Debating Misquoting Jesus

The following article was found at this link: American Vision


On Wednesday January 21, I had the privilege of attending the debate between Dr. James White and Dr. Bart D. Ehrman in Ft. Lauderdale, FL. The weather hardly seemed Floridian at fifty degrees with a breezy chill, so it was a good night to be inside anyway. The resolution on the floor: “Does the New Testament Misquote Jesus?” With two men with over fifty years of scholarship and about fifty books between them, the evening promised some mental stimulation at least, and did not disappoint.

Before I get to the meat, let me express a little disappointment that this debate devolved, as most debates do, into many issues besides the actual topic. The rabbit trails may run closely to the original, and may have crossed the correct path a few times, but the three-hour debate essentially involved two and a half hours of related ideas and arguments and only about a half-hour actually on the main point. It was educational, lively, inspiring and challenging, and even entertaining, but in the end (despite some comments to the contrary) neither party established their own view well enough, and both parties had an effective counter to the fullest claims of the other.

This may come as a surprise to the many who have read Dr. White’s assessment of his performance. Far be it from me to disagree with his established authority on these matters, but I find the implications that he essentially steamrolled Ehrman to sound a little inflated. He writes of Dr. Ehrman:

He did not prepare for the debate, had no idea who I am, and did not read anything I’ve ever written, hence, he was in a tough spot, given that I had studied his works so thoroughly. As a result, he made horrific blunders in misrepresenting me in his rebuttal.[1]

I don’t know for sure that Dr. Ehrman (whom I have no necessary interest in defending) did not read White’s works in preparing, but I also don’t know how it would have made a difference if Ehrman did. I’m not sure what unique contribution Dr. White’s works have added to manuscript scholarship that Ehrman would not have already crossed in over twenty years in New Testament textual studies, journals, etc., after having studied under the most well-known name in the field in Bruce M. Metzger at Princeton, crossed both conservatives and liberals of all degress, and having earned international recognition in the field himself. In the midst of the debate, Ehrman showed that he was well familiar with the arguments White put forth as they simply represent the standard Evangelical defense within academia for some years now. And besides, the subject for debate was not “What Has James White Written on the Subject?,” or “Who Is James White?,” it was “Does the New Testament Misquote Jesus?” The issue of White’s publications on the subject is substantially a red herring.

Despite both men possessing scholarly credentials and reputations, during the course of their debate over the integrity of Biblical manuscripts, each resorted at times to Ad Hominem appeals. For example, James White argued that God has preserved His word in the multiplicity of fragmented manuscripts (5000+ to date), even though many of those manuscripts contain differences. Though within the many pieces, the “tenacity” of the word remains. “It’s like having a 1,010 pieces for a 1,000pc jigsaw puzzle. It’s all there, we just have more than we need,” he illustrated. Amidst his rebuttals of this claim, Dr. Ehrman complained that only Evangelical Christian scholars continue to make this “tenacity” argument (against the vast weight of international scholarly opinion), and Evangelicals do so because they must defend their underlying doctrine of inspiration.

You can see how Dr. Ehrman’s rebuttal at this point commits the classic Circumstantial Ad Hominem: he dismisses Dr. White’s “tenacity” argument essentially by saying, “You only believe that because you have a vested interest in doing so: your religious tenets require you to do so at the expense of facts.” But this dismissal only attacks Dr. White’s alleged motivation and says nothing about the issue itself. Even if Dr. Ehrman’s claim were true, it would not disprove, or even weaken, the “tenacity of the text” argument.

At several points, however, Dr. White treats Dr. Ehrman in a similar manner. It is worth noting how even devout believers do not escape the human frailty for fallacious arguments, and here we have a case in point. Dr. Ehrman primarily argued that since the manuscripts of the Bible exist in multiple fragments which contain many discrepancies (a fact agreed upon by all sides), therefore they in fact do not preserve God’s word. Throughout the debate, Dr. White left the main issue in order to point out that Dr. Ehrmanelsewhere in his writings and interviews denies the orthodox doctrine of inspiration. White himself after the debate explicitly made an issue of this: “In any case, [Ehrman’s] radical skepticism was clearly documented, and those in attendance found it very useful.”[2] White appears to think this is relevant to the main point, but logically it is not.

The “radical skepticism” charge implies that we should dismiss Dr. Ehrman’s argument as biased liberal propaganda. (White alludes to this again explicitly after the debate, pronouncing that Ehrman’s behavior during the debate “betrays his deep bias and prejudice.”) But this again completely avoids the main issue. Even though Dr. Ehrman’s argument does not prove the extent of what he claims (for other reasons), Dr.White’s emphasis on Ehrman’s personal denial of inspiration does not address the points of the actual argument. Even if Dr. Ehrman loved to draw Satanic symbols on his notebooks and burn Bibles for fun, these facts would have no necessary logical connection to his argument about the texts. At best they could possibly motivate his argument, but, as in the case of White’s motivations, they could not serve as a logical refutation.

I also find White’s mentioning that, “I think those in attendance were a little surprised at Dr. Ehrman’s treatment of me, but I wasn’t overly surprised,” to sound a little like an plea for pity. Ehrman treated White no more harshly than vice versa. Anyone who emerges from a debate with the vigorous and sometimes jabbing rhetoric that White gives should expect a little in return. Another reviewer on the web notes that “Ehrman’s aggressiveness was appropriate.”[3] I agree. It’s the nature of academic debate, as White knows way better than I do.

Ultimately, each man said enough to refute the other’s most positive claims, and yet not enough to substantiate his own. White’s claim that the multiplicity of fragments contains the whole of the Word will not hold as a historical or logical proof. It does, however, present a problem for Ehrman who claimed positively that since the manuscripts contain errors, therefore they do notfaithfully transmit the message of the originals. This strong of a claim will not hold either. Since we simply do not have the originals to compare with the much later copies that we do have, we simply cannot say one way or the other based on current physical evidencethat the modern Bible does or does not faithfully transmit the originals. We as Evangelicals believe that it does, but the evidence itself cannot prove or disprove this.
White’s “tenacity” argument—the standard Evangelical argument—successfully defends againstEhrman’s view by allowing for the possibility that the originals are retained, but it does not and cannot prove it. Yet Ehrman can rightfully argue from the same evidence and the same lack of originals that based on manuscript evidence we cannot positively say that the originals were faithfully preserved. We simply don’t know unless we have the originals to compare.

In the end, despite all of the helpful information and engaging points, the debate proved little beside the limitations of evidentialist apologetics. If manuscript evidence forms the basis of our trust in the veracity of Scripture, then we cannot conclude veracity one way or the other. Without the prior existence of God and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, revelation in any form cannot exist. Our trust that the Bible faithfully preserves the word of God requires such a priori Truths. This is why, in nearly all of the Reformed Confessions and in much of subsequent creedal traditions, the inspiration of Scripture is an article of faith as much as the existence of the Trinity and the deity of Christ. The current evidence itself is consistent with this belief, but cannot stand as the basis, foundation, justification or proof of it.

White’s own 1689 Reformed Baptist confession states as much (virtually identical to the Westminster Confession of Faith on this point):

4. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the author thereof; therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God.

5. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church of God to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scriptures; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, and the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, and many other incomparable excellencies, and entire perfections thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

8. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic;…[4]

We can consider New Testament textual evidence to be among those “many other incomparable excellencies,” but yet must admit that the persuasion of its veracity comes not from that evidence, but from the Holy Spirit. Ehrman, despite whatever errors he may commit, knows at least this much, and Evangelicals should acknowledge it.

Lecrae ft Cam - Desperate

John Piper - Be Couragous, President Barack Obama

Stacey Campbell

It seems that some people are not happy with me pointing out the errors of Stacey Campbell. I wish they were more unhappy with what Stacey Campbell is doing than with my words. I challenge the readers to examine the actions of Stacey Campbell and my words and see which one we should be upset about!







Wow, from those videos I can see why people would be more upset with my words than that! Yes, that was sarcastic. It is a sad day when the above foolishness is defended and people are more upset when people point out that it is foolishness then they are by the actual foolishness!

NEW HOPE PT 2

A few weeks ago I posted the article, "IS NEW HOPE CHURCH DECEIVED?"

In the article, I shared some information about a conference that New Hope Church in Abilene, TX recently held. Today someone posted a comment about my article and I would like to take some time to respond to the comment. My words will be directed to the person who posted it.

I want to thank you for taking the time to read the blog and share your thoughts. I want truth more than anything else. In the pursuit of truth, I welcome challenges that will make me re-examine what I currently beleive. I thank you for challenging me and what I have written.

I hope you will consider my response carefully and truly think about what I am saying.

You began your comments by quoting:

Do not judge, or you too will be judged." Mt 7:1


From this quote, it seems that you are clearly saying we as Christians are not to judge.

Take a few minutes and think about your claim:

If you are claiming that I am judging others, are you not making a judgment about me?

Doesn't your comment require that you have made a judgment and that judgment is that I am judging, and so you are telling me to not judge on the basis of you judging me?

In fact I will suggest that your comments are filled with judgments:

Let's look:

"You make some bold links here. First off linking Todd Bentley too Stacey Campel. While the two might have been leaders at the same place, Stacey is not held accountable for Todd's mistake. This is true for you as well. You are not held accountable for the mistakes others make. Then linking Tod Bentley and his mistakes to New Hope Church through Stacey; seems like a stretch to me"


Where did I say that Stacy Campbell is responsible for Todd's mistakes? Is that not a judgment you are making about what I have written?

Here are my actual words:

Remember New Hope just held a confrence called, Ignite 09. One of the speakers was Stacy Campbell. Guess what? She was at the Lakeland Revival! She was one of the leaders there to comission Todd Bentley as an apostle! In fact I have the video!

That is all I said, where did I blame her? Where did I hold her responsible?

It is a fact that Stacy went to Lakeland to "comission" Todd as an "apostle"

Therefore she was in support of the Lakeland chaos!

That is a fact.


You went on to write, "All I see in this blog is one Christian attacking another Christian." Is that not a judgment on your part?


I hope my point is clear. Your comments also contain judgments, so are you violating the very scripture you quoted?

Now let's back up and look at the text more carefully:


Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considereth not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? THOU HYPOCRITE, first cast the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." (Matthew 7:1-5)

Read this again carefully. Notice that it is addressed to a hypocrite--not to those who sincerely want to discern whether a teacher or teaching is true or false to God's Word. And instead of being a prohibition against honest judgment, it is a solemn warning against hypocritical judgment. In fact, the last statement of this Scripture commands sincere judgment--"Then thou shalt see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

IF WE TAKE A VERSE OR A PART OF A VERSE OUT OF ITS SETTING, WE CAN MAKE THE WORD OF GOD APPEAR TO TEACH THE VERY OPPOSITE OF WHAT IT REALLY DOES TEACH. And those who do this cannot escape the judgment of God for twisting His Word (2 Peter 3:16). Let this be a warning to us never again to take a text or Scripture out of its context.

Many who piously quote, "Judge not," out of its connection, in order to defend that which is false to God's Word, do not see their own inconsistency in thus judging those who would obey God's Word about judging that which is untrue to the Bible. It is tragic that so much that is anti- Scriptural has found undeserved shelter behind a misuse of the Scripture just quoted.

You should take some time and read the entire chapter of Matthew 7. Notice these words just a few verses after the one you quoted:


15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. 24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: 25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. 26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: 27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it. 28 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: 29 For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.



That is filled with language of judgment. In fact, how can I obey the command to beware of false prophets, if I am not to judge?


In fact, look at what Paul wrote:

1 Timothy 1:20 -
Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.

He named names!

Look at what Jesus told the Church of Pergamos in Revelation chapter 2:

But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. 15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.

The church was not taking a stand against false doctrine. How can you do that unless you judge a doctrine to be false?


We are not to make hypocritical judgments and we are to ensure our judgments are biblical.

So let's review:

You have told me not to judge but in doing so you have made judgments yourself.

It is clear from God's word we are to make biblical judgements especially in regards to false teachers!

Let's move on.

You wrote:

"What happened to correcting one another out of love?"

That is a great question. What makes you think that I did not write my post out of love?

Is it not love to warn people of false teachers and heritical movements?

Is it not love to rebuke and to warn?

Is this not love?
Matthew 3:7
But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

Matthew 23
13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. 14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. 15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. 16 Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor! 17 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? 18 And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty. 19 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift? 20 Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon. 21 And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein. 22 And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon. 23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. 24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. 25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. 26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. 27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. 28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. 29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, 30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. 31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. 32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. 33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?


Sometimes the hardest thing to do is to rebuke others and to warn.

I am very busy, and I would much rather post other things. However, to love others is to warn them of false teaching.

The greatest act of hatred is to allow someone to be deceived and to say nothing. If you love people, are you warning them of what is going on in many circles of the charismatic world? Do you speak out when false prophecies are made? Do you speak out when things that are occuring are clearly not biblical?

At the end of your comments you wrote this,
"spent sometime on wikapedia, and now you think you understand and can post this blog to be the TRUTH when all it is, is YOUR opinion."

Wow, that seems to clearly be a judgment. What did I say that is not true?

You have told me not to judge yet in doing so you have judged.

The scriptures are clear that we are to avoid false teachers and speak out against it. This can only be done by making scriptural judgments.


You seem to think that if one offers up scriptural criticism and rebuke, that is not a sign of love. However, I pointed out a number of scriptures that show the opposite.

You seem to have indicated that I have offered opinion and not truth, once again making a judgement about my words. I submit that I have offered a strong biblical challenge to some of the craziness happening in the Charismatic world.


Thanks again for challenging me. I'm sorry you took offense to my post, but I am not sorry for warning people about a movement that is filled with chaos and false teaching.
I challenge all readers to not just take my word for it. Do a search for Stacy Campbell. Find her videos and watch them carefully. Check her words against the scriptures, and let the Bible lead you to truth.

Fireproof DVD

Check it out:

Fireproof the movie

Spiritual Gifts Pt 7

RICK JOYNER - MORNINGSTAR MADNESS

Sovereign Grace Baptist Church

This morning at Victory Baptist Church we had Pastor Jon Cardwell in attendance. He is traveling to Alabama to become the Pastor of Sovereign Grace Baptist Church.

The Sovereign Grace Baptist website has the following announcement:

The pulpit committee, having met on Saturday, December 20th, made their recommendation to Sovereign Grace Baptist Church with regard to calling Jon Cardwell as the congregation’s next pastor. The congregation voted on Sunday, December 21st, and the call was extended that afternoon. Brother Jon has humbly accepted the Lord’s call through the believers of Sovereign Grace Baptist Church and will be working with the leadership to transition from California to Alabama.

Brother Cardwell has recently served as a missionary-pastor to congregations in remote villages of Alaska since 2002 and had to leave as symptoms of an illness yet to be diagnosed forced him and his family to leave the harsh enviornment of “bush” Alaska. Since his honorable discharge from the US Navy in 1993, he has also served the Lord in missions to Asia and as a pastor to a local congregation in Riverside, California.

Sermons and messages from Brother Jon’s previous ministries can be found on SermonAudio.com by CLICKING HERE.



Here is the link to the Sovereign Grace Baptist Church website: Church

Here is the link to the sermonaudio page: sermons



Take some time to visit the pages. Remember to pray for Pastor Jon Cardwell as he ministers in Alabama.

Response to Comments on Rick Warren's Four Jesus'

Below I have included comments in red to my previous post, "Rick Warren's Four Jesus'" and my response.

“Jesus’ name was never ‘Isa”

Yes, I know. I did not say it was in my post.

“Jesus’ mother tongue was Aramaic. In his own lifetime he was called Yeshua in Aramaic, and Jesu in Greek. This is like calling the same person John when speaking English and Jean when speaking French: Jesu, pronounced "Yesoo", is the Greek form of Aramaic Yeshua. (The final -s in Jesu-s is a Greek grammatical ending.) Yeshua is itself a form of Hebrew Yehoshua’, which means ‘the Lord is salvation’. However Yehoshua’ is normally given in English as Joshua. So Joshua and Jesus are variants of the same name.”

Yes, I know. That is correct.

“It is interesting that Jesus' name Yehoshua’ contains within it the proper Hebrew name for God, the first syllable Yeh- being short for YHWH ‘the LORD’.”

I too have found this interesting.

“Yeshua of Nazareth was never called ‘Isa, the name the Qur’an gives to him.”

Yes, I know. That is also correct. ‘Isa’ is the name the Qur’an gives to Jesus, as you have said.

“Arab-speaking Christians refer to Jesus as Yasou’ (from Yeshua) not ‘Isa.”

That makes good sense. I did not know that Arab-speaking Christians referred to Jesus as Yasou’. It makes sense because, 1) It is close in form to Yeshua, and 2) It makes sense to differentiate the name of Jesus between ‘Isa’, the name given to Jesus by Muslims as found in the Qur’an, and ‘Yasou’, the name given to Jesus by Arab-Christians (I suspect as found in Arabic Bibles) so as to differentiate between the Jesus of the Bible and the Jesus of the Qur’an since they are indeed different.

""Isa" is not Jesus.”

I agree that ‘Isa’ is not Jesus in the sense that ‘Isa’ does not refer to the Jesus of the Bible but rather the Jesus of the Qur’an which is not the same Jesus.

May I suggect you read these sites: http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?t=76394 and http://www.answering-islam.org/Intro/islamic_jesus.html

Thank you for the site information.

It seems we have had a clarity of language discussion. But it does not seem to bear any difference to my previous post on Rick Warren’s four Jesus’.

As said in my previous post, my intention was not to discern or discuss whether or not Rick Warren was being inclusive or evangelistic. In fact, I added a link about that question to my post the next day to give readers access to that discussion from someone else.

 My argument was simple: It is very safe and reasonable to believe/assume that Rick most likely referred to the Jesus of the Christian Bible when he used the name ‘Isa’ because:

1) Rick referred to the Jesus of the Bible three other times in three different languages

2) Rick used all four names to refer to one person, the person that saved him, who can only be the Jesus of the Bible

It seems that your point that ‘Isa’ is not Jesus means that Rick was NOT referring to the Jesus of the Bible but to the Jesus of the Qur’an.

I say, again, that Rick most likely was referring to the Jesus of the Bible for the reason stated above and in my previous post, and that he mistakenly used the name ‘Isa’ and should have used the name “Yasou’” since that is the Jesus of Arab-Christians. I would agree with that. But, I would not fault Rick Warren for such a mistake because the languages can be confusing (God did a good job at the Tower of Babel!). For example, I spoke again with my friend from Pakistan who speaks Urdu. From him I learned that ‘Isa’ means ‘Jesus’ in Urdu and Arabic (though not the same Jesus of the Bible but rather the Jesus of the Qur’an). I also learned that Arabic is a type of language and Urdu is like a dialect (Like Mandarin is to Chinese). It’s also like Indian languages. There are 30 languages in India, as learned from my friend from India. Two of those are Hindi and Bengali. Another example is the Romantic languages such as French, Italian, Spanish, etc.

I admit here that my understanding of these language types and derivatives is not totally clear. Nevertheless, I hope the point is clear.

In my previous post, my argument was simple, as reiterated above. And my point of that was to quell and dispel any conspiracy or concern that Rick Warren actually referred to the Jesus of the Qur’an rather than the Jesus of the Bible and therefore he or Obama is a Muslim. By logical extension of my argument and my point, I will grant also that my point would be to quell and dispel concern that Rick was being inclusive, though that was not the intent of my previous post.

Also, in response to the two websites. As shown above, I agree that ‘Isa’ refers to the Muslim Jesus, not the Christian Jesus, but…see above.

I still believe that Rick was mistaken. I do not believe that there is need or cause for alarm or concern over pluralism, religious synergism, Islam taking over, etc. These things may occur, it is possible. But it appears to me that most of the concern over it is based on some fact and on some speculation.

But I also do believe that we should be careful and watchful and prayerful about our leaders, the end times, the antichrist, and other potential threats to the truth and to the gospel of Jesus and of Christianity. But in so doing we must balance fact and fiction, sure statements and speculation. We must not be alarmists or conspiracy-theorists. We must exercise Biblical judgment and discernment. 

I pray God helps his people do just that, and I thank you for your input and aid to that end. To God be the glory.

I hope that this has offered more clarity. I thank you for your input and am glad for your accuracy in the knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek names for Jesus and God. Peace.

History of C. G. Finney and Decisional Regneration

P46 the Earliest Extant Witness to the Corpus Paulinum

The following was found at, The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts



P46 the Earliest Extant Witness to the Corpus Paulinum
Rob G. Reid
Monday, Jan 19, 2009

The earliest papyrus manuscript containing most of the epistles of Paul, less the pastoral epistles, along with the book of Hebrews is from the Chester Beatty Papyri Collection known as P46. This papyrus was discovered along with P45 and P47 in the Fayum of Egypt in the ruins of an early Church. The manuscript traveled 130km north to Cairo and was broken up in two portions by a dealer. Presently, part of the papyrus is in the Chester Beatty Library in Dublin, Ireland. The other portion of the papyrus was acquired by the University of Michigan, where it is presently housed. As stated previously, this is the earliest Pauline manuscript and along with the prestige has come much scholarly debate concerning the date of the papyrus. F. G. Kenyon first suggested a third century CE date. Subsequently, Ulrich Wilcken dated the document to ca. 200 CE. More recently, Young Kyu Kim suggested a provocatively early date to the reign of Domitian in 81–96 CE. His argument was predicated upon six premises: (1) comparative literary papyri of such an early date, (2) comparative documentary papyri of an early date, (3) several unique features of the handwriting, (4) and (5) other morphologically early components, and (6) a corrector’s hand which was thought to be in several documents of the early period cumulatively convinced Kim.

