|
Post by Admin on Oct 9, 2023 18:40:58 GMT -5
ife often takes sudden turns and unexpected twists along the journey. One of the harsh relities of this fallen world is that best friends are not always best friends for life. It may never happen in your lifetime, but in the event that you find yourself in that unfortunate position—how will your friendship change when your friend embraces a heresy? Heresy changes everything—not just your Facebook relationship.
Is Your Friend a True Heretic? In our day where the term heresy is used with such casual attitudes and people such as Charles Spurgeon, Martin Luther, and John Calvin are all classified as heretics, it would be wise to investigate whether or not your friend is a true heretic. A heretic is someone who teaches a false gospel. This person may never have been a professing Christian and simply engages people with a false gospel in order to do violence against God’s church. On another note, a heretic could be a former professing Christian who apostatized from the faith and is now teaching, preaching, or proselytizing for an unorthodox religion.
In short, don’t call someone a heretic unless that person is a genuine heretic—to the letter of the definition. Words matter and so does the character and reputation of a person under the theological microscope. It’s amazing how a few words of classification can leave lasting damage on the reputation of an individual, so approach such conversations with care.
Heresy Divides and So Does Jesus If your friend is a true heretic, it’s essential to remember that your friend is the one who embraced a false gospel—not you. Therefore, the actions by your friend will definitely have an impact on your friendship. The nature of your friendship will be forever changed. The intimacy of your friendship will be severed. This is a necessary division that is inevitably caused by the heretical position of your friend, and it may be up to you to pull back and sever the longtime intimacy that you both enjoyed in the past.
Secondly, Jesus said that he came to divide (see Luke 12:49-53). Although Jesus is the Prince of peace (Is. 9:6; John 14:27; Phil. 4:7), and his ministry is that of making propitiation and peace between God and sinners (1 John 2:1-2), he also has a ministry of division. Through Jesus, light is separated from darkness. Believers are called out of darkness into the marvelous light of Christ (1 Pet. 2:9). Therefore, Jesus divides even the closest of relationships including parents and children, and so you can expect that friend will be divided from friend as a result of Jesus Christ.
What Does the Bible Say? Paul makes it abundantly clear that heretics are to be treated differently than intimate friends. To the church at Rome, Paul writes, “I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive” (Rom. 16:17-18). In simple terms, the point of division is the true gospel of Christ and Christians are to avoid heretics who spend their time confusing people with their false gospel. This means your heretical friend should not enjoy the same place at your supper table as was the common pattern in the past. You and your family must be guarded from the deceitful schemes of heresy.
To the church at Corinth, the man who was having sexual relations with his step-mother was to be put out of the church and turned over to Satan. Furthermore, Paul instructs the church to not associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolator, reviler, drunkard, or swindler. Paul goes on to instruct the church saying, “not even to eat with such a one” (1 Cor. 5:11). The point is clear, it is necessary at times to end friendships with people who are guilty of vile sin and who have swerved from the faith.
Why is this division necessary? Consider the following reasons:
To divide over the gospel is to make a statement about the necessity of the true gospel. To divide over the gospel is to make it clear who’s in and who’s out. To divide over the gospel is necessary to protect the hearts and minds of children and others who may be weak in the faith—or as Paul puts it—naive. To divide over the gospel is a form of defending the faith once delivered to the saints. Friendship with a heretic in hopes of winning that person to the truth is a dangerous game—one we’re not given the freedom of playing. Division is always condemned in the church until it’s in relation to false teachers and heretics. God demands that we divide ourselves from those who contradict the true gospel. Consider the danger of heretics and their lying tongues that often speak just enough truth to entice the hearts and minds of those who simply lack the maturity necessary to detecti the trap. Be cautious and guard yourself from following them off the cliff of heresy into the eternal wrath of God. William Gurnall once penned the following sobering warning, “None sink so far into hell as those that come nearest heaven, because they fall from the greatest height.” [1]
William Gurnall, A Puritan Golden Treasury, compiled by I.D.E. Thomas, (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 2000), 20.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email Related How to Love a Heretic A true heretic is a dangerous person—one of the most deadly is the type who is opposed to the gospel of Jesus and passionately seeks to persuade others to embrace a false gospel. Do you know a heretic? How should you show genuine love to that person without endangering yourself…
photo of eyeglasses on book page Discerning the Difference Between Theological Error and Heresy DBG Weekend Spotlight (3-16-17) A number of years ago when I was in seminary and serving as a pastor of a small country church, a member in our church handed me a little CD of a sermon titled, "Shocking Youth Sermon" by: Paul Washer. I listened to it, but then discarded it. To be…
AUTHOR
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 10, 2023 13:20:27 GMT -5
The Wolf Is Out of the Closet: Mark and Avoid Andy Stanley Share
g3min.org/the-wolf-is-out-of-the-closet-mark-and-avoid-andy-stanley/ Image from: andystanley.com/about/ Andy Stanley is a prominent mega-church pastor, author, and the founder of North Point Ministries, a multi-campus church model based in Alpharetta, Georgia. He was born on May 16, 1958, and is the son of Charles Stanley, a well-known pastor and founder of In Touch Ministries who once served as the president of the Southern Baptist Convention (1984-1986).
He founded North Point Ministries in 1995, and under his leadership, the church has grown significantly and established multiple campuses in the Atlanta area. North Point Ministries is known for its innovative approach to ministry, utilizing technology and creative communication methods to reach a wider audience.
In recent days, Andy Stanley hosted a controversial conference, Unconditional Conference, with a stated purpose “for parents of LGBTQ+ children and for ministry leaders looking to discover ways to support parents and LGBTQ+ children in their churches.” This was Andy Stanley’s moment for clarity on revealing who he actually is to the watching world. He was successful in delivering that message—one that must be clearly noted.
Andy Stanley’s Problem with the Bible The progression of Andy Stanley has not been a positive one throughout his ministry. He has been consistently left of center on really important doctrinal matters which has rightly caught the attention of conservative Christian thinkers and leaders.
In an interview with Ed Stetzer in 2009 regarding his book titled, Communicating for a Change, Stetzer asked Stanley about preaching. The question was, “What do you think about preaching verse-by-verse messages through books of the Bible?” Andy Stanley responded, “Guys that preach verse-by-verse through books of the Bible– that is just cheating. It’s cheating because that would be easy, first of all. That isn’t how you grow people. No one in the Scripture modeled that. There’s not one example of that.” It’s quite clear that Stanley isn’t a fan of verse-by-verse preaching, but what does that communicate regarding his overall approach to the Bible?
In 2010, at the pastors’ conference for the Southern Baptist Convention, Andy Stanley appealed to big corporations such as Chick-fil-A and Intel in order to drive home his church growth message to thousands of pastors in attendance. He repeated this phrase, “If you make your church better, they will come and make your church bigger.” His entire sermon was positioned squarely on pragmatism rather than the Word of God. In his sermon, Andy Stanley said, “We’ve created church for church people.” He then scolded church leaders for an unwillingness to make it easier for unchurched people to feel comfortable in our churches.
In early 2015, Zondervan released a series of Bible study lessons by Andy Stanley titled Starting Point. You can see the first session on YouTube where he casts doubt upon the trustworthiness and reliability of the Bible in his opening statements. In fact, Andy Stanley went as far as to say, “We went off to college and discovered that even though it [the Bible] was sacred, it wasn’t scientific. Even though it was something to appreciate, it wasn’t necessarily something that was factual. Even though there were stories in here [the Bible] that were inspirational, they weren’t necessarily true.” Just like that, he casts doubt upon the reliability of sacred Scripture and points people away from God’s Word. Sound familiar? That’s precisely the method of Satan from the beginning.
In 2016, on Easter Sunday, Andy Stanley opened his sermon with a statement that was aimed mostly at the unbeliever. He said, “If you said to me one-on-one, ‘Andy, I’m not a Christian, I’m not a Jesus follower, but I’m going to let you take your best shot at convincing me to follow Jesus’ – Here’s what I wouldn’t do. I wouldn’t try to defend the history of the church, because the church has done some really goofy things and there’s some really embarrassing (not just weekends of church history) seasons of church history. And, I wouldn’t try to defend a lot of things that Christians have said or the ways that Christians have treated you….and I wouldn’t try to convince you with the Bible.”
Stanley went on to explain, “There were thousands and thousands and thousands of Christians before there was a Bible.” He then stated, “I would start with the resurrection of Jesus.” Why is it that Andy Stanley seems to distance himself from the Bible? From 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, Paul’s entire foundation of Christian hope in the resurrection is rooted and grounded in the Scriptures, but Stanley points people away from the Scriptures to the resurrection as if you can arrive at the empty tomb of Christ apart from the Bible.
This pattern continued in 2018 as Andy Stanley argued in a sermon that the Christian faith must be “unhitched” from the Old Testament. He said that “Peter, James, Paul elected to unhitch the Christian faith from their Jewish scriptures, and my friends, we must as well.” This is one more example of Stanley’s consistent pattern of casting doubt upon God’s Word. This is a devilish agenda and one that must be properly noted.
Andy Stanley’s Coming Out Moment That brings us to the present controversy with the Unconditional Conference. Following the conference, Stanley preached a sermon that was not originally livestreamed. The audio was leaked out, but since then, the sermon is now available online. What Andy Stanley communicated to his church in his sermon is consistent with the conference he hosted where two “gay married men” were speakers—but his sermon is antithetical to God’s Word.
The point of Stanley’s “Unpublished Sermon” was built upon a false ethic of love. At one point in the opening words of his sermon while responding to criticism, he said, “That version of Christianity draws lines. Jesus drew circles.” It was clear from the beginning, what Stanley was doing was pointing people away from the biblical ethic of love which communicates truth. Andy Stanley points people away from the biblical teachings of Christianity to an ancient error of compromise and a sexual ethic that is driven by the winds of culture rather than words of Scripture.
Andy Stanley points people away from the biblical teachings of Christianity to an ancient error of compromise and a sexual ethic that is driven by the winds of culture rather than words of Scripture.
The main outline of his sermon follows the following points:
Honor God with your body. Do not be mastered by anything. Do not sexualize any relationship outside of marriage. As you can imagine, this is how he comes to embrace the “two gay married men” in the recent conference. It’s that simple. They’re married. It’s not adultery. It’s not unlawful. How does Stanley avoid “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination” (Leviticus 18:22)? It’s simple—you unhitch yourself from the Old Testament. This was Andy Stanley’s coming out moment. While this may seem new to people who are just now learning of Andy Stanley’s compromise, this has been his method for many years now.
