GRACE CHAPEL pastors blog

Something I Must Constantly Remind Myself Of

2010-04-30T14:51:00.009-04:00

Religion focuses on rules.

Christianity focuses on relationship.

Religion is commitment to practice.
Christianity is commitment to a Person.

A law-centered life produces despair and pride.
A Christ-centered life produces gratitude and worship.

A legalist seeks to gain favor with God.
A Christian seeks to live for God because Christ alone has placed Him in a favorable position before God.

Religion promotes self.
Christianity promotes Christ.

Religion is focused on "don't do".
Christianity is focused on "Christ did".

Religion seeks praise from others.
Christianity seeks praise for Christ.

A legalist obeys a list.
A Christian simply follows Christ.

Religion is rooted in honoring self and thus bears fruitless branches.
Christianity is rooted in Christ and thus bears the fruit of the Spirit.

Legalism is ultimately selfish and works against the church.
Christianity is ultimately selfless and works with and for the church.

May God be pleased to search our hearts that we may not be religious legalists, but Christ exalting Christians! 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?

- Pastor Andy

Article on God's Impassibility

2010-04-18T21:32:00.004-04:00

I 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.

Here is the link.

Together for the Gospel on Vimeo

2010-04-16T14:56:00.006-04:00

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.

Here is my analysis...

MacArthur: Spoke about the Parable of the Seed (Mark 4:26-29). 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).

Piper: Spoke on the Pharisee and Tax Collector (Luke 18:9-14). 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!

Click here for your viewing pleasure.

What is the Gospel? A Great Definition!

2010-04-14T10:36:00.005-04:00

Click HERE for a clear, simple (yet not overly simplistic), and thorough definition of the Gospel. It does not get much better than this.

Compliments of R.C. Sproul (said at the Together for the Gospel conference)

Angelic Rap Music in Heaven

2010-04-12T09:39:00.002-04:00

Click on the following to hear some....
http://vimeo.com/9571314

Huggins Speaks From His Heart

2010-02-25T09:16:00.008-05:00

All true West Virginians will be moved as they listen to these remarks 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 (Decision Makers). Unfortunatley, Decision Makers does not place archive videos online so I cannot provide you with that clip.

Start listening at the 6 minute mark to hear what I am talking about.

Today Where is the Boldness of Luther Who Said...

2010-02-12T13:15:00.006-05:00

"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."

Proliferating Ignorance

2010-02-10T09:03:00.005-05:00

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.

MacArthur writes:

"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.

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."

CLICK HERE TO READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE (If you have the stamina to read more than a "punchy one-liner".)

- Andy

Lawson Audio Online

2010-01-28T07:58:00.002-05:00

The audio of Pastor's Lawson's sermons from the book of Colossians at the Appalachia Conference are now available HERE.

Enjoy, and may you be reminded of the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Andy

Steve Lawson Weekend

2010-01-25T07:28:00.006-05:00

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???- the book of Colossians! 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:

I. Jesus is Fully God (vs. 15a)

II. Jesus is Absoulutely Sovereign (vs. 15b)

III. Jesus is All Powerful Creator (vs. 16)

IV. Jesus is Eternally Pre-existent (vs. 17a)

V. Jesus is Mighty Sustainer (vs. 17b)

VI. Jesus is Supreme Lord (vs. 18a)

VII. Jesus is All Sufficient Source (vs. 18b)

VIII. Jesus is Pre-eminent One (vs. 18c)

IX. Jesus is the Final Reconciler (vss. 19-20)

X. Jesus is Gracious Savior (vss. 21-23)

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.

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 HERE. I promise that you have never heard preaching like this before. Simply amazing.

Back to Basics: Sunday School

2010-01-19T10:00:00.017-05:00

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:

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 merely prove a skeptic wrong, merely enjoy the debate game, or show an unbelieving skeptic how intellectually astute one is.

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.

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!

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: "If a personal God does not exist, then how do we account for the cause and effect universe that we exist in?"

The second argument goes like this...

"If a personal God does not exist, then how do we explain the order, design, complexity, and harmony of the universe we exist in?"

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 purposeful.

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.

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- nobody + nothing= everything. In other words, the universe was not designed by a Maker with particular purpose, meaning, and direction. Rather, it is simply time and chance acting upon matter.

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?

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

In his book entitled Exposing Darwinism's Weakest Link, 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?

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

Third Function of a Kinsman Redeemer

2010-01-15T22:29:00.003-05:00

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!

(Spurgeon calls the redeemer a "goel", which is the Hebrew transliteration for "redeemer" found in places like Job 19:25.)

"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."

What Does It Mean to be Baptist?

2010-01-11T08:36:00.011-05:00

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.

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.

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.

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 orthodox, evangelical, and separatistic.

To Be Baptist Means to be Orthodox

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:

"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" (By His Grace and for His Glory: A Historical, Theological, and Practical Study of the Doctrines of Grace in Baptist Life, x-xi).

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).

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.

To Be Baptist Means to be Evangelical

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).

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.

Nettles puts it this way:

"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).

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.

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.

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:

"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).

To Be Baptist Means to be Separate

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.

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.

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.

Conclusion

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.

The Book of Revelation and the Centrality and Power of the Gospel Alone

2010-01-07T12:47:00.004-05:00

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".

Silliest Thing I Have Read Today:
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]".

*The brackets are my own words to clue you in on the context.*

Best Thing I Have Read Today:
"[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 eschatalogical meaning, which was more than sufficient to sustain hope until the Parousia. 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 Parousia was an epilogue, albeit an important one, to the first coming of Christ".

Men's Reformed Fellowship Meeting: Jan. 15

2010-01-07T07:58:00.002-05:00

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.

P.S. Bring a friend (if you have any).

Merry Christmas!!!!

2009-12-25T12:11:00.007-05:00

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 Angels We Have Heard on High. Now time to play!!

I wanted to leave you with a quote from Athanasius' book entitled De Incarnatione Verbi Dei. This particular paragraph stuck with me when I read it late last night before bed. It is the first paragraph of chapter two entitled, The Divine Dilemma and Its Solution in the Incarnation.

"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.

It was unworthy of the goodness of God that creatures made by Him should be brought to nothing through the deceit wrought upon man 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 created 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."

......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!

It is truly a blessing to pastor at Grace Chapel. Thank you all for your tremendous gift (and gifts to our children). We love you all. You all are GIFTS to us.

Pastor Andy
Corie, Gracie, and Jackson

Grace Chapel Blog on New Covenant Theology Website

2009-12-23T14:27:00.009-05:00

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, CLICK HERE.

I will also create a link to this website on the sidebar of our main page.

Some random notes.......

Click here for an article written by a staunch New Covenant theologian 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.

And on a lighter note, if you are a Rolling Stones fan, then click here to read an intersting article.

Grace and Peace,
Andy

Favorite Books of '09 [For Those Who Might Care]

2009-12-21T15:00:00.032-05:00

Any of you that keep up with the real bloggers 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 just 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 today are the same as yesterday. 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.

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 Colossians, though in all honesty, they have had the most impact upon me.

Here they are in order of most impactful ("1" being the most impactful):

10. Biblical Law and Ethics: Absolute and Covenantal, Gary D. Long

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 Theonomy and traditional Reformed Theology in favor of Biblical, New Covenant Theology. A sure shot in the arm for New Covenant Theology.

9. John Calvin: A Heart for Devotion, Doctrine, and Doxology, Edited by Burk Parsons

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 500th birthday. The essays are written by men including: Sinclair Ferguson, Steve Lawson, Phil Johnson, John MacArthur, Michal Horton, and Joel R. Beeke.

8. The Courage to be Protestant: Truth lovers, Marketers, and Emergents in the Postmodern World, David Wells

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.

7. The Newness of the New Covenant, Blake White

The best short work on New Covenant Theology that I have read to date. White defines the fundamentals of NCT through right theology, Biblical exegesis, and clear thoughts.

6. Father, Son, Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles, and Relevance, Bruce Ware

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 Colossians 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.

5. Gospel Powered Parenting: How the Gospel Shapes and Transforms Parenting, William P. Farley

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!

4. Christless Christianity, Michael Horton

Horton insightfully 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 "Christless". 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).

3. The Law and Its Fulfillment, Tom Schreiner

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 aggressively exegetical as well. Schreiner 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.

2. Come to Me, Tom Wells

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.

1. The Jesus You Can't Ignore, John MacArthur

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 propagated 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.

Special Honorable Mention: Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, J.I. Packer

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.

Honorable Mention: Exposing Darwinism's Weakest Link: Why Evolution Can't Explain Human Existence, Kenneth Poppe

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.

The Witness of God's World: Philosophical Arguments for God's Existence

2009-12-15T07:50:00.008-05:00

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.

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.

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.

We will deal with just the first argument today.

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?

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.

The Argument Explained

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.

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.

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.

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.

The Point Applied

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. Dependant 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.

The Question Asked

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.

The whole world must 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.

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.

This "First Cause" is infinitely independent, intelligent, and powerful. Thus, this "First Cause" is uncaused. He is a personal God.

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.

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.

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".

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!

Back to the Basics

2009-12-14T08:00:00.008-05:00

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.Let me remind you where we are:

- We are currently answering the question, "How do we know God?"
- I have established three points to answer this question:
The witness of God's Work
The witness of God's World
The witness of God's Word
- We have already dealt with the first point (see archive posts)
- We are beginning the second point today- The witness of God's world

THE WITNESS OF GOD'S WORLD
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.

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.

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!).

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.

The Caveat
Let me be clear, I say that these arguments are used to support God's existence (not prove God's existence) 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.

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.

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.

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."

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."

You could point to evidence: "Look at these tiny footprints. Don't you think that a bear's footprints are bigger than this?"

You could point to more evidence: You could call the dog over and pet it in front of the drunk man.

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.

In addition, arguments which support 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.

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.

So let me be clear. Arguments used to support God's existence do just that- they support it. They do not prove it. Only the Spirit of God can do that to a skeptic, and He uses the Gospel every time to do so.

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?

So we are not to use arguments for God's existence with the idea that they can prove His existence beyond doubt. Rather, we use them with the view that His existence can be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

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 beyond a reasonable doubt 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.

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!

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.

Next time we will look at the first argument.

Manhattan Declaration Revisited Once Again

2009-12-10T08:32:00.007-05:00

For those of you who might be interested in the implications of key conservative evangelicals signing the Manhattan Declaration, then read the following

Michael Horton's article opposing the declaration

R.C. Sproul's article opposing the declaration and calling upon his friends who did sign it to remove their names from the document

Lig Duncan's article explaining why some members of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals signed the document

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.

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 astuciously imply that they are one with the Roman Catholics on the Gospel.

2. Therefore, the consciences of the signers (who have defended why they signed the document) have not been violated or compromised.

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 consciences have not been compromised.

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. In other words, these 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.

5. In addition, the non-signers affirm boldly and unashamedly the moral issues outlined in the document.

Below I have chosen to use one word to describe the articles of both the signers and non-signers of the Manhattan Declaration.

Al Mohler's article explaining why he signed it....honest
Allistair Begg's article explaining he did not sign it...pastoral
John MacArthur's article explaining why he did not sign it...direct
Lig Duncan's (President of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals) article explaining why some members of the Alliance signed the document and others did not sign it...clear
R.C. Sproul's article explaining why he did not sign it...passionate
Michael Horton's article explaining why he did not sign it...perceptive

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 Colson 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 effectively joins Catholics and Protestants together under the banner of the Gospel....something to think about.

Some Questions Regarding the Manhattan Declaration Upon Further Reflection

2009-12-07T11:00:00.018-05:00

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.

1. Are we Biblically mandated, commanded, or encouraged to draft manifesto's/declarations with political overtones (Mike Huckabee's example of the 95 Theses as being comparable to the Manhattan Declaration is absurd and shameful to even suggest in my opinion- though I like Huckabee otherwise)?

2. Are manifesto's/declarations usually effective?

3. Is the Gospel enough to change hearts and culture, or does a document/manifesto help the process of changing hearts and culture?

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?

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?

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)?

7. Is there not 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)?

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?

I am trying to think through these issues clearly. Earlier today I listened to an interview of Al Mohler (probably the one most are surprised signed the document) who welcomed MacArthur and Begg's critiques and expressed gratefulness for their insight confessing he needs help thinking through these issues as well. If Mohler 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.

By the way if you have not read the declaration, click here.

Grace and Peace,

Andy

Random Post About the Phenomenom of Internet Radio...I'm Obsessed

2009-12-05T08:11:00.006-05:00

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 free. 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):

http://www.wordoftruthradio.com/ (both the hymns and acoustic praise are excellent- no commercials!)

http://www.pandora.com/ (hardly any commercials)

http://www.slacker.com/ (a few more commercials, but a wide selection of stations)

Andy

A Few Thoughts on the Manhattan Declaration

2009-12-03T12:26:00.016-05:00

I have been asked about my thoughts on the Manhattan Declaration (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 John MacArthur and Allistair Begg 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.

Others such as Al Mohler 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.

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.

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."

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".

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).

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."

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.

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!

In an increasingly sissified culture, it is nice to see professing Christians take such a courageous and bold stance.

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)!

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.

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".

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) could be genuine Christians. I would not hesitate to say that it is possible for a Catholic to be a Christian. In fact, I have known a few myself. That does not 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)!

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.

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.

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.

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.

Conclusion

As I said, nobody is waiting to see whether I will sign the document or not. These are just my current musings on the Declaration. Take them for what they are worth. May your conscience by your guide!

AMS

Quote

2009-12-02T11:40:00.004-05:00

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......

"We must be willing to laugh at all our righteous, good deeds."

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.

Part 2 on Reformed Evangelism

2009-12-01T18:03:00.003-05:00

To view my articles on Reformed Evangelism- go to www.soundofgrace.com (not soundofgrace.org). I apologize for giving the wrong web address. Some were surprised to find many things completley unrelated to the Gospel or evangelism (apparently the webmaster for those websites needs the Gospel!)...for that I am sorry.

To view Part 1 go to the Nov. issue of Sound of Grace. If you want part 2 click on the Dec./Jan. issue. And if you want Part 3, then wait until Feb.

Sorry for the confusion.

The Light of the World Exposing Darkness, John 8:12-20

2009-11-20T09:23:00.152-05:00

John 8:12-20 includes the second "I am" statement found in John's Gospel. In chapter six Jesus referred to Himself as the "Bread of life". All of the "I am" statements are declarations of deity and Messiahship. They are metaphors revealing a different aspect of Christ's Messianic identiy.

There is a pattern to the way that Jesus makes statements about His Messianic identity. This pattern is striking because it shows His constant allegiance to obey the Father fully. This pattern manifests a spirit that refused to walk one step ahead of the Father's will.

For instance, in chapter six, Jesus feeds the multitudes with the loaves and fish. Directly following this incident on the very next day Jesus says to the same crowd that had followed Him to the other side of the sea, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst" (6:35).

In chapter seven, Jesus waited until that water ritual ceremony occurred during the Feast of Tabernacles (likely right at the climax on the final day when the priest poured the water on the altar) and then He cried out, "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, 'From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water'" (7:37).

Now here in chapter eight, Jesus says, "I am the Light of the world, he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life" (8:12). Like Christ's declaration in chapter seven, this one also follows the theme of the Feast of Tabernacles, and specifically points to another particular ceremony to which we will talk about later.

This pattern of "specific event/specific declaration" is not only striking due to it revealing Christ's willingness to capitalize on the circumstances that the Father sovereignly orchestrated in order to make His case as the Messiah in a very natural, progressive manner. It is also striking for another reason.

If you have not already noticed all three declarations contained in chapters six, seven, and eight all refer back to the wilderness wanderings of the children of Israel. Aside from the fact that the events of chapter seven are separated by roughly six months (The Retirement Ministry of Jesus), all three constitute real life events during those wilderness years that every Israelite would have understood.

In chapter six, Jesus clearly makes a connection with the manna in the wilderness with His declaration He was the "Bread of life" (6:31 ff.). God provided bread (manna) in the wilderness, but that bread only pointed to the true bread (6:32) which the Father now gave in sending His Son into the world.

In chapter seven, the Feast of Tabernacles is celebrated with that elaborate water pouring ceremony. What did the water point to? It pointed to the wilderness wanderings when Moses struck the rock and Meribah and water flowed out. The whole Feast pointed to the wilderness wanderings. In fact, they called it the "Feast of Tabernacles" (same as Feast of Booths, or Feast of Thanksgiving) due to the fact that all the pilgrims traveling to Jerusalem would dwell in makeshift huts (booths) to remind them of the wilderness wanderings when they had yet reached the land God promised and thus had no permanent dwelling. When Jesus says that if one feels their need for thirst they must simply come to Him He was showing that the provision of water in the wilderness by God only pointed forward to the true provision of "living water" found in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

And in chapter eight, Jesus--as we will see-- makes this declaration against the background of another feature of the children of Israel's wandering in the wilderness.

In other words, Jesus was showing that He was the fulfillment of all those "types" in the wilderness-- the manna, bread, and light. He was showing that all those things were not important in and of themselves. They only meant something true and meaningful when connected with His identity as the Messiah.

Thus, the way in which Christ revealed Himself was natural and submissive. It was natural because He allowed the normal events of life (as He conducted His main activity of teaching) to come to Him as the Father orchestrated them. And when the opportunity came to make an impressionable statement about His identity, He seized the opportunity. It was submissive because He refused to walk one step behind, or before the will of the Father. Thus, Jesus is the true pattern of obedience! In this obedience we see a "specific event/specific declaration" pattern.

Now let's look at the present passage (8:12-20) a little closer. Chapter eighth finds Jesus in a situation that John all too often shows Him in. Once again the religious leaders are challenging His teaching. More specifically, they are challenging His claim in being the "Light of the world". And once again, He reveals before the crowds their foolishness and hardness of heart. Thus, the passage includes an interchange between Jesus and the Pharisees that can be divided up into the 3 phases of Christ's argumentation. His argumentation reveals that He is Light, but the Pharisees are darkness. First, we will see the great claim, then the grave contrast, and finally the grim conclusion.

I. THE GREAT CLAIM (vs.12)
Verse 12 notes the great claim by Jesus, "I am the Light of the world". Jesus did not just make this claim "out of the blue". It was said against the backdrop of the "lighting ceremony". During the Feast of Tabernacles there existed two primary ceremonies of celebration. The first, I mentioned above (the water ceremony). The second took place in the very part of the temple where Christ was teaching this day. Verse 20 clues us in that He was teaching in the Treasury. The Treasury was located in the Court of Women. In this section of the temple were constructed four huge candelabra. Some say these candelabra were as high as the temple walls themselves. In fact, it would take a priest climbing a ladder to light the wick that protruded from the top. The bowl on the top, it is said, contained sixty-five liters of oil. When those candelabra were lit there was virtually not a yard in the whole city of Jerusalem that did not share some of the light that exuded from these massive torches.

The mishna says that the lighting ceremony involved dancing and music even from those who were considered dignitaries. Why light these candelabra? What did they point to? They reminded the children of Israel of their wilderness wanderings when God led them with the pillar of cloud by day, and the pillar of fire at night.Once again, Jesus is saying, "I am the fulfillment of that pillar of fire! It pointed to Me, I am the Light of the world."

It is likely that Jesus is standing right underneath those candelabra when He makes that statement. The children of Israel would have known exactly what He was talking about.

The metaphor is rather simple to understand. In 1:4 John referred to Jesus as the Light and specifically said that the "Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it". Jesus, as the Light, illumines the sinful soul to see his sin, and the glory of Jesus Christ. We grope around in the darkness of sin trying to find our way and Jesus shines His light into our souls and says, "I am the Way". Another way to put it is to say that Christ's Light makes our darkness disappear. That is, after all, what light does. It shines, and when it does darkness is gone, right?

Those hearing this claim would have known that Jesus was declaring His identity as Messiah. Isaiah refers to the Messiah as a "light to the nations" (Is. 42:6; 49:6). Furthermore, the rabbi's would call the Messiah "the Light" as a sort of nickname.

So for the original audience His identity as Messiah was the main thing communicated to them.

