TheocentriBlog

On Diverse Children

2012-01-06T03:14:00.004-06:00

"Diverse children have their different natures; some are like flesh [meat] which nothing but salt will keep from putreficaction; some again like tender fruit that are best preserved with sugar; those parents are wise that can fit their nurture according to their Nature" (Anne Bradstreet [1612–1672]).

Luther on the Indispensability of Women

2011-12-29T05:00:00.004-06:00

"Imagine what it would be like without this sex. The home, cities, economic life, and government would virtually disappear. Men can't do without women. Even if it were possible for men to beget and bear children, they still couldn't do without women" (quoted in Severance, Feminine Threads, 136).

T.D. Jakes and James MacDonald

2011-09-30T23:42:00.005-06:00

Since I wrote my ThM thesis on T.D. Jakes’ Sabellian view of God, I have been curious to keep up with his progress in evangelicalism. I recently read this article where it appears that Jakes is now rejecting Modalism. This is the first time that I have ever seen Jakes refer to the persons of the Godhead as "persons," so this is an interesting development. Now we see James MacDonald inviting Jakes to his “Elephant Room Conference” (see his post, “Association vs. Discernment and is James MacDonald Changing?”).

I would like to encourage Pastor MacDonald to ask Jakes about one thing he has said about John 14:11. In this verse, Jesus said, “Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me . . . .” In a blatant misrepresentation of Scripture, Jakes collaborates with a female reader quoting this verse:

Jakes: I am going to rack your head, I’m going to scramble your heads . . . .
Reader: “Believest thou not that I am the Father?”
Jakes: Don’t you understand that “I am . . . .” – Oh!
Reader: Oh!
Jakes: “I am . . . believest thou not that I am the Father.”

Attempting to express amazement at Jesus’ confession that He was the Father, Jakes and his reader cry out with surprise, as though this was new revelation previously undiscovered. However, considering there is no Modal translation of the Bible, Jakes must have prompted the female reader to omit the preposition “in” while reading Jesus’ words, “I am in the Father.”

Will Pastor MacDonald ask T.D. Jakes about this? Is Jesus the Father? If he is bold enough to ask, maybe we will see if Jakes is truly an orthodox Trinitarian.

You can read more about this issue from Carl Trueman and Nathan Busenitz.

Why Listen to John MacArthur?

2011-07-28T13:57:00.004-06:00

Hughes Oliphant Old has written a classic 7-volume history of preaching. Theologically he is a liberal, clearly rejecting the doctrines of inerrancy and the person of Satan (and demons). Yet, I find it interesting how he evaluates the preaching of John MacArthur:

"Why do so many people listen to MacArthur, this product of all the wrong schools? How can he pack out a church on Sunday morning in an age which church attendance has seriously lagged? Here is a preacher who has nothing in the way of a winning personality, good looks, or charm. Here is a preacher who offers us nothing in the way of sophisticated homiletical packaging. No one would suggest that he is a maser of the art of oratory. What he seems to have is a witness to true authority. He recognizes in Scripture the Word of God, and when he preaches, it is Scripture that one hears. It is not that the words of John MacArthur are so interesting as it is that the Word of God is of surpassing interest. That is why one listens" (7:557-8).

Sounds Pauline, doesn't it? I think Dr. MacArthur would be very pleased with this assessment.

Want the Liturgy in Your Church? Consider the History

2011-07-12T09:07:00.003-06:00

Since some evangelical churches are interested in turning back to lectionary and liturgy, I thought it would be helpful to see exactly how these practices came about.

“Nothing is so characteristic of medieval preaching as the fact that it was fundamentally shaped by the lectionary. For considerably more than a millennium lectionary preaching was what the average Christian heard from the pulpit . . . . for the most part medieval preaching followed the traditional Gospels and Epistles. It had not always been that way; in fact, the lectionary appeared rather late in the history of Christian worship. It developed in those catastrophic times between Leo the Great in the middle of the fifth century and Gregory the Great at the beginning of the seventh century, a period of roughly 150 years, when the Roman world began to realize that classical culture was passing away. The lectionary in many ways was an important aid for preserving a discipline of reading and preaching Scripture at a time when that surely must have been difficult, but at the same time it conventionalized Christian preaching so that for centuries its effect on the Christian world was more formal than vital . . . ."

“The sixth century was the century that saw the gradual end of liturgical improvisation. Preaching became more infrequent, and what preaching there was became more and more conventionalized. In fact, the ministry of the Word was often reduced simply to the reading of Scripture lessons with little attempt to preach those lessons . . . . in this century both liturgical prayer and liturgical lessons were canonized. By that we mean that they began to be set down, defined, and made a strict convention . . . . During the sixth century the Church was filled with ministers, both bishops and priests, who could not begin to extemporize a prayer, compose a well-thought-out sermon, organize a series of sermons, or work out an appropriate series of Scripture lessons . . . . it was an age characterized by the increasing inability of the ministry to preach. The lectionary — not the preacher — became the primary interpreter of Scripture, and the Word became known from being read in the liturgy rather than from being preached from the pulpit . . . . one had to tack all these things down so even a poorly trained country priest could conduct a service of worship with some modicum of order” (Hughes Oliphant Old, The Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures, 3:143, 154-5).

Heresy, Genesis, and the Fathers

2011-07-06T08:21:00.002-06:00

“The fourth-century Fathers were beginning to realize that in the literal sense of the creation story they had a strong defense against a number of heresies which had sprung up over the doctrine of creation. Marcionism, Manichaeism, and a number of brands of Gnosticism all taught doctrines of creation quite at odds with Genesis. In fact, John [Chrysostom] mentions these errors at the beginning of his series . . . . The fact that a grammatical-historical interpretation of Genesis was so useful in refuting so many of these heresies may well explain why Genesis so frequently found a place in the preaching of the Church during the weeks when the catechumens were being prepared for baptism. It was important to get the catechumens straight on these matters. The precision of Scripture needed to be respected if heresy was to be avoided” (Hughes Oliphant Old, The Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures, 2:186).

Quotation Friday: Do You View the Word Like the Prophets?

2011-06-10T11:42:00.003-06:00

"When the prophets claimed to pronounce the Word of God, they had something quite dynamic in mind. They understood that Word to be a powerful force, an authoritative word by which God ruled his kingdom, a creative word by which the heavens and earth came into existence, a word of judgment that made the crooked straight and the rough places smooth, a redemptive word by which God's ultimate purposes were brought to fulfillment. For the prophets, God's Word was not so much a phonet reality as an ultimate reality, not so much communication of ideas as turning on a light in a dark room, a light that fills the void of human existence with purpose, or turning on the headlights of a car, making clear the road ahead" (Hughes Oliphant Old, The Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures, 1:42).

Quotation Monday: For Evangelical Teachers Who Love to Hate Evangelicalism

2011-06-06T09:11:00.003-06:00

"those who teach Bible, theology, and historical theology sometimes (and rightly) point out weaknesses, aberrations, and assorted blind spots in contemporary evangelicalism. This may work its way out in students who become more and more critical of confessional evangelicalism, and pretty soon even of the evangel itself. They are in danger of becoming smart-mouths. Their superciliousness guarantees that they cannot minister effectively anywhere. Instead of becoming believers whose lives fruitfully foster change within the church, these students become condescending critics. Not only are they less fruitful than they might have been, but they are in great spiritual danger.

All this has occurred because their teachers have not been as careful in fostering a sense of indebtedness to those who have come before as they have been in fostering what they think of as discernment. Jesus nowhere says, 'By this shall all know that you are my disciples, if you are scintilatingly critical and condescending toward evangelicals who have some things wrong.' I do not mean to hint for a moment that we who teach can afford to duck the responsibility of teaching discernment. I mean only to say that even discernment must be nestled into the bigger 'main thing' of love for the brothers and sisters in Christ" (D. A. Carson in The Pastor as Scholar & The Scholar as Pastor, 101).

Quotation Friday: How to Change People

2011-05-27T07:16:00.004-06:00

"Don't try to coerce people and make them do things. It has to come from inside, from their hearts. And that means they need knowledge that awakens love. People's affections are changed by what they know" (Piper, The Pastor as Scholar & The Scholar as Pastor, 60-61)

Quotation Friday: Sacrificing to the Gods

2011-04-15T22:23:00.004-06:00

"More commonly, the tortures [in the early church] resemble sacrificial prodedures: human beings were flayed and dismembered and burned like aimals offered to the gods. One way or another, the Romans said, Christians would offer to the gods" (Leithard, Defending Constantine, 24-5).

Quotation Friday: Cyprian on what to Fear

2011-03-07T22:46:00.003-06:00

“For it is not persecution alone that is to be feared; nor those things which advance by open attack to overwhelm and cast down the servants of God. Caution is more easy where danger is manifest, and the mind is prepared beforehand for the contest when the adversary avows himself. The enemy is more to be feared and to be guarded against, when he creeps on us secretly; when, deceiving by the appearance of peace, he steals forward by hidden approaches, whence also he has received the name of the Serpent” (Cyprian of Carthage, "On the Unity of the Church", 5:421)

Quotation Friday: Whitefield's Humility

2011-03-03T06:13:00.003-06:00

“Let the name of Whitefield perish, but Christ be glorified” . . . “Let my name die everywhere, let even my friends forget me, if by that means the cause of the blessed Jesus may be promoted” . . . “But what is Calvin, or what is Luther? Let us look above names and parties; let Jesus be our all in all - So that He is preached . . . . I care not who is uppermost. I know my place . . . Even to be the servant of all” . . . “I am content to wait till the judgement day for the clearing up of my reputation; and after I am dead I desire no other epitaph than this, ‘Here lies G.W. What sort of man he was the great day will discover'” (Dallimore, George Whitefield, 154).

Quotation Friday: Edwards on "Practical Atheism"

2011-02-17T04:22:00.000-06:00

Was Jonathan Edwards a classical or presuppositional apologist?

"God has so ordered that there is nothing whatever that is more manifest to reason than his own being. The evidences of his being are exceeding, plain, direct, obvious, and numerous. The being of a God is not only a thing that is discoverable by reason, by a long train of ratiocination, but the arguments are direct and immediate. There is no need of any long and intricate argumentations to argue the Creator from the creature.

Neither is [there] only one or two or a few things from whence the being of God is discoverable, but everything shows it. . . .

Every time we behold ourselves, look upon our own bodies, or exert any of our bodily powers, and exercise and find the benefit of our sense, or are so much as conscious of any thought in our souls, there is abundant demonstration that we may see of the being of God" (sermon "Practical Atheism," 17:54-55).

A Theology of Blame Shifting

2011-01-29T00:04:00.008-06:00

One of the most pervasive epidemics in today’s society is that many perpetrators of wickedness are labelled as victims. No matter what sin has been committed, the perpetrator is often labelled as sick, or having a disease. Alcoholism is one example. One author writes, “All authorities agree that alcoholism should be thought of as a disease, regardless of its cause, and that the alcoholic should be treated as an ill person, rather than condemned as a ‘sinner’ or ‘good-for-nothing.’”

What about gluttony? Physicians at one prominent hospital said, “Obesity is an incurable disease. We don’t know its complete etiology. We can, however, put a patient into remission for a lifetime through our weight-loss program . . . We try to make our patients aware that their obesity is a disease, that it is incurable, and that they will need maintenance assistance for the rest of their lives.”

No one is guilty of their sin anymore! It is always someone else’s, or something else’s fault. If it’s not your how your parents treated you, then it’s your genes, your surroundings, or maybe even the Devil made you do it. We are all victims!

This sinful tendency is literally as old as Adam. Below are some examples of blame shifting found in Scripture (please comment if you think of others - I'm making a catalogue of them):

Genesis 3:9-13: Adam displays the cowardly tendency of all men to follow him by not only blaming Eve, but God Himself: “The woman whom YOU gave to be with me, she have me from the tree, and I ate.” And Eve follows suite by blaming the Serpent: “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

1 Samuel 15:17-21, Saul blames the people for his choice to disobey the Lord. “Samuel said . . . the LORD sent you on a mission, and said, ‘Go and utterly destroy the sinners, the Amalekites, and fight against them until they are exterminated.’ Why then did you not obey the voice of the LORD . . . ? And Saul said to Samuel . . . . But the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the best of the things devoted to destruction, to sacrifice to the LORD your God in Gilgal.”

James 1:13- There was a tendency in the early church for believers to blame God for their temptation. “Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am tempted by God’; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He himself tempt anyone.”

Obviously the point of blame shifting is to shift the blame from yourself to someone else. In reality, as James 1:14 says, "But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust." Each one of us is responsible for our own sin because it is sprung from our own lusts and desires. In Matthew 15:18–19 Jesus says, “But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders.”

CHALLENGE: the next time you have an argument with someone, and you are tempted to say "I said xyz because you said abc," stop and think about blame shifting. How do you avoid this? Agree to talk about each person at a time. First let's talk about what I said, and once that sin has been confessed, then we will talk about what you said. My wife and I have found this to be an effective way to avoid blame shifting, and I hope it is for you as well!

Quotation Friday: On Gregory the Great's "Pastoral Rule"

2010-12-31T01:38:00.003-06:00

“For nearly a thousand years, it was the Western church’s principal guide to pastoral counseling. Charlemagne’s adviser Alcuin recommended it to the archbishop of York in 796 with these words: ‘Wherever you go, let the pastoral book of St. Gregory be your companion. Read and re-read it often, that in it you may learn to know yourself and your work, that you may have before your eyes how you ought to live and teach’” (Mark Noll, Turning Points, 115).

The Seven Essentials of the Gospel

2010-12-20T22:43:00.004-06:00

This article was originally written for a Russian audience. Please contact me if you would like a copy with the footnotes.

Introduction

A question that Christians have debated for centuries is, “What does someone have to believe in order to be a Christian?” Is it enough simply to believe in Jesus, or is there something more? This is a question for which there have been incorrect answers, so we must understand that the Gospel is at stake. For example, a politically correct gospel says we should remove all offensive words such as “sin,” “hell”, or “judgment.” A minimalistic gospel reduces the amount of Gospel content because it is believed that we become legalistic if we ask people to believe in too much. The inclusive gospel says Jesus will save any sincere religious person. One prominent pastor was recently asked about his view on the eternal destinies of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Mormons, and even atheists. He said, “You know, I'm very careful about saying who would and wouldn't go to heaven . . . . I don't know if I believe they're wrong . . . . only God will judge a person's heart. I spent a lot of time in India with my father. I don't know all about their religion. But I know they love God . . . . I've seen their sincerity . . . . Only god can look at somebody's heart, and so -- I don't know.”1 In this one interview this pastor said, “I don’t know” forty-four times. With sadness in my heart, I tell you that this man is the pastor of the largest evangelical church in America.