In 2012, Stanley was the center of controversy once again with statements (and a lack of statements) regarding the sin of homosexuality. In a sermon he preached titled “When Gracie Met Truthy,” he described a couple in his church that had to be asked to step down from leadership. Two men were engaged in a homosexual relationship, but the reason they were asked to step down was what Stanley called “just good old fashioned adultery.” Stanley explained, “You’re in a sexual relationship with someone else’s husband.” Stanley capitulated on the whole issue calling out the sin of adultery while refusing to call out the sin of homosexuality.
Is this new (ancient) sexual ethic permissible within Christian circles? Should we accept a category for gay Christianity? The answer is clear when we read the Scriptures. Jesus’ definition of marriage is a covenant relationship between a man and a woman (Matt. 19:3–6). The term for sexual immorality is taken from the Greek word porneia from where we derive our English word pornography. This word encompasses sexual activity outside of marriage and is condemned by Christ and the apostles in the New Testament.
In his letter to the church at Corinth, Paul explains (1 Corinthians 6:9–11):
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (ESV)
The point is abundantly clear. As Paul addresses these believers, he said, “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” That pattern of living was past tense. Some people in the Corinthian church had been characterized by a homosexual lifestyle in the past, but now they are walking in a path of godliness marked by sanctification of the Spirit. Paul drives home the point further by writing, “Flee from sexual immorality” (1 Cor 6:18).
There is no such thing as gay Christianity. There is only one version of Christianity, and it’s clearly defined in the pages of Scripture.
When versions of “gay Christianity” creep into in the life of your local church, it must be clearly and directly addressed from Scripture. When we see this issue creep up in our church associations or denominations as is the case with the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA) in their debate over “Side B Gay Christianity” which was popularized by the Revoice Conference in 2018—it must be swiftly opposed. There is no such thing as gay Christianity. There is only one version of Christianity, and it’s clearly defined in the pages of Scripture.
Do not be led astray by Andy Stanley. He is a wolf who must be exposed not a pastor to follow.
Andy Stanley has officially come out of the closet. Not only should we flee sexual immorality, but we should flee from wolves who seek to destroy God’s sheep. It is a biblical and loving thing to mark out those who cause division and offenses contrary to the Word of God. It is a proper thing to name names and to warn people of wolves and false teachers who seek to destroy. Do not be led astray by Andy Stanley. He is a wolf who must be exposed not a pastor to follow. Remember the words of our Lord Jesus who said, “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves” (Matt 7:15).
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 11, 2023 12:16:17 GMT -5
Five Ways a Christian Husband Must Love His Wife Share
g3min.org/five-ways-a-christian-husband-must-love-his-wife/?fbclid=IwAR3eL9113kuUv9tACf4CEmZTjIsXZhIcJnAuTdGLDYosF0sYxcLM-7v82d0 TAIGEN JOOS
man and woman sitting on dock during golden hour One of the primary jobs of a husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church (Eph 5:25ff). This responsibility is critical for any Christian husband to follow. Yet many men do not put this truth into action in proper, practical ways as they live out their marriages.
Agape love is sacrificial love. This love is played out in little things each day. My wife describes it as “penny deposits into the bank account of love/trust.” Regular deposits made in the normal, routine, daily happenings of marital life tend to accumulate compound interest, and in the long run will yield great dividends.
With this in mind, here are five ways a Christian husband must learn to love his wife.
Take Spiritual Leadership in the Home God has created the home to function in certain ways that will both bring him great glory and provide tremendous joy in the marriage. One key aspect of this is biblical leadership in the home.
Husband, your wife shouldn’t have to insist on things like going to church each week or leading the family in worship. It is your responsibility to set the spiritual tone of your home. Lead your family in worship; be actively involved in shepherding the hearts of your children. A godly wife craves your spiritual leadership.
Be Humble Ephesians 5:25 flows out of a Spirit-controlled life (Eph 5:18) and reflects the mutual submission we are to have with one another in marriage (Eph 5:21). Submission carries the aroma of humility, but this is not the kind of humility where you just cow-tow to whatever your wife says or wants. It is the kind of humility that leads humbly and faithfully without being a chauvinist pig, a dictatorial monster, or a royal jerk.
Admit when you are wrong and confess that to God and your wife. Listen to her advice, as you do not have a corner on wisdom. While you are the leader in the home, you have a partner who is your specially-suited helper.
Clothe yourselves with humility (1 Pet 5:5) or face the opposition of God . . . and your wife. Humility leads graciously; it loves joyfully; it lives faithfully. You do not exist for your own pleasure, but for the pleasure of God first, then for the pleasure of your wife.
Converse With Your Wife There is no good reason why this should not happen well in a Christian marriage. You can converse digitally through texts, emails, Facebook messages, and other ways. Those are simple deposits into the love bank of your marriage, but they are not the primary form of communication.
We must converse personally as well. While digital communication is helpful, nothing can replace the face-to-face conversations you have with your wife. Talk about your day. Your wife wants to know about it. Talk about your dreams and desires. Talk about your struggles. Also, listen to her talk with you—without the TV on or the phone in front of your face. Engage with her in conversation, and give her your full attention.
Invest in Your Marriage We invest in things which we believe to be of value. There is no more valuable human relationship to invest in than your relationship with your wife! Period!
Investing your time, your money, and your energy into your wife is a godly thing to do. This is what God has called you to do. While spending time with other people is obviously important as well, no one is more important than your wife.
Invest in her life by taking her out on dates, buying her flowers for no reason other than you love her. Plan an overnight getaway. Go on walks. Verbally affirm her. Support her in her goals. This kind of investment is vital to the overall health of your marriage.
Do the Dishes I remember reading a saying in the kitchen of my friend when I was in high school. It read, “I love a man with dishpan hands.” I have never forgotten that.
This is not the only thing to be willing to help out with around the house, but it represents many others. Learn to cook some basic meals. Clean the bathroom. Vacuum the house. Household chores are not the sole responsibility of the wife. The husband lives in the house as well and should contribute to its maintenance. Your wife is most likely just as tired as you are at the end of a busy day. However, many hands make light work, and make for a more loving relationship.
These are just a few ways to show love. There are many more. Husband, love your wife. Flesh that out in the daily happenings of your home and marriage. If you do, God will be honored, and your marriage will be strengthened.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 12, 2023 16:45:11 GMT -5
A Call to Strong Manhood “When David’s time to die drew near, he commanded Solomon his son, saying, “I am about to go the way of all the earth. Be strong, and show yourself a man.” (1 Kgs 2:1–2)
As David nears death, he has one last opportunity to pass on wisdom to his son who will reign in his place. The first words out of David’s mouth are a call for Solomon to “be strong and show [himself] a man.” David knows what Solomon is going to be up against as the king, but before he advises Solomon on how to be a faithful king, he reminds Solomon that he is to be a faithful man of God.
In this stage of David’s life, he is at his weakest. He knows his time to die is drawing near. However, he wanted to leave his son with the wisdom he needed to be the man God has called him to, that he might be the king that he was destined to be.
David’s dying words should be a sobering reminder to all of us that the most important thing men can teach their sons is to be men of God. We can be encouraged by the life of king David because we know that he was an imperfect man and king. David had seasons in his life where he committed great sins. We also know that David was a man after God’s own heart who recognized his sinful ways and cried out to God in genuine repentance and faith.
David knew the grievous impact of his sin not only on himself, but on the people of God. He also knew his sin was most importantly against God. That is why as it comes to this final charge from David to Solomon, men of God should be comforted and challenged to make sure that we are being strong and showing ourselves to be men not only to our sons and daughters, but to the sons and daughters of God in his church.
David doesn’t leave his son in the dark when it comes to how he is to “be strong and show himself a man.” The dying king teaches his son the means to being a strong man.
The Means to Strong Manhood David continues, “and keep the charge of the Lord your God, walking in his ways and keeping his statutes, his commandments, his rules, and his testimonies, as it is written in the Law of Moses, that you may prosper in all that you do and wherever you turn” (1 Kgs 2:3).
David tells his son on his deathbed the way to be strong and show yourself a man is ultimately to live according to the Scriptures. First, David calls Solomon to “keep the charge of the LORD your God.” David knows that for his son to show himself a man he must follow the Lord’s commands. David knows he and his sons are imperfect kings, under the authority of the true King pointing to the coming King. Therefore, their number one priority is to submit to the rule and reign of the LORD their God.
Second, Solomon is to continue “walking in his ways.” The ways of the LORD are laid down in His Word, as we will see in his Law. Solomon then is to make sure that all of his conduct is in alignment with the Word of God.
Third, David wants Solomon to know that if he is to show himself a man, it will be by him “keeping his statutes, his commandments, his rules, and his testimonies, as it is written in the Law of Moses.” There is only one way to be strong and to show yourself a man. This was true for Solomon, and it is true for men today. The means to manhood is knowledge of, trust in, and submission to the statutes, commandments, rules, and testimonies of God, which He has breathed out in His Word.
Here is where the problem lies. We know the rest of the story. We know that Solomon—like David—would fall short in this perfect obedience needed to show himself the strong man of God he was called to be. Solomon ultimately would be drawn away from God by fame, fortune, and females. Solomon the wisest king that ever lived, needed another Man to come and fulfill the Law of Moses, which he failed to keep. This is where we find ourselves. We know as men, as fathers, and as sons we all have sinned and fallen short of this perfect obedience that marks strong biblical manhood. What, then, are we to do?
We are to look to the God-man who was strong and showed himself to be the perfect man.
The Model of Strong Manhood There is hope for all men. We know that David’s call to be strong men of God is true and right. We know that because we see similar calls throughout the New Testament. But we also know as men we fall short in teaching young men the scriptural standard for manhood. We also fall short in keeping this standard as well.
This is why Christ is our only hope. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus says, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Matt 5:17).
In short, Jesus carried out this call to manhood for us. He fulfilled this call to perfect obedience that all of God’s men might repent of their disobedience and trust in the perfect obedience of Christ. It is in Christ and Him alone that we can fulfill this call to “be strong and show yourself a man.”
Paul makes this crystal clear in Ephesians 6:10: “Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might.”