Now the rest of what He says in vs. 12 accentuates the meaning further: "he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness but will have the Light of life". The first half of vs.12 tells us who Jesus is, and by implication what the Gospel does (illumines dark souls with he light of the Gospel leading to salvation- 2 Cor. 4:4-6). The second half of vs. 12 tells us how the Gospel changes one's life in regards to sanctification.

To "have the Light of life" means one "will not walk in darkness". And only the one who "follows Jesus" in trust and belief will "have the Light of life", and will thus "not walk in darkness". The message is simple: Christ saves us from the condemnation of sin; but He also saves us from the control of sin. To put it another way, Christ saves us from Satan; but He also saves us from ourselves.

In fact, it is true to say that if one possesses the "Light of life", then they will become lights themselves. Christ Himself said so in Matthew 5:14-16, "You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden, nor does anyone light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven."

The Apostle Paul later picked up on this theme in numerous places (Eph. 5:8; Phil. 2:15; I Thess. 5:5). In these passages the message is clear: to follow Christ is to shine as lights in darkness. This includes trying to do "what is pleasing to Him" (Eph. 5:10) and working out one's "salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil. 2:12-13).

We become little lights by having our small torches lit from the big torch--Jesus Christ. So to "have the Light of life" is to "follow" Jesus. And to do so is to "not walk in darkness". All of this is summed up nicely by John himself in his first epistle, " This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth, but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin" (I Jn. 1:5-7).

Christ's claim is great indeed. He is revealing His ability to save sinners from the condemnation of darkness and the control of darkness. God transforms a life; He doesn't just save a life. The Gospel, therefore, reveals the ethic of the New Covenant. And the ethic of the New Covenant is obedience and submission to Jesus Christ. Obedience is not perfection, but obedience is constant.

The children of Israel were never characterized by true obedience. Even before the covenant was officially sealed, they broke the law of the covenant by forming the golden calf. After it was sealed, they constantly failed to obey everything in it. That was the requirement by the way- complete obedience. However, even in their stumbling in darkness they did picture New Covenant obedience by the grace of God in one important sense. This obedience had nothing to do with the law, but it nevertheless was obedience in its truest and simplest sense.

The children of Israel (read Numbers 9:15-22) submitted themselves constantly to the pillar of fire that led them through the wilderness. When the pillar stopped, they set up camp. When the pillar moved, they moved. Numbers is adamant about this fact. They constantly and continuously were characterized by obedience and submission to the pillar of fire.

And that is what makes Christ's declaration that much greater. Christ is saying, "I am the pillar of fire--the new pillar of fire because I am the light of the world, not just to the Jews, but also to the Gentiles. I am the light to the nations (the world). I will bring two people together in one covenant. And my power is greater than the law's power. It never secured faithfulness. I am like the pillar however, which secured faithfulness in picture form. Those who follow me will not be perfect in this lifetime, but they will be characterized by a new desire to obey me and place themselves under the new pillar of fire. I will be their guide. Their ethic will be obedience. And this obedience is possible because of the light I have shined into their lost, dark souls."

The question if you are a Christian is not, "Do you sin?" The question is, "When you sin, or we could say when you leave the camp and walk before or behind the pillar of fire (Christ's Lordship), do you come back?" Christ is saying that is what the Gospel does. It does not just save you from the condemnation of sin as beautiful and foundational as that is. But it also saves from the control of sin. We have been saved, are being saved, and will be saved someday.

Now here is an important application for us: when we look at the Israelites in the Old Testament we must be careful not to adopt the Old Covenant ethic for our lives. The New Covenant ethic is different. It is different because the law is different. The law led the Israelite in the Old Covenant. The Spirit leads the new Israelite of the New Covenant.

I honestly do not know how much the original audience would have understood regarding what I have just said. But what I just said we know to be true because we have the rest of the New Testament Scriptures to confirm this. Furthermore, the original audience standing in the temple listening to Jesus would have certainly understood Christ's claim to be the Messiah. Let's look further in this text and see what kind of reaction we get from the Pharisees who were there listening with the crowds.

II. THE GRAVE CONTRAST (vss. 13-18)
Everything in these verses shows the contrast between Jesus and the Pharisees. He was everything that they were not, but prided themselves in being. They saw themselves as worshipers of the Father in heaven due to their strict adherence to Mosaic law. But in reality, they did not know the Father at all. They thought their judgement regarding Christ's identity was pure and right. It was fleshly and wrong, however. Jesus' own judgement of Himself, on the other hand, was pure and right.

Notice the Pharisees reaction in vs. 13, "You are testifying about Yourself; Your testimony is not true." It is likely that they are picking up on what Jesus said in 5:31, "If I alone testify about Myself, My testimony is not true." They were trying to show that Jesus was contradicting Himself by catching Him in a legal technicality due to the fact that the law called for two witnesses to verify a truth claim. Futhermore, Jesus had apparently placed Himself under that requirment in chapter 5. Now it seems He is contradicting what He did in chapter 5.

Jesus was not contradicting Himself, however. In chapter five, He placed Himself under their standards of requiring two witnesses. And later in that passage, He pointed to the Father as a witness, "There is another who testifies of Me, and I know that the testimony which He gives about Me is true."

For a moment, Jesus does not claim another witness in our current passage. Instead, undoubtedly to prove a point, Jesus says His testimony by itself is enough. Notice vs. 14, "Even if I testify about Myself, My testimony is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going; but you do not know where I come from and where I am going."

Jesus is simply saying that He knows His identity; He does not need another witness. On the other hand, the Pharisees think they know His identity (not the Messiah); but they are dead wrong! He is right; they are wrong. That is the contrast that Jesus is trying to get the Pharisees and the crowd to see.

He continues in vs. 15, "You judge according to the flesh; I am not judging anyone". Now we know from 2 Tim. 4:1 that at His appearing Jesus will judge the living and the dead. We also know from Rom. 2:16 that God will judge the secrets of men's hearts through Jesus Christ. There is a sense in which Jesus is the ultimate judge of everyone. In fact, Jesus Himself affirmed this in 5:22, "For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son". In 9:39 He also says, "For judgement I came into this world...".

How then do we synthesize Christ's statement that He doesn't judge. Well, we are to understand His words in their context. The first phrase in vs. 15 clarifies what Jesus means. Jesus does not judge like the Pharisees judge- "according to the flesh". In other words, Jesus is not saying that He doesn't judge in any sense. Rather, He is saying that His judgement is nothing like the Pharisees. Their judgement is "fleshly"--innately human and sinful and stemming from a hard heart that hates Jesus no matter how much evidence He offers to them proving that He is the Messiah.

Jesus' judgement, on the other hand, it not fleshly. It is right and pure because He is God. And what He says about Himself is true. If this sounds like what some call circular reasoning, it is. Jesus does not back down from what is true, however. Here is the contrast: He is right about His identity; they are not. They judge wrongly. Christ's judgement is perfect because He knows that He came from the Father.

We might ask, "Why would Jesus argue in this manner?" Well, I am not convinced that I know the answer. But it seems that He has shown miracle after miracle and sign after sign, yet the religious leaders still reject Him. So why not just argue the truth without offering any proof or sign? They are not going to believe anyway. Their hearts are so hardened at this point. So Jesus just throws the truth out there and seems to argue in a circular manner. It does not matter at this point.

Jesus told Nicodemus that He did not primarily come into the world to judge, but to save. He repeats this sentiment in 12:47. Its not that Jesus never judges; but His primary reason for coming was to save. Notice the contrast between the law's purpose and Christ's purpose. The law judges and condemns. That is what Scripture teaches its purpose is. But Christ's purpose is to save. He only judges those who reject Him. And He will judge the Pharisees because the vast majority of them (like the rest of Israel) will reject Him.

But He does something sly and unsuspecting next. He has just argued very simply that they are wrong and He is right as the basis of His argumentation. In other words, its as if Jesus said, "You are wrong because you are wrong, and therefore your judgement is wrong. But I am right because I am right, and therefore my judegement is right." This would have made the Pharisee's blood boil. It would have frusterated them beyond anything we can imagine. They were, afterall, (along with their counterparts, the scribes) self-proclaimed experts of the law and thus of Messianic idenitity. They thougth their own judgment of who the Messiah would be was all that mattered. Jesus bursts their proverbial bubble once again.

To top it off He gives them a taste of thier own "law loving" medicine in vss. 16-18. Their desire for Him to have two witnessses to verify His truth claim in being the Light of the world backfires on them. Notice, "But even if I do judge, My judgement is true; for I am not alone it it, but I and the Father who sent Me. Even in your law it has been written that the testimony of two men is true. I am He who testifies about Myself, and the Father who sent Me testifies about Me."

You know what Jesus is saying? Its as if He said, "I do not judge like you. When I judge, my judgement is true. That is different (in contrast) to yours, which is always wrong. I am not alone in my judgement anyway. You want two men to verify my truth claim? Okay, I will do better than that. I will give you two witnesses that are not mere men: 1) I am the first witness, and 2) My Father is the second. There are your two witnesses that you asked for."

The contrast is condemning: Jesus is right; the Pharisees are wrong!

Now notice what the great claim, which led to the grave contrast leads to--- a grim conclusion.

III. A GRIM CONCLUSION (vss. 19-20)
Their hardness continues, this time with an underlying cheap shot slightly covered with a question. Completely out of arguments due to the strength of Christ's argumentation, they respond with a question in vs. 19, "Where is Your father?"

This was nothing more than another attempt to undermine the credibility of Jesus before the crowds. Joseph was dead by now, first of all. But secondly, the accusatory spirit of the Pharisees is dripping from this question. "Oh, by the way Jesus, where is your dad?" This is nothing short of calling Jesus a bastard. They were trying to point out to the crowd that Jesus was the product of illegetimate means. A similar thing occurs later in vs. 41.

They were trying to get the crowd to doubt Christ's claims on the basis of false charges. Mary was pregnant before official marriage. Nevertheless, we know it was not because of impure relations between Joseph and Mary; Scripture is clear about that. Nevertheless, that was the accusation.

The Pharisees have reached an all time low with their question. Rather than Jesus becoming rattled or flying off the handle He simply says, "You know neither Me nor my Father; if you knew Me, you would know my Father also".

In other words, Jesus is saying "You do not know the Father in heaven who you pridefully claim to know because you have rejected Me. Because you reject Me and my identity as Messiah, you have also rejected the Father." That was a grim conclusioin to an already strong argument.

Vs. 20 says that these things took place in the "Treasury". Within an earshot of the Treasury was the very meeting hall of the Sanhedrin. In a passage dealing with those in the New Covenant being "lights of the world" this is fitting. Christ was obedient regardless of the hostile circumstances. He was fully submissive to the Father. He was fearless, confident, and faithful to His Divine mission. For He knew He could say these things right in the meeting hall of the Sanhedrin if need be, and ultimately it would not matter. For His Father was orchestrating the events of His life down to the very detail. He would not die one second before, or after the will of the Father. Therefore, we read at the end of vs. 20, "no one seized Him (arrested Him) because His hour had not yet come".

Just as the Sandhedrin meeting that day were not being directly spoken to; they were in the vicinity of the comments by Christ. Perhaps they could hear Christ's claim (meeting just a wall over in the temple). They did not heed his warnings. And they, like many today, suffered the same grim fate. Those who reject Christ today are just as guilty as those who stood in the temple and listened to Him teach. In fact, we might say that they are more culpable for their unbelief due to the fact that 2,000 plus years have witnessed saint after saint martyred for Christ. The age of the New Covenant is a testimony in and of itself to the truths that Jesus proclaimed. Jesus is seen in the lives of true beleivers. When people today reject Christ, they have the same grim conclusioin pronounced to them that we find here in John 8.

Do you know Him? Does vs. 12 characterize you- "have the Light of life"? Or, does vs.19 characterize you- "You don't know Me"?

Jesus is the Light of the world. His light is shining. Will you walk into the Light?

Grace Chapel Blog Now on a Southern Seminary Website

2009-11-17T14:16:00.006-05:00

Check out some blogs from Southern Seminary. The Grace Chapel Pastors blog appears in the SBTS Alumni section on the page (scroll down and click on view all and you will find ours). These are some good resources if you have spare time to read.

http://www.saidatsouthern.com/

Sermon Summary: Colossians 3:22-4:1, "Domestic Duties by Divine Design: A Christ Centered Home" (Part 3)

2009-11-16T14:34:00.029-05:00

Sermon is available in audio form. Just see the guys in the sound room or grab me.

This passage comes at the end of Paul addressing a total of 3 groups: husbands/wives (vss. 18-19); children/parents (vss. 20-21); and slaves/masters (3:22-4:1). He specifically gives 6 admonitions because he offers a command to each separate party in each grouping (wives, husbands, children, parents, slaves, masters).

Colossians 3:22-4:1 deals with the last grouping, thus the last two admonitions: 1) a message for slaves, and 2) a message for masters. I have included the slave/master relationship under the rubric of the home (as indicated by the title of the sermon) because in the first century slaves were considered part of the masters household. What does this text have to do with the 21st century? Is Paul endorsing slavery? Did Paul not see the evils of slavery? Well, let me set the record straight- Paul was, to be sure, aware of the evils of slavery. A member of the church at Colossae named Philemon had a slave named Onesimus. Onesimus escaped from Philemon and ran into Paul while he was in Roman imprisonment. Paul does something that might seem harsh- he sent Onesimus back to his master Philemon. But he did not send him back empty handed. Paul placed in Onesimus' hands a letter addressed specifically to Philemon. We still have that letter today and it is found in the back of our New Testament Scriptures. The letter (read it for yourself) is nothing short of a plea on the part of Paul for Philemon to treat Onesimus as an equal- a beloved brother in Christ. So I think for this reason it is safe to assume that Paul was not being harsh in commanding slaves to be obedient to their masters in all things. He knew the importance of just slavery.

Furthermore, being a Jew, Paul would have been familiar with the strong restrictions that Mosaic law placed on slavery. For instance, if a slave was treated harshly (i.e. a beating), the law stipulated that he was to be freed. An Israelite could own another Israelite for a maximum of six years. Every seventh year for the nation of Israel was the year of Jubilee. In this year, all slaves were released. In addition, there existed voluntary slavery in Israel. For example, if one could not pay his debts, he could voluntarily indenture himself as a slave to pay off his debt- not all slavery was forced. It should also be noted that the kidnap of slaves was prohibited in Israel as well.

Therefore, we can assume on good historical grounds that as an Israelite Paul would undoubtedly have been familiar with the importance of just treatment of slaves. He would have known the potential evils innate to slavery as a system. It seems, therefore, that he would have opposed unjust slavery.

Did Paul endorse slavery in this context, though? Well, although that is a good question; it is not the right question. In this passage, Paul is not primarily dealing with slavery as his main theme. He is also not dealing with the wife/husband relationship (vss. 18-19). Nor is he dealing with the parent/child relationship (vss. 20-21). The theme of the entire epistle is the sufficiency of Jesus Christ in all things. False teachers had become popular in this tiny church. They taught a bad theology that, at a minimum, bordered on law based/works based theology. In the present passage (3:18-4:1), Paul is not speaking primarily about the importance of the man being the head of his wife, and thus loving her as Christ loved the church (cf. Eph. 5:25) although that is true and profoundly important. Nor is he speaking primarily about the importance of the wife being submissive to her husband although that is true and profoundly important. The same goes for the parent/child relationship and the slave/master relationship--those relationships are not the primary thing Paul is dealing with in this passage. As important as it is for us to take note of the roles that each respective party plays in these everyday, domestic relationships, it is still not Paul's primary focus.

What is the primary issue then? Well, Colossians 3:17 spells it out for us, "Whatever you do in word or deed do all in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ...". Colossians 3:18 ff. is simply a practical outworking of this truth in the life of the believer. But the main issue- the importance of Jesus Christ as King, Master, and Lord being manifested as a reality in the life of the believer- is the primary issue that Paul is dealing with. So that it is in Jesus name by word and deed that Christian wives submit to their husbands. It is in Jesus name that by word and deed husbands love their wives. It is in Jesus name by word and deed Christian children obey their parents, etc.

Paul's primary focus is the Gospel, and more specifically the Lordship of Christ in the life of the believer. Paul's concern is that Christ's Lordship be our concern. He is concerned that our heartbeat be submission and obedience to our Lord and Savior (our heavenly Husband...our heavenly Master...our heavenly Father).

So in the present passage, Paul's concern is not the specific issue of slavery. He does not even deal with that as a social structure. His concern is that slaves respond in their circumstances the way a Christian ought to respond in any adverse circumstance that he might find himself or herself in. We could say that His concern was a Gospel concern, not a "social structure" concern.

Why didn't Paul call for a social revolution against slavery in this passage? Well, for one thing it is estimated that at least one third of the entire population of the Roman Empire was made up of slaves. This constituted (if my histories are correct) virtually the entire work force. If Paul were to call for a social revolution against slavery, and it were to occur, the entire fabric of society would have ripped apart. The society was built upon slavery in other words. Furthermore, he would actually be jeopardizing the security of slaves who had homes, food, clothing guaranteed to them by their masters. But most of all, calling for a social revolution would likely have frustrated the spread of the Gospel especially in the early, delicate days of the church.

Social action (following on the heels of Jesus and the other Apostles) was never Paul's primary focus. It is true that Christ fed people and healed sicknesses, but that was never his primary focus. That is why these innumerable miracles are referred to as "signs" in John's Gospel. They were just that- signs. These signs pointed to the greater thing being declared, and that greater thing was the Gospel which heals the sickness of sin and the hunger inherent in unrighteousness and a soul devoid of Christ.

Paul was quite aware that the Gospel is a power that first changes from within. The problem of society will not be fixed from without. Societies ills (including the evils of slavery as a system) are not fixed by man's supposed (and sometimes good desire) to cleverly restructure present conditions. The heart of the problem is the problem of the heart. Man's problem is not largely sociological, financial, economical, or political, but spiritual. Sin is the problem and only the Gospel can fix this!

Paul actually did more for slavery being abolished by not directly calling for a social revolution against it. The Gospel- changing lives from within- would scream loudly for social change. In other words, Christian slaves willingly honoring and submitting to their masters would show a greater power. And this greater power (Gospel power) would influence society eventually. And we have experienced that in our own country have we not? It is the Gospel changing people from within that is much more powerful than any of man's numerous efforts to restructure societies evil systems through whatever means.

I submit that it was the God fearing, Christ exalting, submissive Christian slaves down through the centuries that laid the groundwork for someone like William Wilberforce to do what he did in England. His efforts had an impact on the change that took place in our own country. For these things we must be ever thankful for our sovereign God and King. But this happened, let us remember, not by Christ or the Apostles specifically and directly calling for abolition of slavery.

Does this passage have any application for us today in our country? I think it does. Although the slave/master relationship of the first century is not a one-to-one correspondence to the employer/employee relationship in the 21st century it nevertheless presents similarities for application purposes. On the broader spectrum of application there exists points in this present passage for anyone who finds themselves in adverse or difficult circumstances. The passage before us reminds us of the importance of submitting to our true Master in heaven regardless of our circumstances. It teaches us to accept God's sovereign will for our lives- even when that includes death of a loved one, cancer, financial hardship, and unexpected losses. In addition, this passage shows us that Christ has redeemed the work ethic for the Christian so that tasks that we often view as menial are transformed into opportunities for worship. Digging ditches, washing dishes, changing diapers all become tasks of worship to be done heartily and with sincerity of heart for the glory of the Lord our King.

Let's look at these last two admonitions in this broader passage: 1) a message for slaves, and 2) a message for masters.

I. A Message for Slaves (3:22-25)

The root command is for "slaves" to "obey those who are [their] masters on earth". The subtle emphasis is on the temporary nature of the command. This will come out more as we work through the text. But notice Paul says "masters on earth". We have a greater Master in heaven and any obedience done to earthly masters is just that- its obedience to earthly masters. But in our obedience to earthly masters we must not forget our Greater Master in heaven!

Notice three things Paul points to regarding the slaves obedience to his or her earthly master.

1. The Proper Expectation

Paul says this obedience is to be "in all things". I love the simplicity and frankness of the Apostle. What makes this expectation even more stunning for us in the 21st century is accentuated when we understand how Romans viewed slaves in the first century- the century Paul was penning his letter in.