A question of such eternal consequences demands that we provide a certain, biblical, and theological answer. The latest findings from psychology, sociology, or the business world do not inform us on the content of the Gospel or how it is to be presented. As John MacArthur and Jesse Johnson write, “The key to biblical evangelism is not strategy or technique. It is not primarily about style, methodology, or programs and pragmatics. The first and preeminent concern in all our evangelism efforts must be the Gospel.”2 Furthermore, the success of of biblical evangelism “is not measured by immediate numerical results. It does not have to be retooled or completely redesigned if at first glance it does not seem to be working. It stays focused on the cross and the message of redemption, undiluted by pragmatic or worldly interests. It is never obsessed with questions like how people might react, what we can do to make our message sound more appealing, or how we might frame the gospel differently so as to minimize the offense of the cross. It is concerned instead with truth, clarity, biblical accuracy, and (above all) Christ.”3 Christians too often think that they will attract unbelievers by appealing to their fleshly desires, but Scripture nowhere warrants evangelism being centered on the very things that the unbelieving world finds most appealing. Many pastors think, “If this is what the unbeliever wants, with his or her felt needs, then that is exactly what I will offer them from God.” These are dangerous methods that result in our churches being filled with professors but not possessors of the Truth.

Worldly methods do not inform us concerning the content of the Gospel, the Bible does. So with the Bible as our authority, we must establish that using the Bible itself is vital to evangelism.4 But, why do people believe? Is it through convincing rational arguments? No, as Romans 10:17 says, “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.” The Spirit works in conjunction with the Scriptures to make spiritually dead people live. How? Hebrews 4:12-13 tells us: “For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.” The Bible is not a dead manuscript - it is living; it does not contain neutral words on a page - it is active; it is not like any other book - it is sharper than any two-edged sword; it is not ineffective - it can pierce to the deepest parts of a person’s conscience; it is not simply piercing - but it judges the deepest thoughts of the heart; it does not just affect some people - but it is universally effective in judging the heart; it is not partial in exposing the unbeliever - but completely strips the unbeliever spiritually naked before God.

Just think of how debilitating this weapon is! With the authority of the Bible as your presupposition, why would you ever try to share the Gospel without quoting Scripture? Why would you ever be embarrassed of this weapon, or why would you exchange it for some new method? This is also the most loving thing you can do: to use the God-ordained tool for the salvation of the lost.

But what if someone doesn’t believe in the Scripture?5 Don’t we need to prove the Bible’s ultimate authority before sharing the Gospel? If so, you would in essence be saying that we need a higher authority than the Bible to prove it’s authority, so we can then say that the Bible is the highest authority. Do you see how that is inconsistent? Hebrews 4:12-13 remains true, even if it is not believed.6

I love the story of the creation scientist, John Whitcomb on this issue of evangelism and those who doubt the trustworthiness of the Bible.7 When he was a student at Princeton University he and a church leader went to a student’s dorm room to share the Gospel. The student said he did not believe the Bible because things like the impossibility of Jonah being swallowed by the whale. Whitcomb said that he was ready to run to the library to prove that this was scientifically possible. The church leader, however, had a different goal in mind. The leader told the man that Jonah was a valid question, but if the student didn’t mind, he would like to explained the basic idea of Christianity first. The student reluctantly agreed, and after hearing the Gospel, believed. What happened to Jonah?! You see, the unbeliever does not have an intellectual problem, but a heart problem. It is not that they don’t have enough scientific evidence to believe, but that they are dead in sins and need spiritual rebirth. This miracle only happens by hearing the Word of God. Testimonies or way of life are important in witnessing, but not converting. Even miracles are important, but they are not converting. Do you remember the story of Lazarus and the rich man? When the rich man requested for someone to rise from the dead to preach to his brothers, what did Abraham say? “If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead” (Luke 16:31). People will try to do anything to distract your attention from speaking the Word of God to them. If you fall into their trap, and reduce evangelism to rational arguments, the cycle of objections and proofs will never end. Once you prove one thing to them, then they will come up with another argument - all to sidetrack you from using your most powerful weapon. It is much like a fire starter who runs around starting fires. Once you put out one fire, he starts another, and your job never ends. All of this distracts from your goal of using God’s ordained tool for evangelism: the Word of God.8 Your job is simply to release the Word of God and to explain it. It is God’s job to save. This is of great practical benefit as well, because you don’t need to get depressed if someone doesn’t believe, because conversion is God’s job. We plant, and water, but God gives the increase (1 Corinthians 3:6).

Having established the evangelist’s matchless weapon, we now come to our seven essential elements of the Gospel. This list is organized by how a Gospel presentation should logically be presented. Obviously not all evangelistic encounters allow for a step-by-step presentation such as this, but this method should help the reader to think through the Gospel for ease of use, or to give to an unbeliever.

1. The Existence of God
Hebrews 11:6 “without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is.”

Let me be clear that by this first point I am not saying that we must prove the existence of God to someone before explaining the Gospel. The existence of God is clearly understood by everyone, in all places, in all times. God does not believe in atheists. How can I say that? Notice Romans 1:18-23, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.” This is one of the most vital texts in apologetics and evangelism, so it is important that we notice several key points so that you can walk through this text with an unbeliever. Notice verse 18. What do unbelievers do with the truth of God’s self-revelation? They suppress the truth in unrighteousness. How does that happen? Notice verse 19. What is known about God is evident within them. What does that mean? We see the answer in Romans 2:14-15: the law of God is written on the heart (“For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them….”).

What else does the unbeliever know about God? Notice Romans 1:20. Here we see that God’s attributes are on display because of what He has made. This is natural revelation. But how clearly is this seen? Unfortunately the Russian Synodal version does not correctly represent the original Greek. Following the section on God’s nature in verse 20, the original text says that these things are, “clearly seen” (/kaqora◊tai), and then the Russian correctly continues, “being understood through what has been made.”9 It is important to notice the intellectual elements here. The knowledge of God’s existence is evident in them, God made it evident to them, it is clearly seen, and it is understood. So what is the conclusion in verse 20? Unbelievers are without excuse! Make no mistake about it, all people have been created with what theologians call the sensus divinitatis (“sense of divinity”). This testimony is also verified in the Old Testament in Psalm 19:1-6, “The heavens are telling of the glory of God; and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words; their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth, and their utterances to the end of the world. In them He has placed a tent for the sun, which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber; it rejoices as a strong man to run his course. Its rising is from one end of the heavens, and its circuit to the other end of them; and there is nothing hidden from its heat.”

So what does the unbeliever do with this knowledge? Romans 1:21-23 states, “For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.” So even though they know God, they suppress the truth of God, and then do what? They exchange the truth of God for a lie by worshipping other things. This is the origin of all world religions.

Taking into account the wealth of information the unbeliever knows about God, we can now better understand why the Psalmist says that “the fool says in his heart that there is no God” (Ps 14:1)? It is not because he has intellectual deficiencies and simply cannot understand. There are many brilliant atheists that have made wonderful contributions to society. Yet, they are fools because they deny what they know to be true. They deny the obvious, therefore they are called “fools.”

Romans 1 and Psalm 19 also have application for those who have never heard the Gospel. Theologian R.C. Sproul was once asked if all “innocent natives” will go to heaven. To the surprise of his audience, his response was that they surely will. But after a pause, he said there is one problem . . . there are no innocent natives! They will still suffer eternal punishment because they are without excuse before God. Is that fair of God, though? Listen, none of us want God to give us what we deserve. The question is not why God condemns some, but why does God not condemn all of us?! But this is our charge - we are to go to the ends of the earth so that these unreached people will be saved. Notice Romans 10:14-15, “How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, ‘HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO BRING GOOD NEWS OF GOOD THINGS!’”

But what if the unbeliever says he doesn’t believe in God? Are we to view them as victims that are trying to do their best, trying to be objective, but simply don’t have enough information? Nothing could be further from the truth. Don’t ever believe the lost when they say that they are being objective with the facts. The Bible never describes them in such terms. Quite the opposite, actually. The Bible identifies the unbeliever as hating the Light (Jn 3:20), as an enemy of God (Rom 5:10), and as alienated and hostile in mind (Col 1:21). Their minds and consciences are defiled (Titus 1:15), they are by nature children of wrath (Eph 2:3), their minds are futile (Eph 4:17), they suppress the truth, and so on. So again, what if they say they don’t believe in God? Well, who do you believe? - an enemy of God that is actively suppressing the truth, or God’s Word? I have had many atheists use this argument with me and I always walk them through Romans 1 and Psalm 19 where their biography is written. This is the famous “point of contact” - it is bringing the penetrating Word of God to bear on the unbeliever’s consciousness of the Creator and his own createdness. As John Frame writes, “We direct our apologetic witness not to his empiricist epistemology or whatever, but to his memory of God’s revelation and to the epistemology implicit in that revelation.”10

So where do we start the evangelistic encounter? We begin theocentrically. God is, He is the Creator, righteous, just, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, loving, merciful, and thrice holy. You are His creature, you are accountable to him.

One author has written, “it is certain that man never achieves a clear knowledge of himself unless he has first looked upon God’s face, and then descends from contemplating Him to scrutinize himself.11 So now we turn from the nature of God, to the nature of mankind for our second essential element of the Gospel.

2. The Reality of Sin and Judgment
1 John 1:8 “If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.”

In my introduction you will remember that I spoke of the politically correct pastors who never wanted to talk about sin. They say that they only want to focus on the good news. Well, good in comparison to what? There must be bad news if we are to understand the nature of the good. This is a vital aspect of the Gospel that we cannot sugar-coat. If you have cancer, do you want your doctor to tell you everything is fine so that your feelings aren’t hurt, or do you want the truth so you can be cured? The most loving thing to do is to tell people the truth so that they can find a cure. As doctors of the soul, unless we tell people they are sinful, separated from God, and bound for eternal hell, our patients will not find a remedy. We need to tell them that sin is devastating, horrific, and will be punished by God. The importance of this for us as evangelists is seen in Ezekiel 33:8 “When I say to the wicked, ‘O wicked man, you will surely die,’ and you do not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require from your hand.” We have a responsibility to tell them the truth, in all of its offensiveness.12

Romans 3:23 is a common proof text for the universal sinfulness of mankind: “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” At this point I would like state a word of caution. Don’t think that just because you read a verse to someone that they automatically understand it. In the past I have read this verse to unbelievers and asked them what it means. Some of them shook their head in bewilderment. They don’t always understand. Most people don’t grow up in a Christian environment and so they don’t know our religious jargon.

Do you remember the story of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch? As he was reading Isaiah 53, Philip asked him if he understood what he was reading. The eunuch's response was, “How can I understand it unless someone teaches me” (Acts 8:31). Consequently, be sure to ask a lot of questions when you go through a Gospel presentation to make sure there is understanding.

This is a major problem in our churches today - when someone comes to church as a new believer, many pastors are more apt to ask them if they smoke and drink rather than enquire into their understanding of the Gospel. Evangelist, we are not in the business of whitewashing tombs, but of getting to the heart of the matter: a Gospel that is understood and believed with all the heart. Then, the good works will follow. The alternative is a false understanding, which comes with false conversion, which includes false assurance, which leads to eternal damnation.

Returning now to Romans 3:23, we should unapologetically explain the story of Adam and Eve and how sin entered the world. Romans 5:12 explains the ramifications of this one act: “just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned.” Someone might object, “But surely not everyone is thoroughly sinful, right? I may have done some bad things, but ultimately I’m a good person!” This should bring to mind James 2:10, “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.”

Our sin penetrates to all of our being, and it is comprehensive. This is what theologians call total depravity. The meaning of this phrase is not that we are as bad as we could be, but that our entire being is affected by sin. This is quite contrary to what our culture tells us about the nature of people isn’t it? Often in literature and films we are told that everyone is good at heart. The biblical evidence is to the contrary. Notice Jeremiah 17:9 “The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; who can understand it?” Unbelievers are not neutral, but suppress the truth because they hate the Light (Jn 3:20), they are enemies of God (Rom 5:10), hostile in mind (Col 1:21), by nature children of wrath (Eph 2:3), and dead in sin (Eph 2:1).13

The ramifications of total depravity are severe. Paul tells us in Romans 6:23, “the wages of sin is death.” This involves not only physical death, but spiritual death (the second death). Revelation 21:8 describes this end: “for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.” The reason for this is because our thrice holy God is perfect righteousness, and His justice demands punishment.

Once you have established these things, the appropriate response by the unbeliever is, “what can I do to be saved?” The answer is that you can’t do anything to be saved. That question implies that sin is forgiven through human effort. It is like how Jesus responded to the question by the disciples about how a rich man could ever enter heaven. Remember His answer, “The things that are impossible with people are possible with God” (Luke 18:27). Our third essential element of the Gospel shows how God makes salvation possible. It is here that we see the holiness of God, and the love of God come together: at the cross of Christ.

3. Forgiveness Through Substitutionary Atonement
Hebrews 9:22 “without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.”

As I have already mentioned, a common mistake by evangelists is to assume that unbelievers understand biblical terms and concepts. “What does ‘Jesus died for you’ mean? I will go to heaven if I believe in a 2000 year old execution? How does that work?!” Don’t assume they understand, and never agree to let them pray some prayer of salvation unless you are sure they understand. You may even have a personal temptation to let them pray “the sinners prayer” so that you can tell your friends that you led someone to the Lord, but you will be giving them false assurance. They must understand and believe with all their heart.

So how does God forgive sin? In the Old Testament, one of the first pictures we have of Christ’s future work is in Egypt at Passover (Exodus 12). A lamb is slain and its blood is spread around the door. Now notice what the Lord says in Exodus 12:13, “when I see the blood I will pass over you, and no plague will befall you . . . .” It is here that we see the importance of a blood sacrifice in averting divine punishment.