However, most have not found Kim’s case compelling. Comfort and Barrett are more sober in their judgment, yet still rather early dating the papyrus to the middle of the second century. Bruce Griffin, in a detailed response to Kim’s dating, has offered what seems the most probable suggestion of ca. 175–225 CE. Metzger concurs offering “about 200.”

Furthermore, with respect to the textual character, this papyrus has a close affinity with Codex Vaticanus (B), locating it within the genealogical tradition of the Alexandrian family. Thus, P46 is a very important witness to the Pauline tradition and when taken together with other early witnesses (e.g., Aleph, B) may well touch the earliest transmission stream of the Pauline tradition. The desert sands of Egypt may not make for comfortable living, but we should be grateful that they preserved this ancient treasure as few other regions could.

Misquoting Jesus

Review of
Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2005)
by
Daniel B. Wallace,
Executive Director,
Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (csntm.org)



Bart Ehrman is one of North America’s leading textual critics today. As a teacher and writer, he is logical, witty, provocative, and sometimes given to overstatement as well as arguments that are not sufficiently nuanced.

His most recent book, Misquoting Jesus, for the most part is simply New Testament textual criticism 101. There are seven chapters with an introduction and conclusion. Most of the book (chs. 1—4) is simply a lay introduction to the field. According to Ehrman, this is the first book written on NT textual criticism (a discipline that has been around for nearly 300 years) for a lay audience.

The book’s very title is a bit too provocative and misleading though: Almost none of the variants that Ehrman discusses involve sayings by Jesus! The book simply doesn’t deliver what the title promises.

But it sells well: since its publication on November 1, 2005, it has been near the top of Amazon’s list of titles. And since Ehrman appeared on two of NPR’s programs (the Diane Rehm Show and “Fresh Air” with Terry Gross)—both within the space of one week—it has been in the top fifty sellers at Amazon.

For this brief review, just a few comments are in order.
There is nothing earth-shaking in the first four chapters of the book. Rather, it is in the introduction that we see Ehrman’s motive, and the last three chapters reveal his agenda. In these places he is especially provocative and given to overstatement and non sequitur.

In the introduction, Ehrman speaks of his evangelical background (Moody Bible Institute, Wheaton College), followed by his M.Div. and Ph.D. at Princeton Seminary. It was here that Ehrman began to reject some of his evangelical upbringing, especially as he wrestled with the details of the text of the New Testament.
The heart of the book is chapters 5, 6, and 7. Here Ehrman especially discusses the results of the findings in his major work, Orthodox Corruption of Scripture (Oxford, 1993). His concluding chapter closes in on the point that he is driving at in these chapters: “It would be wrong… to say—as people sometimes do—that the changes in our text have no real bearing on what the texts mean or on the theological conclusions that one draws from them. We have seen, in fact, that just the opposite is the case.”

Some of the chief examples of theological differences among the variants that Ehrman discusses are (1) a passage in which Jesus is said to be angry (Mark 1:41), (2) a text in which “even the Son of God himself does not know when the end will come” (Matt 24:36), and (3) an explicit statement about the Trinity (1 John 5:7-8).
Concerning the first text, a few ancient manuscripts speak of Jesus as being angry in Mark 1:41 while most others speak of him as having compassion. But in Mark 3:5 Jesus is said to be angry—wording that is indisputably in the original text of Mark. So it is hardly a revolutionary conclusion to see Jesus as angry elsewhere in this Gospel.

Regarding Matt 24:36, although many witnesses record Jesus as speaking of his own prophetic ignorance (“But as for that day and hour no one knows it—neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son—except the Father alone”), many others lack the words “nor the Son.” Whether “nor the Son” is authentic or not is disputed, but what is not disputed is the wording in the parallel in Mark 13:32—“But as for that day or hour no one knows it—neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son—except the Father.” Thus, there can be no doubt that Jesus spoke of his own prophetic ignorance in the Olivet Discourse. Consequently, what doctrinal issues are really at stake here? One simply cannot maintain that the wording in Matt 24:36 changes one’s basic theological convictions about Jesus since the same sentiment is found in Mark.
In other words, the idea that the variants in the NT manuscripts alter the theology of the NT is overstated at best. Unfortunately, as careful a scholar as Ehrman is, his treatment of major theological changes in the text of the NT tends to fall under one of two criticisms: Either his textual decisions are wrong, or his interpretation is wrong.

These criticisms were made of his earlier work, Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, which Misquoting Jesus has drawn from extensively. Yet, the conclusions that he put forth there are still stated here without recognition of some of the severe criticisms of his work the first go-around. For a book geared toward a lay audience, one would think that he would want to have his discussion nuanced a bit more, especially with all the theological weight that he says is on the line. One almost gets the impression that he is encouraging the Chicken Littles in the Christian community to panic at data that they are simply not prepared to wrestle with. Time and time again in the book, highly charged statements are put forth that the untrained person simply cannot sift through. And that approach resembles more an alarmist mentality than what a mature, master teacher is able to offer. Regarding the evidence, suffice it to say that significant textual variants that alter core doctrines of the NT have not yet been produced.

Finally, regarding 1 John 5:7-8, virtually no modern translation of the Bible includes the “Trinitarian formula,” since scholars for centuries have recognized it as added later. Only a few very late manuscripts have the verses. One wonders why this passage is even discussed in Ehrman’s book. The only reason seems to be to fuel doubts. The passage made its way into our Bibles through political pressure, appearing for the first time in 1522, even though scholars then and now knew that it is not authentic. The early church did not know of this text, yet the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451 affirmed explicitly the Trinity! How could they do this without the benefit of a text that didn’t get into the Greek NT for another millennium? Chalcedon’s statement was not written in a vacuum: the early church put into a theological formulation what they saw in the NT.

A distinction needs to be made here: just because a particular verse does not affirm a cherished doctrine does not mean that that doctrine cannot be found in the NT. In this case, anyone with an understanding of the healthy patristic debates over the Godhead knows that the early church arrived at their understanding from an examination of the data in the NT. The Trinitarian formula only summarized what they found; it did not inform their declarations.

In sum, Ehrman’s latest book does not disappoint on the provocative scale. But it comes up short on genuine substance about his primary contention. Scholars bear a sacred duty not to alarm lay readers on issues that they have little understanding of. Unfortunately, the average layperson will leave this book with far greater doubts about the wording and teachings of the NT than any textual critic would ever entertain. A good teacher doesn’t hold back on telling his students what’s what, but he also knows how to package the material so they don’t let emotion get in the way of reason. A good teacher does not create Chicken Littles.

The Gift Of Prophecy Today

I have been teaching on the Spiritual Gifts at Victory Baptist Church. One major point I keep repeating is this, the gifts people claim to have today do not match what we see happening in the bible. Take the Gift of Prophecy, what do we see today. Here are some examples:





Wow, that sounds really bad! However, this "prophet" claims God told him this:





This Prophet said... well, I have no idea what he is talking about!






But before you get to excited about the wonderful things that are going to happen in 2009 we have yet another prophecy:




But wait this Prophet has good news for 2009




This Prophet has even better news!



More good news







But wait, GOD spoke to someone else and the news is not so good:



But God has spoken to someone else:








I will add more videos later but as I was putting this together God spoke to me and told me that all of these so called prophets are liars and that he speaks through his bible alone today. Yes, that was sarcastic. However, it should make you realize this. If we claim God is speaking outside of his bible today you open the door for anyone to claim God spoke to them, and look at what happens!

Spiritual Gifts

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

This was the statement that launched the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, an interdenominational joint effort by hundreds of evangelical scholars and leaders to defend biblical inerrancy against the trend toward liberal and neo-orthodox conceptions of Scripture.

The Statement was produced at the Hyatt Regency O'Hare in Chicago in the fall of 1978, during an international summit conference of concerned evangelical leaders. It was signed by nearly 300 noted evangelical scholars, including Boice, Norman L. Geisler, John Gerstner, Carl F. H. Henry, Kenneth Kantzer, Harold Lindsell, John Warwick Montgomery, Roger Nicole, J.I. Packer, Robert Preus, Earl Radmacher, Francis Schaeffer, R.C. Sproul, and John Wenham.

The ICBI disbanded in 1988, its work complete. The Council ultimately produced three major statements: this one on biblical inerrancy in 1978, one on biblical hermeneutics in 1982, and one on biblical application in 1986. A published copy of the statement may be found in Carl F. H. Henry in God, Revelation and Authority, vol. 4 (Waco, Tx.: Word Books, 1979), on pp. 211-219.


PREFACE

The authority of Scripture is a key issue for the Christian Church in this and every age. Those who profess faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior are called to show the reality of their discipleship by humbly and faithfully obeying God's written Word. To stray from Scripture in faith or conduct is disloyalty to our Master. Recognition of the total truth and trustworthiness of Holy Scripture is essential to a full grasp and adequate confession of its authority.

The following Statement affirms this inerrancy of Scripture afresh, making clear our understanding of it and warning against its denial. We are persuaded that to deny it is to set aside the witness of Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit and to refuse that submission to the claims of God's own Word that marks true Christian faith. We see it as our timely duty to make this affirmation in the face of current lapses from the truth of inerrancy among our fellow Christians and misunderstanding of this doctrine in the world at large.

This Statement consists of three parts: a Summary Statement, Articles of Affirmation and Denial, and an accompanying Exposition. It has been prepared in the course of a three-day consultation in Chicago. Those who have signed the Summary Statement and the Articles wish to affirm their own conviction as to the inerrancy of Scripture and to encourage and challenge one another and all Christians to growing appreciation and understanding of this doctrine. We acknowledge the limitations of a document prepared in a brief, intensive conference and do not propose that this Statement be given creedal weight. Yet we rejoice in the deepening of our own convictions through our discussions together, and we pray that the Statement we have signed may be used to the glory of our God toward a new reformation of the Church in its faith, life and mission.

We offer this Statement in a spirit, not of contention, but of humility and love, which we propose by God's grace to maintain in any future dialogue arising out of what we have said. We gladly acknowledge that many who deny the inerrancy of Scripture do not display the consequences of this denial in the rest of their belief and behavior, and we are conscious that we who confess this doctrine often deny it in life by failing to bring our thoughts and deeds, our traditions and habits, into true subjection to the divine Word.

We invite response to this Statement from any who see reason to amend its affirmations about Scripture by the light of Scripture itself, under whose infallible authority we stand as we speak. We claim no personal infallibility for the witness we bear, and for any help that enables us to strengthen this testimony to God's Word we shall be grateful.


You can read the entire statement at this link:
Chicago

Idolatry and The Superbowl!

February 1, 2009 is the date the Superbowl will be played. It is also the date when we will see which churches are not really churches at all. Every year when the Superbowl comes around there are many so called churches who cancel services or show the Superbowl during the evening service! A football game becomes more important then the preaching of God's word. The sad part is that there are professing Christians who will have no problem with this! Let me say this as clearly as I can. Any church that cancels a service or shows the Superbowl for their evening service is not a church! Anyone who is a member of such a place should leave or they are a fool!

I hope that is clear enough. We will list every church in the Abilene area that cancels their services or shows the Superbowl!

Here is a video from a Church that announces what they aregoing to do on February 1, 2009.



Super Bowl Promo 2009 from NewSpring Media on Vimeo.

THE GIFT OF TONGUES:

THE GIFT OF TONGUES:
COMPARING THE CHURCH FATHERS
WITH CONTEMPORARY PENTECOSTALISM

Though the church fathers, who lived shortly after the apostles, said
relatively little about the gift of tongues, what they did say furnishes a helpful
comparison with what contemporary Pentecostalism says about the gift.

Here is a link to an in-depth look at what the church fathwrs had to say about the subject:

This is a link directly to a pdf file

tongues

Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated

The following was found at this link: Hated

Romans 9:10

And not only so, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad - in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call - 12 she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13 As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." 14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

One of the main reasons why some Christians reject the reformed (biblical) understanding of Divine election is because of traditions associated with the love of God. The strong reaction of some against the doctrine of God's Sovereignty in election is often times due to a desire to defend a concept that they have regarding the love of God. They feel that God's attribute of love is in question or under attack.

Great care is needed to point people to the biblical texts which can clarify the issue. Not everyone seems to be open to examine their assumptions because these traditions are so very strong. The tradition that God loves all people in the exact same way is a strong one. I have to say, for many years, this was exactly the case in my own life. Many see no need to examine the texts at all because in their minds, the concept they have of the love of God = what the Bible teaches. As Dr. James White rightly says, "those most enslaved to their traditions are those who do not believe they have any."

However we understand the phrase "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" in Romans 9, I think we would all have to agree that God's love for Jacob was certainly different or of a different kind than His love for Esau. I think we all have to say this or else the text is meaningless. But if this is indeed the case, then just this one verse would refute the idea that God loves everyone in the exact same way. There must be different dimensions of the love of God.

Some seek to avoid this conclusion by saying that Jacob and Esau refer to nations rather than individuals. Certainly it is true that Jacob and Esau became mighty nations. However, the text itself refers to individual people (Jacob and Esau in the womb of their mother) and not nations, and even nations are made up of individuals. For God to set His love on a nation and reject another nation certainly has ramfications for the individuals within those nations - so the conclusion many are wanting to avoid (that God elects some but not all - and that He loves some in a special way that He does not love all) remains inescapable.

Lets remember the context here also. Paul is explaining why not all of the people of Israel have embraced their Messiah and come to salvation, and has just told us that God's word has not failed because not all Israel is truly Israel (Romans 9:6). All who were the true Israel did embrace Christ because they were the ones the promise was made to, and it is just this continued flow of thought from Romans 8 into Romans 9 that brings us to the "Jacob I loved, Esau I hated" statement. Paul is explaining why God's word does not fail in any way at all because all the true Israel will be saved, and nothing can separate the true people of God from the love of God (something made clear in Romans 8). "Though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad - in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call" one brother was chosen and the other was not.

God has mercy on whom He will have mercy. God's electing purpose to set His electing love on Jacob and not on Esau is an EXPLANATION as to why God's word has not failed in any way at all. God's promise is true and His word always accomplishes its intended purpose. All the elect will receive this mercy. This is what the entire Romans 9 passage is teaching us. God's choice of one brother and not the other was not based on their actions (or works) but based on the powerful effectual call of God (something also made clear in Romans 8, where all the called are justified).
The fact is that God is Sovereign. As such, He reserves the right to have mercy on whom He will and to pass over others, leaving them in their hostile disposition against Him. God revealed Himself to Abraham in a way He did not for his neighbor down the street. His electing love on Israel was not bestowed on the Canaantites or the Philistines. After His resurrection, Christ appeared to Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus but not to Pontius Pilate in his bedroom. The whole Bible speaks of a God who is Sovereign in the way He bestows mercy.

And this is just it - many have come to me weeks after hearing me teach on this subject and although they admitted to me that at first, they were inwardly hostile and resistant to the teaching, but after taking a second look and examining it for themselves they have made comments such as, "Its amazing! Now I see this truth everywhere I look in Scripture."

One person just recently told me, "I now see God's electing love in places I never imagined - I am reading my Bible and I am now seeing this in the parables of Jesus, and so many other places. I see that Jesus rejoiced that God's truth was hidden from some but revealed to others.. I had read these kind of passages for years and never seen it. Luke 10:21 says that Jesus "rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will."" Jesus actually rejoiced that the Father hid truth from some, and rejoiced in His Father's electing love. This has rocked my world, and what was once a loathsome thing, is sweetness and light, now I can see it."

If Jesus rejoices in His Father hiding (which speaks of activity) truth from some that He reveals to others, I think it should at least cause us to ask the question "why?" Why would God hiding some things from some and revealing His truth to others be precious to our Lord? Why does it not excite us the way it excited Jesus? (that's something to think about for sure)

As Romans 9 continues from verse 14, God sees it as perfectly just to dispense His mercy as He sees fit. Mercy, by its very definition, cannot be demanded. No one can demand mercy. The fact that no fallen angel will ever be redeemed causes no intellectual problem for the angels in heaven - God's just character remains in tact, and the angels of God continually sing "holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts." If God had elected no one to salvation, the songs of worship from the angels would never have missed a beat! God owes nothing to rebel sinners!

What should surprise us about the text "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" is not that God hated Esau. Esau was a sinner and deserved the wrath of God just like the rest of us. What should astound us is not that He hated Esau, but that He set His love on Jacob. This should absolutely shock us! Why would God have anything to do with such a sinner? But sadly, we are not always astounded by this amazing mercy, I think because deep down, we tend to believe that everyone deserves mercy. The truth is, everyone of us is every bit as much a sinner as Jacob, but until we as Christians really "get this" we do not grasp the amazing grace God has bestowed on us.

All people receive some mercy - God was very merciful to Esau, but ultimately Esau did not receive the exact same mercy as his brother Jacob. God sends His rain to all - on the just and the unjust, but He bestows His effectual redeeming love only on some. Not everyone is saved. Some do perish. The fact that even one sinner will be numbered amongst the heavenly host because he was redeemed by the sheer mercy of God should amaze us. The fact is that this number will not be just a few, but will be so vast that no man can count it.

Revelation 7:9 After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, 10 and crying out with a loud voice, "Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!"
Hallelujah! What a Savior!

The Formation of the Canon of the New Testament

The Formation of the Canon of the New Testament
By B.B. Warfield
Pub. 1892, by the American Sunday School Union, Philadelphia, Pa.

IN ORDER to obtain a correct understanding of what is called the formation of the Canon of the New Testament, it is necessary to begin by fixing very firmly in our minds one fact which is obvious enough when attention is once called to it. That is, that the Christian church did not require to form for itself the idea of a "canon," - or, as we should more commonly call it, of a "Bible," -that is, of a collection of books given of God to be the authoritative rule of faith and practice. It inherited this idea from the Jewish church, along with the thing itself, the Jewish Scriptures, or the "Canon of the Old Testament." The church did not grow up by natural law: it was founded. And the authoritative teachers sent forth by Christ to found His church, carried with them, as their most precious possession, a body of divine Scriptures, which they imposed on the church that they founded as its code of law. No reader of the New Testament can need proof of this; on every page of that book is spread the evidence that from the very beginning the Old Testament was as cordially recognized as law by the Christian as by the Jew. The Christian church thus was never without a "Bible" or a "canon."

But the Old Testament books were not the only ones which the apostles (by Christ's own appointment the authoritative founders of the church) imposed upon the infant churches, as their authoritative rule of faith and practice. No more authority dwelt in the prophets of the old covenant than in themselves, the apostles, who had been "made sufficient as ministers of a new covenant "; for (as one of themselves argued) "if that which passeth away was with glory, much more that which remaineth is in glory." Accordingly not only was the gospel they delivered, in their own estimation, itself a divine revelation, but it was also preached "in the Holy Ghost" (I Pet. i. 12) ; not merely the matter of it, but the very words in which it was clothed were "of the Holy Spirit" (I Cor. ii. 13). Their own commands were, therefore, of divine authority (I Thess. iv. 2), and their writings were the depository of these commands (II Thess. ii. 15). "If any man obeyeth not our word by this epistle," says Paul to one church (II Thess. iii. 14), "note that man, that ye have no company with him." To another he makes it the test of a Spirit-led man to recognize that what he was writing to them was "the commandments of the Lord" (I Cor. xiv. 37). Inevitably, such writings ', making so awful a claim on their acceptance, were received by the infant churches as of a quality equal to that of the old "Bible"; placed alongside of its older books as an additional part of the one law of God; and read as such in their meetings for worship -a practice which moreover was required by the apostles (I Thess. v. 27; Col. iv. 16; Rev. i. 3). In the apprehension, therefore, of the earliest churches, the "Scriptures" were not a closed but an increasing "canon." Such they had been from the beginning, as they gradually grew in number from Moses to Malachi; and such they were to continue as long as there should remain among the churches "men of God who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

We say that this immediate placing of the new books - given the church under the seal of apostolic authority - among the Scriptures already established as such, was inevitable. It is also historically evinced from the very beginning. Thus the apostle Peter, writing in A.D. 68, speaks of Paul's numerous letters not in contrast with the Scriptures, but as among the Scriptures and in contrast with "the other Scriptures" (II Pet. iii.16) -that is, of course, those of the Old Testament. In like manner the apostle Paul combines, as if it were the most natural thing in the world, the book of Deuteronomy and the Gospel of Luke under the common head of "Scripture" (I Tim. v.18): "For the Scripture saith ' 'Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn ' [Deut. xxv. 4]; and, 'The laborer is worthy of his hire'" (Luke x. 7). The line of such quotations is never broken in Christian literature. Polycarp (c. 12) in A.D. 115 unites the Psalms and Ephesians in exactly similar manner: "In the sacred books.... as it is said in these Scriptures, 'Be ye angry and sin not,' and 'Let not the sun go down upon your wrath."' So, a few years later, the so-called second letter of Clement, after quoting Isaiah, adds (ii. 4): "And another Scripture, however, says, 'I came not to call the righteous, but sinners'" -quoting from Matthew -- a book which Barnabas (circa 97-106 A.D.) had already adduced as Scripture. After this such quotations are common.