One Roman writer divided agricultural equipment into three categories: 1) articulate, 2) inarticulate, and 3) mute. The mute were tools. The inarticulate were animals. The articulate were slaves. In other words, the only thing that separated slaves from hammers and animals was that they could speak! One Roman statesmen said, "Old slaves should be thrown on a dump, and when a slave is ill do not feed him anything. It is not worth your money. Take sick slaves and throw them away because they are nothing but inefficient tools".

All these realities- and still Paul did not soften the command. The command is comprehensive- "in all things". Peter supports Paul in this command. He says, "Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable" (I Pet. 2:18-20).

This expectation (obedience in all things) seems harsh. Why not call for a social revolution, Paul? Why more obedience? It even sounds more one sided when one notes the number of verses addressed to slaves compared to the number addressed to masters. For those of you not good at math--that is a 4/1 ratio....4 written to slaves/1 written to masters.

Paul does not answer the above question in Colossians, but he does in I Timothy 6:1 where he says that slaves are to "regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against".

Simply put: obedience to masters was an issue of the Gospel. More specifically, it was an issue of evangelism. Obedience would do more for the Gospel than would social revolt against one's master. Social revolt (in this culture) could provide an opportunity for the Gospel to be spoken against. Paul did not want that, and neither should we. Thus, we must submit to our earthly masters. If slaves (in the 1st century) were expected to obey "in all things", then how much more should employees (in the 21st century) obey their employers. This is true especially when one looks at the insurance, high wages, and limited authority present in our culture.

But sheer obedience "in all things" isn't enough. Paul is also concerned about one's motives as he or she obeys "in all things".

2. The Proper Motivation

Verse 22 continues to say that a Christian slave's motivation should "not" be fueled "with external service, as those who merely please men". In other words, a Christian slave should not just work when his earthly master is watching. He should not just work to get that promotion. Nor should he work just to avoid termination. He should not work for any motivation that is focused on self, one's boss, or one's job as the primary end or goal of one's "service".

Rather, the Christian slave's motivation is made clear by the Apostle. It is to be fueled "with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever [a Christian slave does] in regard to his "work" must be done "heartily, as for the Lord rather than for men."

Verse 23 is more or less a repetition of vs. 22. In other words, to do something with "sincerity of heart" (vs. 22) is to do it "heartily" (vs. 23). "Sincerity of heart" means with singleness of heart. It speaks of a heart undivided in motive. A heart that has a single motive (not dual) will do work "heartily", or out of the very essence of one's soul. He will do it with full gusto--with all his being. Paul is setting forth the principle in Ecclesiastes 9:10 by Solomon, "Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might".

Here's the point: God cares about motives! And to take it up even one more notch, God cares that our motives be imbued with a spirit that is directed to the Lord. To "fear the Lord" (vs. 22) is to do one's work "as for the Lord rather than for men" (vs. 23).

Being noticed for one's work whether it be praise, recognition, and even a promotion is always incidental in God's eyes to the important thing, which is one's motives. Someone with proper motivation will direct their work to the Lord for His glory- not to other people, one's master, or to self.

Jesus Christ is the believer's ultimate Master. In fact, in Ephesians 6 (the parallel passage to this passage) Paul specifically calls us "slaves of Christ". In that passage, note Paul's language, "Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; not by way of eye service, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart" (Eph. 6:5-6).

The essence of what Paul is getting at in both Colossians and Ephesians is the same. He is speaking of the importance of obedience in all things directed by the proper motive, which is a motive that seeks to serve the Lord Jesus Christ first and foremost in one's work under earthly masters.

Again, one might ask Paul, "Why not a social revolution against slavery?" Why does Paul demand more obedience from Christian slaves to their earthly masters when they have an Ultimate Master in heaven who loves them unconditionally, having freed them from their slavery to sin? Again, Paul answers that question in Titus 2:9-10 which says, "Urge bondslaves to be subject to their own masters in everything, to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith so that they will adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in every respect".

The answer is clear and simple. Obedience to earthly masters is an issue of spirituality. We could say it is an issue of sanctification, maturity, and commitment to the Lord one claims to follow. To the degree in which a Christian slave obeys and honors his earthly master is to the degree that the Gospel is adorned. To adorn the Gospel is to make it lovely. To make the Gospel lovely is to make God's saving grace of sinners attractive, not ugly. When a Christian slave possesses a disobedient, bitter, and ugly spirit toward his or her superior, then he or she is doing nothing less than failing to adorn the Gospel. And, of course, that means that it is not just an issue of sanctification, maturity, and commitment, but also it becomes an issue of evangelism.

If God is sovereign over who comes to saving faith why should we care? Well, I submit that if you actually view that question as legitimate for the Christian then you have missed the point of the Great Commission. You have a perverted view of God's sovereignty in salvation and His choice to use us as agents to accomplish His will. All Christians have the privilege to manifest the beauty of the Gospel to sinners. We are the salt of the earth, as Christ said. Every action of a believer will either adorn the Gospel, or it will make the Gospel ugly. And that includes one's obedience (or lack there of) toward earthly masters.

What if your earthly master is a Christian? Does the responsibility to adorn the Gospel remain? Paul thinks so. When it is the case that a Christian slave has a Christian master, then that slave is to "serve [them] all the more because [those who partake of the benefit] are believers and beloved" (I Tim. 6:1-2).

We must remember that Christianity is not just personal; it is relational. Paul's whole point in this letter is that the Christian must (because he is indwelt by the Spirit and has the power to) take off the sinful clothes of the old man and replace them with the virtuous clothes of the new man. This was the point of chapter 3. Then in 3:18 Paul is saying this new looking man or woman is to wear these clothes in all their cherished relationships- husbands/wives; parents/children; slave/master.

The Christian slave's proper expectation (obedience in all things) and his proper motivation will fall into place when he possesses the proper realization.

3. The Proper Realization

Notice the realization given by Paul in vss. 24-25. It is twofold. The realization regards the justice of God. God rewards the Christian slave's obedience to his earthly masters (vs. 24). God disciplines the Christian slave when their exists disobedience to his earthly masters (vs. 25).

"Knowing" points to the realization "that from the Lord [the Christian slave] will receive the reward of the inheritance. It is the Lord Christ whom [the Christian slave] serve [s]."

The Gospel teaches us that as Christians we will never be judged for our sin. Christ has, as John Newton wrote, "hushed the laws loud thunder. He has quenched Mt. Sinai's flames". Nevertheless, Scripture also teaches that a Christian will be judged according to the way he lives the Christian life regarding his works (2 Cor. 5:10; Rev. 20:12-13; I Cor. 3:10-15; Rom. 14:10-12). It seems to be that Paul is looking beyond this life toward the rewards awaiting the faithful Christian in this lifetime specifically regarding his or her obedience to their earthly masters.

Slaves in the first century were not even allowed to own property under Roman law. They received no inheritance. Its as if Paul is promising these slaves in the Roman Empire a sure inheritance, not from their earthly masters, but from their Ultimate Master in heaven! Paul is reminding these Christian slaves that even if their earthly master fails to recognize their hardwork, there exists and Ultimate Master in heaven (the Lord Jesus Christ) who sees all and knows all. He is aware of your obedience and He will reward you accordingly. And His reward is greater than any earthly inheritance or reward. This realization changes ones motives and aids the Christian slave to persevere in obedience.

But there is another side to this realization- I told you that it was twofold. God not only sees and rewards the good a Christian slave does, but also the Christian slave would do well to realize that "he who does wrong (not obeying in all things with the right motives) will receive the consequences of the wrong which he has done and that without partiality" (vs. 25).

It is likely that this side of the realization applies to the master as well as the slave (note Eph. 6:8). The principal in vs. 25 seems to be the opposite of the principal in vs. 24. Vs. 24 is saying, "Be confident that God (your heavenly Master) sees your hard work you put forth even when your earthly master does not and will reward you accordingly." Vs. 25 is saying, "Be confident as well that God sees your lack of hard work and disbobedient spirit even when your earthly master does not and you will not get by with that.

And the end of vs. 25 tells us that God judges "without partiality". A Christian slave is not to assume that he can treat his earthly master any way that he wants. And a Christian master is not to assume that he can treat his slave anyway that he wants to . God is a God of justice, and he will show no preference to either party. He will punish and reward accordingly- in a fair manner.

Remember: Paul never approved of Onesimus running away from Philemon. He did plead to Philemon that he treat Onesimus as an equal. But let us not forget that he sent Onesimus back to his life of slavery as well.

How does this message for slaves apply to Christians today? As I said earlier, it applies in the employer/employee relationship quite well. It changes the Christian's entire work ethic whether its in service at one's place of employment, or service to the body of Christ. This passage also has profound application for anyone who finds themself in adverse circumstances. Life brings adverse circumstances to everyone in some way and at some point. It is a reminder to us to submit with joy to our Soveriegn Master in heaven regardless of earthly circumstances.

II. A Message for Masters (4:1)

Although the message for Christian masters is much shorter, it is no less important. Paul tells Christian "masters" to "grant to [thier] slaves justice and fairness, knowing that [they] too have a Master in heaven".

Very simply, Paul is reminding Christian masters that in a very true sense they are slaves as well. They are slaves to a greater master than themselves. And this should prompt a true Christian to, therefore, treat his slave with "justice and fairness".

What does it mean to treat them with "justice and fairness"? Specifially, Paul has in mind the idea of having a proper perspective of their earthly authority. Notice what Paul says in Ephesians 6:9, "And masters, do the same thing to them (their slaves), and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him."

In other words, Paul is telling Christian masters (in both texts) to not have a higher view of their authority than they should, remembering that the highest authority is in heaven. And this higher authority- the authority of Christ- is omnipotent and omniscient. Paul is telling Christian masters to loose their pride. He is saying, "Don't be so self absorbed in your authority that you strut around even while sitting down". This is nothing short than a call for Christian masters to treat their Christian slaves as equals and brothers. Paul is repeating the idea he expressed in Colossians 3:11, "...there is no distinction between....slave and freeman".

Paul told the same thing to Philemon (Philemon 16). He said, "No longer treat Onesimus as a slave, but as more than a slave. Treat him as a brother- an equal, Philemon."

This is all reminisent of the golden rule exclaimed by Christ in Matthew 7:12, "..in everything treat people the same way you want to them to treat you". Just as a Christian slave is accountable to his true Master (the Lord Jesus Christ) and therefore must "fear the Lord and serve the Lord...rather than men", so too must the Christian master do the same. Afterall, God is "without partiality". He is a God of justice. He is the ultimate Master.

Conclusion
It is noteworthy that even though Paul does not explicitly call for a social revolution against slavery, he nevertheless sowed the seeds for it. For the principle of the golden rule given to masters, taken to its logical extreme, sees no place for slavery! And indeed, in God's providence slavery no longer exists in many quarters of the world. We must also pray for Christians in Sudan who are in chains. We must be aware that slavery still exists. And we must pray for God to do something to break those chains. At the same time we must also pray that God would give Christian slaves the ability to apply this passage in their own situation.

For us it is much easier. We are not in chains. We live in a priveleged country. We must seek to do all work to the glory of Jesus Christ by honoring our earthly masters. Obedience in all areas is important for the Christian to say the least. Its an issue of the Gospel- its an issue of proper evangelism.

We must remeber that we are all slaves, that is, slaves to Jesus Christ. He has freed us from slavery to sin. And this freedom gives us the unique privileage to be a slave to Him instead (John 8:34-36)!

Seeking to Recognize My Slavery,
AMS

Recordings for Sunday School Now Available

2009-11-13T10:59:00.006-05:00

I apologize for not posting summaries of the Sunday School series this week. I have been busy thinking about John and Paul- not John Paul (the former Pope) or some other dude named Paul- but the Apostle John and Apostle Paul. In other words, I have been studying John 8 for the small group and Colossians 3:22-4:1 for Sunday morning preaching this week. However, I do have good news. Several people have been asking if there is some way to record the Sunday School classes. Well, your request has been met. We have recorded the last two, and will continue to record them. If you want a copy, then see the guys in the sound room. As usual, we simply ask that you place a small donation in the box for whatever copies you might get. The donation is left to your discretion. I will continue to try and post summaries from the class however. I heard last week that it takes seven times of something being said in order for our minds to finally remember it. In other words, repetition is good.

Blessings,

Andy

External Awareness of God: His Creation (Part 3)

2009-11-05T07:25:00.015-05:00

We are examining what it means to say that there exists an external awareness of God in the universe that He has created and currently sustains. His external awareness is written all over His creation. If His creation could speak it would scream out, "God made me!"

I have chosen to divide this portion of posts into three parts. We looked at part one yesterday: a pictorial clarification (see yesterday's post for the details). We want to continue our look at what I call the external awareness of God by means of Scriptural confirmation. This section serves as part two to our discussion (although it begins in post #3).

II. SCRIPTURAL CONFIRMATION

To begin this discussion we must return to our key text- Romans 1. Romans 1:20 says that God is known to man "through what has been made". Specifically, it says that "through what has been made" certain "invisible attributes" of God will be "clearly seen". What are those attributes? Well, verse 20 tells us- His 1) eternal power, and 2) divine nature.

Paul's point seems to be that through observation of God's physical creation one sees the power of God--God's power in being the originator and distributor of every good thing. Paul made this argument often. In fact, when he encountered pagans (those who did not recognize the God of Scripture as God) he always established this truth before mentioning the Gospel. That was not a slight on the Gospel. It is only logical to begin where people are- to not move to fast. This is a good reminder in our evangelism. It is foundational to establish that God is indeed real for the person who does not assume this.

In Acts 14:8 ff. we have an example of Paul doing this very thing. In Acts 14 Paul is addressing the same group of people he is primarily speaking about in Romans 1. In both texts He is speaking (about) to pagan Gentiles. He is speaking to those who have other "gods". These people do not worship, value, acknowledge, love, adore, serve the God of creation--the only true God.

I am not going to go thru the text in detail because you can read it on your own. Let me just point out some things that will be helpful to our discussion regarding an external awareness of God. It will be important for you to open your Bible at this point.

After Paul heals a man the people observing assume that Paul and Barnabas (who was accompanying him) were their gods in human flesh. They had come from the god world and inhabited them. They thought Paul was Hermes (the god of orators) because he was doing most of the public speaking as he preached. They thought Barnabas was Zeus (head of the Greek pantheon of gods). Verse 14 says that Paul and Barnabas tore their robes. This seems strange to us, but in this day and time tearing one's robe was a public gesture denoting a perceived blasphemy. By doing this Paul and Barnabas were suggesting that they were not gods, but humans. In fact, they establish that very point beginning in verse 15 as their protest switches from a public gesture to an informal sermonic denunciation of the worship of any supposed pagan deity.

What is the content of this informal sermon?

First, notice that Paul establishes that his God is the Creator of all...we "preach the Gospel to you that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them."

Second, he tells them that in the past God allowed them to run head long into their sin because of their continual suppression of the truth that the God of the Gospel was real.... "In the generation gone by He permitted all the nations to go their own ways (vs. 16)" (Rom. 1:18-25).

Third, he tells them that though they rejected the God of the Gospel (suppressed the truth of God's existence) that they were still without excuse because God's existence was made evident to them...."and yet He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good and gave you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness (vs. 17)".

How did God leave Himself without witness? The rain, which produced fruitful vegetation to sustain His creation that in turn led them to the opportunity to satisfy their hearts with food and gladness served as the witness. It proved the reality of God's existence- the God of the Gospel. This was grace demonstrated by God--it was a witness or testimony of God (without words or voice) that they ignored.

So what is the point? Not only does God's creation itself (the physical universe) give evidence in various ways of God's existence, but also the affects of His creation (the various pleasures experienced under the canopy of God's grace) serve as reminders, evidence, and a viable witness to the reality of God's existence.

The other day my daughter (four years old) informed me of a couple of things she would like for Christmas. I pointed out that her excitment was a little premature because Christmas is further away than she thinks, especially for a four year old. But I also pointed out to her that it was okay to "want" other things, but that it becomes wrong when those "things" are all we think about. Rather, we should be thankful and satisfied with what we have today. That is, we should not spend our days longing for what we do not have, but should rest in what God has provided for us in His grace thus far. I was trying to communicate to her the evils of materialism and lust. So I mentioned a couple of her current possessions and asked her simply, "What if you did not have those things?" to which she replied "Then I would be unthankful."

Obviously, she missed my point. Sadly, my daughter's response is the same response of many adults who reject, or deny the existence of God. They always want more, but they never stop to realize that for the most part life blesses us with much pleasure. Now there are pockets of the world where pleasure is not experienced at the level, say Americans, experience pleasure. There exist various reasons for this including poverty, famine, suppressive governments, etc. Nevertheless, even the worst life lived is an experience of God's grace in some fashion. And certainly for our culture this is true. As Americans we live extremely pleasurable lives. To deny so is to be "unthankful".

God's common grace is a mark of God's existence even in a world perverted and distorted by the Fall.

Beholding the Grace of God,

Andy

External Awareness of God: His Creation (Part 2)

2009-11-04T08:45:00.008-05:00

I want to divide our discussion of the external awareness of God into three parts. First, I will give you a pictorial clarification in order to elucidate what I said in addition to what I will say. Second, I will give you Scriptural confirmation to prove my argument is based upon Scripture. And third, I will provide a fundamental caution, or warning that comes from Scripture.

Those of you who know me well realize that these three points will be covered in a number of posts. How many? I have no idea. But I will try and keep you keyed in as to which part we are on.

So let me get started.

I. A PICTORIAL CLARIFICATION

I want to give you several images, or pictures that John Calvin uses to describe what I refer to as the external awareness of God present in His creation. These pictures help elucidate what I mean by "external awareness".

First, Calvin says that God's creation is like a mirror. When we look into a mirror our own image is reflected back. But when we look at the "mirror of creation" God's image is reflected back to us. And if that mirror could speak it would say, "God made me and you!" Thus, Calvin quips, "[T]his skillful ordering of the universe is for us a sort of mirror in which we can contemplate God, who is otherwise invisible."

Second, Calvin uses the picture of a dazzling theater to describe God's creation. Calvin uses this picture in more than one of his writings. However, he never really elaborates on it. Therefore, I am going to take the freedom to elaborate where he did not. As I am writing this, his picture hangs on the wall behind me. If I get it wrong he might slap me upside the head. I have no interest in portraits coming to life in ghost like form, therefore I will be careful with my musing. Nevertheless, it appears that Calvin is communicating that things in God's creation like trees, grass, mountains, clouds, etc. are like props on a stage. People and animals are like actors and actresses. On the stage of creation you might see a man mowing grass, a person walking their dog, and two neighbors having a morning conversation.

Now follow my line of logic. Every movie and play has one goal regardless of the genre, producer, actors/actresses, etc. That one goal is simply to demonstrate life lived out in various forms and various ways. The goal of a movie or play is to demonstrate this so well that one gets sucked right into the environment on the screen or stage. A good movie will do this. It will, if only for a few seconds, or minutes make you so convinced of the reality of what is happening on the screen or stage that you forget you are sitting on your couch or theater seat as a spectator of an unreal sequence of events. In fact, this happened to me last night as my wife and I watched a movie that we had never seen. As I watched, I could not help to place myself in Will Smith's shoes. I thought (several times during the course of my viewing experience) the pain, emotion, sadness, anger that Will Smith acted out by his mannerisms, words, gestures, and faces. I was trying to find a way of escape for myself...I mean Will Smith.

The stage of God's creation does the same thing except with this caveat: God intends to manifest His life (His existence) to us. In other words, the focus in God's dazzling theater is not the actors, actresses, or awesome backdrops. No, God's focus is God Himself. And when we look at creation it is as if we are watching a movie about God. The message of the movie: God made all of this and you!

Third, Calvin uses the picture of a painting to describe God's creation. God's paint strokes are all over the canvas of creation. Here is what Calvin says, "We must therefore admit in God's individual works but especially in them as a whole- that God's powers are actually represented as in a painting. Thereby the whole of mankind is invited and attracted to recognition of Him..."

