious, but the translation is done very well and makes for an easy, yet edifying read. By the time the reader gets to the refutation of the Jews and Gentiles the arguments have been laid out so well that these arguments are not difficult to prove. Although some of these would not hold water now, as Athanasius does employ the fruits of conversion of people as proof. Using this same logic one could point to Mormomism and Islam in the same light. Even with this, the way that he shows these proofs is still very interesting to read and look to as great reminders of what Christ and the Holy Spirit were doing in the early years of Christianity.

What I like most about this book is that I was still able to glean much truth from it even though it was written 1700 years ago. I was able to take a glimpse into life in the 4th century and to see what was happening in early Christianity and watch a messenger of God put forth the great Gospel truths.

This book is still for readers and apologists today and shows why Athanasius was one of the most intelligent and used men of God. Highly Recommended.

Read More......

Athanasius on the Death of Christ

I am reading "On the Incarnation" by Athanasius for personal study and found an interesting section this morning on the death of Christ. I thought I would put up the quote for all to look at. I have found this small treaties on the Incarnation to be very profitable and will put up a review when I am finished. But for now, here is a quote on the atonement:

Even the very creation broke silence at His behest and, marvellous to relate, confessed with one voice before the cross, that monument of victory, that He who suffered thereon in the body was not man only, but the Son of God and Saviour of all. The sun veiled his face, the earth quaked, the mountains were rent asunder, all men were stricken with awe. These things showed that Christ on the cross was God, and that all creation was His slave and was bearing witness by its fear to the presence of its Master.

Thus, then, God the Word revealed Himself to men through His works. We must next consider the end of His earthly life and the nature of His bodily death. This is, indeed, the very centre of our faith, and everywhere you hear men speak of it; by it, too, no less than by His other acts, Christ is revealed as God and Son of God.

We have dealt as far as circumstances and our own understanding permit with the reason for His bodily manifestation. We have seen that to change the corruptible to incorruption was proper to none other than the Saviour Himself, Who in the beginning made all things out of nothing; that only the Image of the Father could re-create the likeness of the Image in men, that none save our Lord Jesus Christ could give to mortals immortality, and that only the Word Who orders all things and is alone the Fathers' true and sole-begotten Son could teach men about Him and abolish the worhship of idols. But beyond all this, there was a debt owing which must needs be paid; for, as I said before, all men were due to die. Here, then, is the second reason why the Word dwelt among us, namely that having proved His Godhead by His works, He might offer the sacrifice on behalf of all,surrendering His own temple to death in place of all, to settle man's account with death and free him from the primal transgression. In the same act also He showed Himself mightier than death, displaying His own body incorruptible as the first-fruits of the resurrection.

You must not be surprised if we repeat ourselves in dealing with this subject. We are speaking of the good pleasure of God and of the things which He in His loving wisdom thought fit to do, and it is better to put the same thing in several ways than to run the risk of leaving something out. The body of the Word, then, being a real human body, in spite of its having been uniquely formed from a virgin, was of itself mortal and, like other bodies, liable to death. But the indwelling of the Word loosed it from this natural liability, so that corruption could not touch it. Thus it happened that two opposite marvels took place at once: the death of all was consummated in the Lord's body; yet, because the Word was in it, death and corruption were in the same act utterly abolished. Death there had to be, and death for all, so that the due of all might be paid. Wherefore, the Word, as I said, being Himself incapable of death, assumed a mortal body, that He might offer it as His own in place of all, and suffering for the sake of all through His union with it, "might bring to nought Him that had the power of death, that is, the devil, and might deliver them who all their lifetime were enslaved by the fear of death."
On the Incarnation, Athanasius, Chapter 4; The Death of Christ; pgs. 48-49

Read More......

Martin Lloyd Jones on Resolutions

I have been stealing a lot lately. Here is another theft I stole from Piper, enjoy my crime:

Reading Martyn Lloyd-Jones’ classic Spiritual Depression would be a strong way to start the new year.

The title can be a tad deceiving. It’s not merely a book for those with a pronounced sense of spiritual depression. It’s a book for all Christians—for the daily spiritual depressions we all face this side of heaven.

Lloyd-Jones ends his second chapter with these challenging and refreshing words:

Would you like to be rid of this spiritual depression? The first thing you
have to do is to say farewell now once and forever to your past. Realize that it
has been covered and blotted out in Christ. Never look back at your sins again.
Say: ‘It is finished, it is covered by the Blood of Christ’. That is your first
step. Take that and finish with yourself and all this talk about goodness, and
look to the Lord Jesus Christ. It is only then that true happiness and joy are
possible for you. What you need is not to make resolutions to live a better
life, to start fasting and sweating and praying. No! You just begin to say:

I rest my faith on Him alone
Who died for my transgressions to atone

Read More......