True Pleasure in True Religion

What Would Charles Spurgeon Say?

2006-08-08T02:23:00.000-07:00

Do you ever wonder how certain godly saints of the past would react to life, thought, practice, and in particular Christianity, today? Well here is an excerpt from an excerpt of an excellent Charles Spurgeon sermon that might shed some light on such a question:

We are often told by some ministers in their drawing rooms, that God will not ask in the day of judgment what a man believed, for if his life has been correct, it will not much matter what doctrines he held.

I am at a loss for the authority on which they base such laxness. I wonder who told them that was the truth. I have read my Bible through, and I have never found a text that could absolve my judgment from its allegiance to my Maker.

I hold, that to believe wrongly is equally as great a sin in the sight of heaven as to act wrongly. Error is a crime before God, and though there is liberty of conscience, so far as man and man are concerned, there is no liberty of conscience with God. You are not free to believe truth, or to believe error just as you like. You are bound to believe what God says is truth, and on your soul's peril be it, that you believe two things that are contrary, or confound the positive and the negative, where faith is the evidence of justification, and unbelief the seal of a sinner's doom.

The rest of the post can be found here.

The whole sermon can be found here.

HT: Pyromaniacs

Casting Crowns

2006-08-01T16:03:00.000-07:00

I really like this song:

"If We Are The Body"

It's crowded in worship today
As she slips in trying to fade into the faces
The girls teasing laughter is carrying farther than they know
Farther than they know

Chorus:
But if we are the body
Why aren't His arms reaching?
Why aren't His hands healing?
Why aren't His words teaching?
And if we are the body
Why aren't His feet going?
Why is His love not showing them there is a way?
There is a way

A traveler is far away from home
He sheds his coat and quietly sinks into the back row
The weight of their judgmental glances
Tells him that his chances are better out on the road

Jesus paid much too high a price
For us to pick and choose who should come
And we are the body of Christ

Jesus is the way

Here is the band's website.

Five English Reformers by J.C. Ryle

2006-07-22T17:05:00.000-07:00

Well, I have once again been blessed with being able to read a fantastic book. This biography covers the lives, deaths, and teachings of five of the Maryian Martyrs: John Hooper, John Bradford, Rowland Taylor, Hugh Latimer, and Nicholas Ridley, as well as a brief overview of a few others.

The boldness and faith that drove these men, even into the fires, is something to admire.

A Survey of Christianity Today

2006-07-18T14:18:00.000-07:00

Slander. This is a word that cuts right to the heart. If a person is being slanderous, this implies a sort of willful attempt to harm a person or a group by misrepresenting beliefs, values, practices, ideas, and other cultural aspects. Far too often have I been guilty of this sin (see Ps 15:3, Prov 10:18, Mark 7:22, Eph 4:31, Col 3:8; NASB).

Often times, I am guilty of what I like to call "ignorant slander." Ignorant slander is a term that describes a person who speaks about a person or group or belief system when he or she really hasn't studied the issue at hand. But rather than admit ignorance, this person commits slander by speaking negatively (often times passionately) about something that he or she is relatively ignorant. Lately, I have felt an abnormal amount of guilt in my own life with regard to being slanderous. I don't think that I often commit willful slander, as I try to be as honest as possible. But far too often I am guilty of speaking out of ignorance. And this is one of the [many] things that I really would like to improve upon.

So, how does one guard his or her heart against slander? Read. Study. Ask questions. Listen to interviews. Etc. And this is the key: don't always rely upon secondary sources. Go right to the source. So many times I have been in a discussion and I have heard a person tell me facts about my pastor, my religion, my city, my friends, even myself that are completely off-base. When I attempt to correct the person, he or she will look at me like I'm an idiot. I'm the idiot because this person has received "reliable information" from a "reliable source." Man! This really peeves me! Can you relate? Isn't this a frustrating occurrence? Well, this is exactly what we do as Christians when we speak about others out of ignorance or bad scholarship (exclusively researching secondary sources).

What I hope to do in this post is to set forth a few facts that I have learned about Evangelicalism in today's world (primarily in the west, since this is what I have been studying). My hope is that I might be able to add some clarity in areas that are relatively fuzzy, and that a discussion might ensue, whereby we might learn more accurate information about each other and Christianity today, resulting in clarity for all - myself included - and to help guard us from future slander (if nothing else, this will be a good reminder for myself). Of course, this will not be a comprehensive essay. Unfortunately, I'm not as informed as I would like to be. But I do hope that I, as well as any reader, may grow in some degree through this rudimentary analysis.

First of all, I will try to describe the three major constituencies (not denominations) in the Evangelical world: Traditional, Seeker, and Emerging, followed by a few notes and random thoughts. Also, as I continue try to keep in mind that it is important to understand why something is believed, not just what the belief is - both are essential if we are to guard ourselves from slander.

Traditional:

This group is generally what we could call reformational. They are, for the most part, reformed (not necessarily Calvinist); some Lutherans and also others groups that are fairly conservative with regard to doctrine and practice (Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, etc.).

However, this designation isn't so much a denominational term as it is an ideological and practical term that can vary within a given denomination. For example, it is possible to have a Baptist church in a particular city that might fit this mold, and then two miles down the road a Baptist church might exist that would not be considered traditional. What gives a church this designation is an alignment with the older/traditional views of the Evangelical world. Some people might call this constituency "fundamentalist", generally following after the thoughts and beliefs of Carl Henry and others that would fit that theological mold.

Seeker:

This constituency is the one for whom Bill Hybels and Willow Creek was the original standard bearer (although they have since changed); and now we know of Rick Warren and Saddleback Church, among many others. Originally, this group aimed for the boomers. But since then, other seeker sensitive churches that followed have aimed at other generational niches (Gen x, Millenial).

This constituency is very market oriented. They use a lot of consumerism and pragmatism to draw "seekers" into the church and make them feel welcome. They tend to be low on doctrine and Biblical preaching. And often times, the main criticism from the Traditional side is that the Seeker Movement is more of a "moralistic therapy" than true Biblical Christianity. But if you ask a Seeker Sensitive pastor, he or she will most likely tell you that the goal of this movement is to draw in individuals who have been turned off by traditional Evangelicalism and expose them to the Gospel in a pragmatic, "friendlier" way.

Emerging:

This movement, which prefers to be called a "conversation" or a "community of friends", is a very difficult movement to nail down. There are many facets of this movement that are liquid and ever-changing - progressional. The idea behind this conversation seems to have begun in the late '90s as Christian leaders were trying to figure out how to act as missionaries and churches in a postmodern context. They aimed and still aim primarily at younger persons, whose lives have been shaped dramatically by the postmodern shift; but no person is directly excluded, in theory. The postmodern person thinks and acts in ways that are very contrary to that of the modernistic individual.

The Emerging Church has distinguished itself from both of the groups mentioned above. They sort of see themselves as the mean between two extremes. The Emerging Church sees the traditional constituency as "dead orthodoxy." They (the traditional churches) are too certain about the truth that they have; and often times very exclusionary, intolerant, and oppressive.

On the other hand, the Seeker Sensitive movement it too empty. There is nothing that grips anybody. There is no depth. So in an attempt to regain the life-changing power of Christianity, the Emerging Church has tried to increase the existential aspect of religious praxis.

Most of us know about the movement's views on relativistic idealism, the denial of meta-narrative, and the emphasis on praxis as opposed to scientific doctrine. While these things are true, they are generalizations. And what I hope to do, through study and interaction, is eliminate my tendency to generalize, and instead become more specific in my critiques and commendations. As we shall see, not all Emerging churches fit the general mold.

Mark Driscoll, pastor of Mars Hill in Seattle, explains that there are actually four groups/teams within the broader heading of the Emerging Church.

1. Emergent:

According to Driscoll, this group tends to be a little bit more liberal theologically (with regards to Substitutionary Atonement, exclusivity of Christ, Original Sin, Authority of Scripture, etc.) - a bit more progressive and open. As I have been able to listen to the Emergent Podcast over the past few weeks, I too have noticed the sweeping liberalism (mainly I have listened to Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones, but others as well).

Another thing I have noticed is that these individuals seem to be very hostile (albeit passive-aggressive) toward modernity and conservative Evangelicalism (which they see as corollary terms). And the constant accusation of intolerance, against the "Christian right", really seems to be more of a smoke-shield for their own intolerance of Christian conservatism. But this is always the case with blanket neutrality, it ends up refuting itself. While the hearts of these men and women are often in the right place, it seems that their conclusions aren't.

Christianity is an all-encompassing belief: praxis follows doctrine, both of which ought to reflect an internal disposition of the heart that is immersed in the love and glory of our Triune God; all are necessary and interrelated, which is something that seems to be lacking in this group.

This is the group (of the four) that tends to get the most attention and criticism.

2. House Churches - "New Monastic Communities":

This group is for the most part theologically moderate, seeking to devise new church forms. Not easy to describe, as they tend to be fairly low-key.

3. Church 2.0:

This group is, for the most part, conservative, Evangelical. They are basically trying to upgrade the style of the church service to make it more appealing to the younger generation (many of the once named "Seeker churches" would fit this mold as they have progressed over the past few years): power point displays, hip music, etc. seem to be norms in the services.

4. New Reformed Stream:

This group is theologically reformed (Calvinistic). They hold to very conservative views, but they are themselves young, postmodern X'ers and have hearts for the young postmodern culture. One of their main goals is to function as a "Missional" church in the postmodern age, reaching the youth of their surrounding areas. They are "closed" theologically, but flexible with regard to practice.

Now, I realize that I haven't even given justice to the complexity of thought that is swirling around in today's Christianity. And if you believe that I have in any way misrepresented a particular group that you might know about, please let me know. My desire is to grow, to learn. And I welcome any correction or other dialogue that this post may cause. Again, the main reason that I am posting this is because I have been studying these issues and am very interested in them. Please help me become a better student, and person, for Jesus' sake.

The Seven Sayings of the Savior on the Cross, by A.W. Pink

2006-07-17T21:04:00.000-07:00

In fellowship we reach the climax of grace and the sum of Christian privilege. Higher than fellowship we cannot go. God has called us "unto the fellowship of his Son" (1 Cor 1:9). We are often told that we are "saved to serve," and this is true, but it is only a part of the truth and by no means the most wondrous and blessed part of it. We are saved for fellowship... Christ came not primarily to secure servants but those who should enter into fellowship with Himself.

That which makes heaven superlatively attractive to the heart of the saint is not that heaven is a place where we shall be delivered from all sorrow and suffering, nor is it that heaven is the place where we shall meet again those we loved in the Lord, nor is it that heaven is the place of golden streets and pearly gates and jasper walls - no; blessed as these things are, heaven without Christ would not be heaven. It is Christ the heart of the believer longs for and pants after - "Whom have I in heaven by thee? and there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee" (Ps 73:25). [53]

This book is fantastic! I recommend it to all. It will definitely be a piece in my repertoire for some time to come.

Arthur Walkington Pink is one of my favorite expositors/pastors of all time. The very first book that I read as a Christian was his The Attributes of God. It provided me with a clear and powerful look into the unsearchable riches of the Triune God that I had, at that time, just come to know - something for which I am eternally indebted to him.

This book is another of Pink's attempts to bring the reader to Everest.

John Piper uses the analogy of a telescope when he describes the Christian's response to God's grace as we glorify Him with our lives. There are two types of magnification. One that magnifies like a microscope. This type of magnification takes something that is extremely small and makes it look bigger. If persons take this approach with God, they blaspheme. The other type of magnification is similar to that of using a telescope. A telescope makes an object that is far too distant to see with our eyes to look more as it really is. In Astronomy, this is often called the difference between apparent and absolute magnitude. This is how we ought to approach magnifying God. He is infinitely transcendent. And His "apparent magnitude" in the eyes of the world is far less than it is in reality. So we must "telescopically" magnify Him; make Him look great; make Him look more like He really is - His absolute magnitude. And this book by Pink is one way that God has enabled me to see a more "telescopically" accurate view of God and His Christ.