After the Israelites left Egypt, God gave them the Law where details were given concerning atonement. Notice Leviticus 1:1-5, “Then the LORD called to Moses and spoke to him from the tent of meeting, saying, “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘When any man of you brings an offering to the LORD, you shall bring your offering of animals from the herd or the flock. If his offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he shall offer it, a male without defect; he shall offer it at the doorway of the tent of meeting, that he may be accepted before the LORD. He shall lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, that it may be accepted for him to make atonement on his behalf. He shall slay the young bull before the LORD; and Aaron’s sons the priests shall offer up the blood and sprinkle the blood around on the altar that is at the doorway of the tent of meeting.’”

What are the characteristics of this sacrifice? (1) Verse 3: the animal must be without blemish; (2) verse 4: the person bringing the sacrifice must lay his hands on the head of the offering. Why? This is the picture of imputation, or the symbolic transfer of one’s sin to another; and (3) verse 5: death involving blood. Why is blood needed? God gives us the answer in Lev. 17:11, “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.” This verse should be underlined in your Bibles because of its crucial importance in understanding the nature of blood sacrifice. Life is required for life, and life is represented by the blood. The New Testament also clearly states this in passages such as Hebrews 9:22: “without shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.”

But there is a significant problem here. The problem is that animal sacrifice only covered sin; it did not remove it. Hebrews 10:4 says, “For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” Therefore, sacrifices had to be done daily in order to please the Lord (Num. 28:3). Hebrews 10:11 mentions this frustration: “Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins” (emphasis mine).

If sacrifices could not take away sin, then what was the purpose? The answer is that they were a type, a shadow, or a picture of the sacrifice which was to come. Colossians 2:16-17 explains that these ceremonies were “a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ” (cf. Hebrews 10:1-4). We may now see the continuity between the imperfect Old Testament sacrificial system and the perfect New Testament sacrifice of Christ. But how does Jesus fit the mold of the perfect sacrifice?

(1) He was called the Lamb of God. John the Baptist “saw Jesus coming to him and said, ‘Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world’” (John 1:29)! There is no doubt what would have come into the mind of John’s Jewish audience when he named the “Lamb” in conjunction with taking away sin. The image would have immediately triggered thoughts of sacrifice. But notice that John did not say that Christ would simply cover the sin of the world, but take them away (cf. Heb. 10:5-7; Rev. 5; 7:17; 17:14).

(2) He was without blemish. John writes, “You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin.” (1 Jn. 3:5; cf. 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 1:19)

(3) His sacrifice is connected with the Passover. Paul writes, “For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed” (1 Cor 5:7).

(4) God placed sin on Him through imputation. Paul writes, “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Cor. 5:21; cf. Is. 53:6).

(5) He shed His blood to remove all sin. John writes, “ the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin” (1 Jn. 1:7; cf. Heb. 9:24-28; 10:10-12).

This systematic approach takes the unbeliever through biblical history, showing the united message of the Bible concerning the necessity for Jesus’ death. Jesus’ murder was not something that took Jesus by surprise, but as Luke says in Acts 2:23, Jesus was “delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God.” Substitutionary atonement was predetermined by God, foreshadowed in the Old Testament, and perfectly fulfilled in Christ. This also shows why the Gospel is exclusive - salvation only being found in Christ. There is only one way sin can be forgiven, and that is through the substitutionary atonement of Christ. Jesus said, “no one can come to the father except through me” (John 14:6). This is why Peter preached, “there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12). For this essential of the Gospel we must agree with Charles H. Spurgeon (1834–1892), “There will be no uncertain sound from us as to the atonement of our Lord Jesus Christ.”14

4. The Person of Christ
1 John 4:2-3 “By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist”

We must not be naive to think that someone is a Christian simply by saying they believe in Jesus. Which Jesus? Do you believe in the Jesus of the Jehovah’s Witness, of the Mormons, of Islam, of Hinduism, of the Armenian Church, or of the United Pentecostals? Even in Paul’s day there were many Jesuses running around. In fact, in 2 Corinthians 11:4 he warns them of anyone who “comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached . . . [resulting in] a different gospel.” So you see, if you don’t have the right Jesus, you don’t have the Gospel.

In the early church this was the primary reason why councils and creeds were formed: to guard from heresy by defining the nature of the Trinity. There were the Arians that believed Jesus was created (we see this today in the Jehovah’s Witnesses). Then there were the Sabellians who believed that Jesus and the Father and the Spirit were all the same person (these are the United Pentecostals today). The Gnostics believed that Jesus could not have been truly human, which were discussed in New Testament books like 1 John. The list goes on.

Understanding the importance of explaining the nature of Jesus, what should the evangelist say next? I begin with most famous verse in the Bible is John 3:16, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, so that whosoever believes in Him, should not perish but have everlasting life.” We believe that the Father sent the Son, who was conceived in the virgin Mary by the Spirit.15 Jesus was fully man and fully God.16 He could not have been the holy, unblemished sacrifice if He were not God, and He could not have been our perfect representative if He were not human. Since all false religions have a wrong view of the nature of Jesus, it is absolutely essential that every evangelists should be able to defend these points from Scripture.

5. The Resurrection of Christ
1 Corinthians 15:17 “if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.”

This point does not demand much explanation. Romans 10:9 is very clear, “if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” Unfortunately, this doctrine has also been sidelined as non-essential, even by some leading Christian ministers. One prominent scholar said this about a friend who is a liberal critic, “Marcus Borg really does not believe Jesus Christ was bodily raised from the dead. But I know Marcus well: he loves Jesus and believes in him passionately. The philosophical and cultural world he has lived in has made it very, very difficult for him to believe in the bodily resurrection. I actually think that’s a major problem and it affects most of whatever else he does, and I think that it means he has all sorts of flaws as a teacher, but I don’t want to say he isn’t a Christian.”17 The Apostle Paul makes it very clear that the resurrection of Christ is an essential of the Gospel that must be believed in order to be saved. Paul writes, “if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain" (1 Cor. 15:14). God showed His satisfaction in Christ’s sacrifice by raising Christ from the dead. Make no mistake about it, a Gospel without the resurrection is a false Gospel.

6. Justification by Faith Alone
Romans 3:28 “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.”

Our next essential element to the Gospel involves how salvation is extended to unbelievers. This is what distinguishes true Christianity from all other world religions. A common perception is that you will go to heaven if your good works outweigh your bad. Many people believe that God has a grand, cosmic scale upon which He weighs your good and bad works. If the good outweigh the bad, then you may enter heaven. This is not good news because people live in constant fear that they have not done enough to earn, or keep their salvation.

The reason people think like this is because they have not understood the previous points that we have established about the Gospel. First, no one is truly good in and of themselves. We are depraved wretches whose every motive is infected with sin. Since nothing is truly good unless it is motivated by the glory of God, that means that what unbelievers consider as “good works” are actually “dead works” (Heb 6:1; 9:14). As John Calvin (1509–1564)writes, “For even though the life of man be replete with all the virtues, if it is not directed to the worship of God, it can indeed be praised by the world; but in heaven it will be sheer abomination, since the chief part of righteousness is to render to God his right and honor, of which he is impiously defrauded when we do not intend to subject ourselves to His control.”18 Furthermore, Jonathan Edwards states, “Nothing is of the nature of true virtue in which God is not the first and the last.”19 Consequently, we would be fools to think that our filthy rags could please a holy and righteous God as being “good” or “virtuous.”

Secondly, believing that works contributes to salvation involves a fundamental misunderstanding about how sin is forgiven. As we have established, all sin is forgiven through blood sacrifice. Jesus Christ, being the sinless Son of God, perfectly fulfills the requirements of the Passover lamb not only to cover, but to remove all sin.

Third, works salvation involves a fundamental misunderstanding of how salvation is applied. The Old and New Testament evidences that righteousness is imputed, and not earned. “Imputation” is a legal term for a judge transferring the possessions of one person to another person’s account. This is exactly what happens at salvation: God imputes His righteousness to all those who believe. It is not an inherent righteousness in ourselves, but a foreign righteousness, accredited to our account as a gift through faith. Faith does not make you righteous, it is a pronouncement of righteousness. God counts Jesus’ righteousness as if it were yours. We don’t have inherent righteousness, and we don’t gradually become saints.

This is a major difference we have with the Catholic and Orthodox Church. The discovery of this doctrine was the breakthrough for the German reformer, Martin Luther (1483–1546). As a monk, he hated God because he thought that God expected him to live up to His holy standard, and he couldn’t! No matter how much he tried, or how much he confessed, he was unable. So he hated God. Luther thought, “God created me like this, He knows I can’t meet His standard, and in the end He will judge me for it!”20 But then through the study of Scripture, Luther realized that God imputed his righteousness to the believer by faith alone. It was not Luther’s righteousness, but God’s. Although believers are still sinful, being sanctified into the image of Christ, our position before God is as Christ Himself. Ours is an imputed righteousness, not an inherent one. This is what theologians call positional righteousness.

Romans 4:1-3 is a classic text on justification by faith alone: “if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? ‘ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.’” You see in verse 3 that God’s righteousness was credited, or imputed to Abraham through faith. Now notice verse 5, “But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness.” Galatians is also very clear on this when Paul writes, “a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified” (2:16).

Where is human boasting to be found in the doctrine of justification by faith alone? As Paul asked in Romans 3:27, “Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith.” All boasting is gone, we rely on God alone. As Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1:29, “No flesh will glory in His presence.” We must tell people to come to God bankrupt, falling before the cross, believing in Jesus’ perfect sacrifice on the cross as the only means of salvation. Jesus’ sacrifice is 100% sufficient to remove all sin, and He will not share that glory with another. Justification is for God’s glory, not for our own. That is the difference between a theocentric (“God-centered”) Gospel and an anthropocentric (“man-centered”) Gospel. We don’t appeal to people to believe the Gospel because it will improve their life, make them happy, make their children moral, make them wealthy, or because God loves them and has a wonderful plan for their lives. These are anthropocentric reasons that appeal to the flesh of unbelievers.21 Salvation cannot be about man until it first becomes about God. Ultimately, we appeal to them to believe in order to glorify God, because that is why they were created (Isa 43:7, 21).

The most excellent truth to take from the doctrine of justification by faith alone is that it magnifies, exalts, and glorifies God as the justifier of the ungodly. We steal God’s glory if we attempt to add one ounce of personal merit for justification. This is why in Galatians 1 Paul says that just adding one work, circumcision, to faith is “anathema.” That is the strongest Greek word that Paul could have used to describe damnation. It is damnable doctrine because adding one work denies the full sufficiency of the substitutionary atonement of Christ. By adding one work, you in essence put yourself back under the burden of the Law. This is why Paul writes, “to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law” (Gal 5:3). You can insert baptism, the Lord’s Supper or anything else people think they must do to be saved with the same result: anathema! While these things are very important matters of obedience, they do not contribute to our justification. No, righteousness is “imputed” to us by faith alone, to the glory of our Triune God.

At this point someone might say, “Well, if you believe in justification by faith alone, then you can live however you want.” Not so. Jesus said, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word” (John 14:23). Paul preached that people should repent, turn to God, performing works appropriate to repentance (Acts 26:20). John says, “If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth” (1 John 1:6). James also says, “faith without works is dead” (2:17). Although positional righteousness is imputed through faith alone, we also have what is called practical righteousness, which is the process of sanctification by which we become conformed into the image of Christ (Romans 8:29). This is the natural outgrowth of justification that necessarily characterizes all believers. Let us remember the famous words of Paul in Ephesians 2:8-10 where he combines the two concepts of justification by faith alone with works: “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.” Titus also says, “Christ gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people zealous for good works” (2:14). Brothers and sisters, we are justified, sanctified, and glorified by faith alone; and by the power of the indwelling of the Spirit, we are born again for a life of fruit bearing.

The doctrine of justification by faith alone is revolutionary, reforming, and reviving. This is the doctrine that birthed the European Reformation under Martin Luther. In fact, Luther said, “This doctrine [justification by faith alone] is the head and cornerstone. It alone begets, nourishes, builds, preserves, and defends the church of God; and without it the church of God cannot exist for one hour…”22 Also, this text of Romans 4:5 was preached 300 years ago by America’s greatest pastor/theologian, Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758). This text was mightily used by the Spirit of God so that the initial phase of the First Great Awakening (1734–5, 1740–1742) was realized. Do you want revival to come to your churches? Then preach this doctrine! Doctrine is not dull and boring, it is enlivening and reviving. I believe that God can do the same today as He did then, if we will be faithful to boldly preach this good new to our friends and family, trusting that the Lord would be pleased to glorify Himself by bringing revival to the great country of Russia.

7. The Command: Repent and Believe
Mark 1:15 “repent and believe in the Gospel”

No Gospel presentation is complete without this charge to the unbeliever. They need to know that God is not just suggesting or asking them to believe. No, God is commanding them to repent and believe, and the consequences are eternal. Listen carefully: sin will be punished, so will you bear the punishment for your sins in eternal hell, or will Christ have been your substitute? Acts 17:30-31 is important to use at the conclusion of evangelistic encounters: “God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.” We see here the proof of the Gospel (the Father raised the Son), the command of the Gospel (to repent, or turn from sin), and the warning of the Gospel (there will be a day of judgment).

I find it helpful at this point to also add the glorious promises of Romans 10:9-13 that emphasizes belief of the heart that gets past the simple mental assent: “If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. For the Scripture says, ‘WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.’ For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; for ‘WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.’”

Conclusion

The Gospel is a message that we are charged to take very seriously. Having firm biblical presuppositions concerning the depravity of man and the authority of the Word of God to regenerate (through the work of the Holy Spirit), we are to boldly preach the truth. We are not to minimize the Gospel to make it palatable for unbelievers, or to remove its offense. As one author put it, “When a half truth is presented as the whole truth, it becomes an untruth.”23 For example, if we only talk about the love of God, without His holy justice, we give people a wrong perception of God. We are to preach the whole council of God. We are not to be cowards that only seek the applause of men, but are to be men of God that seek the approval of God by “[contending] earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints” (Jude 1:3).