What needs emphasis at present about these facts is that they obviously are not evidences of a gradually-heightening estimate of the New Testament books, originally received on a lower level and just beginning to be tentatively accounted Scripture; they are conclusive evidences rather of the estimation of the New Testament books from the very beginning as Scripture, and of their attachment as Scripture to the other Scriptures already in hand. The early Christians did not, then, first form a rival "canon" of "new books" which came only gradually to be accounted as of equal divinity and authority with the "old books"; they received new book after new book from the apostolical circle, as equally "Scripture" with the old books, and added them one by one to the collection of old books as additional Scriptures, until at length the new books thus added were numerous enough to be looked upon as another section of the Scriptures.

The earliest name given to this new section of Scripture was framed on the model of the name by which what we know as the Old Testament was then known. Just as it was called "The Law and the Prophets and the Psalms" (or "the Hagiographa"), or more briefly "The Law and the Prophets," or even more briefly still "The Law"; so the enlarged Bible was called "The Law and the Prophets, with the Gospels and the Apostles" (so Clement of Alexandria, "Strom." vi. 11, 88; Tertullian, "De Prms. Men" 36), or most briefly "The Law and the Gospel" (so Claudius Apolinaris, Irenaeus); while the new books apart were called "The Gospel and the Apostles," or most briefly of all "The Gospel." This earliest name for the new Bible, with all that it involves as to its relation to the old and briefer Bible, is traceable as far back as Ignatius (A.D. 115), who makes use of it repeatedly (e.g., "ad Philad." 5; ("ad Smyrn." 7). In one passage he gives us a hint of the controversies which the enlarged Bible of the Christians aroused among the Judaizers (" ad Philad." 6). "When I heard some saying," he writes, "'Unless I find it in the Old [Books] I will not believe the Gospel' on my saying,' It is written.' they answered, 'That is the question.' To me, however, Jesus Christ is the Old [Books]; his cross and death and resurrection and the faith which is by him, the undefiled Old [Books] - by which I wish, by your prayers, to be justified. The priests indeed are good, but the High Priest better," etc. Here Ignatius appeals to the "Gospel" as Scripture, and the Judaizers object, receiving from him the answer in effect which Augustine afterward formulated in the well known saying that the New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is first made clear in the New. What we need now to observe, however, is that to Ignatius the New Testament was not a different book from the Old Testament, but part of the one body of Scripture with it; an accretion, so to speak, which had grown upon it.

This is the testimony of all the early witnesses - even those which speak for the distinctively Jewish-Christian church. For example, that curious Jewish-Christian writing, "The Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs" (Beni. 11), tells us, under the cover of an ex post facto prophecy, that the "work and word" of Paul, i.e., confessedly the book of Acts and Paul's Epistles, "shall be written in the Holy Books," i.e., as is understood by all, made a part of the existent Bible. So even in the Talmud, in a scene intended to ridicule a "bishop" of the first century, he is represented as finding Galatians by "sinking himself deeper" into the same "Book" which contained the Law of Moses ("Babl. Shabbath," 116 a and b). The details cannot be entered into here. Let it suffice to say that, from the evidence of the fragments which alone have been preserved to us of the Christian writings of that very early time, it appears that from the beginning of the second century (and that is from the end of the apostolic age) a collection (Ignatius, II Clement) of "New Books" (Ignatius), called the "Gospel and Apostles" (Ignatius, Marcion), was already a part of the "Oracles" of God (Polycarp, Papias, II Clement), or "Scriptures" (I Tim., II Pet., Barn., Polycarp, II Clement), or the "Holy Books" or "Bible" (Testt. XII. Patt.).

The number of books included-in this added body of New Books, at the opening of the second century, cannot be satisfactorily determined by the evidence of these fragments alone. The section of it called the "Gospel" included Gospels written by "the apostles and their companions" (Justin), which beyond legitimate question were our four Gospels now received. The section called "the Apostles" contained the book of Acts (The Testt. XII. Patt.) and epistles of Paul, John, Peter and James. The evidence from various quarters is indeed enough to show that the collection in general use contained all the books which we at present receive, with the possible exceptions of Jude, II and III John and Philemon. And it is more natural to suppose that failure of very early evidence for these brief booklets is due to their insignificant size rather than to their nonacceptance.

It is to be borne in mind, however, that the extent of the collection may have - and indeed is historically shown actually to have varied in different localities. The Bible was circulated only in handcopies, slowly and painfully made; and an incomplete copy, obtained say at Ephesus in A.D. 68, would be likely to remain for many years the Bible of the church to which it was conveyed; and might indeed become the parent of other copies, incomplete like itself, and thus the means of providing a whole district with incomplete Bibles. Thus, when we inquire after the history of the New Testament Canon we need to distinguish such questions as these: (1) When was the New Testament Canon completed? (2) When did any one church acquire a completed canon? (3) When did the completed canon -the complete Bible - obtain universal circulation and acceptance? (4) On what ground and evidence did the churches with incomplete Bibles accept the remaining books when they were made known to them?

The Canon of the New Testament was completed when the last authoritative book was given to any church by the apostles, and that was when John wrote the Apocalypse, about A.D. 98. Whether the church of Ephesus, however, had a completed Canon when it received the Apocalypse, or not, would depend on whether there was any epistle, say that of Jude, which had not yet reached it with authenticating proof of its apostolicity. There is room for historical investigation here. Certainly the whole Canon was not universally received by the churches till somewhat later. The Latin church of the second and third centuries did not quite know what to do with the Epistle to the Hebrews. The Syrian churches for some centuries may have lacked the lesser of the Catholic Epistles and Revelation. But from the time of Ireanaeus down, the church at large had the whole Canon as we now possess it. And though a section of the church may not yet have been satisfied of the apostolicity of a certain book or of certain books; and though afterwards doubts may have arisen in sections of the church as to the apostolicity of certain books (as e. g. of Revelation): yet in no case was it more than a respectable minority of the church which was slow in receiving, or which came afterward to doubt, the credentials of any of the books that then as now constituted the Canon of the New Testament accepted by the church at large. And in every case the principle on which a book was accepted, or doubts against it laid aside, was the historical tradition of apostolicity.

Let it, however, be clearly understood that it was not exactly apostolic authorship which in the estimation of the earliest churches, constituted a book a portion of the "canon." Apostolic authorship was, indeed, early confounded with canonicity. It was doubt as to the apostolic authorship of Hebrews, in the West, and of James and Jude, apparently, which underlay the slowness of the inclusion of these books in the "canon" of certain churches. But from the beginning it was not so. The principle of canonicity was not apostolic authorship, but imposition by the apostles as "law." Hence Tertullian's name for the "canon" is "instrumentum"; and he speaks of the Old and New Instrument as we would of the Old and New Testament. That the apostles so imposed the Old Testament on the churches which they founded - as their "Instrument," or "Law," or "Canon" - can be denied by none. And in imposing new books on the same churches, by the same apostolical authority, they did not confine themselves to books of their own composition. It is the Gospel according to Luke, a man who was not an apostle, which Paul parallels in I Tim. v. 18 with Deuteronomy as equally "Scripture" with it, in the first extant quotation of a New Testament book as Scripture. The Gospels which constituted the first division of the New Books, - of "The Gospel and the Apostles," - Justin tells us were "written by the apostles and their companions." The authority of the apostles, as by divine appointment founders of the church was embodied in whatever books they imposed on the church as law not merely in those they themselves had written.

The early churches, in short, received, as we receive, into the New Testament all the books historically evinced to them as give by the apostles to the churches as their code of law; and we must not mistake the historical evidences of the slow circulation an authentication of these books over the widely-extended church, evidence of slowness of "canonization" of books by the authority or the taste of the church itself.

Rick Warren's Four Jesus'

At Obama's inauguration today, Rick Warren prayed in the name of Jesus, The Son of God.

Rick Warren is a professing Christian, so to think he prayed in the name of anyone other than the Jesus of the Christian Holy Bible is problematic.

But Rick Warren's prayer was yet somewhat unorthodoxed today, for he prayed in the name of Jesus in four different languages: Hebrew, Arabic, Spanish, and English. Why he did this is beyond the scope of this post.

The purpose here is to quell and dispell an already apparently arising fear of conspiracy tied to a previous like notion, namely that Obama is a Muslim, and either Rick Warren is too or he is strengthening the likelihood that Obama is.

The fear is founded on the faulty misunderstanding that Rick Warren prayed to the Muslim Jesus because he used the name Isa, which can also be spelled Eesa in Urdu.

Do you honestly think that Rick Warren, a professing Christian, would pray in the name of a non- or anti-Christian Jesus?

It is perfectly reasonable to believe that Rick Warren simply and merely prayed in the name of Jesus in four different languages and not to four different Jesus' of four different faiths or religions, for as a professing Christian, Rick Warren would profess only one Jesus.

The name Isa is the Arabic word for Jesus. It is also true that Isa is the name of Jesus found in the Muslim religious book, the Quran. And that is simply because the Quran is written in Arabic. That is the only connection between Rick Warren's Isa and the Muslim Isa; They share the same language.

Sure, this may be be confusing, such as Barack Hussein Obama's middle name being a Muslim name while yet Obama professes to be a Christian. But that is no license to think that Rick Warren prayed in the name of a Muslim Jesus.

I've been told by my friend from Pakistan that Urdu, the national language of Pakistan, is identical in text to Arabic, but their spoken words have different meanings. Hence they are two different languages. So far I haven't heard that Rick Warren is going to defect to Pakistan and start a megachurch there. Why would I jump to such a conclusion? Just because Rick Warren used the Arabic word for Jesus in a prayer? I also wouldn't jump to the conclusion that Rick or Obama are Muslims lurking as Christians based on that either.

Also, after speaking with my Hindu friend from India, I learned that Isa is indeed Arabic. And I spoke with a former missionary to Pakistan who informed me that when Christian missionaries talk to Muslims about Jesus, they use the word "Isa."

I encourage you to investigate further rather than allow unwarranted alarm assail you and spread like conspiracy theory wildfire.

For further study, research the languages of Urdu, Hindi, and Arabic. Investigate the difference between Indian and Arabic language. Verify the correct spelling of Jesus as found in the Quran.

Here is Rick Warren's Inaugural prayer:

 

Urdu translation of Jesus

Muslim Jesus vs Biblical Jesus

Jesus: Isa

The Quran

Quran Explorer

UPDATE 1-21-09:

Here is an interesting article from US News for further investigation.

Here is a better video of Rick Warren's Inaugural prayer.

Prophet predicts disaster will prevent Obama from taking office

I have been preaching on the Spiritual Gifts at Victory Baptist Church. Sunday we covered the gift of Prophecy. I suggested the gift of predicting future events no longer occurs. One of my arguments was the fact that what is called prophecy today is not like the gift that we find in the bible. Consider this story:

Prophet predicts disaster will prevent Obama from taking office

Reporting from Parowan, Utah -- Our trip to the Parowan Prophet began with a letter to the St. George Spectrum. It was set among missives proposing that oil companies bail out Detroit automakers, that county inmates be forced to winter in tents, that lawyers be barred from public office. A rough crowd.

This particular letter to the editor in the St. George, Utah, newspaper carried the headline " 'Prophet' shares grim forecast," and it was signed by one Leland Freeborn of Parowan, who wrote that he was known to many as the Parowan Prophet.

After establishing his bona fides as an international talk radio guest and proprietor of a survivalist website that has "passed more than 100,000 hits," Freeborn wrote:

"I think that you should hear what my opinion about the Obama election is: that he will not be the next president. I said on my home page in August that if he lost to expect to see the 'riots' that 2 Peter 2:13 tells us about. He didn't lose. But the story is not finished yet. I still think they may begin the riots before Christmas 2008, as I said."

These riots, according to his prophecy, will encourage the "old, hard-line Soviet guard" to seize the moment and rain down nukes on the United States, killing at least 100 million of us.

"Prepare now," Freeborn's letter concluded. "We are downwind from Las Vegas. I hope you can survive."

You can read the rest of the report at this link:

Prophecy:

Think About Preaching

I want to challenge everyone to take some time to think about preaching.

Listen to the following sermons:

Understand that both sermons are on the exact same text of scripture:

Think as you listen and see if you can figure out the diffrence between the sermons.

Exclusivity of Truth

I'd like to echo some words from Ravi Zacharias today.

Truth, by definition, is exclusive.

Contrary to most people's knowledge, all religions are exclusive, not just Christianity.

It is possible for all religions to be wrong, but it is not possible for all religions to be right.

My Portion

1 in 3 'Christians' says 'Jesus sinned'

It looks like the American Church is doing a great job teaching their people!

Half of Americans who call themselves "Christian" don't believe Satan exists and fully one-third are confident that Jesus sinned while on Earth, according to a new Barna Group poll.
Another 40 percent say they do not have a responsibility to share their Christian faith with others, and 25 percent "dismiss the idea that the Bible is accurate in all of the principles it teaches," the organization reports.

Pollster George Barna said the results have huge implications.
"Americans are increasingly comfortable picking and choosing what they deem to be helpful and accurate theological views and have become comfortable discarding the rest of the teachings in the Bible," he said.

Growing numbers of people now serve as their own theologian-in-residence," he continued. "One consequence is that Americans are embracing an unpredictable and contradictory body of beliefs."

You can read the rest of this report at this link:

Confused

What about the gift of healing?

Are there true prophets in the church today?

The Maccabees

Brief Sermon Overview:

The original, historical fulfillment of the prophetic words, "but the people who know their God will display strength and take action (Daniel 11:32)," is probably Judas Maccabeus and his followers. A brief history of the second century B. C. Maccabean revolt against Antiochus Epiphanes is given. Attention then turns to the strength producing knowledge of God possessed by His people.


You can listen to the sermon right here:

Is this your Bible?

Is this your Bible? It's sad to say that this is the common condition of God's Word found in many christian homes, cars, and sadly, even churches. When was the last time you opened your Bible? Many of you probably went to church this morning...how long did it take you to find your Bible, before you left? Was your Bible in the floorboard of your car? The dashboard? Was it in your bedroom floor? Was it at church, waiting for you? We claim to be Christians, and yet, we never read our Bibles. God's very own Word, and we can't even take the time to study it, and the truths of it.
So, here is my challenge for you:
1. Put down the remote, ipod, cell phone, candy bar, etc. and pick up something that will actually benefit you...God's Word.
2. If you are in a church that does not preach from the Bible, at every service...LEAVE!
3. Pick up your Bible, and READ!


Now it's up to you... Will YOU read your Bible this week?


Rebekkah Hammack

Did You Know?

The Theory of Everything

Ever heard of the sought after Theory of Everything?

One does exist. And it's not a theory, it's a law.

That is, God.

This is not Pantheism or Panentheism.

Everything does have one cause, one explanation, one formula, one math equation to explain the existence of everything. That is God.

God is not an equation.

God is Spirit. And in the beginning, God created everything.

God is. He is...I AM THAT I AM. And God creates.

Colossians 1:16-17 --> For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

God is. God creates. God sustains.

All things consisting by God with his sustaining power does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that all things tend towards destruction or disorder. That law holds true. That law is. And it is because God created it that way. God is sovereign over both creation and its destruction...and its redemption...

String Theory

Superstring Theory

The Theory

Chronological Bible Reading -- One Year Plan

At Victory Baptist Church we are reading the bible in Chronological Order this year.

Here is a list of some of the readings:


Day 1 Genesis 1 - 3
Day 2 Genesis 4 - 7
Day 3 Genesis 8 - 11
Day 4 Job 1 - 5
Day 5 Job 6 - 9
Day 6 Job 10 - 13
Day 7 Job 14 - 16
Day 8 Job 17 - 20
Day 9 Job 21 - 23
Day 10 Job 24 - 28
Day 11 Job 29 - 31
Day 12 Job 32 - 34
Day 13 Job 35 - 37
Day 14 Job 38 - 39
Day 15 Job 40 - 42
Day 16 Genesis 12 - 15
Day 17 Genesis 16 - 18
Day 18 Genesis 19 - 21
Day 19 Genesis 22 - 24
Day 20 Genesis 25 - 26
Day 21 Genesis 27 - 29
Day 22 Genesis 30 - 31
Day 23 Genesis 32 - 34
Day 24 Genesis 35 - 37
Day 25 Genesis 38 - 40
Day 26 Genesis 41 - 42
Day 27 Genesis 43 - 45
Day 28 Genesis 46 - 47
Day 29 Genesis 48 - 50
Day 30 Exodus 1 - 3
Day 31 Exodus 4 - 6
Day 32 Exodus 7 - 9
Day 33 Exodus 10 - 12
Day 34 Exodus 13 - 15
Day 35 Exodus 16 - 18
Day 36 Exodus 19 - 21
Day 37 Exodus 22 - 24
Day 38 Exodus 25 - 27
Day 39 Exodus 28 - 29
Day 40 Exodus 30 - 32
Day 41 Exodus 33 - 35
Day 42 Exodus 36 - 38
Day 43 Exodus 39 - 40
Day 44 Leviticus 1 - 4
Day 45 Leviticus 5 - 7
Day 46 Leviticus 8 - 10
Day 47 Leviticus 11 - 13
Day 48 Leviticus 14 - 15
Day 49 Leviticus 16 - 18
Day 50 Leviticus 19 - 21
Day 51 Leviticus 22 - 23
Day 52 Leviticus 24 - 25
Day 53 Leviticus 26 - 27
Day 54 Numbers 1-2
Day 55 Numbers 3 - 4
Day 56 Numbers 5 - 6
Day 57 Numbers 7
Day 58 Numbers 8 - 10
Day 59 Numbers 11 - 13
Day 60 Numbers 14 - 15
Day 61 Numbers 16 - 17
Day 62 Numbers 18 - 20
Day 63 Numbers 21 - 22
Day 64 Numbers 23 - 25
Day 65 Numbers 26 - 27

Scripture Alone

Atheists are Fools.

This sounds harsh, but it’s the truth.

Is there a way to say it more lovingly, softly, gently…or will someone inevitably be offended no matter how this truth is spoken?

If so, then I say that the truth itself has offended, not the particular presentation of it, and that the darkness once again has hated the light.

Someone may quote Matthew 5:22, "...but whosoever shall say, 'You fool!' shall be in danger of hell fire."

The difference between the title of this post and the statement in Matthew 5:22 is the meaning and the attitude behind the statements. The title of this post is merely a statement of fact. But calling someone a fool in anger is an emotional outburst indicative of hatred or other such negative feeling towards a person made in the image of God.

Someone may argue that "Atheists are Fools" is a fact. Your argument then is with God, not me.

For: Psalm 53:1 "The fool has said in his heart, There is no God..."

And an Atheist by definition is one who says there is no God. (Which is different from saying there is no proof of God.)

To say as a matter of fact that there is no God is the meaning of the very word 'Atheism', "A" meaning not or no, theism referring to theos, God. To say this is affirming a negative.

It’s logically impossible to affirm a negative because doing so says that you have infinite knowledge of all things, so as, in this case, to truely know there is no God…as Ravi Zacharias says, Atheism is thus self-defeating.

Likewise, Agnosticism…you can say you don’t know, but you cannot say that you cannot know. That’s also affirming a negative which, as above, is a logical impossibility and is self-defeating. (Of course, someone may say I myself affirmed a negative when I said "you cannot say that you cannot know." But...let that bake the noodle...)

But saying you cannot know versus saying you don’t believe you can know is honestly different.

Passionate Preaching

The following was found at: adrianwarnock.com

Two deadly dangers face the church as it advances into the 21st century.The first threat is the wholesale devaluing of preaching itself. In this paradigm shift, biblical preaching is being displaced by other things. Exposition is being replaced by entertainment; theology for theatrics; [the] unfolding drama of redemption is being replaced by just plain drama. Preaching is out, dialogue is in. Straightforward exposition is being demoted to secondary status. As bad as this is, of even greater concern is another error. It is an error that befalls even those who are able preachers. The error is that their preaching is little more than a data dump. Preaching has become clinical, cold, sterile, and stagnant. It is precision without power or light without heat.
Dispassionate preaching is a lie. If the preacher is not consumed with [the] passage for the message, how can those who hear it believe it? This is what must be recaptured by the men at this conference who are not in danger of giving up the pulpit to entertainment, but who can become listless and lifeless in expositing the Scriptures. The kind of preaching [that] burst onto the scene in the first century. It was powerful and passionate. Acts is full of sermons, and when they are all added up, twenty-five percent of the text of the book is dedicated to recording the words of these sermons. This underscores how important apostolic preaching is. It suggests to us the kind of preaching we are to emulate. It is not just expository preaching we need, but expository preaching of a certain tone and thrust. We need apostolic expository preaching. We need to preach not just what they preached, but as they preached."

Peter's sermon in Acts 2 is the model we should use for our expository preaching:


1.Read the text. Beginning in verse 16 he reads the text. This is where expository preaching begins for it makes God the real preacher.