As men of God, we ought to take David’s charge to Solomon to heart. We do this, first, by repenting of our sin and trusting in the perfect Man, our King Christ Jesus. As we seek to live lives of faithful obedience in Him, we are to look to His Word, learn His ways, and live according to His commands. In doing so, we are to turn to the next generation of men and call them to “be strong and show themselves to be men” according to the Word of God, not the ways of the world.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email Related psalms Song of the Anointed psalms Who May Dwell in God’s Holy Hill? The Whole Duty of Man Yesterday, in our evening service, I was privileged to preach the final sermon in our Ecclesiastes study from Ecclesiastes 12:8-14. The study was a challenge to preach, and that is the consensus of all of our elders. Three of our elders engaged in a rotation through our study on Sunday…
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 13, 2023 15:02:46 GMT -5
A Brief Summary of Biblical Sexuality Share
g3min.org/a-brief-summary-of-biblical-sexuality/?fbclid=IwAR2MGV_1loZq1qquNZa4YKuhcUoZeleOtGHXKtYjuv4VL-qWNCqbXKVRYfI DAVID HUFFSTUTLER
comfort room signage God created man as male and female (Gen 1:27) with the capacity for sexuality, properly taking place only between a husband and a wife (Gen 2:24; Heb 13:4) for the purposes of procreation (Gen 1:28; 9:1) and relational enjoyment (Gen 2:18, 24). In a fallen world, sex in marriage helps to restrain temptation to sexual sin (1 Cor 7:2, 5).
As Christians, we must remember that our bodies belong to the Lord, are members of Christ, and are temples of the Holy Spirit, having been bought with the blood of Christ (1 Cor 6:13, 15, 19–20; 1 Thess 4:7–8; cf. 1 Pet 1:18–19). It is God’s will for us to control our bodies in holiness and honor (1 Thess 4:3–4). When Christ returns, our bodies will be changed to be like the Lord Jesus Christ’s body, perfect and incapable of sin (1 Cor 15:51–58; Phil 3:21; 1 John 3:2).
Unbelievers reject God’s truth, however, and live according to the impure lusts of their hearts, leading to dishonorable actions with their bodies, to one degree or another (Rom 1:18–20, 24; 1 Thess 4:5).
Lust itself is sin, that is, the willful longing for sex outside of marriage. This lust can take place by looking at someone with lustful intent (Matt 5:28; cf. Jas 1:14–15). This lust can be provoked by pornography, which is itself immoral in its production and various forms of media.
Unchecked lust leads to acts of immorality (any form of sex outside of marriage), which are against the will of God (1 Thess 4:3; cf. 1 Cor 6:18; 2 Cor 12:21; Gal 5:19; Eph 5:3; Col 3:5). These acts include fornication (premarital sex) and adultery (extramarital sex).
Homosexuality is another perversion of sex expressly forbidden in Scripture (Lev 18:22; 20:13). It is contrary to sound doctrine and not in accordance with the gospel (1 Tim 1:10–11). Homosexual sex between men or women stems from dishonorable, sinful passions and is a shameless act that abandons natural sexual relations between a husband and a wife (Rom 1:26–27; e.g., Gen 19:5, 7; cf. 2 Pet 2:7; Jude 7). God punishes this sin by giving the sinner over to the sin itself and its various consequences (Rom 1:27), including exclusion from the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9–10).
Other sexual sins are so sinful that even unbelievers condemn them, including rape (e.g., 2 Sam 13:14), incest (Lev 18:6–18; 1 Cor 5:1; e.g., Gen 35:22), and bestiality (Lev 18:15; 20:15–16; Exod 22:19).
In the Old Testament, the nation Israel was to administrate severe punishment for various sexual sins according to Mosaic Law (e.g., Lev 20:10–16). In our age, God commands exclusion of the unrepentant, immoral person from the church (cf. Matt 18:15–17; 1 Cor 5:1–11), and, in the end, the unrepentant will not inherit the kingdom of God but will be forever consigned to the lake of fire (1 Cor 6:9–10; Rev 21:8). However, the repentant sinner who finds forgiveness in Christ can see himself in these words: “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor 6:11). 1
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 13, 2023 15:08:11 GMT -5
Should a Pastor Address Racism From the Pulpit? PastorPastorPreachingRacial UnityRacismUnity Share
g3min.org/should-a-pastor-address-racism-from-the-pulpit/?fbclid=IwAR2oC53qirA95Bdnb_FwdH5zR7g1C-l3-ONInwtvvv5x9JOHoT95Gi0fMXU VIRGIL WALKER
Lectio-Continua-Expository Over the past year, I’ve received several questions on the issue of ethnicity. Some ask, “What should I do? I think the elders at my church have gone woke.” Others ask, “What should I do? My church is going through the latest book on ‘racial reconciliation,’ and it sounds like a Christianized version of Critical Race Theory.” While I do my best to respond to each message, the influx of thousands of these kinds of questions makes it difficult to answer everyone’s email. My hope in the next few blog articles is to respond, at length, to some of the more challenging questions I have received.
In this blog article, I will cover one of the questions I get most often from pastors, “Should I address racism from the pulpit?” Before I respond to the question, I want to address a few issues.
Few black pastors spend sleepless nights finding themselves hand-wringing over the problem of racism as a sin demonstrated in the daily lives of their congregants.
First, I recognize this question comes primarily from white pastors. How do I know? Well, as someone who been a part of the Black Church for years, I realize that many black pastors don’t have a problem addressing racism. However, the vast majority of black pastors address racism from a position of oppression rather than as a sin that can also reside in the heart of those listening to their sermon. Few black pastors spend sleepless nights finding themselves hand-wringing over the problem of racism as a sin demonstrated in the daily lives of their congregants. Since the days of Martin Luther King, Jr. and the civil rights movement, black communities have fed on a steady diet of “…the 11:00 hour on Sunday is the most segregated hour in America.” For the average black pastor leading a predominately black congregation, in their estimation, King’s statement is not their problem. They believe that issue is for the white evangelical church down the road to be solving. The all-black congregation is doing just fine, and that is their pitfall.
Second, I know that many of these pastors are afraid to say the wrong thing or, worse yet, say the right thing but with the wrong tone and be considered racist. So, as I receive these questions, I recognize there’s much more to consider than merely the straightforward question being asked. Here’s what should be considered before addressing racism from the pulpit.
Exposition or Topical Sermon
Preaching consecutively through books of the Bible is the best way to be devoted to faithful exposition. The question then becomes, should a pastor pause the expositional study of a book of the Bible to address a topical issue? It is possible to preach on a topic that is genuinely an expositional treatment of a text.
When it comes to addressing cultural issues like race, the danger for preachers is searching for a text to support what he already wants to say rather than allowing the text to drive the sermon. To do this is called “soapbox preaching” and should be avoided. That said, there are times when it is entirely appropriate for a pastor to pause his exposition through a biblical book and preach on a topic with God’s Word still driving the sermon. For example, after a great national tragedy like September 11, 2001, it made sense to speak to one’s congregation with a sermon from God’s Word appropriate for the occasion. It would lack wisdom and sensitivity to the congregation to press on through Luke’s genealogy during such a crisis.
With that said, a pastor could easily argue that a sermon on understanding racism from a biblical perspective is needed in our present hour. Though he must be diligent to present himself “approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15).
Say What the Bible Says
Once the decision to address racism is clear, it’s crucial to begin the subject of race and ethnicity through biblical categories. Scripture is sufficient to clearly and effectively address this subject. The delivery of a topical sermon is not the time to appeal to hashtag hermeneutics or social justice slogans.
Racism through a biblical lens would go something like this: There is one human race (Genesis 1:27). All of humanity comes from one man–Adam–and includes many ethnicities (Acts 17:26). Sin enters the world and corrupts our relationship with God and with one another (Genesis 3:1–5; 12–13). Racism is ethnic hatred, and hatred of an image-bearer of God is sin. Hatred of your brother is as the sin of murder, and a murderer will not inherit eternal life (1 John 3:15). Sin impacts us systemically (Romans 5:12), and no one is immune to sin’s effect (Romans 3:23). Sin separates us from God (Romans 6:23) and divides us from one another (Ephesians 2:12). The beauty of the gospel is that while our work is insufficient to inherit eternal life (Ephesians 2:8–9), this free gift is available through repentance and belief in the finished work of Christ (Romans 10:9–10). Through Christ, true reconciliation has been made (Ephesians 2:8–9, 13), and for those in Him, we are one with Christ (Galatians 3:28).
Yes But…What about
It’s at this point that I can hear some saying, “Yes, but what about…, and what about…?” To that, I’d say, either you believe Scripture is sufficient to address the issue of racism, or you don’t. If you don’t, then please leave the pulpit. We have far too many on platforms believing they know better than God on the issues of race. These same men appeal to artificial godless philosophies as “analytical tools” on these issues. Today, we see many pastors trust government solutions more than the sanctifying work of the gospel in the life of the believer.
Be Faithful to Fulfill your Ministry
Pastors should remember that all sins are sensitive to the sinner. So yes, racism can be a sensitive subject. Allow God’s Word to confront the matters of the heart. Take yourself out of the problem. My encouragement to you is the same that Paul would charge Timothy, “I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching but having itching ears, they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry” (2 Timothy 4:1–5).
While ethnic hatred is not new, the combination of White guilt, Black outrage, and the historic narrative of slavery and Jim Crow in America have combined with a new movement to create a lens from which daily events are now viewed. This subject is not going away. So, it’s important to face the issue head-on. This reality requires pastors who are unafraid to bring the light of the gospel to people in desperate need of the Savior.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 16, 2023 12:27:54 GMT -5
Working Hard or Hardly Working? Share
g3min.org/working-hard-or-hardly-working/?fbclid=IwAR32Ym67T37p-RhYurMlRiP7PX45coJoOyYEUx3li0LZkn99GZYfWU6dB70 DAVID HUFFSTUTLER
grayscale photo of persons hand with rings Paul addressed the matter of working to make a living in both 1 and 2 Thessalonians. In the first letter, he urged his readers to work to meet their own needs as part of their testimony for Christ (1 Thess 4:10–12). In the second letter, Paul commanded his readers to distance themselves from the persistently lazy, repeated his command to work, and reminded his readers of his example in this matter (2 Thess 3:6–15).
Paul: An Example of Working Hard Focusing on Paul’s example, we remember that his entire life was worth imitating because he imitated Christ (1 Cor 4:16; 11:1; Phil 3:17; 2 Tim 3:10, 14). An exemplary life is required of every spiritual leader (1 Tim 3:3, 8; Titus 1:7; 1 Pet 5:2).
Part of Paul’s godly life was his excellent work ethic. A tentmaker by trade (Acts 18:3), Paul regularly worked to support himself as he traveled on his missionary endeavors (Acts 20:34; 1 Cor 4:12). He even intentionally chose not to ask for compensation for his missionary labors. He could have asked for compensation to meet his basic needs, but he did not want anyone to think that he was peddling the gospel for personal gain (1 Cor 9:3–14; cf. 1 Tim 5:17–18).