The Seven sayings of Jesus on the Cross are,

1. Forgiveness - "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." (Luke 23:34)

2. Salvation - "And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, verily I say unto thee, today shalt thou be with me in paradise." (Luke 23:42-43)

3. Affection - "Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother... When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, behold thy mother." (John 19:25-27)

4. Anguish - "And about the ninth hour Jesus cries with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46)

5. Suffering - "Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, saith I thirst." (John 19:28)

6. Victory - "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, it is finished." (John 19:30)

7. Contentment - "And when Jesus had cries with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my Spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost." (Luke 23:46)

Cultural Repercussions of a Paradigm Shift

2006-07-12T22:50:00.000-07:00

Without doubt, the west is undergoing a change. Certain philosophers are identifying this change as a major paradigm shift, from modern to post-modern thinking; while others see this change simply as the necessary consummation of modernity. Regardless of the exact terminology one would employ, it is no doubt that an all-encompassing change is just over the horizon for the west, and the world as a whole.

Change isn't something about which we should be surprised. By nature, culture is dynamic. Change is inevitable, as humans learn from past mistakes; grow from those experiences; adapt to new cultural and ideological tides; and adopt new beliefs, values, and symbols from the international community. However, even though culture is dynamic, it hasn't always been so quick to change, as it is now.

So, can stability be maintained in a fast-paced dynamic community (world-wide or local)?

If we examine the civilizations that lasted long periods of time, one thing is evident: they remained fairly static, usually under the leadership of a dynastic line (I am not advocating dynastic rule). Yes, there were changes. But the changes that the Ming and Ching dynasties faced were slight, subtle, and for the most part very similar to China's past cultural structures. The Ottoman Empire lasted for about 600 years, give-or-take a few (14th century to early 20th), while undergoing many changes in leadership. But it wasn't until the 19th century when things began to fall apart (because of massive cultural changes) for the Ottomans; and things fell fast and hard, leading ultimately to the demise of the empire around the end of WWI. The Byzantine Empire, whom the Ottomans eventually conquered in the mid 15th century by conquering Constantinople, also remained as a relatively stable empire for many centuries, while undergoing very little change up until the end, when they faced drastic cultural changes. Of course there are many other examples throughout history that follow this same trend (and of course there are always a few exceptions to the majority rule).

Now let's turn our focus to the "proudly-boasting" dynamic communities of the modern period (specifically the west); because, I think I have begun to notice something fascinating. As cultural anthropologist Conrad Phillip Kottak points out in his book Mirror for Humanity, culture is not only dynamic, but it is also integrated.

Cultures are not haphazard collections of customs and beliefs. Cultures are integrated, patterned systems. If one part of the system (the overall economy [religion, ideology, value systems, etc.], for instance) changes, other parts change as well (45).

And when these changes confront us, there are two results: adaptive behavior or maladaptive behavior. As Kottak goes on to explain, adaptive behavior very often produces negative repercussions, maladaptive behavior.

Sometimes, adaptive behavior that offers short-term benefits to particular subgroups or individuals may harm the environment and threaten the group's long-term survival. Economic growth may benefit some people while it depletes resources needed for society at large or for future generations... [And] by-products of... "beneficial" technology [automobiles, air conditioners, etc] often create new problems [air pollution, depleted ozone layer, global warming] (48).

So before I go any further, let me organize my thoughts into a syllogism:

If:

- Cultures exist, and

- The West is considered a culture, and

- Existing cultures are necessarily dynamic, and

- Existing dynamic cultures face negative repercussions, due to changes

Then:

- The West - an existing culture - is necessarily a dynamic culture that faces negative repercussions due to change.

Now this may not seem like anything to write home about. But really it is fascinating. For all the vaunted talk about the "positive" aspects of post-modernism in academia (relativism, moral neutrality, open-mindedness, free-thought, etc.), it seems as though the west is running headlong into a ditch. Let me try to explain. Modern "western" culture has never faced a paradigm shift such as the one that it now faces. Ever since the Enlightenment, certain beliefs, values, "laws", and rules governed, were fixed. But now, these once standard truths/realities that were so essential to modern life are losing importance, and soon may fall out of existence. Granted, there have been many subtle societal shifts, with substantial effects; but nothing that sweeps across the board in the same way that this paradigm shift, based on post-modern relativistic thought, could. A whole new way of thinking is now surfacing, not just in theory but practically. Just imagine what could happen. Are we ready to deal with such changes? Can we as a culture survive a major shift? Or will the ensuing reactions be so maladaptive that we crumble into the annuls like the Ottomans?

I really have no definitive closing thoughts, since this is just something that I was thinking about while I was at Starbucks and had to put to paper before I forgot. But let me run for a minute in closing.

One more syllogism:

If:

- The West is facing a major paradigm shift, such as has never been seen before.

- Any shift in any aspect of culture will produce an integrated effect.

- Maladaptive results are to be expected from a shift in a single aspect of any given culture.

- The current shift in the West directly affects multiple areas of our culture.

Then:

- The West is staring at possible repercussions, stemmed from an integrated paradigm shift, that could produce undesirable effects, with great magnitude in every area of our culture, due to the fact that each individual aspect of culture is necessarily linked with the integrated whole.

Should We Abandon the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness?

2006-07-12T19:00:00.000-07:00

Far too often today the line between justification and sanctification are blurred, leading to "Romish" type of dogma. Should we abandon the historical Reformed view of salvation in favor of more modern approaches? In his book Counted Righteous in Christ, John Piper provides a very thorough exegetical response to this very issue. With the same passion that permeates his preaching, Dr. Piper contends earnestly for the imputation of Christ's Righteousness to believers by exegeting texts, not relying upon historical precedence. Even if a you disagree from the outset with his conclusion, I would still challenge you to read this stimulating book, for the glory of God and the joy of all peoples, as the triumphant love of Christ is declared among the nations.

Time for Truth - Great Read

2006-07-04T14:57:00.000-07:00

Time for Truth by Os Guinness is a great read for all persons who are fascinated by the theoretical discussion of postmodernity and its effects on society. In this book, Guinness breaks through the barrier of academic theory and moves into the world of practicality. Drawing from such events as the demise of the U.S.S.R to the controversy surrounding the former Nobel Peace Prize recipient Rigoberta Menchu, Guinness attempts to explain, or more appropriately show, the effects of postmodern thinking in and on the west, and subsequently its impact on the world as a whole.

Modern Hymns

2006-07-03T21:35:00.000-07:00

Here's a good'n:

In Christ alone my hope is found;
He is my light, my strength, my song.
This cornerstone, this solid ground;
Firm through the fiercest drought and storm.
What heights of love! what depths of peace,
When fears are stilled, when strivings cease.
My comforter, my all in all;
Here in the love of Christ I stand!

In Christ alone - who took on flesh;
Fullness of God in helpless babe.
This gift of love and righteousness;
Scorned by the ones He came to save.
'Till on that cross as Jesus died;
The wrath of God was satisfied.
For every sin on Him was laid;
Here in the death of Christ I live!

There in the ground His body lay;
Light of the world by darkness slain.
Then bursting forth in glorious day:
Up from the grave He rose again!
And as He stands in victory
Sin's curse has lost its grip on me;
For I am His and He is mine -
Bought with the precious blood of Christ.

No guilt in life, no fear in death:
This is the power of Christ in me.
From life's first cry to final death,
Jesus commands my destiny.
No power of hell, no scheme of man
Can ever pluck me from His hand;
'Till He returns or calls me home
Here in the power of Christ I'll stand!

Written by Keith and Kristyn Getty.

Transhumanism

2006-07-03T01:45:00.000-07:00

He [James Hughes] argues that we must replace the notion of humanity with the concept of "personhood"... "Under personhood theory, some humans would be excluded, but all self-aware entities – whether human, post-human, machine, chimera, or robot – would qualify for the rights, privileges, and protections of citizenship."

Very interesting article on Dr. Mohler's blog...

"The Marrow of the Gospel"

2006-06-21T20:26:00.000-07:00

The continuance of Phil Johnson's series on 2 Corinthians 5:21 - justification by faith alone:

In other words, justification by faith is no optional second- or third-tier truth. On the contrary, I'd put it at the head of any list of fundamental, non-negotiable doctrines.

Dr. Mohler on Larry King Live - "Gays in the Church?"

2006-06-20T15:06:00.000-07:00

Here is the transcript from the show. And below is a quick excerpt:

KING: Reverend Mohler, why has the Southern Baptist, and you've been with us before, why does someone being gay bother you? In other words, what does it matter what someone's sexual preference might be when they are good people?

MOHLER: Well, the first thing should never be what really bothers me but whether or not as Christians, God has set a standard to which we are obligated. The issue is, always has been and always will be, the authority of scripture. The scripture very clearly tells us that our creator has a purpose for our sexuality and that homosexuality among other sins is a violation of that purpose and so love compels us to tell people the truth and also, as we understand the depth of their struggle with this, to tell them that there is a way out. I'm very thankful that Andrew Sullivan feels that pull. I believe that's a pull towards repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and I pray to see that continue all the way until he finds what I believe his purpose to be as God intended.

KING: Reverend Mohler, how could something be a sin if you didn't choose it?

MOHLER: Well, actually, that's just something I can't accept in the sense of choosing. Larry I have to say, first of all, we're choosing all the time. Even in the moments we spend together here, we're making moral choices. I do understand that there are some choices that we make that seem to be prior to anything we can even understand and I understand there are many homosexuals who say I don't even have any impression of having chosen this erotic interest, this sexual orientation. I accept that at face value, but that does not mean that it normalizes and makes acceptable homosexual acts. I want to help them through that struggle regardless of how it came into their lives.

The Tenderness of Sovereign Joy

2006-06-15T13:54:00.000-07:00

Without a doubt, the most tender, meek, humble, God-seeking man that I have encountered in my studies thus far is the late Scottish pastor Robert Murray M'Cheyne. As I read his biography, written by his long-time friend Andrew Bonar, I can't help but find encouragement and depth on every page. Here is a wonderful passage about M'Cheyne's view of tender sovereignty:

Of bitterness in preaching, he had little indeed in after days; yet so sensible was he of its being quite natural to all of us, that oftentimes he made it the subject of conversation, and used to grieve over himself if he had spoken with anything less than solemn compassion. I remember on one occasion, when we met, he asked what my last Sabbath's subject had been. It had been, "The Wicked shall be turned into hell." On hearing this awful text, he asked, "Were you able to preach it with tenderness?" Certain it is that the tone of reproach and upbraiding is widely different from the voice of solemn warning. It is not saying hard things that pierces the consciences of our people; it is the voice of Divine love heard amid the thunder. The sharpest point of the two-edged sword is not death but life; and against self-righteous souls this latter ought to be more used than the former. For such souls can hear us tell of the open gates of hell and the unquenchable fire far more unconcernedly than of the gates of heaven wide-open for their immediate return. When we preach that the glad tidings were intended to impart immediate assurance of eternal life to every sinner that believes them, we strike deeper upon the proud enmity of the world to God, than when we show the eternal curse and the second death(53-54).

God Killed Jesus...

2006-06-14T15:44:00.000-07:00

This is a good article by John MacArthur regarding the death of Jesus.

Lord, You are God, who made heaven and earth and the sea, and all that is in them, who by the mouth of Your servant David have said: "Why did the nations rage, And the people plot vain things? The kings of the earth took their stand, And the rulers were gathered together Against the LORD and against His Christ." For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done (Acts 4:24-28, emphasis added).

Take a Deep Breath... Relax... Think

2006-06-13T22:13:00.000-07:00

It is extremely difficult to deal with opposing viewpoints, especially religious viewpoints. And since we are wired as emotional creatures (certain individuals more than others), opposition is even more difficult.

Recently, I came across a blog post that supported the possibility of the idea that the "genealogy" of Genesis 5 was actually derived from the ancient Mesopotamian/Sumerian "king list." If this is true, that would be devastating for those of us who hold to the historicity and "direct conception" of Scriptural inspiration. Right? Unfortunately, at this point in my life I have not taken the time to immerse myself in ancient Mesopotamian history - something that I look forward to studying in the near future. So, for me to try to combat the claims would be foolish. But I am interested in something that the author said:

Obviously, issues like this raise important questions about the Scriptures, not least of which is the concept of “inspiration.” It would seem that those who hold to a very “strong” or “direct” conception of inspiration would have serious problems with this information.

Very interesting. I wonder if he even knows how right he might be. But the interesting thing is that I don't think he should be right. Let me try to explain.