2.Explain the text. This is what the word "expository" means — simply explain the text. There is an inseparable connection between verse 21 and verse 22. In this verse he now begins to explain the text of the former verse.

3.Support the text. What Peter will now do, having explained the text, [is to] undergird it with other cross-references. He supports the central theme and traces it through the course of Scripture. He will now give four strategic cross-references that bolster his explanation. He will show that the full counsel of God speaks with unity and clarity on this truth. These serve as pillars to undergird the message.

4.Synthesize the text. In verse 36 he summarizes the text, bringing it down to the bottom line. He gives the bottom line conclusion that the whole sermon has been leading to.

5.Apply the text. This cannot be an expository sermon without this step. Now comes the crescendo of the sermon. Here is the action point, the imperative voice. This sermon is so powerful that the listeners give the invitation. "What must we do?" The authority of the Word of God has been pressed to their heart, their conscience has been awakened and the Spirit has stirred their hearts. Now Peter gives the application. Here is what you must do. Expository sermons must get to the "you." In this case: "Repent and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

It starts with the text, stays with the text, and drives home the text.

Don't Shack Up With This Theology, It Doesn't Stack Up!

For more information about "The Shack", here are links to our previous posts about the Shack and it's heresy laden pages.

The Shack on CrossTalk

The Shack- Is it Whack?

Tim Challies' awesome Shack review

Warning about The Shack

Have you heard about the Shack?

In Depth Review (possibly missing link?)

The Shack Revisited

How many of you have run into someone who has read, or is reading the book called “The Shack”? We've posted on this before but now we're seeing some churches in Abilene teaching it in their Sun Schools. One such church is actually fighting over it right now and we got a request to repost some info on the whacked Shack...here it is.

You can go to the Shack's website and read about the book and all the wonderful endorsements…but notice that you’ll not see many theologians or pastors endorsing the book…but here is the one of the couple and the first on the list…

“When the imagination of a writer and the passion of a theologian cross-fertilize the result is a novel on the order of The Shack. This book has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress did for his. It’s that good!”
[Eugene Peterson, Professor Emeritus of Spiritual Theology, Regent College, Vancouver, BC]

What I hope to show you is that in this case the result is heresy! Why are we studying this?

Listen to the warnings of Paul:

• 2 Timothy 1:13- “Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. ”


• 1 Thessalonians 5:21 “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.”


• 2 Timothy 3:13 “But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.”


• Ephesians 5:6- “Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience” This one is especially poignant!

Besides the fact that Scripture warns us about this type of false teaching, why are we going to briefly look at this tonight? Several reasons…

A. It’s popular- we need to know what’s out there and be able to engage those we run into on what’s being discussed theologically. Here’s what the Shack website said:

April 8, 2008- In the past week The Shack has climbed to the #33 on the USA Today Top 50 Books, and has risen as high as #7 at Amazon in all books and #6 at Barnes and Noble for instore sales. We are blessed at the wide-ranging success of this title as we have distributed almost 500,000 books in 11 months, mostly by word of mouth. We are now in discussions with major New York publishing houses that will help us release the book to its widest possible audience as well as helping with Windblown’s other titles and future ones we want to develop. We have also begin the pre-production phase of transforming The Shack into a feature-length film”

B. It is growing by word of mouth- That means that if this book is whacked…many, many Christians are not discerning enough to know they are spreading heresy.

C. It’s not over! They’re going to make a movie out of this!

What is “The Shack”...a 248 page book.
o Book written by William P. Young- a son of a missionary, Canadian by birth
o Undergraduate degree in “Religion”
o Shack was a story for his 6 children
o Characters of Mack and Willie are both him in the book

The Seductive Shack: So what’s all the fuss about? What is the lure of this particular book all about? Why are so many people falling for it? I think it can be summed up in 3 ways:

1. The Desire for an intimate relationship with God – the Shack is providing supposed answers to people who long for a deep, personal relationship with God…in their own terms. Who wouldn’t want to hear the voice of the LORD God as He walked with you in the garden in the cool of the day? (Gen 3:8)

This is the idea that religion is NOT relevant today- here is what the back of the book said, “In a world where religion seems to grow increasingly irrelevant THE SHACK wrestles with the timeless question, “Where is God in a world so filled with unspeakable pain?”

2. The severe lack of Theological discernment abounding today- with so many buying off on this w/o blinking an eye…theological discernment is at an all time low. It’s easy to fall head over heals on this kind of writing and bad theology when you don’t know anything about how God has already revealed Himself.

3. The lure of an emotional attachment- this is the one that grabbed me…and I think Jason too! The first 80 pages of the 248 page book were very intriguing…they lured you into a story of a father whose young daughter is kidnapped and brutally murdered from his very grasp…while he is saving the life of a young boy. It’s about his anger and “Great sadness” as he loses the young love of his life and struggles with the God he is now angry with…and he struggles with life itself and his other daughter who is basically blaming herself for the young daughter’s death.

4. The non-fictional mask- The book is portrayed as a true story...but it is NOT. The author admits this and yet he writes it as if it really happened- this is deceptive!

The Overview of the Wacked Shack: Now…what’s wrong with this book? Just about everything! This is a grossly unscriptural book that will mislead a lot of people. After reading and noting all the problems, here are the scriptural problem areas:

A. Attack upon the Sufficiency & Authority of Scripture
B. Unscriptural Portrayal of God:

• God the Father and Holy Spirit as women


• Modalistic


• A sin-tolerant (and sin loving) God


• Flippant Portrayal of a Holy God


• Complete Denial of God’s Sovereignty


• Denial of Sin Nature & Judgment of sin


• Borderline Universalism

These are the main points. I’m only going to cover three tonight (Attack upon Scripture, denial of sin nature/judgment, universalism)…the rest I’ll probably post on the Blog for everyone who wants to look at more. These rebuttals will in no way be exhaustive…we’ve only got a little time so I’ll touch on the Scriptural answer to each briefly. We’re going to look at all these areas in two parts…first we’ll let THE SHACK speak…and then we’ll let God, through His Word, speak…

The Shack on the Scriptures: Like the Puritan Catechism, let’s take a look at what the author is teaching the masses about the Word of God itself:

A. The Shack Speaks: Let me read you a few sentences:

• “the thought of God passing notes did not fit well with his theological training. In seminary he had been taught that God had completely stopped any overt communication…preferring them to only listen to and follow sacred Scripture…God’s voice had been reduced to paper” (p. 65).


• “Nobody wanted God in a box, just in a book” (p. 66). Interesting that at the bottom of the same page it says, “Mack wanted more” (more than just a book and a religious club?) Mack wants more than the Bible!


• “part of me would like to believe that God would care enough about me to send a note” (p. 71)- YES, it’s called the Bible!


• "None of his old seminary training was helping in the least” (p. 91)


• “So was there an actual garden…Eden and all that?” Holy Spirit- “Of course” Mack- “There are lots of people who think it was only a myth” HS- “Well, their mistake isn’t fatal” (p. 134) So it’s not fatal to think the Bible is a myth?


• "what about your wrath?...weren’t you always running around killing people in the Bible? You just don’t seem to fit the bill” to which she says “you’re going to find this day a lot easier if you simply accept what is, instead of trying to fit it into your preconceived notions [i.e. the Bible view!]. Mack then says “aren’t you spilling out great bowls of wrath and throwing people into a burning lake of fire?” she says “I am not who you think I am Mackenzie. (p 119-120)


• “how will I hear you? Sarayu (Holy Spirit)- “You will learn to hear my thoughts in yours” Mack- “What if I confuse you with another voice? What if I make mistakes?” HS- “Of course you will make mistakes; everybody makes mistakes, but you will begin to better recognize my voice (p. 195-196)


• “Be willing to reexamine what you believe. The more you live in truth, the more your emotions will help you see clearly. But even then, you don’t want to trust them more than me” (p. 197)

B. The Word Speaks: Wow! Here are the major problems I see:

1. Denial of Sola Scriptura- Telling people that the Bible reduces God’s voice “to paper”…that the Word confines “God in a box…or in a book” that you will progressively learn to hear God speak in your mind/thoughts…to recognize Her voice amidst many mistakes is a complete denial of Sola Scriptura.

Here is Dr James White’s definition of Sola Scriptura:

“The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby” [taken from his 1993 debate with Patrick Madrid]

2 Timothy 3:13-17 “But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.”

Acts 17:2, 11, 18:28; 2 Thes 2:10; Rev 2:2, 22:18-19

2. Denial of the Inspiration and Truth of Scripture- there are some statements in this book that are a flat-out denial of Scripture.

Remember the quote I just read, when Mack questions Papa [female black lady] about her wrath that he’s read about in Scripture, what does she say?

o “you’re going to find this day a lot easier if you simply accept what is, instead of trying to fit it into your preconceived notions [i.e. the Bible view!].

Simply accept what is, not what’s written in Scripture! The conversation goes on…

o Mack then says “aren’t you spilling out great bowls of wrath and throwing people into a burning lake of fire?” she says “I am not who you think I am Mackenzie. (p 119-120)

Saying “I am not what the Bible says I am is a flat-out denial of Scripture- its validity, its authenticity, its inspiration.

3. Total Reliance on Extra-Biblical Revelation: The last two quotes from the book are the really scary part. When Mack rightly asks the female Asian Holy Spirit, “how will I hear you?
Here’s how the conversation goes…

o “You will learn to hear my thoughts in yours” Mack- “What if I confuse you with another voice? What if I make mistakes?” HS- “Of course you will make mistakes; everybody makes mistakes, but you will begin to better recognize my voice (p. 195-196)

And then a page later here is what’s suggested by the author;

o “Be willing to reexamine what you believe. The more you live in truth, the more your emotions will help you see clearly. But even then, you don’t want to trust them more than me” (p. 197)

Don’t trust what you’ve heard in God’s Word, don’t rely on Scripture alone, just listen to your inner voice which won’t always prove reliable, listen to your emotions instead…but even then you can’t trust them more than me.

So it’s a toss-up between the inner voice that you won’t always recognize…and the emotions that rise and fall like the sea!

God’s Word says the following:

o Psalm 119:105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

Peter seems to trust in the Word of God even more than a mountain top transfiguration experience!

o 2 Peter 1:19-21 19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Proverbs has an apt warning to end this section on:

o Proverbs 30:5-6 5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. 6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Priestly Work Only For The Elect

Synergism & Monergism

Back on 10/30/08 I posted a lengthy blurb about the titled topic. I decided to repost it here today as it may help expound upon what Pastor Trevor talked about today in church.

First, in the Catechism, we were taught about Sanctification being synergistic.

Second, tonight's sermon breifly mentioned synergism in Arminianism.

So you may use your notes in referece here. Below is a repost of said topic and the link:

Original Post

OK, so God saves me. I was dead in sin. So I couldn’t have anything to do with God saving me, but what about Philippians 2:12 that commands me to “work out my own salvation”??? So is it God alone doing the work of saving me or do I also work with him? Is it monergism or synergism? This has confused me at times.

Here’s a clarifying distinction: When we talk about salvation, you can refer to different parts of it. For example, there’s regeneration, justification, and sanctification.

To say God alone saves me is to refer to the act of regeneration, thus monergism is correct. When we say we’re justified by faith, again, it’s monergism because faith is a gift worked in us by the Holy Spirit. (Ephesians 2:8-9)

Remember, who’s workmanship are we? Our own? No, we are God’s workmanship (Ephesians 2:10) HE gets credit for the work of salvation in us.

Then there’s Philippians 1:6…HE (God) who began a good work in you will [perform, perfect, complete, fulfill, finish] it… God’s doing the work of salvation. He both began it and will complete it. (Which, subsequently, is exactly how and why we can have such confidence that we will endure until the end and be saved!!!!)

There are many other verses to support monergism, that is God’s work of salvation in us. Many are in the Puritan Catechism we are going through in Sunday School.

But still, isn’t there a sense that we must work also? Again, Philippians 2:12 tells us to work out our own salvation.

If there is any sense of synergism in salvation, that is us working with God to complete our salvation, it would be referring to the part of salvation known as sanctification. It’s true we must work it out. It’s true that our faith must have works to be real (See James).

Despite the works we work in salvation, in sanctification, and the working out of our salvation, and although we are responsible to obey and do God’s commands, guess who gets the credit for doing all that work? In other words, who is ultimately doing that work? Think back to Philippians 1:6 mentioned above. God began the work of salvation (in regenerating us and justifying us), and..it is HE who will finish it or do the work of it!

God started it. God will finish it. God will finish what he started!!!

This echoes Hebrews 12:2…Jesus is both the author (founder) AND finisher (perfecter) of…our faith (remember gift of faith in Ephesians 2:8)!

Now, if Philippians 2:12 keeps coming back to you…”work out your own salvation”…read the next verse. Ultimately it is God who works in us both to will and do of his good pleasure. God is the one who works salvation in us, even in the part of our sanctification.

You might do it this way too: We are sanctified by truth (John 17:17). God’s word is truth. Jesus is also the truth (John 14:6). Jesus is also the Word (John 1). So in a sense our sanctification is by Jesus, not us. He is the author and finisher of our faith.

But once more, what about those good works we are supposed to do, like our faith having works? Finally, read Ephesians 2:10 again. We are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works…which God before ordained (prepared beforehand) that we should walk in them.

Our good works have already been established by God, or God has predestined us to walk in good works. So when we do obey and work out our own salvation and have good works of faith, all of our working was before ordained by God.

So ultimately God gets all the credit and it is safe to say that monergism is correct and applicable to all parts of salvation and that synergism is a nuance of the part of salvation known as sanctification.

I sure hope that clarifies any confusion between monergism and synergism and shows simply how God starts our salvation on his own without our help, then we sort of, kind of, in a way, work with him in the middle part of salvation, and then ultimately it’s God doing the work and he is the one who completes our salvation in the part referred to as glorification!

I welcome any more or better clarification on this. I’m not touting/challenging that I have the best clarification. I don’t. I’m asking for help! Hope this helps.

But one more question: How do we grasp an accurate balance in understanding the importance of our definite responsibility in working out our own salvation? For when I say that we sort of, kind of, in a way, work with God in sanctification, I do not mean to understate or diminish the responsibility we as Christians have to obey Christ and the struggling work we must do to kill sin in us! There's much more to be said...)

Two Actions in Justification

This morning Pastor Trevor began to cover Sanctification in Sunday School as part of the Puritan Catechism we're going through. He began with a review of Justification and mentioned a key component: IMPUTATION.

I'd like to add another term that I think is also a component or is closely related: PROPITIATION.

These two terms can be succinctly defined and beautifully demonstrate the spectrum of God's grace.

Imputation- Christ's righteousness applied to us.

Propitiation- Our unrighteousness applied to Christ.

Now that sounds good but it's not accurate. Bear with me.

Propitiation basically means the fulfilling of God's wrath. Christ did this for us (Romans 3:25, 1 John 4:10).

And Christ took on our sin for us though he himself had no sin (1 Peter 2:24, Hebrews 9:28).

By extension I used the term propitiation to include the definition of our sin (unrighteousness) being applied (imputed) to Christ, for why else would God have poured out his wrath upon Christ in our place?

Our sin deserved God's wrath upon it. Jesus bore our sins. And then God poured out his wrath upon our sins...which were upon Jesus on the cross! Jesus fulfilled the wrath of God for us (propitiation).

(In trying to simplify these terms, I run the risk of theological error! So please let me know if it's not worded right or something. I'm not trying to preach heresy! Thanks.)

Faith Healer Exposed

The Gift of Faith

The following was taken from the, Strange Baptist Fire blog:



A question at the crux of one’s view of God’s work in salvation is, “Where does faith come from?” In this post, which in a sense follows a prior post HERE, I would like to address this issue specifically. I expect that some readers will find this piece terribly elementary, though others may think it completely ridiculous. Yet may our gracious God use something presented for His purposes.

Sometime this past year, I came across the following on a Southern Baptist church’s website, in their beliefs under the heading of Salvation:

“Due to our sinful nature, mankind can do nothing to earn God’s favor or salvation, other than accept Jesus as Savior.”

According to this statement, accepting Jesus is the one thing we can do to earn God’s favor and salvation.

My desire is not to pick at this wording, and it is quite possible that it comes across in a way that was not intended by the writer(s). However, I think it serves as a good picture of a very real perspective prominent in the SBC today.

We know that faith is essential for us in order to be partakers in the redemption and salvation procured by Jesus Christ. The basic question here is whether faith itself is something given to us or something we ourselves generate and offer of our own natural ability.

In T.H.L. Parker’s biography of John Calvin, he states, describing Calvin’s theology,

“Why, when the gospel is preached, do some believe and some reject it? The answer that some will to believe and some will to reject cannot be final; it [this answer] is merely explaining faith and unbelief.”

Similarly, John Owen has discussed the evidence that our faith, along with all other things comprising our salvation (i.e. reconciliation, justification, sanctification, adoption and glorification), has been procured for us (that is, the elect, and thus believers) by Christ absolutely – that is, without condition. In his masterful “The Death of Death in the Death of Christ”, Book III, Chapter IV, Owen shows that claiming Christ has procured faith conditionally is essentially saying, “Christ procured that they should believe, upon condition that they do believe!”, which reasoning is obviously problematic.

There is an important observation here. If one insists that faith hinges upon man’s choice, there is never the finality of a logical, biblical answer as to how faith came about in one man and not in another. One can always ask, “But with what faculty did he make that choice?” The inevitable conclusion of such logic is that there must have been something inherently (naturally) better in that man who chose to believe. Though few would argue that anyone actually deserves heaven, it does appear that the logical implication of this view of faith is that those who believed were in some way inherently better than those who rejected Christ. (Otherwise, again, why was their choice in this most critical issue better?) I will leave it to the reader to determine whether such an implication is at all scriptural.

To reinforce the point, we all in our original, carnal state do not possess faith – we reject the things of God; we can’t even understand them. This is certainly clear from scripture. So when some of us “acquired” faith, where did we differ from those who did not? Were we smarter, wiser, more holy, etc. in our natural state than the man down the street, so that we made the correct choice, and he did not? That is not in line with scripture.

Or perhaps, did God orchestrate the circumstances in our lives such that we were drawn to such a decision, while He did not do so for the other man? Though the latter proposal would still indicate God’s distinguishing between us, eternal sovereign election of course involves much more than God’s mere direction of our circumstances.

Or is faith just an arbitrary choice that happens to be made by some?

The scriptural, and thus reasonable, answer is that faith involves the very life of God implanted in the souls of His children. And without delving deeply into the oft-disputed concept of “irresistible grace”, or effectual calling, we can see that this definition of faith implies that, where it is graciously given, it is indeed received – we simply demonstrate a “life response”. (See Eph. 2:5.) When God gives us life, we live – when sight, we see. And we willingly do so, because now made alive spiritually, we gladly respond to the Father of spirits (Heb 12:9). When we see the truth with new eyes, we embrace it.

Moreover, then, if faith is indeed granted by God, and not all have faith, it follows that God gives it to some, and not all.

In II Thess 3:2, Paul asks for prayer “that we may be delivered from wicked and evil men. For not all have faith.”

Jesus said, “No one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.” – Matt 11:27; also Luke 10:22.

The biographer T.H.L. Parker further stated,

“How can one who has hitherto willed to reject now will to believe? Man is a sinner, that is, a being who wills to reject God. It is clear from the New Testament that faith is the gift of God, that man’s will is changed from a rejecting to a believing will by the creative act of the Holy Spirit. So, then, those who believe the gospel do so because their rejecting will is changed into a believing will.”

This is solid historic orthodox theology.

The oft-quoted Eph 2:8 reads, “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God.” What here does “this is not your own doing” apply to? Is it referring to grace? That is obviously not of ourselves, by definition. Salvation? Certainly true also. But what of faith? It appears that an accurate analysis of this passage shows that “this” applies to the whole package. This interpretation is consistent with the whole counsel of scripture.

In Phil 1:29, we are told, “For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake.” Note that “believe” here is included in what “has been granted [given] to you”. If I tell you, “I will not only give you my notebook, but my pen as well”, you should certainly still expect my notebook!

In John 6:29, the Lord states, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” Isn’t our Savior saying that God Himself works this in us? Or is it that we in our natural state, as “children of wrath” (Eph 2:3), as touched upon HERE, were capable of accomplishing God’s work of our own power? (And are we then deity?) Even the remainder of that 6th chapter of John attests that the former must be true.

Indeed Christ is “the author and finisher of our faith” (Heb 12:2) – and that for both the body of doctrine and our possession of it; the latter as described in Heb 11:1.

Faith is the means by which grace is extended to us – we are “saved by grace through faith”. Both are from God.

“For who makes you differ from another? And what do you have that you did not receive? Now if you did indeed receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?” – I Cor 4:7
This is most directly applying to believers’ differing gifts, but is applicable here as well. It is God who sets us apart, of His own sovereign choice, not based on any foreseen merit in us.

It seems that the assumption that we provide faith ourselves may indeed qualify as strange fire, in that it lessens the work of Christ and what He has obtained for us through His sacrifice and intercession. It also elevates carnal man too highly, neglecting the full effects of the Fall, and making us the ultimate actuators of our own salvation, on which the sovereign Trinity would depend for their work to be effective.

