tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644821723547636662024-03-21T04:09:15.281-04:00GRACE CHAPEL pastors blogBEGINNING WITH THE NEW COVENANT AS DID THE APOSTLE PAUL..."For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified."
(I Cor. 2:2)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger117125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-464482172354763666.post-6677660466662172402010-04-30T14:51:00.009-04:002010-04-30T15:22:51.819-04:00Something I Must Constantly Remind Myself Of<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimJnYQmjYBM09aShawuhmCiZuIehfnrt58-fJYm1epYv8X6XCvlhLPCuRGD5PkDGsWtHLIN1pQZpR8CZv82fkrnNq1aNr737offj-zJ2rPSSjhNJNd21gmZeIPa5M3l7LE4MUZzHmvTwm-/s1600/cross.jpg"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 233px; FLOAT: left; HEIGHT: 320px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5466012737127026434" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimJnYQmjYBM09aShawuhmCiZuIehfnrt58-fJYm1epYv8X6XCvlhLPCuRGD5PkDGsWtHLIN1pQZpR8CZv82fkrnNq1aNr737offj-zJ2rPSSjhNJNd21gmZeIPa5M3l7LE4MUZzHmvTwm-/s320/cross.jpg" /></a><br /><div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicyfxhn3397fbgv8chWEAIZqkoPUkNwwt2Ly8F7dwHO-LhXGcIv6Gt3WKphgiWA9fAvTyu8QMCOWZYcgpNUefx1CvoqpXgUBnV8tBWdqMD95z9Gi1QU1HG_Je1vuDXUIeLXPZ9xZ4O8SF1/s1600/which-way-can-i-go.jpg"><img style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 320px; DISPLAY: block; HEIGHT: 315px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5466010107067945122" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicyfxhn3397fbgv8chWEAIZqkoPUkNwwt2Ly8F7dwHO-LhXGcIv6Gt3WKphgiWA9fAvTyu8QMCOWZYcgpNUefx1CvoqpXgUBnV8tBWdqMD95z9Gi1QU1HG_Je1vuDXUIeLXPZ9xZ4O8SF1/s320/which-way-can-i-go.jpg" /></a><br /><br /><div><strong>Religion </strong>focuses on rules.</div><div><strong>Christianity</strong> focuses on relationship.</div><br /><div><strong>Religion</strong> is commitment to practice.<br /><strong>Christianity</strong> is commitment to a Person.<br /><br /><strong>A law-centered life</strong> produces despair and pride.<br /><strong>A Christ-centered life</strong> produces gratitude and worship.<br /><br /><strong>A legalist</strong> seeks to gain favor with God.<br /><strong>A Christian</strong> seeks to live for God because Christ alone has placed Him in a favorable position before God.<br /><br /><strong>Religion</strong> promotes self.<br /><strong>Christianity</strong> promotes Christ.<br /><br /><strong>Religion</strong> is focused on "don't do".<br /><strong>Christianity</strong> is focused on "Christ did".<br /><br /><strong>Religion</strong> seeks praise from others.<br /><strong>Christianity</strong> seeks praise for Christ.<br /><br /><strong>A legalist</strong> obeys a list.<br /><strong>A Christian</strong> simply follows Christ.<br /><br /><strong>Religion </strong>is rooted in honoring self and thus bears fruitless branches.<br /><strong>Christianity</strong> is rooted in Christ and thus bears the fruit of the Spirit.<br /><br /><strong>Legalism</strong> is ultimately selfish and works against the church.<br /><strong>Christianity</strong> is ultimately selfless and works with and for the church.<br /><br /><strong>May God be pleased to search our hearts that we may not be religious legalists, but Christ exalting Christians!</strong> <strong>Do we view the Christian life as a series of road signs telling us what not to do, or do we view Christianity as pointing us to the cross of Jesus Christ telling us what Christ did for us?</strong></div><strong></strong></div><div><div><br />- Pastor Andy</div></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-464482172354763666.post-4567106060183272642010-04-18T21:32:00.004-04:002010-04-18T21:42:18.836-04:00Article on God's ImpassibilityI meant to mention the following article in Sunday School class today. In the article, the author clearly and accurately explains the extremes concerning the doctrine of God's impassibility. May we understand not to "under throw", or "over throw" this important doctrine. We must remain Biblically balanced. Furthermore, as I mentioned in class, we must rely heavily upon Isaiah 55:8-9 and Romans 11:33-34. <br /><br /><strong><em><a href="http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/impassib.htm">Here is the link.</a></em></strong>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-464482172354763666.post-8646370198021870192010-04-16T14:56:00.006-04:002010-04-16T15:18:06.625-04:00Together for the Gospel on Vimeo<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZmLJjHrniEjhRIIgpSBQNEM2MPUA0yl6JbnX5OGGe6dAr7ilM9zllEtpvyH-KGeJjcpL1heuec-d6Wwb3J-V5i5FeqFouvVAbvFwnlpAfrTESpIfJOgi-S9hnbS12SiTm-SLbauVe-n7i/s1600/hp_gallery.jpg"><img style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 290px; DISPLAY: block; HEIGHT: 149px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5460812310674750802" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZmLJjHrniEjhRIIgpSBQNEM2MPUA0yl6JbnX5OGGe6dAr7ilM9zllEtpvyH-KGeJjcpL1heuec-d6Wwb3J-V5i5FeqFouvVAbvFwnlpAfrTESpIfJOgi-S9hnbS12SiTm-SLbauVe-n7i/s320/hp_gallery.jpg" /></a><br /><div>Watched two great sermons last night and today from the Together for the Gospel Conference this past week in Louisville. You can watch them as well (and I would encourage you to do so). So far, I have watched MacArthur and Piper, and I highly recommend both. I cannot speak to the others because I have not watched them.</div><div> </div><div></div><div>Here is my analysis...</div><div> </div><div> </div><div></div><div><strong>MacArthur:</strong> <em>Spoke about the Parable of the Seed (Mark 4:26-29).</em> Did a great job reminding us that salvation is a sovereign work of God. The sower sows the seed, and then sleeps really well. Therefore, there is no need to adjust the Gospel to accomadate the culture, or draw people. The Spirit blows on who He wants to, and on whom He determines to. Thus, we must sow the seed, and leave the results to God (i.e. sleep well).</div><div> </div><div> </div><div></div><div><strong>Piper:</strong> <em>Spoke on the Pharisee and Tax Collector (Luke 18:9-14).</em> Did a great job reminding us that we must recognize two important elements to justification by faith. Justification includes: 1) Christ's perfect obedience in our place, and 2) His death as a perfect atonement in our place. The good works that we exhibit as Christians is the fruit, not the root of our justification. We have had imputed to us the righteousness of Christ if we have placed faith in Him alone. It is an alien righteousness. The basis of salvation is Christ alone!<br /></div><div></div><br /><div><strong><em><a href="http://vimeo.com/10941231">Click here for your viewing pleasure.</a></em></strong></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-464482172354763666.post-25424775542982618052010-04-14T10:36:00.005-04:002010-04-14T10:38:59.452-04:00What is the Gospel? A Great Definition!Click <strong><em><a href="http://www.ligonier.org/blog/what-gospel/">HERE</a></em></strong> for a clear, simple (yet not overly simplistic), and thorough definition of the Gospel. It does not get much better than this.<br /><br />Compliments of R.C. Sproul (said at the Together for the Gospel conference)Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-464482172354763666.post-29118180064817774432010-04-12T09:39:00.002-04:002010-04-12T09:45:41.592-04:00Angelic Rap Music in Heaven<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWe4xTZRq45mQZHG6e-Co0h9i0cvOR1rgGfmDMKit0VxHUSQGshuZGuAmzrNCt1UqfcZPwqxZJ1JDyQ0qI7qvHpLcWAFjfflH_ia5dJ42BLPyUyXnmqHfKZ3JouEau50MBzMSf_8SSUDCi/s1600/Johnny+Mac.jpg"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 240px; FLOAT: right; HEIGHT: 202px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5459246698581527890" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWe4xTZRq45mQZHG6e-Co0h9i0cvOR1rgGfmDMKit0VxHUSQGshuZGuAmzrNCt1UqfcZPwqxZJ1JDyQ0qI7qvHpLcWAFjfflH_ia5dJ42BLPyUyXnmqHfKZ3JouEau50MBzMSf_8SSUDCi/s320/Johnny+Mac.jpg" /></a><br /><div>Click on the following to hear some....<br /><a href="http://vimeo.com/9571314"><strong><em>http://vimeo.com/9571314</em></strong></a></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-464482172354763666.post-14735146135547636642010-02-25T09:16:00.008-05:002010-02-25T09:46:24.697-05:00Huggins Speaks From His Heart<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHr0aWOzNfRAFJ6rNW2PxrtmIngDjpnJExYEKGTxaQLfGPkIDzdta8n3KD-0crv7bSkc_esu55XnO2n402_0fgRUYeUZWAfCTbCwG-GZqpuOspPBt3dqKbqF0g5xtCJw0ALToKFA2wrqas/s1600-h/hugginsb.jpg"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 246px; FLOAT: right; HEIGHT: 320px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5442189818102274754" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHr0aWOzNfRAFJ6rNW2PxrtmIngDjpnJExYEKGTxaQLfGPkIDzdta8n3KD-0crv7bSkc_esu55XnO2n402_0fgRUYeUZWAfCTbCwG-GZqpuOspPBt3dqKbqF0g5xtCJw0ALToKFA2wrqas/s320/hugginsb.jpg" /></a><br /><br />All true West Virginians will be moved as they listen to <a href="http://www.wvmetronews.com/mediaplayer.cfm?storyid=35397"><strong><em>these remarks</em></strong></a><strong><em> </em></strong>from Coach Bobby Huggins following the loss to UConn on Monday night. It reminded me of similar words he spoke a couple of years ago in an interview with Bray Cary (<em>Decision Makers</em>). Unfortunatley, <em>Decision Makers</em> does not place archive videos online so I cannot provide you with that clip.<br /><p>Start listening at the 6 minute mark to hear what I am talking about.</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-464482172354763666.post-8823528903218894092010-02-12T13:15:00.006-05:002010-02-12T13:24:35.696-05:00Today Where is the Boldness of Luther Who Said...<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNKR0DamIarPB_ppJQSHPl-yNjFRYlt_f7BsIxd4gcvePcAn91EP6T4995B6qeDHvYKWr2NcFVeVP9gum54Cm4aywxov1KbOilyiVscp8FXyALS5zKezY2VuDQu036dq6VA2Z_BQ1cSY6k/s1600-h/martin_luther.jpg"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 182px; FLOAT: right; HEIGHT: 200px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5437423340951222386" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNKR0DamIarPB_ppJQSHPl-yNjFRYlt_f7BsIxd4gcvePcAn91EP6T4995B6qeDHvYKWr2NcFVeVP9gum54Cm4aywxov1KbOilyiVscp8FXyALS5zKezY2VuDQu036dq6VA2Z_BQ1cSY6k/s200/martin_luther.jpg" /></a> <span style="font-size:130%;">"Unless I am convicted by Scripture or by right reason (for I neither trust in popes or councils since they have often erred and contradicted themselves)- unless I am thus convinced, I am bound by the texts of the Bible, and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I neither can, nor will recant anything, since it is neither right nor safe to act against conscience. God help me. Amen."</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-464482172354763666.post-34831438837669808952010-02-10T09:03:00.005-05:002010-02-10T09:57:42.937-05:00Proliferating Ignorance<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUN6RnISHOOmEhRG3zSIgjpiLYzgPxL-JPz2WdThR7vyAvYSBj-IXEin3u9luuUHh-KL7XOUzUTLGeQ9iNoPzDuJjhGasnPYB9K6ws59phcQbEpApAMGXfdzGB6Chjp4OU7MYMVeTfO05e/s1600-h/bgrn630l.jpg"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 200px; FLOAT: right; HEIGHT: 163px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5436620904425164754" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUN6RnISHOOmEhRG3zSIgjpiLYzgPxL-JPz2WdThR7vyAvYSBj-IXEin3u9luuUHh-KL7XOUzUTLGeQ9iNoPzDuJjhGasnPYB9K6ws59phcQbEpApAMGXfdzGB6Chjp4OU7MYMVeTfO05e/s200/bgrn630l.jpg" /></a><br /><p>This is an article every Christian should take the time to read. It is article #2 by John MacArthur regarding media in a postmodern age. What ever happened to serious reflection, serious discourse, and serious listening? Note: The church today seems to be allowing cultural drifts to bury them deep in the snow of postmodern communication.</p><p>MacArthur writes:</p><p><em>"Meanwhile, the ease, immediacy, and affordability of Internet publishing has leveled the playing field between pundits and the proletariat. Anyone can start a blog, for free. Anyone with a computer (or cell phone) and an Internet connection can instantly broadcast his every opinion worldwide. Novices and scholarly authorities alike can employ the same media. Those who are most adept at gathering an audience are the ones who are being heard, not necessarily those most qualified to speak.</em></p><p><em>So many opinions and so much information all moving so quickly means a simple, off-the-cuff sound bite may be a thousand times more influential than a meticulously-researched treatise. In fact, whether something is true or false is usually deemed less important than the way the idea is communicated. (Today’s marketing strategies are based on that assumption.) Most people naturally prefer a punchy one-liner to a carefully-written essay. So style takes precedence over content in almost every venue. Sound-bites are simply easier to swallow than a serious discourse."</em></p><p><strong><em><a href="http://www.gty.org/Blog/B100209"><span style="color:#000099;">CLICK HERE TO READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE</span></a> </em></strong>(If you have the stamina to read more than a "punchy one-liner".)</p><p>- Andy</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-464482172354763666.post-65509776899150562452010-01-28T07:58:00.002-05:002010-01-28T08:01:43.714-05:00Lawson Audio OnlineThe audio of Pastor's Lawson's sermons from the book of Colossians at the Appalachia Conference are now available <strong><em><a href="http://randolphonline.org/ministries/conference/audio-archive/">HERE.</a></em></strong><br /><br />Enjoy, and may you be reminded of the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ.<br /><br />AndyUnknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-464482172354763666.post-6587406250676009572010-01-25T07:28:00.006-05:002010-01-25T07:55:50.116-05:00Steve Lawson Weekend<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0ufgKjORkF6QnFmB2OwVVSlpqrSTeW4Ps1YMpWuzVUGPTBIsY0gHbBzPL3cI8AUJKRCRiFImlf3Bqkvor9jtkfG9sYai_HNbn8voiB7e-0PLT6tkps003ALF_YF8FsbcP6qKkJkmnWcHd/s1600-h/stevelawson.jpg"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 200px; FLOAT: right; HEIGHT: 133px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5430657997063499026" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0ufgKjORkF6QnFmB2OwVVSlpqrSTeW4Ps1YMpWuzVUGPTBIsY0gHbBzPL3cI8AUJKRCRiFImlf3Bqkvor9jtkfG9sYai_HNbn8voiB7e-0PLT6tkps003ALF_YF8FsbcP6qKkJkmnWcHd/s200/stevelawson.jpg" /></a><br /><div>Many of you know that Mike and I along with another friend traveled to the capitol this past weekend to attend the first annual Appalachia Conference on Theology and the Church. Steve Lawson spoke from...guess???- <em>the book of Colossians</em>! The theme was the Supremacy of Christ. Christ was indeed made much of. Here are Dr. Lawson's 10 points from Colossians 1:15-23:</div><br /><div></div><br /><div>I. Jesus is <strong>Fully God</strong> (vs. 15a)</div><br /><div>II. Jesus is <strong>Absoulutely Sovereign</strong> (vs. 15b)</div><br /><div>III. Jesus is <strong>All Powerful Creator</strong> (vs. 16)</div><br /><div>IV. Jesus is<strong> Eternally Pre-existent</strong> (vs. 17a)</div><br /><div>V. Jesus is <strong>Mighty Sustainer</strong> (vs. 17b)</div><br /><div>VI. Jesus is <strong>Supreme Lord</strong> (vs. 18a)</div><br /><div>VII. Jesus is <strong>All Sufficient Source</strong> (vs. 18b)</div><br /><div>VIII. Jesus is <strong>Pre-eminent One</strong> (vs. 18c)</div><br /><div>IX. Jesus is the <strong>Final Reconciler</strong> (vss. 19-20)</div><br /><div>X. Jesus is <strong>Gracious Savior</strong> (vss. 21-23)</div><br /><div></div><br /><div>Thank you Dr. Lawson for wonderful preaching that exalted our Lord and Savior. Also, thank you to Randolph Street Baptist for putting on a first class conference for FREE! Thanks for your labor of love.