EARNESTLY CONTENDING

Kenny Rogers Twenty Years Ago

2012-02-11T15:28:00.003-05:00

It's been a long time since I walked
Through this old town
But oh how the memories start to flow
And there's the old movie house
They finally closed it down
You could find me there every Friday night
Twenty years ago.

I worked the counter at the drugstore down the street
But nobody's left there I would know
On Saturday mornings that's where
All my friends would meet
You'd be surprised to know what a dime would buy
Twenty years ago.

All my memories from those days come gather round me
What I'd give if they could take me back in time
It almost seems like yesterday
Where do the good times go?
Life was so much easier twenty years ago.

I guess I should stop by Mr. Johnson's hardware store
His only son was my friend Joe
But he joined the army back in 1964
How could we know he would never come back
Twenty years ago.

I'M A FOSSILIZED CHRISTIAN

2012-02-11T05:36:00.001-05:00

An old-fashioned, narrow-minded, fossilized person!
- by J.C. Ryle

There is a common complaint in these days, that there is a lack of power in Christianity, and that the church does not shake the world as it did in former years. Shall I tell you what the reason is, in plain words? It is the low tone of life which is so sadly prevalent among professing believers. I believe we fall far short in our standard of Christian practice.

The times require a higher standard of personal holiness, and an increased attention to practical religion in daily life.

I must honestly declare my conviction, that there never has been . . .
so much profession of religion--without practice,
so much talking about God--without walking with Him,
so much hearing God's Words--without doing them,
as there is at this present date!

Never were there so many empty tubs and tinkling cymbals!

Never was there so much formality--and so little reality!

The whole tone of men's minds on what constitutes practical Christianity seems lowered. The old golden standard of the behavior which befits a Christian, appears debased and degenerated. You may see scores of religious people (so-called) continually doing things which in days gone by, would have been thought utterly inconsistent with vital Christianity! They see no harm in such things as theater-going, dancing, incessant novel reading--and they cannot in the least understand what you mean by objecting to them! The ancient tenderness of conscience about such things seems dying away and becoming extinct, like the dodo-bird.

And when you venture to remonstrate with those who indulge in them, they only stare at you as an old-fashioned, narrow-minded, fossilized person, and say, "What is the harm?" In short, laxity and levity are the common characteristics of the rising generation of professors.

Where is . . .
the self-denial,
the redemption of time,
the absence of luxury and self-indulgence,
the unmistakable separation from earthly things,
the manifest air of being always about our Master's business,
the singleness of eye,
the simplicity of home life,
the high tone of conversation in society,
the patience, the humility, the universal love--
which marked Christians seventy or eighty years ago? Yes, where is it indeed? We have inherited their principles--but I fear we have not inherited their practice!

The Holy Spirit sees it--and is grieved! The world sees it--and despises us. The world sees it--and cares little for our testimony. It is life, life--a heavenly, godly, Christ-like life--depend on it, which influences the world!

THE GAP

2011-04-04T20:40:00.002-04:00

The GAP and no I am not talking about the clothing store mind you we could blog on materialism and how labelism today permeates our society. But thats for another day. Today we are going to talk about the gap between our head and our heart. Most people today are in danger of missing heaven by about 18-24 inches, thats approximately the distance between your head and your heart. Of course I am using the term heart metaphorically. But that distance marks the difference between believing about Jesus Christ and believing IN Jesus Christ.

In my scripture reading today (John 3) we come across a man by the name of Nicodemus. He was a religious leader of his day. A real big shot, a teacher of the Jews. Nic's problem was though he had head knowledge rather than heart knowledge about God. Here was this man a teacher of the Jews, yet he was so full of religious questions that he could not answer. So the only place to go for the answers was this popular rabbi named Jesus Christ.

Now we often hear that there are many excellent people in the world today, good people, moral people who have made no profession of Christianity. I remember listening to a message by the old preacher James McKinley, former pastor of Central Baptist Church in London, Ontario during the early 20's on Amos 3:3, CAN TWO WALK TOGETHER. McKinley said that there are people who have never smoked, drank or swore yet they are in hell today. Why because there is a difference between morality and spirituality. Nicodemus was that kind of person. Here was a teacher of the jews being told he wasn't good enough and that he was in need of the new birth. Nicodemus was a Pharisee, a ruler of the Jews. Narrow, dogmatic, highly educated and very patriotic towards the nation of Israel. Man he stood high in public position and prestige. But he was in danger of missing the KINGDOM OF GOD because he was not born from above.

