Something I Must Constantly Remind Myself Of

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

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

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!

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

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

Huggins Speaks From His Heart

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...

"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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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!!!!

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

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]

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

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

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.