So again allow me to sum up. All of these pictures are meant for you to connect the external reality with the internal reality. It works like this. As creation is observed and the conscience registers what is observed in creation it internalizes the evidence and concludes that God exists. This conclusion can be made because man has the reasoning capacity to make such a deduction. God made Himself "evident to them" and "within them" (Rom. 1:19-20).

In the next post we will consider Scriptural confirmation for what I am arguing.

External Awareness of God: His Creation

2009-11-03T08:11:00.007-05:00

In the current series of posts, I have been suggesting that man knows God in two ways: through general and special revelation. I have decided that a good way to analyze general and special revelation is to look at three primary categories. These categories will define general and special revelation for us in some detail.

We are still looking at the first category: the witness of God's work. As I have already mentioned, this category deals with general revelation. God has revealed Himself to man in a general (or natural) way in His creation. This revelation occurs in two ways: creation and conscience. The previous posts have dealt with the conscience. And as I pointed out in those posts, the conscience is the internal awareness of God that all men without distinction possess. See previous posts for the discussion that pertains to this.

Today we want to begin looking at the external aspect of God's general revelation. If man's conscience serves as the internal mechanism to make man aware of God's existence, then creation serves as the external evidence that prompts the conscience to conclude that there is a God.

Now before I move any further, let me be clear about something that I cannot help but harp on. I have said over and over again that this basic, limited knowledge (also known as general revelation) does not lead to salvation! I know I have been clear about that, however I want to change my affirmation to the following: general revelation never leads to salvation. In other words, both the external and internal awareness of God's existence is a reality. Nevertheless man (because of sin) will never lay hold of this evidence in such a way that will lead to his or her salvation.

Calvin says the following:

"It is therefore in vain that so many burning lamps shine for us in the workmanship of the universe to show forth the glory of its Author. Although they bathe us wholly in their radiance, yet they can of themselves in no way lead us into the right path. Surely, they strike some sparks, but before their fuller light shines forth these are smothered".

Calvin is pointing out that God's creation, which is filled with every kind of burning lamp, shines forth the reality of God's existence. It points to an originator- a Creator. Nevertheless, these "burning lamps" never shine as bright as they could for the unregenerate, depraved sinner because he or she suffocates this light. When Calvin speaks of smothering this light it is clear that he is speaking about the "suppression of truth" that Paul spoke about in Romans 1, which we have already looked at. The truth of God's existence is suppressed and exchanged for a lie.

This is why I say that general revelation can never lead to salvation. By the way, this is why general revelation is inferior to special revelation to which we will speak about much later. Special revelation (God's Word) is like a voice. General revelation is an impression. In general revelation we "hear" God's voice faintly through His creation. Special revelation allows us to hear the very voice of God Himself.

But I am getting of subject. We are talking about general revelation. I must avoid the bunny trails and stay on course. When Paul tells us in Romans 1:19 that God is "clearly seen", he does not mean that this clarity of sight will bring us to a true, saving knowledge of God. Rather, it does the opposite. It does not lead to salvation; it leads to condemnation. Or, to put it in the words of Paul it leaves us "without excuse".

I suffer from a handicap. For all of you funny guys out there my handicap is not something visible to the naked eye. Ironically, however, it has to do with my eyes. I am color blind. I want to return to my illustration regarding my color blindness that I mentioned in a previous post. However, I want to alter the illustration a bit.

Let's say I go to the eye doctor and they administer a color blind test to me. The doctor holds open the color blind book and I pear into the psychedelic circles to see a number they claim is there. But I can't see the numbers. Consequently, I fail the test. Let's say the story does not end there though. After failing my color blind test, the doctor turns around and reaches into a special cabinet pulling out a new type of spectacles. She tries to convince me that if I wear these glasses then I will be able to see the numbers in the color blind book. She tells me that if I wear these glasses, then I will no longer be color blind. Let's say I am really stubborn- that is my spirit. I laugh at her and tell her she is crazy. No matter how much evidence she gives me to prove that they work, I still refuse to put them on. My wife begins to encourage me, but I am laughing so hard that I cannot even respond. I leave the doctor's office with my wife and am color blind forever.

Now let me ask some question that have obvious answers:

1) Does my refusal to wear the glasses so I can see the numbers inside the circles somehow make those numbers (that are really there) cease to exist simply because I can't see them?

2) Does the doctor, my wife, or the creator of the color blind test book get the blame for me failing to see the numbers?

3) Do I have the physical ability to put the glasses on?

The answer to the first two questions is no. The blame lies with me. Furthermore, it would be irrational to think that I make the numbers cease to exist simply because I cannot see them. Other people can see the numbers just fine. The answer to the last question, however, is yes.

You see, its not that I cannot physically put the glasses on; its that I willfully reject the offer to put them on, right?

This, I think, captures the distinction I am laboring to make. All men have the ability to observe the external awareness of God (His creation). All men have the ability to internalize this evidence (our conscience) to deduce that God exists. We are physically capable we could say. Here is the problem: because of our sin we will not capitalize, or take advantage of what we physical can do because we willfully refuse to. We can have the ability to do something without having the will to do something.

Back to my illustration- the only way I will see the numbers in the color blind test book is if I have "eyes of faith". If I trust the words of the doctor and put the glasses on, then I will be able to see the numbers everyone claims are there. Only God can give us eyes to see. Therefore, I conclude with Calvin, and more importantly with the Apostle Paul, that this base, limited knowledge of God that comes through general revelation only holds us accountable. It does not lead to salvation. It leads to culpability and condemnation.

Let me conclude this post with another quote from Calvin:

"The fact that men soon corrupt the seed of the knowledge of God, sown in their minds out of the wonderful workmanship of nature, must be imputed to their own failing."

Thankful That God Has Removed My Color Blindness to See the Bright Light of Jesus Christ,

The Right Way to View Reading, Meditating, and Studying Scripture

2009-10-29T15:26:00.005-04:00

Click on the link below to watch a 90 second video. On the video D.A. Carson addresses the subject of what some refer to as "personal, daily devotions". His remarks are short, sweet and to the point. They are also immensely simple, yet profound as well.

http://www.vimeo.com/6296517

Are We Prejudice Sometimes?

2009-10-29T08:12:00.004-04:00

I came across the following in a book I am reading entitled Biblical Law and Ethics written by New Covenant theologian Gary Long. The quote is not original with Long. The following was said by a Baptist preacher named John Quincy Adams. It refers to the prejudice spirit that we all possess from time to time.

"Its walls are of adamantine strength and of almost impenetrable thickness. Entrenched in this fortress, men are unapporoachable. The soundest logic, the strongest arguments, the most convincing proof, the fairest reasoning, all fail, all are powerless, while prejudice holds the mind within her grasp."

May we keep this thought in mind when we approach the study of Scripture!

A "Voice" That Holds One Accountable

2009-10-28T09:59:00.013-04:00

Let's return to our discussion regarding an internal awareness of God within all men. As we saw yesterday, Scripture teaches that there exists an innate awareness of God within men (a "seed of religion", "awareness of Divinity", "natural instinct")without distinction. We are speaking about man's ability to reason the existence of God. That ability is within all men, though man does not take advantage of this ability because of sin. So is there a such thing as an atheist? Well, it appears to me that if there is, then it is man's own fault because his unbelief is due to sin. And God is not the author of sin, therefore, the blame lies with the self proclaimed atheist.

At any rate, my goal in the current series of posts is to give you 3 strands of evidence to prove the notion that there exists an awareness of God internally within men. I have already given the first strand of evidence. The first strand of evidence is Scripture itself, which as I showed you, speaks about this idea throughout. Let us look at the 2nd strand of evidence.

I. FIRST STRAND; SUPPORT BY MEANS OF SCRIPTURAL EXPLANATION (see previous post)

II. SECOND STRAND: SUPPORT BY MEANS OF EXPERIENTIAL OBSERVATION

I am not going to say much under this heading because what I am affirming is pretty straightforward. Any objective observer must notice that this "seed of religion" is present in man in general. I am going to make a blanket statement that might really tick some people off, but I believe it is a true statement....All men are religious. There, I said it. Whew. What do I mean by that? Well, I certainly do not mean that all men are Christians. My statement is also not claiming some sort of religiously inclusive idea. You know, the type of idea that says it does not matter what you worship, but that you worship. Worship is the important thing; not what one worships. No, no. I am simply affirming the fact that man has a natural, built-in tendency to be religious, that is to hold to a set of beliefs. Now these belief systems represent themselves in various different flavors, but its the same product- religion. There might be grape, cherry, and orange flavors, but they all fit into the same box of popsicles known as religion.

As Calvin says, man has a tendency to worship wood and stone. In the jungles of the Amazon, for instance, man might worship a tree. In our narcissistic culture, man has a tendency to worship self and autonomy. Nevertheless, man worships. He is religious. We are all popsicles in this sense. The problem is that being a popsicle is not the most important thing. We are the flavor that attracts us, but we must have a flavor that attracts God. God does not even have a favorite flavor. God only eats one flavor. He does not like all popsicles equally. The only religion God recognizes as sweet tasting (and "sweet smelling" to use Scriptural language) is religion that recognizes Jesus Christ as Lord. That is true religion; that is the flavor that pleases God. I realize that my portrayal of God as a one sided popsicle eater is not very popular because it points to the exclusive nature of religion. It points to only one way of salvation. And it points to only one solution to man's problems (sin), and that is Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, that is what Scripture teaches us.

Even the atheist is religious. All religions have at least one common component. That common component is faith. An atheist has faith, that's the common ground. His faith, however, is not the type of faith that pleases the God who made him. The atheist has faith in his arguments, reasoning, and communicative ability to set forth and prove the notion that God does not exist. But no matter how you look at it he is religious, has a set of beliefs, and possesses faith.

In short, observation of those around us, and those throughout history reveals this "seed of religion" (inner awareness of God) within all men.

III. THIRD STRAND: SUPPORT BY MEANS OF PRACTICAL ILLUSTRATION

Allow me to give a simple illustration that hopefully makes sense of all that I have said thus far. The story is told of a man who was hiking on a mountain. He came to the peak of the mountain, and was standing on top of a cliff overlooking a rock valley. Suddenly he slipped. As he dropped to his doom, he successfully grabbed a branch. There were two problems however. First, he was still dangling over fifteen hundred feet of air. Second, the branch was about twenty feet from the top of the cliff, so there was no way he could realistically pull himself to the top. In an obvious state of panic he cried out, "Help, help-somebody help!" Suddenly a booming voice from above said, "I will save you but you must believe in me." The man said, "I believe. I believe. Just help me!" The voice said, "Let go of the branch and I will save you." The dangling man looked down to the rock valley below, and quickly looked back up and said, "Is there anybody else up there?"

This is a picture of the man who denies God. All men hear the voice of God. However, man will naturally seek another voice. He will seek another god- a god of his or her own making. He will seek any belief system that denies God. But this does not change the fact that God's voice is speaking in the heart of every soul. This is the "seed of religion" that cries out, "God made you." It is a voice that holds one accountable before a holy God. It results in condemnation, not salvation.

In the next series of posts we will consider the external awareness of God's existence (His creation). God's creation is the evidence the conscience internalizes to make a deduction that there is in fact a God.

Hoping I Have Not Confused,

Andy

Sound of Grace Publication

2009-10-27T12:05:00.013-04:00

S O U N D OF

G R A C E
… it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace … Hebrews 13:9

For those of you still waiting for a copy of a paper I wrote on Evangelsim- your wait is over. However, I am still not going to make you a copy. Instead, go to the following website of our brother John Reisinger and click on the picture of the current edition of the Sound of Grace publication. My article begins on page 5. Also, go to the back issues to #161 to view our brother Bob Bonser's recent article on the Gospel (good stuff by Bob!).

As always, I am open to criticisms, thoughts, and questions regarding my paper. I apologize a head of time for the length. The November edition of Sound of Grace contains part 1 only (there are a total of three parts).

http://www.soundofgrace.org/index.htm

Blessings,
Andy

Internal Awareness of God

2009-10-27T10:04:00.017-04:00

Today let's take a look at the first strand of evidence to support the notion that all men possess an awareness of God internally.

I. First Strand: Support by means of Scriptural explanation

First, Scripture tells us that this awareness is within every man without distinction (Rom. 1:19a, 21). In other words, it makes no difference whether you are a man or woman; intelligent or unintelligent; black or white. In Romans 1, Paul is answering the question, “Does every man deserve the wrath and judgment of God?” Paul begins by saying that even Gentile unbelievers/pagans deserve this wrath. And all men deserve His wrath because they are sinners. But stemming from this sin is the tendency to deny God, and His right over us. Paul affirms the notion that all men "know" God.

Paul is clear about the fact that this “basic knowledge” about God is “evident within them”. This is seen primarily in two ways: 1) his reasoning capacities to look at the evidence of God’s existence in creation and conclude that there is a Creator God, and 2) his ability to “basically” distinguish between right and wrong, although even this ability is perverted to a degree by sin and would be perverted in an ultimate way were it not for common grace (we will look at this under pt. 2- God’s Witness in the World).
Here is the point: just as God is competent enough to reveal Himself, man is competent enough to apprehend the reality of God in His creation! The “visible” creation forces us to conclude the reality of the “invisible” as responsible for it. The reality of God’s existence is engraved on their hearts, as Calvin liked to say.

If I affirm that there is a piano sitting in our church auditorium ("sanctuary" if your Southern Baptist), that is factual. I can assume that somebody put it there though I do not know who that person is, and therefore they are invisible to me. But that does not change the fact that the piano was put there by a real person. It is only logical and rational to think so. And just because I might deny that a person put it there does not somehow cause the person who put it there to not exist, or to prove the irrational nature of such a claim that that person does exist.

The fact that all men know God (vs. 21) affirms this internal witness of God in the conscience of man. So the evidence is in creation (outside of us), but the ability to see that evidence for God’s existence and conclude that it is legitimate is within us. Our conscience, therefore, makes us aware of the validity of the evidence that we observe.

Calvin says, “Besides, if all men are born and live to the end that they may know God” but “who do not direct every thought and action in their lives to this goal degenerate from the law of their creation”. In other words, the awareness of God is so strongly persuasive to man that it is actually a violation of creation's law to suppress it. God created us with a built-in awareness of our Maker. It is part of what makes us human. To deny this, or fail to recognize it, is equivalent to breaking the first law.

Second, this awareness of God within is "evident" (Rom. 1:19a), "clearly seen" (Rom. 1:20), and "understandable" (Rom. 1:20). In other words, God not only gave us the proof that He exists, but He gave us the eyes to see this proof. So though this knowledge of God within all men is basic, simple, and limited; it is at the same time evident, clear, and understandable.

I am color bind. Shortly after my wife and I got married I went to the eye doctor. The doctor pulled out a crazy little book with circles on each page. In the middle of these psychedelic circles were blotches of different colors running together. Now, they tell me that there are visible numbers inside those circles, however I have yet to see them. Now that does not mean that they are not there. I am color blind and its simple: if one can't see the numbers, then that is affirmation that one is color blind. I didn't see the numbers (never have), therefore I am color blind.

When we say that God has made this base, simple, limited awareness of His existence evident, clear, and understandable within all men, we are saying that He not only gave us the "color blind book", but also that He gave us the eyes to see the numbers in the circles. (More will be said about this illustration-and the concept it sets forth- in later posts.)

Third, this awareness of God within is suppressed, or denied/ignored (Rom. 1:18, 25). “Suppress” literally means “to restrain” in the original Greek. It means to refuse to believe what one knows to be true, namely that there is a God. That knowledge is stifled, held down, restrained. To suppress the truth that God exists, which dwells in every man’s heart, is to shut God up in your heart. That is, it is to deny that His existence is self-evident on His creation. It is not to give Him the glory due Him; that His creation is His and He is worthy to be recognized for it. It is to tell God to “shut up” and “stay up” in heaven. Furthermore, it is a willful suppression as indicated by Paul- “exchanging the truth of God for a lie” (vs. 25). It is a willful exchanging of the truth of God's existence for a lie that He does not exist. This exchange, of course, includes the obvious attitude that follows, namely that man does not have to be subservient to this "false Maker".

Scripture has something to say for the person who suppresses this inner awareness of God. Psalm 14:1 is one place. It says, "The fool has said in his heart that there is no God" (cf. Ps. 53:1). That does not seem like a nice thing to say. But once you understand Romans 1 it makes sense, and thus becomes a fair and accurate statement.

To deny God’s existence is foolish. It is foolish because it is the height of pride. Denying God’s existence assumes that one has the ability to storm the gates of Heaven, walk into God's throne room and drag Him from His throne, throw Him into the basement of heaven and lock the door as if He is an easy victim to take advantage of. Denying God either by words, or by life, or by both is to presume that one is autonomous from the very One who made him. And it is to add to this self-deceived autonomy a self-appointed authority that shuts God up with such unmitigated assaults (mental and physical) that one actually conceives the preposterous thought that he secures impunity from the punishment of this “basement God”, who is not really locked up, but who, the perverse mind has actually been deceived to think is. A fatness has enveloped his heart (Calvin frequently uses this phrase) so he refuses to love the God who created Him, but instead hates Him and His laws. And this fatness of the heart leads to blindness of the eyes so that he thinks there is no God- denying the proof of God which he sees all around him.

Fourth, notice what God does to those who suppress the truth of God's existence and His correspondent worthiness to be worshiped and adored- His glory to be recognized. This awareness-if suppressed-leads to God’s temporal judgment, which leads and points to His eternal judgment (Rom. 1:24, 26, and 28).

The phrase “God gave them over” is used in vss. 24, 26, and 28. The Greek word used in Romans 1 literally means “hand over”, “give”, “deliver”, or “give up”. It was used to refer to the handing over a prisoner for his sentence.

Here is the picture being painted in Romans 1: man restrains one thing, and removes restraint for another thing. In other words, man pursues sin with unrestrained aggression, but at the same time he suppresses ("restrains") the truth of God’s existence engraved on his heart. And while all of this is going on in his heart, mind, and soul, God also removes His restraint (common grace) on this man. He lets go of this man; gives man over. He lets the sin that he is pursuing to actually work as judgment against him. The temporal built-in consequences for sin will manifest themselves in the lives of those who commit sin as they suppress the reality of the God they know to be there. Sin, therefore, is responsible for crafting its own punishment. Sin itself becomes the punishment because only by the committing of certain acts of sin can consequences be conceived and blossom into real, full-fledged temporal pain (physical, emotional, spiritual). And this is the punishment God gives them over too.

Fifth (and finally) note with me the conclusion Paul gives to such an awful mess. He says that this internal awareness of God serves to condemn men when they ignore it. Very simply, he says that it makes them "without excuse" (Rom. 1:25). Calvin says, “To prevent anyone from taking refuge in the pretense of ignorance, God Himself has implanted in all men a certain understanding of His divine majesty”.

What all these Scriptures reveal to us is that God is not pleased with unbelief. To deny the inner knowledge of God is to commit a heinous sin. Spurgeon once said, “Every other crime touches God’s territory, but unbelief aims a blow at His divinity, impeaches His veracity, denies His goodness, blasphemes His attributes, maligns His character; therefore, God, of all things, hates first and chiefly, unbelief, wherever it is”. That was well said by the Prince of Preachers.

Those who deny His existence are anything but innocent. They are culpable and condemned. To deny God’s existence because you want what you consider ample proof of His existence is to blaspheme God because it is to tell God, “Your evidence is not good enough for me. I demand more.” It is not an innocent heart, but a recalcitrant heart who loves sin.

To be“without excuse” suggests that we are left without a valid defense for our unbelief when we deny the “seed of religion” placed within us by God. Unbelief is unacceptable to God.

Next time we will look at the second strand of evidence to support the notion that all men possess an inner awareness of God.

Thankful for the Spirit's Enlightening Work on the Hearts of His Elect,

Andy

How Can We Know God?: Answered

2009-10-26T12:43:00.016-04:00

Now we are actually going to answer the question proposed, “How Do We Know God?” As I said before, we know him through His general and special revelation. But the fruit of the next couple of lessons will try and flesh out these two categories of Divine revelation.

Some of this will be review due to the fact: 1) it is important to be repetitious to a degree, and 2) it would have been impossible for me to explain the concepts of general and special revelation (as I have already done in our study) without giving some examples of what is contained in each respective category. But in our analysis of general and special revelation we will go into far greater detail than anything I have said before.