Facts about God, facts about the Bible about Christ are important. But no amount of facts alone will ever get you into the family of God. For that it takes the new birth. In the words of Jesus, "Ye must be born again."

Only God can narrow the gap between the head and the heart. I pray that for those that read this, God will close it and open the door to His family.

Resting In His Grace

... Jim

JOAN OR JOHN? CHRISTIAN ETHICS: THIS YEAR'S DILEMMA

2011-04-04T19:51:00.001-04:00

I came across a new site today. MOORE TO THE POINT http://www.russellmoore.com/ by Dr. Russell Moore. Dr. Moore is the Dean of the School of Theology and Senior Vice-President for Academic Administration at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He also serves as a preaching pastor at Highview Baptist Church, where he ministers weekly at the congregation’s Fegenbush location. Moore is the author of several books, including The Kingdom of Christ, Adopted for Life, and Tempted and Tried.

Its an excellent site with many fine articles and resources. This article entitled JOAN OR JOHN? discusses a Christian ethical question on sex adjustment. You see Joan was born John. This is one of the best articles on this ethical dilemma I have ever written.

http://www.russellmoore.com/files/2009/06/joan-or-john.pdf

Enjoy ..............

Resting In His Grace
... Jim

Answering The Big Questions About The Sovereignty of God

2011-04-04T19:45:00.000-04:00

One of the most puzzling aspects to the Christian life, is the sovereignty of God. This interview between John Macarthur and Phil Johnson attempts to answer this one issue which always seems to come up in conversation as well as our lives.

http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/GTY125_Answering-Big-Questions-About-the-Sovereignty-of-God?q=ANSWERING+BIG+QUESTIONS

I highly recommend listening to it or if you desire you can print it off like I did and read it at your leisure

Resting In His Grace
.... Jim

Christmas - Whats It all About

2010-12-14T17:11:00.008-05:00

Every December the world falls into the Christmas chaos, especially here in North America. It is not so great in other parts of the world, but it does seem that the entire world does stop briefly for a few moments on December 25th in order to experience the peace of Christmas. However, despite our cards with "PEACE" imprinted on them, the world remains in conflict and total chaos. More so this year than ever before.

Many attempts that man has made at peace have been short lived. There have been a myriad of peace treaties signed over the years. It was back on Decemer 25, 1914 during the First World War while the Germans and the Allied armies face each other in France, someone began singing the carol, "Silent Night, Holy Night." A cold still hush fell over the battlefield like dew in the early morning. You could hear the quiet for miles. Soldiers on both sides laid down their armes, climbed out of their trenches and met together. Men who had the day before tried to kill each other now embraced, sang and exchanged souvenirs and cigarettes. They even played a football game.

Then the next day when the sun arose, they went back to their trenches once again to kill each other. Not even the Prince of peace could bring lasting peace then nor today.

Christmas will soon be here. In a few days I will crawl downstairs to fetch the many boxes of decorations that lie hidden under the basement stairs and spend the entire weekend decorating the house, lighting the lights and promoting joy and festivity. Yet it is also the time of year when suicides, family quarrels, depression and drunkeness reach a peak. The local police will have their RIDE programs out in full force as they know at this time of the year more drivers drive drunk.

Peace in our time. Peace to whom? There will not be peace in the world until the main problem in the world is sorted. Now many are wondering what problem am I talking about. What conflict, what war am I describing. Well the main problem in this world today is the same problem that has plaqued mankind for centuries. And the heart of the human problem is the problem of the human heart.

Thousands of years ago, an ancient Jewish prophet understood this when he wrote, "Who can understand the human heart, There is nothing else so deceitful." Originally we were created in God's likenss to live in a world and to enjoy an intimate relationship with Him. But right from the start, and down through the centuries, we have turned away from the God of the Bible. We have turned away choosing our way rather than His. We have shut God out of our lives, our society and our world. That is why we will never have true peace in this world.