</div><br /><div>I will post the audio for these three sermons when it is made available over the net. Meanwhile, I would encourage you to view Dr. Lawson's other sermons<a href="http://www.sermonaudio.com/source_detail.asp?sourceid=christfellowship"> <em><strong>HERE</strong></em><em><strong>.</strong></em> </a>I promise that you have never heard preaching like this before. Simply amazing.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-464482172354763666.post-29052654307853304512010-01-19T10:00:00.017-05:002010-01-19T12:43:02.652-05:00Back to Basics: Sunday School<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqqbMrV_ETXX5dk1MiBMjh9oI3WeZ_ZS_KsRMNgJv5rw6phRG-KPegyk_u1KsQH8cuO_-OeE-bei2VrC0WguDOsB8mc7oy2bSFX2WKCKrqKcoDRL9Y2Ma_nzpHIWTHcwBh2gDyc4TW5QlL/s1600-h/wolf5.jpg"><img style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 214px; DISPLAY: block; HEIGHT: 320px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5428504558835376482" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqqbMrV_ETXX5dk1MiBMjh9oI3WeZ_ZS_KsRMNgJv5rw6phRG-KPegyk_u1KsQH8cuO_-OeE-bei2VrC0WguDOsB8mc7oy2bSFX2WKCKrqKcoDRL9Y2Ma_nzpHIWTHcwBh2gDyc4TW5QlL/s320/wolf5.jpg" /></a><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">We want to return to our Sunday School series on today's blog post. It has been a while since I posted anything, so let me remind you that I have been outlining several arguments that can be used in favor of God's existence. Again, let me say from the outset several important things:</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">1) I consider myself a pastor and preacher, not a professional apologist. We owe great debt to those who commit their whole lives to the study of apologetics. That is their passion, their calling, their gifting. However, I think sometimes as Christians we try and make defending God's existence more difficult than it really is. Sure, there are always those really intellectual types who deny God's existence. They may or may not beleive that my arguments for God's existence are convincing. Nevertheless, at the end of the day I think we bring our own presuppositions to the table in discussing God's existence. I argue for His existence quite simply because the Spirit of God has regenerated my heart and mind, removing the veil, and thus revealing to me the glory of Jesus Christ. Those who argue against the viability of God's existence have yet to be met with the grace of God for salvation. Thus, in a sense, this type of individual will be limited in what they can even understand. They will not see that God exists until He chooses to open their hearts and minds to Him. Quite simply, sin darkens the mind. I could give the greatest oratory arguments for the existence of God and the really smart, thoughtful (and sinful) atheist will always find something to pick at me about. I make no qualms about this. This is reality. I do not think it is the end of the world if I do not argue like a professional apologist. I am quite satisfied in standing on the shoulders of great Christian apologists and trust they are smarter than me, have better arguments than I could ever construct, and have served the church well in the past, and I assume, will continue to do so. Christians must be careful to not view apologetics as if it were a game of chess. Arguments for God's existence should not be done for mere leisure and pleasure like a chess game. It is not a game of chess. Setting forth arguments for God's existence should always be conducted with an attitude that places Christ at the center. The goal is to reveal the glory of Christ not to <em>merely</em> prove a skeptic wrong, <em>merely</em> enjoy the debate game, or show an unbelieving skeptic how intellectually astute one is.</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">2) As I have stated in the past, the purpose of the Sunday school class is not to go into great detail on arguments for God's existence. The purpose of the class (at least when I planned it at the beginning) was to give an overview of basic Christian doctrine. I guess I have gone deeper into these arguments for God's existence than I wanted to. However, I think it is important to go slow (slower is better than faster) and make sure that I am clear, or as clear as a yet perfected saint can be.</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">3) I have been encouraged by many who tell me that they are learning new things. This is solely by the grace of God because I do not feel that I am an expert in this area! However, I have learned much in the past several weeks and am excited that the Spirit of God is teaching us together!</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">Okay, this is turning into a long blog post. Let me begin to develop the second argument that you can use with those who are skeptical regarding God's existence. The first argument was: <em><strong>"If a personal God does not exist, then how do we account for the cause and effect universe that we exist in?"</strong></em></span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">The second argument goes like this...</span></div><br /><div><em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">"If a personal God does not exist, then how do we explain the order, design, complexity, and harmony of the universe we exist in?"</span></strong></em><br /></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;">Even some unbelieving scientists admit and readily affirm (in principle at least) that there is natural harmony, uniformity, design, regularity, etc. in an increasingly complex universe. In short, the world shows the mark of intelligent design. The world appears to be <em>purposeful. </em></span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">Fairly recently, scientists have adopted a principle that they call "the anthropic principle". Underlying this principle is the idea that the laws of nature appear to be designed particularly for human life to emerge. However, not all naturalists affirm this principle, and even if they do they are not ready to affirm the reality of the God of Scripture.</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">But let's assume for a moment that the typical naturalist is right. Let's assume with the majority of naturalists that the world we live in has its origins rooted in chance. Let's operate from their formula- <em>nobody + nothing= everything. </em>In other words, the universe was not designed by a Maker with particular purpose, meaning, and direction. Rather, it is simply<em> time and chance acting upon matter.</em></span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">Now if it is true that the universe is simply matter in motion according to chance, then everything we say and do (it follows logically) is also matter in motion according to chance- and nothing more. And this means quite simply that the atheist who argues against the existence of God in a debate hall actually does more to argue for the existence of God by opening his mouth. You say, okay buddy who's koolaid have you been drinking? Well, let me explain what I mean. Douglas Wilson has been extremely helpful in this area. If the universe is simply a series of chemical reactions (chance happenings if you will), and we are not the product of intelligent design- but just chemical reactions ourselves- then we have no reason to believe our own thoughts to be true or meaningful. And this means that we have no legitimate basis for asserting that our thoughts are even chemical reactions. In a world like this truth is not certain; it cannot be. Why would we trust logic if the world is just chaos- the product of chance?</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">Christian pastor and apologist Douglas Wilson gives a convincing illustration at the beginning of his debates with Christopher Hitchens. He says that it would not be that interesting if he shook up two bottles of carbonated beverages and placed them on the table at the front of a debate hall. Nobody, he argues, would think twice about sitting in a debate hall and watching those two bottles. Those bottles would not be debating. Rather, they would be fizzing over. They represent a simple chemical reaction and nothing more. Wilson then goes on to show that if we are just the product of chance, then we are simply chemical reactions. </span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">Wilson's illustration should not be overlooked as elementary. It is profoundly foundational, but not superficially elementary. Wilson is taking Hitchens arguments away from him as illegitimate before he even has a chance to open his mouth to argue against the existence of God. Wilson is simply saying that it is foolish to trust logical thoughts, assertions, and communications of someone who denies the basic purpose and meaning of our universe. The atheist's argument collapses under the weight of a heavy presupposition which asserts that our world is the product of chance. And if so, then our thoughts are chance. And if that is so, then why trust them as meaningful. It would be equally as exciting to watch a coke bottle fizz over. Under the weight of their presupposition exist arguments that are reduced simply to chemical reactions; riots of matter ultimately meaningless, purposeless, and truly untrustworthy.</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;">In other words, by the mere fact that the atheists is willing to trust logic and rationality proves that he believes deep down that there is some semblance of order, design, and purpose to this universe. Therefore, he does more to argue for God's existence even in the midst of blasphemous, God hating comments opposing God's existence! To God be the glory!</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">The atheist is really in a bind. On what basis should he be given a fair hearing? If he asserts that the world is chance, then his thoughts have to be viewed as chance too, right? So his position is flawed and inconsistent at the beginning because it does not logically allow for the asserting of any sort of objective truth. By the standards of his overall worldview, if the world is time and chance acting upon matter (and nothing more), then his thoughts are nothing more than that. Any assertion of truth on his part is just "chance". So why should we trust it as truth.</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">And this brings up obvious inconsistencies. Why does the atheist readily trust the laws of mathematics and logic. The atheist can say what he wants but as Douglas Wilson says we must "watch his feet" when he makes his statements. And when we look at his feet we will see him standing on the Christian's foundation. The Christian's foundation for logical argumentation is that we exist in a purposeful, meaningful world created by a purposeful, meaningful Maker. Thus, logical argumentation fits quite well with the Christian. It does not fit well with the atheist.</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">The Christian is consistent in depending upon laws of logic because laws of logic reveal purpose. And purpose points to a Maker behind the purposeful world that He created. On the other hand, it is inconsistent for the atheist to depend upon logic, and when he does he reveals that deep down he understands the purposeful world in which he exists. The Christian is consistent to use and recognize logic because he says God created those laws of logic- they flow from His character. Because God does not lie, the Christian understands that he too should not lie. Therefore, the Christian naturally attempts to follow laws of logic to tell others the truth regarding His existence. The atheist shows his inconsistency in following in principle the same laws of logic. He also cannot help but reveal that he too was created in the image of God. Laws of logic are innate to him as well. And it is the Christian's duty to lovingly show the atheist his inconsistencies in the hope that the Spirit of God would be pleased to open his heart and mind to truth.</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">Let me change gears and close with a convincing illustration in nature that reveals this order, design, complexity, and harmony of the universe we live in. We have been speaking about the order revealed through laws of logic. Now let's speak for a moment about order and purpose being revealed through laws of nature.</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">In his book entitled <em>Exposing Darwinism's Weakest Link, </em>Kenneth Poppe points out an interesting occurrence in Yellowstone Park. The timber wolf was re-introduced to Yellowstone several years ago. This caused the trout population in Yellowstone to immediately sky rocket. Now the question is, How and why would the re-introduction of the timber wolf into Yellowstone have anything to do with the trout population increasing?</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">The answer is related to the clear harmony, design, uniformity, and purpose of the world that we exist in. When the timber wolves were not present, the deer and elk would graze around the streams and drink water freely. In fact, they would do it all day. When the timber wolf was re-introduced this changed. The deer and elk went back to their normal pattern of eating and drinking. No longer could they graze and drink all day for fear of their predators. They would go to the streams early in the morning and late in the evening, quickly graze and sip some water before returning back to the woods for cover. With the timber wolf present, they were running the risk of being attacked. This caused the trout population to go up. This is how it worked: when the timber wolves were not present, the deer and elk ate an unnatural amount. They did this because there existed no fear of being attacked. They would walk around the streams all day kicking dirt into the water, which turned into mud. In addition, they had the time to consume whole saplings, thus removing would be shade from the streams. This impacted the trout population, which apparently does not like a muddy environment and unshaded waters. The activity of the deer and elk caused them to migrate away. However, when the timber wolves came back, the deer and elk were not around as much- saplings grew into large trees and the water was free from so much mud. The result: the trout came back and flourished!</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">The above illustration is just one of many that reveal the purpose and design of the universe. What the deer and elk did affected the trout. And what the timber wolf does (hunting deer and elk) affected the patterns of deer and elk. This is organized, purposeful, ordered creation being played out in the ecosystem. Surely, many more examples could be given. This is just one.</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">In short, it is self evident that our universe is purposeful. It has an end. It has direction. It possesses design, though it is complex. To affirm otherwise is to open oneself up to implications that deny one the ability (to logically) make such an assertion-such as "God does not exist"- viable and intelligent. This purposeful universe is the product of a Creator God.</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">Again, I would point out (as I did with the first argument) that this argument alone does not prove beyond doubt God's existence. It is simply one of many strands of rope, that when intertwined with other arguments, or strands of rope serve as one big rope which strengthens the overall argument for God's existence.