What praise should should come forth from us poor sinners upon the recognition that God has Himself, by His own doing, brought us into this covenant relationship with Him! “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” – Heb 8:10

And so we say, “Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift!” – II Cor 9:15

Marcus Borg Attacks the Inerrancy, Historicity and Inspiration of the Bible

Marcus Borg is one of the 'scholars' that Post-Modern Liberals (Emergents) are being heavily influenced by. Watch as Borg trys to explain that the Bible is NOT inspired by God but is a man-made product.





The Last Word*** - Chris Rosebrough, the curator of the Museum of Idolatry reviewed this video on the Fighting for the Faith radio program. Click Here to Listen

The Gift Nobody Wants

The Prosperity Gospel

John Calvin Friday

The following was taken from the, 2 Worlds Collide blog


In his “Prefatory Address to King Francis” in The Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin refutes the allegations made by counter-Reformers. The allegations leveled against evangelicals in the 16th century were no different than the ones made by counter-Reformers in the 21st century. Ironically, the charges leveled against historic orthodox Protestants by many within some of the contemporary camps of the Fundamentalists, Charismatics and Emergents sounds hauntingly familiar. For this reason (among many others), Calvin deserves to be read by modern evangelicals. Consider his points for yourself in this edition of Theology on Thursday:

The Matters of Novelty and Miracles
…They do not cease to assail our doctrine and to reproach and defame it with names that render it hated or suspect. They call it “new” and “of recent birth.” They reproach it as “doubtful and uncertain.” They ask what miracles have confirmed it. They inquire whether it is right for it to prevail against the agreement of so many holy fathers and against most ancient custom. They urge us to acknowledge that it is schismatic because it wages war against the church, or that the church was lifeless during the many centuries in which no such thing was heard. Finally, they say that there is no need of many arguments, for one can judge by its fruits what it is, seeking that it has engendered such a heap of sects, so many seditious tumults, such great licentiousness. . . . First, by calling it “new” they do great wrong to God, whose Sacred Word does not deserve to be accused of novelty. Indeed, I do not at all doubt that it is new to them, since to them both Christ himself and his gospel are new. But he who knows that this preaching of Paul is ancient, that “Jesus Christ died for our sins and rose again for our justification” [Rom. 4:25], will find nothing new among us. . . . In demanding miracles of us, they act dishonestly. For we are not forging some new gospel, but are retaining that very gospel whose truth all the miracles that Jesus Christ and his disciples ever wrought serve to confirm. . . . Perhaps this false hue could have been more dazzling if Scripture had not warned us concerning the legitimate purpose and use of miracles [Mark 16:20; Acts 14:3; Heb. 2:4; Rom. 15:18-19]. . . . The Donatists of old overwhelmed the simplicity of the multitude with this battering-ram: that they were mighty in miracles. We, therefore, now answer our adversaries as Augustine then answered the Donatists: the Lord made us wary of these miracle workers when he predicted that false prophets with lying signs and prodigies would come to draw even the elect (if possible) into error [Matt. 24:24]. And Paul warned that the reign of Antichrist would be “with all power, and signs and lying wonders” [II Thess. 2:9; II Cor. 11;14; 11 Thess. 2:11].

The Church Fathers
Moreover, they unjustly set the ancient fathers against us. . . . If the content were to be determined by patristic authority, the tide of victory—to put it very modestly—would turn to our side. . . . The good things that these fathers have written they either do not notice, or misrepresent or pervert. You might say their only care is to gather dung amid gold. Then, with a frightful to-do, they overwhelm us as despisers and adversaries of the fathers! But we do not despise them; in fact, if it were to our present purpose, I could with no trouble at all prove that the greater part of what we are saying today meets their approval. . . . It is not without cause, they say, that Solomon bids us not to transgress the limits set by our fathers [Prov. 22:28]. But the same rule does not apply to boundaries of fields, and to obedience of faith, which must be so disposed that “it forgets its people and its father’s house” [Ps. 45:10]. But if they love to allegorize so much, why do they not accept the apostles (rather than anyone else) as the “fathers” who have set the landmarks that it is unlawful to remove [Prov. 22:28]? Thus has Jerome interpreted this verse, and they have written his words into their canons.

The Appeal to “Custom”
Even in their appeal to “custom” they accomplish nothing. To constrain us to yield to custom would be to treat us most unjustly. . . . The private vices of the many have often caused public error, or rather a general agreement on vices, which these good men now want to make law. . . . But, granting public error a place in the society of men, still in the Kingdom of God his eternal truth must alone be listened to and observed, a truth that cannot be dictated to by length of time, by long-standing custom, or by the conspiracy of men.

The Nature of the Church
By their double-horned argument they do not press us so hard that we are forced to admit either that the church has been lifeless for some time or that we are now in conflict with it. Surely the church of Christ has lived and will live so long as Christ reigns at the right hand of his Father. It is sustained by his hand; defended by his protection; and is kept safe through his power. For he will surely accomplish what he once promised: that he will be present with his own even to the end of the world [Matt. 28:20]. Against this church we now have no quarrel. For, of one accord with all believing folk, we worship and adore one God, and Christ the Lord [1 Cor. 8:6], as he has always been adored by all godly men. . . . Our controversy turns on these hinges: first, they contend that the form of the church is always apparent and observable. Secondly, they set this form in the see of the Roman Church and its hierarchy. We, on the contrary, affirm that the church can exist without any visible appearance, and that its appearance is not contained within that outward magnificence which they foolishly admire. Rather, it has quite another mark: namely, the pure preaching of God’s Word and the lawful administration of the sacraments. . . . Rather, since the Lord alone “knows who are his” [II Tim. 2:19], let us leave to him the fact that he sometimes removes from men’s sight the external signs by which the church is known.

The Matter of Division
Lastly, they do not act with sufficient candor when they invidiously recount how many disturbances, tumults, and contentions the preaching of our doctrine has drawn along with it, and what fruits it now produces among many. The blame for these evils is unjustly laid upon it, when this ought to have been imputed to Satan’s malice. Here is, as it were, a certain characteristic of the divine Word, that it never comes forth while Satan is at rest and sleeping. This is the surest and most trustworthy mark to distinguish it from lying doctrines, which readily present themselves, are received with attentive ears by all, and are listened to by an applauding world

Adrian Rogers v. James White on Calvinism

Fundamental Baptist Church Slammed by Cult?!

Quite a while ago we started covering the crazy local cult called the House of Yahweh. You can go to this link to see all our articles on their woes and their heretical view; http://preachtoday.blogspot.com/search?q=House+of+Yahweh.

For example, they deny the deity of Christ and the virgin birth...they are preaching a completely works-based salvation and constantly make themselves look like fools by making false prophecies about the end of the world...and they also keep ending up in jail! Well...it seems they could even find someone to pick on and "school" and criticize.

Today I got a mailer from them that was mailed out to most of the local Abilene community and it slams a particular Independent Fundamental Baptist church, Northside Baptist. You can find their website at the following link; http://www.nsbcnet.com/sermon_fr.htm

I will give you the link, as well as post the offending comments that Northside's Pastor made that drew the criticism from the House of Yahweh. On a sermon dated July 20, 2008 entitled "Dealing with Criticism", which you can find at this link http://www.nsbcnet.com/MP3FILES/Dealing%20With%20Criticism.mp3 (until they catch wind of this!), Pastor Greenway said the following, and I quote:

"I'm honest with you, I keep a gun in the office because I get threatened pretty often. Now, I don't intend to take another beating. I may intend to kill somebody but I'm not gonna take another beating. I don't think."

He went on to tell a story about how he started to pull that same gun on a guy that beat his wife. Now he didn't say whether he called the police on the man or not...of course, in his over dramatic story he is the hero and it's about him and about being sensational to his listeners.

Folks...this makes me sick. Pastor Greenway is a sad preacher...we've been listening to him for a while and I am greatly saddened when a heretic cult can take the time to recognize that a preacher is pushing the limits of what he should be doing. When the House of Yahweh has to state how local pastors like this are being heretical themselves it's a sad state we find ourselves in.

You tell me...even though I believe in self defense...where in the world does the Bible, and especially the Lord Jesus, ever teach that pastors and ministers should talk about blowing someone away (OK...in their day it would be running them through with a spear/sword)? Doesn't the Bible teach us to love our enemies? Should a pastor be trying to pretend to be John Wayne and talk about such things from the pulpit? I guess if you have nothing else to speak about from the Word of God...

Romans 12:19-21 "Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. 20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. 21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good. "

Is Unbelief Sin, Non-Calvinist?

John Calvin: Christian Biographies for Young Readers

2009 is the 500 year anniversary of John Calvin's birth. He was one of the greatest preachers and theologians in church history!

Here is a great resource to introduce your children to him.

John Calvin: Christian Biographies for Young Readers

In this attractive volume, Simonetta Carr introduces young readers (ages 7-10) to the life, thought, and work of one of the most famous Reformers of the Christian church. She tells about the life of John Calvin from his birth to his death, placing him within the troubled context of the sixteenth century. She also introduces Calvin’s writings in a way that children will desire to know more about his ministry and influence.

Readers will come to know Calvin’s personality, his devotion to God and the church, and the personal challenges he faced. They will understand the struggles the early Reformed church faced at that time, not only surviving attacks of the Roman Catholic Church, but also achieving a clear identity and a unified doctrine. They will also have a glimpse of life in sixteenth-century Europe, stricken by pestilence, poverty, and wars. Simply written, and full of interesting facts, this book makes a great gift for children of this rich Reformed heritage.

“The parents of four ourselves, my wife and I are eager to learn of new materials we can use and recommend. This is surely a resource that we would noise abroad. A translator of Reformed materials into Italian as well as a teacher, Simonetta is remarkably gifted. She knows the history and theology of the Reformation well, yet also knows how to ‘translate’ for our children. The Reformed community really needs this kind of edifying literature for our covenant youth.” — Michael Horton

Available at Monergism Books

How to Approach a Church Heading Into Apostasy

I found the following article at the Herescope blog



How to Approach a Church Heading Into Apostasy



“Plead with your mother, plead:
for she is not my wife, neither am I her husband:
let her therefore put away her whoredoms out of her sight,
and her adulteries from between her breasts.” (Hosea 2:2)



Jeremiah Burroughs, who was a minister of the Gospel in the 1600s, authored an extensive commentary on the book of Hosea titled An Exposition of the Prophecy of Hosea.[1] This massive work has been republished in our era in an 8 ½ X 11 book over an inch and a half thick, with tiny script to boot! Yet it is a precious gem for our era, a profitable exercise in eating the solid meat of the Word. Plus, it permits us a peek into the sunshine and shadows of the Reformation 100 years after its inception, when persecution was subsiding and complacency and worldliness were settling all-too-comfortably into the church.

The book of Hosea is a study for our times. Hosea's wife is an intense illustration of how individuals and churches leave their First Love and wander off pursuing lovers and lusts, passions and idolatries. Burroughs’ commentary on the phrase “Plead with your mother, plead” is insightful and pertinent to those who find themselves in the rapidly apostatizing churches of today. May you find the excerpts below to be both encouragement and admonition.

Note: the English is old style. To assist the reader with obscure words, we have included a bracket with a modern definition and linked to a dictionary. We have also taken a few minor liberties to reformat the text for easier readability in a blog format.

“Plead with your mother, plead:
for she is not my wife, neither am I her husband:
let her therefore put away her whoredoms out of her sight,
and her adulteries from between her breasts.” (Hosea 2:2)


Plead, Litigate, so some, Contendite, Strive; the Vulgate reads Judicate, Judge your mother* [i.e., the church]. It may seem to be a harsh phrase at first, but we shall labour to acquaint you with the mind of God in it. Here is an exhortation to the private members of the church, to all, one or other, to plead with their mother, to plead even with the church of which they are members, and so to plead as to deal plainly, and to tell her that she is not the wife of God….

It is a hard thing to convince idolators of their sin, and of the justice of God coming against them for their sin….. [Y]ou had need to… plead hard with her. Idolaters have so many distinctions, evasions, and pretences, that it is a thousand to one if you prevail with them….

“Plead with your mother, plead.” It is a forensic [debate] word, and carries with it such a kind of pleading as must be convincing and powerful…. [G]o and plead the cause with them, seek to convince them, not rail upon them, but convince them….
D]eal with them as rational creatures, and… take away their secret objections and shifts….

God gives liberty to some private members of churches, yea, it is their duty in some cases to plead with the whole church….

But it may be said, "Will not this argue self-conceit? What! For one man, a private man, to plead with so many, with a church?" It is a sign that such a one is very opinionated, that such should think that what he apprehends [perceives] is sufficient to stand against the apprehensions [perceptions] of so many learned and godly men as are in the church.

How can this be freed from arrogance and proud conceitedness? I answer, not so, it may be conscience, and not self-conceit, for the rule of conscience is not the abilities, nor the holiness, nor the multitude of others, but it is that light that God lets in to convince [convict] according to His Word.

Nay, further, I suppose I may convince you that this pleading for God may proceed from much self-denial, and the not pleading may proceed from vile, sinful self-respect [pride]. How will that appear? Thus: for a private man when he sees the Truth of God suffer, if he be of a humble and an ingenuous [guileless, innocent] spirit, it cannot but be exceeding grievous to him to think, that he must contest with such a multitude of able and godly men. He would rather a hundred times, if he looked at his own quiet and ease, sit down: “For,” thinks he, “if I speak, by this I shall be endangered to be accounted self-conceited, I shall have the accusation of pride, I shall displease many of my friends, I shall make a great disturbance in myself; I am sure of my own peace, whatever I do to others, and how much better were it for me to sit still and be quiet.”

A humble spirit would reason thus, but conscience puts him upon it: “I shall contract guilt to myself if I be not, at least, a witness for God’s Truth; therefore though I shall suffer so much in it, yet, rather than the Truth shall suffer, rather than conscience shall plead against me, I will plead, though never so much to my disadvantage.”

Now, if such a one carry it humbly and quietly, certainly he is rather to be accounted a self-denying man; for it is a very hard task.

Whereas, on the other side, self-love is more likely to think thus: “It is true, these things are not right, I see they are not according to the Truth of God. Conscience indeed would have me speak, but I shall trouble myself, and what will they think of me on the other side, where there are so many able and godly men? Surely I shall be thought a conceited fool, and therefore I were as good hold my peace, and sleep in a whole skin, and be quiet.”

Thus because they have so much self-respect, and love their own quiet, and cannot endure to suffer any trouble, they will leave the Truth to suffer, and their consciences to be pleading against themselves, rather than thus plead for the cause of God….

Christians may plead with their mother [i.e., the church], yet they must observe these rules.

First, They must not plead with her for every light thing; for the Scripture gives us this rule, “Love covereth a multitude of sins” [1 Peter 4:8]. We must not stand pleading for every infirmity with our brother, but rather pass by many and cover them; much less then with the church. But if there be that which is notorious [disreputable, wicked], so that I cannot have communion with them, and I shall be wrapped up in the guilt except I testify the Truth, certainly then I am bound to plead.

Secondly, It must be orderly done; that is, if possible, you must make the officers [leaders] to be your mouth in pleading. I say, if it can be. If it come to declaring the evil to the church, it should rather be by him whom God has appointed to be His mouth to the church; for you do it in God’s name, therefore the most orderly way to do it, if it may be done, is by him that is God’s mouth.

Thirdly, It must be so as you must manifest all due respect to the church; showing in your carriage [attitude, behavior], that you are apprehensive [perceptive, understanding] and sensible, even at this time, of that distance that is between you and that whole society whereof you are a member.

Fourthly, You must do it in a very peaceable way, so as to manifest [make clear or evident] that you desire peace, and not to be the least disturbance to the peace of the church, but that the peace of it is dear and precious to you. Therefore, when you have witnessed the Truth, and discharged your conscience, you must be then content to sit down quiet, for so the rule is in that case; that the spirits of the prophets must be subject to the prophets [1 Corinthians 14:32]. But if it should prove that the church continues the evil, after all means used and all patience exercised in such a case, you may desire to be dismissed from it, and depart; but in as peaceable a way as possible, continuing due respect to the church, though you should depart, only leaving your witness behind you....

[I]t is exceedingly difficult for a people to understand their liberty without abusing of it, either against the church, or against the officers [leaders] of a church. This power may be abused by persons, who in pride, arrogancy, and a spirit of contention, take delight in contradiction. There are many people of such a humour [disposition, temperament], that it is their very delight to contradict, and they think they are nobody except they have somewhat to say against their officers [leaders], or against what is delivered; and upon that very ground will quarrel not out of mere conscience, but that it may appear to others that they see farther than other men. And if they be in a community, they conceive that every one would think them nobody if they say nothing, therefore, that they may appear to be somebody, they will find fault, though they scarce understand what they say, or whereof they affirm, showing their disapprobation [disapproval] in a virulent [antagonistic, spiteful] spirit, and insulting those whom God has set over them. Certainly, this is a gross [insensitive] and abominable [disgusting] thing, whereas the rule of Christ is, "Rebuke not an elder, but entreat him as a father" [1 Timothy 5:1]; do not think that because you may plead with them, and God's cause may suffer by your silence, that therefore you may rebuke them in an undecent [improper] and unseemly [rude] manner. You may indeed go in a humble manner, acknowledging the distance betwixt [between] you and him, he being an officer [leader], and so "entreat him as a father."


The Truth:

"And it came to pass at the end of seven days, that the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me.

When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand. Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.

Again, When a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand. Nevertheless if thou warn the righteous man, that the righteous sin not, and he doth not sin, he shall surely live, because he is warned; also thou hast delivered thy soul." (Ezekiel 3:16-21)


Endnotes:
1. Jeremiah Burroughs, An Exposition of the Prophecy of Hosea, Reformation Heritage Books (Grand Rapids, MI) 2006.

*Note: Galatians 4:26 states: "But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all." Burroughs is using a figurative analogy when applying this verse to the church. The Bible frequently uses feminine spousal language in the Old Testament for ancient Israel (of which Hosea's adulterous/idolatrous wife was a type). In the book of Hosea the children are also a type (see Hosea 1:2), and are given prophetic names. Hosea 2:5a explains why the children must plead: "For their mother hath played the harlot: she that conceived them hath done shamefully:..."). See also Ezekiel 16 for a vivid example of this, e.g. verse 44: "As is the mother, so is her daughter." Likewise, in the New Testament, feminine spousal language is used of the church, which is the Bride of Christ (Rev. 21:2: "And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband").

The 33,000 Protestant Denominations Lie

The training of a child

Does God Still Give Revelation?

CHARISMATIC CHAOS

Jeremy Camp

Jeremy Thomas Camp (born January 12, 1978) is a contemporary Christian musician from Lafayette, Indiana. Camp has released six albums, three of them RIAA-certified as Gold, and 17 number-one hit songs. His original music is a mixture of ballads and rock.Camp is also an ordained minister.


Jeremy Camp was born on January 12, 1978 in Lafayette, Indiana.There his father was a pastor at Harvest Chapel church and taught his son how to play guitar. After completing high school, Camp attended a bible college in Southern California for two years.

He married Melissa Lynn Henning-Camp (born October 7, 1979), on October 21, 2000. She was diagnosed with ovarian cancer and died in 2001, when he was 23 and she was 21Some of his early songs reflect the emotional ordeal of her illness. "I Still Believe" was the first song he wrote after her death. "Walk By Faith" was written during their honeymoon.

New Manuscripts Discovered?

Let me point you to an interesting website. One of my New Year's resolutions is to further my Greek studies and also seek to understand Textual Criticism (btw...I don't mean that I'm going to criticize the Bible!)...I came across this story and this site today that's very interesting.

The website is from the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts. The purpose of this organization is to do the following (taken from their website):

The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (CSNTM), under the umbrella of The Center for the Research of Early Christian Documents (CRECD), exists for the following purposes:

• To make digital photographs of extant Greek New Testament manuscripts so that such images can be preserved, duplicated without deterioration, and accessed by scholars doing textual research.


• To utilize developing technologies (OCR, MSI, etc.) to read these manuscripts and create exhaustive collations.


• To analyze individual scribal habits in order to better predict scribal tendencies in any given textual problem.


• To publish on various facets of New Testament textual criticism
  To develop electronic tools for the examination and analysis of New Testament manuscripts.


• To cooperate with other institutes in the great and noble task of determining the wording of the autographa of the New Testament.

Interesting! But what's even more interesting is what they found on a recent expedition to Albania. Let me encourage you to read the whole article, here is just one excerpt:

"This was not the only good news of the day, nor even the most momentous. The catalog revealed several other Greek New Testament manuscripts that had never been catalogued by western scholars. Simple arithmetic told us this: There were forty-seven Greek New Testament manuscripts listed in the National Archive catalog, while the K-Liste noted only thirty in Albania (and seventeen of these had been presumed lost). Thus, Tirana was housing at least seventeen manuscripts unknown to western scholarship and as many as thirty-four! Since the dawn of the 21st century, an average of two or three Greek New Testament manuscripts is brought to light each year. A cache of 17 to 34 manuscripts is a remarkable find, regardless of the age and pedigree of the manuscripts."