And because of this breakdown between our fellowship with God, something or someone was needed to heal this divide and bring peace between us and God. Someone to stand between God and us, a go-between or reconciler. Someone who understood our humanity yet was untainted by our sinfulness and fallen humanity. But there was no prophet, no priest, no seer, or saint that could fulfill that role. So what was God to do in order to create this new relationship. God himself would become man in the person of His Son, Jesus. Yes this is the meaning of Christmas. The babe at Bethlehem was the coming among us of God himself to restore the world we have messed up.
Until by faith Christ is accepted, no man can have true peace with God. As the scripture say, Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. And then someday as the scriptures proclaim, He shall return and bring peace to the entire world and we shall experience the JOY that the carol speaks of.

Resting in His grace
Jim

Are You In The Dark About Earth Hour

2010-03-27T05:45:00.008-04:00

Earnestly Contending's focus will always be on the presentation of the gospel and a defense of biblical truth but defending truth impacts all areas of life as "All truth is God's truth" as Frank Gaebelein said. This article on "Earth Hour" hopefull will expose you to the fallacy of such nonsense.

Most of you who are reading this post will be sitting there tonight during Earth Hour, not paying any attention to turning out your lights. You’ll be watching TV or maybe a video. However, what you will be doing is actually thinking about it, and that’s the ploy that those organisations are using. They want you to think about it, and they use the element of fear to push their agenda. Most of you will be ignoring it, but as you sit there watching TV, trust me, I know exactly what you are thinking.

“What if they’re right.”

Well fear no more, They are not right, and this so called Earth Hour is the biggest con since someone said they could tow icebergs up from the Antarctic to solve all our problems with water.
Why is it a con then?

Those sponsoring Earth Hour have vested interests, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the environment. They will publish in the media they have in their pockets tomorrow that millions of people turned out their lights and they saved millions of tons of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) from being emitted into the Atmosphere.

However, they are actually perpetuating a lie. That lie is one of omission. They neglect to tell you the whole story. It may be innocent, but I strongly suspect that inside those sponsoring organisations, there are people who do know it is a lie. They know the full truth. However, if they were to tell that whole truth, it would totally devalue what they think they are trying to achieve, and that is the omission.

The omission is that they have absolutely no understanding of how electrical power is used, and then correlating that with how that electrical power is generated.
They will boldly say that Earth hour saved millions of tons of CO2 from being emitted into the Atmosphere.

So then, how do they calculate this?

They have an approximate idea of just how much power is being consumed, and if they know that all the lights in a certain building have been extinguished for an hour, then they can work out how much less power was actually consumed.

In fact this year, they have actually asked people to document what was actually turned off, both privately, and in the buildings that thousands will flock to to watch as they go dark for one hour, using their cars in the process, burning fuel and emitting more CO2 than they would normally by staying at home, while others will actually burn candles, producing more CO2 inside their own houses than what might be emitted from using their ordinary light globes, no matter what type they might be.

From that, they can then work backwards from that amount of power used, correlating that back to the power produced from coal fired sources, again a task I can also easily perform by checking at the Energy Information Administration’s website. So if X number of kilowatthours was saved, then that power equates to X number of tons of coal burned to produce that amount of power at an imaginary coal fired power plant, and using the simple formula of 1 ton of coal burned producing 2.86 tons of CO2, then it stands to reason that they can come up with a realistic figure for tons of CO2 not being emitted from that imaginary coal fired power plant.
See? It’s an easy calculation that can be made, and groups all across the Planet will add up the figures and come to a truly astounding total, inflated no doubt for effect.

But it’s totally and 100% false, because in actual fact, not ounce less CO2 will be emitted.
Gee, you say, how can you say that?

As I mentioned above, they have no concept between power use, and the generation of that electrical power.

Coal is burned to heat water to steam. The steam drives the multi stage turbine, which then drives the generator, which produces the power. The turbine/generator weighs between 250 and 400 tons, some more than that even. They wind up to speed very slowly, and they wind down very slowly, and in the 50 years, and more, that they are in operation, that large weight is kept rotating around the shaft at all times, even during maintenance, when that shaft slowly rotates to keep some inertia, and to stop that vast weight from bending the shaft, making the whole complex inoperable. To wind the speed back takes days. The furnace is then shut down slowly, also over days. To run it back up to start producing power again, then the furnace has to be fired up slowly over days before it reaches that critical temperature, and then the water has to be heated, also to make the supercritical steam. The steam then starts to drive the turbine, which then slowly runs up to speed, and in so doing the generator also runs up to speed. Once everything is at full running operation, the switches are slowly made so that power is then fed to the grid in increments, slowly coming up to maximum.