When a claim is made that seems to confront a person's belief that is strongly held, the immediate reaction is often hostility toward the opposition and the claim. We tend to attack the "attack" (or what seems like an attack, although it's not necessarily malicious). In other words, we get emotional and let our emotions govern our responses. This happened most recently on a global scale with the release of The Da Vinci Code (let me be clear at the outset, I am in no way equating the historicity of Mr. Brown's book with the historicity of the "king list". The historical issue regarding the "king list" is a separate issue than I intend to address at the moment). Christians all over the world were making dramatic, emotional moves in response to the "historical" claims of the movie and book: protests with crazy signs, public hunger strikes, etc.

So what should be the response? Let's do a mock confrontation.

Opponent: Jesus was a mere mortal until the bishops at Nicaea voted on his deity!

Defendant: (deep breath... relax... think... be patient... then respond) Why do you say that?

Then we ought to listen to the reasons given and see how they match with reality. Does the claim have support? sufficient support? Are there any mitigating circumstances, presuppositions that affect the facts that we can immediately address and try to "peel back"? Does the claim seem possible (ie. Dan Brown's claim that over 5 million women were burned as witches by the Roman Catholic Church - most historians actually estimate around 30-50 thousand)? And there are many other analytical skills that should be employed in these circumstances. Sadly enough, I don't think that the majority of persons today employ these means of critical analysis. Rather, we tend to get angry, as that hot feeling boils inside of us, and we respond irrationally. I am as guilty of this as the next emotional person. But I am working, by the grace of God, toward the goal of patient, critical, Christ-centered thinking - wisdom.

Back to the original claim regarding the Sumerian "king list." Right now, I can say that I do not have sufficient knowledge in this field to make an accurate criticism, so I will refrain. But I will say that I'm not afraid of this information. The facts about the existence of this list don't seem like a threat to me at the outset of my studies. And I hope to be more familiarized with this information soon, trusting that God will lead me to the Truth.

The bottom line is that "attacks" have arisen throughout the history of Christianity. They're nothing to get flustered about. From "Q" to "J.E.D.P" to "Deutero Isaiah," to the denial of Daniel's authorship of "Daniel," to the denial of apostolic authorship, to the idea that the Torah was in some way dependent upon the "king list," and many other claims, the oppositions have been numerous and difficult to combat. But the historical, traditional, Orthodox Christian beliefs still stand, through the opposition (as to why they stand is another topic that is also intriguing, but I have massive amounts of studying to which I must attend).

So to go back to the issue one more time, here is the important quote again:

Obviously, issues like this raise important questions about the Scriptures, not least of which is the concept of “inspiration.” It would seem that those who hold to a very “strong” or “direct” conception of inspiration would have serious problems with this information.

Again, I think that this is a true statement. But I don't think that it should be true. We can't let the stacked chips threaten us. We must be patient, and think, and listen, and pray, and above all, grow in the face of opposition, trusting that God will protect us and lead us to the Truth, in Christ, to the glory of His Name.

Because I am a Sinner

2006-06-11T01:19:00.000-07:00

Forty pages into the biography of pastor Robert Murray M'Cheyne, and I already feel a strong kinship with the Scottish-born preacher. Here is an excerpt from his diary:

May 6th, 1832 -

What a mass of corruption I have been! How great a portion of my life have I spent wholly without God in the world; given up to sense and the perishing things around me. Naturally of a feeling and sentimental disposition, how much of my religion has been, and to this day is, tinged with these coulors of earth! Restrained from open vice by educational views and the fear of man, how much ungodliness has reigned within me! How often has it broken through all restraints, and come out in the shape of lusts and anger, mad ambitions, and unhallowed words! Though my vice was always refined, yet how subtile and how awfully prevalent it was! How complete a test was the Sabbath - spent in weariness, as much of it as was given to God's service! How I polluted it by my hypocrisies, my self-conceits, my worldly thoughts, and worldly friends! How formally and unheedingly the Bible was read - how little was read - so little that even now I have not read it all! How unboundedly was the wild impulse of the heart obeyed! How much more was the creature loved than the Creator!--- O great God, that didst suffer me to live whilst I so dishonoured thee, thou knowest the whole; and it was thy hand alone that could awaken me from the death in which I was, and was contented to be. Gladly would I have escaped from the Shepherd that sought me as I strayed; but he took me up in his arms and carried me back; and yet he took me not for any thing that was in me. I was no more fit for his service than the Australian, and no more worthy to be called and chosen. Yet, why should I doubt? not that God is unwilling, not that he is unable - of both I am assured. But, perhaps, my old sins are too fearful, and my unbelief too glaring? Nay; I come to Christ, not although I am a sinner, but just because I am a sinner, even the chief.

And though sentiment and constitutional enthusiasm may have a great effect on me, still I believe that my soul is in sincerity desirous and earnest about having all its concerns at rest with God and Christ - that his kingdom occupies the most part of all my thoughts, and even of my long-polluted affections. Not unto me, not unto me, be the shadow of praise or of merit ascribed, but let all glory be given to thy most holy name! As surely as thou didst make the mouth with which I pray, so surely dost thou prompt every prayer of faith which I utter. Thou hast made me all that I am, and given me all that I have.

* Also, it is interesting to note that he was twenty years old when he penned this...

The Drippings of the Honeycomb

2006-06-07T00:07:00.000-07:00

[First of all, there is a good (heated, yet Christian) discussion about the doctrines of grace going on at Frank's place... good stuff.]

The law of the LORD is perfect, restoring the soul; The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. The precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; The commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring forever; The judgments of the LORD are true; they are righteous altogether. They are more desirable than gold, yes, than much fine gold; Sweeter also than honey and the drippings of the honeycomb (Psalm 19: 7-10).

A couple of Sundays ago, John MacArthur exposited this text for the local body at Grace Community Church. And, for me, it couldn't have come at a better time. With so much talk in the Evangelical world over the place of the Bible in the Christian life, it was a joy to sit under an exposition of one of the most clear and poignant affimations in all of Scripture regarding the role and authority of the Word of God.

Recently, I was engaged in an interesting discussion with a person who asserted the following:

I don't believe that the Bible is the "definer of truth." Christ--the Logos and eternal Wisdom of God, he who is co-eternal and consubstantial in being with God--is the only definer of truth. To claim that the Scriptures are thus is to deify them and make them consubstantial in nature with deity, which is supreme error.

His main point is that to claim that the Bible - the Word of God - is the "definer of truth" is tantamount to deifying the Scriptures, "which is supreme error." The problem with his argument is that he sees a separation between the written Word and the incarnate Word. He sees a distinction between God's revelation and our ability to commune with Him. I don't believe that these distinctions can be made. They are inextricably linked. We can't worship God except through the revelation of Him as found in Scripture. We don't worship our Bibles. We worship God, in the Spirit, through Christ, as revealed in Scripture. God is the definer of Truth. The Bible - His Word - is His Truth defined.

That was sort of a parenthesis. Although, it does tie-in to the following...

The Biblical text mentioned above makes six declarations about the Word of God (v 7-9). It uses six different descriptions for the Word, which describe six different roles of the Word: it is called the law, the testimony, the precepts, the commandment, the fear, and the judgments. Following each of these descriptions is the phrase "of the LORD," which seems to, in itself, claim authority. It seems to be saying that the revelation of which David is speaking is of YHWH, the supreme Sovereign, the one who is. It's also very exclusive. It is the law of YHWH that is in discussion, not any other law, revelation. And it is completely sufficient for all things.

After each of these declarations of Scriptural authority, David gives us an adjective that accords with the afore mentioned subject. The adjectival words used are perfect (complete, full, without blemish, undefiled), sure (firm, faithful), right (straight, direct), pure (polished, clear), clean, and true (certain). Each of these words gives us an understanding of the different aspects of the Word. Together they reveal the scope of its abiblity - an all-encompassing scope.

Finally, after each of the adjectival clauses David gives us a practical application for the Word. He tells us how the Word functions, practically: it restores the soul, makes the simple wise, produces joy in the heart, enlightens the eyes, lasts forever, and is altogether righteous.

Then in verse 10 we find something amazing:

They are more desirable than gold, yes, than much fine gold; Sweeter also than honey and the drippings of the honeycomb

For so many people today, this statement is probably foreign. How many people can say that the law of the LORD is this wonderful to them? more wonderful than gold? fine gold? sweeter than honey? I honestly don't believe that I can utter these words in full sincerity - God help.

But the thing that is truly amazing to me is that David is declaring his unmatched passion for the law of the LORD before Christ. He is still in the position of looking forward to the Messiah. His hope, joy, reverence, passion, and love for the law of God was rooted firmly in a future hope, not a past reality. He hadn't yet understood the consummation of God's salvific, atoning plan.

How much more should we cherish the Word! We have seen atonement come to fruition. We stand on the other side of the cross, looking back at our Passover lamb, who "died once for all, the just for the unjust," so that we might "walk in newness of life," without any fear of condemnation. We have the full revelation of God. The sweetness that David savored in the law should become to us, who have the full Word, a more purified sweetness. It should be an intoxicating fragrance.

An Unrelenting Enemy and An Everlasting Joy

2006-06-04T15:41:00.000-07:00

Before I was a Christian, my life consisted of self-indulgence to the highest degree possible. There wasn't too much that I said "no" to. The effects were obvious: a downward spiral in my spiritual condition, mixed with all manners of ungodliness. Then the day came when my life was changed forever. God, by His infinite grace, for no explainable reason, breathed life into an otherwise dead young man. Since that day my life has changed dramatically. The old things really have passed away; all things are becoming new to me. I am beginning to see the world, more and more each day, from a new perspective. Activities that were once sin-filled have been cleansed of corruption, and I am able to find a purified joy in these streams of pleasure (art, music, sports, education, etc). I am beginning to see the beauty of God's craftsmanship in all creation. Granted, I am still flawed in the extreme. But my hope and trust is that through His sanctifying grace He will open the eyes of my soul to more of His beauty in this - often times - ugly world.

Which leads me to my main point. This world is ugly. And sin infiltrates every aspect of life, hiding in the unseen crevices and around dark corners, waiting for the opportune time to jump out and mug the unsuspecting Christian in his or her afternoon joy-walk. And I think that most of us who study the Word and have solid support groups - as I have been given - are aware of this imminent danger in a cognitive sense. But cognizance alone won't prepare us for battle against this clever foe. Especially when it disguises its dreadful appearance with white robes.

The battle against sin is hard - it is really hard. As Kris Lundgaard says in his book The Enemy Within, "there is never a cease-fire with sin." It is a constant barrage from every front.

When I became a Christian I felt a huge sense relief - freedom. My chains were loosed. And my once shackled feet were now given space and reason to dance. The afflictions, the guilt, the worry, and the trivialities all seemed to fade away. But as the Lord has so graciously ushered me through my first year of new life, He has not just allowed me to float around this world with naivete regarding indwelling sin. He has shown me, though not in its fullness (for who could withstand such a sight?) the wretchedness of sin, in my own self and in this world system. This sobering look into the face of sin ("the mirror") has produced some upsetting times. But oh how wonderful the times have been when my Lord has brought me through the torrent and planted my feet on solid ground! All through the storms my hope and faith fluctuated. But He was faithful throughout.

There is some paranormal sensation and peace that I have experienced in the days following one of these little battles with sin - after the time of sorrow and repentance. It is almost as if the Lord picks me up in His arms and kisses me on the forehead; this act of love and mercy completely changes my disposition. I don't deserve His care in these times. He ought to condemn me. But no, He chooses to extend mercy. Fully can I exclaim with the prophet Micah the following:

But as for me, I will watch expectantly for the LORD; I will wait for the God of my salvation. My God will hear me. Do not rejoice over me, O my enemy. Though I fall I will rise; Though I dwell in darkness, the LORD is a light for me. I will bear the indignation of the LORD Because I have sinned against Him, Until He pleads my case and executes justice for me. He will bring me out to the light, {And} I will see His righteousness (7: 7-9).

The confidence in this passage is amazing. Micah is so confident that he will be brought back into the light. Appropriately, his confidence is in nothing pertaining to himself. Rather, he trusts fully upon the Lord. He is Micah's hope. He is Micah's light. He is Micah's salvation.