</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">So the only meaningful answer to the question, "If a personal God does not exist, then how to we explain the order, design, complexity, and harmony of the universe we exist in?- is that there is not an adequate explanation. A personal, Creator God must exist.</span></div><br /><div></div><br /><div></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-464482172354763666.post-18637453764105660662010-01-15T22:29:00.003-05:002010-01-15T22:50:09.765-05:00Third Function of a Kinsman Redeemer<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQZlQFd76u2wSqYYJ98gCXdcIw_Xnp3l36r2kLSEozrTDUtRQLPKCVMZGt2d2EDkwuub32QFndWwlKP52V9GyRdodgfXydVSjpcpKwAJgzyJ3EA4FB5iz8ues3M38HndoaNuWH2e-U0R7r/s1600-h/spurgeon1.jpg"><img style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 150px; DISPLAY: block; HEIGHT: 211px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5427179511354721218" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQZlQFd76u2wSqYYJ98gCXdcIw_Xnp3l36r2kLSEozrTDUtRQLPKCVMZGt2d2EDkwuub32QFndWwlKP52V9GyRdodgfXydVSjpcpKwAJgzyJ3EA4FB5iz8ues3M38HndoaNuWH2e-U0R7r/s400/spurgeon1.jpg" /></a><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">I came across the theme of "kinsman redeemer" in my study earlier this week. I was familar with the role of a "kinsman redeemer" being twofold: 1) delivering/freeing one from debt, and 2) delivering/freeing one from destitution (ex. Boaz and Ruth). However, Spurgeon eloquently describes the third function of a "kinsman redeemer" among the nation of Israel, which I was not familiar with. The quote below is taken from a sermon Spurgeon preached on April 12, 1863 entitled "I Know that My Redeemer Liveth". In it he describes the "legal avenger" who was also a sort of 'kinsman redeemer". Spurgeon's point is that Christ fulfills the role as our Kinsman Redeemer. What a glorious and rich truth!</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;">(Spurgeon calls the redeemer a "goel", which is the Hebrew transliteration for "redeemer" found in places like Job 19:25.)</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;">"To linger here a moment, there was yet, very conspicuously in the Old Testament, we are informed, a third duty of the goel, which was to avenge the death of his friend. If a person had been slain, the Goel was the avenger of blood; snatching up his sword, he at once pursued the person who had been guilty of bloodshed. So now, let us picture ourselves as being smitten by Death. His arrow has just pierced us to the heart, but in the act of expiring, our lips are able to boast of vengeance, and in the face of the monster we cry, "I know that my Goel liveth." Thou mayst fly, O Death, as rapidly as thou wilt, but no city of refuge can hide thee from him; he will overtake thee; he will lay hold upon thee, O thou skeleton monarch, and he will avenge my blood on thee. I would that I had powers of eloquence to work out this magnificent thought. Chrysostom, or Christmas Evans could picture the flight of the King of Terrors, the pursuit by the Redeemer, the overtaking of the foe, and the slaying of the destroyer. Christ shall certainly avenge himself on Death for all the injury which Death hath done to his beloved kinsmen. Comfort thyself then, O Christian; thou hast ever living, even when thou diest, one who avenges thee, one who has paid the price for thee, and one whose strong arms shall yet set thee free."</span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-464482172354763666.post-8607520090915308882010-01-11T08:36:00.011-05:002010-01-12T09:51:14.723-05:00What Does It Mean to be Baptist?<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifpMI5HPFGATXFfiYl25cN2uLKTzHjBut4zNpMQ-zIywS-xVHGpScgSbL7SEe0A0O47TFQTMzSfz_lhwiDTambXPJyWBTnYK-yeddh8E9sSZ7Ttzm79h0Ovd_zBD9NbzrASvAR8zGDvTAu/s1600-h/charles-spurgeon.jpg"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 200px; FLOAT: right; HEIGHT: 182px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5425865884782902930" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifpMI5HPFGATXFfiYl25cN2uLKTzHjBut4zNpMQ-zIywS-xVHGpScgSbL7SEe0A0O47TFQTMzSfz_lhwiDTambXPJyWBTnYK-yeddh8E9sSZ7Ttzm79h0Ovd_zBD9NbzrASvAR8zGDvTAu/s200/charles-spurgeon.jpg" /></a> <span style="font-size:130%;">I remember it like it was yesterday. I was about eight or nine years old and my family just moved to a new town. It was Sunday, so we naturally began looking for a church. Being that my father was of the Calvinistic persuasion, he decided to visit a Presbyterian church. We had never been to any type of church but baptist. I refused to get out of the car claiming that, "I was baptist, not Presbyterian." I remember the day quite well. I was serious- as serious as an eight year old could be. But I really did not know why I was Baptist. I just knew that I did not want to be anything else.</span> <div><br /><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">If you are anything like me, you probaly stutter and stammer when someone approaches you with the question, "Oh, your baptist. What is that?" Do we point to the fact that we immerse beleivers? Do we point to the fact that we are locally autonomous (no structure of religious denominational hierarchy)? Do we point to the fact that we emphasis the priesthood of the believer (the involvmenet of all saints in ministry)? Well, all of those things flow from what it means to be baptist, but to suggest that any one of them completely defines what it means to be baptist is a serious mistake.</span></div><br /><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">We ought to know why we are Baptist. We ought to be able to tell others what it means to be Baptist. Ultimately, we are Christ followers. Ultimately, the Gospel is all that matters. I know that. But somehow it still seems important that we are capable of telling people why we attend a Baptist church. If you disagree then do not read this post. It will not be the end of the world. But if you are interested, then allow me to indulge you with some historical markers of Baptist life.</span></div><br /><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">My former professor at Southern- Dr. Tom Nettles- has written a fine work on the history of baptists. In the introduction to this work, Nettles gives three specific things that define what it means to be baptist historically speaking. Historically, baptists have always been <em>orthodox, evangelical, and separatistic.</em></span></div><br /><br /><div><em><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></em></div><br /><br /><div><em><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></em></div><br /><br /><div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">To Be Baptist Means to be Orthodox</span></strong></div><br /><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">If you are reading this blog and are not familiar with what orthodox means, please do not sign off. To be orthodox simply means that you stand in that great tradition of true Christians down through the ages who have held a Biblical position concerning the identity of Jesus Christ. In addition, to be orthodox also means to hold a Biblical position on the Trinity. Nettles puts it thus:</span></div><br /><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">"All Christians must ask, 'Who is this Christ whom we worship, and what is his relationship to deity?' The first four ecumenical councils of the church sought to express an answer to this twofold question. The creed of Nicea affirmed that Jesus was of the same essence as God the Father and in his incarnation had taken upon himself the complete human nature. This creed also affirmed his separate personality from the Father. Councils at Constantinople and Ephesus protected these affirmations against various heretical divergences until a christological definition was given final form at the council at Chalcedon" (<em>By His Grace and for His Glory: A Historical, Theological, and Practical Study of the Doctrines of Grace in Baptist Life</em>, x-xi). </span></div><br /><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">In other words, orthodoxy contains the belief that Jesus Christ is one person possessing two natures. He is fully God, and at the same time fully man. Yet, He is one person, not two. It is to further believe (to quote the First London Confession) that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are "of the one and same God..and therefore not divided, but distinguished one from another by their several properties". That is to say, the Son proceeds from the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. And the Father "is neither begotten nor proceeding" from either the Son or the Holy Spirit (to quote the Westminster Confession).</span></div><br /><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">So orthodox simply means to understand that Christ is God, and became a real man while at the same time remaining God. It is also to understand that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit compose one God who is three in persons with distinguishing roles, yet one unified purpose of redemption. To stray from these teachings is to stray from Scripture. And to stray from Scripture is to be unorthodox. Baptists have always been orthodox.</span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><br /><br /><div><br /></div></span><br /><br /><div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">To Be Baptist Means to be Evangelical</span></strong></div><br /><br /><p><span style="font-size:130%;">Nettles quotes Bruce Shelley's description of evangelical. Shelley describes "evangelical" as "a spirit, a concern for sinners, a way of life. Its master motif is the salvation of souls, its guiding image the redemptive Gospel of Jesus Christ. All other considerations are subordinate to this standard" (xvii).</span><br /></p><br /><p><span style="font-size:130%;">In other words, evangelical describes someone who is consumed, focused, even obsessed with the Gospel. It describes someone who is so thankful for what they have experienced in Christ that they desire others to experience the grace of salvation that they have experienced. More specifically, to be evangelical means that one adopts, supports, and teaches the doctrine of justification by faith. To fail in holding to this doctrine is to fail to truly understand the Gospel. Evangelicalism, therefore unashamedly affirms that faith alone justifies. It emphasizes the forgiveness of sins and the imputed righteousness of Christ alone. </span><br /></p><br /><p><span style="font-size:130%;">Nettles puts it this way:</span><br /></p><br /><p><span style="font-size:130%;">"The evangelical message asserts the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the personal revelation of god, the completeness of his work in humiliation and exaltation for the redemption of sinners, the effectual working of the Holy Spirit through the preaching of the gospel, and the necessity of an uncoerced response to repentance and faith. The heart of evangelicalism throbs with the redeeming gospel of grace, expressed in missionary passion that outreaches in evangelism" (xvii).</span><br /></p><br /><p><span style="font-size:130%;">I dealt with this very topic Sunday in Colossians 4:2-6- where the theme is Gospel centered ministry. I pointed out Christ's words to His disciples in John 15 when he predicts, "You will testify of me...because you have been with Me from the beginning". As evangelicals we testify of the Gospel of grace to others out of a very natural determination because we have been with Jesus and cannot help to have this evangelical passion.</span><br /></p><br /><p><span style="font-size:130%;">For the record, the English word evangelical comes from a Greek word which refers to the publication of the Gospel. In short, to be evangelical is to proclaim the Biblical Gospel, which includes, by necessity, the doctrine of justification by faith.</span><br /></p><br /><p><span style="font-size:130%;">Baptists, according to Nettles, have always been imbued with the spirit of evangelicalism. It is perhaps the main thing that characterizes them. In fact, Spurgeon, who is considered the giant of Baptist life was strongly Calvinistic. He broke away from the Baptist Union during the downgrade controversy of the 19th century over doctrinal laxity. It was Spurgeon who insisted evangelicalism was the key prerequisite of Christian fellowship:</span><br /></p><br /><p><span style="font-size:130%;">"In our fellowship with Methodists of all grades we have fond them firmly adhering to those great evangelical doctrines for which we contend...We care far more for the central evangelical truths than we do for Calvinism as a system; but we believe that Calvinism has in it a conservative force which helps to hold men to the vital truth, and therefore we are sorry to see any quitting it who have once accepted it" (xix).</span></p><br /><br /><p><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></strong></p><br /><br /><p><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">To Be Baptist Means to be Separate</span></strong><br /></p><br /><p><span style="font-size:130%;">Central to Baptist life down through history has been the affirmation that the church is made up only of regenerate (saved) believers. This is why Baptists immerse believers only. Baptism is really not the primary issue. Rather, salvation is. Baptism identifies someone as a child of God. And only truly saved children of God are part of the church. In other words, the church is not a mixed bag of believers and unbelievers. This is unique to Baptists. </span><br /></p><br /><p><span style="font-size:130%;">In addition, to be separate means to understand a strict separation between church and state. The state is not to dabble with the church. And the church does not direct the state either.</span><br /></p><br /><p><span style="font-size:130%;">Again, this last tenet brings us back to the Gospel centeredness of Baptists. In order to have a regenerate church membership the Gospel must be clearly delivered. Thus, Baptists are Gospel centered because they are separatistic in this sense.</span></p><br /><br /><p><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></strong></p><br /><br /><p><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Conclusion</span></strong></p><br /><p><span style="font-size:130%;">Thus, Baptists could summarily be described as Gospel centered. This is seen in their orthodoxy, evangelicalism, and separatism. So next time someone asks you why you are Baptist, you can answer intelligently. I like acronyms. If it were not for acronyms I would have failed in school. An easy way to remember the Baptist identity is SOE- separate, orthodox, evangelical.</span></p><br /><br /><p><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></strong></p></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-464482172354763666.post-76200194133210044262010-01-07T12:47:00.004-05:002010-01-07T13:14:06.383-05:00The Book of Revelation and the Centrality and Power of the Gospel Alone<span style="font-size:130%;">This morning around 8:00 I began reading a book complete with various interpretations of the book of Revelation. I usually do not take notes when reading books (only when reading commentaries on Bible books), but I have decided to read this book especially slow and copy notes along the way. I would like to give you just two quotes from my reading so far today. The first quote will fit under the category of "the silliest thing that I have read thus far". And the second quote will fit under the category of "the best thing I have read thus far".