The power is supplied to the grid from numerous sources, a mixture of the plants in that area that go to supply the needed power for that area of the Country being supplied from the grid.
Those coal fired power plants just hum along at 3600 RPM, day in day out. To do that, between 10,000 and 15,000 tons of crushed coal is burned each day. Most of those large coal fired plants burn 6.5 Million tons of coal each and every year for the life of the plant, sometimes 50 to 75 years.

During Peak power periods, in the morning before everyone goes to work, and in the mid afternoon to early evening periods when people arrive home from work, that same grid is fed by smaller plants, in the main, natural gas fired turbines, wind plants, and other smaller plants. These are powered by smaller turbines, similar in makeup to jet aircraft turbines. The advantage of these is that they actually can run up to speed and back down again fairly quickly. They also supply minimal amounts of power, but enough to top up the grid for demand in those times when more power is needed.

So, when the lights all start winking out at 8PM, be aware that not one ounce less coal is being burned. Just because all those buildings are not using that amount of power does not mean that the coal fired plants are producing less. That amount of power is still right there, readily available on the grid for that area. It’s just that it is not being consumed.

Earth Hour is timed for 8PM on a Saturday night, well outside peak power time, and also on a weekend when power demand is even less, especially at 8 PM on a Saturday night.
Those coal fired power plants will not slow down one RPM, not one ounce of crushed coal less will be fed into the furnaces, and not one less ounce of CO2 will be emitted.

They CANNOT and I repeat, CANNOT be run down in speed and then back up again for one hour, and even if they could, the furnace would have to be kept running at the same critical temperature, using the same amount of coal, and emitting the same amount of CO2.
So, when you are told in great big bold headlines tomorrow that Earth hour saw millions of tons of CO2 less being emitted into the Atmosphere, it is an outright sheer and utter absolute lie. A lie of omission, and an actual lie.

You may even think it might be saving some small amount by not having those other Peaking Power plants running, but that is a lie also, because they are either not running, or if any are running, they will not slow down and burn less natural gas just for one hour.
There will just be more power available on the grid, and when all the lights do come back on, there will be a slight spike and then operations will resume as per normal, not having even blinked.

Not one thing will have changed.

So, sit there watching TV, safe in the knowledge that those green idiots are not only stupid for believing this fallacy, but those who are in charge of the organisations pursuing this false economy are actually lying to you.

Earth Hour is just a whopping big con.

In the image above, the dreaded white stuff pouring out the top of those fat stacks is water vapour from the cooling ponds under the stacks as the water cools for recycling back to the boilers. The white stuff coming from the thin stacks is smoke, and in that smoke is the colourless odourless, tasteless, and utterly harmless CO2.

Promoted to Glory

2010-02-14T06:29:00.005-05:00

You will recall that in an earlier post, I requested prayer for Tim and Jane Bahula, ABWE missionaries to Trinidad-Tobago, as Jane recently had a colonscopy and was diagnosed with 4th stage Colon cancer. It is with sadness and joy that we let you know that our Lord took Jane home on Wednesday February10th. Jane was scheduled to go for an Ultrasound the day before and during the test, she was not very responsive and they rushed her to Emergency and the next day, early in the morning around 5:00 a.m. Jane left this world to spend eternity with Jesus and all the other Saints in Glory. It has been a difficult week for our family as we struggle with how God works in our lives. Yet we are confident that He is sovereign over His entire universe and His plan is perfect. This week while reading the scriptures and struggling with Jane's sudden death, I read this:

Mat 10:29 Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.

Some have said this verse means that not even a sparrow can fall to the ground without God knowing it. The verse does not say that nor mean that. What it means is that a sparrow can not fall to the ground apart from the will of God. It's not a matter of God knowing about it, its a matter of God willing it. I read somewhere that this verse is not even talking about a sparrow falling from a tree but actually tripping up as it walks. To think that God is involved in the tiniest details of our lives. If God is involved in the tiniest details, I am more than confident that He is involved in the big ones like being promoted to Glory. Here is another comforting verse:

Psa 139:16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

All of our days are written down in His book and we don't leave this world any earlier or any later than He has planned.

Jane's work, Jane's journey was finished and her Lord and Saviour, said to her, "Well done thou good and faithful servant"

Jane is now enjoying the splendour of His presence.