Sometimes voluntary donations supplemented his income (2 Cor 11:9; Phil 4:15–16), but his regular practice was to forego finances from converts so that he could remove potential obstacles that might keep them from accepting Christ as Savior (2 Cor 12:13–19). By working hard, he helped the weak and knew the blessing of giving to others (Acts 20:33–35).
Lazy People: Working Hard at Hardly Working As for the lazy in 1 and 2 Thessalonians, what are we to think of them?
At the least, we see that they were not acting like their God. God’s nature is to rule, and God created man in His image to imitate who He is. As God rules over all things, man is to rule the earth and work (Gen 1:26–28; 2:15). After man’s fall into sin, work became difficult, but man was to work nonetheless (Gen 3:17–19).
At the most, we could conclude that a persistently lazy person does not know his God. As thorns overtake an unkept path, problems overtake his unkept life (Prov 15:19). Due to his inordinate love of sleep, his property is full of thorns, his walls are crumbling down, and his house is in need of repair—sudden poverty is his end (Prov 6:6–11; 10:4; 24:30–34; 26:14; Ecc 10:18). He is so lazy that he will not even feed himself (Prov 19:24; 26:15), let alone pick up a plow at harvest (Prov 20:4). It is no wonder he suffers from hunger (Prov 19:15; 20:13). As a result, though the lazy man wants the blessings of hard work, he has nothing to enjoy (Prov 13:4). This desire contradicts his actions and makes misery for his soul (Prov 21:25–26).
The lazy man is ridiculous for his reasoning—he believes that any work might kill him (Prov 22:13; 26:13) and thinks his excuses for laziness outdo the wisdom of many men (Prov 26:15). If he does any work at all, it is forced upon him (Prov 12:24), and even then, he is repugnant to anyone who would be his master (Prov 10:26). His name is marked by shame (Prov 10:5).
If he finds sleep itself a bore, he busies himself with the lives of others, becoming a nuisance and a burden (2 Thess 3:11; cf. 1 Tim 5:13; 1 Pet 4:15). He is destructive to himself and others and gravitates to company like himself (Prov 18:9; cf. 28:24). If he refuses to care for others in his charge, he denies the Christian faith and is worse than an unbeliever (1 Tim 5:8).
Working Hard to Please Jesus Christ The Bible clearly commands and encourages us to work quietly, earn our own living, and mind our own affairs. We should share and generously meet the needs of others as we are able. In short, we should work hard instead of hardly working. What Paul said to others long ago still stands for us today: “Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward. You are serving the Lord Christ” (Col 3:23–24).
Print Friendly, PDF & Email Related person looking out through window Is Man One, Two, or Three? Paul’s Message to the Romans—And to You Romans is the apex letter of the New Testament—serving as the foundational letter of Christian doctrine. As I'm studying and preparing my heart to preach through the book of Romans, I want to understand and grasp the details of this letter long before I stand in the pulpit to preach…
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 17, 2023 8:05:36 GMT -5
Not “By What Standard?” but “By What Means?” Share
g3min.org/not-by-what-standard-but-by-what-means/?fbclid=IwAR30Hhcs7tfNAEj6JUEczoJDe3SAr1w4MT_NoBxqtLK37EO_5XXptk4wc2Y MICHAEL RILEY
selective focus photography of white baseball balls on ground The ultimate foundation for the playing of a game of baseball is the truth of Christian theism. But I don’t believe that the participants need to agree about that for us to play baseball together.
Sport is a good place to begin sketching my argument because it is a fine example of the ordinary usefulness of arbitrary law. By definition, the rules of sports are not necessary. The first guy who ran a Marathon covered 26.2 miles because he needed to; current marathon runners run that distance because they’ve decided to do so. We could choose other distances; we can choose to race with roller skates or cars. The essence of sport is that we define the rules. Why must I run the bases counterclockwise? Why can I only place my ball on a tee for the first shot and not all the other shots on a hole? The answers to these questions are entirely determined by the rules of their respective sports. If we’re playing baseball or golf, these are the rules. There is no higher authority, nor are the rules in any sense objectively necessary.
Transgressing these rules is not the same thing as transgressing moral laws. But if a particularly headstrong Little Leaguer insists on running the bases backwards, an appeal to the arbitrary rules of baseball is no longer adequate. At this point, we begin to insist that for baseball players, conforming to the arbitrary rules of baseball must be rooted in some deeper moralauthority. We appeal to the duty of obedience, or to safety, or to good order, or to unselfishness.
It is for this reason, as a Van Tilian, that I believe that the ultimate foundation for the playing of a game of baseball is the truth of Christian theism. Without Christian theism, the framework of moral obligations that makes the rules of baseball binding on baseball players collapses. Even arbitrary law must rest on a foundation of absolute law.
But can I play baseball with people who disagree with this argument? I can—so long as they are willing (for whatever reason) to follow the agreed-on rules of baseball.
But what if they don’t?
Van Til and Christian Nationalism I am a Van Tilian apologist. I’m not a Christian nationalist. And Doug Wilson ably—repeatedly—places his finger on the apparent tension between those positions.
As a Van Tilian, I’m skeptical of the bearing power of natural law. To be sure, because we live in God’s universe, a person who insists on transgressing God’s law will often discover that “the way of the treacherous is their ruin” (Prov 13:15). But deducing binding, invariant morality from natural consequences is not so simple. Do natural outcomes always indicate moral virtues? Remember the consternation of the psalmist, envying the wicked who “have no pangs until death; their bodies are fat and sleek. They are not in trouble as others are; they are not stricken like the rest of mankind” (Ps 73). It is true that Aseph is rescued from a collapse of his faith by discerning “their end” (73:17). But this conclusion moves us out of the realm of natural law into supernatural revelation.
Van Tilian apologists make much of the argument that moral laws have their full justification only if they are situated within a Christian universe. This insight is aptly captured by Rushdoony’s piercing question (regularly echoed by Wilson and others): “By what standard?” The argument is that, unmoored from God’s revealed law, all moral claims reduce to suggestion and preference.
The apologetic case built on this observation is straightforward: no one can meaningfully engage in any argument at all unless there are universally binding obligations. There is a morality to epistemology. Those obligations must be more substantial than manners and conventions; as Bahnsen said to Stein:
Dr. Stein has said that the laws of logic are merely conventional. If so, then on convention he wins tonight’s debate, and on convention I win tonight’s debate. And if you’re satisfied with that, you didn’t need to come in the first place. You expected the laws of logic to be applied as universal standards of rationality. Rationality isn’t possible in a universe that just consigns them to convention.
Yet no non-Christian worldview can adequately account for such transcendent standards. Thus, when an unbeliever makes his case against God, his anti-theistic argument presumes the truth of Christianity.
The application of this to government seems straightforward: if one function of law is to announce and enforce a public morality, surely that morality must then be rooted in Christianity. For this reason, it’s not hard to see what seems to be a necessary connection between Van Tilian apologetics and Christian nationalism, if not full-blown postmillennial theonomy.
My argument is that I can coherently reject Christian nationalism while embracing the Van Tilian argument that morality has an exclusively Christian foundation. I agree with Wilson on the answer to the question “by what standard?” Our disagreement is better discerned by asking “by what means?”
The Collapse of the Consensus We began by considering an example of a human activity with arbitrary rules. I contend we can establish the same pattern if we move up from the trivial example of a baseball game to institutions with more overtly objective moral obligations. Can a grocery store exist and function without an explicit Christian consensus? Again, as a Van Tilian, I’m going to insist that functional grocery stores presuppose Christ. The determination that avocados don’t belong in the toiletry section, the trustworthiness of the sums calculated by the cash register, the alarms at the door to catch the guy with the pack of replacement razors in his sock—all of these would be merely arbitrary and groundless if Christianity were false. Grocery stores, properly run, are evidence that Jesus truly is Lord.
But again, must everyone confess that Jesus is Lord for the grocery store to function? Must the grocery store itself acknowledge the Lordship of Jesus Christ to continue its business?
Baseball games and grocery stores can function at the level of consensus without either the institution nor its participants explicitly affirming the Christian theology that gives true moral structure to the consensus. It is indisputably true that the duration of that consensus will be extended by a shared coherent moral vision.
If we have one headstrong Little Leaguer, we could send him home; the rest of the people who want to play baseball can keep playing baseball. But what if the majority of kids—and most of the umps—decide to ignore the rules? What do we do then? And what if (to make the obvious transition) the collapse of consensus occurs not in a baseball game, but with regard to the rules of government and civil society?
We are right to be dismayed at the collapse of that public moral consensus, a collapse brought about by the spiritual hollowing out of our nation’s people—by their turning from the Triune God of Christianity. What is to be done about this collapse?
In my judgment, this is where my disagreement with Doug Wilson (and others who share his position) is located. I affirm entirely that at its foundations, a stable and functional government presupposes the truth of Christian theism. I do not disagree with Wilson that the final answer to “by what standard?” is “the law of God.” But I do not believe that the force of government is the means by which this standard is to be established in the hearts of a people. Our disagreement is not over the standard by which a government is judged good; it is over the means by which we are to work to see that standard embraced by—or enforced upon—our fellow citizens.
I think it’s important, as I conclude, to make clear the specific thesis I’m defending. I’m merely making the case that one can simultaneously believe that 1) all moral claims, including the obligation to conform to arbitrary laws, ultimately are groundless unless Christianity is true, while also believing that 2) if the consensus about these conventions disintegrates, it is not the role of the state to enforce the underlying, explicitly Christian foundations for these laws.
If you’re convinced that Christian nationalism is justified on other grounds, this argument won’t be persuasive, and that’s fine. Here, I’m not arguing that Van Tilian apologetics precludes Christian nationalism. Instead, I’m merely arguing that Van Tilianism doesn’t demand it, either.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email Related DBG Spotlight (3-4-16) Although this is an older video from 2014, the topic is extremely relevant as Mark Dever, Voddie Baucham, and Bill Kynes talk about politics and the pulpit. The Disenfranchisement of Sanity - James White writes, "When it comes to Mr. Trump, I am completely lost as to how anyone can take…
How Shall We Be Like God? By What Standard? Today a big announcement is being made by Founders Ministries regarding a very important documentary that chronicles the story of how we've arrived at the very juncture of the modern downgrade of the SBC. I want to explain why this is so important and how you can get involved. By…
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 18, 2023 20:44:50 GMT -5
When Good Men Part Ways Share
g3min.org/when-good-men-part-ways/ TAIGEN JOOS
two roads between trees Throughout the history of the church there have been godly men who have differed with one another, sometimes even to the point of parting ways with one another in ministry. Often, the question that arises is, “Should this happen?” When this kind of rift occurs, we immediately want to label one person as being “right” and the other as being “wrong.” However, wisdom should lead us to be very cautious about doing so. Especially from a distance, not every detail can and will be known, and whatever information we have will be understood imperfectly. What is important to understand is that for all parties involved—including spectators—humility and integrity must be maintained for the glory of God.