This passage is one of the many wonderful, hope-giving texts that deals with sin, guilt, repentance, hope, faith, and God's all-encompassing salvific sovereignty. This confidence that we see in Micah should be the same among us. God is the same, and we have His promise that He will be with us, always (Matt 28:20).

So when sin attacks like a lioness pouncing an elk, let us be prepared. And when we fall - when we are bruised and broken - let us sprint, let us hobble (however we get there, let's just get there), into the arms of our Father who will bring us into His light.

Spiritual Breathing

2006-06-01T00:29:00.000-07:00

Breathing is essential for life (wow, that's a shocker). If a person doesn't breathe, he or she will most definitely suffocate (notice a trend?). As a matter of fact, breathing is so fundamental (basic) to human life that it is most often overlooked. Since our respiratory functions are involuntary, it seems as though we rarely ever think about how, why, what, and when we breathe. We simply do it.

But when it comes to our spiritual lives, do we have the same luxury? Can we rely upon some sort of involuntary, mechanical system to provide "oxygen" to our souls? Or, is there something that we, as Christians, must do? Recently I heard a wonderful exposition of the book of Jude by John Piper that related to this very issue. The specific verses in consideration were 20 and 21:

(20) But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, (21) keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life.

So how do we "keep ourselves in the love of God"? By "praying in the Holy Spirit."

It seems like life is at stake in these verses. Don't we want to remain in the love of God? Isn't that essential for our lives? Yes and yes! We want to remain in the love God. We need to remain in the love of God. And by "breathing" properly, we will remain in the love of God. So what is this "breathing" of which I speak? Prayer.

Perhaps there is no subject in all of Christian living that can and will convict even the most devout Christian. Any Christian, who honestly examines himself or herself, will admit that his or her prayer life could be better. I don't think that there ever comes a point in a Christian's life where he or she can truly say, "Yep, I pray enough. Don't need any more of that." It's always something that needs improvement.

So obviously, we know that prayer is not an involuntary function. If it were something that involuntary forces controlled then we wouldn't have to worry about it. But, that doesn't align with reality. Because in reality, we do have to worry about it. We do have to wake up and force ourselves onto our knees. We do have to voluntarily "breathe." And the thing that is so astonishing is that we are told that by our praying, we will keep ourselves in the love of God. This is something that we must do. We must keep ourselves in the love of God by praying.

Often times in Reformed circles we try so hard to protect the sovereignty of God that we negate human responsibility. Sure we say things like, "God uses means of grace to bring about His ends." But at the same time we are often ready to call persons heretics when they are "doers", thinking that they are trying to earn favor with God. But Scripture clearly attests to the facts that God is sovereign over all, and that we must act. We must do. And in particular, we must pray.

This means that a mechanical Christian life, where the person just fills out a card and thinks that he or she is in the Kingdom, is utterly unbiblical. Any person that doesn't understand that the Christian life is a daily battle that must be fought has been fooled and will likely run into some real trouble in his or her walk. Because we can't just sit back and not act. God hasn't set it up that way. The Holy Spirit intentionally used actions words (verbs) all throughout Scripture in reference to the Christian's daily walk.

With that said, let's look at verse 1:

Jude, a bond-servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, To those who are the called, beloved in God the Father, and kept for Jesus Christ.

Note in this verse that Jude mentions that his readers are kept. So in verse 21 he exhorts his readers to act. But in verse 1 he states that they are kept - they are passive. The only way that I can make sense of this is to say that the latter verse is dependent upon the former truth. Jude can exhort his readers to keep themselves in the love of God through prayer because they are being kept by God for (some translations say "by") Jesus. That's our confidence in prayer. That's how we can be assured the we can keep ourselves in the love of God through prayer. Because we are already kept in the loving arms of our heavenly Father. In other words, the means by which God has declared to keep us in His love is through our prayers. And we can pray confidently, knowing that we will remain in His love, because we are sure that we have been, and will continue to be, kept by His powerful hand.

Brothers and sisters, let us be a praying people. Let us draw near to our Father in prayer so that we will grow in grace. Let us spend time with Him and show Him the delight we find in Him. Our lives depend on it. If we don't breathe we will suffocate. Likewise, if we don't pray we will suffocate - spiritually. But God has cleared a path for us that we might walk in it and receive sanctifying life.

In closing, remember this: "It's hard to stumble when we are on our knees."

Would it be fair? Would it be right?

2006-05-16T01:33:00.000-07:00

This post is old but interesting. It is from the Pyromaniacs blog, written by James Spurgeon:

"I posted the following once on my own blog, The Howling Coyote, and it generated some interesting discussion. Since we're on this theme of God and justice I thought I'd post it here where it will get read by more than just the ten or fifteen people who were reading my blog at the time.

Just thinking out loud here:

What if God were to create a race of beings, knowing they would fall, allow them to fall, and then do nothing to lift them back up? What if there were no mercy extended to them, no invitation, no restoration, no justification, no atonement, no redemption, no chance? What if God were to extend mercy to others, but not them? What if God were to make atonement and grant justification to others, but not them? What if God simply said, "One strike and you are out?" What if God said that to them, while on the other hand offering mercy to another group of fallen peoples, equally bad?

Would that be fair? Would it be right? Would it be just?

What if God sent Jesus into the world to die for one group of fallen persons, but not for all fallen persons?

Would that be fair? Would it be right? Would it be just?

What if God said to one group, "I will provide for you a Savior," but completely ignored the other group offering them nothing?

Would that be fair? Would it be right? Would it be just?

Be careful how you answer, because that is exactly what God has done when it comes to the fallen angels.

There is a Savior offered to the world of men, none to the world of angels. There is mercy offered to the world of men, none to the world of angels. There is restoration offered to the world of men, none to the fallen angels. There is atonement made for sinful men, none for sinful angels. Man is given a chance, offered mercy in Christ, angels are not.

God never sent his Son to take on the nature of angels, and there is nothing about that act at Calvary that ever could save or ever was intended to save any fallen angel.

One strike, and they are out.

Angels do not understand redemption. They have never experienced it. The ones who never fell never needed it and they know it would not have been offered or accomplished on their behalf. They know that, because, for the ones who did fall it was never offered or accomplished on their behalf.

Hebrews 2:16-17 (KJV)
For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

Matthew 25:41 (KJV)
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

1 Peter 1:12 (KJV)
Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

2 Peter 2:4 (KJV)
For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

Jude 6 (KJV)
And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

The truth is, it would be just and it would be right for God to condemn all, for all deserve to be condemned. God gave justice to the angels. Punishment is what they deserved.

We got something else instead of punishment. We got grace.

All of this should remind us that no one actually deserves a chance. What we deserve is hell. God is not a debtor and God owes not one thing to any of us. If he gave us one strike and you're out, he would be doing right by his own standards of justice.

Every moment a sinner lives is mercy and grace and every breath he breathes is mercy and grace."

Da Vinci Dilemma Solved!!!

2006-05-12T12:13:00.000-07:00

Thanks to a post that I recently came across, my afore mentioned dilemma concerning the Da Vinci code has been solved. Rhett Smith, college pastor of Bel-Air Presbyterian, was really the one that solved it for me - and I bet this wasn't even his intention when he made his comment. The afore mentioned dilemma went something like this:

- I believe that it is intellectually dishonest to speak against something unless one has studied the subject of debate.
- I have no desire to support Mr. Brown's story.

So what is the solution? It's so simple. How could I not see this before... the library! I won't buy the book or pay to see the movie. But I will still get to be properly informed.

Now the next step is to actually make the time to read it.

Funny, funny, funny... and a bit sad.

2006-05-06T14:12:00.000-07:00

Last weekend I ran into a friend of mine in Santa Monica. He and I have had many great discussions in the past concerning the doctrines of grace - with me being a Calvinist and he being a "2 1/2 or 3 pointer." You know, it has really been a great test in my life to love my brothers when they are wrong... jk.

But all joking aside, he is a brilliant young student of Scripture and our conversations are always edifying and thoughtful.

This last weekend, he told me a story of a time when he, being from the south, visited an Independent Baptist church. As many of you know, Independent Baptists are often times KJV Onlyists. Well, this church was no exception. Apparently, my friend, Ryan, was sitting in a church service and the preacher began to tell a story about the new youth pastor that they had just recently fired. They fired him because he used a New International Version (NIV) of the Bible. And then he said the following:

If the King James Version was good enough for the apostle Paul, then it's good enough for me.

Read that once more if you have to. What the heck????? Apparently, according to my reliable source, he was dead serious!!! No smile, no chuckle, nothing. Now, to be fair, I am going to give this preacher the benefit of the doubt and assume that he heard this from somewere else. There is no way that any well-read student of Scripture could make this type of unsupported, foolish, down-right ignorant claim.

Ah well. I just wanted to share my new favorite man-I-wish-I-had-never-said-this-in-public line.

Emergent-us Says "No" to Statement of Faith

2006-05-05T01:02:00.000-07:00

Recently, opponents of the Emerging Church movement have asked that a statement of faith be organized and presented for public perusal. But now, after LeRon Shults' refutation of the need for a statement of faith to be presented, it looks as though nothing will be formally drafted (below is a copy of Shults' argument). I have no thoughts as of yet - well I do but I'm still formulating details. But hopefully in the next few days I will be able to put some thoughts to print. Until then, I'd love to hear any thoughts on this subject (especially Mr. Shults' article):

The coordinators of Emergent have often been asked (usually by their critics) to proffer a doctrinal statement that lays out clearly what they believe. I am merely a participant in the conversation who delights in the ongoing reformation that occurs as we bring the Gospel into engagement with culture in ever new ways. But I have been asked to respond to this ongoing demand for clarity and closure. I believe there are several reasons why Emergent should not have a "statement of faith" to which its members are asked (or required) to subscribe. Such a move would be unnecessary, inappropriate and disastrous.

Why is such a move unnecessary? Jesus did not have a "statement of faith." He called others into faithful relation to God through life in the Spirit. As with the prophets of the Hebrew Bible, he was not concerned primarily with whether individuals gave cognitive assent to abstract propositions but with calling persons into trustworthy community through embodied and concrete acts of faithfulness. The writers of the New Testament were not obsessed with finding a final set of propositions the assent to which marks off true believers. Paul, Luke and John all talked much more about the mission to which we should commit ourselves than they did about the propositions to which we should assent. The very idea of a "statement of faith" is mired in modernist assumptions and driven by modernist anxieties – and this brings us to the next point.

Such a move would be inappropriate. Various communities throughout church history have often developed new creeds and confessions in order to express the Gospel in their cultural context, but the early modern use of linguistic formulations as "statements" that allegedly capture the truth about God with certainty for all cultures and contexts is deeply problematic for at least two reasons. First, such an approach presupposes a (Platonic or Cartesian) representationalist view of language, which has been undermined in late modernity by a variety of disciplines across the social and physical sciences (e.g., sociolinguistics and paleo-biology). Why would Emergent want to force the new wine of the Spirit’s powerful transformation of communities into old modernist wineskins? Second, and more importantly from a theological perspective, this fixation with propositions can easily lead to the attempt to use the finite tool of language on an absolute Presence that transcends and embraces all finite reality. Languages are culturally constructed symbol systems that enable humans to communicate by designating one finite reality in distinction from another. The truly infinite God of Christian faith is beyond all our linguistic grasping, as all the great theologians from Irenaeus to Calvin have insisted, and so the struggle to capture God in our finite propositional structures is nothing short of linguistic idolatry.

Why would it be disastrous? Emergent aims to facilitate a conversation among persons committed to living out faithfully the call to participate in the reconciling mission of the biblical God. Whether it appears in the by-laws of a congregation or in the catalog of an educational institution, a "statement of faith" tends to stop conversation. Such statements can also easily become tools for manipulating or excluding people from the community. Too often they create an environment in which real conversation is avoided out of fear that critical reflection on one or more of the sacred propositions will lead to excommunication from the community. Emergent seeks to provide a milieu in which others are welcomed to join in the pursuit of life "in" the One who is true (1 John 5:20). Giving into the pressure to petrify the conversation in a "statement" would make Emergent easier to control; its critics could dissect it and then place it in a theological museum alongside other dead conceptual specimens the curators find opprobrious. But living, moving things do not belong in museums. Whatever else Emergent may be, it is a movement committed to encouraging the lively pursuit of God and to inviting others into a delightfully terrifying conversation along the way.