Resting in His grace
Jim

Super Bowl Sunday, Super Saviour and Fanatics

2010-02-07T08:30:00.006-05:00

Today is Super Bowl Sunday. The Colts verses the Saints and according to the experts and the statistics agree with them, this game is watched by more people than any other TV show. The fans are all set for the big game, the beer, the chips, the wings, the pizza and those commercials. Wow, talk about a bunch of fanatics.

Thats an interesting word, fanatic. It's a word that evokes images of a wild eyed, sign-toting religious zealot. People today never seem to think that being passionate, sacrificial or devoted to a a cause suggests madness in any realm except the spiritual. Take a moment and look at some of those Super Bowl fanatics. Dressed up, painted up, waiting in line for hours to get those tickets. Entire recreation rooms done up and decorated in team colors. Wow what fanatics, nope not fanatics, just fans devoted to their teams.

Is anybody suggesting that Peyton Manning, quarterback for the Colts, who has given himself totally to his sport and probably has sacrificed all for the sake of physical prowess and the game is beside himself ... nope.!

How about the businessman, who is so devoted to amassing wealth that he becomes a workaholic and possibly shorten his life. Is he or she labelled a fanatic, nope. How about the founders of Google, who have taken a simple search engine and turned it into a billion dollar empire. Were they beside themself in this pursuit. Are they fanatical nutbars. Nope. It's the other way around, they are looked at as business gurus.

Nope, this label is only retained for those whose service is to the Saviour. Only for those who service is for the souls of men and women heading to eternity. Fanatics, nutbars, wierdos, these are the labels velcroed to the true Saint.

Jesus was a fanatic. Yes thats right, he was considered a fanatic by his friends and even his family. But Christ was devoted completely to the will of the Father and his mission on earth. If that makes one a fanatic, then Lord make me a fanatic. Lord make me a zealot for holiness, make me an enthusiast for the souls of sinners and not for sports. Lord make me a lover of the goals that Christ has for me more than the goal post. Lord make me run the race with you rather than 100 yards for some trophy that will rust and not matter a hundred years from now.

Lord let me be a fanatic for you.

Resting in His grace
Jim

P.S. I will be watching the game, go Colts, I'm just not a fanatic about it.

Prayer Request for Missionaries Tim and Jane Bahula

2010-02-01T06:46:00.001-05:00

We received this email in from our missionary friends, Tim and Jane Bahula. Please pray for them.

Psalm 121
A Song of Ascents.
1 I lift up my eyes to the hills.
From where does my help come?
2 My help comes from the Lord,
who made heaven and earth.

Dear praying friends,
If we ever needed your prayers, we need them now. We asked for your prayers in December for Jane’s colonoscopy. Having suffered from ulcerative colitis since 1990, we hoped that this was just a routine screening. However, at the follow-up appointment earlier this month we were told that the biopsies taken were found to contain cancerous cells. A CT scan was ordered for further diagnosis and we were referred to a surgeon. We met with Dr. Ott this morning at London Health Sciences Centre. He had hard news to bear. Jane has been diagnosed with Stage 4 metastatic colon cancer. Not only is there cancer in Jane’s colon, the CT scan revealed spots on her liver that seem to be cancerous. An ultrasound will be scheduled for next week for further analysis. Jane’s case will be referred to a multi-disciplinary cancer team who will recommend treatment options. While a colectomy (surgical removal of the colon) and chemotherapy will both likely be prescribed, the exact course of intervention still needs to be set. We will meet with Dr. Ott again in two weeks to discuss the treatment. We appreciate your prayers for us during these difficult days.

Please pray for:
Jane, for her health, that God would heal her and that God would prolong her life.
Tim, for strength and family leadership, that God would use me to be an agent of grace in Jane’s life and the lives of our children.
Andrew, Emily, Kate, Abigail, Grace, and Luke, for comfort and trust, that they will know God’s peace when they can’t understand what is happening to their Mom.
Dr. Ott and the rest of the medical staff, for wisdom and skill, that they will determine the most effective treatment course and will be able to make it work.

This obviously affects our plans for the future. We don’t yet know how exactly, but trust that God will make this clear in due time. At this time, our focus will be upon making Jane as healthy as possible and on enjoying our time together.