</span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"></span><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Silliest Thing I Have Read Today:</span></strong><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">The "separation of roles [between ethnic Israel and the church] is a clear depiction of the continuing uniqueness of Israel and of the separateness of the church from Israel in God's plan. That distinctiveness of Israel is evident throughout the rest of the Bible, beginning in Genesis 12; and the church is separate from Israel throughout the New Testament. This will not change in Christ's eternal kingdom [heaven]".</span></em><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">*The brackets are my own words to clue you in on the context.*</span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"></span><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Best Thing I Have Read Today:</span></strong><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">"[T]he early church did not seem to be preoccupied with the specific timing of the completion of these end-time matters [when Christ would return again]. For it, the first coming of Christ was imbued with <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-error">eschatalogical</span> meaning, which was more than sufficient to sustain hope until the <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_1" class="blsp-spelling-error">Parousia</span>. As it turned out, the second coming of Christ was obviously delayed, but such postponement did not seem to dramatically unsettle the church. For the early Christians, the <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_2" class="blsp-spelling-error">Parousia</span> was an epilogue, albeit an important one, to the first coming of Christ".</span></em><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></em><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-464482172354763666.post-35372311497882467062010-01-07T07:58:00.002-05:002010-01-07T08:03:36.871-05:00Men's Reformed Fellowship Meeting: Jan. 15<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKROjHDxT65_Q78hGj0LnPIJAMcoPH8tQhrDUvmsf7LYtVLLzzf2OBqwfBMeTyXv4oMmv7V39CCXpMThAElSj65EkJkK48fNTXfSnBzOmXMHhLoNec1Ppv0poKn8zDxX2IfD9oAP4bQr46/s1600-h/bible%2520and%2520compass%25202(1).jpg"><img style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 320px; DISPLAY: block; HEIGHT: 230px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5423982703438974274" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKROjHDxT65_Q78hGj0LnPIJAMcoPH8tQhrDUvmsf7LYtVLLzzf2OBqwfBMeTyXv4oMmv7V39CCXpMThAElSj65EkJkK48fNTXfSnBzOmXMHhLoNec1Ppv0poKn8zDxX2IfD9oAP4bQr46/s320/bible%2520and%2520compass%25202(1).jpg" /></a><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">Do not forget the 15th of January @ 6 pm for the next Men's Reformed Fellowship Meeting. It will be held at the usual place (Ramada in Morgantown). Our speaker will be John Thorhauer. Look forward to seeing you there.</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">P.S. Bring a friend (if you have any).</span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-464482172354763666.post-44402373999869668752009-12-25T12:11:00.007-05:002009-12-25T12:51:58.274-05:00Merry Christmas!!!!<span style="font-size:130%;">Hope all is having a Merry Christmas. We got up early and did stockings in bed. Then we opened presents. My wife prepared a delicious french toast casserole that we ate after reading Luke 2:1-20. And finally, we wrapped things up by singing <em>Angels We Have Heard on High</em>. Now time to play!!</span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">I wanted to leave you with a quote from <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-error">Athanasius</span></span>' book entitled <em>De <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_1" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_1" class="blsp-spelling-error">Incarnatione</span></span> <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_2" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_2" class="blsp-spelling-error">Verbi</span></span> <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_3" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_3" class="blsp-spelling-error">Dei</span></span>. </em>This particular paragraph stuck with me when I read it late last night before bed. It is the first paragraph of chapter two entitled, <em>The Divine Dilemma and Its Solution in the Incarnation.</em></span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">"We saw in the last chapter that, because death and corruption were gaining ever firmer hold on them, the human race was in process of destruction. Man, who was created in God's image and in his possession of reason reflected the very Word Himself, was disappearing, and the work of God was being undone. The law of death, which followed from the Transgression, prevailed upon us, and from it there was no escape. The thing that was happening was in truth both monstrous and unfitting. It would, of course, have been unthinkable that God should go back upon His word and that man, having transgressed, should not die; but it was equally monstrous that beings which once had shared the nature of the Word should perish and turn back again into non-existence through corruption. </span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">It was unworthy of the goodness of God that creatures made by Him should be brought to nothing through the deceit wrought <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_4" class="blsp-spelling-error">upon man</span> by the devil; and it was supremely unfitting that the work of God in mankind should disappear, either through their own negligence or through the deceit of evil spirits. As, then, the creatures whom He had <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_5" class="blsp-spelling-error">created</span> reasonable, like the Word, were in fact perishing, and such noble works were on the road to ruin, what then was God, being Good, to do? Was He to let corruption and death have their way with them? In that case, what was the use of having made them in the beginning? Surely it would have been better never to have created at all than, having been created, to be neglected and perish; and, besides that, such indifference to the ruin of His own work before His very eyes would argue not goodness in God but limitation, and that far more than if He had never created men at all. It was impossible, therefore, that God should leave man to be carried off by corruption, because it wold be unfitting and unworthy of Himself."</span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">......to which I might add...... PRAISE GOD HE DID NOT LEAVE US CARRIED OFF BY CORRUPTION, BUT SENT HIS SON AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR SINNERS!</span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">It is <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_4" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">truly</span> a blessing to pastor at Grace Chapel. Thank you all for your tremendous gift (and gifts to our children). We love you all.</span> <span style="font-size:130%;">You all are GIFTS to us.<br /></span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">Pastor Andy</span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">Corie, Gracie, and Jackson</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-464482172354763666.post-45202306537362227172009-12-23T14:27:00.009-05:002009-12-23T15:17:43.306-05:00Grace Chapel Blog on New Covenant Theology Website<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWdz6zfwXL-UQTOtz2c4QkDT4hwP2KAUmv5wCiNt2kYNFiIJ6682kyYCqnM2_mZIsGlHg5FOWAZnltRC8r7IKsnq2ByjQg9uTJYBhTct-JLffeyPap_PG_3rYETf_YoyIlQ-mpDqKHM7gJ/s1600-h/blogging.jpg"><img style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 320px; DISPLAY: block; HEIGHT: 225px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5418519160459789842" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWdz6zfwXL-UQTOtz2c4QkDT4hwP2KAUmv5wCiNt2kYNFiIJ6682kyYCqnM2_mZIsGlHg5FOWAZnltRC8r7IKsnq2ByjQg9uTJYBhTct-JLffeyPap_PG_3rYETf_YoyIlQ-mpDqKHM7gJ/s320/blogging.jpg" /></a><br /><div>I was just informed via email of a really good website with lots of resources for New Covenant theology. Grace Chapel Blog is listed as 1 of 12 New Covenant blogs from around the world on this particular site. I just spent a few minutes skimming the site....it looks like a great resource. If you would like to skim it too, <strong><em><span style="color:#000099;"><a href="http://newcovenanttheology.org/?page_id=4">CLICK HERE.</a> </span></em></strong></div><br /><div><span style="color:#ccffff;"></span></div><br /><div><span style="color:#000099;">I will also create a link to this website on the sidebar of our main page.</span></div><br /><br /><strong>Some random notes.......</strong><br /><br /><strong><em><span style="color:#ffff66;">C</span></em></strong><a href="http://www.newcovenantjournal.com/is_the_manhattan_declaratio.html"><strong><em><span style="color:#ffff66;">lick here</span></em></strong></a> for an article written by<em> a staunch New Covenant theologian </em>who argues against the wisdom of Christians signing the Manhattan Declaration. His arguments are similar to the ones I have outlined from other noted men. He also answers some of the questions I proposed in an earlier blog article.<br /><br />And on a lighter note, if you are a Rolling Stones fan, then <em><strong><a href="http://www.newcovenantjournal.com/archives/craig_larson/henry_scougal_and_the_rolli.html"><span style="color:#ffff66;">click here</span></a></strong></em> to read an intersting article.<br /><br /><span style="color:#000099;">Grace and Peace,</span><br /><span style="color:#000099;">Andy</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-464482172354763666.post-15684223243263275672009-12-21T15:00:00.032-05:002009-12-22T10:52:56.859-05:00Favorite Books of '09 [For Those Who Might Care]Any of you that keep up with the real <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-error">bloggers</span> of this world (unlike me) have noticed that many of them have recently listed their top 10 favorite books of 2009. My list will be different due to the fact that: a) I do not consider myself a great blogger, and b) do not try and read every new book that comes out each year. My philosophy has always been to try and read the classic works that still speak to us today. Therefore, I very rarely buy a book <em>just </em>because it is "new". I like new books because they help me stay in touch with current trends in the culture. I like older books because they help me see past cultural trends. And most of the time the past cultural trends of <em>today</em> are the same as <em>yesterday. </em>Its just that they reappear in different clothing. I just thought some people may be curious as to what I have been reading this past year, what I do all day, and what I think about. My reading list reveals this.<br /><br />The following list is different in that it will include books that were not necessarily written in 2009. Rather, I have listed my favorite books that I read during the '09 year regardless of when they came into print. Some are from '09, some from 'o8, and others from the 80's (long time ago, I know)! I have also not included the commentaries that I have been reading for John and <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_1" class="blsp-spelling-error">Colossians</span>, though in all honesty, they have had the most impact upon me.<br /><br /><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><strong>Here they are in order of most impactful ("1" being the most impactful):</strong></div><div><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKgREHc1GX2g-NGgU_oZe2egVfyv41kjLyH0GjG__F6TKUq8dzRzjHECtBkiHJwzetArRLgy1TiP9Rc3ooKvl1xmEniiUn-867SBoCh-x1utLwRyeE3Suj_b7HBimuWDUDhpBW_Dtfp6ba/s1600-h/51zzD2yJvIL__SL500_AA240_.jpg"><img style="WIDTH: 240px; HEIGHT: 240px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5417793166980801522" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKgREHc1GX2g-NGgU_oZe2egVfyv41kjLyH0GjG__F6TKUq8dzRzjHECtBkiHJwzetArRLgy1TiP9Rc3ooKvl1xmEniiUn-867SBoCh-x1utLwRyeE3Suj_b7HBimuWDUDhpBW_Dtfp6ba/s320/51zzD2yJvIL__SL500_AA240_.jpg" /></a><br /><br /><strong>10. <em>Biblical Law and Ethics: Absolute and <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_2" class="blsp-spelling-error">Covenantal</span></em>, Gary D. Long</strong></div><div>This is an excellent, scholarly work. Based upon sound exegesis, Long argues that Christ fulfilled every part of the Old Testament Scriptures. He thereby refutes <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_3" class="blsp-spelling-error">Theonomy</span> and traditional Reformed Theology in favor of Biblical, New Covenant Theology. A sure shot in the arm for New Covenant Theology.<br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6oOfsRoWxvYFP6PGoFDicXXZHFCYR85C_Ahgij7Y8Yr1O1a97um5iCxz3AvsXz0Uki12nsIPZ-PIG_sZZHfhVoueDhag-xgh4hj0jtdEpkBlFoIBmFZe7GH2RLfyiN78q90i7VreGLhCm/s1600-h/41rBXDjC0CL__BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01_.jpg"><img style="WIDTH: 240px; HEIGHT: 240px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5417793336231516226" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6oOfsRoWxvYFP6PGoFDicXXZHFCYR85C_Ahgij7Y8Yr1O1a97um5iCxz3AvsXz0Uki12nsIPZ-PIG_sZZHfhVoueDhag-xgh4hj0jtdEpkBlFoIBmFZe7GH2RLfyiN78q90i7VreGLhCm/s320/41rBXDjC0CL__BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01_.jpg" /></a><br /><br /><strong>9. <em>John Calvin: A Heart for Devotion, Doctrine, and Doxology</em>, Edited by Burk Parsons</strong></div><div>This is the only biography included on my list. It is rich with essay analysis of the life of Calvin on the celebration of his 500<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_4" class="blsp-spelling-error">th</span> birthday. The essays are written by men including: Sinclair Ferguson, Steve Lawson, Phil Johnson, John MacArthur, Michal Horton, and Joel R. <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_5" class="blsp-spelling-error">Beeke</span>.<br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHiqho0TE7WqvPgyJ7qS8Q-UUBv9UhyAvz8layFM3BEB3YGssUL1nyPCRtrdHfxXBJNLX6qORbhb0aZqWMDceKA2fAZMejBtWYFTOlfLILH8C6rHwXswLj2063LIXhbHSW47_DaDYO9Ut9/s1600-h/51lEU-ug3VL__BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01_.jpg"><img style="WIDTH: 240px; HEIGHT: 240px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5417796590285444130" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHiqho0TE7WqvPgyJ7qS8Q-UUBv9UhyAvz8layFM3BEB3YGssUL1nyPCRtrdHfxXBJNLX6qORbhb0aZqWMDceKA2fAZMejBtWYFTOlfLILH8C6rHwXswLj2063LIXhbHSW47_DaDYO9Ut9/s320/51lEU-ug3VL__BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01_.jpg" /></a><br /><br /><strong>8. <em>The Courage to be Protestant: Truth lovers, Marketers, and <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_6" class="blsp-spelling-error">Emergents</span> in the Postmodern World</em>, David Wells</strong></div><div>This book was written to oppose the "newer" versions of evangelicalism, which have almost taken meaning away from what the term "evangelical" means. Wells emphasizes the role that doctrine has played historically for evangelicals. It is a wake-up call to the church. </div><div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjohCwgSeXw9WdkSppkH94Wx4KsyP2A9gl1Kvw0psq1up9n8dqSb9EKiqNFAPU5DqEbm6L0KYlsmDQvn1da7zdEcF4gVWhXQh7QyQRtZQh8oxEHWQ5-yi8SZXcHVwpuUOHipC9cx7NrOGvz/s1600-h/41LwCmF7BzL__BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01_.jpg"><img style="WIDTH: 240px; HEIGHT: 240px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5417797555036636130" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjohCwgSeXw9WdkSppkH94Wx4KsyP2A9gl1Kvw0psq1up9n8dqSb9EKiqNFAPU5DqEbm6L0KYlsmDQvn1da7zdEcF4gVWhXQh7QyQRtZQh8oxEHWQ5-yi8SZXcHVwpuUOHipC9cx7NrOGvz/s320/41LwCmF7BzL__BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01_.jpg" /></a></div><br /><div><strong>7. <em>The Newness of the New Covenant,</em> Blake White</strong></div><div>The best short work on New Covenant Theology that I have read to date. White defines the fundamentals of <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_7" class="blsp-spelling-error">NCT</span> through right theology, Biblical exegesis, and clear thoughts.