This is not just a message that should be preached from the pulpit, but should be careful taught in discipleship and small groups.24 Since the Gospel is rich in theology, it is incumbent upon leaders of the church to sufficiently train the body. Our churches should be filled with evangelists that are fully equipped to share the Good News of Christ to anyone they may meet. This does not involve memorizing a prepackaged, multi-point Gospel presentation, but teaching people how to freely think through the elements of the Gospel with those whom they have a relationship.25 The more one progresses in knowledge of God this way, the more one becomes passionate about loving and obeying the Lord’s command to evangelize. As one author writes, “Deep theology is the best fuel of devotion; it readily catches fire, and once kindled it burns long.”26 In this sense we see that the more we are doctrinally precise about the Gospel, the more true believers are zealous for evangelism, and united in spirit. The more ignorant we are about these things, the more divided we become, and the more the church is at risk of succumbing to false teaching.

Dear reader, may it never be said of us that we responded to such eternal questions by saying, “I don’t know.” God wants strong men and women of God that will clearly proclaim, “Thus sayeth the Lord!” We will proclaim the Word of God faithfully, no matter the cost. Even if it means that, like Paul, at the end of our lives we say that everyone abandoned us, we will faithfully preach (2 Tim 1:15). Sometimes there will not be fruit, just as God warned Isaiah (Isaiah 6) and Ezekiel (Ezekiel 2–3). God told them to preach, and foretold that the people would not listen, but yet, they preached. At other times, God added multitudes to the church even amidst the severity of God’s discipline against Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5). We preach in season, and out of season, trusting God for the salvation of souls. As John MacArthur has often said, “You take care of the depth of your ministry, and God will take care of the breadth of your ministry.” If we faithful equip the saints to do the work of the ministry, and the church is faithful to share the Good News of Christ, it God’s work to save souls according to His will. It is we that plant and water, but God who gives the increase. Be faithful to your calling to clearly explain the Gospel from the Word of God, and trust God with the rest. To God be the glory. Amen.

Quotation Friday: Dawkins on Atheistic Morality

2010-11-27T01:44:00.002-06:00

“In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference” (“God's Utility Function,” in Scientific American [November, 1995], 85).

Joel "I Don't Know" Osteen

2010-11-20T01:40:00.006-06:00

Recently I read the transcript from Larry King's interview with Joel Osteen. I was struck by how many times he said, "I don't know." I thought it would be interesting to do a quick search to see exactly how many times he said "I don't know" in that one interview. The results are in: 44 times!

Be thankful for the shepherds that give bold, unashamed answers from the Word of God.

Sanctified Greed: Creflo Dollar

2010-11-12T23:16:00.001-06:00

This is the worst case of sanctified greed that I have ever seen or heard. Brace yourself.

"Don't Judge Me!" Does the Bible Really Tell Us Not to Judge Sin?

2010-11-03T03:20:00.005-06:00

“Who are you to judge me?! The Bible says, ‘Don’t judge.’ You need to be more like Jesus who loved people and showed grace and mercy. You need to stop your ‘holier than thou’ attitude and be like Jesus.”

We all have heard this argument in personal conversation or on television when sin is confronted. This is such a popular argument that I thought I should address it on a biblical and philosophical level.

Biblically
(1) Does the Bible really say that we are not to judge one another? (2) What example did Jesus and the apostles give us? (3) Does God Himself no longer judge those in the Church? (4) What admonitions are there in Scripture for Christians today? (5) Is abstaining from judgment really the most loving, gracious, and merciful thing to do for a sinning brother or sister?

(1) Matthew 7:1 says, “Do not judge so that you will not be judged.” Usually the critic will quote this verse and consider the case to be closed. I usually like to ask him or her to continue quoting the pericope because context is very important for discerning meaning. Once the context is read, we understand that judging is not being condemned, but judging as a hypocrite is being condemned (cf. Romans 2:1-9). In the words of Jesus, “how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye” (v. 4)? The next verse is vital: “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye” (v. 5). In conclusion we see that the context of Matthew 7 actually supports judging, if it is done without hypocrisy.
"But to those who rebuke the wicked will be delight, and a good blessing will come upon them" (Prov 24:25).

(2) If we are to be like Jesus and the apostles, we need to know if they ever judged the sin of their followers. The evidence for judgment is overwhelming, so I will only give a few examples here:

Jesus: John 5:30 “As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.” John 7:24 “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.” Matthew 23:27 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness.” Matthew 18:15-20 is the locus classicus on confronting sin and church restoration/discipline.

John the Baptist: Luke 3:7-9 “‘You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bear fruits in keeping with repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father,’ for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham. Indeed the axe is already laid at the root of the trees; so every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.”

Paul: Galatians 2:11-14 “But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, ‘If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?’” 1 Corinthians 5:3-5, etc.

Apostle John: 2 John 1:9-11 “Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.”

(3) If Christians are not to judge, it would seem logical that God Himself would also refrain from judging believers. However, God continues to judge sin, even among those in the Church. God killed Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5; in 1 Corinthians 11 there were those that were weak, sick, and had died because they did not partake of the Lord’s Supper worthily; there is sin leading to death in 1 John 5:16-17; and Revelation 1-3 is a testimony of God’s judgment on sinning churches.

(4) I imagine that someone might respond, “Yes, this is the testimony of Jesus, John, the apostles, and God Himself, but do you think you have the right to talk like they did/do?” This is a valid concern, so let’s see what we are charged to do.

We have already seen from Matthew 7 that we are to judge one another, yet without hypocrisy. Matthew 18:15-20 is also a command to believers. Notice 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 “Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.” Titus 3:10 “Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.” Romans 15:14 “I myself also am convinced that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge and able also to admonish one another.” 2 Timothy 4:2 “preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction.” 1 Timothy 5:2 “Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also will be fearful of sinning.” 2 Thessalonians 3:6, Titus 1:10-16, etc.

 (5) Is ignoring sin the most loving, gracious, and merciful thing to do? It is not. In reality, it is the most unloving, ungracious, unmerciful thing you can do. If you really love someone, don’t you want what is best for them? Do you practice this philosophy with your children? I doubt it, so why would you in your other relationships?

Ephesians 4:15-16 does NOT say, “In love, do not speak the truth,” but RATHER “speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.”

Unfortunately, lack of confrontation shows that we lack love for the Church and God. We would rather not deal with confrontation (in disobedience to God), instead of face the prospect of being attacked by the sinning party. Or perhaps we ourselves are living in sin and are in no position to judge others. In short, the answer comes down to motive. Why do you, or why do you not confront someone’s sin?

Philosophically
The original statement by the critic can be shown not only to contradict Scripture, but to fail on a fundamental philosophical level. This is because the argument itself can be seen to be self-defeating. The charge is “Don’t judge me,” and yet the charge itself is a judgment! The critic wants to judge you for what you are doing, while at the same time telling you that it is unbiblical to judge. This is similar to the postmodern assertion, “all truth is relative.” Is that an absolute statement, or is it relative too? The critic is seen to be holding a double-standard, refusing to live consistently.

Important Note!
While the purpose of this article has primarily been to give a biblical defense to judging believers (this could also be shown regarding unbelievers), more needs to be said concerning the “how.” As I asked before, what is your primary motive for confronting someone’s sin? If it is not for the glory of God, it is sin. If it is done in hypocrisy and out of anger, it is sin. If it is simply to get someone kicked out of the church, it is sin. Matthew 7 clearly shows us that we should not be hypocritical judges, and 2 Timothy 2:24-26 shows us that how we judge others is vital as well:

“The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.”

Quotation Friday: Five Reasons Why Rome Fell - Sound Familiar?

2010-10-28T23:03:00.002-06:00

"Edward Gibbon (1737-1794) in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776-1788) said that the following five attributes marked Rome at its end: first, a mounting love of show and luxury (that is, affluence); second, a widening gap between the very rich and the very poor . . . ; third, an obsession with sex; fourth, freakishness in the arts, masquerading as originality, and enthusiasms pretending to be creativity; fifth, an increased desire to live off the state" (Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live, 227).

Quotation Friday: Objectivity and Neutrality . . . Immoral?

2010-10-22T06:19:00.003-06:00

“It should come as no surprise that, in a world where all things have been created by Christ (Col. 1:16) and are carried along by the word of His power (Heb. 1:3) and where all knowledge is therefore deposited in Him who is The Truth (Col. 2:3; John 14:6) and who must be Lord over all thinking (2 Cor. 10:5), neutrality is nothing short of immorality . . . . the Christian who strives for neutrality in the world of thought is (1) not neutral after all, and thus (2) in danger of unwittingly endorsing assumptions that are hostile to his Christian faith. While imagining that his intellectual neutrality is compatible with a Christian profession, such a believer is actually operating in terms of unbelief! If he refuses to presuppose the truth of Christ, he invariably ends up presupposing the outlook of the world instead. All men have their presuppositions; none is neutral. Shall your presuppositions be the teachings of Christ or the vain deception against which Paul warns? Choose this day whom ye shall serve” (Greg Bahnsen, Always Ready, 9, 13)!

Quotation Friday: Calvin on Epistemic Self-Consciousness

2010-10-08T06:58:00.003-06:00

“It is certain that man never achieves a clear knowledge of himself unless he has first looked upon God’s face, and then descends from contemplating Him to scrutinize himself" (John Calvin, Institutes, 1:1:1).

Marvin L. Winans and Vicki Winans Divorce Debacle

2010-07-23T00:43:00.001-06:00

Picture a divorced pastor, having his remarried wife (living in adultery according to Scripture) come give testimony at his church (of which he is not qualified to lead acc. to 1 Tim 3), and then them both laughing about their divorce. How far the Church has strayed from the New Testament model.

Quotation Friday: Academic Respect for Evangelicals

2010-07-16T01:17:00.003-06:00

"Our work as Christian apologists must be of the highest quality and rigor to deserve the respect of the secular academic community (and this includes the mainline seminaries). Yet at the same time we must view any respect we actually receive from this community as inconsequential. Our attitude must combine two competing ideals: the desire to produce work worthy of respect, and a repudiation of any desire for actual acceptance or, respectability" (Dembski and Richards, Unapologetic Apologetics, 14).

Quotation Friday: The Myth of Neutrality in Apologetics

2010-07-02T03:33:00.005-06:00

"If we abandoned our biblical presuppositions, claiming a position of 'neutrality,' then at that point we would be telling a lie to the inquirer. There is no such neutrality, and the very idea of neutrality is at the heart of Satan's deception of those who are lost. To claim neutrality is to claim that I am the one who ultimately decides what is true or false, that I am on the intellectual throne. Such neutralist pretensions must be rebuked, not indulged. They are a form of pride, of which God commands the sinner to repent" (John Frame, "Presuppositional Apologetics," in Five Views on Apologetics, 217-18).

T.D. Jakes and the Trinity

2010-06-04T10:43:00.003-06:00

This article is adapted from a ThM thesis that I wrote many moons ago. The below was originally written for a Russian audience and can be found here.

T. D. Jakes is becoming one of the most recognized names in international evangelicalism. He is the pastor of the “Potter’s House” in Dallas, Texas which boasts of a membership of over 28,000 people.1 He is also a regular on The Christian Broadcast Network (TBN) and has played in movies such as “Left Behind.” Jakes has sold millions of copies of the more than 30 books he has published. Available in Russian are, Женщина, ты освобождаешься: Слова исцеления и утешения для измученных женских сердец, Помоги, я воспитываю ребенка одна : руководство для одиноких родителей или для тех, кто чувствует себя одиноким, Близость с Богом, Возлюбленные Богом, Женщина, ее возлюбленный и ее Господь, Мужчина, будь свободен!, Папа любит своих дочерей, Торжество бракосочетания, Как победить врага, и Принцесса внутри. This places him among the most accomplished African-American authors in history. He is also a popular conference speaker to men and women’s groups around the world, drawing crowds of over 100,000 people. He is a 6-foot-4-inch, high-powered, charismatic, in-your-face preacher who is best described as a tornado turned inside out.2
In 2001 Jakes appeared on the cover of the popular American TIME magazine in 2001 with the question, “Is This Man The Next Billy Graham?” In 2005 TIME reported Jakes as one of the “25 Most Influential Evangelicals" in America. Apart from his comparisons to Billy Graham, he has also drawn the attention of the world media because his relationships with world leaders, athletes, and popular musicians.
Amidst the successful ministry and notoriety, there is a problem: T. D. Jakes does not believe in the Trinity as historically explained in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. A brief look at his history reveals some close associations with outspoken anti-Trinitarians. Additionally, his statements from sermons, interviews, and on his websites convincingly indict him of the ancient heresy of Sabellianism (Modalism). Modalists believe that God is only one person, who reveals himself in different manifestations at different times. Typically, they speak of God as Father in creation, Son in Redemption, and Holy Spirit in sanctification. This heresy is found in the contemporary Oneness Pentecostal and Unitarian movements.

History
Thomas Dexter Jakes was born 9 June 1957 in South Charleston, West Virginia. Jakes felt the “call” to ministry at the age of 17 while he was studying psychology at West Virginia State. He quickly began his own church, which started with only 10 members. The church grew and eventually became known as the Greater Emanuel Temple of Faith. In 1992 Jakes preached a sermon in Sunday School entitled “Woman Thou Art Loosed.” This later became his trademark message leading to the popular book, Woman Thou Art Loosed. In 1993 Jakes reached a milestone when he began a weekly television broadcast “Get Ready with T. D. Jakes” on TBN. His popularity grew exponentially because of television and the release of his most popular book, Woman, Thou Art Loosed in the same year. In 1994, Jakes founded “T. D. Jakes Ministries.” Shortly thereafter in May of 1996, Jakes moved his family and staff members from their former congregation to Dallas to found “The Potter’s House.”