We praise God for a profitable meeting with key leaders from Bluewater Bible College, Fairview Baptist College and the Baptist Seminary of the West Indies in Nassau, Bahamas on Saturday, January 24. We made some valuable progress in our discussions. I was able to build on already established relationships and to make new friends as Baptists from around the region gathered for the West Indies Baptist Fellowship. Please continue to pray for us as we seek to overcome obstacles and research various models for cooperation to strengthen theological education in the Caribbean.

To God be the glory,
Tim & Jane

Reviews of the Shack

2010-02-01T06:37:00.004-05:00

Albert Mohler recently had an entry on his blog regarding the popular best seller The Shack.

http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/01/27/the-shack-the-missing-art-of-evangelical-discernment/

It was an excellent entry detailing how evangelicals are lacking discernment. I received my newsletter alert from Apologetics Index today and they also have some good reviews on the book. I encourage you to check it out.

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/1109-the-shack-william-p-young

Resting in Him ... Jim

One Offering and One Only

2010-01-31T18:42:00.004-05:00

This morning in church our Pastor preached on Hebrews Chapter 10. How the Pastor attempted to unpack all that chapter in 30 minutes ...oops I should say 50 minutes is beyond me. There is so much in that chapter that you could preach several months on that one chapter alone. What a wonderful book Hebrews is. I thoroughly enjoyed studying it in Bible School and even today relish the thought of reading and studying it. I believe that Hebrews is the key to understanding the old covenant verse the new covenant and our wonderful position in Christ. The chapter holds so many truths for us. Here are just a few key thoughts. The Law and its total inability to save. No man will ever keep the Law and no man will ever be saved by the Law. The narrowness of our Faith. Christ is the only way unto God. No if's, ands of buts. This chapter refutes Romanism and its devilish doctrine of Transubstantianism where at their Mass, Christ is re-crucified over and over again. "For by one offering, for by one sacrifice he has forever sanctified us. The eternal state of those who reject the Only Way.

Here is a brief synopsis that I put together.

1. The Shortcomings of the Law/Old Covenant
2. The Superiority of Jesus Christ
3. The Solitary Sacrifice of Christ
4. The Security of the Believer
5. The Sureness of the Judgement of God
6. The Scoffers Punishment
7. The Staying Power of the Believer
8. The Second Coming of Christ
9. The State of the Believer

Let me encourage you to read the book of Hebrews and see the superiority of Christ over everything. Without a doubt, He is pre-eminent.

Resting in His grace .... Jim

Tomorrow Belongs to God

2010-01-20T06:59:00.005-05:00

Have you read your horoscope today? It's amazing the number of people, even those who profess Christ, who on a daily basis open their paper to check their horoscope to see what the future will bring for them. At one time years ago, fortune telling or reading into the future was labeled hocus pocus, superstitious and done behind closed doors or at the "freak show" at the the circus. Not today, it's big business, big bucks and sucks in millions of people daily who are afraid of life and even more afraid of what tomorrow may bring. For the christian, they don't need to be afraid of tomorrow, for we know that God has a great future for those who have a relationship with Him.

If our great God wanted us to gaze into some crystal ball, to read Jeanne Dixon a famous seer, He would never have moved the apostle James to write:

Come now, you who say, "Today or tomorrow we will go into such and such a town and spend a year there and trade and make a profit"-- yet you do not know what tomorrow will bring. What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes. Instead you ought to say, "If the Lord wills, we will live and do this or that. - James 4:13-15"

I don't care one bit about what these fakes, phonies and charlatans have to say. What I do care about is walking with God by faith and leaving the future in His hands. I am alive today because God "wills" it. Read the scripture above, "If the Lord wills ..." If you know Christ today, if you are alive today reading this, then God still has a purpose for your life .... to glorify Him. Our problem is not needing to know the truth about tomorrow; its needing to live the truth we know today.

Resting in His grace
Jim

A Crossless Christianity

2010-01-18T10:12:00.005-05:00

A great article by Steve Gallagher. I purchased one of his books called, INTOXICATED WITH BABYLON - The Seduction of God's People in the Last Days.

A CROSSLESS CHRISTIANITY

They have winsome personalities. Their message is positive—even encouraging. Thousands throng into their sanctuaries every weekend. Their doctrinal beliefs are orthodox—at least on paper. What’s more, multitudes of “unchurched” lost souls are attending services and hearing the gospel preached every week. The “seeker-friendly” model of reaching unbelievers has been extremely effective.