I would love to look at these manuscripts...Christians should not be afraid of new manuscript evidence...it should encourage us. Our Bible, the Word of God, is the most attested to book in all ancient literature, it is so free of textual variation as well (contrary to what the atheists, islamic apologists and Mormons will tell you!).

The full article can be read at the following link: http://www.csntm.org/Expedition/Albania2007.aspx

Arthur Pink, "Present Day Evangelism"

Got this quote from our pastor...very, very applicable for today's man-centered evangelistic clown acts...here is what Arthur Pink said quite a while back...

"Alas, alas, God's way of salvation is almost entirely unknown today, the nature of Christ's salvation is almost universally misunderstood, and the terms of His salvation misrepresented on every hand. The "Gospel" which is now being proclaimed is, in nine cases out of every ten--but a perversion of the Truth! Tens of thousands, assured they are bound for heaven--are now hastening to hell as fast as time can take them!

It is the bounden duty of every Christian, to have no dealings with the evangelistic monstrosity of the day, to withhold all moral and financial support of the same, to attend none of their meetings, to circulate none of their tracts. Those preachers who tell sinners that they may be saved without forsaking their idols, without repenting, without surrendering to the Lordship of Christ--are as erroneous and dangerous as others who insist that salvation is by works, and that heaven must be earned by our own efforts!"

IS NEW HOPE CHURCH DECEIVED?

The Bible warns of false prophets and that many will be deceived:

Acts 20:
27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. 28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. 29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.


Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

Matthew 24:11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.

Matthew 24:24
For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

It is the responsibility of every pastor and church to ensure what is being taught is true. It is the job of a pastor to handle the word of God correctly and to equip his people so they will not be deceived!

Last week, my wife and I went to eat at Logan's Roadhouse. The restaurant is located right next to New Hope Church in Abilene, TX. They have a sign that gives information about upcoming events that the church is sponsoring. The sign read Ignite 09!
I went home and looked up some information about this event from the New Hope website, and here is what I found:

Ignite 2009
Igniting the Flame of Revival Through Prayer
January 2 @ 7 pm
January 3 @ 10 am, 2 pm, and 7 pm
Wesley & Stacey Campbell are founders of Revival Now! Ministries and 'Praying the Bible International', and a mercy organization for children at risk called 'Be A Hero' (www.beahero.org). They are producers of the "Praying the Bible" CDs and co-authors of several Praying the Bible books.


When I read Stacy Campbell's name, I immediately said to myself, "You have to be kidding! No pastor with any spiritual discernment would bring this woman anywhere near his church!" Before we can get to Stacy Campbell and New Hope Church, we need to go back to 2008!

Let me give you some history.

Last year the big story was the Lakeland Revival and Todd Bentley:

From Wikipedia:
Todd Bentley (born 10 January 1976) is a Canadian Christian evangelist. He is perhaps best known as the controversial key figure of the Lakeland Revival.


Many Charismatic churches were all excited about this supposed revival and sent people there and were in support of all the nonsense that was happening:










I cannot imagine how anyone who claims to be a Christian or a pastor would support that kind of heresy and foolishness! Anyone who stays in a church that supports that kind of error is either deceived or a fool!

In-spite of the above videos, a group of Charismatic leaders showed up at Lakeland to commission Todd Bentley as an Apostle!


Of course it did not take long to realize that all of these charismatic leaders who claim God speaks to them did not have enough spiritual discernment to know what was going on behind the scenes!


A few months after this supposed commissioning the following story broke!

From Wikipedia
Bentley announced his separation from his wife, Shonnah, in August 2008. Bentley has now resigned from the Board of Fresh Fire. A statement released by the remaining Board members says that 'Todd Bentley has entered into an unhealthy relationship on an emotional level with a female member of his staff'. Bentley will now 'refrain from all public ministry for a season to receive counsel in his personal life'. [37] As a result, some Christian commentators have spoken of their belief that the Bible holds ministers to high standards, and that marital unfaithfulness is incompatible with Christian leadership.[38][39] Leaders who had aligned themselves with Bentley, have spoken of their desire to see him and his family spiritually restored; a committee made up of Rick Joyner, Jack Deere, and Bill Johnson has been formed to oversee this process.[40] However, on November 28th the Board of Fresh Fire confirmed that Bentley was not currently submitting to this process, and was in their opinion, guilty of adultery.[41]


The following is from: The Voice


Was excessive drinking another reason evangelist Todd Bentley, leader of the Lakeland Florida Revival, stepped down and will divorce wife Shonnah?

On August 15th the board of directors of Bentley’s Fresh Fire Ministries (FFM) said there was an “unhealthy relationship on an emotional level with a female member of his staff.” C. Peter Wagner, California pastors’ Che Ahn, Bill Johnson and others commissioned and prophesied to Bentley in a televised service by God TV and offered “apostolic oversight” to the Lakeland Revival. Events have proven the oversight came to late to save the ‘Florida outpouring’ and Bentley stepped down.

Now The Voice magazine has learned that “excessive drinking” may also have been involved. In a letter to ministry partners John Arnott, founder of Toronto Airport Christian Fellowship and member of Wagner’s International Coalition of Apostles wrote, “Further it has now come out that there has been some inappropriate behavior, both with excessive drinking and also with a female member of his staff.”


The entire Lakeland Revival came to a crashing halt! Where was the spiritual discernment? Where are the pastors who supported this garbage? Did they offer a public apology for promoting and supporting it?


This brings us to New Hope Church in Abilene, TX. From their website they invite people to visit their Facebook page, so I did and found this:

"Having a great time at the Lakeland revival. I wrote one short blog about what is going on - you can see it on my profile."
This was written by the Pastor of the Church!

How could a pastor be having a great time at the Lakeland Revival? A place where heresy was being taught and spread - a place where the name of Christ was being mocked!

Remember New Hope just held a confrence called, Ignite 09. One of the speakers was Stacey Campbell. Guess what? She was at the Lakeland Revival! She was one of the leaders there to comission Todd Bentley as an apostle! In fact I have the video!




There you go, that is the woman that the pastor of New Hope has allowed to speak from the pulpit of his church. He is promoting and supporting the teaching of this woman! Here is more the of the great Stacy Campbell!









New Hope Church in Abilene TX, where is your spiritual discernment? Anyone who attended this church needs to really consider what you are supporting! It is time for Christians to repent and turn from such foolishness and return to the Word of God and biblical theology and doctrine!

Theology Matters

Genesis 6 & 7 Trivia

What animals, other than the ones on Noah's ark, were not killed in the flood?

Genesis 3 Trivia

Adam and Eve had already eaten of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden of Eden. The damage was done.

So, what other damage could they do? What is the reason that God drove them out of the garden of Eden?

The result was for man to work the ground, but the reason for being driven out was...?

Hint: What are the two trees which, ultimately, man could not eat of?

Apple Eating

What in the world was so wrong or so bad about what Adam and Eve did in the garden of Eden!?

I mean seriously, what did they do that was SO wrong?

They ate some fruit. Maybe it was an Apple.

They ate fruit!!! What in the world is so bad about that!?

I'm happy when my son eats healthy food!

Now of course I'm playing dumb and devil's advocate at the same time. Most Christians know that eating fruit is not a sin. God made fruit for us to eat!

But he did say don't eat a particular fruit, that of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Why God said to not eat of that fruit is not the point here. The point is that he said don't do it, but Adam and Eve did anyways.

Eating fruit isn't bad. But disobedience is. So far this may come as a no-brainer.

But, I've noticed in rasing my own kids that I have rules in my house for them to follow. I tell them to not do certain things which, like eating fruit, is harmless and not a sin in themselves. But what my kids must learn is that regardless of what I commanded them, they must obey simply because I told them to.

What I've also learned from this is that more rules I lay down, the more I have to enforce! That can be a struggle since kids a naturally prone to disobey!

So word to the wise, if you make rules for your kids, weigh them carefully. You may ask yourself why you made the rule and is it worth the battle to enforce it. Is what you've asked you're kid to not do an actual sin? Is it harmful in itself? If not, you might reconsider having such a rule. You just might save yourself some trouble.

Nevertheless, you will still have to teach your child the importance of obedience.

Now if only I could learn that lesson finally.

(If this is not sound parenting advice, some of you veterans let me know. I'm learning as I go.)

Peace out.

Tongue-n-cheek Trivia

According to Genesis 1, which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Seriously, can you find the real answer here?

Genesis 2 Trivia

A river flowed out of Eden and divided into 4 rivers!

What are the names of the 4 rivers????

BONUS: What is the name of the river that flowed out of Eden (before it divided)?

Studying 101

We at Victory Baptist are encouraged to read...A LOT. ;)

So reading won't kill ya? What about studying? Doesn't studying involve intense reading plus writing?

Let's see...

KJV Ecclesiastes 12:12 And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.

Wow, MANY books. I know someone who would be elated to read that! And that many!!

Ah, but MUCH study is a weariness to the flesh. No argument here!

But ya know, we're all gonna be weary by something, so it might as well be something productive like studying.

And of course, many of you know that...

KJV 2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Study...it seems we're commanded here. And it is a command, an imperative verb in the Greek. But it doesn't quite translate as "study" as the KJV puts it.

The Greek verb means to be eager, zealous, take pains, make every effort. And it is rendered in the NIV and ESV and NASB as "be diligent" or "do your best."

But, however the verb is actually translated, it carries the same requirement- work, effort, pains...weariness...like in studying!

Another note, the three other times the Greek verb with the same parsing is translated in the KJV it is rendered as "be diligent" as opposed to "study". Ref. 2 Tim 4:9, 2 Tim 4:21, Titus 3:12. Why the KJV chose to render it as "study" in 2 Tim 3:15 is puzzling except to say that to correctly or rightly or accurately handle or divide the word of truth necessariliy requires...diligent study!

“Though He Slay Me, Yet Will I Hope in Him”

The members of Victory Baptist church are currently reading through the bible in Chronological order. This week we are in the book of Job. Here is a link to a sermon based on Job 4-14. It is a text file so yes, you will have to read more:) I did read a study that proved reading does not lead to death:)

Here is the link:
Though He Slay Me

Let me know if this helps you understand this section a little better.

Is Your Pastor a Bible Teacher?

The Modern Gospel

How To Make Your Child a False Convert

What most churches offer their young people is completely unbiblical and pathetic!

Look at what churches here in Abilene, TX offer their young people:


Trinity Baptist Church: Here is the link to their website:
Trinity

Here is what they offer:

AWANA (Approved Workmen Are Not Ashamed) is a Bible Club for children of all ages. The children participate in Bible time, craft time, and game time. The goal is to prepare teams to compete in the annual AWANA Olympics.


Notice the goal:
To prepare teams to compete in the annual AWANA Olympics!

Crafts!

Games!

This is exactly what the bible tells us to offer kids. We all know kids need more game time in their life!


If the children are a little older Trinity offers this:

THE MARK STUDENT MINISTRIES: Rush Hour - 7:00pm
Jonathan Sanders will lead this aggressive, intense, and fast-paced hour designed for students of Jr. and Sr. High age. Games, praise and worship, drama, and Bible study are all presented using current methods and resources. The purpose of Rush Hour is to provide an atmosphere that will enable students to invite friends, as well as for students to experience growth in their own walk with Christ. They meet in the Student Center. There is everything from a snack shack; a game room stocked with pool tables, air hockey, ping-pong, and foosball; a lounge in which you can kick back and relax while watching videos or playing video games; to basketball, and more. Doors open at 6:30 and close at 9PM.

Wow, that all sounds biblical!


The Oasis Student Impact exists to equip students to be Christian leaders, to share Christ with non-believers, to serve others, to connect with one another, and to love God with their total being.

But wait there is more
Whether it's being a part of the weekly "Wide-Awake" Bible Study on Sunday mornings at 9:45 AM, worshipping God at the "students only" praise and worship service, "Rush Hour" Wednesday evenings @ 7:15, (which includes a live band, drama, hilarious skits and challenging messages), being Christ to our community at "L1FE", the Sunday evening outreach @ 6 PM, or being involved in the many wild and crazy activities we do, the students of The Oasis Student Impact know that this is a place that they can come and have fun, hang out with friends, and at the same time, be challenged to develop a lifelong passion for God.


These methods have proven to not work over and over again but guess what, the church keeps offering the same garbage!

let's check out North Side Baptist:

Here the link to their website: Church


Teen Ministries:
Middle School (6th-8th grade)
Every Sunday Morning at 10a.m., we meet in our Gym. Our Teen Staff provide a 2 hour program. We start off by going into 4 Sunday School Classes=2 Teen girl classes, and 2 Teen boy classes. After our Class time, we have some fun with our Wacky game time. Then our Teen Service begins with Bible Games, Singing, and a Bible Message.

High School (9th- 12th grade)
Every Sunday Morning at 10a.m., we meet in our High School Class room. At 9:45a.m. we have Cokes and Donuts provided, plus our Game Room is open. At 10, we have a great Teen Bible Study. Each week we have different topics, that Teens can relate to, and what the Bible has to say, and how God can help them and guide them in their lives!

Every Wednesday Night at 7:30p.m. we have a fantastic Teen Bible Hour in our Teen Room. We have crazy games, Christian videos, etc., Teen singing, and a Bible Message. There is something different every Wednesday. It is a great way for Teens to invite their friends to come and be around other Christian Teens. You will have that middle-of-the-week challenge to serve the Lord.



All of that sounds very biblical!


I am a pastor of a church and I would never allow these kinds of programs anywhere near my church!

Young people need to be taught the word of God, they need to be taught doctrine and theology. They need to be taught church history. The early Church used Catechisms to teach their children!


Here is what the young people are learning at my Church right now:



Q. Did God leave all mankind to perish in the state of sin and misery?
A. God having, out of his good pleasure from all eternity, elected some to everlasting life (2 Thess. 2:13), did enter into a covenant of grace to deliver them out of the state of sin and misery, and to bring them into a state of salvation by a Redeemer (Rom. 5:21).



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Q. Who is the Redeemer of God's elect?
A. The only Redeemer of God's elect is the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Tim. 2:5), who being the eternal Son of God, became man (Jn. 1:14), and so was and continues to be God and man, in two distinct natures and one person for ever (1 Tim. 3:16; Col. 2:9).



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Q. How did Christ, being the Son of God, become man?
A. Christ, the son of God, became man by taking to himself a true body (Heb. 2:14), and a reasonable soul (Matt. 26:38; Heb. 4:15), being conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit in the Virgin Mary, and born of her (Lk. 1:31, 35), yet without sin (Heb. 7:26).



Q. How are we made partakers of the redemption purchased by Christ?
A. We are made partakers of the redemption purchased by Christ, by the effectual application of it to us (Jn. 1:12) by his Holy Spirit. (Tit. 3:5-6)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Q. How does the Spirit apply to us the redemption purchased by Christ?
A. The Spirit applies to us the redemption purchased by Christ, by working faith in us (Eph. 2:8), and by it uniting us to Christ in our effectual calling (Eph. 3:17).



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Q. What is effectual calling?
A. Effectual calling is the work of God's Spirit (2 Tim. 1:9) whereby, convincing us of our sin and misery (Acts 2:37), enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ (Acts 26:18), and renewing our wills (Ezek. 36:26), he does persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ freely offered to us in the gospel (Jn. 6:44-45).



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Q. What benefits do they who are effectually called, partake of in this life?
A. They who are effectually called, do in this life partake of justification (Rom. 8:30), adoption (Eph. 1:5), sanctification, and the various benefits which in this life do either accompany, or flow from them (1 Cor. 1:30).



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Q. What is justification?
A. Justification is an act of God's free grace, wherein he pardons all our sins (Rom. 3:24; Eph. 1:7), and accepts us as righteous in his sight (2 Cor. 5:21) only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us (Rom. 5:19), and received by faith alone (Gal. 2:16; Phil. 3:9).



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Q. What is adoption?
A. Adoption is an act of God's free grace (1 Jn. 3:1), whereby we are received into the number, and have a right to all the privileges of the sons of God (Jn. 1:12; Rom. 8:17).



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Q. What is sanctification?
A. Sanctification is the work of God's Spirit (2 Thess. 2:13), whereby we are renewed in the whole man after the image of God (Eph. 4:24), and are enabled more and more to die to sin, and live to righteousness (Rom. 6:11).



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Q. What are the benefits which in this life do either accompany or flow from justification, adoption, and sanctification?
A. The benefits which in this life do accompany or flow from justification (Rom. 5:1-2, 5), are assurance of God's love, peace of conscience, joy in the Holy Spirit (Rom. 14:17), increase of grace, perseverance in it to the end (Prov. 4:18; 1 Jn. 5:13; 1 Pet. 1:5).


We keep the family together for worship as much as possible!



Church is not a place for children to be entertained but instructed in the deep things of God!

Parents wake up and repent! Place your children in a church where they are taught the word of God.

Charismatic Foolishness!

When did Job occur?

Those of us in Victory Baptist church are studying the Bible through chronologically this year...should be an interesting way to read the Word of God. For anyone, in our church or not, we started our reading from Gen 1 to Gen 11...and then we jumped to the book of Job.

Here is a simple question to ponder...how do we know, or why do we believe, that Job fits inbetween Genesis chapter 11 and 12? Think about it...read about it and post your thoughts. Dive in and learn something!

Bro Jim

The Apathy Of The Modern Church

Seventh-day Adventism

2008's Worst Christmas Sermon Award

The following is from the, A Little Leaven blog:

The award for the absolute worst Christmas sermon of 2008 goes to Tadd Grandstaff of Pine Ridge Church in Graham, North Carolina. Here are the reasons we are "honoring" this sermon as the worst.

1. This "Christmas" sermon was completely Christ-less even though it was preached just days before Christmas.

2. The "text" that was at the center of Tadd Grandstaff's "sermon" was not a Biblical text. Instead, he preached on what God was supposedly directly speaking to his heart.

3. The "sermon" preaches about your greatness rather than the Greatness of God and Jesus Christ. It scratched itching ears and literally taught man-centered heresy.
Tadd Grandstaff is one of the new breed of relevant rebellious purpose-driven church planters and this sermon is a typical example of the false gospel and man-centered deception at the heart of this movement. If you know anyone who attends this church or is thinking of attending please warn them that this church does not preach true Christianity!






Chris Rosebrough reviewed this sermon on the Fighting for the Faith radio program. Click Here to Listen

CCM’s Album of the Year

Chrisitan Music Central has relesed their top albbums of 2008 list. The album of 2008 is:

Brooke Fraser
Albertine
Sony/BMG














The album was actually realesed in 2007 but everyone is still calling Albertine the album of 2008. It is truly an amzing album and I have listned to it about a 1,000 times.

Let me share some of this wonderful album with everyone:
The phrase that best describes this album is this:

HAUNTINGLY BEAUTIFUL

Ramifications of the Fall

A.W. Pink

I. Blindness of Heart
The heart is the center of our moral being, out of which flow the issues of life (Prov 4:23; cf. Matt 12:35). The nature of the heart is at once indicated by its being designated a “ stony heart” (Eze 11:19). The figure is a very apt one. As a stone is a product of the earth, so it has the property of the earth: heaviness, a tendency to fall. Thus it is with the natural mind. Men’s affections are wholly set on the world; and though God made man upright with his head erect, yet the soul is bowed down to the ground. The physical curse pronounced on the serpent is also fulfilled in his seed, for the things on which they feed turn to ashes, so that dust is their meat (Isa 65:25). Sin has so calloused man’s heart that, Godward, it is loveless and lifeless, cold and insensible. That is one reason why the moral law was written on tables of stone: to represent emblematically the stupid, unyielding hearts men had, as is clearly implied by the contrast presented in II Corinthians 3:3.

The heart of the unregenerate is also likened to “rock” (Jer 23:29), and to “adamant stone” (Zech 7:12), which is harder than flint. Those far from righteousness are called “stouthearted” (Isa 46:12); and in Isaiah 48:4 God says, “Thou art obstinate, and thy neck is an iron sinew, and thy brow brass.” This hardness is often ascribed to the neck (“stiffnecked”), a figure of man’s obstinacy taken from refractory oxen which will not accept the yoke. This hardness evidences itself by a complete absence of spiritual sensibility, so that the heart is unmoved by God’s goodness, has no awe of His authority and majesty, no fear of His anger and vengeance; a presentation of the joys of heaven or the horrors of hell makes no impression on it. As the prophet of old lamented, they “put far away the evil day” (Amos 6:3), dismissing it from their thoughts as an unwelcome subject. They have no sense of guilt, no consciousness of having offended their Maker, no alarming realization of His impending wrath, but are at ease in their sins. Far from sin being a burden to them, it is their element and delight.

Hardness of heart, which was referred to in the preceding chapter, is the perverseness and obstinacy of fallen man’s nature, which makes him resolve to continue in sin no matter what be the consequences thereof. It renders him unwilling to be rebuked for his folly, and makes him refuse to be reclaimed from it, whatever methods are used in order thereunto. The Prophet Ezekiel mentioned this hardness of heart in his day, referring to those who had been forewarned by earlier judgments, and were at that very time under the most solemn rebuke of Providence. God had to say of them, “They will not hearken unto Me: for all the house of Israel are impudent and hardhearted” (Ezek 3:7). The Lord Jesus said of them, “We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented” (Matt 11:17). The most touching entreaties and winsome reasoning will not move the unregenerate to accept what is absolutely necessary for their present peace and final joy. “They are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear; which will not hearken to the voice of charmers, charming never so wisely” (Psa 58:4,5; cf. Acts 7:57).