Below are three examples of godly men in church history who have parted ways with each other for various reasons. While we may not understand all the intricate details of the situation, nor even their motives, we can observe how they did so, and learn from their godly examples today.
Paul & Barnabas This is the one biblical example of two godly men having a dispute and parting ways. It is described for us in Acts 15:36–41 where Luke recounts a dispute between the Apostle Paul and his close companion, Barnabas. In discussing plans regarding their next missionary journey together, Barnabas wanted to take John Mark with them, who had left their company on an earlier trip (Acts 13:13). However, Paul did not agree with that idea, and Luke describes their disagreement as a sharp contention and that they “parted from one another” because of it (Acts 15:39). Barnabas and John Mark travelled together to Cyprus, while Paul took Silas with him on his journey through Syria and Cilicia.
There is no commentary given as to who was “right” and who was “wrong” in this instance, nor should we assign such labels ourselves. We should notice, though, Paul’s references to both Barnabas and John Mark in his later writings. First Corinthians 9:6 mentions Barnabas in a favorable way in ministry. Though there is no substantial scriptural evidence that the two ever ministered together again, Paul gives a favorable view of Barnabas as a fellow minister of the gospel. Regarding John Mark, near the end of his life Paul recognizes Mark’s profitability in the ministry, as noted in 2 Timothy 4:11.
Neither Paul nor Barnabas questioned the integrity, the intentions, nor the salvation of the other. Their difference was essentially one of ministry philosophy. Barnabas, “the encourager,” thought it would be good to bring John Mark, while Paul did not. The two could not agree, so they parted ways. Though Scripture remains silent in this regard, perhaps there were later attempts at reconciliation between the two. Regardless of the “rightness” or “wrongness” of the break between them, by God’s grace gospel ministry multiplied throughout the region. The fact that Barnabas was still held in high esteem by Paul indicates a lack of animosity on the part of Paul. Here is an example of two orthodox men who found it necessary to split up, while keeping each other in high esteem.
Whitefield & Wesley Another example to consider is from the 18th century. George Whitefield and John Wesley were two men greatly used of God to preach salvation to many people, both in America and England. Yet the two grew to have some pretty heated debates and disagreements over theological issues, particularly one. Wesley was more Arminian in his theology, while Whitefield was more Calvinistic. Their disagreements over theological systems were real and ongoing. Though they initially ministered together for many years, they eventually believed it necessary to break fellowship with each other because of these growing and irreconcilable differences. Yet through it all, neither questioned the integrity, the motives, nor the salvation of the other. In fact, Dr. Edward Panosian describes the relationship between Whitefield and Wesley as follows,
Although the relationship between the two men was thus strained, their love and respect for each other was never quenched. It was John Wesley, who was to outlive Whitefield by twenty-one years, who gave him the most generous tribute as he gently chided his friend who asked, “Do you think we shall see Mr. Whitefield in Heaven?” Wesley replied, “No, sir, I fear not. Mr. Whitefield will be so near the Throne and we at such a distance we shall hardly get sight of him.”1
Though there were attempts made to reconcile, each man remained convinced of his own theological view while at the same time remained respectful of the other man. Both were greatly used by God to communicate the gospel, even after they felt they could no longer minister alongside of each other.
David Martyn Lloyd-Jones & J. I. Packer A third example is from the 20th century. This example is different from the first two in that it involves more of a clearly defined doctrinal error than the previous two considered. The dynamics of the people are the same: two men in ministry together, both of whom claim to be in orthodox Christianity. Yet there was a major doctrinal issue that required a separation between these two men, though neither would consider the other an enemy of Christ.
David Martyn Lloyd-Jones and J. I. Packer were friends who fellowshipped together in ministry for several years in the United Kingdom. Yet when Packer linked arms with those within the Roman Catholic Church,2 Lloyd-Jones believed it to be the biblically necessary thing to remove fellowship with his friend. On July 7, 1970, Lloyd-Jones wrote a letter to his friend telling him of his decision to separate from him.3 The two never ministered alongside each other again. However, neither questioned the integrity, the motivation, nor the salvation of the other. In fact, several years later, Packer intended on visiting Lloyd-Jones in England before Lloyd-Jones died. However, as Packer later wrote, “I never saw him. He died before I could get there. It didn’t make a great deal of difference. There’s always heaven.”4
The differences at stake in this situation were very clearly doctrinal in nature. Packer had essentially given credence to Roman Catholicism, seeking Christian unity with them. The biblical doctrine of justification was undermined. Lloyd-Jones was attacked as being schismatic and divisive, when he was merely defending the biblical doctrine of justification and following the biblical doctrine of separation as he understood it. Though neither man believed himself to be outside the realm of historical orthodoxy, Packer’s move to extend Christian fellowship to Roman Catholicism went against theological orthodoxy. To Lloyd-Jones this was troubling to say the least. This move by Packer eventually led him to be one of the principal endorsers of the 1994 document entitled, “Evangelicals & Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium” which undeniably embraced Roman Catholics as being brothers and sisters in Christ. In this case, the parting of ways between Lloyd-Jones and Packer was not only understandable, but necessary, at least from the standpoint of Lloyd-Jones. Yet both men remained amicable and respectful of the other.
Conclusion There are times when genuinely converted men, who claim a true love for God, who sometimes even link together in ministry, find it necessary to part ways. While the reasons for the above breaks in fellowship vary, what is common among them is a mutual love and respect for the other, even after the separation occurs. Let this instruct us as Christians today who are often trigger happy to assign blame, take sides, and form coalitions against one another.
Good and godly people can disagree amicably, respectfully, and biblically without animosity or vitriol. Whether it is because of a philosophical difference, general theological difference, or doctrinal error, sometimes divisions occur. Yet God in his sovereignty uses situations like these to further his cause for his own glory’s sake.
Observers and spectators of these kinds of breaks in fellowship should be cautious to make dogmatic assertions, assign blame, and question motives. In all cases, all Christians are to be clothed with humility (1 Pet 5:5). Those involved must humbly and biblically respond towards one another. Those not involved must remain humble and cautious in their words about those involved, especially today with the use (and abuse) of social media. Even in cases of clearly disobedient brethren, though they are disobedient to biblical truth, they are indeed brethren and should not be “cursed” (Jas 3:9–10). While truth must be upheld and error must be called out, humility remains a Christian necessity, even as was seen between Lloyd-Jones and Packer.
For issues that are non-doctrinal in nature it is important to understand that unity among the brethren does not necessitate uniformity. One can disagree with particular aspects of how other ministries function, or with what another minister of the gospel teaches. Sometimes, the differences are so great that some level of fellowship is no longer deemed appropriate by one, or both parties. This is not to say, however, that efforts to further understand or reconcile with each other should not be prayerfully considered and perhaps pursued. Yet even if reconciliation does not happen, and ministry together is limited or even non-existent, we should still be humble, loving, and respectful in our disposition, our intentions, and our actions.
May we as brothers and sisters in Christ display integrity, even when differences amongst Christian brethren exist. And may we be clothed with humility and therefore glorify our great God.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 18, 2023 21:03:52 GMT -5
Peter, Fear of Man and Lying
JON ENGLISH LEE Peter, Fear of Man and Lying In a well-known passage from John 18:15-18 & 25-27 we read that Peter denies Christ three times. I’d like to look at this passage from a different angle by examining the connection between Peter’s fear of man and his lying, and then seeing how that pattern of fear leading to lying is found in other places in the Bible.
Right before this passage we read about how Peter boldly snatched out his sword, and used it to strike the ear of Malchus, in order to try and defend Jesus. He’s also previously said that even if everyone one else deserted Jesus, he wouldn’t.
Now, we see this once bold and loyal disciple, terrified. His terror leads him to lie about a simple question from an inconsequential servant girl. He’s terrified that he might have to bear the same shame as Jesus. He’s terrified that he might get arrested and questioned. He’s terrified that he might even be condemned to death right beside Jesus. So, he lies. Peter’s fear of man leads him to lie.
And not just one lie; multiple. Notice the progression in his lying. One lie lead to another, and then another. Unchecked sin in general leads to more sin but lying is especially prolific. Lying leads to more lying. Puritan Matthew Henry said, “Lying is a fruitful sin, and upon this account exceedingly sinful: one lie needs another to support it, and then another. It is a rule in the devil’s politics– to cover sin with sin, in order to escape detection.”
We first slip up and say something untrue, then we need a little white lie to cover it up, and then another and another. Those lies grow in scope and the story gets more and more elaborate until we are bound up by our lies and enslaved to a false narrative, all because we are afraid of being caught, afraid of being exposed, afraid of what other people might think of us, or afraid of the punishment that might befall us.
We have seen this pattern of fear and lying in the Bible, too.
Abraham twice lied about his wife, even telling her to lie about her identity, in Genesis 12 and 20 because he was afraid that the Egyptians would kill him and take his beautiful wife. His fear drove him to break God’s law, and to tell his wife to do the same.
Or later in 1 Samuel 15, Saul disobeys God, disregards the Lord’s words through His prophet Samuel, and does not destroy everyone and everything of the Amalekites like he is supposed to.
Samuel confronts him and asks, “Why then did you not obey the voice of the Lord? Why did you pounce on the spoil and do what was evil in the sight of the Lord?” (15:19)
And Saul says to Samuel, “I have obeyed the Lord. I have gone on the mission which the Lord sent me. I have brought Agag, the king of Amalek, and I have devoted the Amalekites to destruction. But the people took the spoil, sheep and oxen, the best of the things devoted to destruction, to sacrifice to the Lord” (15:20).
Did you catch that? “I obeyed and went to battle, but the people, they disobeyed.”
It sounds just like Adam in the garden. Adam knew that he had sinned, so he fashioned leaves to cover his shame, but God could see right through them. Then he fashioned a lie, a verbal cover for his shame: “That woman you gave me, she made me do it.” But just like the leaves, God could see right through the lie.
And Saul, just like Adam, was afraid, he knew he had sinned, and tried to use a lie to cover up his sin. Samuel goes on to say to Saul that God had rejected him as king because he rejected the word of the Lord. Saul’s response to that rejection is important. Saul says to Samuel, “I have sinned, for I transgressed the commandment of the Lord and your words, because I feared the people and obeyed their voice” (15:24). I feared the people and obeyed their voice. Fear led Saul into sin. Imagine it; the king was afraid of what his subjects might say. Fear of being unpopular, fear of losing reputation, of not being praised by men. Fear of losing his position of favor in the hearts of his subjects. Fear led him to break God’s law, and to lie to try and cover it up.