This does not mean, as some critics will assume, that Emergent does not care about belief or that there is no role at all for propositions. Any good conversation includes propositions, but they should serve the process of inquiry rather than shut it down. Emergent is dynamic rather than static, which means that its ongoing intentionality is (and may it ever be) shaped less by an anxiety about finalizing state-ments than it is by an eager attention to the dynamism of the Spirit’s disturbing and comforting presence, which is always reforming us by calling us into an ever-intensifying participation in the Son’s welcoming of others into the faithful embrace of God.

HT:The Reformed Baptist Thinker

"The Da Vinci Code" - Will you See/Read it?

2006-05-02T21:28:00.000-07:00

So, the current dilemma that I am facing is whether or not I will see "The Da Vinci Code" when it hits theaters some time next month. I want to see it because I have not had the time - or passion - to read the book. And I am commonly faced with questions regarding the "historical facts" that are contained in the story.

But, my dilemma goes something like this:

- I believe that it is intellectually dishonest to speak against something unless one has studied the subject of debate.
- I have no desire to support Mr. Brown's story.

While I have read commentaries and reviews that present the issues, I have not read the book itself. Even still, while I am not 100% sure if I will see the movie or not, I do know that I - in no way - support the book or the movie - maybe I just answered my dilemma with that assertion.

I hope that I and my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ who have not seen or read "The Da Vinci Code" will be very careful about our refutations. Let us make sure that we are well informed (with the information to which we have been exposed) and wise with our words.

And for our brothers and sisters that have read the book or plan on seeing the movie, make sure that you are "ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence" (1 Peter 3:15).

Exclusion in the Church

2006-04-30T14:59:00.000-07:00

*Since this post, I have had the opportunity to speak with Mr. DeVries concerning his post to which I respond below. Apparently his post in no way referred to salvation. But rather his "use of the terms "exclusion" and "inclusion" were not dealing with salvation, but with boundaries and invitation". To see his response, go here and look for it under his original post - as well as a "thanks for the clarification" from me. With that said, I vehemently disagree with the position of the UCC - the denomination that funded the commercial - on their "ONA Program" (Open and Affirming Program). Click here to see what this is all about. And I understand what Mr. DeVries was attempting to say. But I still see one major flaw. The commercial he enjoyed wasn't saying that God calls all persons to repentance and faith. It basically asserts that God is not exclusive whatsoever, so it doesn't matter "where you are on life's journey." He still accepts you. And by acceptance they (UCC not Mr. DeVries) don't mention - or believe for that matter - that His acceptance must and will surely bring about radical life change. So, is God exclusive? Yes and no. He calls all persons to repentance and faith. But he in no way allows certain lifestyle choices to continue if one is truly a child of His.

No topic of which I am aware is more prevalent in modern (Emerging?) Evangelicalism today than the topic of exclusion in the Church. I fully understand that people are trying to guard the "Come to Me" aspect of Christ - which is often times lost in many scholastic circles. But in the process of trying to appeal to all persons, the truth is often sacrificed.

Here is a recent post by a gentleman named Mike DeVries. He makes the following statement in regards to an advertisement supporting inclusivism in the church:

It reminds me that Jesus reserved his harshest [sic] words for religious leaders - those who drew boundaries of who was in and who was out, those who chose the path of exclusion over inclusion, and the way of judgment over the way of love.

I think I understand what he is trying to say. But I think he is missing some crucial information. Jesus was harsh toward the Pharisees because of many reasons, not just there exclusiveness toward sinners - yes, that was a major point of dispute (Luke 15), but it wasn't the only point. He also condemned them because of the following:

1. They accuse Him - the Son of God - of being demon possessed (Mark 3:22).
2. They were the ones to whom the law was given. And those to whom much is given, much is expected (Luke 12:48).
3. They were hypocrites (Matt. 6:2,5,16; 15:17; Mark 7:6; Luke 11:44).
4. They were lovers of money, not God (Luke 16:14).
5. They were men "pleasers", not God "pleasers" (Matt 5-7).
6. They shut the kingdom of God from people (Matt 23:13).

The exclusion that angered Jesus was censorious exclusion. So while He did speak harshly of the Pharisees for their censorious, hypocritical exclusiveness, He was in no way advocating inclusivism.

Here is a copy of a refutation of his (Mike DeVries) article, which can be found here:

Hi Mike,

I don't know whether to laugh at the commercial (the ejector seat part - those people went flying!) or not. But it was definitely interesting.

I hope this isn't too long. But I feel that this is an extremely important discussion. I hope that you will read my refutation with patience, meekness, and a discerning heart - as I too hope that I will do the same in regards to any future interactions.

"It reminds me that Jesus reserved his harshed words for religious leaders - those who drew boundaries of who was in and who was out, those who chose the path of exclusion over inclusion, and the way of judgment over the way of love."

Absolutely - to an extent. Jesus was the one who ate with "sinners and tax collectors" (Luke 15) - the despised of the religious elites during the first century.

But as Romans 2:4 makes clear, "Do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?"

God is patient. He calls all men to embrace the Gospel of Jesus Christ, leading to repentance. He wants men and women of every tribe, tongue, nation, creed, etc to come to Christ in repentance, faith, love, joy, hope, trust, submission, and truth. And because He is holy and cannot look upon sin, there must be a covering - an imputation of His righteousness so that we can be made right with the God of Glory and Holiness (2 Cor. 5:21, 1 Peter 2:24, Isaiah 53).

"Jesus once said, "I am the way and the truth and the life." Perhaps Jesus was reminding us that his way of living was "the true way of living" - the way of grace, the way of accpetance, the way of embrace, the way of love, the way of generosity, the way of compassion, the way of inclusion, the way of forgiveness, the way of restortation."

Interesting that you quote this passage as a text supporting inclusion when if you read the rest of the passage he is actually being very exclusive: "Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" (John 14:6). He is answering Thomas' question of how one can get to the Father, or heaven (verses 1-5). And His answer is exclusive. He says in effect, "I am the only Way to heaven."

I don't believe that Jesus is simply saying, "Follow my example." That would be impossible. We can't feed 4000 people from a couple loaves of bread and a few fish. We can't calm the seas. We can't walk on water. We can't raise the dead. We can't call ourselves "I AM." We can't call ourselves the "Lord of the Sabbath."

This doesn't mean that we ought not attempt to follow Christ's example. For clearly we are commanded to "be holy as He is holy." But we can't only assume that He was a good moral example. He was and is so much more. He is Lord. He is the eternal Son of God. He is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life."

He absolutely accepts all types of people, without exception. But He has radical demands for those that would come to Him: "I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish" (Luke 13:3,5). These words of Jesus are loving, forgiving, and caring. But they are also stern and unwavering in accordance with the Truth.

Brother, please don't think that I am in any way attacking you. I am not. I am merely confronting your viewpoint. If I have in any way offended you by my "tone" (I appologize - one can't tell tone over the computer that well). But please know that I am in no way heated. I am merely pointing out things that I believe are apparent flaws in modern, liberal, neo-orthodox theology. And I trust that as fellow brothers in Christ we can continue to glorify Christ by seeking Truth through reasonable disputations.

Matt 9:13 - "For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance."

Mark 2:17 - "They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

Matt 3:2 - "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!"

All of Jesus' stern words - and there are many throughout the Gosplels - were intended to bring people to Him in faith. And He makes it clear that we must obey His commands if we are to be called lovers of God: "You are My friends if you do what I command you" (John 15:14). And what He commands is that the Gospel of His death and resurrection leading to justification, sanctification, and glorification, all to the glory of God, would be preached to all men, without exception (Matt. 5:16; 28:19-20; Rev. 22:17).

Here are a couple of verses in closing that are requirements for believers after true conversion:

1 John 3:9 - "No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God."

1 John 2:15,16 - "Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world."

So in closing, thank you Mike for posting on such an important Christian truth.

We must love our enemies. We must love them as ourselves. We must love our brethren. We must actually exalt them (enemies and brethren) higher than ourselves. We must preach the Gospel that Jesus commanded, the Gospel of repentance leading to faith. Jesus made it clear that He came to reconcile sinners to God. But in the process, He knew that many would reject Him and His truth leading to this stern remark, "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword" (Matt 10:34) and this one, "Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division" (Luke 12:51).

So while Jesus calls all persons to come to Him, for He alone is the Way to heaven, He in no way advocates, or is even tolerant of certain lifestyle choices, certain beliefs, and certain acts that many people in the church today attempt to claim are acceptable.

Again, I hope this wasn't too long. But I truly do feel that this is an extremely important discussion. Thanks for the forum.

May the Grace of God be with you.

In the Love of Christ Jesus our Lord,

Austin Smidt

Weighing Heavy on my Heart

2006-04-30T00:41:00.000-07:00

"We want to link arms around the gospel with those who affirm the true gospel, even if there are some important doctrinal differences in other areas [emphasis mine]."

This is a quote from an article written by an elder at Grace Community Church named Nathan Busentiz. His article addressed the fellowship and united service of persons in the ministry who hold differing view points - he specifically addressed the charismatic camps (Mahaney, Grudem, and Piper) who often serve together with cessationists (MacArthur, Sproul, and Duncan). The general point that Busenitz drives home is that "even if there are some important doctrinal differences" between the two sides, they ought to still be able to serve Christ with one another because the essential, foundational truths of the Gospel are affirmed by all parties.

This is something that has been weighing heavily on my heart for the past few months. As I encounter Christians with whom I have differing beliefs, I often find that many of them are unwilling to engage in any sort of reasonable disputation for fear of being "unloving" or "divisive." I can understand the desire to stay away from unfruitful conflict. But I truly don't believe that expressing my theological differences with a fellow brother or sister in Christ is necessarily a bad thing. Granted it can become a bad thing if our prides or tempers flare. But if we are both truly children of the Living God, wouldn't we want to engage in humble, truth-seeking dialogue? "Iron sharpening iron." So often it seems as though the Charismatics stay on their side of the fence; the Pentecostals stay on their side of the fence; the Reformed brethren stay on their side of the fence; the Baptists stay on their side of the fence. And not many of them are willing to engage in, or even see the benefits of, edifying conversation with people with whom they disagree (I just chose to mention a few random sects, it's not by any means an extensive list, but the full list goes on and on and on).

(Please don't misunderstand me. I do know quite a few men and women of differing theological beliefs with whom I have had the blessing to engage in truth seeking, God glorifying conversations. And if you are one of them, I thank God for you.)

My point is that the body of Christ (the whole body) is supposed to be one (1 Cor. 12:12-26). We are commanded to love one another as brothers and sisters of the heavenly household of God. We are to love one another earnestly (1 Peter 4:8). We are commanded to "Let brotherly love continue" (Hebrews 13:3) - which implies that it already exists. So in light of this prevalent command in Scripture, I think that we ought to attempt (when possible) to engage in these types of tender, kind, loving, stern, God-exalting, Christ-centered disputes, not run from them.

It is my hope that we Christians, from assorted denominational backgrounds, can in fact put our differences on the table and "link arms around the gospel" so that we all might grow in the knowledge of our great God and Savior who "bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness" (1 Peter 2:24). One day soon we will all be standing before King Jesus. And I hope that none of us will be ashamed of our dealings with our brethren in this lifetime.

Lord help us!

Maranatha!

Together for the Gospel

2006-04-29T03:04:00.000-07:00

Here is the entire purpose statement and confession given at the Together for the Gospel Conference:

We are brothers in Christ united in one great cause - to stand together for the Gospel. We are convinced that the Gospel of Jesus Christ has been misrepresented, misunderstood, and marginalized in many churches and among many who claim the name of Christ. Compromise of the Gospel has led to the preaching of false gospels, the seduction of many minds and movements, and the weakening of the church's Gospel witness.
As in previous moments of theological and spiritual crisis in the church, we believe that the answer to this confusion and compromise lies in a comprehensive recovery and reaffirmation of the Gospel - and in Christians banding together in Gospel churches that display God's glory in this fallen world.
We are also brothers united in deep concern for the church and the Gospel. This concern is specifically addressed to certain trends within the church today. We are concerned about the tendency of so many churches to substitute technique for truth, therapy for theology, and management for ministry.
We are also concerned that God's glorious purpose for Christ's church is often eclipsed in concern by so many other issues, programs, technologies, and priorities. Furthermore, confusion over crucial questions concerning the authority of the Bible, the meaning of the Gospel, and the nature of truth itself have gravely weakened the church in terms of its witness, its work, and its identity.
We stand together for the Gospel - and for a full and gladdening recovery of the Gospel in the church. We are convinced that such a recovery will be evident in the form of faithful Gospel churches, each bearing faithful witness to the glory of God and the power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Article I
We affirm that the sole authority for the Church is the Bible, verbally inspired, inerrant, infallible, and totally sufficient and trustworthy.
We deny that the Bible is a mere witness to the divine revelation, or that any portion of Scripture is marked by error, incompleteness, or the effects of human sinfulness.