The hearts of the regenerate are docile and pliable, easily bent to God’s will, but the hearts of the wicked are wedded to their lusts and impervious to all appeal. There is such unyielding disposition against heavenly things that they do not respond to the most alarming threatenings and thunderings. They will neither be convinced by the most cogent arguments nor won by the most tempting inducements. They are so addicted to self-pleasing that they cannot be persuaded to take Christ’s yoke on them. Zechariah 7:11,12 states: “But they refused to hearken, and pulled away the shoulder, and stopped their ears, that they should not hear. Yea, they made their hearts as an adamant stone, lest they should hear the law, and the words which the Lord of hosts hath sent.” They are less susceptible to receive any impressions of holiness than granite is to be engraved by the tool of the artificer. They scorn control and refuse to be admonished. They are “a stubborn and rebellious generation” (Psa 78:8), being subject to neither the law nor the gospel. The doctrines of repentance, self-denial, walking with God, can find no entrance into their hearts.

II. Disordered Affections
Writers disagree as to the scope of the affections. It is a moot point both theologically and psychologically whether the desires are included in the affections. In the broadest meaning, the affections may be said to be the sensitive faculty of the soul. As the understanding discerns and judges things, so the affections allure and dispose the soul to or against the objects contemplated. By the affections the soul becomes pleased or displeased with what is known by the bodily senses or contemplated by the mind, and thus it is moved to approve or reject. As distinguished from both the understanding and the affections, the will executes the final decision of the mind or the strongest desire of the affections, carrying it into action. Since the affections pertain to the sensitive side of the soul, we are more conscious of their stirrings than we are of the actions of our minds or wills. We shall employ the term in its widest latitude, including the desires, for what the appetites are to the body the affections are to the soul.

Goodwin likened the desire nature to the stomach. It is an empty void, fitted to receive from without, longing for a satisfying object. Its universal language is, “Who will shew us any good?” (Psa 4:6). Now God Himself is man’s chief good, the only One who can afford him real, lasting and full satisfaction. At the beginning He created him in His own likeness, that as the needle touched by the lodestone ever moves northward, so the soul touched with the divine image should turn the understanding, affections and will to Himself. He also placed the soul in a material body, and in this world, fitting each for the other, providing everything necessary for and suited to each part of man’s complex being. The desire nature carries the soul’s impressions to the creature, originally intended as a means of enjoying God in and by them. The wonders of God’s handiwork were meant to be admired, but chiefly as displaying His wisdom. Food was to be eaten and enjoyed, but in order to deepen gratitude for the goodness of the Giver and to supply strength to serve Him. But when man apostatized, his understanding, affections and will were divorced from God, and the exercise of them became directed only by self-love.

Originally the Lord sustained and directed the action of human affections toward Himself. Then He withheld that power, and left our first parents on their own footing; in consequence their desires wandered after forbidden joys. They sought their happiness not in communion with their Maker, but in fellowship with the creature. Like their children ever since, they loved and served the creature more than the Creator. The result was disastrous: they became separated from the Holy One. That was at once evidenced by their attempt to hide from Him. Had their delight been in God as their chief good, the desire for concealment could not have possessed them. As it was with Adam and Eve, so it has been with all their descendants. Many a proverb expresses that general truth. “The stream cannot rise higher than the fountain.” “Men do not gather grapes of thorns, nor figs of thistles.” “Like begets like.” The parent stock of the human family must send forth scions of its own nature. The hearts and lives of all the unregenerate say to the Almighty, “Depart from us; for we desire not the knowledge of Thy ways” (Job 21:14).

The natural center of unfallen man’s soul for both its rest and delight was the One who gave him being. Therefore David said, “Return unto thy rest, O my soul” (Psa 116:7). But sin has caused men to “draw back” from Him, “departing from the living God” (Heb 10:38; 3:12). God was not only to be the delightful portion of the one whom He had made in His image, but also the ultimate end of all man’s motives and actions as he aimed to glorify and please Him in all things. But man forsook “the fountain of living waters” (Jer 2:13), the infinite and perpetual spring of comfort and joy. And now the inclinations and lusts of man’s nature are wholly removed from God, anything and everything being more agreeable to him than He who is the sum of all excellence. Man makes the things of time and sense his chief good, and the pleasing of himself his supreme end. That is why his affections are termed “ungodly lusts” (Jude 18)—they turn man away from God. Man has no relish for His holiness, no desire for fellowship with Him, no wish to retain Him in his thoughts.

But what has just been pointed out (the aversion of our affections from God) is only the negative phase. The positive is the conversion of the affections to other things. Thus God charged Israel, “My people have committed two evils; they have forsaken Me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water” nor give them any satisfaction (Jer 2:13). All the concern of the natural man is how to live at ease; not how to honor and enjoy God. He observes “lying vanities” and forsakes his own mercy (Jonah 2:8). All his expectations are disappointments, empty vanities. Man is deceived by a vain prospect, and the outcome is vexation of spirit, because of frustration. As the love of God shed abroad in the hearts of the redeemed does not seek its own good (I Cor 13:5), so self-love does nothing but that: “They all look to their own way, every one for his gain” (Isa 56:11).

Not only are the desires of the unregenerate turned away from God to the creature, but they are greedy, excessive. Thus we read of “inordinate affections” (Col 3:5), which indicate both excess and irregularity, a spirit of gluttony and unmitigated craving for things contrary to God, a “lust after evil things”(I Cor 10:6). We see here two sins: intemperance and “pleasure in unrighteousness” (II Thess 2:12). The body is esteemed above the soul, for all the efforts of the natural man are directed to making provision to fulfill the lusts of the flesh; his immortal spirit is little thought of and still less cared for. When things go well for him, he says, “Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry” (Luke 12:19). His thoughts do not rise to a higher and future life. He is more concerned with the clothing and adorning of the outward man than with the cultivation of a meek and quiet spirit, which is of great value in the sight of God (I Peter 3:4). Earth is preferred before heaven, things of time before eternity. Though death and the grave may put an end to all he has here much sooner than he imagines, yet his heart is so set on his possessions that he will not be diverted from them.

Thus it is that the affections, which at the beginning were the servants of reason, now occupy the throne. That which is the glory of human nature— elevating it above the beasts of the field—is turned here and there by the rude rabble of our passions. God placed in man an instinct for happiness, so that he could find it in Himself; but now that instinct gropes in the dust and snatches at every vanity. The counsels and contrivances of the mind are engaged in the accomplishment of man’s carnal desires. Not only have his affections no relish for spiritual things, but they are strongly prejudiced against them, for they run counter to the gratifying of his corrupt nature. His desires are set on more wealth, more worldly honor and power, more fleshly merriment; and because the gospel contains no promise of such things it is despised. Because it inculcates holiness, mortifying of the flesh, separation from the world, resisting the devil, the gospel is most unwelcome to him. To turn the affections away from those material and temporal things which they have made their chief good, and to turn them to unseen spiritual and eternal things, alienates the carnal mind against the gospel, for it offers nothing attractive to the natural man in place of those idols on which his heart centers. To renounce his own righteousness and be dependent on that of Another is equally distasteful to his pride.

The affections are alienated from and opposed to not only the holy requirements of the gospel, but also its mystery. That mystery is what the Scriptures term the hidden wisdom of God, which the natural man not only fails to admire and adore, but regards with contempt. He looks on all of its declarations as empty and unintelligible notions. This prejudice has prevailed among the wise and learned of this world in all ages. The wisdom of God seems foolishness to all who are puffed up by pride in their own intelligence, and what seems foolishness to them is despised and scorned. That which is related to faith rather than reason is unpalatable. Not to trust in their own understanding but in the Lord is most difficult for those of towering intellect. To set aside their own ideas, forsake their thoughts (Isa 55:7) and become as “little children,” and to be told they shall never enter the kingdom of heaven unless they do all this, is most abhorrent to them. No small part of man’s depravity consists in his readiness to embrace anti-God prejudices and to tenaciously adhere to them, with total lack of power to extricate himself from them.

The disordered state of the affections is seen in the fact that the actions of the natural man are regulated far more by his senses than by his reason. His conduct consists principally in responding to the clamoring of his desires rather than to the dictates of reason. The tendencies of children swiftly turn to any corrupting diversion, but are slow to respond to any improving exercise. They can scarcely be restrained from the one; they have to be compelled to do the other. That the affections are turned away from God is made clear every time His will crosses our desires. This disease appears too in the objects on which the different affections are placed. Instead of love being set on God, it is centered on the world, and dotes on idols. Instead of hatred being directed against sin, it is opposed to holiness. Instead of joy finding its delight in spiritual things, it wastes itself on things which soon pall. Instead of fear being actuated by the displeasure of the Lord, it dreads more the frowns of our fellowmen. If there is grief, it is for the thwarting of our pleasures and hopes, rather than over our waywardness. If there is pity, it is exercised on self, rather than on the sufferings of others.

The very first stirring of our lusts is itself evil . The passions or lusts are those natural and unrestrained motives of the creature for the advancement of its nature, inclining to those things which promote its good, and avoiding those which are harmful. They are to the soul what wings are to the bird and sails to the ship. Desire, always in pursuit of satisfaction, must be regulated by right reason. But reason has been dethroned and man’s passions and inclinations are lawless; therefore their earliest stirrings after forbidden objects are essentially evil. This was, as Matthew 5 shows, denied by the rabbis, who restricted sin to open and outward transgression. But our Lord declared that unwarrantable anger against another was incipient murder, that to look on a woman with lust was a breach of the seventh commandment, that impure thoughts and wanton imaginations were nothing less than adultery. Hence Scripture speaks of “deceitful lusts” (Eph 4:22), “foolish and hurtful lusts” (I Tim 6:9), “worldly lusts” (Titus 2:12), “fleshly lusts, which war against the soul” (I Pet 2:11), “ungodly lusts” (Jude 18).

The very first stirring of desire after anything evil, the slightest irregularity in the motives of the soul, is sin . This is clear from the universal command “Thou shalt not covet,” that is, hanker after anything which God has prohibited. This irregular and evil longing is called “concupiscence” in Romans 7:8, by which the apostle meant mental as well as sensual desire. The Greek word is usually rendered “lust”; in I Thessalonians 4:5 it is found in an intensified form: “the lust of concupiscence.” These lustings of the soul are its initial motions, often unsuspected by ourselves, which precede the consent of the mind, and are designated “evil concupiscence” (Col 3:5). They are the seeds from which our evil works spring, the original stirrings of our indwelling corruption. They are condemned by the law of God, for the tenth commandment forbids the first outgoings of the affections after what belongs to another. That incipient longing, before the approbation of the mind is obtained, is sinful, and needs to be confessed to God. Genesis 6:5 declares of fallen man that “every imagination of the thoughts of his heart” is evil, for sins even in their embryonic stage defile the soul, being contrary to that purity which the holiness of God requires.

The Council of Trent denied that the original movement of the soul tending to evil is in itself sinful, stating that it only becomes so when it is consented or yielded to. Now it is freely confessed by all sound Calvinists that the mind’s entertaining of the first evil desire is a further degree of sin, and that the actual assent to the desire is yet more heinous; but they emphatically contend that the original impulse is also evil in the sight of God. If the original impulse is innocent per se, how could its gratification be sinful? Motives and excitements do not undergo any change in their essential nature in consequence of their being humored or encouraged. It cannot be wrong to respond to innocent impulses. The Lord Jesus teaches us to judge the tree by its fruit; if the fruit is corrupt, so too is the tree which bears it.

In Romans 7:7 the term is actually rendered sin: “I had not known sin , but by the law: for I had not known lust , except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.” Here, then, sin and lust are used interchangeably; any inward nonconformity to the law is sinful. Paul was made aware of that fact when the commandment was applied to him in power—as the sun shining on refuse draws forth its stench. Men may deny that the very desire for forbidden objects is culpable, but Scripture affirms that even imaginations are the evil buds of wickedness, for they are contrary to that rectitude of heart which the law requires. Note how that terrible list of things which Christ enumerated as issuing from the heart of fallen man is headed with “evil thoughts” (Matt 15:19). We cannot conceive of any inclination or proneness to sin in an absolutely holy being. Certainly there was none in the Lord Jesus: “The prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in Me” (John 14:30). There was nothing in Christ that was capable of responding to Satan’s vile solicitations, no movement of His appetites or affections of which he could take advantage. Christ was inclined only to what is good.

“For when we were in the flesh [ i.e., while Christians were in their unregenerate state], the motions of sins [literally, the affections of sin, or the beginnings of our passions], which were [aggravated] by the law, did work in our members [the faculties of the soul as well as of the body] to bring forth fruit unto death” (Rom 7:5). Those “affections of sin” are the filthy streams which issue from the polluted fountain of our hearts. They are the first stirrings of our fallen nature which precede the overt acts of transgression. They are the unlawful movements of our desire prior to the studied and deliberate thoughts of the mind after sin. “But sin [indwelling corruption], taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence” or “evil lustings” (Rom 7:8). Note that word “wrought in me”: there was a polluted disposition or evil propensity at work, distinct from the deeds which it produced. Indwelling sin is a powerful principle, constantly exercising a bad influence, stimulating unholy affections, stirring to avarice, enmity, malice and countless other evils.

The popular idea which now prevails is that nothing is sinful except an open and outward transgression. Such a concept falls far short of the searching and humbling teaching of Holy Writ. It affirms that the source of all temptation lies within fallen man himself. The depravity of his own heart induces him to listen to the devil or be influenced by the profligacy of others. If this were not so, no external solicitations to wrongdoing would have any force, for there would be nothing within man for them to excite, nothing to which those solicitations correspond or over which they could exert any power. An evil example would be rejected with abhorrence if we were pure within. There must be an unsatisfied lust to which temptation from without appeals. Where there is no desire for food, a well-spread table does not allure. If there is no love of acquisition, gold cannot attract the heart. In every instance the force of temptation lies in some propensity of our fallen nature.

The uniqueness of the Bible lies in its exalted spirituality, insisting that any inward bias, the least gravitation of the soul from God and His will, is sinful and culpable, whether or not it is carried into action. It reveals that the first stirring of sin itself is to draw away the soul from what it ought to be fixed upon, by an irregular craving for some foreign object which appears delightful. When our native corruptions are invited by something external which promises pleasure or profit, and the passions are attracted by it, then temptation begins, and the heart is drawn out after it. Since fallen man is influenced most by his lusts, they sway both his mind and his will. So powerful are they that they rule his whole soul: “I see another law in my members” (Rom 7:23). It is an imperious law, dominating the entire man. It is because their lusts are so violent that men are so mad upon sinning: “They...weary themselves to commit iniquity” (Jer 9:5).

James 1:14,15 traces the origin of all our sinning: “But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished bringeth forth death.” Those words show that sin encroaches on the spirit by degrees; they describe the several stages before it is consummated in the outward act. They reveal that the procreating cause of all sin lies in the lusts of every man’s soul; he has within himself both the food and fuel for it. Goodwin declared: “You can never come to see how deeply and how abominably corrupt creatures you are, until God opens your eyes to see your lusts.” The old man is “corrupt according to the deceitful lusts” (Eph 4:22). Lust is both the womb and the root of all wickedness on earth. The apostle to God’s people spoke of “having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust” (II Peter 1:4). “The corruption”: that wasting destroying blight which is on all mankind. “Which is in the world”: like poison in the cup, like dry rot in wood, like an epidemic in the air—inherent, ineradicable. It taints every part of man’s being, physical, mental and moral; it affects all his relations of life, whether in the family, society or the State.

“Every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust.” When men are tempted they usually try to place the onus on God, the devil, or their fellowmen; actually the blame rests entirely on themselves. First, their affections are removed from what is good and they are incited to wrongful conduct by their corrupt inclinations, attracted to the bait which Satan or the world dangles before them. “Lust” here signifies a yearning for, or longing to obtain, something. And it is so strong that it draws the soul after a forbidden object. The Greek word for “drawn away” means forcibly impelled. The impetuous violence of the desire which covets some sensual or worldly thing demands gratification. This is nothing but a species of self-will, a hankering after what God has not granted, rising from discontent with our present condition or position. Even though that longing is a fleeting and involuntary one, perhaps against our best judgment, nevertheless it is sinful and, when allowed, produces yet deeper guilt.

“And enticed”: The drawing away is because of the irregularity and vehemence of the craving; the enticement is from the object contemplated. But that very allurement is something for which we are to blame. It is because we fail to resist, hate and reject the first rising of unlawful desire, but instead entertain and encourage it, that the bait appears so attractive. The temptation promises pleasure or profit, which shows “the deceitfulness of sin” (Heb 3:13). All this beguiles us. Then wickedness is sweet in our mouth, and we hide it under our tongue (Job 20:12). “Then when lust hath conceived”: Anticipated delight is cherished, and the mind fully consents. The sinful deed is now present in embryo, and the thoughts are busied in contriving ways and means of gratification. “It bringeth forth sin” by a decree of the will. What was previously contemplated is now actually perpetuated. Manton said: “Sin knows no mother but our own heart.” “And sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death”: We pay its wages and reap what was planted, damnation being the ultimate outcome. This is the progress of sin within us, and these are its degrees of enormity.

III. Corrupted Conscience
If there is one faculty of man’s soul which might be thought to have retained the original image of God on it, it is surely the conscience. Such a view has indeed been widely held. Not a few of the most renowned philosophers and moralists have contended that conscience is nothing less than the divine voice itself speaking in the innermost part of our being. Without minimizing the great importance and value of this internal monitor, either in its office or in its operations, it must be emphatically declared that such theorists err, that even this faculty has not escaped from the common ruin of our entire beings. This is evident from the plain teaching of God’s Word. Scripture speaks of a “weak conscience” (I Cor 8:12), of men “having their conscience seared with a hot iron” (I Tim 4:2). It says that their “conscience is defiled” (Titus 1:15), that they have “an evil conscience” (Heb 10:22). Let us examine the point more closely.

Those who affirm that there is something essentially good in the natural man insist that his conscience is an enemy to evil and a friend to holiness. They stress the fact that the conscience produces an inward conviction against wrongdoing, a conflict in the heart over sin, a reluctance to commit it. They call attention to Pharaoh’s acknowledgment of sin (Exo 10:16), and to Darius’ being “sorely displeased with himself” for his unjust act in condemning Daniel to be thrown into the lions’s den (Dan 6:14). Some have even gone so far as to affirm that the opposition to greater and grosser crimes (which is found at first in all men) differs little or not at all from that conflict between the flesh and the spirit described in Romans 7:21-23. But such a sophistry is easily refuted. In the first place, while it is true that fallen man possesses a general notion of right and wrong, and is able in some instances to distinguish between good and evil, yet while he remains unregenerate that moral instinct never causes him to truly delight in the former or to really abhor the latter. In whatever measure he may approve of good or disapprove of evil, it is from no consideration for God.

Conscience is only able to work according to the light it has; and since the natural man cannot discern spiritual things (I Cor 2:14), it is useless in respect to them. How feeble is its light! It is more like the glimmer of a candle than the rays of the sun—merely sufficient to make the darkness visible. Owing to the darkened condition of the understanding, the conscience is fearfully ignorant. When it does discover that which is adverse, it indicates it feebly and ineffectually. Instead of directing the senses, it mostly confuses. How true this is in the case of the uncivilized. Conscience gives them a sense of guilt and then puts them to practicing the most abominable and often inhuman rites. It has induced them to invent and propagate the most impious misrepresentations of Deity. As a salve to their conscience, they often make the very objects of their worship the precedents and patrons of their favorite vices. The fact is that conscience is so sadly defective that it is unable to perform its duty until God enlightens, awakens and renews it.

Its operations are equally faulty. Not only is conscience defective in vision but its voice is very weak. How strongly it ought to upbraid us for our shocking ingratitude to our great Benefactor! How loudly it should remonstrate against the stupid neglect of our spiritual interests and eternal welfare. Yet it does neither the one nor the other. Though it offers some checks on outward and gross sins, it makes no resistance to the subtler secret workings of indwelling corruption. If it prompts to the performance of duty, it ignores the most important and spiritual part of that duty. It may be uneasy if we fail to spend the usual amount of time each day in private prayer, but it is little concerned about our reverence, humility, faith and fervor in prayer. Those in Malachi’s day were guilty of offering God defective sacrifices, yet conscience never troubled them about it (Mal 1:7-8). Conscience may be scrupulous in carrying out the precepts of men or our personal inclinations, yet utterly neglect those things which the Lord has commanded; like the Pharisees who would not eat food while their hands remained ceremonially unwashed, yet disregarded what God had commanded (Mark 7:6-9).