<br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGMAaAmQ0f9SCyU6WOlzsBiB9hpyxdghVjzyKkI5dEkODlmj5X2BhfNjD0ToEuBndJP6ere4gks9YqMU_gzJtJQNwfFCM1PQKidwzoq9HBd3hEDH4dd5uJ_UvHHrsoEjcnOa5Qy6gLP97T/s1600-h/41VAJ70KXTL__BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01_.jpg"><img style="WIDTH: 240px; HEIGHT: 240px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5417798814542222754" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGMAaAmQ0f9SCyU6WOlzsBiB9hpyxdghVjzyKkI5dEkODlmj5X2BhfNjD0ToEuBndJP6ere4gks9YqMU_gzJtJQNwfFCM1PQKidwzoq9HBd3hEDH4dd5uJ_UvHHrsoEjcnOa5Qy6gLP97T/s320/41VAJ70KXTL__BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01_.jpg" /></a><br /><br /><strong>6. <em>Father, Son, Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles, and Relevance</em>, Bruce Ware</strong></div><div>One of the clearest and practical books on the inner workings of the Trinity. I have re-read this book several times. I read it again this year as I worked through the book of <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_8" class="blsp-spelling-error">Colossians</span> and dealt with the husband and wife relations (Col. 3:18-19). Great book! Truly one of my favorite books of all time- had to include it some where on my list for '09. </div><br /><div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEger4q5nKUl1dQEJ0SPtzZUTZAbRyY5wIKB8jYS-uChTt2EpXB76FgtDJVVIggzpcJ8dUoMS0r2UhcF_kiMBzYMTyPPyfJsyqiTZ9gOhM6e8fZj0wmOcdZHpJKqLw568eIQ3L6EuELfLUvr/s1600-h/51av8RRmlRL__SL500_AA240_.jpg"><img style="WIDTH: 240px; HEIGHT: 240px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5417800268737328418" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEger4q5nKUl1dQEJ0SPtzZUTZAbRyY5wIKB8jYS-uChTt2EpXB76FgtDJVVIggzpcJ8dUoMS0r2UhcF_kiMBzYMTyPPyfJsyqiTZ9gOhM6e8fZj0wmOcdZHpJKqLw568eIQ3L6EuELfLUvr/s320/51av8RRmlRL__SL500_AA240_.jpg" /></a><br /><br /><strong>5. <em>Gospel Powered Parenting: How the Gospel Shapes and Transforms Parenting</em>, William P. Farley</strong></div><div>This book is about more than just parenting. It is about husband/wife relations, the church, and most importantly the Gospel. It shows that the Gospel affects even the day to day principles on how to raise children. It is an excellent work that has good questions at the end of each chapter for reflection. Would be a great Bible study for couples with kids still at home!<br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKulwert4TvS1RwJfNQz-W0hhXwOsObP8UWfQ3RCFKdoTUf4v3FcDHCcD8JSkRbIvPIEKdA4s1gTZQolwxw9Nz43hosDtebxmrEGJsfHv1UXM1A27E16L6ZeOJLdRHTaQuvePhBVJeFBun/s1600-h/51Jjw6qXIHL__BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01_.jpg"><img style="WIDTH: 240px; HEIGHT: 240px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5417801245572369058" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKulwert4TvS1RwJfNQz-W0hhXwOsObP8UWfQ3RCFKdoTUf4v3FcDHCcD8JSkRbIvPIEKdA4s1gTZQolwxw9Nz43hosDtebxmrEGJsfHv1UXM1A27E16L6ZeOJLdRHTaQuvePhBVJeFBun/s320/51Jjw6qXIHL__BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01_.jpg" /></a> </div><div><strong></strong></div><div><strong>4. <em><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_9" class="blsp-spelling-error">Christless</span> Christianity</em>, Michael Horton</strong></div><div>Horton <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_10" class="blsp-spelling-error">insightfully</span> argues that the American church has been taken captive to the Americanized Babylonian tenets of consumerism, pragmatism, individualism, positive thinking, etc. He argues for the church to center its thoughts back upon the only important thing- the Gospel. The church is almost "<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_11" class="blsp-spelling-error">Christless</span>". I appreciate his candid remarks regarding some key prosperity gospel advocates. He shows great boldness in taking on the false teachers of today- revealing his faithfulness (unlike some preachers today).<br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdc5cQTOrRQivNzk9Ir-RQ4vj2VdoIrHDR21_09Q3jYY6I5N9ku-8b_5mz2L_4_RExMNfa5i0fbDjXtxsnQ3JXWobGxeNvvfBU3phqDQNEDd0ImrtrPBlJuTJ0IziIEwzEMWiMl5eNJajK/s1600-h/41mbX++0tJL__BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01_.jpg"><img style="WIDTH: 240px; HEIGHT: 240px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5417802662358653634" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdc5cQTOrRQivNzk9Ir-RQ4vj2VdoIrHDR21_09Q3jYY6I5N9ku-8b_5mz2L_4_RExMNfa5i0fbDjXtxsnQ3JXWobGxeNvvfBU3phqDQNEDd0ImrtrPBlJuTJ0IziIEwzEMWiMl5eNJajK/s320/41mbX++0tJL__BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01_.jpg" /></a><br /></div><div><strong>3. <em>The Law and Its Fulfillment</em>, Tom <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_12" class="blsp-spelling-error">Schreiner</span></strong></div><div>This work is strong due to several factors. It is historical in that it traces the effect of the new perspective on Paul and shows how it has shaped various trends of Pauline theology. It is <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_13" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">aggressively</span> exegetical as well. <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_14" class="blsp-spelling-error">Schreiner</span> is a master of context and language. And finally, it is rooted in a theology that is overtly Christ-centered. I am sure that I will re-read this one.</div><br /><div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtM_h0ar4jPx6vJtLHqIqQ2u_P3Xg4xleSlrh8XPqjLQlAojaYkSZ4l0mXjsIs3lRK9TpUGWBT0gO2IjiI0JuFRpJAFw3gW1MUmMlyZKbxvzKhvswYs_TfIgLpXAoHZ9BdkuGzucoF4OyH/s1600-h/51XGZNFYTGL__SL500_AA240_.jpg"><img style="WIDTH: 240px; HEIGHT: 240px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5417803864272712114" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtM_h0ar4jPx6vJtLHqIqQ2u_P3Xg4xleSlrh8XPqjLQlAojaYkSZ4l0mXjsIs3lRK9TpUGWBT0gO2IjiI0JuFRpJAFw3gW1MUmMlyZKbxvzKhvswYs_TfIgLpXAoHZ9BdkuGzucoF4OyH/s320/51XGZNFYTGL__SL500_AA240_.jpg" /></a><br /></div><div>2<strong>. <em>Come to Me</em>, Tom Wells</strong></div><div>I was highly impacted by this book in my study of evangelism this past summer. Tom is great with words. This book teaches a robust Biblical approach on how to speak the Gospel in the power and love of the Spirit. Once again, Tom shows us that the greatest teachers of the world are those who can communicate deep concepts on a simple level.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNkKFQgb30eWe4MnwaKg-wFu7EboaCjtkbtzwFpe3eWz9r-EHl__1quXa11lN7hIhTEfdRArSIzviInUN7outuHLMgdbpzh5llo9ZOkVJNHVZcnlMW2zVIcCYq2jmSX0RGJQ9LQgiws-gV/s1600-h/140020206X.jpg"><img style="WIDTH: 213px; HEIGHT: 320px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5417805270824868354" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNkKFQgb30eWe4MnwaKg-wFu7EboaCjtkbtzwFpe3eWz9r-EHl__1quXa11lN7hIhTEfdRArSIzviInUN7outuHLMgdbpzh5llo9ZOkVJNHVZcnlMW2zVIcCYq2jmSX0RGJQ9LQgiws-gV/s320/140020206X.jpg" /></a><br /><strong></strong></div><div><strong>1. <em>The Jesus You Can't Ignore</em>, John MacArthur</strong></div><div>This book happens to be the latest of MacArthur's (2009). I do not think MacArthur's impact can be over estimated. Once again MacArthur captures a real picture of the Jesus of Scripture. Rather than being a pacifist, Jesus was bold (even hostile) to the religious leaders who <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_15" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">propagated</span> a false gospel. On the other hand, He was gentle to sinners who knew their sin well. MacArthur traces Christ's various exchanges with the religious leaders throughout His life to show us the real, bold, loving Jesus.<br /></div><div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiv-fDHPyEE9I9L7EeNY5j08XEbqXeCL10kPJgqBHga5_1Pef6nSqnAUmWfOgJKWHOsLoNNLbGgP8PaTBV6Ye3B9RFvFryW9zALY_NvHODk9qDUXVGLNMYKcgConJeVG9NZ7J7WxylFHnuz/s1600-h/41j6f70rZnL__BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01_.jpg"><img style="WIDTH: 240px; HEIGHT: 240px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5418083727764387250" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiv-fDHPyEE9I9L7EeNY5j08XEbqXeCL10kPJgqBHga5_1Pef6nSqnAUmWfOgJKWHOsLoNNLbGgP8PaTBV6Ye3B9RFvFryW9zALY_NvHODk9qDUXVGLNMYKcgConJeVG9NZ7J7WxylFHnuz/s320/41j6f70rZnL__BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01_.jpg" /></a><br /><strong>Special Honorable Mention: Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, J.I. Packer</strong></div><div>I must admit (very relunctantly) that I had yet to read this classic work on evangelism until this past year when I was preparing for a presentation on evangelism. We owe a debt of gratitude for the Biblical philosopy of evangelism that Packer promotes in his book.<br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPwyx7MM5dW6tHVla12kfbG5qYrmvmObhJG-ibp8RGPDq8eTHjLqRralNw5fBrMNjnADAugGr9toGh_UokZtSR_CuA30UNoxepL9XcalGtuZPbcqLCxYALofXvUg26xutU_2F1oBMXpTMS/s1600-h/51RUvPUqS4L__BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01_.jpg"><img style="WIDTH: 240px; HEIGHT: 240px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5418084162514638530" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPwyx7MM5dW6tHVla12kfbG5qYrmvmObhJG-ibp8RGPDq8eTHjLqRralNw5fBrMNjnADAugGr9toGh_UokZtSR_CuA30UNoxepL9XcalGtuZPbcqLCxYALofXvUg26xutU_2F1oBMXpTMS/s320/51RUvPUqS4L__BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01_.jpg" /></a><br /></div><div><strong>Honorable Mention: Exposing Darwinism's Weakest Link: Why Evolution Can't Explain Human Existence, Kenneth Poppe</strong></div><div>This book deserves some recognition. I picked it up for $4.95 on somewhat of a whim. It really has been helpful in my understanding of my wife's favorite subject in school (and my most hated)- science.</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-464482172354763666.post-54467062985678614092009-12-15T07:50:00.008-05:002009-12-15T16:38:24.391-05:00The Witness of God's World: Philosophical Arguments for God's Existence<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKZ0WbnJov_BTxPHm9KskuDOfsMz1B-FM4iy0HC_HHKUXVC2AaXugu-C9SOIEkRkkwh6ffqMWsAjLm9-KyezNrehRHl33RxgnTUsidHt0QqgWy9chys5KonnNDiCKm2qhsXetSejdoqjVt/s1600-h/canada-train-trip.jpg"><img style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 320px; DISPLAY: block; HEIGHT: 256px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5415458842472241698" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKZ0WbnJov_BTxPHm9KskuDOfsMz1B-FM4iy0HC_HHKUXVC2AaXugu-C9SOIEkRkkwh6ffqMWsAjLm9-KyezNrehRHl33RxgnTUsidHt0QqgWy9chys5KonnNDiCKm2qhsXetSejdoqjVt/s320/canada-train-trip.jpg" /></a><br /><div><div><span style="font-size:130%;">Today we going to tread philosophical rather than Biblical waters. I do not mean by that, that we are going to ignore Scripture, defy Scripture, or operate from an anti-Scriptural worldview. But we are going to deal with philosophical rather than theological categories of thought. </span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">We are discussing the plausibility, viability, and strength of philosophical arguments for the existence of God. I have entitled this section, The Witness of God's World because we are going to make simple observations from the world we inhabit (which God created) and draw conclusions based upon those observations. Some of these philosophical observations will be rooted in scientific fact, others will be solely philosophical, and others will do more to argue against the naturalist (atheistic) worldview than argue specifically for Christian theism. </span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">I want to make this as practical as I can. Therefore, I have chosen to frame these arguments in the form of questions. These questions (arguments) can then be used when one is given the opportunity to speak with someone who is a skeptic regarding God's existence. In addition, I hope that these arguments will also provide confidence that one's belief in Christian theism is intelligent, rational, and viable rather than silly, irrational, or antiquated.</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">We will deal with just the first argument today.</span></div><br /><br /><div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">I. IF A PERSONAL GOD DOES NOT EXIST, THEN HOW DO WE EXPLAIN THE "CAUSE AND EFFECT" NATURE OF THE WORLD THAT WE LIVE IN?</span></strong><br /></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;">Classically, this type of argument would fit under the rubric of cosmological arguments for the existence of God. If you think about it, all people take for granted the cause/effect nature of the world that we inhabit. </span></div><br /><br /><div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The Argument Explained</span></strong><br /></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;">Here is the argument in a nutshell. Our world is made up of a series of "effects". For instance, the clothes you are wearing can be considered an "effect". The food you ate this morning is an "effect". The car you drive is an "effect". And the above "effects" have a number of different "causes". The "cause", say, of your clothes was the person who made them. The "cause" of the food you ate this morning was that either you, or someone else prepared it for you. The "cause" of your car being drivable is due to the fact that a manufacturer put it together.</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">Let's take that last "cause" (the manufactured car) and elaborate on it a bit. I am assuming that those reading this did not build their own car (if you did kudos to you!). I am also going to assume that nobody was at the factory the moment your car was being produced by machines, engineers, and mechanics. </span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">The question is, "If you were not present at the factory when your car was put together, then how do you know that it is put together?" The answer: because you see that it is put together and you therefore assume that it was put together in a factory. In other words, you see and experience the effect- driving a car that functions properly- and you intuitively know that there had to be a "cause" for that. And you assume this devoid of any personal eyewitness account of your car actually being put together. This is the principle of cause/effect.</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">So "causes" produce "effects". That much is clear. But let me extend this principle a little further. "Causes" produce "effects", but "effects" are also "causes" themselves. For example, the "cause" of you eating breakfast this morning was that it was prepared for you. But you do realize that that particular cause- say, your spouse cooking you eggs- is a "cause" while being at the same time an "effect". Your spouse making eggs is an "effect" of say, you going to the store to buy the eggs. That action of buying the eggs "caused" (in a certain sense), or provided the opportunity for your wife to cook them. Without the "cause" (buying the eggs) there would be no "effect" (cooking the eggs). And that "effect" (cooking the eggs) becomes the "cause" of the "effect" of you eating the eggs. Whew.