We will analyze these two ways that God has chosen to reveal Himself in 3 primary categories. These categories affirm the fact that God has revealed Himself to man in a way that they can “know” God. Here are the categories:

The Witness of God’s Work (General revelation)
The Witness of God’s World (General revelation)
The Witness of God’s Word (Special revelation)

For starters, we shall begin looking at the first category noted above- the witness of God's work. What do I mean when I say the witness of God's work? Its pretty simple. God has worked it out in his creation in such a way that all men are aware of His existence. Thus, it can be said that all men "know" God. If all men know He exists, then all men know that He is there. Thus, all men "know" God in the limited sense.

So God has worked out His creation in such a way that His existence is manifested in and around us. Thus, it can truly be said that man (all men without exclusion) “know” God. Therefore, we can (and must!) also affirm that man knows God due to an: 1) awareness of God internally (conscience), and 2) awareness of God externally (creation).

Let us first consider the way in which God's work of creation has shown us an awareness of His existence internally, that is, within the consciences of all men. I want to prove this by pointing you to 3 strands of evidence to support such a notion. Here are the evidences: 1) support by means of Scriptural explanation, 2) support by means of experiential observation, and 3) support by means of practical illustration.

But before I give these evidences, allow me to first of all clarify some important things. These are things that I have (in the past) worked hard to clarify, but I still believe need some more elucidation. When we speak about "knowing God" within our conscience, that is internally, we are not speaking about "salvificly knowing" God. No, no. That is something different altogether. That is a topic we will discuss much later.This inner knowledge of God found within all men without distinction must not be confused with salvation knowledge. It is not salvation knowledge; rather, it is what we might call “simple knowledge”, or “basic knowledge”. Right now we are speaking “only of the primal and simple knowledge to which the very order of nature would have led us if Adam had remained upright”, as Calvin says. We must properly distinguish between man’s ability to recognize, be aware of, and “know” God in this “simple sense” from knowing God in the “saving sense”. In the basic sense, all men can “feel” God. This is a different feeling of God than embracing “the grace of reconciliation offered in Christ" (Calvin). For in the face of God’s creation He as shown Himself as Creator. But only in the face of Jesus Christ does He show Himself as Redeemer (2 Cor. 4:6). The first sense of knowing God (simple sense) we are not led to salvation, but to condemnation. In the latter sense (saving sense) we are always led to salvation, not condemnation provided the Spirit genuinely operates a miracle within our hearts and truly shows us the glory, beauty, and value of Jesus Christ.

Calvin helpfully and accurately describes this inner awareness as the following: “seed of religion”, “natural instinct”, “awareness of Divinity”, etc. These are helpful terms to clarify the type of knowledge I am referring to.

This witness of God’s work which begins with an analysis of an inner knowledge only serves to the condemnation of man, not the salvation of man.“Since, therefore, men one and all perceive that there is a God and that He is their Maker, they are condemned by their own testimony because they have failed to honor Him and to consecrate their lives to His will" (Calvin's Institutes). In other words, God’s will begins with a proper recognition that He is our God, our Owner, our King- and then this knowledge results in obedience to His commands. There are two problems, however: 1) man tends to suppress this innate knowledge of God as Creator, Owner, King, and 2) even if He recognizes it, he is unable to live in full obedience to God.

Man can “know” there is a God, but He will never “know” or be able to please this God apart from the personal appropriation of the work of Christ on the cross. Luther once said that true “knowledge” of God is a matter of personal pronouns”. What Luther was getting at is simple. Luther was saying that truly “knowing” God in the salvation sense means that He becomes ours- in whom we delight in obeying Him and serving as the Creator that we know Him to be. It means being able to use a pronoun- “My God”. And when we do so, God hearkens back “My child”! There is a sense in which we are all God’s children because He is our maker, and we are created in His image (Acts 17:28). But we truly become His adopted children when His Spirit shines the Light of the Gospel into our hearts revealing the “Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Cor. 4:6). It is then and only then, that we can cry “Abba Father” (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6).

So, when we speak about an awareness of God internally, we are speaking about something altogether different than "salvation knowledge". We are speaking about a limited knowledge, a "simple knowledge". Now, in the next post I will support my argument that there is an awareness of God internally with the 3 strands of evidence that I mentioned above: support by means of Scriptural explanation, experiential observation, and practical illustration.

Until Next Time,

Andy

A Prayer for True Religion

2009-10-26T09:46:00.003-04:00

Lord God Almighty,

I ask not to be enrolled among the earthly great and rich, but to be numbered with the spiritually blessed.
Make it my present, supreme, and preserving concern to obtain the blessings which are
spiritual in their nature,
eternal in their countenance,
satisfying in their possession.
Preserve me from a false estimate of the whole or a part of my character,
May I pay regard to
my principles as well as my conduct,
my motives as well as my actions,
Help me
never to mistake the excitement of my passions
for the renewing of the Holy Spirit,
never to judge my religion by occasional impressions and impulses, but by my constant
and prevailing disposition.
May my heart by right with Thee,
and my life as becometh the Gospel.
May I maintain a supreme regard to another, and better world,
and feel and confess myself a stranger and a pilgrim here.
Afford me all the direction, defence, support, and consolation my journey hence requires,
and grant me a mind stayed upon Thee.
Give me large abundance of the supply of the Spirit of Jesus,
that I may be prepared for every duty,
love Thee in all my mercies,
submit to Thee in every trial,
trust Thee when walking in darkness,
have peace in Thee amidst life's changes.
Lord, I beleive, help Thou my unbelief and uncertainties.

Finally....Answering the Question Proposed

2009-10-26T09:28:00.005-04:00

We can finally answer the question proposed several weeks ago. Just to bring you up to speed, we are answering several basic questions regarding Christian theology. We are on question two, which is "How can we know God?" The first question answered was simply, "Why is it important to study theology?"

Let me give to you the outline that I crafted for the next few weeks. This will help you follow my line of thought a little easier. I apologize for not having PowerPoint on Sunday for those of you who take detailed notes. I will be a good boy this coming week and have it for you. Here is the outline that I explained Sunday. (Note: On Sunday we only dealt with the first sub point of point I. That is why pt. I, A is more extensive than the rest of the outline.)

How do we know God?

I. The Witness of God's Work (A discussion regarding general revelation)

A. Awareness of God Internally (conscience)
1. Support by means of Scriptural explanation
2. Support by means of experiential observation
3. Support by means of practical illustration

B. Awareness of God Externally (creation)

II. The Witness of God's World (A discussion regarding general revelation)

III. The Witness of God's Word (A discussion regarding special revelation)

How Can We Know God?

2009-10-26T09:08:00.006-04:00

Here are the three other things we do not mean when we say that we can know God (see previous posts for first two):

III. SAYING WE CAN KNOW GOD DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE ONLY KNOW "THINGS" ABOUT HIM, BUT RATHER THAT WE KNOW HIM PERSONALLY (WE CAN KNOW HIM IN HIS ESSENCE TO A LIMITED DEGREE)

see Jeremiah 9:23-24.
These verses seem to be saying that the only thing appropriate to boast in is the fact that it is possible to "really know" God, not just that we can know things or facts about Him. There is a difference.

IV. SAYING WE CAN KNOW GOD DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE WILL SOMEDAY FULLY KNOW GOD (IN ETERNITY FUTURE)

Sin has severely distorted our ability to think rightly about God. It is not until it pleases the Spirit to open our blind eyes that we will see God in His glory through Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 4:3-4; Jn. 3:1-8). When this happens-and only when this happens-we will begin to think rightly about God. However, our sin is not the only thing that keeps us from a perfect knowledge about God. There is another important aspect. The fact is we are finite. God is infinite. In other words, God has always (and always will be) unlimited. On the other hand, we have always been (and will always be) limited. This will never change. Someday God will shed all sin from our existence (I Jn. 3:2). But our finiteness will never be shed from us. And in order to know God perfectly we would have to become infinite. That is, we would have to shed not only our sinfulness, but our finiteness and become infinite. In short, we would have to become God. That is not going to happen (I Cor. 13:12 does not argue against my position). We will spend all of eternity learning about God!

V. SAYING WE CAN KNOW GOD DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE CAN TRULY KNOW GOD APART FROM THE ROLE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IN REGENERATION

I have repeated this statement over and over again. I do not suspect that I have misled anyone. But just in case somebody out there is a little confused let me make myself clear. We are not speaking about salvation knowledge. We are speaking about a baser knowledge to which we will look at next time (Jn. 3:1-8; I Cor. 2:6-16).

How Do We Know God?- Part 6?

2009-10-21T08:42:00.012-04:00

II. SAYING WE CAN KNOW GOD DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE CAN KNOW ANY ONE THING ABOUT HIM EXHAUSTIVELY

At first glance, it might appear that this is a restatement of point one. However, read it again. The key words here are "any one thing". Point one dealt with the collection of everything that we can possibly know about God. Collectively, everything that we know about God yields an important conclusion, namely that we cannot know Him exhaustively due to the fact that all the things we know about Him do not add up to everything. There is still more to know about Him. This includes categories, perhaps, that we do not even have the capacity to mentally or experientially conceive of because we are finite. Point two (stated above) goes a little deeper. It says that even the things we know about Him we cannot know exhaustively.

Let me offer an example that I have offered before. Let's say that I get in my car and head to church with my family. On the way our car hits an ice patch and we spin around a dozen times. Meanwhile, the cars behind us dodge us by swerving around our spinning escapade. Let's also assume that there is oncoming traffic as well passing us as we dizzy ourselves. For sake of illustration, one of the cars that passes us is also on the way to church and they recognize us (though our faces are blurred from the excessive spinning) and witness the whole thing. Our spinning continues as we move off the pavement and come inches from hitting a telephone pole. But suddenly, our car somehow finds its way back on the road and we arrive safely at church. No doubt, the first thing we would naturally tell people would be the experience of providence in God saving our lives. Everything about the incident- the ice, spinning, cars coming, telephone pole-scream out that we should have died. In fact, the only conclusion is that God sovereignly stepped in and contradicted the laws of science in order to spare our lives. We know that, and so does the family that witnessed the whole thing. As they see us in the hall of the church they come up and hug my family and say something like, "It is a providential miracle that you are still alive. There is no way you should have made it here safely!" Let's also say that I stand up during the worship service and offer a praise for God providentially intervening to save my family. Now here's my point. Everyone in the church has heard a ton of sermons on the providence of God. Thus, they know it to be a fact true about God, right? Furthermore, I now appreciate His providence a little more because I have experienced it on a level that I never had before (including my family). In addition, the family that witnessed the whole accident also have a more intimate "knowledge" of God's providence, having seen a miracle before their eyes. Nevertheless, this "knowledge" of God's providence is still not comprehensive, even after all of that! We still do not know everything that there is to know about His providence. Even this particular experience fails to communicate to us an exhaustive knowledge of God's providence. Though we know His providence is real because we read it in Scripture and have now experienced it does not mean we know everything that there is to know about His providence. For instance, we still do not know why God spared our lives. We know that He providentially spared our lives. But we do not know why. Why did He not allow us to die? We could give a number of answers, but none of them could be proven beyond doubt because we simply do not know the mind of God (Dt. 29:29)!

In fact, I am glad that I have not experienced every possible way that His providence could be demonstrated. I would eventually be dead if I experienced every possible avenue of His providence because God could zap me dead in an instant (without car or ice too!).

Thus, we can affirm with full assurance the truth of God's providence, for instance, while at the same time not know everything there is to know about His providence. We know it by fact; we know it by experience. But we cannot truly know it exhaustively. Thus, we do not know God exhaustively.

Here is a quote from the best theologian who ever lived (other than the Apostle Paul):

“…the most suitable order, is not for us to attempt with bold curiosity to penetrate to the investigation of His essence, which we ought more to adore than meticulously to search out, but for us to contemplate Him in His works whereby He renders Himself near and familiar to us, and in some manner communicates Himself” (Calvin, Institutes, 62).

Adoring Rather Than Searching Out,

Andy

How We Know God and What That Has To Do with Mountaineer Football

2009-10-20T08:38:00.013-04:00

How do we know God? Well, I promise I will answer that question in more detail, but the short answer is: through general and special revelation (see previous posts). Sometimes in answering a question of such magnitude one must go out of his way to make sure that he is communicating exactly what he means and exactly what he does not mean. I am the he that desires to be clear on such an important topic. Therefore, before proceeding in an analysis of general and special revelation I want to give you 5 things that I do not mean when I say that we can know God.

I. SAYING THAT WE CAN KNOW GOD DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE CAN KNOW HIM EXHAUSTIVELY

I have already harped on this quite a bit. Nevertheless, I want you to understand this. Just as many today have emphasized God's transcendence (distance) to the neglect of emphasizing His immanence (nearness) in acquiring a knowledge of Him, we do not want to do the reverse. When I affirm, "We can know God", I am not saying that we can know everything there is to know about God. Nobody can. Here are a few verses to support my point (Is. 40:18; Ps. 145:3; Job 37:5). All of these verses affirm a degree of "knowledge" about God right? The Psalm 145 passage affirms the knowledge that God is "great" and "highly to be praised". However, this verse (and the ones that follow) also affirm a degree of ignorance regarding our capacity to acquire knowledge about God. The end of the verse says that God is "unsearchable". In other words, we know enough about God to know He is great and highly to be praised, but this does not mean that we know everything there is to know about God. But just because we do not know everything about God does not mean that we can't be confident that He is "great" and "highly to be praised". These things are true about God and we "know" them to be true. Nevertheless, He is still "unsearchable".

Consider also the Psalm 147 passage. On the one hand, the Psalmist affirms clear facts about God, which prove a certain knowledge of Him, namely that He is "great", He is our "Lord", and that He is "abundant in strength". On the other hand, the end of the verse affirms the fact that our knowledge about God ultimately terminates in mystery. God, says the Psalmist, is "infinite". Now if God is infinite (unlimited in His understanding- knows all), the strong implication is that we are the opposite- finite, right? In other words, we are limited in knowledge. And if we are limited in knowledge then we ultimately cannot know everything that there is to know about God.

A consideration of the Job passage will yield the same result. At the beginning of the verse, it is affirmed that God does "great things", but then says that we cannot "comprehend" these "great things".

We conclude, therefore, that God is ultimately infinite, unsearchable, and incomprehensible. This does not mean that we cannot "know" Him, but it does mean that we cannot "know" Him exhaustively.

Allow me to illustrate. Everyone who knows me is aware of the fact that I love West Virginia University football. I always have, and I always will. In fact, my love for Mountaineer football is so consuming that if I were to ask some people to name one thing that describes me they might say something like, "You are a Mountaineer fan". Consequently, I know a lot about Mountaineer football. I could tell you of a lot about their history. I could name you the coaching staff. I know the players (current and past). I have watched every minute of every game this year (and if it were not for a bad memory) could tell you much of what has taken place. I "know" Mountaineer football. That is a factual statement. However, I do not know everything that there is to know about Mountaineer football. In fact, there could be a thing or two that I do not know that would cause me to dislike Mountaineer football if I were to find those things out (though I can't imagine this even being possible). Surely, there are other fans who know more than me. The coaching staff far surpasses my knowledge as well. However, just because I do not know everything there is to know does not mean that I do not truly "know" Mountaineer football. Nobody would say, "You do not know Mountaineer football" simply because my knowledge is not exhaustive. In the same way, we can truly know God, though our knowledge of Him will never be exhaustive.

Knowing Little But Truly Knowing (by grace),

Andy

p.s. II for tomorrow

A Prayer for Those Weary in Battle

2009-10-19T13:57:00.003-04:00

O Lord,

When I feel the serpent at my heel,

may I remember Him whose heel was bruised,

but Who, when bruised, broke the devil's head.

Then shall my heart never weaken,

my feet never stumble,

my sword never rest,

my shield never rust,

my helmet never shatter,

my breastplate never fall,

as my strength rests in the power of Thy might.

Amen.

A Soliloquy of Boldness

2009-10-13T14:12:00.006-04:00

In studying John 7:25-36 for small group next week, I came across a prophecy in Isaiah that speaks about the boldness that the Messiah will have when He comes. It is to be understood as a "messianic soliloquy" that removes a depiction of Christ as frail, weak, congenial, and pacifistic. It is taken from Isaiah 50:7-9:

For the Lord God helps Me,
Therefore, I am not disgraced;
Therefore, I have set My face like flint,
And I know that I will not be ashamed.
He who vindicates Me is near;
Who will contend with Me?
Let us stand up to each other;
Who has a case against Me?
Let him draw near to Me.
Behold, the Lord God helps Me;
Who is he who condmens Me?
Behold, they will all wear out like a garment;
The moth will eat them.

Jesus is "Hostile"? - Paul a "Sacred Cow-Tipper"?

2009-10-13T09:52:00.008-04:00

I just finished the prologue and introduction to John MacArthur's new book entitled The Jesus You Can't Ignore: What You Must Learn From the Bold Confrontations of Christ. I cannot recommend this book enough and I have not even gotten to the meat of MacArthur's content. I have read bits and pieces throughout the book, but I am also going to read it straight through. It will serve, I think, as a wonderful supplement to the small group studies in the Gospel of John. What MacArthur has done is synthesized two of the Synoptic accounts and the Gospel of John (thus Matthew, Luke, and John) into one chronological analysis of Christ's interaction with the religious leaders of His day. This is a highly needful book today. Jesus is simply not the reserved, congenial, pacifistic, theologically ultraminimalistic teacher that many portray Him as (the picture for this post represents this "false Jesus"). Was He gentle, kind, and loving? Absolutely! But He was also boldly confrontational when it came to saving truth- Gospel truth!

Allow me to give you a couple of excerpts. The first one is from the prologue; the second from the introduction of the book. Hopefully, these excerpts will serve as an impetus for you to purchase this book:

"Jesus' interaction with the religious experts of His time was rarely even cordial. From the time Luke first introduces us to the Pharisess in Luke 5:17 until his final mention of the 'chief priests and rulers' in Luke 24:20, every time the religious elite of Israel appear as a group in Luke's narrative, there is conflict. Often Jesus Himself deliberately provokes hostilities. When He speaks to the religious leaders or about them-whether in public or in private- it is usually to condemn them as fools and hypocrites (Luke 11:40; 12:1; 13:15; 18:10-14). When He knows they are watching to accuse Him of breaking their artificial Sabbath restrictions or their manmade systems of ceremonial washing, He deliberately defies their rules (Luke 6:7-11; 11:37-44; 14:1-6). On one occasion, when He was expressly informed that His denunciations of the Pharisees were insulting to the lawyers (the leading Old Testament scholars and chief academicians of that time), Jesus immediately turned to the lawyers and fired off a salvo at them, too (Luke 11:45-54)."

"There's nothing wrong with asking, 'What would Jesus do?' That's a fine question. How would Christ Himself respond to the post-evangelical goulash of opinions represented in Christianity Today, in the emerging blogosphere, and in the trendy evangelical magachurches that have held the evangelical movement in thrall for the past few decades? Would He affirm the current mainstream evangelical apathy toward truth and authentic Biblical unity? Would He approve of those who, confronted with the plethora of contradictions and doctrinal novelties, simply celebrate their movements's 'diversity' while trying to avoid all controversy, embracing every theological renegade, and elevating orthopraxy over orthodoxy? Was Jesus' meek-and-gentle mildness of that sort?

I'm convinced we can answer those questions with confidence if we first ask a slightly different question: What did Jesus do? How did He deal with the false teachers, religious hypocrites, and theological miscreants of His time? Did he favor the approach of friendly dialogue and collegial disagreement, or did He in fact adopt a militant stance against every form of religion?

Anyone even superficially familiar with the gospel accounts ought to know the answer to that question, because there is no shortage of data on the matter...Jesus' interaction with the Scribes, Pharisees, and hypocrites of His culture was full of conflict from the start of His earthly ministry to the end. Sometimes the Pharisees provoked the conflict; more often than not, Jesus did. Hostile is not too strong a word to describe His attitude toward the religious system they represented, and that was evident in all His dealings with them.