Article II
We affirm that the authority and sufficiency of Scripture extends to the entire Bible, and therefore that the Bible is our final authority for all doctrine and practice.
We deny that any portion of the Bible is to be used in an effort to deny the truthfulness or trustworthiness of any other portion. We further deny any effort to identify a canon within the canon or, for example, to set the words of Jesus against the writings of Paul.

Article III
We affirm that the truth ever remains a central issue for the Church, and that the church must resist the allure of pragmatism and postmodern conceptions of truth as substitutes for obedience to the comprehensive truth claims of Scripture.
We deny that truth is merely a product of social construction or that the truth of the Gospel can be expressed or grounded in anything less than total confidence in the veracity of the Bible, the historicity of biblical events, and the abilityof language to convey understandable truth in sentence form. We further deny that the church can establish in its ministry on a foundation of pragmatism, current marketing techniques, or contemporary cultural fashions.

Article IV
We affirm the centrality of expository preaching in the church and the urgent need for a recovery of biblical exposition and the public reading of Scripture in worship.
We deny that God-honoring worship can marginalize or neglect the ministry of the Word as manifested through the exposition and public reading. We further deny that a church devoid of true biblical preaching can survive as a Gospel church.

Article V
We affirm that the Bible reveals God to be infinite in all his perfections, and thus truly omniscient, omnipotent, timeless, and self-existent. We further affirm that God posesses perfect knowledge of all things, past, present, and future, including human thoughts, acts, and decisions.
We deny that the God of the Bible is in any way limited in terms of knowledge or power or any other perfection or attribute, or that God has in any way limited his own perfections.

Article VI
We affirm that the doctrine of the Trinity is a Christian essential, bearing witness to the ontological reality of the one true God in three divine persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each of the same substance and perfections.
We deny the claim that the Trinity is not an essential doctrine, or that the Trinity can be understood in merely economic or functional categories.

Article VII
We affirm that Jesus Christ is true God and true man, in perfect, undiluted, and unconfused union throughout his incarnation and now eternally. We also affirm that Christ died on the cross as a substitute for sinners, as a sacrifice for sin, and as a propitiation of the wrath of God toward sin. We affirm the death, burial, and bodily resurrection of Christ as essential to the Gospel. We further affirm that Jesus Christ is Lord over His church, and that Christ will reign over the entire cosmos in fulfillment of the Father's gracious purpose.
We deny that the substitutionary character of Christ's atonement for sin can be compromised or denied without serious injury, or even repudiation, of the Gospel. We further deny that Jesus Christ is visible only in weakness, rather than in power, Lordship, or royal reign, or, conversely, that Christ is visible only in power, and never in weakness.

Article VIII
We affirm that salvation is all of grace, and that the Gospel is revealed to us in doctrines that most faithfully exalt God's sovereign purpose to save sinners and in His determination to save his redeemed people by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, to His glory alone.
We deny any teaching, theological system, or means of presenting the Gospel that denies the centrality of God's grace as His gift of unmerited favor to sinners in Christ can be considered true doctrine.

Article IX
We affirm that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is God's means of bringing salvation to His people, that sinners are commanded to believe the Gospel, and that the church is commissioned to preach and teach the Gospel to all nations.
We deny that evangelsim can be reduced to any program, technique, or marketing approach. We further deny that salvation can be separated from repentence toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.

Article X
We affirm that salvation comes to those who truly beleive and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.
We deny that there is salvation in any other name, or that saving faith can take any form other than conscious belief in the Lord Jesus Christ and His saving acts.

Article XI
We affirm the continuity of God's saving purpose and the Christological unity of the covenants. we further affirm a basic distinction between law and grace, and that the true Gospel exalts Christ's atoning work as the consummate and perfect fulfillment of the law.
We deny that the Bible presents any other means of salvation than God's gracious acceptance of sinners in Christ.

Article XII
We affirm that sinners are justified only through faith in Christ, and that justification by faith alone is essential and central to the Gospel.
We deny that any teaching that minimizes, denies, or confuses justification by faith alone can be considered true to the Gospel. We further deny that any teaching that separates regeneration and faith is a true rendering of the Gospel.

Article XIII
We affirm that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to believers by God's decree alone, and that this righteousness, imputed to the believer through faith alone, is the only righteousness that saves.
We deny that such righteousness is earned or deserved in any manner, is infused within the believer to any degree, or is realized in the believer through anything other than faith alone.

Article XIV
We affirm that the shape of Christian discipleship is congregational, and that God's purpose is evident in faithful Gospel congregations, each displaying God's glory in the marks of authentic ecclasiology.
We deny that any Christian can truly be a faithful descipple apart from the teaching, discipline, fellowship, and accountability of a congregation of fellow disciples, organized as a Gospel church. We further deny that the Lord's Supper can faithfully be administered apart from the right practice of church discipline.

Article XV
We affirm that evangelical congregations are to work together in humble and voluntary cooperation and that the spiritual fellowship of Gospel congregations bears witness to the unity of the Church and the glory of God.
We deny that loyalty to any denomination or fellowship of churches can take precedence over the claims of truth and faithfulness to the Gospel.

Article XVI
We affirm that the Scripture reveals a pattern of complementary order between men and women, and that this order is itself a testimony to the Gospel, even as it is the gift of our Creator and Redeemer. We also affirm that all Christians are called to service within the body of Christ, and that God has given to both men and women important and strategic roles within the home, the chuhrch, and the society. We further affirm that the teaching office of the church is assigned only to those men who are called of God in fulfillment of the biblical teachings and that men are to lead in their homes as husbands and fathers who fear and love God.
We deny that the distinction of roles between men and women revealed in the Bible is evidence of mere cultural conditioning or a manifestation of male oppression or prejudice against women. We also deny that this biblical dinstinction of roles excludes women from meaningful minstry in Christ's kingdom. We further deny that any church can confuse these issues without damaging its witness to the Gospel.

Article XVII
We affirm that God calls his people to display his glory in the reconciliation of the nations within the Church, and that God's pleasure in this reconciliation is evident in the gathering of believers from every tongue and tribe and people and nation. We acknowledge that the staggering magnitude of injustice against African-Americans in the name of the Gospel presents a special opportunity for displaying the repentence, forgiveness, and restoration promised in the Gospel. We further affirm that evangelical Christianity in America bears a unique responsbility to demonstrate this reconciliation with our African-American brothers and sisters.
We deny that any church can accept racial prejudice, discrimination, or division without betraying the Gospel.

Article XVIII
We affirm that our only sure and confident hope is in the sure and certain promises of God. Thus, our hope is an eschatological hope, grounded in our confidence that God will bring all things to consummation in a manner that will bring greatest glory to his own name, greatest preeminence to his Son, and greatest joy for his redeemed people.
We deny that we are to find ultimate fulfillment or happiness in this world, or that God's ultimate purpose is for us to find merely a more meaningful and fulfilling life in this fallen world. We further deny that any teaching that offeres health and wealth as God's assured promises in this life can be considered a true gospel.

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you - unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.... - I Corinthians 15:1-4

Then I saw another angel flying directly overhead, with an eternal gospel to proclaim to thhose who dwell on earth, to every nation and tribe and language and people. And he said with a loud voice, "Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment has come, and worship him who made heaven and earth, the sea and the springs of water." - Revelation 14:6-7

Signed: J. Ligon Duncan III, Mark E. Dever, C.J. Mahaney, R. Albert Mohler, Jr., John MacArthur, John Piper, R.C. Sproul.

HT:Jeremy Haywood

The Atonement

2006-04-15T02:30:00.000-07:00

Here is a great article by Mark Dever on the atonement.

In case I don't get the opportunity to post before Sunday, Happy Resurrection Day!!!

Two Different "G"od's in the Bible?

2006-04-10T02:19:00.000-07:00

Often times, skeptics of the Bible will make the assertion that the God of the Old Testament is very different than the God of the New Testament. They claim that the God of the Old Testament was mean and angry; impatient and vengeful; unforgiving and unloving. Whereas the God of the New Testament is forgiving, loving, patient, and never vengeful.

These assertions are completely unfounded. Recently I came across one of the sweetest, most heart-breaking texts of the Bible, Jeremiah 3. In Jeremiah 3, God is beckoning His defiant, rebellious, faithless people (Israel) to repent. After forbearing hundreds-of-years of their harlotry, God calls His prophet Jeremiah to plead with them to come back to Him. This text honestly ought to bring any lover of God to tears. I can almost feel some of His pain as I read His call for reconciliation.

1 "They say, 'If a man divorces his wife, And she goes from him And becomes another man's, May he return to her again?' Would not that land be greatly polluted? But you have played the harlot with many lovers; Yet return to Me," says the Lord. 2 "Lift up your eyes to the desolate heights and see: Where have you not lain with men? By the road you have sat for them Like an Arabian in the wilderness; And you have polluted the land with your harlotries and your wickedness. 3 Therefore the showers have been withheld, And there has been no latter rain. You have had a harlot's forehead; You refuse to be ashamed. 4 Will you not from this time cry to Me, 'My father, You are the guide of my youth? 5 Will He remain angry forever? Will He keep it to the end?' Behold, you have spoken and done evil things, As you were able."

11 Then the Lord said to me, "Backsliding Israel has shown herself more righteous than treacherous Judah.12 Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say: 'Return, backsliding Israel,' says the Lord; 'I will not cause My anger to fall on you. For I am merciful,' says the Lord; ' I will not remain angry forever. 13 Only acknowledge your iniquity, That you have transgressed against the Lord your God, And have scattered your charms To alien deities under every green tree, And you have not obeyed My voice,' says the Lord. 14 "Return, O backsliding children," says the Lord; "for I am married to you. I will take you, one from a city and two from a family, and I will bring you to Zion. 15 And I will give you shepherds according to My heart, who will feed you with knowledge and understanding. 16 Then it shall come to pass, when you are multiplied and increased in the land in those days," says the Lord, "that they will say no more, 'The ark of the covenant of the Lord.' It shall not come to mind, nor shall they remember it, nor shall they visit it, nor shall it be made anymore. 17 At that time Jerusalem shall be called The Throne of the Lord, and all the nations shall be gathered to it, to the name of the Lord, to Jerusalem. No more shall they follow the dictates of their evil hearts. 18 In those days the house of Judah shall walk with the house of Israel, and they shall come together out of the land of the north to the land that I have given as an inheritance to your fathers. 19 "But I said: 'How can I put you among the children And give you a pleasant land, A beautiful heritage of the hosts of nations?' "And I said: 'You shall call Me, "My Father," And not turn away from Me.' 20 Surely, as a wife treacherously departs from her husband, So have you dealt treacherously with Me, O house of Israel," says the Lord. 21 A voice was heard on the desolate heights, Weeping and supplications of the children of Israel. For they have perverted their way; They have forgotten the Lord their God. 22 "Return, you backsliding children, And I will heal your backslidings."

I think some people want to read a passage like this and claim that God is commanding them with "thunder" to come. But I don't think that's correct. To me it seems like God is pleading out of heart-break to His beloved - his wife - to come back home.

He has always loved beyond measure. He has always been patient beyond description. And I think this text is one of the many that show His tenderness toward His beloved.

Follow Up

2006-04-09T14:46:00.000-07:00

Upon further reflection regarding the King James only controversy, I think I have realized that many "KJV Onlyists" are possibly entrusting their faith in the wrong object. I understand their desire to ascertain absolute certitude. But our hope must not be in any single translation of the Bible.