</span></div><br /><br /><div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The Point Applied</span></strong><br /></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;">We exist, therefore, in a world that is by nature full of the cause/effect principle. All of life in the world that we inhabit can be explained this way. Thus, we conclude from this observation that the world is by definition contingent, or dependant. If the entire world is built off of causes and effects, then it stands to reason that the world is dependant.<em> Dependant</em> is the best word to summarize this cause/effect cosmos. All of the parts of the world taken together depend on each other. Causes produce effects and effects are causes themselves in a seemingly never ending succession of events impossible to document exhaustively. </span></div><br /><br /><div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The Question Asked</span></strong><br /></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;">So here is an important question, "Can this characteristically dependant world sustain itself (we could also ask whether it created itself)?" In other words, a world that by nature is dependant due to its obvious cause/effect feature operating continuously must as a whole (itself) be dependant on a greater cause. There had to be a greater Cause that started the whole operation of causes and effects. </span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">The whole world <em>must</em><strong> </strong>be the result of one "Big Cause". The world is one big effect stemming from one "Big Cause". We must ask ourselves whether or not, reasonably speaking, this world could exist in any other way than by a bigger cause.</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">This "Big Cause" could be called "First Cause", and it points to a Maker- Creator. And this "First Cause" must exist outside of this world because everything in this world is dependant. This First Cause is the one that causes the series of cause/effect events to take place. And if so, then the "First Cause" must be greater than all the little causes and effects.</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">This "First Cause" is infinitely independent, intelligent, and powerful. Thus, this "First Cause" is uncaused. He is a personal God.</span></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;"></span> </div><div><span style="font-size:130%;">Let me illustrate this way. Suppose you come to a railroad crossing and are forced to stop because a train is passing by. You might wonder how the yellow boxcar is moving. What is causing it to move? You deduce that the blue boxcar in front of it is pulling the yellow one. And what is causing the blue one to move, but a brown one pulling it. This is true as far down the tracks as you can see. Now if you were really curious, you might ask, "What is causing the whole series of boxcars to move?" The answer is obvious. A locomotive (which you cannot see because it is too far down the track) is pulling all of the boxcars. And the locomotive is different than the boxcars in that it is the "first cause"- it does not need a boxcar to pull it. It started (and we could say sustains) the whole series of boxcars moving.</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">So if a personal God does not exist, then how do we account for the cause/effect nature of the world that we live in? Ultimately, we cannot account for it any other way. But when we affirm a Creator God the world makes much more sense.</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">Now let me also be honest about something. These arguments, as I stated in the last post, standing by themselves are not that strong. The cumulative understanding of all the arguments provides a strong case for God's existence. The above argument successfully shows the viability of intelligent design. However, it fails in that it does not identify the Intelligent Designer as the God of Scripture- the God of Christian theism. Any religion that believes the world was created could use this argument. Again, this highlights once more the importance of 2 Corinthians 4: 3-6, "And even if our Gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your bond-servants for Jesus' sake. For God, who said, 'Light shall shine out of darkness', is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God int he face of Christ".</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">The Spirit must do a specific, independent work on a heart before it affirms the God of Scripture. And the Spirit of God will not do this without revealing God through the person and work of His Son Jesus Christ!</span></div></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-464482172354763666.post-47300331319433177712009-12-14T08:00:00.008-05:002009-12-14T09:30:13.627-05:00Back to the Basics<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEsDMTlw7DDfhhPLtfkNz-mnlx4sSctMJH91opkihM-JmdZ6WPkt9aiCuRq2-lrWrLyp7dXX7tUUXLNxJMEx0Vz1oSrpHoQz8-SB2mF6xoYRt_acvoRHKZlLcMSIzpiIJzXBv1OxvMdBVx/s1600-h/iStock_000006801402XSmall.jpg"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 200px; FLOAT: right; HEIGHT: 132px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5415090781814847650" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEsDMTlw7DDfhhPLtfkNz-mnlx4sSctMJH91opkihM-JmdZ6WPkt9aiCuRq2-lrWrLyp7dXX7tUUXLNxJMEx0Vz1oSrpHoQz8-SB2mF6xoYRt_acvoRHKZlLcMSIzpiIJzXBv1OxvMdBVx/s200/iStock_000006801402XSmall.jpg" /></a><span style="font-size:130%;"> I would like to return to a series I began several weeks ago entitled, "A Study of Basic Christian Doctirne: Answers to Questions Every Christian Ought to Know". Due to the church schedule and Thanksgiving holiday I have posted other things the past three weeks, but today I want to return to the primary series featured on the blog currently.</span><span style="font-size:130%;">Let me remind you where we are:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">- We are currently answering the question, "How do we know God?"</span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">- I have established three points to answer this question:</span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">The witness of God's Work</span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">The witness of God's World</span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">The witness of God's Word</span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">- We have already dealt with the first point (see archive posts)</span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">- We are beginning the second point today- The witness of God's world</span><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">THE WITNESS OF GOD'S WORLD</span></strong><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">We want to continue to answer the question, How do we know God? by looking at various philosophical arguments that can be used to support the notion that He does indeed exist. Dr. Oliver at Clearwater Christian, and Dr. Parker at Southern Seminary would probably be surprised that I am dealing with philosophy. To be honest, in the past it has not been my favorite subject. Unfortunately, this has shown itself in various ways. Recently, however, I have really grown to appreciate philosophy more. I have come to see the importance of philosophy in the Christian worldview, particularly (if not primarily) regarding the subject of God's existence.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">Let me give you the four main categories that classify the various arguments for God's existence: 1) cosmological arguments, 2) ontological arguments, 3) moral arguments, 4) teleological arguments.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">Instead of spending our time defining what the above terms mean, we are going to give some actual arguments from these various categories. To me that is much more practical. I would rather give you the fruit of philosophical analysis than spend time talking about the philosophy of philosophy itself! If you want more on the above terms, then you can see me and I will point you to some good resources (better than myself!).</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">I have three arguments for God's existence outlined. However, before I go into those arguments, I want to make a strong caveat regarding this whole discussion. Next post will deal with the actual arguments. This post, however, is foundational to understanding how one is to view the arguments that follow.</span><br /><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong>The Caveat</strong></span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">Let me be clear, I say that these arguments are <em>used to support </em>God's existence (not prove God's existence)<em> </em>because ultimately no philosophical argument proves anything to anyone. In 2 Cor. 4:1-6, Paul is clear about the fact that sin affects our minds/intellect. It is not until the Spirit of the living God moves in a heart that he will be convinced of any truth. It is not arguments for the existence of God that saves; it is the message of the Gospel engineered by the Holy Spirit that saves! The reason for this is due to the power of sin. Sin distorts our ability to perceive truth. Only something more powerful than sin- God- can help our weak flesh overcome this intellectual distortion.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">Supposed "proofs" for God's existence, in the final analysis, may prove nothing. A simple illustration will do well here. Let's say that you are in the middle of a large city on a winter day. All of the sudden you see a drunk man climbing up a light pole screaming, "Bear, bear!" As you look up there is a dog running in front of the man. You can tell he is drunk, and you being sober, decide to try and convince him that all he saw was a dog, not a bear. Chances are, due to the alcoholic condition of the man, you will fail in your attempts. Why? Because alcohol has affected his perception of what is true- what is reality.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">You could be very intelligent, and argue logically and reasonably. However, the alcohol is an obstacle that prevents you from convincing this man that all he saw was a dog. You could use both logic and evidence to persuade him. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">You could argue logically: "Look guy, its ridiculous to think you saw a bear. We are in the middle of the city. Bears do not roam around in the city."</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">You could argue logically again: "In fact, look around. Nobody else is fearful for their lives like you. Why is that? Because it was just a dog, not a bear."</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">You could point to evidence: "Look at these tiny footprints. Don't you think that a bear's footprints are bigger than this?"</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">You could point to more evidence: You could call the dog over and pet it in front of the drunk man.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">The point is that sin ruins our ability to affirm truth just as the alchohol ruined the perception of the man on the light pole. He could not perceive reality- which was that (in reality) he had only seen a dog, not a bear.</span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">In addition, arguments which <em>support </em>God's existence are incapable of satisfying the "proof criteria" of every person without exception. Who determines when a proof is viable and legitimate? Not everyone has the same criteria (exactly). Everyone possesses the same basic equipment of "proof criteria". That is, due to being created in God's image in God's world all men have a fundamental knowledge of God's laws of logic. But that is different than saying everyone possesses the same exact criteria for what constitutes an argument as legitimate, or illegitimate, illogical, or erroneous.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">The reason all men do not possess the exact package of "proof criteria" is due to the fact that sin has distorted our minds on different levels. Therefore, sin keeps us from thinking in rational patterns of thought. Belief in God is basic as I have pointed out before. Were it not for sin distorting our ability to think rationally, then we would affirm the existence of God in the exact same way that a sane, logical, mature minded person would affirm that they are reading off a computer screen right now. That is how powerful sin is in distorting truth. And that is how innate belief in God is to us.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">So let me be clear. Arguments used to support God's existence do just that- <em>they support it</em>. They <em>do not</em> prove it. Only the Spirit of God can do that to a skeptic, and He uses the Gospel every time to do so.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">Now God can use you speaking forth these arguments to trigger belief in someones heart. Thus, arguments for God's existence on the philosophical level are by no means useless. When, as believers, we are dealing with a skeptic we give forth any argument that might help that person see God in the person of Jesus Christ. We act as if God could regenerate their hearts at any moment....because He could! We do not know the mind of God. But at the end of the day God gets the credit, right?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">So we are not to use arguments for God's existence with the idea that they can prove His existence <em>beyond doubt. </em>Rather, we use them with the view that His existence can be proven <em>beyond reasonable doubt. </em></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">The same is true with court cases. Evidence given in a murder trial such as: 1) a gun with the DNA of the accused, 2) the location of the accused at the time of the murder, and 3) personal motives on the part of the accused to kill the victim proven to be legitimate all serve as strands of evidence (when taken together) to prove <em>beyond a reasonable doubt </em>the defendant's guilt. Even with a witness claiming he saw the defendant shoot the victim does not prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. You say how so? Because the witness could be lying! We do not ultimately know. </span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">My caveat (although quite lengthy) is simply that nothing, absolutely nothing replaces the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. If someone denies God's existence he will not be convinced by man's persuasive philosophical arguments regarding God's existence. The Spirit of God will be the first to convince the skeptic of any truth, and then God may choose to use your arguments to trigger belief, or affirm belief. It is only the powerful message of the Gospel when applied by the Holy Spirit that convinces someone of the worthiness and value of God to be worshipped and adored!</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">One more thing....arguments for God's existence lie in their cumulative ability, rather than their independent ability. These arguments are like a rope made up of many small strands. One of those small strands is not that strong. However, when they are tied together the rope becomes very strong. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">Next time we will look at the first argument.