We're going to survey that theme in this book. We'll see that Jesus never suffered professional hypocrites or false teachers gladly. He never shied away from conflict. He never softened the message to please genteel tastes or priggish scruples. He never suppressed any truth in order to accommodate someone's artificial notion of dignity. He never bowed to the intimidation of scholars or paid homage to their institutions. And He never, never, never treated the vital distinction between truth and error as a merely academic question."

(I can't help but view MacArthur's book as a great response to those today who want to distort the transcendance of God to mean that we cannot know anything for sure about God. In a culture that despises certitude and promotes academic speculation, MacArthur's voice is well needed. He opposes all forms of postmodern epistemologies to which we have been speaking about in Sunday school.)

How Do We Know God?- Part 47

2009-10-12T09:01:00.014-04:00

I did not get as far as I thought I would yesterday in Sunday school regarding the question, "How do we know God?" If we continue at this rate we will have 47 parts/posts to this question. Allow me to explain what we went over yesterday. We had several folks out of town, so this post will serve its purpose in updating people.

Remember, this question has not been answered yet. I am just showing that it is a legitimate question that is answerable. We will answer the questioin soon enough. But first I really want you to understand the nature of the question. We are not talking (right now) about salvation knowledge of God. I think that has been made clear in the previous posts.

Last time we left off discussing the maintenance of a right balance between the transcendance and immanence of God. The point I want you to grasp is simply that the idea of God's transcendance should never distract us from fully trusting in God's ability to reveal Himself to us (particularly when it comes to Scripture!). This is especially true in our current context, which as I mentioned before is full of folks who stress and distort God's transcendance to mean that there is nothing that we can really know for sure about God. This results in an agnosticism that is unacceptable for Spirit indwelt believers who serve a God competent enough to reveal Himself.

Again, to say that God is competent to reveal Himself is not the same thing as saying that He fully reveals Himself. My point is simply that He is competent in what He has revealed to us. And He has indeed revealed much to us. For example, the names and attributes that God gives to us in Scripture to identify Himself truly reveal to us who He is. These are not arbitrary names that only give us an idea about God, or reveal certain limited facts about who God is whose essence we are unable to plumb the depths of. Rather, these names are an accurate, clear, precise revelation of the very essence of God!

Frame: “We should not adopt a mental picture or model of God in which his real identity or essence is hidden in darkness, while His revealed nature is a kind of periphery around that darkness. In that picture, the darkness conceals what God really and truly is; His revealed nature is something less than His real being…Such Biblical terms as holiness, goodness, and eternity express God’s essence. They tell us what He really is, for Scripture is true. They define Him, because through them God has defined Himself”.

Frame could not explain it better could he? His point is that God's names are precise indicators, revealing to man who He "really" is in essence. In other words, Scripture never assumes that our finiteness excludes us from being able to understand who God is through the language that He uses. In fact, it assumes just the opposite. It assumes that God is competent enough to communicate effectively to us who He is. And His Spirit (if we are in Christ) is competent enough to aid our understanding. To say that we cannot understand Him exhaustively is simply not the same thing as saying that we cannot know anything about Him with any real degree of assurance. The former is a demonstration of Biblical humility that is captivated by the glory and complexity of God, leaving us in holy awe. The latter is a manifestation of prideful agnosticism. As one writer I recenlty read said, "Ultimately, the bar of reaso is God's reason. Submitting propositions to the bar of God's reason, the true standard of reason, is one thing; submitting truth claims to the bar of our reason is another" (Steve West, Sound of Grace Publication). That is well said. Our reasoning capacitites are not infinite because we are not God. Thus, we can never fully grasp everything there is to know about God. Nevertheless, this truth should never lead us down the path of agnosticism.

Those who desire to emphasize God’s transcendence in this way are really not humble. They are arrogant and independent. They use their assertion, “We can’t know anything about God for sure.”, as a cloak of humility. But at their heart is a desire to autonomously make God whoever they want to make Him out to be. Rather than being humble, they create a god not of Scripture with an unmitigated pride. Furthermore, they can speculate about God in a manner that makes Him something that He is not due to their beginning presupposition that is fueled by agnosticsim.

Okay, now we are ready to answer the question and not just talk about the question- well, sort of. The short answer to the question proposed can be understood when we speak about two broad categories in which we come to know God. These two categories can be referred to as General revealtion and special revelation. Some prefer the terms natural revelation and supernatural revelation.

Next post we will define these two categories.

Dependant On Grace,

Andy

Just a Thought.....

2009-10-08T08:59:00.010-04:00

I pointed out in the Sunday school class (and the recent posts) that the atheist and agnostic both operate from a basic presupposition. The presupposition is, "In order for belief in God to be rational, there must be clear, convincing evidence and proof." Flowing from this is another thought. The thought is simply that the most immoral act one is capable of committing is believing in something that he cannot prove.

We cannot exactly prove the Gospel, at least not in the same way that we can prove other things, right? The Gospel cannot be reduced to empirical, observable processes, right? This, to me, appears to be what Paul says in I Cor. 2. John's Gospel tells us that Jesus told His disciples that the world will know that they are His disciples when we demonstrate love one for another (John 13:34-35). However, Jesus did not say that this was proof of God's existence, or the validity of the Gospel as something worthy to believe. He simply said demonstrating love was proof that we follow Jesus. Think for a moment about the religious leaders and crowds of Jesus' day. They all witnessed miracle after miracle, healing after healing, and amazing authoritative preaching, yet they refused to believe. And they ultimately put our Lord of glory to death.

My point is simply that "evidence" or "proof" for God and the truth of the Gospel is not persuasive in the final analysis- at least not for the world who depends on the wisdom of the world. To them the Gospel is foolish (I Cor. 2:1-15). In 2 Cor. 4, Paul tells us that Satan has aided in the process of blinding us from seeing God. Even those during Christ's day who saw miracles and healings were not convinced of the evidence and refused to love Jesus and trust Him. Even those who experienced His healings and miracles firsthand and personally did not all appreciate Him in the "Gospel sense".

With all that in mind here is my thought. Remember, it is just a thought: The most immoral act one can commit does not consist in beleiving in something without being able to prove it beyond dispute. Rather, the most immoral act a person can commit is to reject the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ."

If Calvin was right when he said that to deny the existence of God is to break a law of creation, then does it not stand to reason that rejecting the Gospel is breaking the supreme law of God? In other words, God created us to know Him. Our father Adam and our mother Eve did know Him. Sin separated us from God, however. That is the point of the Gospel- to bring us back to God. And only Jesus can do this. Its the message of the Gospel, when received and believed, that brings us back to know God the way that God intended us to. Therefore, when we deny God's existence because of a lack of "convincing" proof, or we deny Jesus as the Christ because of a lack of "convincing" evidence, we commit the greatest sin of all. So, I say again, the greatest act of immorality does not consist in believing something that cannot be proven entirely, for that would exclude belief in the Gospel in which the Spirit of God alone can convince and prove the worthiness of Christ. Rather, the greatest act of immorality is to reject the King of King and Lord of Lords. It is to reject God's way of bringing us back to God. It is to view the Gospel as foolish and depend on the wisdom, rationality, and logic of the world.

Just a Thought,

Andy

p.s. Your thoughts are welcomed. You can respond by clicking on the comment icon if you wish.

Study of Basic Christian Doctrine: How Do We Know God?- Part 3

2009-10-08T08:02:00.013-04:00

I have proposed the question, "How do we know God?" As I stated in earlier posts, this is a foundational question. For a review of everything I have said regarding the nature of this question please refer to previous posts. We have actually not even answered this question yet. Instead I have been trying to show you that: 1) it is a legitimate question, and 2) it is an answerable question.

Yesterday, we ended the post with a discussion regarding two important attributes of God: 1) His transcendence, and 2) His immanence. Understanding these two attributes- and garnering a correct balance between the two-is essential in order to answer the proposed question honestly and intelligently. The Bible speaks both about God's transcendence and His immanence. As we have mentioned before, there is an element of mystery when we look at theses two attributes with our finite eyes. Nevertheless, they are both in Scripture, they are both true about God, and they do not contradict or cancel each other out.

Now it is important to understand the Biblical tension between God’s transcendence and His immanence. Throughout the history of the church Christians have tended to swing back and forth between these two concepts like a pendulum. Greek philosophy played a part in this pendulum swinging. As a result, the pendulum swung toward an overemphasis of the transcendence of God in the early church. The Greeks viewed their gods as completely incomprehensible. And this affected in some way the manner in which the early church fathers understood the God of the Bible. They took their cue from the Greek philosophers of the day and allowed philosophical arguments and analysis to ultimately hold sway over the Biblical text.

There have been other times and points in church history when the pendulum has swung the other way to an overemphasis of the immanence of God. Consistently emphasising God's immanence- to the neglect of ever speaking of His transcendence-will result in a view of God that sees Him not much different than us. Probably a good example of an overemphasis of this in our day would be Open Theism. For the most part, however, we find today that the pendulum has almost perched itself completely on the side of emphasizing God’s transcendence (probably in reaction to modernism). Today many are skeptical that we can know anything for sure about God even from God’s most clear revelation of Himself- the Scriptures (this is the postmodern tendency). This is cloaked with a sort of “humble” facade that says, “It is arrogant to try and speak on anything about God with real assurance and confidence”. This, I think, is a reaction. We must balance the transcendence and immanence of God.

The point to grasp- especially for our current context-is that the idea of God’s transcendence should never distract us from fully trusting in God’s ability to reveal Himself to us (especially in Scripture)! Now this is different than saying that He fully and completely reveals Himself. My point is simply that He is competent in what He has revealed to us. And He has indeed revealed much to us. The names and attributes that God gives to us in Scripture to identify Himself truly reveal to us who He is. One Christian theologian says the following: “We should not adopt a mental picture or model of God in which his real identity or essence is hidden in darkness, while His revealed nature is a kind of periphery around that darkness. In that picture, the darkness conceals what God really and truly is; His revealed nature is something less than His real being…Such Biblical terms as holiness, goodness, and eternity express God’s essence. They tell us what He really is, for Scripture is true. They define Him, because through them God has defined Himself”.

I think that was well said. In other words, God has truly revealed Himself to us. He has not just revealed facts or ideas about Himself. Rather, He has truly revealed Himself to us. To put it simply, Scripture never assumes that our finiteness excludes us from being able to understand who God is through the language that He uses. In fact, it assumes just the opposite. It assumes that God is competent enough to communicate effectively to us who He is. And His Spirit (if we are in Christ) is competent enough to aid our understanding. To say that we cannot understand Him exhaustively (which is what I have affirmed throughout these posts) is simply not the same thing as saying that we cannot know anything about Him with any real degree of assurance.

Furthermore, I think you will find that those who desire to emphasize God’s transcendence in this way are really not humble. They are arrogant and independent. They use their assertion, “We can’t know anything about God for sure” as a cloak of humility. But at their heart is a desire to autonomously make God whoever they want to make Him out to be. Rather than being humble, they create a god that Scripture does not represent, and they do this with unmitigated pride.

....Andy

A Study of Basic Christian Doctrine: How Do We Know God?- Part 2

2009-10-07T05:58:00.016-04:00

Yesterday I proposed the question, "How do we know God?" This is the second of eight basic questions that I want to look at in an effort to study basic Christian doctrine. If you think about it, we have not really answered the question yet. Rather, we have analysed the legitimacy of such a question. Furthermore, we have simply shown that it is an answerable question. In addition, I have also demonstrated that the answer to such a question is ultimately "Jesus Christ". That is, the only way that we will ever truly know God is through the person of Jesus Christ based upon His work of redemption on the cross. That much is clear. And we will look at this in detail under future questions ("Who is Jesus Christ?" and "What is salvation?"). But as I made clear yesterday, we are looking for the general answer to this question, not the specific answer. The answer "Jesus Christ" is the right answer to the wrong question, we could say.

Let us continue to look at the legitimacy of this question. We are still not ready to answer it. We must persevere through important introductory material before we will be ready to answer this question intelligently, honestly, and (ultimately) Biblically. I closed the last post with a quote that affirmed what I said throughout yesterday's post. Here it is in a nutshell- belief in God is basic to all men. Now from this assertion flows a major premise. And that major premise is that belief in God is therefore rational. As I said yesterday, we are not to say that in order for belief in God to be rational then evidence must exist. Evidence does in fact exist for God's existence (no pun intended). But it does not have to be there. It is there by God's grace. Some even go so far as to say that it is immoral to believe anything without proof. This is the argument of the atheist and agnostic. Okay, well I have a question then. If that is true, then where is the proof for that assertion? I submit to all the readers of this post that you must have proof to make such an assertion if you want to remain consistent with your overall worldview on the rationality of whether something, or someone is a legitimate object of belief. In other words, if you say that all belief is only rational and moral if it is based upon clear proof, then where is your proof that such a reality is the measurement stick for rationality and morality?

As I mentioned last time, the message of the Gospel is logical and reasonable. And the evidence for the existence of God is overwhelming and rational. This does not mean that mystery does not pervade God's truths (including the truth of His existence). But the writers of Scripture never view this tension between truth and mystery as a problem. Just because God’s revelation of Himself as a whole is considered to some degree as incomprehensible does not logically mean that His revelation of Himself as a whole is somehow not genuine, clear, or convincing. The writers of Scripture affirm both truth and mystery in God's sacred Word, and they have no problem affirming both. They do so with great confidence. As John Frame says, “The mysteriousness of God is never the basis of a general agnosticism. God’s revelation is mysterious, but it is a genuine revelation” (The Doctrine of God, 202). In other words, we can say: 1) God is incomprehensible, and 2) God is incomprehensible even in what He has revealed about Himself. Yet in the same breath also affirm that there is much we can know about God. This tension is sometimes described in two attributes that are generally assigned to God- transcendence and immanence. We will talk about these more when we answer the question, “Who is God?” But let’s just take a glance at each one to help us answer our current question, "How do we know God?".

Transcendence refers to the distance of God from us. His majesty and holiness is usually in view- His “otherness” we could call it. Many texts emphasis His otherness (Ps. 8:1). In fact, His holiness is so great, His majesty so awesome, that it literally affects us physically to be in His presence (Is. 6:4-5- Isaiah). Verses that speak about His transcendence are primarily speaking about His sovereignty, Lordship, rule, holiness, and majesty. They do not speak about God’s physical distance per say. The idea that God is sitting in heaven can be strongly misunderstood. Solomon (the wisest person to ever live) said, “The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain You” (I Kings 8:27). This makes sense. After all, God is omnipresent (To borrow the answer from Robert Cecil's catechism, "God is everywhere."). Rather, verses on transcendence seem to emphasize His “otherness” (Ps. 113:5-6). Frame says, “We should, I think, see these expressions primarily as describing God’s royal dignity. He is “exalted”, not mainly as someone living far beyond the earth, but as one who sits on a throne. The expressions of transcendence refer to God’s rule, His kingship, His Lordship” (105).

Immanence, on the other hand, refers to the nearness of God. God accommodates Himself to us in many ways. One of the most obvious examples of this is seen in both major covenants of Scripture when we see God dwelling with people. He willingly took abode with His people in the Old Covenant in the Tabernacle and Temple. In the Old Covenant, His presence was among them. In the New Covenant, His presence is within His people (Rom. 8:9; I Cor. 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:21 ff.;).

The apparently opposing attributes of God's transcendence and immanence (though in reality they are not) are often seen together in the same passages. This proves that in reality they do not contradict one another, though one may still maintain that they are paradoxical. Take for example, Isaiah 57:15. The first part of the verse refers to God's transcendence. It says, "For thus says the high and exalted One who lives forever, whose name is Holy; I dwell on a high and holy place...". The second half speaks of God's immanence, "...And also with the contrite and lowly of spirit in order to revive the spirit of the lowly and to revive the heart of the contrite." Here is the verse put together, "For thus says the high and exalted One who lives forever, whose name is Holy, I dwell on a high and holy place, and also with the contrite and lowly of spirit in order to revive the spirit of the lowly and to revive the heart of the contrite."

Grasping these two attributes of God, and maintaining a proper balance between them will aid us in accurately answering the question, "How do we know God?"

Until Tomorrow,

Andy

A Study of Basic Christian Doctrine: How Do We Know God?

2009-10-06T08:05:00.017-04:00

This week we will begin answering the second basic question in our study of basic Christian doctrine. The first question was, "Why is it important to study doctrine anyway?" We have answered that question in a satisfactorily way, I think. We looked at 9 reasons that one should study doctrine. If you wonder what these are, then look back at the previous posts at your leisure. Remember: we are going to answer (Lord willing) eight basic questions. So let's get started on this second one, for it is in many ways foundational for the rest of the questions and their answers.

Now let me just point out to you from the get go that this could be a confusing question if we allow it to be. However, I am never interested in shrouding things in mystery to appear intelligent, so let me explain. We are not speaking specifically when we ask this question. The specific answer to this question would be- "Jesus Christ", right? Many of you reading this already knew that answer. That is, in fact, the right answer. But it is the right answer to the wrong question because I am asking something different than one might initially think. It is obviously true that it is only through Jesus Christ that we truly come to know God in personal relationship (Jn. 14:6; 17:3). However, when I ask the above question, I am speaking generally, not specifically. Therefore, the answer to the question in the strictest sense is not "Jesus Christ". The general answer to this question looks differently. In fact, we are not even discussing (at this point) what we might call the “salvation knowledge” of God. That will be taken up later in the questions, “Who is Jesus Christ?”, and “What is salvation?” Really, we are talking about a different topic altogether.

One could ask the above question proposed this way, “How do we know God exists?” Or, maybe we could ask it this way, “How do we know God exists, and furthermore, how do we know what we know about God, and furthermore, how do we know what we know about God is true?” All of these questions get at the heart of what we will be discussing in the next few posts. This is similar to the question proposed by Zophar (Job's "kind of" friend) when he asked, "Can you discover the depths of God? Can you discover the limits of the Almighty?" (Job 11:7). In other words, is there any sense whatsoever in which man can understand God, and be confident that what he understands about God is certain fact? The proposed question is important because Scripture does clearly teach us that there is a sense in which all men “know” God. This is encouraging in one sense. But it is also dreadful in another sense. In one sense, Scripture teaches us that the knowledge about God that all men possess reveals that He is indeed there. This could be looked at as a good thing if it were not for sin. And that is where the dreadful part enters in. Scripture tells us that man, on his own, cannot recognize this knowledge of God due to the effect of sin (affecting everything including our minds and general perceptive abilities/ see 2 Cor. 4:4; I Cor. 1:21; 2:5). And the result is that, rather than leading them to a true (salvation) knowledge of God it leaves them simply “without excuse” (Rom. 1:20). In fact, Paul uses some dreadful language in 2 Cor. 4:4 when he explains that the god of this world (Satan) has aided in blinding 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. It is through Jesus Christ (specific answer to our question) that we truly come to "know" God. But we will never seek Jesus on our own. Our minds will never view that as a rational, logical, needful reaction to our sin. It takes a special operation of the Spirit to remove the scales from the eyes of our mind and reveal Jesus Christ to us (Jn. 3:1-8).

But regardless of the fact that man's condition is sadly wrapped up in his own sin to such a degree that he is incapable of seeing the beauty of God in Jesus Christ, he is still culpable and without excuse. And furthermore, this sad affair does not change reality. This is not a movie that has the potential to have a different ending. This is reality: God has revealed Himself to man, and man categorically refuses to read God's handwriting on His creation, or listen to the spoken Word of His own Son.

Let me point out at this point that God’s existence is not dependent upon evidence for His existence. In other words, though the evidence is overwhelming that God exists, His existence is not dependant either on this evidence, or our ability to perceive this evidence is there. Even if we could not prove the existence of God (which we can), it would not make belief in God irrational. Belief in God is rational simply because He exists. The world depends on logic and rational senses in order to prove the validity of something. However, we must understand from the beginning that though the arguments for the existence of God are rational and logical, they are ultimately shrouded in mystery. The Gospel is not completely mystical, but largely rational. Nevertheless, it is not dependant on logic as understood through the eyes of the world (Compare Is. 1:18; Rom. 10:17; and I Cor. 1:21 with Rom. 11:33-36). Therefore, arguments for the existence of God (and the value of Christ) will appear irrational and illogical at some point because of the element of mystery. Nonetheless, this does not take away from the evidence for God’s existence. Rather, it affirms the wondrously complex and incomprehensible God that we serve. In addition, it points to our finiteness, which in turn points to God’s infiniteness.