Trinitarian Controversy
An alarming fact in his early days as a pastor is the affiliation of his church with the Higher Ground Always Abounding Assemblies. The distinctive of the group is strictly Oneness Pentecostal in its view of the Godhead. Although his website only identifies this organization as “a Pentecostal church organization that governs approximately 200 churches,” the “Oneness” modifier for “Pentecostal” is omitted. In spite of this heretical views of this organization, T. D. Jakes has never denounced it, and continues to work with it as “a leader and elected bishop.”3 Secular sociologist Shayne Lee writes concerning a similar association with the modalistic Greater Emanuel Gospel Tabernacle: “When Jakes became a member of Greater Emanuel Gospel Tabernacle as a teenager, he began a lifelong association with Apostolic movements . . . Apostolic Pentecostals reject Trinitarian doctrine . . . Jakes became a regional bishop for Greater Emanuel International Fellowship early in his preaching career, and later was affiliated with another anti-Trinitarian fellowship called Higher Ground Always Abounding Assemblies, which he currently serves as vice-bishop. It is inconceivable that two anti-Trinitarian associations would ordain Jakes as a bishop if he rejected the Oneness doctrine, their most distinctive tenant.”4
The Christian community eventually became aware of Jakes’ Oneness beliefs and began to question him. In a radio interview in 1998, Jakes defined his view of God: “We have one God, but He is Father in creation, Son in redemption, and Holy Spirit in regeneration.”5 This definition is identical to the phraseology used by historical modalists such as Praxeas and Sabellius. It is also interesting to compare Jakes’ definition of God with that of leading Oneness Pentecostal theologian David Bernard: “A popular explanation of Father, Son and Holy Ghost is that there is one God who has revealed [i.e., manifested] Himself as Father in Creation, Son in redemption and Holy Ghost in regeneration.”6 In Jakes’ online doctrinal statement, he writes, “There is one God, Creator of all things, infinitely perfect, and eternally existing in three manifestations: Father, Son and Holy Spirit” (italics mine).7 In his interview with Living by the Word radio program, Jakes describes the Trinity as a complex issue, saying, “I’m not sure we can totally hold God to a numerical system.” Jakes illustrates the many ways in which God has manifested Himself in a sermon where he discusses Exodus 3:14:
God says, Yahweh, “I AM that I AM.” He said, “I am whatever I want to be. I can become whatever I want to become.” When God says, “I AM that I AM” He says, “I can become whatever.” And He showed all from that point on all through the wilderness; he just kept turning into stuff . . . . They said, “We’re hungry.” He started dropping as loaves of bread. They said, “We want meat.” He became quail and started flying through the air. They said, “What are we going to do for water?” He became water, He came gushing out the rock. They said, “It’s hot out here.” He became a pillar above by day. They said, “It’s cold out at night.” He said, “I’ll be a cloud of fire by night.” They said, “We can’t drink this bitter water!” He became a tree and turned the bitter water sweet. I mean, He just kept turning into stuff. One God manifesting in a multiplicity of ways, one God.
Now you don’t describe all those manifestations as different gods: the god of bread, the god of quail, the god of water, the god of tree, the god of cloud, the god of fire [laughter by audience]. Just one God who manifests Himself in many different ways. OK, you with me? Your God is multi-faceted, manifold, many changes . . . .8

This view not only suggests modal thinking, but also borders on pantheism since God “manifests” himself in the form of objects. Additionally, he implicitly attacks Trinitarianism by saying, “Now you don’t describe all those manifestations as different gods.” This is the common attack by Oneness Pentecostals against Trinitarians, namely, that they believe in three gods.
The best example of Jakes’ modalism is found in his interpretation of John 14:11. In this verse, Jesus said, “Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me . . . .” In a blatant misrepresentation of Scripture, Jakes collaborates with a female reader quoting this verse:
Jakes: I am going to rack your head, I’m going to scramble your heads . . . .
Reader: “Believest thou not that I am the Father?”
Jakes: Don’t you understand that “I am . . . .” – Oh!
Reader: Oh!
Jakes: “I am . . . believest thou not that I am the Father.”9

Attempting to express amazement at Jesus’ confession that He was the Father, Jakes and his reader cry out with surprise, as though this was new revelation previously undiscovered. However, considering there is no Modal translation of the Bible, Jakes must have prompted the female reader to omit the preposition “in” while reading Jesus’ words, “I am in the Father.” His willingness to take away from the Word of God to validate his interpretation is a tactic that draws the condemnation of Scripture itself (Deut 4:2; 12:32; Prov 30:6; Jer 26:2; and Rev 22:18-19).
This is conclusive evidence that T. D. Jakes rejects the historic doctrine of the Trinity in favor of Modalism. Even those closest to Jakes affirm this. Lawrence Robinson, the Senior Associate Pastor at the Potter’s House, has known Jakes since he was young and states, “[Jakes] denies the Biblical position of the Trinity, at one point saying that the Roman Catholic Church introduced the concept of three gods . . . . Jakes has always held this position.”10

Acceptance
It has become clear that T. D. Jakes does not wish the evangelical community to grasp his views concerning the nature of God. To disguise this, he stretches the meaning of words beyond their historical uses and behaves differently in various contexts. For example, when he is with Trinitarians he baptizes in the Trinitarian formula, but when he is with Oneness believers, he baptizes in the name of Jesus alone.11 Commenting on the inconsistency of Jakes’ method of baptism, one author states, “Jake’s core audience clearly has no qualms about the man’s doctrinal ambiguities. For his admirers, whether Jakes invokes the Trinity or the name of Christ alone when baptizing has little to do with the heart of his message of inner healing and empowerment.”12 This was the sentiment that this author saw during a visit to The Potter’s House where an “elder” of the church expressed his ambivalent behavior towards Jakes’ rejection of the Trinity. He said, “We don’t care about all that, we’re just here to worship Jesus.”
TBN has been a major purveyor of the trend to downplay doctrine in favor of pragmatism. During a TBN broadcast in March of 1999, Trinitarian Bishop Clarence McClendon and Oneness Pentecostal Bishop Noel Jones engaged in a discussion on how to have unity amidst their views. Jones said,
. . . . I’m going to become so Oneness in my presentation that I eliminate the revelatory distinction between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (C. M. “Okay”) And if I’m fighting Oneness, I’ve become so extreme in my attitude that I make three Gods, you see so, so, we go from one extreme to the other extreme, instead of coming together on the premise that I need your theology and you need my theology (C. M. "absolutely") to round the body of Christ (C. M. "absolutely"). So, let’s sit down together and let’s restate the Godhead in terms that are cohesive, comprehensiveable [sic] so that all of us can grasp it. Then, after we baptize and after people receive the Holy Spirit, then let’s get up and do what Romans tells us to do to: transform people by the renewing of their minds [claps from audience].13

Jones’ rejection of the Trinity is very clear, and yet, he is a frequent guest at T. D. Jakes’ Potter’s House as well as on The Trinity Broadcast Network. Hank Hanegraaff has written on Paul Crouch’s role in this movement,

Not only does Crouch promote the cultic theology of the Faith movement, but he has gone out of his way to affirm a cult which openly denies the biblical doctrine of the trinity. On a worldwide broadcast of “Praise the Lord,” he said he agreed “a million billion percent” with a former United Pentecostal Church member that to divide over such a doctrine “is a trick of the devil.”14

On one occasion, Paul Crouch admitted to Benny Hinn, “Let’s talk a little bit about theology now. These are issues that I consider to be up for debate, discussion, within the broad spectrum of the body of Christ. You don’t have total agreement on, for example, the Trinity. There is a group, the Jesus Only group, or the Oneness group that believes that there’s only one Person . . . .”15
These trends are a symptom of the doctrinal decline of evangelicalism. Virtually any doctrine may be sacrificed on the altar of pragmatism. Truly this age is in accord with Paul’s words in 2 Timothy 4:3–4, “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.”

Quotation Friday: Women and the Conversion of Europe to Christianity

2010-06-03T22:41:00.002-06:00

Interesting history of the forgotten role of women in church history:

Clotilda, Queen of the Franks (470-548) "is said to have started converting Clovis [King of France] on their wedding night" . . . . "after three years of marriage, Clovis finally gave in" . . . . "Clovis accepted baptism, along with 3,000 of his men" . . . . "ensured that the Franks - first among the barbarian tribes - accepted Catholic Christianity" . . . . "Both the Lombards and Visigoths eventually abandoned Arian Christianity thanks to pious Catholic queens married to Arian husbands. The later conversions of Bohemia, Poland, and Russia would also come about, in part, by the marriages of Christian women to pagan kings" . . . . Clotilda's "great-granddaughter Bertha, Christian wife of the pagan King Ethelbert of Kent . . . welcomed Christian missionaries to Kent in 579 [and] nurtured a fledgling faith that would eventually take hold throughout Britain, as it had almost a century earlier among the Franks" (Bennett and Hollister, Medieval Europe: A Short History, 44-45).

Feel free to leave your quote of the week!

Quotation Friday: Erasmus on Being Stubborn

2010-05-14T00:06:00.002-06:00

". . . man suffers from this almost congenital disease that he will not give in when once a controversy is started, and after he is heated he regards as absolutely true that which he began to sponsor quite casually" (Erasmus quoted in Baiton, Hunted Heretic: The Life and Death of Michael Servetus, 21).

Preaching as an Incendiary Device

2010-05-07T23:05:00.003-06:00

I'm currently reviewing Bruce Gordon's Calvin and came across some good quotes on the impact and importance of preaching.

"Martin Luther had spoken of preaching the Word of God as warfare: it would not bring peace so much as stir up the devil and outrage the ungodly" (138)

"preaching was an incendiary device of reform, and control of the pulpits was the crucial battle of the early Reformation" (139)

"every successful Protestant reformation had to deal with the question of preaching" (ibid)

Quotation Friday: Luther on Teaching Tenure

2010-05-06T22:42:00.001-06:00

"As for schoolteaching, it is so strenuous that no one ought to be bound to it for more than ten years" (Bainton, Here I Stand, 182).

and your favorite quote from your reading this week?

How to Fail as a Christian Teacher: Top 20

2010-05-03T07:25:00.006-06:00

Feel free to add your ideas to my top 20 list of how you can fail as a Christian teacher (btw, this post is modeled after Derek Brown's post, How to Waste Your Theological Education, which I highly recommend that you read).

1 Approach teaching as a job, and not a ministry.

2 Consider each student as a number, and not as a ministry opportunity.

3 Try to manipulate the students so that they will give you a good mark on your "course evaluation."

4 Don't spend any personal discipleship time with the students - you only need to teach them in class.

5 Try to confuse the students with difficult material so they will think you are really smart.

6 Have no compassion for less gifted students.

7 Do not show how your lectures glorify God or are applicable to ministry. You only need to disseminate information.

8 Don't work toward replacing yourself.

9 Try to get students out of your office as soon as possible.

10 Do not pray for your students.

11 Don't teach students the strongest arguments of their theological counterparts.

12 Teach them that your theological critics are naive and have devious motives.

13 Don't ever admit that you are wrong, and if you are asked a question that you do not know the answer to, then answer that question by responding to a question for which you do know the answer.

14 Always seek to have preference as a professor. If challenged, always be sure to say, "Do you know who I am?"

15 Make your students memorize irrelevant material. It doesn't matter if they will never use the material in ministry, or that they will easily forget it, but what matters is that you can say you tested them on that material.

16 Never make comments on your students' papers to help them become better writers, just put a grade.

17 Write for the academy, never for the Church.

18 Don't waste your time making your lectures interesting by using Keynote/Powerpoint, because your students aren't worthy to be your students if they can't simply listen to you reading your lecture.

19 Don't let your students think that their families are more important than school.

20 Don't care enough about minorities or women to correct them. Political correctness and the appearance of tolerance/openness is more important than love.

Oil in Israel in Prophecy?

2010-05-01T06:53:00.003-06:00

I've been reading Joel Rosenberg's Epicenter and I must say that it is very interesting. In one section of the book he describes the prospect of a future Russian/Iranian attack on Israel that is based upon an oil-rich Israel (which would threaten the oil economy of both nations). What do you make of these texts that Rosenberg cites?

Gen. 49:1, 25 And Jacob called unto his sons, and said, "Gather yourselves together, that I may tell you that which shall befall you in the last days . . . . From the God of your father who helps you, And by the Almighty who blesses you With blessings of heaven above, Blessings of the deep that lies beneath, Blessings of the breasts and of the womb.

Deut. 33:13 Of Joseph he said, “Blessed of the LORD be his land, With the choice things of heaven, with the dew, And from the deep lying beneath,

Deut. 33:19 “They will call peoples to the mountain; There they will offer righteous sacrifices; For they will draw out the abundance of the seas, And the hidden treasures of the sand.”

Deut. 33:24 Of Asher he said, “More blessed than sons is Asher; May he be favored by his brothers, And may he dip his foot in oil.

Deut. 32:12-13 “The LORD alone guided him, And there was no foreign god with him. “He made him ride on the high places of the earth, And he ate the produce of the field; And He made him suck honey from the rock, And oil from the flinty rock,

Is. 45:3 “I will give you the treasures of darkness And hidden wealth of secret places, So that you may know that it is I, The LORD, the God of Israel, who calls you by your name.

Arizona Immigration Bill (Senate Bill 1070)

2010-04-24T04:18:00.002-06:00

I imagine that this recently passed immigration bill (by the State of Arizona) will be in the news for weeks to come, so I thought you might want to read it so you can be informed. You can read it here. Although I think most people will agree with a majority of the bill (as law abiding citizens), the most controversial part is determining "reasonable suspicion."

Quotation Friday: Words from Luther and Calvin to Preachers

2010-04-22T22:49:00.002-06:00

Luther: “Some pastors and preachers are lazy and no good. They do not pray; they do not read; they do not search the Scripture . . . . The call is: watch, study, attend to reading. In truth you cannot read too much in Scripture; and what you read you cannot read too carefully, and what you read carefully you cannot understand too well, and what you understand well you cannot teach too well, and what you teach well you cannot live too well . . . . The devil . . . The world . . . And our flesh are raging and raving against us. Therefore, dear sirs and brothers, pastors and preachers, pray, read, study, be diligent . . . . This evil, shameful time is not the season for being lazy, for sleeping and snoring.”

and

Calvin: “Let the pastors boldly dare all things by the word of God . . . . Let them constrain all the power, glory, and excellence of the world to give place to and to obey the divine majesty of this word. Let them enjoin everyone by it, from the highest to the lowest. Let them edify the body of Christ. Let them devastate Satan’s reign. Let them pasture the sheep, kill the wolves, instruct and exhort the rebellious. Let them bind and loose thunder and lightning, if necessary, but let them do all according to the word of God.”

Louis Armstrong-What A Wonderful World(Death Metal Version)

2010-04-21T03:31:00.000-06:00

This will brighten your day

Debating Calvinism: My Thoughts on White and Hunt

2010-04-20T07:34:00.008-06:00

So a while back I finished reading Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views. James White (of Alpha and Omega Ministries) represents Calvinism and Dave Hunt (of Berean Call) represents a non-Calvinistic position.