Our sinful fear can lead us to lie, too.
I had an experience as a parent that wonderfully illustrates this point; any parents reading this have probably had similar experiences. I came into the kitchen one day and found an open box of Oreos on the counter. There were crumbs were on the counter and on the floor. We had an obvious case of illicit breaking and entering into the snack stash. So, I called in my son for questioning. He walked in and had a noticeable ring of chocolate cookie residue around his lips and he had crumbs on his hands. I asked him, “Son, did you get some cookies out without asking?”
He looks me in the face, with his own face covered in Oreo evidence, and He responds that he did not. I ask him again, “Are you sure you didn’t eat any Oreos?” He denies that he did. I ask him about the crumbs on his hands and the ring of chocolate around his mouth. He replies that he doesn’t know how those got there, but, he assured me, that it wasn’t from him eating Oreos.
Maybe you may not be as blatant as the child with crumbs on his hands, but you might be tempted to lie in other ways. When we’ve been caught in something, we can deceive ourselves into thinking that we can cover our tracks and hide our sin by covering it up. Maybe you’ve said little white lies.
Or maybe you aren’t so crass as to say an actual lie, but you think you’re clever enough to omit certain truths and deceive by misdirection and misleading. That’s still lying.
Our fear of man can tempt us to lie and to try to make ourselves look better in the eyes of other people. People ask us how we are doing, and we don’t tell the truth about our struggles, about the sin that is dominating us because we don’t want them to think that we are sinners, or that we struggle.
We also try, just like Peter, to cover the shame that we feel with even more lies. We get caught in some sin but deny it. We double down, trying to dig our way out of a hole by continuing in the charade, keeping the lies going and building an even more complex façade. But, just like Peter and just like Adam, God sees right through the fig leaves of deception that we use to try and cover our sin.
We are like Adam, naked and exposed before God. He has even more sure evidence of our lies than Oreo crumbs on our fingers. He sees right through to our heart. He knows all things, knows all truth, and knows us right to the very core of our beings. As we heard this morning, God sees right to our hearts. Our lives, and our lies, are exposed before him with even greater clarity than this text that sits before you.
Perhaps you feel bound by some lies at this very moment, you feel stuck or even enslaved in a web of deceit, ashamed that you’ve been driven by fear into a charade of falsehood that grips you.
Hear me: further lies will not save you. You must come to the truth, come to the light, come to the liberty that saves you not the deceptive lies that enslave you.
Christ offers to you tonight forgiveness for your shame, forgiveness for your fear, forgiveness for your lies and deception. He offers to you a gift of peace with God, a gift of security rather than fear, a promise of safety.
The good news for Peter, and for you, is that we don’t have to be dominated by fear, and that we are not disqualified as Christians because we have lied. Later in John, we will see Peter’s restoration. Even though Christ himself was abandoned by Peter, Peter isn’t abandoned by Christ. Christ forgives and restores Peter, and that same treatment is offered to you. Christ stands ready to forgive and restore you, if you would but come to him by faith. See his great love for you, see how he is never driven by fear and never used lies to try and protect himself. Indeed, Christ himself was condemned with lies so that you might be restored by the truth. He was crushed by those that feared man so that you would never have to live in fear of man. He was falsely accused so that you would never have to fear false accusation, and the eternal incarnate truth was put to death so that you might live in the truth and walk in the light.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 21, 2023 18:08:02 GMT -5
Christ: The Object of Our Life and Worship Share
g3min.org/christ-the-object-of-our-life-and-worship R. D. NORMAN
person making pot G.K. Beale famously wrote a book titled You are What You Worship. In this work, he makes reference to the book of Isaiah:
“And he said, ‘Go, and say to this people: ‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand; keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’ Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy, and blind their eyes; les they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed” (Isa 6:9–10).
The idolaters became like the objects they worshiped. God was leaving them to their destructive ways. In the same way, the idols of our hearts shape our lives today. Think about it: those who listen to Heavy Metal deck their bedrooms in band posters, wear t-shirts, and often grow their hair similarly to their favorite stars. Likewise, when people idolize fashion, they spend exquisite amounts of money to look like the latest fashion designs are “in.”
It is as Calvin famously said: “The human mind is, so to speak, a perpetual forge of idols. . . . And daily experience shows that the flesh is always restless until it has obtained some figment like itself, with which it may vainly solace itself as a representation of God.”1 This was true five-hundred years ago, and it is true now. The only difference is that it is more clearly visible while more heavily denied. Our hearts crave idols and when we give into those cravings, we, step by step, become more and more like those idols.
Knowing this, we must be careful. Every step of life presents risks. Every expression of appreciation and every thought of something we like puts us at risk of falling into idolatry. If we fall once, it is easier to fall again. Eventually, the idol twists our lives into an ugly representation of itself.
There is an alternative though. If we are committed to something else—someone who is worthy of worship—then the story can be different. If we really become more like what we worship, then worshiping a person would surely make us more like that person. School pupils do everything they can to get the attention of the person they want to date, changing their ways and clothes in order to be noticed by the one whom they want.
If we, as Christians, are committed to worshiping our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, then we can become more and more like Him. We know that should be our desire, but does it really take place through worship?
Conformity to Christ In the middle of his heavy-weight theological epistle to the Romans, the Apostle Paul wrote, “For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers” (Rom 8:29). As Christians, we are predestined to be conformed to Christ. That is an unchangeable reality. If you are in Christ, you have partaken in the fruit of this predestined grace.
Does that mean we enter a state of perfection as soon as we are converted? Not at all. What it means is that we have Christ’s righteousness, secured by His cleansing blood (Heb 9:14). He has taken our sin, paid the price, and transferred His righteousness to our accounts (2 Cor 5:21). We are no longer condemned, because we wear His robes of righteousness. There is still, however, indwelling sin within us. As we live out the Christian life, we are expected to deal with that sin. As the Lord shines more light on our hearts, we are to kill off that sin.
How does His light help us deal with that sin? It begins in our conversion and flows into eternity. Conversion is the pathway to worship. Knowing all He has done for us, all we can do is bow down in reverential worship (Heb 12:28–29). We know we did nothing to earn our salvation and that He is the One who obtained it for us (Rom 5:1). Knowing this, we cannot praise ourselves. We can only come to Christ’s throne, bow down and worship Him for His merciful grace, displayed on the cross. Who/what else is more worthy of our worship? We will soon see how this connects to our sanctification.
Sanctification How do we know that this righteousness is irremovable from our souls? Paul further tells us, “And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil 1:6). God will complete in us that which He has begun. Our path to conversion is complete, but that is not the end of the journey. After conversion, we embark on the path to glorification—our final destination. This is sanctification: the process by which we become more holy—more like Christ.
Of course, killing off sin and replacing it with good works is a part of sanctification, but how does that tie into Christocentric worship? The answer is found in how we defeat sin. The idea is quite simple. We cannot simply say no to temptation and leave it at that. Doing so leaves us bound to fall into temptation once again. Instead, we need to rewire our hearts’ desires.
What better way to do that than worshiping Jesus? Knowing all He has done to secure and persevere us by His grace, what more can we do than spill forth praise to His glorious name? If we train ourselves to worship Him in those times of temptation, we will do a lot better at mortifying our sin.
Paul gives us this principle as he calls us to put off evil and put on good (Eph 4:22–24). Do you struggle with lustful thoughts, tempting you to view pornography? Have you wondered how to slay this beast? Do you find yourself pridefully thinking about how wonderful you are, thinking about all the conversations other people must be having about you? Do you find yourself greedily thinking about how you can do things for your own benefit while others go without?
How can we deal with all this sin? The answer is simple, yet profound. We put on Christ. We remember His sacrifice for our sin in these moments and replace those thoughts and feelings by worshiping Him according to those truths. This is the pathway that brings us through sanctification and draws us closer to Him. Worshiping Jesus is exceedingly beneficial for our souls and of great practical value.
As we worship Him more and more, we will find ourselves able to put off more and more sin as we grow in holiness. There will be less room for sin and more room for growth. As we worship Him we become more like Him.
Glorification The end of our road is glorification. When death looms and swallows us in its embrace, we will finally meet our Savior face to face. There we will no longer be tempted and never sin against Him again. Why? Because His glory will be before us. We will want nothing else. Even if that were not enough, the very memory of everything we suffered in this life because of sin will be enough to remind us of why we should not rebel again.
The fact is, we will have tasted enough of Him in this life that we want nothing more with the world. He will have proven Himself to be the delight of our souls. We will do everything we can to please Him for His unconditional love, unbreakable through the bonds of our heavenly espousal (Rev 19:6–10). He will forever be the object of our desires and we will live to give Him honor and praise. Worthy is He to receive such esteem.
At the moment of glorification we will be as much like Him as possible. Everything He is in His human nature will be shared by us. We will never sin, we will only worship. Truly, we will have finally become like the One we worship.
Our goals in this life are to be like Christ and to worship Him. Those two things are inseparable. To want to be like Him is to worship Him and to worship Him is to want to be like Him. This gorgeously woven tapestry should influence us to do both with all the more vigor. Do we want to beat sin? Let us worship Him. Do we want to grow in Sanctification? Let us worship Him. Do we want to please Him? Let us worship Him with all the holy passion and might He has enabled us to muster. If we worship Him, then we will become like what we worship.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 23, 2023 11:11:49 GMT -5
DAVID J. LUPINETTI Why I left a mega church
low angle photography of high rise building under white clouds during daytime In two–thousand years of church history there have been many battles, but the most recent battle is for territory and turf. It seems that the franchise model of churches has brought competition in evangelicalism. Most Awana programs, youth groups, and young adult programs have been sucked up by the business model of megachurches. The issue that I have with these megachurches is how they seek their members. Do they use market capitalization and product development principles in pursuit of church? Or do they rely on biblical principles that will grow them into a healthy chruch?
Discernment is needed at this moment. Megachurches seem to derive their strategies from a shareholder mentality, where church attendees are consumers needing to be pleased. They offer a product called churchwhere many can participate, regardless of their spiritual state. In fact, everywhere you go, you can find a similar megachurch product, whether it’s called Elevation, Revive, or Summit. The names seem more like happy meals than the fellowship of believers (Acts 2:42–47).
Churches have branded their efforts in the name of reaching many, but in doing so, they have made far fewer disciples. Their attendance is mega, but their members are few. This is an un-healthy church, and unfortunately many churches in the area are using the megachurches as their model. Sadly, the megachurches’ staff are so large that they have no choice but to adopt business structures, equal employment opportunity, and diversity and inclusion initiatives. You will hear the tenants of carver rules of governance and Roberts rules of order, even if you don’t see any mention of these practices in Scripture.