Their success has come in large part through adherence to certain marketing strategies found in the business world. One of the key principles that governs the “seeker- sensitive” movement is that pastors should tailor their message to what their congregations want to hear. One such pastor even polled his people to find out what they were looking for in a church.

One of the common denominators found operating among all “seeker-sensitive” pastors is their focus upon the positive aspects of God and Christianity. To put it in modern colloquialism: “You win more flies with honey than vinegar.”

Christian marketing experts have discovered that unsaved people are drawn to a message that emphasizes the love of God and de-emphasizes His judgment. The truth is that people simply don’t want to hear confrontive preaching. What they will follow is a Christian model that is “positive and uncondemning” and doesn’t make demands. But how does that line up with Scripture or the model of the early Church?

When Peter gave his Holy Spirit-empowered message to the Jews on the Day of Pentecost, he accused them of murdering the Messiah. Luke wrote that “they were pierced to the heart.” (Acts 2:37) When they asked him what they should do, he told them to repent. Three thousand people were saved that day!

The gospel presentation offered by those in the “seeker-friendly” movement may enjoy the same numerical successes, but notice the difference in what is presented by the following “prayer of salvation” offered by one of their well-known authors.“

Do you have a relationship with Jesus Christ? If you aren’t sure of this, I’d like the privilege of leading you in a prayer to settle the issue.“‘Dear God, I don’t want to waste the rest of my life on the wrong things. Today I want to take the first step in preparing for eternity by getting to know You. Jesus Christ, I don’t understand it all, but as much as I know how, I want to open my life to You. I ask you to come into my life and make yourself real to me. Thank you. Amen.’

“If you just prayed that prayer for the very first time, I congratulate you. You’ve just become a part of the family of God.”

Huh? While this may sound appealing on the surface, where is the gut-wrenching examination of their hearts and lives? (II Corinthians 13:5) Where is the acknowledgement of sin and rebellion? (II Samuel 12:13) Where is “the sorrow that is according to the will of God [which] produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation…”? (II Corinthians 7:10) Where is the true repentance that dethrones Self as the master of the person’s life and bows in submission to the lordship of Christ? (Luke 9:23-24) Where is the commitment to follow Christ wherever He leads, to do whatever He commands, to obey His will at any cost? (Luke 14:26-27) Isn’t this a clear-cut example of what the Lord said during Jeremiah’s time? “They have healed the brokenness of My people superficially, saying, ‘Peace, peace,’ but there is no peace.” (Jeremiah 6:14)

Multitudes may be flocking around these teachers, but they are not entering the kingdom of God. They are simply propagating the lie that a person can be saved without really repenting of sin and renouncing his life of self-will.

“What many churches are offering America is a new religion that guarantees no hell and requires no holiness,” lamented Thomas Trask in his farewell speech as General Superintendent of the Assemblies of God. “It is a limp, spineless Christianity that does not confront sin for fear of being judgmental. It is an impotent gospel that tells people everything is okay. We are more concerned with acceptance of men, than we are about pleasing God.”

The Message of the CrossIf there is one thing that is certain about Satan it is that he will continually try to cheapen the gospel and offer in its place a cut-rate version of his own. Yes, the devil offers a gospel that makes no demands, expects no sacrifice, and yields no eternal rewards—except eternal separation from God!

True Christianity has a value and preciousness of which these spiritual amateurs know nothing. When I think of all of the true saints down through the ages who have earnestly sought God with all their hearts; who have faced “the dark night of the soul” to come into a real relationship with Christ; who have overcome the lusts of their flesh rather than cater to them; who have bravely resisted the enticements of the world; who have humbled themselves before God and man; who have selflessly laid down their lives in Christ’s service; who have spent long hours on their knees interceding for lost souls; what am I to think of the cheap, self-centered “Christianity” these hucksters peddle?

Yes, the emblem of our religion is the Cross—the very thing the “feel good” preachers and “seeker-sensitive” pastors avoid at any cost. This is precisely what the Apostle Paul was referring to when he wrote, “For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” (I Corinthians 1:18) What they don’t seem to understand is that without the Cross, there is no divine blessing, no forgiveness and no salvation. It is all an illusion.