My overall assessment is that I am disappointed in Multnomah Books for asking Dave Hunt to represent the non-C view. Hunt has publicly denounced the study of history (he said that he never read any of the Reformers before the summer of 2000) and the need to study the original languages of the Bible (I have personally heard him say that learning Greek and Hebrew is a futile effort to reinvent the wheel). Therefore, his attempts to attack the Calvinists on the basis of history and the original languages comes off as pretentious. He makes basic blunders in both realms that are simply inexcusable and are of ethical concern. This anti-intellectual foundation leaves James White an unfit debate partner.

If I was an evangelical Arminian, I would be upset at Multnomah as well. Why didn't they ask a reputable scholar to represent the position? As it is, an able defender of Reformed theology is forced to debate someone that has not read broadly, and therefore is only able to make facile attempts at argumentation. If Hunt did have an accurate understanding of the Calvinist position, and was able to responsibly debate history and exegesis, THEN this book would be worth buying.

Francis Chan Announcement Video

2010-04-19T22:47:00.002-06:00

Watch Francis Chan explain why he has chosen to leave his church for a different ministry. Click here.

Lou Martuneac's Condemnation of T4G: A Deleted Response

2010-04-14T08:20:00.015-06:00

Below is a comment I made at the blog of Lou Martuneac (recently banned from Pyromaniacs) in response to his article, Together for the Gospel: “A Final Sad Spectacle?” Lou did not like my comment, deleted it, and then proceeded to berate me without allowing me to respond. Lou has done this before with various men and women (such as Matt Waymeyer here). Judge for yourself.

Lou, since no one can be saved by the “Lordship” Gospel, and since you have absolutely no evidence that the T4G speakers have ever believed anything other than the “Lordship” Gospel, why don’t you come out with the boldness of Elijah or Paul [Lou's charge against the T4Gers] and call a spade a spade? It sounds like you are trying to be politically correct.

As for your misrepresentations of Lordship and Calvinism, I’m glad you admit to your audience that this is a pattern with you. You would be able to have profitable debates with your detractors if you would simply represent their positions accurately. What you are doing here is attacking straw men that have nothing to do with reality, and nothing gets accomplished. As it is now, we must debate on your misrepresentations instead of the real issues. You differ very little from Antonio in this regard.

As for your take on Spurgeon, words fail. There is so much historical evidence to prove you are wrong that one must assume that you know little about the man. I encourage your readers to Google “Spurgeon” and “repentance” to get an accurate view of Spurgeon. One simple example will show that Lou is misleading you on basic historical facts. Check out Spurgeon’s sermon “Faith and Repentance Inseparable” (http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0460.htm). Here is an excerpt that directly argues against the “Free Grace” position (skip to the last two sentences if you want the punchline):

“I know some very excellent brethren—would God there were more like them in zeal and love—who, in their zeal to preach up simple faith in Christ have felt a little difficulty about the matter of repentance; and I have known some of them who have tried to get over the difficulty by softening down the apparent hardness of the word repentance, by expounding it according to its more usual Greek equivalent, a word which occurs in the original of my text, and signifies "to change one's mind." Apparently they interpret repentance to be a somewhat slighter thing than we usually conceive it to be, a mere change of mind, in fact. Now, allow me to suggest to those dear brethren, that the Holy Ghost never preaches repentance as a trifle; and the change of mind or understanding of which the gospel speaks is a very deep and solemn work, and must not on any account be depreciated. Moreover, there is another word which is also used in the original Greek for repentance, not so often I admit, but still is used, which signifies "an after-care," a word which has in it something more of sorrow and anxiety, than that which signifies changing one's mind. There must be sorrow for sin and hatred of it in true repentance, or else I have read my Bible to little purpose. In very truth, I think there is no necessity for any other definition than that of the children's hymn—

"Repentance is to leave
The sins we loved before,
And show that we in earnest grieve,
By doing so no more."

To repent does mean a change of mind; but then it is a thorough change of the understanding and all that is in the mind, so that it includes an illumination, an illumination of the Holy Spirit; and I think it includes a discovery of iniquity and a hatred of it, without which there can hardly be a genuine repentance. We must not, I think, undervalue repentance. It is a blessed grace of God the Holy Spirit, and it is absolutely necessary unto salvation.”

That’s my final word. Thank you for entertaining my comments, Lou.

Lou's response to this was, "I do not allow for propagation of doctrine or practices that I feel is error and Lordship Salvation is an egregious doctrinal error. Furthermore, your submission was article, not thread comment length. You have a blog for articles. If you want to propagate your theology and suggest 'misrepresentation' and/or 'straw men,' where there is none, I encourage you to post those things at your own blog."

Since I said nothing to propagate "Lordship Salvation," I must assume that he objected to the presence of Spurgeon's quote. And by the way, Lou has never been to a T4G gathering.

PS- I've been out of the blogosphere for a while, but it seems like nearly all the "Free Grace" blogs have died. This is indeed good news.

YBCM6B6G6XBG

Debating Calvinism: Quotation Friday

2010-04-01T22:15:00.002-06:00

Thanks to David Kjos for reminding me that I have a "poor, lonely blog." I have neglected her for a while, so I thought I would put up a good quote from Spurgeon that I found in Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views (White/Hunt).

I must say that I am very disappointed with Multnomah for inviting Dave Hunt to represent the evangelical Arminian view. He has publicly insisted that studying church history and biblical languages is a waste of time, so why does Multnomah pick him to represent Arminianism in what should be a scholarly discussion? He attacks Calvinism with all the refinement of a high school student that hears of Calvinism for the first time. Hunt's consistent blunders on basic facts of church history leads me to believe that Multnomah's reputation is hurt by this.

And now for Spurgeon: "There is no attribute of God more comforting to His children that the doctrine of Divine Sovereignty. Under the most adverse circumstances, in the most severe troubles, they believe that Sovereignty hath ordained their afflictions, that Sovereignty overrules them, and that Sovereignty will sanctify them all. There is nothing for which the children of God ought more earnestly to contend than the dominion of their Master over all creation - the kingship of God over all the works of His own hands - the throne of God, and His right to sit upon that throne.
On the other hand, there is no doctrine more hated by worldlings, no truth of which they have made such a football, as; the great, stupendous, but yet most certain doctrine of the Sovereignty of the infinite Jehovah. Men will allow God to be everywhere except upon His throne. They will allow Him to be in His workshop to fashion worlds and to make stars. They will allow Him to be in His almonry to dispense His alms and bestow His bounties. They will allow Him to sustain the earth and bear up the pillars thereof, or light the lamps of Heaven, or rule the waves of the ever-moving ocean; but when God ascends His throne, His creatures then gnash their teeth; and when we proclaim an enthroned God, and His right to do as He wills with His own, to dispose of His creatures as He thinks well, without consulting them in the matter, then it is that we are hissed and execrated, and then it is that men turn a deaf ear to us, for God on His throne is not the God they love. They love Him anywhere better than they do when He sits with His scepter in His hand and His crown upon His head. But it is God upon the throne that we love to preach. It is God upon His throen whom we trust" ("Divine Sovereignty," sermon preached 4 May 1856).

Quotation Friday: Who Done Said It Edition

2010-01-23T04:07:00.001-06:00

"Who can embrace wholeheartedly what gives him no delight? But who can determine for himself that what will delight him should come his way, and, when it comes, that it should, in fact, delight him?"

Quotation Friday: The Heart of the Reformers' Theology

2010-01-02T22:39:00.003-06:00

"The doctrine of free justification by faith only, which became the storm-centre of so much controversy during the Reformation period, is often regarded as the heart of the Reformers' theology, but this is hardly accurate. The truth is that their thinking was really centred upon the contention of Paul, echoed with varying degrees of adequacy by Augustine, and Gottschalk, and Bradwardine, and Wycliffe, that the sinner's entire salvation is by free and sovereign grace only . . . . The sovereignty of grace found expression in their thinking at a profounder level still, in the doctrine of monergistic regeneration–the doctrine, that is, that the faith which receives Christ for justification is itself the free gift of a sovereign God, bestowed by spiritual regeneration in the act of effectual calling" (Packer, into to Luther's The Bondage of the Will [1973], 58).

Quotation Friday: Spurgeon on Training the Next Generation

2009-12-03T22:34:00.002-06:00

Thanks to Mom for sharing this quote from Spurgeon's Sermons on Prayer:

"With the utmost reverence, I think I hear Christ crying to his Father that the right men might be selected as the leaders of the church of God upon the earth. I think I also hear him pleading that upon these chosen men a divine influence might rest, that they might be Kept in character, honest in heart, and holy in life, and that they might also be preserved sound in doctrine and not turn aside to error and falsehood. Then I think I hear him praying that success might attend their preaching, that they might be guided where to go, where the blessing of God would go with them, that they might find many hearts willing to receive their testimony, and that when their personal ministry should end, they might pass on their commission to others, so that, as long as there should be a harvest to be reaped for the Lord, there should be laborers to reap it; as long as there should be lost sinners in the world, there should also be earnest, consecrated men and women seeking to pluck the brands from them."

Feel free to share your favorite quote from your reading this week.

Quotation Friday: Irony & Sola Scriptura

2009-10-30T00:44:00.002-06:00

"Ironically, many modern Evangelical advocates of sola scriptura, who claim to believe in the perspicuity of Scripture, deny that perspicuity by their rejection of the ecumenical creeds-the common consensual faith of the Church" (The Shape of Sola Scriptura, Keith A. Mathison, 280).

Quotation Friday: Cyprian on What You Should Fear

2009-10-09T00:35:00.001-06:00

"For it is not persecution alone that is to be feared; nor those things which advance by open attack to overwhelm and cast down the servants of God. Caution is more easy where danger is manifest, and the mind is prepared beforehand for the contest when the adversary avows himself. The enemy is more to be feared and to be guarded against, when he creeps on us secretly; when, deceiving by the appearance of peace, he steals forward by hidden approaches, whence also he has received the name of the Serpent" (On the Unity of the Church).

Quotation Friday: Berkhof on the Importance of History

2009-08-07T08:19:00.002-06:00

I am constantly compiling things for an article/book that I am writing on why God is glorified through the study of church history. I came across a goody below:

“The study of doctrinal truth, apart from its historical background, leads to a truncated theology . . . . The result has been the lack of a sound understanding and a proper evaluation of the truth. There was no appreciation of the fact that the Holy Spirit guided the Church in the interpretation and development of the truth as it is revealed in the Word of God. The checks and the roadsigns of the past were not taken into consideration, and ancient heresies, long since condemned by the Church, are constantly repeated and represented as new discoveries. The lessons of the past are greatly neglected, and many seem to feel that they should strike out entirely on their own, as if very little had been accomplished in the past. Surely, a theologian must take account of the present situation in the religious world, and every study the truth anew, but he cannot neglect the lessons of the past with impunity” (Louis Berkhof, The History of Christian Doctrines, 5).

Quotation Friday: Polycarp on Elders

2009-07-24T14:55:00.002-06:00

"The presbyters, for their part, must be compassionate, merciful to all, turning back those who have gone astray, visiting all the sick, not neglecting a widow, orphan, or poor person, but always aiming at what is honorable in the sight of God and of people. They must avoid all anger, partiality, unjust judgment, staying far away from all love of money; they must be neither quick to believe things spoken against anyone nor harsh in judgment, knowing that we are all in debt with respect to sin" (Polycarp to the Philippians, 6:1).

John Piper on Coming to Samara (video)

2009-07-16T13:50:00.002-06:00

Click here if you are interested in watching Dr. John Piper talk about his upcoming visit to Samara during the annual Shepherds' Conference.

Simply Awesome

2009-04-14T21:48:00.000-06:00

You need to watch this video of Susan Boyle

My Day in Samara, Russia (Video)

2009-04-09T09:34:00.003-06:00

Front Page of Foxnews: Proposal of Global Currency

2009-03-24T01:36:00.001-06:00

China Takes Aim at Dollar, Urges New Global Currency

Quotation Friday: William Carey on Training National Leaders

2009-03-20T11:28:00.002-06:00

"The work of duly preparing as large a body as possible of Christian Indians for the duties of pastors and itinerants is of immense importance. The pecuniary resources and the requisite number of missionaries for the Christian instruction of Hindustan’s millions can never be supplied from England, and India will never be turned from her idolatry to serve the true and living God, unless the grace of God rests abundantly on converted Indians to qualify them for mission work, and unless, by those who care for India, these be trained for and sent into the work. In my judgment it is on native evangelists that the weight of the great work must ultimately rest" (William Carey, p. 322).

Global Currency Being Proposed by . . . Russia!

2009-03-18T09:51:00.002-06:00

Yes, Russia will propose a new global currency to prevent future global financial disasters. Read the first paragraph:

"The Kremlin published its priorities Monday for an upcoming meeting of the G20, calling for the creation of a supranational reserve currency to be issued by international institutions as part of a reform of the global financial system."

also

"The Kremlin's call for a common currency is not the first in recent days. Speaking at an economic conference in Astana, Kazakhstan, last week, Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev proposed a global currency called the 'acmetal' -- a conflation of the words 'acme' and 'capital.'"

At G20, Kremlin to Pitch New Currency

The Samara Team with Dr. Ralph Alexander

2009-03-13T22:59:00.004-06:00

from left to right: Bryan Tahmisian, JDM, Dr. Alexander, Jon Rehurek, Brad Klassen (team leader)

We had a wonderful week with Dr. Alexander as he taught through the book of Ezekiel. He wrote the notes for Ezekiel in the Expositor's Bible Commentary and Everyman's Bible Commentary. I definitely came away challenged with importance of OT studies, the importance of cultural/historical background studies, the importance of reading the difficult sections of the book in light of Ezekiel's purpose, precision in exegesis, the danger of importing foreign ideas into the text, God's zeal for His glory, and His covenant faithfulness to national Israel.

Quotation Friday: Augustine on Suffering

2009-03-06T04:23:00.001-06:00

On the difference between the suffering of the righteous and unrighteous:

"For, stirred up with the same movement, mud exhales a horrible stench, and ointment emits a fragrant odor" (Augustine, City of God, I.9.6)

Quotation Friday: A "Global New Deal"?