In addition, to say that evidence for the existence of God must be established in order to prove the rationality of God’s existence is to place believers in an unfair box. It corners the believer in the one true God (the one who actually possesses truth) and demands him to prove the rationality of his belief according to standards of measurement that God Himself did not invent. In fact, that notion is the notion of the atheist and agnostic. The atheist, or agnostic says, “God cannot exist without proof”. Or they will say, “Religious belief must be based upon empirical evidence and logical arguments in order to be rational”. A Christian who says, “The existence of God must be based upon clear proof” is saying the same thing. He comes to a different conclusion than the atheist and agnostic, namely that God exists. Nevertheless, he begins with the same presupposition, namely that proof is paramount for belief in God to be rational. Scripture never demands proof. It gives proof, but it never demands proof for the existence of God. Rather, Scripture assumes God exists everywhere and throughout. One has to look no further than the first verse of the Bible. Genesis 1:1 says, "In the beginning God created..". Did you notice that? There is evidence given (read the creation account) that God exists. But there are no arguments for it. The Biblical text simply assumes that God exists. This is an important difference that I am making between "the reality of evidence" and "the need for evidence". I am not denying that there is sufficient evidence that God exists. In fact, I have been affirming rather robustly that there is evidence for God's existence. But I am also asserting that this evidence does not have to be there for God to exist. His existence is not dependant on evidence. And I will notch it up a little and also affirm that our ability to perceive the viability of this evidence is also not something that His existence is dependant upon. What the world thinks is wisdom is not. Paul said this very thing in 1 Cor. 2:4-5, "...my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God."

Let me close with a quote from a Christian philosopher:

“God has created us in such a way that we have a strong tendency or inclination toward belief in God. This tendency has been in part overlaid or suppressed by sin. Were it not for the existence of sin in the world, human beings would believe in God to the same degree and with the same spontaneity that we believe in the existence of other persons, an external world, or the past. This is the natural human condition; it is because of our presently unnatural sinful condition that many of us find belief in God difficult or absurd. The fact is, Calvin thinks, one who does not believe in God is…like a man who does not believe that his wife exists, or thinks she is like a cleverly constructed robot and has no thoughts, feelings, or consciousness” (Alvin Plantiga).

Trusting the Scales Have Fallen From Your Eyes to See Christ,

Pastor Andy

Is Studying Scripture Important?.....Ummmmmm- Part 4

2009-10-01T07:57:00.015-04:00

Why is the study of doctrine important anyway? That is the question I have been answering in several posts this week. Allow me to give a few more reasons that studying doctrine is important.

Fourth, studying theology is important and advantageous because it guards us from unbiblical teaching (assuming that we are correct in our interpretation). Only two texts will be needed to prove this point (although the texts are numerous on this topic!). First, let's take a look at Eph. 4:11-14. Paul says, "And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to a measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by the craftiness in deceitful scheming".

Much could be said about the above verses. Many of you know that if I were preaching these verses, it would take a good 50 minutes to explain them properly (at least). Nevertheless, allow me to make some brief comments that pertain to the main point I am arguing. First, notice that Paul is emphasising several offices (vs. 11). Second, notice that all of those offices have a very common component. The common component is that all of them were concerned with verbally speaking God's word, or we could say God's truth, to His people. Third, the reason for these offices is clear as well. Verse 12 specifically says that it is for the "equipping of the saints". Fourth, this is to take place, as vs. 13 says, "until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God". Let me stop here by just reminding you that Paul was writing to believers. Thus, when he speaks of them attaining to "knowledge of the Son of God" he is not speaking about salvation. Rather, he is speaking about their sanctification. Fifth, notice that vs. 14 gives the ultimate goal of the dissemination of doctrine (God's Word/God's truth) to God's people. It is important simply because it guards His people from being "children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine". And notice the end of vs. 14 points to the reality of this- "by the trickery of men, by craftiness and deceitful scheming". The conclusion cannot be escaped- these verses place a premium on the teaching ministry of the church which serves as the foundation to guard against heresy. God desires for His people to be equipped with truth so that when unbiblical teaching is heard, they will not be drawn to it.

Consider also 2 Pet. 3:17 which says, "You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness". In this context, Peter uses the word “fall” to refer to apostasy- leaving the Christian faith for good. We know that God ultimately guards and keeps us (2 Thess. 3:3; Jude 24). Those who are “carried away” from the Christian faith never were really in Christ (I Jn. 2:19) showing them that God was not guarding or keeping them in the salvation sense because they never truly placed faith in Christ, though it appeared for a season that they did. Nevertheless, the warning that Peter gives in these verses ought not to be ignored, but should be taken seriously. The warning is given in verse 17 and is “to be on your guard”- being aware of the fact that there are false teachers who distort Scripture and teach heresy. Verse 18 provides the means of being on guard- “growing in knowledge”. In short, knowing doctrine helps prevent succumbing to unbiblical teaching.

Fifth, studying doctrine is important and advantageous because it results in worship and praise of God. This, I think, is a rather obvious point. When we come to worship on Sunday, we do not walk in, sit in a big room and just talk. Nor do we just sit in silence (meditation style). Rather, we come to hear God's Word. The hearing of God's Word (God's truth/doctrine) is central to why we come. And the knowledge of the Gospel is what propels worship, right? It is when our minds are engaged and wrapped up with the doctrines surrounding the Gospel that prompts worship. I do not know how else to put it. I will grant that worship often results from experience. If I am on my way to church in the winter with my family and I hit a patch of ice and spin around thirteen times but end up back on the road and make it safely to church I can promise you that I would be so thankful to God! I would be thankful for his preservation of my entire family because they are precious to me. We would walk into church and I promise you that my wife and I would not be able to stop thinking about God's preservation of us just moments before. Even as I stand singing, readying myself to preach, and even as I preach, I would not be able to get the images of just a few moments ago (in the car) out of my mind. This, no doubt, will prompt worship in my heart. Now that is just an illustration. But my point is that worship can result from experience. I am not denying that. I am simply saying that even worship rooted in experience is ultimately rooted in doctrine. How? Well, in order for me to look back on the incident with the patch of ice and be thankful I must recognize several theological truths: 1) God's power, 2) God's providence, 3) God's grace, 4) God's sovereign plan, etc. So it is inescapable, that is, the notion that worship and praise results from the study of doctrine. Here a few verses you can look up on your own that show that the knowledge of God's "testimonies" and "precepts" provoke praise and rejoicing in the heart (Ps. 19:8; 119:14, 103, 111, 162). Also consider Paul's bursting forth of praise right after giving a synopsis of God's great plan of redemption (Rom. 11:33-36).

Sixth, studying doctrine is important and advantageous because it fulfills the church's mission (Matt. 28:19-20; I Pet. 2:9). Evangelism does not stop with telling someone about the Gospel. Rather, it continues with discipleship. Christ commands teaching as integral to the dissemination of the Gospel. Teaching doctrine fulfills the mission of the church which is to preach the Gospel.

Seventh, studying doctrine is advantageous because it challenges and modifies erroneous beliefs we might hold.

Eighth, studying doctrine is advantageous because it serves to strengthen our faith through the compiling of multiple verses on any given topic. Jesus and other Biblical writers often quoted or referenced more than one book of Scripture as they taught doctrine. The classic example of this is Christ's (apparently long) walk with two men on the Emmaus road in Luke 24:13-27. Luke tells us that Christ "beginning with Moses and with all the prophets...explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures" (vs. 27). In other words, Jesus pointed out several verses (prophecies, promises) in the Old Testament that pointed to the Gospel. He probably mentioned the great promise in Genesis 3:15, the wondrous prophecies of Isaiah, and many more verses. The point is that Christ showed to them that the entire message of the Old Testament Scriptures were all about Him! The study of doctrine seeks to compile multiple verses to explain a certain concept. When these verse are compiled together and explained one richly sees the truth or concept from a number of different angles. This does two things: 1) it leaves us in awe of the complexity and wondrous nature of our God, and 2) it strengthens our faith to know that God's written word (God's truth) is united!

Ninth, studying doctrine is advantageous because it will help us be discerning regarding current and future unbiblical trends of belief.

New Covenant Theology Interview of Gary Long

2009-10-01T07:49:00.004-04:00

The following interview might be helpful for those of you desiring to truly understand New Covenant Theology. The interview is of Gary Long and is conducted by John Reisinger. It is a short read, and I believe is helpful in clearing up distortions, misrepresentations, and general lack of clarity regarding NCT that I have personally found quite disturbing. It is nice to hear an intelligent, clear, articulate voice for NCT. John does a nice job of asking good questions. Just click on the link below. It should not take long to read at all.

http://www.ptsco.org/jrginterviewofgl.htm

Why Study Doctrine?- Part 3

2009-09-29T15:56:00.020-04:00

For this post let's continue to answer the question, "Why is the study of doctrine important anyway?" In previous posts I have given the first two reasons. Here is the third reason.

The third reason that studying doctrine is advantageous is due to the fact that the understanding of doctrinal truth leads (in part) to our salvation, and the understanding of doctrinal truth is the primary instrument of our sanctification. Christianity is not mystical, but logical. Nobody, who is reading this blog post and has come to a genuine saving knowledge of Jesus Christ was "saved" apart from the hearing of doctrinal information. The reason is simple- the Gospel is doctrine! The truths of forgiveness, eternal life, substitution, justification, etc. are......well...doctrines!

Two key passages show us that it is the message of the Gospel spoken and understood first by the mind (through the power of the Holy Spirit) that results in salvation. The first one is Romans 10:17 which says, "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ". The message about Christ- His saving work for elect sinners- is the Gospel. And the hearing of this (or, to be fair, the reading of it as well) is what saves. God has chosen to engage the mind first in order for salvation to take place. This is not denying the work of regeneration that the Spirit ministers. Rather it is affirming it. I am simply saying that the Spirit "does the work" when someone (anyone) is saved. But the instrument that He uses is the doctrine of the Gospel. The tool he uses is the Gospel.

There is a nice size garden behind my house. It is not mine, but my neighbor's. My neighbor is extremely "handy". He works outside often and knows how to do a lot that I have no clue about. I guarantee you that his garden successfully produces vegetables for a number of reasons. The weather, soil, etc. all play a role in my neighbor's success at gardening. However, having proper gardening tools, and purchasing and planting good seed is very important as well. In fact, I would submit to you that if he had no gardening tools whatsoever, he would not be that successful at growing vegetables. That is nothing against him, but the simple fact is that the success of a garden depends largely upon certain tools. My neighbor does the work itself, but he uses certain instruments to bear a good crop. Now the Spirit works the same way. The Spirit does the work of salvation on a heart, but the instrument He uses is the doctrine of the Gospel. There is no other tool. That is a simple fact.

I promised you two verses to prove this point. Here is the other verse, "For since in the wisdom of God the world through wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe" (I Cor. 1:21). The same thought as that of Rom. 10:17 is being expressed here as well. The means (instrument) that God has chosen to save people is the doctrine of the Gospel.

My overall point is that we ought to have a propensity to love doctrine (and the study of it) because it is doctrine which led to our salvation. That is simple enough, I think. But look at the second half of my statement given above..."and the understanding of doctrinal truth is the primary instrument of our sanctification." In other words, doctrine led to our salvation, but it also leads to our sanctification as the Spirit of God is pleased to apply doctrine to our lives for the purpose of godliness.

To prove this point we need look no further than Christ's prayer for His elect in John 17. I will not take the time to explain this passage in detail. However, note especially vss. 18-21. In effect, Christ is praying that all believers be sanctified in truth. Vs. 17 says, "Your Word is truth". The word concerning what? Its simple, right? Christ is speaking about the word concerning the Gospel and all the rich truths that flow from it which are found in Scripture. In other words, it is the study, learning, and understanding of this truth (found in Scripture) that sanctifies us (sets us apart progressively for God's holy purposes to the glory of Jesus Christ). John MacArthur puts it this way, “…believers are set apart for God and His purposes alone so that the believer does only what God wants and hates all that God hates…Sanctification is accomplished by means of the truth, which is the revelation that the Son gave regarding all that the Father commanded Him to communicate and is now contained in the Scriptures left by the Apostles”.

We should study doctrine, as believers, because it is the means by which we grow spiritually, and it was the means that paved the way for spiritual growth to even become a category in our lives because it was what the Spirit of God used to give us new life.

-Pastor Andy

Why Study Doctrine?- Part 2

2009-09-29T08:51:00.010-04:00

We have started a series on basic Christian doctrine in which we are answering eight important questions (refer to the last post). In the last post we gave the first part of the answer to the following question, "Why is it important to study doctrine anyway?" Here is another significant reason. (There will be more reasons to follow.)

The second reason that studying doctrine is advantageous lies in the truth that knowledge about God is attainable, though not exhaustive. And furthermore the complexities of God’s truths do not contradict one another. Thus His truths can collectively be called “one truth”. In other words, God speaks to us in language that we can understand. And these truths that He chooses to give us can make sense even to our finite minds, though not entirely. I am not denying mystery. Paul spoke about this in Rom. 11:33-36 when he said, "Oh, the depths of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgements and unfathomable His ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor? Or who has first given to Him that it might be paid back to Him again?". The prophet Isaiah also recorded the truth that there exists great mystery in understanding God, "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways", declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts" (Is. 55:8-9). In addition, Deut. 29:29 simply declares that the secret things belong to the Lord. God has secrets. He does not reveal everything about Himself to man. He has chosen to reveal Himself to His elect in the person of Jesus Christ and the reality of the Gospel. The Gospel tells us the most about God that any man could know in this lifetime. Nevertheless, as Paul, Isaiah, and Moses records for us in Scripture, it simply does not tell us everything- at least not in this lifetime. The point is simply that knowledge about God is attainable for us in degrees. And the entrance to this truth is always and only the Gospel. It is not until the Spirit of God reveals to us the beauty, glory, worth, value and treasure of Christ that we will begin our journey in knowing God as He has revealed Himself.

Someone once remarked:

“Everything God reveals of Himself transcends man’s comprehension; every doctrine, therefore, must of necessity terminate in mystery, and man must humbly acquiesce in having it so. God does not tell men more of His purpose than man needs to know; and just because man’s knowledge of what God is doing is always incomplete, His actions will often appear to man to have precisely opposite characteristics to those which He Himself ascribes to them. But in such cases it is man’s part deliberately to accept God’s interpretation in preference to his own. Faith will not lean to its own understanding of the appearance. Faith will take God’s word as a safe index of reality, and will wait patiently till contrary appearances dissolve away with the coming of greater light”.

Indeed, that is well said- every doctrine of necessity terminates in mystery. We are on a "need to know" basis regarding who God is. He- and He alone-has chosen what to reveal to His elect- nothing more, nothing less. We simply cannot know all things in this lifetime about God. He is too wondrous. In fact, that is the very thing that makes Him wondrous. He would not be that wondrous if we knew everything there was to know about Him, right?

In addition, what we know about God can "make sense" to us. Again, I am not denying mystery. I am simply asserting that what God has revealed to us about Himself can make sense in our finite, fallen minds (our minds were affected by the Fall in case you were wondering) primarily because of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Again I go back to I Cor. 2:14 where Paul says, " But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them". But for the child of God, the Spirit has enlightened the mind! A child of God can make sense of even mysterious truths! Psalm 119:160 is helpful here. It says, "The sum of your word is truth". That is a profound statement. It is affirming that Scripture (all the information that God has revealed to us about Himself) is made up of various truths. Nobody, by the way, would deny this, right? There are many "truths" in Scripture. Let me list a few: 1) the Trinity, 2) justification, 3) faith, 4) regeneration, 5) heaven, 6) hell, etc. But all of these truths, and the concepts that they express can collectively and summarily be called simply "truth" (singular). In other words, God's truths do not contradict one another. All His truths (which all center around the person and work of Jesus Christ) can be called "one truth". God does not contradict Himself. And in this lifetime His elect have been given the privilege to see a glimpse of this reality, though not perfectly. We can make sense of much. We can understand much. This reality should serve as a mighty impetus to the believer to pursue the study of doctrine.

-Andy

Its Been TOO Long

2009-09-28T09:18:00.020-04:00

It has been well over a week since my last post. That is way too long. I was enjoying some time with some church family in North Carolina, had a wonderful time, and did not even think about blogging- was simply having too much fun.

In Sunday School yesterday I concluded my answer to the first of eight basic questions that every Christian ought to be familiar with. Here are the eight basic questions:

1. Why is it important to study doctrine anyway?

2. How do we know God?

3. Who is God?

4. Who is man?

5. Who is Christ?

6. What is salvation?

7. Who are God's people?

8. What will happen in the end?

I readily admit that these might appear to be obvious, simple questions. That is because they are simple questions. That is the point. My goal is to be clear and concise, not complicated and confusing. I have no desire to wax eloquently on such important questions and the topics that these questions address. Rather, I want to s l o w down and make sure that we are all on the same page. I truly desire that everyone in the class understand the answers to these questions. At times I am sure that I will be confusing (I am not perfect). But my goal is to aid our understanding of basic Christian doctrine. For the babes in Christ this might seem overwhelming. For the mature in Christ this might seem like review. However, I trust that the review will be fresh and insightful for the mature resulting in genuine worship and praise. On the other hand, I trust that the babes will have rich truth surrounding the Gospel open up before their eyes and excite them to worship and praise just the same.

Alright, several people in the class want me to duplicate the Sunday school material somehow. The easiest way to do this is to "duplicate" the teaching material on the blog. This is the way that we will start the "duplicating" process anyway. So let me start today by answering the first primary question listed above. We will spend the rest of the week looking at the answer to this question.

Here is the question again---- Why is it important to study doctrine anyway?

The first reason it is advantageous to study Christian doctrine is because the formulation of doctrinal belief is unavoidable. Now on the surface that might not sound like much of an advantage. Allow me to explain it to you in the following manner. Paul tells us in Romans 1 that all men "know" God. Now when we begin answering the second question, "How do we know God?", we will look at Romans 1 more closely. But suffice it to say that Scripture clearly teaches all men everywhere try and "make sense" of God. Without the aid of the Spirit of God beginning with regeneration, this "knowledge" will be minimalistic. For Paul tells us in I Cor. 2:14 that "the natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to Him; and he cannot understand them". In other words, this "knowledge" will be suppressed (Rom. 1:18). The result of this suppression will be a whole gamut of different ways to "make sense" of God. Some will go to the extreme of declaring themselves as atheists. Atheism is a doctrinal belief about God that simply denies His existence. Therefore, it is a thoroughly negative doctrinal belief system regarding God. Nevertheless, it is a doctrinal belief about God anyway one slices it because it affirms a doctrinal proposition, namely that "God does not exist". Some declare themselves agnostic. This is also a certain doctrinal view of God, though equally negative. It says that we cannot know if God exists. This is also an obvious doctrinal affirmation in propositional form. And there are many other doctrinal positions regarding God. My point is that one does not have to be a Christian (regenerated and given new life in Christ) to have a system of doctrinal belief about God. God has created all men in such a way that we all have an inner awareness of God. This means they not only have the capacity, but the desire to "make sense" of this world, their lives, and the possible Creator who made it all happen. Here is what one writer says regarding this issue, “Man is endowed with reason, and the human reason cannot rest satisfied with a mere collection of separate truths, but wants to see them in their mutual relationship, in order that it may have a clearer understanding of them”.

Now how does all of this info spell out any sort of advantage to studying doctrine? In just this way. Follow this line of logic. If we are given the capacity and desire to "know" God, and God, by His grace chooses for His own glory before the foundations of the world to send the Spirit to regenerate our hearts enabling us to see the beauty, value and worth of Jesus Christ crucified and resurrected (and thus the value of God), then we have the responsibility and privilege to harness the power of the Spirit that indwells us by studying God's special revelation (Scripture) in order to "grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Pet. 3:16). In other words, we have been given the resources necessary to truly know God. And this all comes to us through the Gospel! To put it simply, if we all naturally form a doctrinal system anyway, and it has pleased God to save us, then we might as well have an orthodox, Biblical, true, and right "knowledge" of God. This only makes since. And the study of Scripture, doctrine, theology (whatever term you choose) is the means that God uses to grow our knowledge of Him. It really is that simple! The first advantage to studying doctrine can be wrapped up in the following phrase- "Studying doctrine helps our knowledge of God to be accurate and truthful, rather than inaccurate, false, and incomplete".