I heard a gentleman make the comment that he uses the KJV because that's the version with which he was saved. Understandable. But God saved him, not the KJV. Christ saved him, not the KJV. The regenerating work of the Holy Spirit saved Him, not the KJV. The Word of God saved him, not the KJV. Granted, the KJV was no doubt the means by which God chose to reveal Himself to this gentleman. But it was not the saving agent.

I do not believe that the power of the Word of God is limited to a single translation. God is the "author and finisher of our faith." And I believe that He is capable of preserving His Word in any language to bring His children from all over the Earth into communion with Himself. In Him alone - as revealed in the Scriptures - our faith and hope must rest. And anything that receives our faith, as opposed to Christ Himself, is a stumbling block.

Please don't misunderstand me; I don't mean that Scripture is not important. It is of utmost importance. It is the self-revelation of God Almighty. Without it, we wouldn't be able to know God. Which is why I can't support all English translations. But as far as I know, there are many great English translations that are all very accurate and equally inspired.

Oh what a joy it would be if the wheat would grow so high that the fences would no longer be seen!

King James Only!!!

2006-04-08T14:54:00.000-07:00

This is just a quick vent, not an exposition:

I have never actually been exposed to a clear, concise, rational argument of why certain men and women feel that the King James Bible is the only true Bible. And last night was no exception. I met a man in Santa Monica who has been a Christian for about 55 years. A friend and I began a conversation with him - just a regular "Nice to meet you" conversation. But then he made a negative comment about my pastor, to which I replied, "John MacArthur is my pastor." I wasn't defensive in my tone at all. I am used to hearing people who misunderstand other people make quick judgments. I was more curious about his reservations towards MacArthur. His answer was that "MacArthur called Erasmus (Desiderius) a humanist."

This was the catapult to the rest of the conversation, the KJV only conversation. Before I continue I must explain something. The word "humanist" as used in regard to Erasmus is not a pejorative term. Today humanism is generally understood as secular humanism, which is just another stream to the fountain of methodological naturalism. That's not the type of humanist that Erasmus was - but he was most definitely a humanist. As a matter of fact, Erasmus was called by his contemporaries, "The Prince of Humanists." Here is a definition from Wikipedia:

Renaissance humanists believed that the liberal arts (art, music, grammar, rhetoric, oratory, history, poetry, using classical texts, and the studies of all of the above) should be practiced by all levels of "richness". They also approved of self, human worth and individual dignity.

So, to make a really long story short(er), I will sum up quickly. Erasmus made a translation (actually 5 editions of his translation) of the Bible into Greek. And the KJV translators relied heavily upon the texts (the "Byzantine" texts) that would become known as the textus receptus (Eramsus' Greek translation). So if anyone were to insult Erasmus, he or she would be insulting the King James Bible.

Back to last night; since Larry (the KJV only gentleman) misunderstood the meaning of the word "humanist" he rushed to a quick judgment of Erasmus being called a humanist. That was the basis of his argument against Dr. MacArthur - a faulty argument.

So with all that said, here is the most shocking part of our conversation. After insulting MacArthur, Nestle, and Wescott and Hort he made the most shocking comment I have ever heard come out of a "student of Scripture's" mouth:

The King James Bible corrects any Greek translation of the Bible.

Granted, I am quoting what he said out of memory. But I am in no way misinterpreting what he said and meant.

I understand if someone has a translational preference. I like the King James Bible. It's a good translation. But it is in no way more authoritative than the Greek - the original language.

I really have no summation to this post. I am going to leave it open-ended so that more can be added at another time. But I will say, once again, that people need to think clearly, analytically, and thoroughly through their ideas so a faulty conclusion based on faulty reasoning is avoided.

A Proper Hermeneutic

2006-04-06T19:50:00.000-07:00

One of the most common errors that I have witnessed in Christians circles is an improper exegesis of the Scriptures. So many problems are alleviated when one properly examines the Scriptures from an historical, grammatical, and contextual interpretation. Here are Dr. James White's necessary questions to ask oneself when studying the Bible, and tips on how to interpret the Bible properly (taken from his lecture called, "How We Got the Bible" - #476):

1. What is the main theme of the book?
2. What is the author's purpose in writing the book?
3. What is this author's background? Who is this author?
4. What is the historical setting of the book (of the writing of the book)?
5. What kind of literature is it? parable? poetry? apocolyptic? teaching?
6. To whom was it written?
7. Usage of other scriptural concepts (are there quotations from the Old Testament -what is its context? How is it used?)
8. Read the passage in at least three different translations.
9. What immediately precedes and follows the passage?
10. What is the main argument of the entire chapter?
11. What is the main point of the passage itself?
12. What is the consistent understanding of the passage in this context? and in the broad context?
13. Does my interpretation make this passage contradictory with the author himself?other biblical passages? plain common sense?
14. What other passages in Scripture bear directly on the issues raised in this passage?

Keep in mind that the above steps all assume that the Bible is in inspired - or preferably "ex-pired" - by God. It is not merely inspiring.

Further Helps:

1. List the key terms of the passage. Are their meanings clear? How do the translations differ at this point?
2. Go to a concordance for the meanings of the words in the original languages (Greek or Hebrew Lexicon).
3. Examine the usage of the word in the original language by the author in this and other books (eg. How does Paul use the term, "To know"?).
4. If it's a New Testament passage, see how the terms were used in the Old Testament; if Old Testament, see how the concept is picked up in the New Testament.
5. Determine if the phrase in question is an idiom of the language (a common phrase that might have different meanings).
6. Go into word studies, tactical studies, textual studies, etc...

I think it's safe to officially call it a "movement" now.

2006-04-03T21:19:00.000-07:00

Cliff College is offering an MA in "Emerging Church."

Interesting... no?

HT: Tall Skiny Kiwi

Universist Movement

2006-04-02T15:27:00.000-07:00

The Universist Movement is an international movement that is becoming more popular each day - even by many who wouldn't know to call themselves "Universists."

Here is their self-description from their webpage:

Universism is a religious philosophy that celebrates the mystery surrounding us. Universists don't pretend we have the answers, and we celebrate that fact! As Universists we do our best to seek answers, and the first step in our process of discovery is recognizing what we do not know. Our philosophy unites individuals who have held a wide variety of freethought perspectives along with those who consider themselves spiritual. Universists enjoy a vibrant, open-minded community that improves the world we live in.

Most belief systems center on your view of God. Universism breaks through this religious paradigm. It treats the God concept as one of many compelling questions concerning the nature of existence. Universism places emphasis on the attitude and spirit in which you address these religious questions, and the method you use to do so, rather than focusing on the conclusions you make. In other words, it's not what you believe - but how you believe it.

And here are five priciples that Universists share:

I. The most important activity in life is our ongoing search for meaning and purpose, through love, learning, life experience, and so on.

II. There are no absolute truths that apply universally to all people. Both the search and its fruits are inherently personal. We must remain uncertain, curious, and open-minded about our search and cannot rely on other people or documents as the source of our truths. We must judge the meaning of our own lives.

III. In any situation, moral judgments are the sole responsibility of those involved. Every decision and behavior occurs in the context of unique circumstances and relationships, and should never be subjected to universal religious codes or absolute philosophical principles. "Good or evil" is a false choice that belies the complexity of our universe and the people in it.

IV. Governments and other social structures are only useful to the extent that they facilitate flourishing. People must be able to become and remain happy, healthy, educated and able to work toward personal goals without interfering with others' ability to do the same.

V. We are free to flourish, change and create. Only the laws of nature limit our potential.

Did anyone else notice the literary suicide that was committed? After they make the claim that there is "no absolute truth," they then say that "We must remain uncertain, curious, and open-minded about our search."

There are no absolute truths that apply universally to all people. Both the search and its fruits are inherently personal. We must remain uncertain, curious, and open-minded about our search and cannot rely on other people or documents as the source of our truths. We must judge the meaning of our own lives.

Correct me if I'm wrong: isn't this a document written by someone other than myself? So, why should I believe any of it? (Actually, it seems as though their five points of belief are quite similar to a creed. It is at the very least equivalent to a doctrinal statement.)

I have so many comments regarding this movement. I am sure I could write a books-worth of refutations. But I'll let you examine the claims of the movement from their own lips, lest I be accused of misrepresentation.

Nevertheless, Maranatha!!!!

Did you know...

2006-03-30T14:30:00.000-08:00

that the energy produced in the Sun's core is equivelent to 100 billion nuclear bombs exploding per second? I can't even wrap my mind around this figure!!!

(<-- This is an actual photo)

What Shall be Preached?

2006-03-23T23:33:00.000-08:00

Embarking on a journey into the early 20th century with J. Gresham Machen has been quite thrilling, even though I'm only in the early stages of his book Christianity and Liberalism. I began reading Machen in large part because of the current ideological and religious discussions surrounding the post-modern culture. Granted, it may seem a tad contradictory that I decided to read a book that refutes modernism/modernity, the same ideology that post-modernity is attempting to refute, in order to find refutations for post-modernism. But ironically enough, many of the modernists' reactions to Evangelicalism are exactly the same as some of the more recent post-modernists' reactions to Evangelicalism:

(These are just a few)

1. The abandonment of scientific theology
2. The desire to avoid giving offense on account of the Gospel
3. Skepticism regarding creeds
4. The desire for experientialism
5. Emphasis upon the praxis of religion.

The two that intrigue me the most are, "The abandonment of scientific theology" and "Emphasis upon the praxis of religion." For multiple reasons I, as well as Machen, believe that these two reactions cannot coincide in true Christianity. Machen, in reference to Paul, states that "Christianity was not only a life, but also a doctrine, and logically the doctrine came first" (23). Christianity is a way of life based on doctrine. If Christ never rose from the dead objectively then our "faith is in vain" (1 Cor. 1:15). This is just one of the many doctrines upon which Christianity is dependent. All of the teachings (doctrine) about the life and work of Christ, the attributes and work of the Godhead, and a plethora of others are necessary.

Machen finds support for his refutation of the idea that "Christianity is not a doctrine but a life" (20) from Philippians, and then from Galatians:

Certainly with regard to Paul himself there should be no debate; Paul certainly was not indifferent to doctrine; on the contrary, doctrine was the very basis of his life. His devotion to doctrine did not, it is true, make him incapable of a magnificent tolerance. One notable example of such tolerance is to be found during his imprisonment at Rome, as attested by the Epistle to the Philippians. Apparently certain Christian teachers at Rome had been jealous of Paul's greatness. As long as he had been at liberty they had been obliged to take a secondary place; but now that he was in prison, they seized the supremacy. They sought to raise up affliction for Paul in his bonds; they preached Christ even of envy and strife. In short, the rival preachers made of the preaching of the gospel a means to the gratification of low personal ambition; it seems to have been about as mean a piece of business as could well be conceived. But Paul was not disturbed. "Whether in presence, or in truth," he said, "Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice" (Phil. i. 18). The way in which the preaching was being carried on was wrong, but the message itself was true; and Paul was far more interested in the content of the message than in the manner of its presentation. It is impossible to conceive a finer piece of broad-minded tolerance.

But the tolerance of Paul was not indiscriminate. He displayed no tolerance, for example, in Galatia. There, too, there were rival preachers. But Paul had no tolerance for them. "But though we," he said, "or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed" (Gal. i. 8). What is the reason for the difference in the apostle's attitude in the two cases? What is the reason for the broad tolerance in Rome, and the fierce anathemas in Galatia? The answer is perfectly plain. In Rome, Paul was tolerant, because there the content of the message that was being proclaimed by the rival teachers was true; in Galatia he was intolerant, because there the content of the rival message was false. In neither case did personalities have anything to do with Paul's attitude. No doubt the motives of the Judaizers in Galatia were far from pure, and in an incidental way Paul does point out their impurity. But that was not the ground of his opposition. The Judaizers no doubt were morally far from perfect, but Paul's opposition to them would have been exactly the same if they had all been angels from heaven. His opposition was based altogether upon the falsity of their teaching; they were substituting for the one true gospel a false gospel which was no gospel at all. It never occurred to Paul that a gospel might be true for one man and not for another; the blight of pragmatism had never fallen upon his soul. Paul was convinced of the objective truth of the gospel message, and devotion to that truth was the great passion of his life. Christianity for Paul was not only a life, but also a doctrine, and logically the doctrine came first.