2009-02-26T10:59:00.001-06:00

UPDATE: see the March 1 article, Brown Woos Oboma on Global New Deal

"We need a global New Deal -- a grand bargain between the countries and continents of this world -- so that the world economy can not only recover but... so the banking system can be based on... best principles" (Prime Minister Gordon Brown of the United Kingdom)

I won't say anything about premillennialism . . .

Pics of the Moorhead in Russia

2009-02-22T11:11:00.003-06:00

If you don't get our regular newsletter, you are probably not aware that we publish a lot of our family pictures at our Mac Gallery. You can view our pics here. Enjoy! Please shoot me an email if you would like to be added to our newsletter list.

Wail Shepherd

2009-01-31T00:06:00.002-06:00

“Wail, you shepherds, and cry;
And wallow in ashes, you masters of the flock;
For the days of your slaughter and your dispersions have come,
And you will fall like a choice vessel.

“Flight will perish from the shepherds,
And escape from the masters of the flock.

“Hear the sound of the cry of the shepherds,
And the wailing of the masters of the flock!
For the LORD is destroying their pasture,

“And the peaceful folds are made silent
Because of the fierce anger of the LORD.

“He has left His hiding place like the lion;
For their land has become a horror
Because of the fierceness of the oppressing sword
And because of His fierce anger.”

Jeremiah 25:34-38

For Isaac

2009-01-20T10:23:00.003-06:00

Isaac's 5th birthday was November 11, but he noticed that he didn't get a video. So here it is - we love you Isaac!

History of The Gospel According to Jesus

2009-01-19T10:48:00.004-06:00

You (and our Unashamed of Grace friends) may be interested to listen to Dr. MacArthur's sermon from Sunday morning, entitled "Foundations of Grace, Part 2: The Lordship of Christ." You can listen to it here for free.

I would also highly encourage you to listen to his January 11 sermon, "Foundations of Grace, Part 1: The Glory of God." In both sermons he goes back 40 years to discuss vital aspects of his ministry. Thanks to the folks of Grace Church for letting us listen in live although we are a world away!

For Nahum on His Seventh Birthday

2009-01-12T11:39:00.002-06:00

Quotation Friday: "The God-Centered Life"

2009-01-08T09:43:00.002-06:00

I recently finished reading The God-Centered Life: Insights from Jonathan Edwards for Today by Josh Moody. I would like to share some quotes from only the first chapter.

"While the innocence of the new churches in the rest of the world is appealing, its massive growth prompted John Stott to comment that the greatest problem of the contemporary church is 'growth without maturity.'"

"As Bill Clinton said in a public lecture at Yale University, 'Anyone who believes in absolute truth is just wrong.'"

"A contemporary preacher assumes that his hearers accept the relevance of the Bible at his and their peril."

"A comparison of Edwards' sermons with contemporary sermonettes reveals the poverty, brevity and superficiality of much that passes for preaching today. Is our desire for relevance and having a good 'hook' at the beginning of a sermon encouraging us to be less substantial in our ministry and thereby more empty-headed in our churches? Are we fishing or are we becoming fish?"

"Edwards viewed the Bible not as a mental prison but as a seminal agent of expansion and growth: it did not confine him; it released him."

"... it is rare today to find someone who is both a spiritual leader and an intellectual, both an activist and a philosopher, both an ideas person and an administrator."

Quotation Friday: What Does John Stott Want for His Legacy?

2008-12-30T23:45:00.003-06:00

"Dr. Lindsley: What legacy would you like to leave with the leaders, with whom you've been involved?

Dr. Stott: I would urge upon them the priority of preaching. It is the Word of God which matures the people of God. As Jesus said, quoting Deuteronomy, human beings do not live by bread alone, but by every word which comes from the mouth of God. Moreover, what is true of individuals is equally true of churches. Churches live, grow, and flourish by the Word of God; they languish and perish without it. Of course the Word of God can reach people both in private Bible study (if they are literate and have a Bible) and in Bible study groups. But the major way in which the Word of God comes to the people of God worldwide is through preaching. I am an unrepentant believer in the power of the pulpit. I long to see a recovery of faithful biblical preaching from the pulpits of the world; the result would be a dramatic growth in mature discipleship.”

An Interview with Rev. Dr. John R.W. Stott” by Dr. Art Lindsley

Miriam's First Year

2008-12-30T12:10:00.003-06:00

Merry Christmas!

2008-12-25T01:31:00.002-06:00

Quotation Friday: A.T. Robertson on Scholarship and Preaching

2008-12-12T11:54:00.002-06:00

A true education is never finished, and a finished education is of little use. John Richard Green said, 'I die learning.' For an education is more the ability to grapple with the present than a mere knowledge of the past. The dry preachers are those that learned it all long ago and have relied on that little ever since. There is plenty of fresh truth in the Bible to water your soul, if you will find it. And the oldest will be the freshest, if you get below the surface of superficial meaning that your ears may have become used to. For there will be life and power in the words the. Gladstone says, 'I have been a learner all my life, and am a learner still'" (A.T. Robertson, Preaching and Scholarship).

Redeem the Time

2008-12-12T04:28:00.002-06:00

One of the constant laments of the Puritans was that they wasted too much time. I ran across a great article by R.C. Sproul on "Time Well Spent" Please read it to redeem the time that you have.

Cry Laughing

2008-11-30T08:33:00.001-06:00

While the debate is still raging at Anatomy of Future Persecution: Exclusivity of the Gospel? post, I would now like to lighten the mood with a Christmas classic. I'll send you 500 rubles if this doesn't make you cry laughing.

Quotation Friday: Is Hell Biblical?

2008-11-28T21:47:00.005-06:00

"It is doubtful that there is a doctrine in the Bible easier to prove than that of eternal punishment (cf. Matt. 25:46)."
-S. Lewis Johnson

You can find numberous S. Lewis Johnson sermons, etc. at The SLJ Institute. I have heard many very influential pastors and theologians say that Johnson was the best expositor of his generation. Listen to him.

You may also access an entire TMSJ (The Master's Seminary Journal) journal devoted to the debate over hell: Hell: Never, Forever, or Just for Awhile?

The Anatomy of Future Persecution: Exclusivity of the Gospel?

2008-11-25T06:41:00.005-06:00

What will be the basis for future persecution of the church? There is increasing news that there will be a significant terrorist attack in the coming months. This is a matter when and not if. The attack will obviously come from the hands of radical Muslims with exclusivistic theology.

Question: How many more attacks will it take for the politically correct governments of the world to outlaw exclusivistic theology as inherently dangerous and a threat to national security? If you identify with “fundamentalist” Christianity, I’m sure it is irritating for you to be identified with “fundamentalist” Islam. Now it is only a superficial connection, but how would you like for it to be a real connection that bears fruit in persecution?

Listen to the words of our future President, Barrack Obama: “I'm a big believer in tolerance . . . I'm suspicious of too much certainty in the pursuit of understanding just because I think people are limited in their understanding . . . there's an enormous amount of damage done around the world in the name of religion and certainty . . . I think that the difficult thing about any religion, including Christianity, is that at some level there is a call to evangelize and prostelytize. There's the belief, certainly in some quarters, that people haven't embraced Jesus Christ as their personal savior that they're going to hell . . . I find it hard to believe that my God would consign four-fifths of the world to hell. I can't imagine that my God would allow some little Hindu kid in India who never interacts with the Christian faith to somehow burn for all eternity. That's just not part of my religious makeup.”

I also noticed a recent video on CNN where a pastor was berated by Rick Sanchez for believing in an exclusive Gospel. The reporter quoted several “authoritative” sources (the Pope, Billy Graham, and Barrack Obama [ha!]) in attempt to convince the pastor:

Pope John Paul II: “. . . it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Saviour.”

Billy Graham: “I used to believe that pagans in far-off countries were lost --were going to hell. I no longer believe that. I believe that there are other ways of recognizing the existence of God.”

Barrack Obama: “I am a Christian . . . So, I have a deep faith. I’m rooted in the Christian tradition. I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people.”

Obviously we have a higher authority than Rick Sanchez, but this shows a growing unanimity among various religions to come together in peace and unity; recognizing a common higher power shared by all. Religious unity, financial unity, and then . . [insert dispensational theology]?

Quotation Friday - Suffering and Succeeding

2008-11-21T23:06:00.002-06:00

“Success and suffering are vitally and organically linked. If you succeed without suffering, it is because someone else has suffered before you; if you suffer without succeeding, it is that someone else may succeed after you.”—Edward Tudson

HT: Lance Roberts, the Truth Buckler

Be sure to leave your quote of the week!

Library Books

2008-11-18T10:32:00.003-06:00

I have added a new link on my right sidebar entitled, Samara Seminary's Library Wish List. If you click on the link you will be transport to our Amazon site where our faculty is slowly populating the site with needs for our library. These are books that our students would like to read, but are unable to because of limited resources. You now have the opportunity to gift any of the books you like! Please visit our site and consider supporting the best seminary in Russia :-)

Quotation Friday: Most Important Paragraph for Piper

2008-11-14T02:24:00.004-06:00

"That is the most life changing paragraph outside the Bible I have ever read. It has shaped everything I have though, preached, written and done one way or another for the last 25 years”

Want to know what it is? See below:

“God is glorified within Himself these two ways: 1. By appearing... to Himself in His own perfect idea [of Himself], or in His Son, who is the brightness of His glory. 2. By enjoying and delighting in Himself, by flowing forth in infinite . . . delight towards Himself, or in his Holy Spirit...So God glorifies Himself toward the creatures also in two ways: 1. By appearing to... their understanding. 2. In communicating Himself to their hearts, and in their rejoicing and delighting in, and enjoying, the manifestations which He makes of Himself...God is glorified not only by His glory's being seen, but by its being rejoiced in. When those that see it delight in it, God is more glorified than if they only see it. His glory is then received by the whole soul, both by the understanding and by the heart. God made the world that He might communicate, and the creature receive, His glory; and that it might [be] received both by the mind and heart. He that testifies his idea of God's glory [doesn't] glorify God so much as he that testifies also his approbation of it and his delight in it [Jonathan Edwards, The Miscellanies, 13:495] from audio of Piper, “A God-Entranced Vision of All Things: Why We Need Jonathan Edwards 300 Years Later”).

My Dispensational Ears are Burning

2008-11-10T00:30:00.002-06:00

I noticed an article yesterday that hailed Obama as the "world's president" and today I noticed this article:

"Brown to Call for New Global Financial System"

Notice the first line: "LONDON — Britain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown will push for a new international financial system that updates the Bretton Woods agreement in a speech to be delivered Monday evening." He will purportedly say, "The British Government ... will begin to begin a new Bretton Woods with a new IMF that offers, by its surveillance of every economy, an early warning system and a crisis prevention mechanism for the whole world."

Hey, I'm not saying this is the unified financial system of the endtimes, but it does make you stop and wonder.

Quotation Friday: In Honor of

2008-11-07T10:37:00.002-06:00

"I have a theory that there are two kinds of boys. There are those that want to be astronomers, and those that want to be astronauts" (Alan Grant, Jurassic Park III).

In honor of Michael Crichton (October 23, 1942 – November 4, 2008)

In Light of the Election: A Command and an Encouragement

2008-11-05T08:24:00.001-06:00

The command: 1Tim. 2:1-4 "First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."

The encouragement: all of John MacArthur’s sermons are now available as free downloads at the Grace to You website. My first download will be: For Whom Did Christ Die

Final Post Before the Election

2008-11-03T23:21:00.003-06:00

The video below is my last attempt to show the importance of this election. Since President Bush appointed Roberts and Alito to the Supremem Court, and since the next president will also likely have two appointments, I believe a vote for Obama is a vote for Roe vs. Wade. Are you willing to support such a barbaric practice?

I'm Busted!

2008-11-03T04:48:00.009-06:00

An "Anonymous" commenter recently discovered the real reason I'm not voting for Obama:

"I fully support Obama and had [sic] already voted. Please do not let your narrow veiw [sic] of race stand in the way and then pretend it is because of the abortion issue."

No "Anonymous," I really do think that abortion is murder, and I really do think voting for a man that supports murder is wrong. I hope you watched the video from 10/23/2008 that shows what Obama supports (please scroll down).

Question: if you really claim agnosticism concerning the abortion debate, why would you ever err on the side of abortion? If there is even the most remote chance that abortion actually could be murder, why would you ever take a chance to support it?

Obama Trick or Treat Policy Video (Very Funny)

2008-11-01T00:24:00.001-06:00

Quotation Friday: Dem Takeover and Single Issue Voters

2008-10-31T11:11:00.003-06:00

"If the current polls hold, Barack Obama will win the White House on November 4 and Democrats will consolidate their Congressional majorities, probably with a filibuster-proof Senate or very close to it. Without the ability to filibuster, the Senate would become like the House, able to pass whatever the majority wants.

Though we doubt most Americans realize it, this would be one of the most profound political and ideological shifts in U.S. history. Liberals would dominate the entire government in a way they haven’t since 1965, or 1933. In other words, the election would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s. If the U.S. really is entering a period of unchecked left-wing ascendancy, Americans at least ought to understand what they will be getting, especially with the media cheering it all. . .

Americans voting for ‘change’ should know they may get far more than they ever imagined” (WSJ, Oct 17)

and on single issue voters:

"There are churches, and there are pastors, and there are young evangelical leaders who are saying to us, ‘We ought not be single-issue evangelicals. We ought to be concerned about more issues than simply abortion.’ Which means that we ought to be willing to join ourselves and to vote for and to support candidates who will support legalized abortion, who will deny the personhood of children who are still in the womb, because we are able to support them on other issues . . . Many of them are in a desperate quest to say to their congregations and to people potentially in their congregations, ‘I’m not Jerry Falwell.’ And many of them believe that it is missional to speak to people while blunting or silencing a witness about the life of children so that you can reach them with the gospel. . . Some will tell us there are many other issues: economics, global warming—issues I’m very concerned about too. Previous generations have said that as well. Previous generations of preachers have stood in the pulpit and preached until they were red in the face about card-playing and movie-going and tax-policy and personal morality and tobacco-smoking and a thousand other issues, but would not speak to the fact that there were African-American brothers and sisters of the Lord Jesus swinging in the trees! And there is judgment of God upon that. And there is here too” (Russell Moore, “Joseph of Nazareth Is a Single-Issue Evangelical: The Father of Jesus, the Cries of the Helpless, and Change You Can Believe In” ([Matt. 2:13-23])

Feel free to leave your quote of the week. Happy Reformation day!