Conscience is woefully partial , disregarding favorite sins and excusing those which most besiege us. All such attempts to excuse our faults are founded on ignorance of God, of ourselves, of our duty. Otherwise conscience would bring in the verdict of guilty. Conscience often joins with our lusts to encourage a wicked deed. Saul’s conscience told him not to offer sacrifice till Samuel came, yet to please the people and prevent them from deserting him he did so. And when that servant of God reproved him, the king tried to justify his offense by saying that the Philistines were gathered together against Israel, and that he dared not attack them before calling on God: “I forced myself therefore, and offered a burnt offering” (I Sam 13:8-12). Conscience will strain to find some consideration with which to appease itself and approve of the evil act. Even when rebuking certain sins, it will find motives and discover inducements to them. Thus, when Herod was about to commit the dastardly murder of John the Baptist, which was against his convictions, his conscience came to his aid and urged him forward by impressing on him that he must not violate the oath which he had taken before others (Mark 6:26).

Conscience often ignores great sins while condoning lesser ones, as Saul was hard upon the Israelites for a breach of the ceremonial law (I Sam 14:33) but made no scruple of killing eighty-five of the Lord’s priests. Conscience will even devise arguments which favor the most outrageous acts; thus it is not only like a corrupt lawyer pleading an evil cause, but like a corrupt judge justifying the wicked. Those who clamored for the crucifixion of Christ did so under the pretext of its being orderly and necessary: “We have a law, and by our law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God” (John 19:7). Little wonder that the Lord says of men that they “call evil good, and good evil;...put darkness for light, and light for darkness” (Isa 5:20). Conscience never moves the natural man to perform duties out of gratitude and thankfulness to God. It never convicts him of the heavy guilt of Adam’s offense which is lying upon his soul, nor of lack of faith in Christ. It allows sinners to sleep in peace in their awful unbelief. But theirs is not a sound and solid peace, for there is no ground for it; rather it is the false security of ignorance. Says God of them, “They consider not in their hearts that I remember all their wickedness” (Hosea 7:2).

The accusations of conscience are ineffectual, for they produce no good fruit, yielding neither meekness, humility nor genuine repentance, but rather a dread of God as a harsh Judge or hatred of Him as an inexorable enemy. Not only are its accusations ineffectual, but often they are quite erroneous. Because of the darkness upon the understanding, the moral perception of the natural man greatly errs. As Thomas Boston said of the corrupt conscience, “So it is often found like a mad and furious horse, which violently runs down himself, his rider, and all that come in his way.” A fearful example of that appears in our Lord’s prediction in John 16:2 which received repeated fulfillment in the Acts: “They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.” In like manner Saul of Tarsus after his conversion acknowledged: “I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth” (Acts 26:9). The unrenewed conscience is a most unreliable guide.

Even when the conscience of the unregenerate is awakened by the immediate hand of God and is struck with deep and painful conviction of sin, far from its moving the soul to seek the mercy of God through the Mediator, it fills him with futility and dismay. As Job 6:4 declares, when the arrows of the Almighty strike a man, their poison drinks up his spirit as the terrors of God set themselves to war against him. Formerly this man may have gone to great pains to stifle the accusations of his inward judge, but now he cannot. Instead, conscience rages and roars, putting the whole man in dreadful consternation, as he is terrified by a sense of the wrath of a holy God and the fiery indignation which shall devour His adversaries. This fills him with such horror and despair that instead of turning to the Lord he tries to flee from Him. Thus it was in the case of Judas who, when he was made to realize the awful gravity of his vile deed, went out and hanged himself. That the guilt of sin within the natural man causes him to turn from rather than to Christ was demonstrated by the Pharisees in John 8:9. They, “being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one.”

IV. Disabled Will
The will is not the lord but the servant of the other faculties executing the strongest conviction of the mind or the most imperious command of our lusts, for there can be but one dominating influence in the will at one and the same time. Originally the excellence of man’s will consisted in following the guidance of right reason and submitting to the influence of proper authority. But in Eden man’s will rejected the former and rebelled against the latter, and in consequence of the fall his will has ever since been under the control of an understanding which prefers darkness to light and of affections which crave evil rather than good. Thus the fleeting pleasures of sense and the puny interests of time excite our wishes, while the lasting delights of godliness and the riches of immortality receive little or no attention. The will of the natural man is biased by his corruption, for his inclinations gravitate in the opposite direction from his duty; therefore he is in complete bondage to sin, impelled by his lusts. The unregenerate are not merely unwilling to seek after holiness; they inveterately hate it.

Since the will turned traitor to God and entered the service of Satan, it has been completely paralyzed toward good. Said the Saviour, “No man can come to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw him” (John 6:44). And why is it that man cannot come to Christ by his own natural powers? Because not only has he no inclination to do so, but the Saviour repels him; His yoke is unwelcome, His sceptre repulsive. In connection with the spiritual things the condition of the will is like that of the woman in Luke 13:11 who “was bowed together, and could in no wise lift up herself.” If such is the case, then how can man be said to act voluntarily? Because he freely chooses the evil, and that because “the soul of the wicked desireth evil” (Prov 21:10), always carrying out that desire except when prevented by divine restraint. Man is the slave of his corruption, like a wild colt; from earliest childhood he is averse to restraint. The will of man is uniformly rebellious against God. When Providence thwarts his desires, instead of bowing in humble resignation, he frets with disquietude and acts like a wild bull in a net. Only the Son can make him “free” (John 8:36), for there is “liberty” only where His Spirit is (II Cor 3:17).

Here, then, are the ramifications of human depravity. The fall has blinded man’s mind, hardened his heart, disordered his affections, corrupted his conscience, disabled his will, so that there is “no soundness” in him (Isa 1:6), “no good thing” in him (Rom 7:18).


(Taken from A.W. Pink’s book The Doctrine of Human Depravity.)

Cain’s Wife—Who Was She?

Tomorrow the scripture reading is Gnesis 4-7. Many people will read Gnesis 4:15-18 and will have all kinds of questions about Cain's wife!

We don’t even know her name, yet she was discussed at the Scopes Trial, mentioned in the movies Inherit the Wind1 and Contact,2 and talked about in countries all over the world for hundreds of years.

Skeptics of the Bible have used Cain’s wife time and again to try to discredit the book of Genesis as a true historical record. Sadly, most Christians have not given an adequate answer to this question. As a result, the world sees them as not being able to defend the authority of Scripture and thus the Christian faith.

For instance, at the historic Scopes Trial in Tennessee in 1925, William Jennings Bryan, the prosecutor who stood for the Christian faith, failed to answer the question about Cain’s wife posed by the ACLU lawyer Clarence Darrow. Consider the following excerpt from the trial record as Darrow interrogates Bryan:

Q—Did you ever discover where Cain got his wife?

A—No, sir; I leave the agnostics to hunt for her.

Q—You have never found out?

A—I have never tried to find.

Q—You have never tried to find?

A—No.

Q—The Bible says he got one doesn’t it? Were there other people on the earth at that time?

A—I cannot say.

Q—You cannot say. Did that ever enter your consideration?

A—Never bothered me.

Q—There were no others recorded, but Cain got a wife.

A—That is what the Bible says.

Q—Where she came from you do not know.3

The world’s press was focused on this trial, and what they heard has affected Christianity to this day—Christians can’t defend the biblical record!


You can read the rest of this very important article at this link:
Cain's Wife

A Biblical Critique of the Word of Faith Movement

Today's Bible Quiz

Today the bible reading was Genesis 1-3. Here is the quiz from that assigned reading.


1. What did God create on day 3, 5, 6?

2. What was different about the creation of men from all other creatures?

3. What Did God do on the Seventh Day?

4. According to Genesis 3 what were the results of the Sin of Adam and Eve?

You can post your answers here in the comment section or e-mail them to me at tsrk30@sbcglobal.net

Have a great night.

Don't forget the readings for tomorrow:

Genesis 4-7

Does the bible teach that man has free will?

The following was found at monergism.com

When the question of free will arises, it is imperative that we define our terms very carefully. By “free,” do we simply mean that we make real choices apart from external coercion, or do we mean that we can choose any theoretically possible option, without being necessarily constrained by our natural inclinations, prejudices, and desires? If we mean the former, then the term “free” is unnecessary and misleading, for real choice without external coercion is part of the very definition of “will”. If I make any choice at all, I do so willingly, because it is what I want to do; I am not constrained from the outside, and therefore, I cannot say in my defense, “Something took control of my body and forced me to do what I didn't want to do – I'm not to blame!”. No, whatever I have done, I have done willingly, and I am responsible to God for my actions.

But if we mean the latter, that we have the power to choose to do good or evil, to obey God or not to obey him, or at least to believe or disbelieve his gospel, as many people intend to suggest by the term “free will,” then we are in direct contradiction to many scriptures. We are “free” to do what we want to do, but we are bound in what we want by our evil nature and desires. We may do as we please, but we cannot please as we please. We cannot use our will to shape our natures, but rather, our natures determine how we will use our wills. Thus, the bible says very often, and in many different ways, that we are utterly bound in sin. In our flesh, we cannot please God (Rom. 8:5-8), we cannot understand the things of God (1 Cor. 2:14; John 3:3, 10-13; 14:17), we cannot seek God (Rom. 3:11), we cannot believe in God (John 6:44, 65; 10:26; 12:37-41), we cannot do anything good at all (Job 15:14-16; Prov. 20:9; Jer 13:23; Rom. 3:10-18). We are utterly captive to sin (John 8:34; Rom. 6:20; Tit. 3:3), we are prisoners of the devil and constrained to do his desires (John 8:43-45, 2 Tim. 2:25-26; 1 John 5:19), every impulse of the thoughts of our hearts is only evil continually (Gen. 6:5), and so every action we perform, no matter how “good” we think it is, is actually evil, nothing but “filthy rags” (Isa. 64:6). Ever since the fall, we are not free to do anything good whatsoever; and we can only begin to do good as the Spirit gives us a new nature (Ezek. 36:26-27). We are only free when the Son sets us free (John 8:36).

John Calvin has very adeptly expressed these truths in his treatise on the Bondage and Liberation of the Will:

"...we allow that man has choice and that it is self-determined, so that if he does anything evil, it should be imputed to him and to his own voluntary choosing. We do away with coercion and force, because this contradicts the nature of the will and cannot coexist with it. We deny that choice is free, because through man's innate wickedness it is of necessity driven to what is evil and cannot seek anything but evil. And from this it is possible to deduce what a great difference there is between necessity and coercion. For we do not say that man is dragged unwillingly into sinning, but that because his will is corrupt he is held captive under the yoke of sin and therefore of necessity will in an evil way. For where there is bondage, there is necessity. But it makes a great difference whether the bondage is voluntary or coerced. We locate the necessity to sin precisely in corruption of the will, from which follows that it is self-determined." John Calvin from Bondage and Liberation of the Will, pg. 69-70


For Further Study:Freedom/Bondage of the Will at Monergism.com

Eleven (11) Reasons to Reject Libertarian Free Will by John Hendryx

A Year In 40 Seconds

James 4:14 - Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.


A Year In 40 Seconds

Light

The following was written by Henry Law

God said, Let there be light: and there was light." Genesis 1:3

The speaker is God. The time is before time was. The word is omnipotence. The result is the grandest of gifts. Darkness heard and vanished. "God said, Let there be light: and there was light."

Reader, strive to imagine the scene, when this first voice called this first blessing into being. This world of full delights was then one huge mass of unarranged material. It had no form, and therefore it had no beauty. It was vacancy, and vacancy lacks all that pleases. It would have been cheerless, even if robed in cheering light. But impenetrable night shrouded the lifeless void.

From this crude quarry, however, the home of man is to be built. This waste is to be peopled with beings, whose age is immortality. It is to be the field, from which heaven's garner shall be stored. Therefore, deformity must assume form; disorder must melt into order; shapelessness must be shaped into loveliness.

How shall this be done? God had but to will, and in one instant creation arises in full-blown perfection. But it is not so. He works by gradual process. He works. Let us hence learn the wisdom and the need of effort. He works by gradual process. This teaches, that patient diligence is the path to all well-doing.

But what is the first wonder, which steps forth to usher in the train of harmony and grace? It is LIGHT. Do you ask what is the chamber of its birth? and what the art, by which it is composed? The reply is, "God said, Let there be light: and there was light."

To know more is impossible. And it is impossible, just because more knowledge would neither tend to profit nor to good. There are, however, truths linked with light, which are open to our earnest search. It is a casket rich in Gospel jewels. In its fair form we see the fairer features of the Lord of light. The Holy Spirit—no doubtful guide—proclaims, "That was the true light, which lights every man, which comes into the world." Jesus, too, exalts it as His emblem, when He instructs, "I am the light of the world; he who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life." The prophet, too, gazing on the rays of Christ, sings, "The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light." The apostle, intent on Jesus, exhorts, "Show forth the praises of Him, who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light." We should close our eyes, then, on the high purposes of light, if we failed to trace therein the transcendent beauties of salvation's Dayspring.

Light is pure. In it there neither is, nor can be, mixture or pollution. Its property repels defilement. It traverses unstained each medium of uncleanness. Snow is brilliant; no whiteness can surpass it. But man's step mars it. Water sparkles brightly from its spring. Man's hand can soil it. But none can make light's purity less pure. Such is Christ. When man on earth, He was as pure as God in heaven. He passed through a world of sin, as a sunbeam through the vilest hovel. He took indeed sin's form, that He might bear sin's due: but He never knew sin's stain. In Bethlehem's manger He was the holy Child. He returned to heaven in holy triumph, as the holy Conqueror.

Reader, study much the essential holiness of Jesus. It is one of the anchors of our Gospel-hope. He must be as holy as God is holy, or He cannot mediate with God for us. If but a shadow of a sinful shade be on Him, atonement is needed for Himself: then He must save Himself: and we are left unsaved. But Jesus is all-sufficient to redeem us, because He is Jehovah's co-holy fellow.

Study it, too, as the model of the new-born soul. Salvation is conformity to His image, "He that has this hope in Him, purifies himself, even as He is pure."

Light is bright. Indeed, what is brightness but light's clear shining? The day is bright, when no clouds hide the sun. The prospect is bright, which reflects unnumbered rays. The hope is bright, which glitters free of foreboding gloom. Such is Christ. He is "the brightness of His Father's glory." He embodies, as in one constellation, every Divine perfection. He shines, the midday splendor of Jehovah's attributes. That time is the brightest time, in which the Lord is nearest. That page is the brightest page, in which most of Christ is found. That sermon is the brightest sermon, in which most of Christ is heard. That life is the brightest life, in which most of Christ is seen.

Light is lovely. Beauty cannot live without it. Exclude it, and every charm would hang a blighted head; the sun would fade, and color be extinct. Such is Christ. It is a true record, "You are fairer than the children of men"—"the chief among ten thousand—and altogether lovely." What fullness of beauty is in that person, who is both God and man! what harmony of grace is in that work, which joins God to man! what charms are in those precious Scriptures, which show His worth! To see His varied excellence is heaven begun. The sight makes earth a blank, and all its glories but a withered flower. Just, too, as lovely light makes lovely, so Christ decks all on whom His beams descend. He beautifies the meek with salvation.

Light is free. The wealth of the wealthy cannot purchase it. The skill of the skillful cannot frame it. The labors of the laborious cannot earn it. The poverty of the poor cannot debar from it. Wherever it comes, it flies on freedom's wings. It gilds the hall, unbribed by price. It illumines the hut, unbought by toil. Such is Christ.

Sinner, do you crave this precious treasure? Open the casement of the heart, and it is yours. "Come, buy wine and milk, without money and without price." Waste not then time in seeking a price for Him, compared with whom an angel's worth is nothing worth. All your fancied merits are only demerit. You best is sin, and will you offer sin for Christ? Plead misery and take mercy. Bewail darkness and He will give you light. All who bask in His joyous rays, are one in this testimony. Each sings, My treasure is a free-grace gift: He loved me, because He would love me: He called me, because He would call me: He blessed me, because He would bless me: He saved me, because He would save me: He shone into my soul, because He would shine. When I was darkness, He said, "Let there be light: and there was light," and the light was Himself.

Light is all-revealing. So long as darkness casts its mantle round, we move unconscious amid foes and mire. A pit gapes at our feet; an arrow is ready on the murderer's bow; each touch is a stain; but we are heedless of our woe. Let the light dawn, then ruin and uncleanness stare us in the face. Such is Christ. By His rays, SIN is detected, as lurking in every corner of the heart; and the WORLD, which we so fondled, is unmasked, as a monster, whose embrace is filth, and in whose hand is the cup of death.

Reader, do you discern the defilement of sin, and the poison baits of the world? If not, light has not visited your conscience. Christ is not in your heart. In the lament of faith there is always this note, "Behold, I am black." In its mouth there is always this cry, "Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow."

But as the sun is seen by its own light, so Christ reveals not perils only, but HIMSELF. He shows His cross—the glorious proof of boundless love. He shows His blood—the precious payment of all debts. He discloses the treasures of His word. Then testimonies, and promises, and endearing calls, and soothing notes of comfort, spring into brilliant life, as beauties in the sun-lit landscape. He draws back the curtains of His heavens, and we see a reconciled God, and catch the glimpses of a weight of glory.

Light is the parent of fruitfulness. Regions, which the sun rarely cheers, are barren wastes. In shade, vegetation languishes; and trees droop. Perpetual winter is perpetual desolation. But mark the change, if genial warmth returns. The garden, the vineyard, the fields are soon clothed with fragrant and luxuriant plenty. Such is Christ. In His absence the heart is profuse with every weed, and every noxious berry. But when His gleams enliven, the seeds of grace bud forth, the tree of faith pours down its golden fruit.

Light is the chariot, which conveys heat. Without it, earth congeals into a rocky pavement. Our soil would be adamant, if our skies were black. So the heart without Christ is ice. But when He enters, a glow is kindled, which can never die. Love burns and blazes in every chamber of the inner man. This is the spark, which flares to heroism in the faithful minister and the toiling missionary. Christ seen and loved is warmth to the heart. Warmth in the heart is fire in the lips. Fire in the lips is a flame in the hearers. Thus hardened congregations melt into a flood of holy zeal.

Light, too, is the harbinger of joy. For three days Egypt was all blackness: sight failed and motion ceased. It was a dreary time. In Paul's tempestuous voyage, for many days neither sun nor stars appeared. It was a dreary time. But far more dreary is the Christless soul. Not until He lifts up His countenance can the happy morn begin, which has no night. Present light, however, is but the morning-star of coming glory. Here on earth, mists will sometimes rise. Heaven is a cloudless God. Then in bodies of light, and robes of light, the redeemed sit down in a city of light, "which has no need of the sun neither of the moon to shine in it, for the glory of the Lord does light it, and the Lamb is the light thereof."

Reader, are you journeying from light to light? Be not deceived. There is the candle of REASON. This guides to no haven. There are the many false lights of error. They delude to rocks, and quicksands, and whirlpools of destruction. Vain meteors glare from many pulpits, and in many books. The self-pleased votaries of forms and superstitions are dazzled by the tinsel of a fictitious cross. Beware! there is but one sun in the skies. So there is but one Christ in the Bible—one Christ of the Spirit—one Christ of the Father—one Christ of the saved.

I ask again, 'Has your darkness passed away?' It is so, if you see this one Sun of Righteousness, and hate sin, and crucify the flesh, and trample on the world. It is so, if you rejoice in His beams, thirsting for clearer knowledge, and a brighter path. But, perhaps, you love darkness rather than light, because your deeds are evil. Ah! think how fearful is the broad road! It goes straight down into the abyss, which is outer darkness, and where is weeping and gnashing of teeth for ever. Stop, I beseech you. Will you not turn to "the true light?"

Believer, you see the sunny spot, which is your home. In your full joy, remember, that this garden of the Lord is a place of work, and not of sleep. Your light is come, that you may arise and shine. You are light, that others may be light through you. Say not, 'it is not mine to create or to confer light.' True; but it is yours to reflect it. The planet casts back rays. The mirror returns the image. The Christian shows forth Christ. Say not, 'I move among the blind.' True; but your Sun gives sight as well as light. You saw nothing, until He said, See. Give Him no rest, until in your family, in your neighborhood, in your country, throughout the world, His voice be heard, Let there be sight; and there will be sight—Let there be light; and there will be light.

Through The Bible In 2009

Happy New Year!

2008 is gone and it is now 2009. A new year is ahead of us, we can waste it or we can use the time wisely. I have challenged the congregation of Victory Baptist Church to read the entire bible in 2009. I am asking them to read it in a different way this year. Instead of just beginning at Genesis and reading it straight through I am suggesting we read the bible in chronological order. This will offer everyone a different perspective on the bible and allow us to understand how things fit together much better. While everyone is reading the bible this year I am going to do a survey of every book of the bible. These messages will be preached at Victory Baptist Church and will be posted at www.sermonaudio.com/vbc

We will also be posting things related to the readings and the sermons here at the Preaching Today blog. I challenge all the blog team members to post there thoughts on the day;s readings. This is an important study for everyone and I am committed to ensuring when we are done that everyone who participates this year will know there bible better then they ever have!



I know that it is easy to start off with passion and commitment on January 1, 2009. However, the new year will bring challenges and difficulties. I hope that if we all work together and encourage one another we can all accomplish this important task.

Invite everyone you know to join us.


So to get started here are the readings for the next few day's:

Day 1 Genesis 1 - 3
Day 2 Genesis 4 - 7
Day 3 Genesis 8 - 11
Day 4 Job 1 - 5
Day 5 Job 6 - 9



I will try to post my thoughts on the readings for today soon.


So get your bibles and get started!