But what was the difference between the teaching of Paul and the teaching of the Judaizers ? What was it that gave rise to the stupendous polemic of the Epistle to the Galatians? To the modern Church the difference would have seemed to be a mere theological subtlety. About many things the Judaizers were in perfect agreement with Paul. The Judaizers believed that Jesus was the Messiah; there is not a shadow of evidence that they objected to Paul's lofty view of the person of Christ. Without the slightest doubt, they believed that Jesus had really risen from the dead. They believed, moreover, that faith in Christ was necessary to salvation. But the trouble was, they believed that something else was also necessary; they believed that what Christ had done needed to be pieced out by the believer's own effort to keep the Law. From the modern point of view the difference would have seemed to be very slight. (21-24)

I believe that Machen's argument is biblically sound and intellectually compelling - but really the former is more important for any defense of Christianity. It is quite apparent that doctrine, in Paul's eyes, was extremely important. So how can we decide to abandon doctrine and still call ourselves faithful? because we live morally decent lives? It's not an either-or issue (praxis or doctrine). It's a both-and issue. We must know the doctrine that governs our actions. Without clear knowledge of God and His demands, we would have no practice at all.

I believe that the study of doctrine and the resulting praxis are two doctrines from the Bible that are inextricably linked (Luke 8:21, 11:28). And what a joy it is to know that we have a Savior who has bought for us delight in God, through intellectual faculties and through experience.

We are saved by grace (Rom. 4:16, 11:6; Eph. 2:5,8), through faith - in a definite object (Hab. 2:4; Luke 18:42; Eph. 2:8), unto good works (Eph. 2:10; 1 Tim. 6:18; Jam. 2:20).

"It appears that the things that are sometimes thought to be hardest to defend are also the things that are most worth defending" - J. Gresham Machen

I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud

2006-03-22T14:30:00.000-08:00

This poem by William Wordsworth is a beautiful picture of a man delighting in God's creation:

I wandered lonely as a cloud
That floats on high o'er vales and hills,
When all at once I saw a crowd,
A host, of golden daffodils,
Beside the lake, beneath the trees
Fluttering and dancing in the breeze.

Continuous as the stars that shine
And twinkle on the Milky Way,
They stretched in never-ending line
Along the margin of a bay:
Ten thousand saw I at a glance
Tossing their heads in sprightly dance.

The waves beside them danced, but they
Out-did the sparkling waves in glee: -
A poet could not but be gay
In such a jocund company:
I gazed -and gazed -but little thought
What wealth the show to me had brought.

For oft, when on my couch I lie
In vacant or in pensive mood,
They flash upon that inward eye
Which is the bliss of solitude;
And then my heart with pleasure fills
And dances with the daffodils.

What Do You Mean?

2006-03-22T13:01:00.000-08:00

This is by no means an exhaustive exposition; just some quick thoughts.

Today, my literature professor made the statement, "We are used to speaking in metaphor. We rarely ever say what we literally mean."

What he meant was exaggeration: "I'm starving." It's freezing cold in here." These were two examples that he mentioned.

This got me thinking a bit. Is this generally true of our daily conversations? Do we often exaggerate and use metaphor in our speech? And if so, is this really how we think (fictitiously and metaphorically)? And when we use such language, is it beneficial or detrimental?

Honestly, I can admit that I have a tendency to over-dramatize actual events. This is something that never seemed like much of an issue until recently. But now I realize that exaggeration is simply another form of lying. And I, by the grace of God, truly desire that my speech and my thoughts would be sincere in all respects so that I might better glorify Him.

After reflection, my perception of metaphoric language - in myself and others - is that it is not beneficial; but rather, it is quite detrimental. How often have you been in a conversation with someone and they have made the claim, "I hate that...(insert noun of choice)!"? Does that person really hate the object of distaste? Or is he or she merely momentarily embittered? By using the word "hate" - or any exaggerated clause or phrase - a cloud of confusion has automatically ascended over the conversation. Granted, the example I have given is weak. But I hope that you can understand my point.

So many conflicts have arisen theologically, politically, relationally, etc. due to the imprecise nature of our language usage. This is something that I see as unnecessary conflict. Our language is beautiful and very concise, if used properly.

Perhaps this has to do with the departure of reading. Instead of reading, we, America in particular, have become a movie-going people. We are shaped by the culture to which we are exposed. And since we are often exposed to "casual" conversations and extraordinary events, we don't know how to carry on formal conversations about actual events. And over time, the casual conversations transpire into thoughts. Perhaps we don't even think clearly - which I believe is absolutely true - because of our lack of conversational clarity. After all, our words are first formed in our minds...

Scripture and Plain Reason

2006-03-17T17:43:00.000-08:00

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe. God help me. Here I stand, I can do no other. - Martin Luther

This is a good (short) article by John MacArthur.

HT: Shepherds' Fellowship

Pink Wednesday

2006-03-15T13:30:00.000-08:00

The foundation of all true knowledge of God must be a clear mental apprehension of His perfections as revealed in Holy Scripture. An unknown God can neither be trusted, served, nor worshipped.

These astute words, uttered by Arthur W. Pink, are foundational to Christianity. We must know our God - as He has chosen to reveal Himself - if we are to worship Him as we ought. I trust that there are many Christians out there in the blogosphere in whom the Spirit has cultivated a deep passion for the knowledge of God. Yet still, there are others that have not yet been exposed to the riches of His grace - something upon which we all need to often meditate.

When the Spirit graciously revealed the glory of Christ to me, my father, being the godly man-of-concern that he is, suggested that I read The Attributes of God by A.W. Pink so that the foundation upon which my Christian life was built would be a deep, biblical, awful, glorious understanding of the riches of the eternal God, His essence, and His activity. This is one of those works to which I will often return. And I trust that it will benefit you as well.

Here is Chapter one of The Attributes of God, "The Solitariness of God."

And here is a quick excerpt:

"In the beginning, God" (Gen. 1:1). There was a time, if "time" is could be called, when God, in the unity of His nature (though subsisting equally in three Divine Persons), dwelt all alone. "In the beginning, God." There was no heaven, where His glory is now particularly manifested. There was no earth to engage His attention. There were no angels to hymn His praises; no universe to be upheld by the word of His power. There was nothing, no one, but God; and that, not for a day, a year, or an age, but "from everlasting." During a past eternity, God was alone: self-contained, self-sufficient, self-satisfied; in need of nothing. Had a universe, had angels, had human beings been necessary to Him in any way, they also had been called into existence from all eternity. The creating of them when He did, added nothing to God essentially. He changes not (Mal. 3:6), therefore His essential glory can be neither augmented nor diminished.

According to the Statistics...

2006-03-14T21:58:00.000-08:00

...the rapture really could occur at any time.

HT: Riddleblog

How to Defend Logic

2006-03-14T21:52:00.000-08:00

This is an interesting apologetic tactic. By the way, I don't recommend it. But it's still funny.

HT: Soli Deo Gloria

The Pleasantness of a Religious Life...

2006-03-11T13:48:00.000-08:00

Recently I have been reading Matthew Henry's The Pleasantness of a Religious Life. What a joy this book has been to my soul!

The current discussion over evangelizing to the emerging culture has caused me to think often about the methods by which we preach the Gospel. And I have stated previously that I am generally in favor, or at the very least semi-supportive, of using modern methods to bring the Gospel to the unreached peoples of the world. However, last night Matthew Henry made me re-think some things.

Pleasure is a tempting thing: what yields delight, cannot but attract desire; it is next to necessity, so strongly doth it urge. Surely, if we were but fully persuaded of this, that religion [Christianity] hath pleasure on its side, we would be wrought upon by the allurement of that to be religious (pg. 49).

Henry understood the joy that is found only in Christ. He knew that if others could also grasp the idea that Christianity is the only thing in the world that produces long-lasting, immeasurable joy then there would be a strong sense of "allurement" constantly pulling and tugging at one's soul toward God. He goes on to say,

There is no pleasure in any learning like that of learning Christ, and the things that belong to our everlasting peace; for that which is known is not small and trivial, is not doubtful and uncertain, is not foreign to us, and which we are not concerned in; which are things that may much diminish the pleasure of any knowledge; but it is great and sure, and of the last importance to us, and the knowledge of it gives us satisfaction: here we may rest our souls. To know the perfections of the divine nature, the unsearchable riches of divine grace, to be led into the mystery of our redemption and reconciliation by Christ, this is food; such knowledge as this is a feast to the soul; it is meat indeed, and drink indeed...If the knowledge of the law of God was so sweet to David, 'sweeter than honey to his taste' (Pss. 19:10; 119:103), how much more so should the knowledge of the gospel of Christ be to us? (pg. 54).

Granted, Henry is speaking directly to believers in an attempt to strengthen their faith and love in Christ. But I think this can also apply to unbelievers. Often times they perceive Christianity as a way to get someone to stop drinking, or stop smoking, or quit some other "bad habit." And many times churches preach this type of Gospel: "Try Jesus and he will give you a better life."

The Gospel is not that your life will necessarily be better in the immediate sense. But rather, that the joy that will be produced from knowing God and knowing the depths of His riches and Grace will be eternal.

This is how I believe the Gospel ought to be presented. Yes, present the law. Yes, a sinner must come to an accurate assessment of his or her depravity before true repentance will occur. But then we must insert the "but God." After showing the sinful nature of the person, then the grace of God must be lifted up, then the glory of Christ must be explained, then the finality of His sacrifice must be preached, and then the future glory and joy of the believer ought to be presented.

As one who is of the proper age to be categorized as belonging to the post-modern, emerging culture, I can say that I personally didn't need to be reached by any sort of fancy methodology to get a hold of me with the Gospel. The Gospel was preached and then the Spirit went to work for a few years until finally the truth was made known to me. I understand that everyone is different. But my point is that it is the Gospel that saves, not our clever arguments or style adaptations. It is the glory of Christ and the work of the Spirit that brings about true saving faith.

Changing the Message with the Method

2006-03-10T19:59:00.000-08:00

There has been much discussion and controversy over the "emergent movement." I understand that many of the "forefathers" don't like to call it a movement. But I think it's a little late for that. Whether it was their desire to start a movement or not, it has happened. One of the major problems with debating about this "movement" is that there are no concrete confessions or authorities that state what the emerging church actually believes. Yes, Mclaren has written quite a bit on the subject. But Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, and Dan Kimball - among others - all seem to have their own ideas regarding what they want to accomplish.

But one of the questions that most proponents of the emerging movement have agreed upon is in regards to evangelizing: "How do we reach a post-modern culture with the message of Jesus Christ?" I think that this is a real concern. Being a student, I can attest to the effects that post-modernity is having (has had) upon the college crowd. Truth has become "a strange sort of fiction" (as Greg Koukl mentioned in his recent lecture during STR's Master's Series last month).

I hope we can all agree that the emerging culture needs to hear the Gospel, right? So, how can we, Christians in general, reach generation "e"? Well, the emergent answer is to change the method by which the Gospel is presented; make it more geared toward to the emerging culture's way of thinking. And I think that the motives behind this answer are valid. But the problem that I am seeing is that in the process of changing the method, often times, the message is also being changed.

This is something that simply cannot happen. If we are going to try to reach the emerging culture, one thing we cannot do is change the message. The message is very clear throughout Scripture: "And 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" (Act 4:12). This is something that we simply cannot compromise. Christians are called to weather the storms and stand in the way of ideological oppostion, all the while boldly proclaiming the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ which, like Him, is unchanging. When new philosophical ideologies arise, the message must stay the same. Our faith does not "rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God" (1 Cor. 2:5). And post-modernity is just that, "wisdom of men." It is a philosophical construct designed to question how knowledge is ascertained. And very often it denies absolute truth.

Granted, modernity was also a flawed humanistic philosophical ideology. I am in no way arguing that reason alone is a viable alternative to post-modernism. For it is by faith that "we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God" (Heb 11:3). But what I am saying is that the message of Jesus Christ will never be accurately preached if it is blended with post-modernism. Truth is something that by its very nature cannot be subjective. There are subjective beliefs. But truth, by definition, is something that is a fact. And either Jesus is "the Truth" or He is not. He left no room for debate.

So while I don't mind the removal of pews, the use of candle lit services, the massive consumption of Starbucks coffee, or the desire for spiritual "conversations," I do find it problematic that the message is sometimes being changed with the method.