DTS on iTunesU

2008-10-27T10:14:00.003-06:00

FYI: you may now access some classes from DTS on iTunesU for free! All you have to do is download iTunes here (for Mac or PC), go to the "iTunes Store" in the left sidebar of the application, and then click on iTunesU in the left sidebar of the store. Scroll down and click "Colleges and Universities" to access Dallas Theological Seminary. I also highly recommend Reformed Theological Seminary because their catalogue is more extensive.

Quotation Friday: Unborn have "Bare Existence" + Video

2008-10-23T07:33:00.005-06:00

"The dilemma isn’t between life and death, but between life and bare existence" (María López Vigil, Interrupting Pregnancy: Deciding between Life and Life). This is a poorly written and argued article that attempts to prove that the Bible is somehow unclear on abortion.

Posting the below video was a difficult decision. It is hard to watch, but you must watch it. You need to see what Barbarrack Obama supports. It is my opinion that only a person with a seared conscience can watch this video and support abortion. What do you think?

Coke from the Faucet?

2008-10-21T07:57:00.003-06:00

Yep, one of the great things about Russia is that you get Coke from the faucet! Don't believe me? See below . . .

Quotation Friday: Switchers

2008-10-17T04:17:00.002-06:00

“In 16 years of reviews, I’ve never had anything like the amount of email I’m getting from life-long Windows users who are thinking about switching” (Walt Mossberg, The Wall Street Journal).

“Vista looks like it could turn out to be one of the greatest missteps in tech history” (Peter Burrows, BusinessWeek).

and now for your quotation of the week . . .

Quotation Friday: Obama’s “Care” for the Conceived?

2008-10-09T09:21:00.005-06:00

The below quote was made by “Sarah” as a comment on my post, Obama on Infanticide & Abortion.

“I think many Christians, including myself, are supporting Obama, because he is the most likely candidate to care about families from conception until death (providing prenatal care, education, healthcare, jobs, services for the poor).”

I pasted her full comment and my full response in the first comment of this thread. Feel free to leave your quote of the week.

Al Mohler on the State of Russia

2008-10-07T09:14:00.003-06:00

I hope you will take time to read Al Mohler's recent article, The End of the Nation? Russia Chooses Death Over Life. He cites a recent statistic that 64% of all pregnancies end in abortion in Russia. This is absolutely staggering.

Nahum's Trouble

2008-10-03T21:08:00.004-06:00

Our Nahum has had a series of injuries since we have been in Russia. First, he sliced his toe open, but thankfully it didn't need too much home medical attention. But, last night he slipped as he exited the bathtub and cut the back of his head. Weeding through his bloody hair, we noticed a small cut that may need stitches. We called our fellow missionaries, Jon and Natalie Rehurek to ask their advice. Natalie is a former pediatric nurse (pictured below), so she came to take a peek. She said it probably needed one stitch, but suggested applying a butterfly guard instead of going to the hospital. We had fun shaving the area around the wound so that we could apply the said guard. Nahum was a champ the whole time and never cried. He makes his Daddy so proud. Please say a little prayer that the wound heals and that there is no infection.

We Finally have Internet!!!

2008-09-27T01:04:00.002-06:00

After many technical difficulties, our internet provider finally got things working today. We have a LOT of emails to go through, so please don't be offended if we haven't been able to respond to you yet. Things are going well here and we have had no major disasters. Our language classes have been good and we are already able to communicate a bit. We have a wonderful team here, so our needs are always taken care of. More updates to come . . .

Moorheads in Russia!

2008-09-15T10:17:00.001-06:00

Below is the email I am sending out to those on our newsletter list. Shoot me an email if you want to be added to the list:

"We are excited to tell you that we are finally in Russia! We had a safe trip with no major difficulties along the way. We’ve been battling jet lag for the past two days, but have managed to get the essentials for the apartment. Our fellow missionaries, Jon and Natalie Rehurek, live below us (what a blessing!) and have been a tremendous help in taking care of our needs.

Sharon and I will start our Russian language classes at Samara State University on Monday. We will study three days a week in order to maintain our student visas. In the meantime, I will start getting acclimated to my role at Samara Preachers’ Institute and Theological Seminary where I will be academic dean and teach various courses. Thankfully, the first year will be primarily devoted to language learning, but I will still be involved in giving periodic lectures, writing lectures for future classes, administrative duties, as well as preaching.

Below are some items for prayer:
* Learn the Russian language! This is the vital first step for successful ministry.
* Maintaining the fruit of the Spirit in our family.
* Sharon as she begins to homeschool the children.
* Choosing a church family.
* Financial: (1) We still need to raise about $2,000 a month; and (2) we need to raise about $10,000 more for a family van. If you feel led to give to these needs, click here on information how you may give.

We appreciate all of you that have prayed for us during our travels. We ask that you continue to uphold us in prayer as we face the next few weeks of adjustment. We love to hear from you, so please feel free to write."

Finally Off to Russia!

2008-09-11T19:09:00.002-06:00

Barring any unexpected catastrophes, the Moorhead family will be flying to Russia tomorrow at 1155. We request that you pray for us as we travel, particularly the children. We can't wait to get to Russia and will keep you informed through this blog. Look to the right sidebar if you are wondering what we will be doing in Russia.

Another Moorhead Delay

2008-09-04T10:49:00.000-06:00

We regret to inform you that we are once again delayed for our departure to Samara, Russia. We received our visas yesterday and noticed that there was a discrepancy with the dating. Fortunately, we were able to transfer our plane tickets to next Friday (12 September).

Many of you know that my grandmother, Helen P. Smith, passed away on Saturday and that I was able to speak at the funeral. We take comfort knowing that God providentially orchestrated our delay so that we could participate in the funeral. Now we hope to be an encouragement to the family as we stay another week. We appreciate your continued prayers on our behalf.

Prayer for My Family

2008-08-30T12:24:00.002-06:00

My dear grandmother (Mom's mother) passed away early this morning. She battled alzheimers for years and is now in the presence of the Lord. I will preach the funeral on Tuesday and we will leave for Russia on Thursday. We see the hand of the Lord in this whole situation and are convinced that grandmother's passing was a part of our delay for Russia. Please continue to pray for comfort for the family and that everything goes smoothly for our departure.

Quotation Friday

2008-08-22T15:22:00.000-06:00

"Hi Jonathan,

Your LOIs [letters of invitation] were received, scanned and sent via DHL to Washington DC today."

Praise the Lord! We will be leaving for Russian on September 4.

Perspectivisms - Daily Reminders

2008-08-19T07:27:00.002-06:00

It is a constant challenge to have an eternal, spiritual perspective on things in the midst of the business of life. People try to conquer this tendency by resolutions, memorizing Scripture, and many other great methods. I am constructing a list of daily reminders to constantly be rehearsing through the day - to ingrain it into my mind. What would you add?

Actively pursue/see the glory of God in all things
View every person you know and don't know as a ministry opportunity
We live in a world of shadows
Pray without ceasing
Take every thought captive to Christ
Guard your eyes
It is about God and not you
Seek opportunities to evangelize
Live eschatologically: Jesus may return today, you may die today
Never forget that your "job" is a ministry
Every word you speak will be judged

Obama on Abortion at Saddleback

2008-08-17T15:20:00.003-06:00

Last night Rick Warren hosted McCain and Obama at his famous Saddleback church. Notice how Obama answered Warren's question on when life begins:

“… whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity … is above my pay grade.”

Above his pay grade?! If this question is above his pay grade, then why has he consistently voted for abortion, partial birth abortion and infanticide (see Obama on Infanticide & Abortion) as a part of his job for which he is paid?

BTW, John McCain answered that a baby’s human rights began “at the moment of conception … I have a 25-year pro-life record.”

Mothering Moorheads

2008-08-16T07:35:00.003-06:00

Let it be known that my beloved wife has entered the blogworld with Mothering Moorheads. Give her a visit to see what life is like at the Moor.

Quotation Friday - Affectionless Christianity?

2008-08-15T06:50:00.003-06:00

If you despise John MacArthur's, The Gospel According to Jesus, you are really going to hate Jonathan Edwards', Religious Affections.

"he that has doctrinal knowledge and speculation only, without affection, never is engaged in the business of religion." Furthermore, "I am bold to assert, that there never was any considerable change wrought in the mind or conversation of any one person, by anything of a religious nature, that ever he read, heard or saw, that had not his affections moved." And, "they who would deny that much of true religion lies in the affections, and maintain the contrary, must throw away what we have been wont to own for our Bible, and get some other rule, by which to judge of the nature of religion" (2:101-02, 106).

Celebrating 9 Years of Marriage!

2008-08-14T06:52:00.003-06:00

It was 9 years ago today that I married the most beautiful girl in the world. Sharon is my true love and best friend. She has given me 5 wonderful children and is an awesome mother. She is the hardest worker I know and does a good job at everything she does. She is a wonderful spiritual example to the children and I know she will do an exceptional job when we arrive in Russia.

Prov. 18:22 "He who finds a wife finds a good thing and obtains favor from the LORD."

Prov. 12:4 "An excellent wife is the crown of her husband"

Prov. 31:10 "An excellent wife, who can find? For her worth is far above jewels."

Obama on Infanticide & Abortion

2008-08-09T08:20:00.009-06:00

This piece is written to give a faithful account of Barrack Obama’s positions on four questions: (1) When does life begin? (2) Do you support abortion? (3) Do you support partial-birth abortion? (4) Do you support allowing a baby to die immediately after birth if abortion did not work? Please feel free to write with any additions or corrections. John McCain has clearly stated that he believes life begins at conception, so his views are not under discussion here.

When Does Life Begin?
At the August 16, 2008 forum at Saddleback Church, Obama responded to the question of when a baby should receive civil rights. Obama responded, “… whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity … is above my pay grade.”

During the CNN, Democratic Candidates Compassion Forum (13 April 2008), Jon Meacham asked the candidates when life began. Obama responded, “I don’t know if life begins at conception." Pressed further, Obama stated,

“This is something that I have not, I think, come to a firm resolution on. I think it's very hard to know what that means, when life begins. Is it when a cell separates? Is it when the soul stirs? So I don't presume to know the answer to that question. What I know, as I've said before, is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we're having these debates” (italics mine; see Hanegraaff, Barack Obama on When Life Begins and Partial Birth Abortion).

Do You Support Abortion?
"Abortions should be legally available in accordance with Roe v. Wade" (1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test 2 July 1998). Also, “I have been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President. I oppose any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in that case (South Carolina 2007 Democratic primary debate, on MSNBC 26 March 2007, Abortion, Stem Cell & Cloning).

Obama states that causing unwed women to give birth is tantamount to "punishment." He says, "I've got two daughters, 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby" (Obama Declares He Doesn't Want His Children "Punished with a Baby").

Do You Support Partial-Birth Abortion?
Partial-birth abortion usually consists of pulling the unborn baby out of the mother's womb with forceps, delivering the baby entirely, except for the head. Scissors are used to open the baby's skull, and the brain is suctioned out to ensure death. The whole baby is then removed.

Banning partial-birth abortion was voted on twice in Illinois (1997). Obama voted “present” both times. In the same year, he voted against a law that would make felons out of doctors that performed partial-birth abortions. In 2000 he voted against a bill that would prohibit state funding for these abortions.
Obama was asked, “What us your view on the decision on partial-birth abortion and your reaction to most of the public agreeing with the court's holding?” Obama responded,

“I think that most Americans recognize that this is a profoundly difficult issue for the women and families who make these decisions. They don't make them casually. And I trust women to make these decisions in conjunction with their doctors and their families and their clergy. And I think that's where most Americans are. Now, when you describe a specific procedure that accounts for less than 1% of the abortions that take place, then naturally, people get concerned, and I think legitimately so. But the broader issue here is: Do women have the right to make these profoundly difficult decisions? And I trust them to do it. There is a broader issue: Can we move past some of the debates around which we disagree and can we start talking about the things we do agree on? Reducing teen pregnancy; making it less likely for women to find themselves in these circumstances (2007 South Carolina Dem Debate on MSNBC, 26 April 2007, Barrack Obama on Abortion”).

Do You Support Allowing a Baby to Die Immediately after Birth if Abortion did not Work?
Some attempts at abortion fail. Some doctors feels obligated to kill (allow them to die) the baby immediately after birth. This is infanticide. In Illinois, the “Induced Infant Liability Act” of 2002 strove to outlaw this barbaric practice. However, Barrack Obama voted against passing the law to protect newborn babies.
Still in 2002, the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act” was passed as a federal law. Amanda Carpenter describes the ensuing debate: “Obama voted against this bill in the Illinois senate and killed it in committee. Twice, the Induced Infant Liability Act came up in the Judiciary Committee on which he served. At its first reading he voted ‘present.’ At the second he voted ‘no’” (Obama More Pro-Choice Than NARAL).
Obama explains his position:

"Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – child, a 9-month-old – child that was delivered to term. …
I mean, it – it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional” (20 March 2001)

Furthermore, on 5 March 2002 he explains his second vote for “no”: “What we are doing here is to create one more burden on women, and I can't support that.”

Addressing the religious aspect of abortion, Obama stated, “If I am opposed to abortion for religious reasons but seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all” (see Obama’s 10 Reasons for Supporting Infanticide).

Also consider, He voted “present” in 2001 when a bill was voted on that would require minor children to notify their parents before an abortion. He voted 100% with NARAL on pro-choice votes from 2005-2007. On two occasions he voted against bills prohibiting tax funding of abortions. He also voted "no" on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. For other decisions like this, see Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. Defends Partial-Birth Abortion and Michelle Obama Supports Partial Birth Abortion.

All things considered, it must be concluded that Barrack Obama supports abortion, partial-birth abortion, and infanticide. Can you, in good conscience, vote for a man like this?

Quotation Friday

2008-08-08T06:07:00.006-06:00

"For God to be righteous, He must devote Himself 100 percent, with all His heart, soul, and strength, to loving and honoring His own holiness in the display of His glory . . . . 'Do you feel most loved by God because He makes much of you, or because He frees you to enjoy making much of Him forever'" (Piper, Brothers, We are not Professionals, 14, 16)?