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-464482172354763666.post-2320154614219915902009-12-10T08:32:00.007-05:002009-12-10T09:26:24.996-05:00Manhattan Declaration Revisited Once Again<span style="font-size:130%;">For those of you who might be interested in the implications of key conservative evangelicals signing the Manhattan Declaration, then read the following</span><br /><br /><a href="http://www.whitehorseinn.org/archives/250.html"><span style="font-size:130%;color:#000099;"><strong><em>Michael Horton's</em></strong></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"> article opposing the declaration</span><br /><br /><a href="http://new.ligonier.org/blog/the-manhattan-declaration/"><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#000099;">R.C. <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-error">Sproul's</span></span></span></em></strong></a><span style="font-size:130%;"> article opposing the declaration and calling upon his friends who did sign it to remove their names from the document</span><br /><br /><a href="http://www.reformation21.org/articles/the-manhattan-declaration-a-statement-from-ligon-duncan.php"><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><em><span style="color:#000099;"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_1" class="blsp-spelling-error">Lig</span> Duncan's</span></em></strong> </span></a><span style="font-size:130%;">article explaining why some members of the Alliance of Confessing <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_2" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">Evangelicals</span> signed the document</span><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">I have read all of the above and would like to make a few clarifications regarding the implications of the wide array of disagreement between key evangelical leaders.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">1. The signers of the document have made it clear (at least the key ones who have written articles defending why they signed it) that they disagree with Roman Catholics on the Gospel. They make it clear that their signatures in no way whatsoever support, affirm, or even <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_3" class="blsp-spelling-error">astuciously</span> imply that they are one with the Roman Catholics on the Gospel. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">2. Therefore, the consciences of the signers (who have defended why they signed the document) have not been violated or compromised.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">3. The non-signers of the document who have openly disagreed with what the document implies- that Catholics and Protestants are united in the Gospel- have made it clear that they take the signers at their word when they say their <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_4" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">consciences</span> have not been compromised. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">4. Therefore, the non-signers cardinal issue is not with particular signers of the document and their view of the Gospel. Rather, it is with the lack of discretion and judgement used by these signers (their friends and co-laborers in promoting the Gospel) that led to their signing of the document.</span> <span style="font-size:130%;">In other words,</span> t<span style="font-size:130%;">hese non-signers make it clear that those who signed the document were unwise at worst, and simply duped by Colson and his clan at best.<br /></span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">5. In addition, the non-signers affirm boldly and unashamedly the moral issues outlined in the document.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">Below I have chosen to use one word to describe the articles of both the <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_5" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">signers</span> and non-signers of the Manhattan Declaration. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">Al <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_6" class="blsp-spelling-error">Mohler's</span> article explaining why he signed it....<strong><em>honest</em></strong></span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_7" class="blsp-spelling-error">Allistair</span> <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_8" class="blsp-spelling-error">Begg's</span> article explaining he <em>did not</em> sign it...<em><strong>pastoral</strong></em></span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">John MacArthur's article explaining why he <em>did not</em> sign it...<strong><em>direct</em></strong></span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_9" class="blsp-spelling-error">Lig</span> Duncan's (President of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals) article explaining why some members of the Alliance signed the document and others<em> did not</em> sign it...<em><strong>clear</strong></em></span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">R.C. <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_10" class="blsp-spelling-error">Sproul's</span> article explaining why he <em>did not</em> sign it...<em><strong>passionate</strong></em></span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">Michael Horton's article explaining why he <em>did not</em> sign it...<em><strong>perceptive</strong></em></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">I would urge anyone who is aware of the document to read through it carefully (not just the summary version) before signing. Once again, at this point I am convinced that it is an issue of conscience. It depends on how one reads the document. It is a judgement call. However, Chuck <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_11" class="blsp-spelling-error">Colson</span> has made some remarks in an interview that reveal his intention (as one of the three primary authors) for the document. In the interview he makes it clear that he believes the document <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_12" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">effectively</span> joins Catholics and Protestants together under the banner of the Gospel....something to think about.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-464482172354763666.post-80108184197390252272009-12-07T11:00:00.018-05:002009-12-08T13:34:51.964-05:00Some Questions Regarding the Manhattan Declaration Upon Further Reflection<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgy1SMTr327MlusDQfQxYHTf0prNXkU_HMUBr8uqHx-jIBE7dJvXlRzgQA6mlMVgvvn7X1IAWa6vJ9ibPdsn6anBHhLY1Fs6K8oh6gJ7mZbgcuo59QOuBbe_yc5cQ0jJoz73EiQ5c5K5GHI/s1600-h/manhattan-dec.jpg"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 240px; FLOAT: left; HEIGHT: 320px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5412605049436346514" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgy1SMTr327MlusDQfQxYHTf0prNXkU_HMUBr8uqHx-jIBE7dJvXlRzgQA6mlMVgvvn7X1IAWa6vJ9ibPdsn6anBHhLY1Fs6K8oh6gJ7mZbgcuo59QOuBbe_yc5cQ0jJoz73EiQ5c5K5GHI/s320/manhattan-dec.jpg" /></a><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">Here are just a few questions that have come up regarding the Manhattan Declaration. I will try and not comment (too much) on each question. Instead, I will just pose the questions. I welcome responses seeing that I have not yet firmly agreed, or disagree with the Declaration.</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">1. Are we <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-error">Biblically</span> mandated, commanded, or encouraged to draft manifesto's/declarations with political overtones (Mike <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_1" class="blsp-spelling-error">Huckabee's</span> example of the 95 Theses as being <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_2" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">comparable</span> to the <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_3" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">Manhattan</span> Declaration is absurd and shameful to even suggest in my opinion- though I like <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_4" class="blsp-spelling-error">Huckabee</span> otherwise)?</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">2. Are manifesto's/declarations usually effective?</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">3. Is the Gospel enough to change hearts and culture, or does a document/manifesto help the process of changing hearts and culture?</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">4. If the document is not about the Gospel (as I have indicated in another post I believe that many interpret the document this way...including myself) but about moral issues, then why does it not include Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and even atheists so long as they agree on the moral issues? In other words, why exclude those who agree with the moral issues contained in the declaration?</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">5. Does the document not detail the Gospel due to the fact that all the original signatories would not have agreed upon what the Gospel is?</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">6. Will we see some of the people who signed it publicly ask for their signatures to be removed (I am thinking especially of the Together for the Gospel Conference coming up)?</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">7. Is there <em><strong>not</strong></em> an essential difference between Christians formally "partnering" with unbelievers in a club or society that is professedly not Christian (say PTA) as opposed to formally "partnering" with people in a manifesto who say they are Christian but whose particular church's official teaching clearly denies the Biblical Gospel (ex. Roman Catholic view of justification by faith)?</span></div><div></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;">8. Again, should we not simply take people at their word when they profess that they are Christians? Maybe some of the signatories that signed the document really are Christian even though their particular church's official teaching denies the Gospel? In other words, could there be "rebels" for the Gospel still retaining membership in church's that are not evangelical Protestant?</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">I am trying to think through these issues clearly. Earlier today I listened to an interview of Al <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_5" class="blsp-spelling-error">Mohler</span> (probably the one most are surprised signed the document) who welcomed MacArthur and <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_6" class="blsp-spelling-error">Begg's</span> critiques and expressed gratefulness for their insight confessing he needs help thinking through these issues as well. If <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_7" class="blsp-spelling-error">Mohler</span> needs help, I think it is safe to say that I do as well! I created this blog with a conscious effort to not labor on current news like this. However, the fact that the President of my Seminary signed this document has drawn my attention into the debate.</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">By the way if you have not read the declaration, </span><a href="http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><strong>click here.</strong></em></span></a></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">Grace and Peace,</span><br /></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;">Andy</span></div><br /><br /><div></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-464482172354763666.post-42284984650927790392009-12-05T08:11:00.006-05:002009-12-05T08:29:33.218-05:00Random Post About the Phenomenom of Internet Radio...I'm Obsessed<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5O91dYF-YUzUYRu6AaFvqv1XglZ9T6YAAr288ywfZiEDSdutmAR61ktD5ejBuMaIi_OF3FOoEUn6wQMBSAlas3TzMILCTure5HkNZEcwUsbz61Z5K0bRQqWEx9lLgsoxsLW1TusRK9Uln/s1600-h/net_radio.jpg"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 200px; FLOAT: right; HEIGHT: 187px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5411743685932472466" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5O91dYF-YUzUYRu6AaFvqv1XglZ9T6YAAr288ywfZiEDSdutmAR61ktD5ejBuMaIi_OF3FOoEUn6wQMBSAlas3TzMILCTure5HkNZEcwUsbz61Z5K0bRQqWEx9lLgsoxsLW1TusRK9Uln/s200/net_radio.jpg" /></a><br /><div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmtRVYAZ8y9K6H9r4KJzFSNOI3W4L_iMHt6TBohTLlZ7eL5DkS4_0SKXOstKwSIGI60J7kg2Gqjdtz7devq6M-5AUrwnh5xZXk9-b0LE93mXN0J_PX88-SKO7lQFu7lFWVeg_93Iwb9T0V/s1600-h/net_radio.jpg"></a></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">I have been infatuated with the phenomenon of Internet radio for the last 3-4 yrs. Several months ago I was having a conversation with a group of people about how cool Internet radio is. The people present had never heard of some of the websites that I said I listened to. I very rarely buy Cd's anymore because Internet radio provides one with 24 hours of the specific type of music you want, and many of them have very, very few commercials. My wife wanted a Christmas CD the other day and I said, "No problem." I logged onto the Internet and had a variety of Christmas music playing for<em> free</em>. I always have music playing in my headphones when I study. Consequently, I listen to a variety of music and stations. Here is a list of my three favorite Internet radio sites (check them out):</span><br /></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div><a href="http://www.wordoftruthradio.com/"><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><em>http://www.wordoftruthradio.com/</em></strong></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"> (both the hymns and acoustic praise are excellent- no commercials!)</span></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div><a href="http://www.pandora.com/"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><strong>http://www.pandora.com/</strong></em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"> (hardly any commercials)</span></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div><a href="http://www.slacker.com/"><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><em>http://www.slacker.com/</em></strong></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"> (a few more commercials, but a wide selection of stations)</span></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">Andy</span></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-464482172354763666.post-11025725234635923882009-12-03T12:26:00.016-05:002009-12-04T08:42:06.277-05:00A Few Thoughts on the Manhattan Declaration<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSweg7SQQ1UZmrvROIZQMssIGAeB5YwU4lVVpkPI-C7uALyG5zHBrIS9hNIFWHJ6E8dKXLtZLeLGN9WaeYve6nw00EkcTJjo1vU47ZoL95g3d6muy_CxN3z9MlUKDZA3jReJSvPpC2FIt3/s1600-h/11895145486ztDr7.jpg"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 214px; FLOAT: left; HEIGHT: 320px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5411088436930718402" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSweg7SQQ1UZmrvROIZQMssIGAeB5YwU4lVVpkPI-C7uALyG5zHBrIS9hNIFWHJ6E8dKXLtZLeLGN9WaeYve6nw00EkcTJjo1vU47ZoL95g3d6muy_CxN3z9MlUKDZA3jReJSvPpC2FIt3/s320/11895145486ztDr7.jpg" /></a><br /><div></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;">I have been asked about my thoughts on the </span><a href="http://manhattandeclaration.org/index.php"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><strong>Manhattan Declaration</strong></em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"> (click to read it). I have spent the time to read the document itself. However, understanding that I am inadequate to form an opinion of the document from one cursory reading, I opted to do a little more research. Thus. I have also read various reflections on the content and purpose of the document itself by people way smarter than myself whose opinions were welcomed from the beginning. Some such as </span><a href="http://www.shepherdsfellowship.org/pulpit/Posts.aspx?ID=4444"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><strong>John MacArthur</strong></em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"> and </span><a href="http://www.truthforlife.org/resources/article/manhattan-declaration/"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><strong>Allistair Begg </strong></em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;">agree with what is being defended in the document, but refused to sign it due to the fact that the document appears to be similar to ECT (Evangelicals and Catholics Together) and other such documents. These particular leaders of the Christian church see the document as a Gospel compromise because those who believe the Biblical Gospel are "partnering" with with those who obviously do not believe the Biblical Gospel (i.e. Roman Catholics). In other words, a broad range of men and women from various denominations have attached their names to this document and respected leaders such as MacArthur and Begg view this as too ecumenical.