I never imagined corporate America having so much presence in God’s kingdom on earth.
I am aware that several business-minded Christians may say, “corporate practices are part of God’s common grace.” That is true to an extent. However, I had over six years in corporate finance, and when I entered the church as a regenerate believer, I never imagined corporate America having so much presence in God’s kingdom on earth. I saw the church run by business executives more than qualified preachers and theologians. I was looking for a church, not a business. This realization drove me to look elsewhere. Here are three concise reasons why I left the megachurch.
Shallow Teaching The modern church has replaced rich, expository teaching with that which is shallow and consumer driven. The teachers leading Sunday worship in the megachurches I attended seemed to rely on an emotional experience over theological conviction. The emphasis on emotionalism through loud music, dimmed lights, and an abundance of illustrations that over-emphasized personal experiences rather than exegetical truths led the philosophy of ministry for the megachurches’ growth. As I got to know the congregation, I soon realized that many of them were not acquainted with the basic tenants of mature teaching. They didn’t have opinions on reformed theology, eschatology, spiritual gifts, or even the slightest care for theological development. I often wondered if the leaders even read the Bible with a hermeneutical approach in mind (e.g., exegesis) or if they pre-supposed that growth is what dictates theological necessity (e.g., eisegesis). It felt like the overarching theme was “We’re all Christians. Let’s just get along. Your judgmental. Knowledge puffs up,” but rarely did they enjoy talking about biblical themes that were not connected with feelings. They ignored the great commission for the sake of large numerical gatherings and a false understanding that “God was at work” because many consumers were around. However, the megachurches failed to realize that the consumers would withdraw and no longer walk with the church if they returned to biblical preaching (John 6:66). To be honest, I felt they had become “dull of hearing” and partaking only of milk as Hebrews 5:11–14 says:
Concerning him we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food. For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant. But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.
It felt as though my theological curiosity for solid food was outgrowing the church.
Multi-Campuses Scripture does not advocate for or demonstrate a satellite campus model. Let me be specific, I see nowhere in Scripture that lets a body of believers (e.g., a local church) be without representative elders or without autonomy of oversight (e.g., approval for decision making apart from the main campus). It is an unhealthy practice for main campuses to control the pastors of a satellite campus by giving them prescribed sermon topics, themes, or even visions. The solution to satellite campuses is to plant churches and support them spiritually and financially until they can operate autonomously. This is why Paul writes that “the elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching” (1 Tim 5:17). Can you imagine if we limited pastors from operating their God-given ability to preach and teach consistently in their congregations simply because the main campus of the megachurch, with a personality cult pastor, wanted all the attention?
I remember attending a satellite campus of one of the biggest churches in the country and expecting the satellite campus pastor to preach, only to find out that after he was done with the announcements, we would hear from a pre-recorded sermon from the main campus. This felt too much like the corporate control of product development from headquarters that I experienced in my former finance career. The preacher should be the one who knows the Sheep (Ps 23; 1 Pet 5:1–7). I was looking for a more authentic experience and less of the manipulative, control-based church experience that muzzled the ox while threshing (1 Tim 5:18). Let the churches and preachers lead as they are called.
Consumeristic Discipleship I remember being in a megachurch and finding out that over seventy percent of the congregation were not members. This so often the result of a church that is “seeker-sensitive.” Seeker-sensitive means that you are conducting your worship in a way that attracts regular attendees more than committed disciples. Discipleshipin the Greek (matheteuo) describes a learner or follower. It does not mean fast-food Christians who come to their drive-through Christian experience on Sunday for a quick, low-nutritional sermon. Instead, in means following the leader’s examples and discipleship.
I think discipleship is the most misunderstood term in Christianity. Here, I will attempt to define it biblically. The Church’s great commission—found in Matthew 28:18–20—is to “make disciples.” In fact, the other three verbs in this passage are what we call instrumental participles, which are the tools to carry out discipleship: going, baptizing, and teaching. If matheteuo means to make followers of Christ, then why would a church adopt a mindset to get as many professions of faith as possible at an emotionalized worship night? The megachurches I attended were so focused on professions of faith that they didn’t lead substantive baptisms, memberships, or discussions of the Bible. Sanctification and accountability were a moot point.
In fact, I would hear many well-respected Christians say, “Last week I led so and so to the Lord” or “Last week so and so came to the Lord.” I would reply with excitement and say, “Have you talked to them since . . . are they coming to church this Sunday . . . are they getting baptized?” But no matter the emphasis I would place on following Christ after a supposed profession of faith, it would seem that my concerns were dismissed with comments such as “that’s not how God works . . . once saved always saved . . . you`re being judgmental.”
Discipleship in the church has become more of a passive activity where we create an ‘event’ that responds to decisions, instead of making disciples.
I believe that churches need to place more emphasis on the biblical definition and force of making disciples. For instance, much of discipleship comes after the gospel is shared; sharing the gospel and counting someone as believing in Christ is just one part of the “instrumental” participles found in Matthew 28:18–20. Discipleship in the church has become more of a passive activity where we create an event that responds to decisions, instead of making disciples. I remember the megachurch pressuring me after a weekend-long retreat to add up how many teenagers made a profession of faith; this always made me uncomfortable.
So why do we become consumers of the megachurch marketing campaigns that some buildings call church? Perhaps it is our nature to be consumeristic. We want to be a part of something that everyone else knows about and also participates in. We want to be a part of the church that is known, just like McDonalds is known. We want to participate in a finished product rather than doing the hard work of discipleship one conversation at a time. We like to follow numbers rather than the biblical principles. We believe that If it’s growing it must be blessed by God. Perhaps consumerism has outgrown our desire to contribute in discipleship and church.
However, we are called to be contributors by discipleship, not consumers. We are called to follow the kingdom calling of Matthew 28:18–20 to make disciples by living evangelistically without biblical compromise. We are called to tell those who profess to believe to be baptized, become members, and partake of solid food (e.g., doctrine). We must seek to contribute to those aspects of the church and leave the results up to God. When we leave the results up to franchise philosophies, growth may occur at the expense of biblical discipleship. Business-minded megachurches need to focus less on market capitalization and a shareholder mentality where growth drives theology. Size is not to outweigh functionality, purpose, and mission. Jesus always kept the size of His crowds in theological check because he knew that many were there for the wrong reasons (John 6:24–27; 65–66).
I hope you leave any church that places shallow teaching, multi-campuses, and consumeristic discipleship above true spiritual growth.
I hope this helps you pick your next church and not rely on numbers, but on inter-personal discipleship and authenticity.
This blog was originally posted at Fight the Good Fight of Faith Ministries.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 26, 2023 12:10:58 GMT -5
Holding the Ambitious Heart in Check Share
g3min.org/holding-the-ambitious-heart-in-check/?fbclid=IwAR0ReZ5YmSmJwzoSe46DSTZxP4ZiwwAUnPXQyMS-BvmlBVWPewx17KplgK0 DAVID HUFFSTUTLER
gray road between bare trees Ambitious to be like God, Adam and Eve partook of forbidden fruit (Gen 3:1–7). Ambitious to be like God, Satan asked Jesus to worship him (Matt 4:9). Ambitious to be like God, man denies his God and seeks abomination instead (Ps 14:1–3). Even as Christians, unholy ambition remains latent inside and lurks deep within our hearts.
Ambition is not always evil. A man who applies himself well and excels in his skills will stand among kings as his reward (Prov 22:29). Ezra was skillful in his work and stood before the king while enjoying the favorable hand of the Lord (Ezra 7:6). Good ambition seeks the glory of God in every way (cf. Rom 11:36; 1 Cor 15:28).
But, like Adam, Eve, and Satan mentioned above, ambition can be evil, which is why we must hold our ambitious hearts in check.
Let Others Speak Your Praises The book of Proverbs repeatedly reminds us not to seek our own glory in a self-serving way. We should not promote ourselves before others, lest we find our self-evaluation wrong and receive a demotion instead. The king will call us to himself if we are truly worthy (Prov 25:6–7). Our praise should come from others and not ourselves (Prov 27:2). As Jesus said, we should sit at the end of the table and wait for him to honor us as he desires (Luke 14:7–11; cf. Matt 20:20–28).
Ambition Fulfilled Might Rob You of Personal Joy I remember a story of a celebrity killing himself because he achieved all the fame in the world and still found himself empty inside. Your greatest ambition fulfilled will still fall short of the joy of heaven.
The Proverbs use the metaphor of honey to speak directly and indirectly to this matter. An ambitious man who ingloriously seeks his glory is like one who indulges himself with honey (Prov 25:27). Perhaps a good man might incidentally receive the sweetness of man’s praise, but even then, he should not seek it. Any praise from man is more than enough, and seeking it out will sicken the soul (cf. Prov 25:16). Gorging one’s soul on praise is like eating too much honey, leaving the sinner unsatisfied and unhappier than before (Prov 27:7). In fact, if a man is never satisfied with whatever glory he receives, it may be that he is guided from below (cf. Prov 27:20). Like Adam, Eve, or Satan, he will only stop when he takes the place of God, which God will not allow. A heart with this ambition can only bring darkness to the soul. (The Antichrist also comes to mind: cf. 2 Thess 2:4, 9.)
Self-Praise Means Nothing Before God Paul dealt with ambitious false teachers from time to time (e.g., all of 2 Corinthians). Whereas they boasted in themselves, he told them to boast in the Lord instead (2 Cor 10:17; cf. Jer 9:23–24). Self-approval yields no commendation from God (2 Cor 10:18). The only thing that makes us worth anything in his eyes is Christ’s righteousness by faith. Like Apelles, a name likely unremembered by most (and even me until I just reread his name), we are “approved in Christ” (Rom 16:10). We can be a “nobody” in the eyes of man but righteous in the eyes of God, which is all the approval we need.
Man’s Glory Means Nothing in the Church A classic passage to address the wrongful promotion of men within the church is 1 Corinthians 1–4. Some promoted Apollos, and others, Peter, Paul, or Jesus. (Jesus seems like a good option, but, given their context, it seemed pious as it meant the rejection of Apollos, Peter, and Paul.) Paul wanted the Corinthians to glorify God through all of these servants as they were used to grow the church (1 Cor 3:6–9). If we find ourselves ambitious, even within the church, we must remember that God above is the one to commend and no one from man below, including our own selves (1 Cor 4:1–5).