Because the possession of a doctrinal system (however minimalistic it might be) is unavoidable, Christians are duty bound and privileged to formulate their doctrine in accordance with God's authoritative, revealed truth contained in Scripture. Paul prayed this very thing for the Colossian believers (Col. 1:9-10). Paul tells the Colossians that since he heard they accepted the Gospel he has not "ceased to pray for you that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, so that you will walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, to please Him in all respects, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God". I find it interesting that the number one thing on Paul's prayer list for the Colossians was not the various illnesses, trials, or tribulations. Rather, it was their spiritual well-being. In short, he prayed that their knowledge of God would increase. (I said much more about these verses when I preached them. Paul's use of "knowledge" was different than the false teachers understanding of "knowledge". Paul wrote to correct the false teachers, and protect the true saints in the church.) Paul's prayer is proof that Paul saw the importance for Christians to study doctrine.

Romans 12:2 is another example. In verse one Paul calls for believers to be living sacrifices to God. Verse two then reads, "And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect". Paul calls for nothing less than a transformation of the mind. The Greek word translated "transformed" is where we get our English word metamorphosis. Very simply, our lives are only changed for the glory of Christ in our sanctification to the degree in which our minds are changed through the study of Scripture- doctrine. Our minds are renewed through doctrinal information. This "mind renewal" results in "practical life renewal"- a changed way of living.

Let me give one more text- 2 Pet. 3:18. We will look at the context of this passage a little closer in another post. However, Peter calls for the Christian to "grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ". Here is how Martyn Lloyd-Jones interprets this:

“That is Peter’s way of saying that I am to grow in my understanding of the truth... It means that I should increase and grow in my knowledge concerning Him, in my knowledge of what He has done and of what He has brought to this world. As a Christian I am not to stop merely at a knowledge of forgiveness and a knowledge of salvation; I am to grow in my understanding and in my knowledge of the whole scheme and plan and purpose of salvation… So that I must busy myself with Christian doctrine. I must learn to understand the doctrine of God and His Being, the doctrine of the Trinity, the doctrine of man, the doctrine of sin, the doctrine of salvation, the doctrine of the ultimate and the last things. I must go into all these so that I may grasp the knowledge concerning the Lord Jesus Christ more and more” (Commentary on 2 Peter, 226-227).

Let it be clear. The study of doctrine is the duty and privilege of a believer with the goal to know God through Jesus Christ.

Next post we will consider some more reasons that the study of doctrine is important and advantageous.

Desiring Christ-Centeredness in All Things,

Andy

Goals for Studying Doctrine

2009-09-18T09:06:00.009-04:00

I elaborated on the first goal in an earlier post. Let me develop the second goal I gave last Sunday. Since it is Friday, it looks like this will be the last goal I deal with. However, I will list the other two at the end of this post for those of you who love to take notes, but didn't "get down" everything on Sunday.

2. Studying doctrine aims at impacting our evangelistic endeavors. I Pet. 3:15 says, "but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence." This is a call for all Christians to have the ability to articulately, intelligently, and most important of all biblically communicate to people the reason your hope is in Christ alone. The Greek word translated "defense" is where we get our English word "apologetics". It literally means a "verbal defense, answer, or reply". In other words, every believer ought to be able to give an impactful (yea verbal) response to someone who might ask them about the Gospel. The more one knows, yea, the more one understands doctrine (and all doctrine is centered around the plan and purposes of God in Christ Jesus!) the more he or she will be able to give a biblical, articulate, intelligent, and impactful response to an unbeliever. Of course, the Spirit of God is the one who determines who will be saved, not us (John 3:1-8). Nevertheless, can this honestly give us the excuse to be ignorant about the riches of the Gospel? Of course not. A proper view of God's sovereignty in salvation will actually encourage one to possess the desire to give the best explanation possible regarding the Gospel when given the opportunity. When one knows for sure that God has an elect people for sure, then he will seek to give the Gospel to others for sure! His confidence will be rooted in God's sovereignty. On the other hand, if one does not have confidence that God has already marked His people out, then what encouragement is their to share Christ, and possess the ability to give good responses to those who ask us about our hope in Christ? Simply put, knowing doctrine better will impact our evangelistic endeavors.

3. Studying doctrine aims at understanding the Gospel better in order to fall more in love with Jesus Christ.

4. Studying doctrine aims at recognizing that the New Covenant era (the one in which we are citizens if we are truly believers in Christ) brings with it a greater knowledge of God. We must take advantage of this privileged position (Jer. 31:31, 34).

More Comments From Al Mohler...This Time on "Atheists"

2009-09-17T11:08:00.005-04:00

I know that I have kind of gone crazy with the posting today, but the following link takes you to another important commentary by Al Mohler. He shows the inconsistency of some atheists. It is an intriguing article. As usual, Mohler does a great job assessing the situation. Thank God for men like Mohler who point these things out for the benefit of other Christians.

http://www.albertmohler.com/2009/09/14/a-tale-of-two-atheists/

MacArthur's Comments After Surgery

2009-09-17T10:32:00.005-04:00

I have posted this link for you to listen to at your leisure. The link points you to MacArthur's comments to his congregation after his surgery. One of the major highlights of listening to this is the story at the beginning about MacArthur's former football coach receiving the Gospel for salvation.

http://www.gty.org/Shop/Audio+Lessons/90-378

Goals We Should Have When Studying Doctrine

2009-09-14T08:10:00.022-04:00

In Sunday school, as we began our study of doctrine, I gave some goals (I called it the aim of studying doctrine) that all Christians would do well to possess as they study doctrine. Let me elaborate a little on these points- offering some clarification and elucidation. We will just deal with the first one today. I might cover all of them...perhaps only a couple of them. We'll see.

1. Studying doctrine is important for every Christian because certain terminology aids the overall process of study. In other words, acquiring certain theological vocabulary becomes a major part of understanding a particular theological concept itself. Let me offer several practical ways this works.

First, if we are reading a commentary or book and a particular word is used (i.e. propitiation) one is able to understand what the author is talking about if we have taken the time to learn certain key terms. On the other hand, if we have not taken the time to learn theological vocabulary, then we have a difficult time even understanding an author's comments on a certain passage, or theological concept. It can even become dangerous to be completely unaware of certain terms because we might place our own definition on terms that we do not know the meaning of. If we do that, then we run the high risk of departing from the actual message being communicated.

Second, understanding theological vocabulary is important because it will help us communicate better. Let me offer an example. Suppose you are having a religious discussion with an unbeliever, and they ask us how it is that a sinner can be accepted before a holy God. If we are familiar with certain important theological terms, then we will naturally think of "justification". Now, we may or may not use the word "justification" as we explain to this unbeliever how a sinner is accepted before God (Personally, I would argue in the importance of using the term because it is a Biblical word). Nevertheless, we have that word pop into our mind naturally because we are familiar with the concept and the term that goes with it. This familiarity with theological jargon aids our communicative process. Simply put, knowing a theological concept is important (in fact its the most important thing!), but matching the concept with the proper word ought to be the goal. This will help us "think on our feet" better so that we can give a clear, thorough response to unbelievers or young Christians who ask us questions. On the other hand, it might be that we are having lively discussion in a small group Bible study. When those involved in the discussion are familiar with certain terms and concepts, they can more succinctly and accurately communicate their thoughts. This can make a small group atmosphere less confusing and more productive.

I say all of this, and then will close with a warning that appears to contradict everything I just said! Here is the warning: theological jargon should not intimidate others, nor be used to intimidate others. All of us have been in situations where we felt extremely uncomfortable. We all know what it is like to be at a party, family gathering, or a similar event as someone's guest. We don't know anyone but the person who brought us. People look at us funny, and we naturally feel out of place. We should not use theological vocabulary with the intent of intimidating others, or making them feel like they are a "guest" that is "out of place". Theological vocabulary used properly and with the right attitude will enhance our learning process. If it is used for any other reason, then we should be suspect. Personally, I have learned that people will be more willing to listen to your views on something if you use language that they can understand. In the same vein, using some terminology that is perhaps unfamiliar to many will peak the interest of many, and the very use of certain terms will result in the listener probing you for a definition. The result- they learn a new word and therefore probably have a better understanding of whatever topic it might be that you are discussing.

Not By Any Means Claiming to Have All the Answers,

Pastor Andy

The Apostle Peter's Last Will and Testament

2009-09-11T10:29:00.006-04:00

I came across these words from the late Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones as I was preparing for our study of basic Christian doctrine beginning this Sunday for the adult Sunday School class. His words ring true for every believer- young and old. He is commenting on the passage below from 2 Peter.

2 Peter 3:14-18 (The last words Peter ever penned. He was martyred shortly after writing this.)

14Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, 15and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. 17You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness,
18but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

What Unifies? Is All Truth Primary for Church Fellowship?: A Question Considered by Phil Johnson

2009-09-04T08:25:00.032-04:00

The church must be united around the Gospel. There can exist healthy debate and discussion on other issues, but the foundation is the Gospel and the Gospel alone. When I preach I never expect everyone to fully agree with me on secondary issues. My only requirement for the listener (if they are a professing Christian) is that they agree with me on Gospel truth, and doctrines that necessarily flow from a correct understanding of the Gospel. A pastor who demands more is not following the inspired words of the Apostle Peter who instructed pastors to not participate in "lording it over those allotted to your charge" (I Pet. 1:3).

Through the years I have been aquainted with many people in "fundamental circles". In fact, some of my best friends from college still attend fundamentalist churches.The college I went to was composed of a board and administration who were staunch fundamentalists. If you are not familiar with this small sect of the evangelical world suffice it to say that they do not (for the most part) effectively or intentionally distinguish between what might be called "primary" and "secondary" truths. Either you agree with them on essentially everything, or you have no part with them. Essentially every issue seems to be worth "fighting over". As a result, most of their churches are quite small. In the area I went to college (Tampa, Fl), there were probably 20 or more independent, fundamentalist churches that the school approved for the students as possible churches to attend. There existed one particular church that was unofficially on the "bubble"- teetering between the categories of "approved" or "not approved". At least that is what circulated among the student body every Fall. One Spring the Christian music group Jars of Clay came to Tampa. Roughly 100 students (including myself) attended their concert. When the school found out about this they called a meeting with all of us. For about 45 minutes different members of the administration told us that listening to "Christian Rock" was a serious spiritual issue. Now it is true that we violated the student handbook by attending the concert. However, this meeting was not focused on that. It was clearly being made an issue of spirituality- our attendance to an evil "Christian Rock" concert was a violation of Scripture (I know it sounds ridiculous, but that is what they argued). Well, the "bubble" church was responsible for sending their youth group. Not a problem right? Wrong! This particular church endorsed the concert, and because many of the students at my college attended this church and some worked in the Youth Group they also attended the concert. I don't care what your musical tastes are (I listen to all types personally), but does it not make sense to attend a church outing such as this if you like Christian rock music?

Too make a long story short, I will never forget the faces of the students walking out of that meeting. Some of the students actually thought they had violated Scripture. I immediately tried to convince these weary hearted souls that they did not violate Scripture. At that moment I realized that there were many issues of secondary importance- whatever that means practically. Most of us were kids who had great relationships with the professors and administration. Most of us were some sort of leaders on campus. Most of us had school spirit. In fact, one of my best friends who was in attendance earned the "School spirit" award our Senior year. Many of us played a particular sport for the school. None of that mattered, though. According to the school we had violated a Scriptural principle- "thou shalt not attend rock concerts". Now, I am not endorsing all Christian rock. I don't care for much of it. My problems with some Christian rock centers around shallow lyrics and what is "not said", rather than a musical style or what "is said". Nevertheless, you cannot honestly argue from Scripture against all of it. And furthermore, even if in some strange world you could, it should not be considered a "primary issue".

Well, to get to my point.......... After that incident, I chose the "bubble" church as my church to attend. I became highly involved in the Junior and Senior High Youth Groups and became good friends with the Pastor. I ended up having an expository training class with two other students under his tutelage. I chose this church not primarily to make a point to the administration, although I will not lie- that was part of my decision. My primary decision to become a member of this church was based on the fact that it was the only "approved" church that centered its ministry on the Gospel. In other words, they saw the difference between "primary" and "secondary" issues. None of the other churches seemed to do that. Although, there were undoubtedly some who did better than others. I know that my story is extreme, but the principle the story conveys is not extreme. The question naturally becomes, "Is all truth primary in regard to church fellowship?" I think the Gospel is primary.

The link to the blog post below is written by the best friend of my former pastor of the "bubble" church. The writer's name is Phil Johnson. He is one of the most popular Christian bloggers among Reformed folk. He is also executive director of Grace to You (John MacArthur's ministry). Johnson addresses the issue of "primary" and "secondary" truths. The post contains wise words. Let me know what you think.

Here is the link:

http://teampyro.blogspot.com/search/label/Classic%20posts%20reposted

Love in Truth,

Pastor Andy

p.s. I apologize for typos and bad English on this post--its kind of difficult to type in this cast thing.

Kevin DeYoung Blog

2009-08-26T12:57:00.004-04:00

Here is a good post from a young, Reformed preacher. I do not read many blogs, but I will read this one from time to time. He argues against legalism, and thus promotes the grace of the Gospel. Its worth taking 5 to read it.

You can read the post in its entirety by clicking here.

Generational, Doctrinal Accountability

2009-08-26T11:42:00.018-04:00

The thoughts expressed in this post were not the result of deep research per say (although no thoughts are truly "original" and devoid of the influence of prior study). Rather, they flow from a topic that has been swarming in my mind for about a year and a half. Take them for what they are worth....

In Titus 1:6-8 we read this, "Likewise urge the young men to be sensible; in all things show yourself to be an example of good deeds, with purity in doctrine, dignified, sound in speech which is beyond reproach, so that the opponent will be put to shame, having nothing bad to say about us."

There is much that could be said regarding these verses. Perhaps one of the things we overlook in this list of things required for young men is that they have "purity in doctrine". Most books written for men today focus on character qualities. Character qualities are important. Indeed, the Gospel will change the whole man. His character will be imbued with the very character of Christ because of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit if he has truly been given new life in Christ. In other words, the Gospel does affect character. However, the importance of young men possessing purity of doctrine should never be ignored. In fact, one could quite easily make the argument that doctrine is the most important quality mentioned in these verses because it is right doctrine that serves as the impetus for right character. We must first know what is true about God, and ourselves (doctrine) before we can (by the power of the Spirit) know how to demonstrate appropriate character. To put it simply, we must understand Scripture rightly before we can rightly demonstrate Biblical, Christ-like character. To put it yet another way, we must have the larger picture of who Christ is before we can understand the smaller ways that we manifest Christ in any given situation or circumstance.

Without giving a mini-sermon, allow me to offer some practical ways that a young man can ensure that his doctrine is pure:

1) Have the liberty to think freely, but always consider what orthodox Christian men in the history of the church have traditionally believed concerning any one particular doctrine before you come to a conclusion. This means that you are sensitive to any teaching that is so novel that it departs from what great Christians have generally believed down through the ages. On the other hand, this does not mean that you be bound to history. We must be bound to one thing- the authority of Scripture. In the final analysis, Scripture always holds final sway. In the same vein, we should never be quick to discount the general orthodox teaching of the church for over 2,ooo years.

2)Have the liberty to think freely, but always take seriously one of the slogans of the Protestant Reformation- semper reformanda. The notion behind this Latin phrase is that the church must "always be reforming" in order for its doctrine to remain pure. This might seem to contradict point one, but on second observation it does not! Rather, it complements and balances point one. It says that we are never ultimately called to be expert historians when we do theology. Rather, we are to be expert Biblicists! That is, we are ready, willing, and prepared to depart from historical teaching when it conflicts with Scripture. For example, I am personally indebted to John Calvin for his strong theological influence upon me. Calvin, more than any other theologian, has helped me understand Scripture better. Nevertheless, I would disagree with Calvin on the issue of baptism. I think he was dead wrong to allow babies to be sprinkled. I will gladly disagree with him and many of the other Reformers because I am convinced Scripture teaches the baptism of believers only!

3) Have liberty to think freely, but always seek counsel and advise from older Christian men in the church, particularly the local church that God has sovereingly placed you in. I am convinced that my generation (for the most part) despises authority. In fact, I would argue that my generation despises authority more than my parents generation. Unfortunately, this has affected the church, though I wish it weren't the case. This despising of authority tends toward a dismissal of the opinions and worldviews of the older generation. Young Christian men must understand the importance of having accountability with older Christian men in the church, if they truly desire purity of doctrine.

Throughout my life, and for whatever reason, God has sovereingly sent older men into my life with whom I have enjoyed great friendships. Most of these men are old enough to be my father (in fact one of them is my own father!). In a very real sense, many of them have taught me more than my seminary training could even do regarding what pure doctrine is. I have found it to be the case on more than one occasion that I will be "read up" on a certain doctrine- assuming I have all the answers- and a wise, older man will say something from his own life experiences that makes me go back and question my conclusions. This man may, or may not have known what he did. He may have studied the particular doctrine; he may only have vague ideas that the doctrine even exists. Nevertheless, God uses older men to instruct and encourage younger men on doctrine. As I see it, this boils down to the wisdom they possess. Older men "think through" issues much differently than younger men. They are more experienced, have seen more, and often have heard all of the "arguments". In other words, they possess veteran discernment. Older Christian men who sincerely love and follow Christ as their Lord are worth their weight in gold for younger Christian men. As I stated, they serve to aid younger men to remain pure in their doctrine through their wisdom, discernment, and life experiences. In fact, one sign of a healthy church (in this pastor's humble opinion) is younger men looking to the older men for accountability in the area of doctrine.

All three of these points shout forth one word- accountability. Young men must be pure in doctrine. This means that young men take seriously the opinions, beliefs, and advise of older Christian men (in history and in their own lives) regarding doctrine so long as these older men are Christ lovers indwelt by the Holy Spirit who are saturated with Scripture. The attitude of younger men deferring to older men for accountability, and older men gently admonishing younger men for the sake of pure doctrine will lead to a healthy, doctrinally pure, and Christ centered congregation. Of course, only God Himself preserves purity of doctrine in a church. I am simply arguing that God uses the older men in congregations as one of many instruments to retain this purity.

A Book You Can't Ignore!

2009-08-20T23:22:00.008-04:00

The Jesus You Can't Ignore
What You Must Learn from the Bold Confrontations of Christ

Jacketed Hardcover

By John MacArthur

Best-selling author John MacArthur gives readers a fresh look at how Jesus addressed attacks against the truth.

Meek and mild. Politically correct. A great teacher. These are the popular depictions of Jesus. But they aren't the complete picture. Maybe because it's uncomfortable, or maybe because it's inconvenient, Christians and non-Christians alike are overlooking the fierceness of the Savior, His passionate mission to make the Gospel clear and bring people into the Kingdom of God. A mission that required he sometimes raise his voice and sometimes raise a whip.

In the much-needed message in The Jesus You Can't Ignore, renowned Bible teacher and best-selling author John MacArthur reintroduces the compelling and often unsettling passion of Jesus' ministry. MacArthur points to the picture of the real Jesus the world is so eager to gloss over. And he calls readers to emulate Jesus' commitment to further the kingdom by confronting lies and protecting the truth of God.

(This description was taken from Thomas Nelson Publishers here, or click here to buy it used.)

Apologies

2009-08-17T09:59:00.005-04:00

I did not blog for sessions 5 and 6 due to my broken wrist while playing football. I might be out of commission for a while. This ought to be real fun. Going to get a cast this week. I am working on a website for the messages to be downloaded for free. Give me some time. I will announce when the website is ready.

Great Conference...thank you Tom, Fred, and Mark W. for refocusing our hearts on Christ!