</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">Others such as </span><a href="http://www.albertmohler.com/2009/11/23/why-i-signed-the-manhattan-declaration/"><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><em>Al Mohler</em></strong> </span></a><span style="font-size:130%;">adamantly defended their signing of the document suggesting that penning his signature in no way compromised the Gospel in his own conscience. Mohler, as usual argues very convincingly about the primary purpose and importance of such a document.</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">For those wondering- my opinion was never welcomed, nor did I (or do I- believe me) expect it to be. It ultimately does not matter what I think. The document was drafted with the purpose of garnering influential Christian leaders to align themselves with the goals communicated in the document in order to send a clear message. For the record, I do not think the world is loosing sleep because Andy Smith has, or has not signed the document. As I stated, in the overall scheme of things my opinion amounts to, well.....nothing. On the other hand, some in our church have kept up with the controversy surrounding the drafting of this document and have asked if I have heard about it and what I think of it. Therefore, I want to offer just a few thoughts on the matter. Take these for what they are worth. Ultimately, I believe one's own conscience must dictate whether they approve or disapprove of the document.</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">1. The overall purpose of the document must be kept in proper perspective. The purpose of the document is stated early on, "We act together in obedience to the one true God, the triune God of holiness and love, who has laid total claim on our lives and by that claim calls us with believers in all ages and all nations to seek and defend the good of all who bear His image." </span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">Now the three areas the document outlines to "defend the good of all who bear His image" are: 1) "the profound , inherent, and equal dignity of every human being as a creature fashioned in the very image of God, possessing inherent rights of equal dignity and life", 2) "marriage as a conjugal union of man and woman, ordained by God from the creation, and historically understood by believers and non-believers alike, to be the most basic institution in society", and 3) "religious liberty, which is grounded in the character of God, the example of Christ, and the inherent freedom and dignity of human beings created in the divine image". </span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">To me, these appear to be very worthy ideals to defend as Christians. All three flow from the concept of all men and women being created in the image of God. We have talked about this in before so I will not wax here. But take marriage for instance, God created us to reflect the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit loving one another sacrificially). And one of the primary ways this is done is in marriage. Marriage (instituted at creation) allows us to behold and reflect the triune God that we worship. Marriage, as established at creation, was not meant to be a union between "Adam and Steve", but "Adam and Eve" (I know that is an over used cliche but it is true!). God's rules for marriage have not changed since creation. Marriage is only marriage (Biblically speaking) when it is between a man and woman. Thus, marriage between male and female was established at creation and reigns as a universal rule whether one is Christian or not. Therefore, Christians do well to defend this because it is a creation principle that has never changed. Society itself is built upon that universal, creational law. (Note: I am not saying that it is a law to be married. I am simply saying that if one chooses to get married they must do it the way that God designed marriage from the beginning- between a man and woman).</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">Second, the document points out (rightly so) that the promotion of same-sex marriage whether in attitude or practice is only a symptom of the greater problem. And the greater problem lies with the failure of professing Christians to take marriage seriously, and to understand it in its God given purposes. The document says, "We confess with sadness that Christians and our institutions have too often scandalously failed to uphold the institution of marriage and to model for the world the true meaning of marriage." The document then affirms that the current capitulation to the culture's current view of marriage by Christians would only "lock into place the false and destructive belief that marriage is all about romance and other adult satisfactions, and not, in any intrinsic way, about procreation and the unique character and value of acts and relationships whose meaning is shaped by their aptness for the generation, promotion, and protection of life. In spousal communion and the rearing of children (who, as gifts of God, are the fruit of their parents maritial love) , we discover the profound reasons for and benefits of the marriage covenant."</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">There is a proper attitude for Christians to bear regarding marriage. Christians should start taking marriage more seriously than we have in more recent times. We ought to view marriage as less about sexual and emotional pleasure and more about the unique ability that marriage offers in the arena of creating another life made in the image of God! We ought to rejoice in this privilege; not begrudge it, or view children as an inconvenience. The feminist movement has not helped out here; and neither has the "safe sex" movement.</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">In many ways, the document is brilliant because it compellingly ties together the issues of homosexuality, marriage, abortion, euthanasia, and religious liberty as one big, complex issue. And the complexity is removed when one realizes that the central issue is really submission to our Creator. Christians do not serve Ceaser. As the document itself pointed out, "We will fully and ungrudingly render to Ceasar's what is Ceasar's. But under no circumstances will we render to Ceaser's what is God's." Christians serve God through Jesus Christ our Redeemer!</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">In an increasingly sissified culture, it is nice to see professing Christians take such a courageous and bold stance.</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">2. As Mohler has documented on countless occasions, Canada and some European countries have been a theatre for recent cases where Christian clergy have been prosecuted for preaching against homosexuality with the Bible as their authority for doing so. Thus, this document could help make the church function more smoothly if it achieves its intended goal. The document affirms the church's discretion as to who is qualified to pastor, what to preach, and what beliefs to propagate whether from the pulpit, through literature, or the Internet. For me, this becomes a personal issue. I DON'T want anyone dictating to me what to preach. If I found myself in circumstances where that was happening on a legal level I pray that I would do the Christ honoring thing (that would be preaching the Gospel regardless of the cost for myself or family for those wondering what the Christ honoring thing would be)!</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">3. So far my comments have supported the document and its purpose. However, I do have one axe to grind with the Declaration. I do not know if it would be enough for me to not sign the document or not. I have not decided. My grievance is with the wording of the document. From the beginning, the document assumes that Roman Catholics affirm the Biblical Gospel. </span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">This is the point that MacArthur and Begg make in their articles, and which serves as the primary reason that neither one of them signed the document. Read these words from MacArthur (the modern day Prince of Preachers), "...it assumes from the beginning that all signatories are fellow Christians whose only differences have to do with the fact that they represent distinct communities. Points of disagreement are tacitly acknowledged but are described as 'historic lines of ecclesial differences' rather than fundamental conflicts of doctrine and conviction with regard to the gospel and the question of which teachings are essential to authentic Christianity. Instead of acknowledging the true depth of our differences, the implicit assumption (from the start of the document until its final paragraph) is that Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant Evangelicals and others all share a common faith in and a common commitment to the gospel's essential claims. The document repeatedly employs expressions like 'we [and] our fellow believers', 'As Christians , we...', and 'we claim the heritage of....Christians'. That seriously muddles the lines of demarcation between authentic Biblical Christianity and various apostate traditions".</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">I understand what MacArthur is saying and actually agree with him. I would point out, however that there is a sense in which Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox people (at least the ones who signed the document) <em>could</em> be genuine Christians. I would not hesitate to say that it is <em>possible</em> for a Catholic to be a Christian. In fact, I have known a few myself. That does <em>not</em> mean Catholic doctrine holds to the true Gospel. If you do not believe me, then follow Allistar Begg's advice (who also refused to sign the document) and read Calvin's Institutes on the Roman Catholic Mass (Book IV, Chapter 18)!</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">Furthermore, even if some of the signatories prove to not be true believers, it does not stand to reason that all of them must of necessity be either Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. Would it not be possible that some of the Protestants that signed the document could prove in the final analysis to not be Christian as well? I am not trying to split hairs. Nor am I trying to judge the heart of any man that signed the document. Nevertheless, one must concede that there are Protestants who could articulate the Gospel in and out; yet still be lost. On the other hand, there could be Roman Catholics who know the Gospel, but remain in the Catholic church for inferior reasons of which they are even aware. I would just provide one caveat- I think the former is more prominent than the latter option; however, that is just my opinion.</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">The point is that even those who signed the document and hold wholeheartedly to a form of the heretical version of the gospel as espoused by the Roman Catholic church still affirm belief in the God of the Bible.</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">We have spoken a lot about this in our current Sunday School series. One can believe in God and not be a Christian in the "Gospel sense", right? James tells us that the demons know there is a God, but they are not Christians in the "Gospel sense". So the document is affirming basic truths about a Creator God. The basic truth is that all men are created in His image. The document is not trying to bring Catholics and Protestants together on the doctrinal details of the Gospel. Rather, the agenda of the document (to me at least) seems to be an effort to promote the basic freedom and rights of not just Christians, but non-Christians who have all been created in the triune image of God- our Maker.</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">So I think that MacArthur and Begg have a valid point. The language of the document does (to me) assume that Roman Catholics are Christians in the same sense as Protestants. I disagree with that and wholeheartedly affirm that Roman Catholic doctrine is heretical and damnable. Thus, I think the language of the document is unfortunate. Nevertheless, the document does promote a worthy cause that even non-Christians could benefit from because the overall thrust of the document (it seems to me) is to send a message that supports and promotes universal laws that God established at creation such as the sanctity of human life (on both ends- whether embryo fashion or nursing home fashion) and Biblical marriage. </span></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;">Conclusion</span></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;">As I said, nobody is waiting to see whether I will sign the document or not. These are just my current<span style="color:#000000;"> </span><span style="color:#ffff99;">musings</span> on the Declaration. Take them for what they are worth. May your conscience by your guide!</span></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></div><div><span style="font-size:130%;">AMS</span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-464482172354763666.post-55075501266796419422009-12-02T11:40:00.004-05:002009-12-02T11:51:17.781-05:00Quote<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJu0RwoEVtBvzLp_zOopoLTi830iJ4R7UuVIo-3aODvRKwFsX4MeuHC4VjCBdY-6iiEsa2f_zLzRtFpbpcXFR9XZ4OKjf0REr4VB9VFNam76c0Hzg3h24fwB0pQCTJ3qP6Nv45eBsoh73F/s1600-h/laughing.jpg"><img style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 209px; DISPLAY: block; HEIGHT: 320px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5410681978884204210" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJu0RwoEVtBvzLp_zOopoLTi830iJ4R7UuVIo-3aODvRKwFsX4MeuHC4VjCBdY-6iiEsa2f_zLzRtFpbpcXFR9XZ4OKjf0REr4VB9VFNam76c0Hzg3h24fwB0pQCTJ3qP6Nv45eBsoh73F/s320/laughing.jpg" /></a><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;">Laying on my desk are a series of index cards with different quotes that I have written down over the last several weeks. For most of the quotes I have indicated the specific author who penned it. However, (for whatever reason) I failed to indicate the author of my favorite quote on these cards. I really do not know where I read this one, but it is good......</span></div><br /><br /><div><span style="font-size:180%;"><strong>"We must be willing to laugh at all our righteous, good deeds."</strong></span></div><div><span style="font-size:180%;"></span> </div><div><span style="font-size:130%;">This is well said. We must view our good works as worth nothing before a holy God. They do not even come close to impressing God.</span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0