A Final Word Ambition ruined Satan forever and Adam and Eve for a time. Thankfully, when Jesus was tempted with the world, he chose the Father’s cross over Satan’s crown. And then, in reward for his faithful obedience, God raised him up, exalted him, and placed him on his throne.
May God help us to be like Christ and keep our ambitious hearts in check. May we be satisfied with the Father’s approval of us in Christ. Knowing that God will graciously glorify us in time, may our greatest ambition be the glory of God alone.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 26, 2023 14:15:34 GMT -5
Holding the Ambitious Heart in Check Share
g3min.org/holding-the-ambitious-heart-in-check/?fbclid=IwAR0ReZ5YmSmJwzoSe46DSTZxP4ZiwwAUnPXQyMS-BvmlBVWPewx17KplgK0 DAVID HUFFSTUTLER
gray road between bare trees Ambitious to be like God, Adam and Eve partook of forbidden fruit (Gen 3:1–7). Ambitious to be like God, Satan asked Jesus to worship him (Matt 4:9). Ambitious to be like God, man denies his God and seeks abomination instead (Ps 14:1–3). Even as Christians, unholy ambition remains latent inside and lurks deep within our hearts.
Ambition is not always evil. A man who applies himself well and excels in his skills will stand among kings as his reward (Prov 22:29). Ezra was skillful in his work and stood before the king while enjoying the favorable hand of the Lord (Ezra 7:6). Good ambition seeks the glory of God in every way (cf. Rom 11:36; 1 Cor 15:28).
But, like Adam, Eve, and Satan mentioned above, ambition can be evil, which is why we must hold our ambitious hearts in check.
Let Others Speak Your Praises The book of Proverbs repeatedly reminds us not to seek our own glory in a self-serving way. We should not promote ourselves before others, lest we find our self-evaluation wrong and receive a demotion instead. The king will call us to himself if we are truly worthy (Prov 25:6–7). Our praise should come from others and not ourselves (Prov 27:2). As Jesus said, we should sit at the end of the table and wait for him to honor us as he desires (Luke 14:7–11; cf. Matt 20:20–28).
Ambition Fulfilled Might Rob You of Personal Joy I remember a story of a celebrity killing himself because he achieved all the fame in the world and still found himself empty inside. Your greatest ambition fulfilled will still fall short of the joy of heaven.
The Proverbs use the metaphor of honey to speak directly and indirectly to this matter. An ambitious man who ingloriously seeks his glory is like one who indulges himself with honey (Prov 25:27). Perhaps a good man might incidentally receive the sweetness of man’s praise, but even then, he should not seek it. Any praise from man is more than enough, and seeking it out will sicken the soul (cf. Prov 25:16). Gorging one’s soul on praise is like eating too much honey, leaving the sinner unsatisfied and unhappier than before (Prov 27:7). In fact, if a man is never satisfied with whatever glory he receives, it may be that he is guided from below (cf. Prov 27:20). Like Adam, Eve, or Satan, he will only stop when he takes the place of God, which God will not allow. A heart with this ambition can only bring darkness to the soul. (The Antichrist also comes to mind: cf. 2 Thess 2:4, 9.)
Self-Praise Means Nothing Before God Paul dealt with ambitious false teachers from time to time (e.g., all of 2 Corinthians). Whereas they boasted in themselves, he told them to boast in the Lord instead (2 Cor 10:17; cf. Jer 9:23–24). Self-approval yields no commendation from God (2 Cor 10:18). The only thing that makes us worth anything in his eyes is Christ’s righteousness by faith. Like Apelles, a name likely unremembered by most (and even me until I just reread his name), we are “approved in Christ” (Rom 16:10). We can be a “nobody” in the eyes of man but righteous in the eyes of God, which is all the approval we need.
Man’s Glory Means Nothing in the Church A classic passage to address the wrongful promotion of men within the church is 1 Corinthians 1–4. Some promoted Apollos, and others, Peter, Paul, or Jesus. (Jesus seems like a good option, but, given their context, it seemed pious as it meant the rejection of Apollos, Peter, and Paul.) Paul wanted the Corinthians to glorify God through all of these servants as they were used to grow the church (1 Cor 3:6–9). If we find ourselves ambitious, even within the church, we must remember that God above is the one to commend and no one from man below, including our own selves (1 Cor 4:1–5).
A Final Word Ambition ruined Satan forever and Adam and Eve for a time. Thankfully, when Jesus was tempted with the world, he chose the Father’s cross over Satan’s crown. And then, in reward for his faithful obedience, God raised him up, exalted him, and placed him on his throne.
May God help us to be like Christ and keep our ambitious hearts in check. May we be satisfied with the Father’s approval of us in Christ. Knowing that God will graciously glorify us in time, may our greatest ambition be the glory of God alone.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 30, 2023 15:54:18 GMT -5
Practice What You Preach Share
g3min.org/practice-what-you-preach/?fbclid=IwAR0p5JnOehwnT-J5Rp0-KMpHsBcasCO7HWV0zHTbGcdzsORvHt8PutKV0dA JOSHUA BANKS
man in white long sleeve shirt Of the Apostle Paul’s many passages that lay bare our sins, one truly sobering warning is found in Romans 2 where he exposes the hypocrisy of the Jews who have the Law of God. Paul strategically convicts them by leading the Jewish audience to agree with his assessment of others in the same way that Amos leads his audience. In the Book of Amos, the prophet begins with God’s pronouncement of judgement against Damascus, then Gaza, then Tyre, then Edom, then the sons of Ammon, and finally Moab. One commentator pointed out that the children of Israel would have given a hearty “Amen” to God’s judgements on these people groups. However, the Lord then states through the prophet, “For three transgressions of Judah and for four I will not revoke its punishment. . . . For three transgressions of Israel and for four I will not revoke its punishment” (Amos 2:4, 6). Perhaps they believed they were exempt from God’s judgement because they were the covenant people of God and took for granted God’s kindness and grace towards them. However, the lesson there was that God is not tolerant of sin even among His own.
In the same way, the Apostle Paul uses this technique to expose the hypocrisy of the Jews in Romans 2. Paul recounted the wickedness and vile sins of the Gentiles who did not have the Law of God in Romans 1:18–32, and to which Paul’s Jewish audience would say, “Amen.” The apostle, anticipating the agreement, turns his attention to those who view themselves as more righteous than the pagans: “Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things” (Rom 2:1). Paul exposes their faulty view that they believed themselves to be safe from God’s judgment because they had the Law, circumcision, and bore the name “Jew” (Rom 2:17–29). Paul indicts them saying, “you, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that one shall not steal, do you steal? You who say that one should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples” (Rom 2:21–22)? What is he getting at? The Jews were condemning others, in this case the pagans, for sins that they were committing also. Paul’s point is to demonstrate that God’s righteous judgment falls on all who commit lawlessness, whether Jew or Gentile. The Jews did not regard themselves to be as wicked as the pagans because they had the Law of God, and did not, perhaps, commit the same sins as the Gentiles in Romans 1, but, as Paul points out, they still committed sins that were worthy of punishment.. They presumed upon God’s kindness, but because of their hypocrisy the name of God was blasphemed among the Gentiles (Rom 2:24).
How was God’s name being blasphemed? It was due to the fact of the Jews not practicing in their own lives what they were condemning others for. This demonstrated that the Jews whom Paul is addressing did not really believe the word of God if they were not willing to adhere to it either. If we believe something is, indeed, true, then it will be evident in how we live. If we, in fact, do not believe it, then it follows that we will not carry out those laws or ideas either. When we say one thing and do another, unbelievers will not take the Christian faith seriously, and rightly so because we do not take it seriously. Friends, do you practice what you preach? Is the Gospel of Christ transforming you by the Spirit of God whereby we despise the sin in our own lives and pray for God’s help to overcome? Is your desire to honor Christ and grow in righteousness, or is your attitude presently that you may continue in your sin because in comparison to others, it’s not as wicked or vile? Do you excuse yourself of your own sin because you have made a profession of faith in Christ and are counted as a child of God? This is what the Jews were doing, and this is what merits Paul’s rebuke toward them. They were condemning others for what they were also doing, but since they were counted as the covenant people of God, they excused their own sins. We know that we will all sin or struggle with sin, but to willingly indulge in it, while pointing the finger at others is hypocrisy.
How often do we attempt to justify our sin by comparing ourselves to others? We may say, “Yes, I have my sin, but its not as bad as what that other person is doing.” Perhaps not, but the point of Paul’s words in Romans 2 is that “we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things.” And this is why the apostle goes on to say, “But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God” (Rom 2:2–3)? Granted, Paul is addressing those who relied on their heritage, having the Law, and having the covenant sign as the assurance of their standing before God. Paul is removing any foundation of assurance from them so that he can place before them their only hope, which is Christ (Rom 3:21–31), and so the situation is unbelievers who regard themselves as the people of God. The warning given here should not be ignored though. Sin is offensive to our holy God and instead of indulging in it, we should strive to overcome it. We as Christians know that the judgment of God rightly falls on all who sin. It is hypocritical of us to give ourselves a standard to abide by while rebuking others for another standard.
Dear Christian, God is not mocked. What we sow we will reap. Let us not deceive ourselves and presume upon God’s kindness toward us in Christ so that we excuse the sin in our lives. Remember, He chastens whom He loves (Heb 12:6), and this is for our good, and ultimately for His name’s sake that He is not blasphemed upon the unbelieving world because of our hypocrisy. Consider this, is it excusable to indulge in pornography and rebuke others for sexual immorality? Is it excusable to steal from an employer by being lazy and underperforming your tasks and exhort others saying, “Whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Cor 10:31)? Is it excusable to justify a lie and call others to “speak truth each one of you with his neighbor” (Eph 4:25)? There are a number of examples to give, but the point is that we should seek to practice what we preach or teach to others and not be guilty of blatant hypocrisy.
Friends, to be sure, we will not live this life perfectly. Far from it. Our life as a Christian is one of warring against ourselves and the rudiments of the old nature. At times, we find ourselves doing the very thing we do not want to do (Rom 7:19–20). But, thank the Lord that His mercies are new every morning (Lam 3:22–23), and we have an advocate with the Father and Jesus Christ the righteous (1 John 2:1). Friends, our assurance is not in our performance or how well we are doing in our obedience to God, it is only in Christ and in Him alone. It is in light of Christ’s work for us that our heart’s desire should be to honor Him, glorify Him among the unbelieving world, and seek to overcome, by the Spirit’s power, the sins for which Christ suffered so greatly. It is a continuous battle, but it is a battle in which “we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us” (Rom 8:37). Continue to war, dear Christian. Rely on the Holy Spirit alone to do what you in your own strength cannot, and may “the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you” (1 Thess 5:28).
|
|