Could it be that behind the plastic smiles, shallow personalities and $2,500 suits these are spiritual cowards who are in it for themselves? Is it possible that they don’t understand the Cross because they have never been to it themselves? Are these men “enemies of the cross?” (Philippians 3:18) Could they be leading multitudes into hell? Are they the teachers who will give people what their “itching ears” want to hear? (II Timothy 4:3) Only God knows the answer to such questions. One thing we do know for certain because Jesus said it: “It is inevitable that stumbling blocks come, but woe to him through whom they come!” (Luke 17:1)

My dear reader, can I interject a personal message here? I have purposely pounded away at the hawkers of this false gospel with my words because so much is at stake: thousands of souls stand at the brink of eternal destruction. I am not trying to be harsh; I am attempting to expose the lies that are being propagated in our day.

The painful fact of the matter is that there are many false teachers at work in the Church today. Sin and deception seem to be peaking just as the Bible foretells. Is it possible that we really are approaching the End?

Steve Gallagher is the founder and president of Pure Life Ministries. He has dedicated his life to helping men find freedom from sexual sin and the abundant life in God that comes through deep repentance.

Resting in His grace .... Jim

Check out John MacArthurs' New Blog

2010-01-18T10:06:00.001-05:00

http://www.gty.org/blog

A Great Quote by A. W. Tozer

2010-01-18T09:53:00.012-05:00

"I want to be a more serious-minded Christian man, more detached from this world, more ready for heaven than I have ever been in my whole life. I want an ear that is sharp to know the voice of the enemy, whether it comes from religion, politics, or philosophy. I want to know when I'm hearing the soft, soothing voice of Antichrist pre- paring me psychologically for a takeover. I would rather stand and have everybody my enemy than to go along with the crowd to destruction.
Do you feel that way." - A.W.Tozer

The New Worship Service and Message

2010-01-18T09:50:00.002-05:00

Again here is another article by David Ravenhill which needs to be brought to our attention. I found this article very interesting and I think he is right on with today’s church …. Makes you think

WORSHIPPING AT THE ALTAR OF SUCCESS
by David Ravenhill

Though you may find it hard to believe, there is an addiction more subtle and more powerful than either drugs or pornography. It’s older than prostitution, more prevalent than alcohol, more addictive than cocaine. It doesn’t discriminate between male and female, black or white, young or old, rich or poor. Its strength is greater than all other addictions combined. It’s as rampant in the Church as it is in the world. It leaves the body unscathed but destroys the soul. The vast majority of people addicted have little if any understanding of its power or perils.

The history of the worship of success dates back to Lucifer, the rebellious archangel who wanted to relegate God to a subordinate role and take the ‘top gun’ position for himself. This desire for success soon spread throughout the earth like a cancer, reaching its pinnacle with mankind seeking to build a tower and to make for themselves a name. What a contrast in attitudes we find between Genesis 11 and 12. Chapter 11 exposes man striving for recognition, while chapter 12 we find God promising humble Abraham that He would make his name great.

A clear picture of this obsession with success can be found in the story of King Ahaz. His numerous sins had brought judgment upon himself and the nation of Judah. This punishment came through the king of Aram who carried off a great number of his people as captives. Embarrassed and distressed over his glaring defeat, the Jewish king made the monumental mistake of attributing the Aramean victory to their gods. Whatever small faith he may have had in Jehovah was completely discarded in favor of idol worship. “Because the gods of the kings of Aram helped them,” he reasoned, “I will sacrifice to them that they may help me.” (II Chronicles 28:23) It seems that Ahaz was prepared to pay any price for success.

Lamentably, it seems that much of the American (and Canadian) Church holds this same misguided logic. Pastors around the nation are flocking to follow the ‘mega church’ pattern, believing that what worked somewhere else will work for them as well. We now have the mentality that success is purely numerical. Witness what the Barna Research Group stated as the result of a recent study:

“The most discouraging study we ever conducted was one in which we attempted to identify churches in the U.S. that consistently and intelligently evaluate life transformation among the people to whom they minister. We found that very few churches - emphasis on very - measure anything beyond attendance, donations, square footage, number of programs and size of staff. None of that necessarily reflects life transformation.” (Italics mine)

How tragic! Success is now measured by attendance, donations, square footage, etc. It’s time we stopped worshipping the ‘gods of success’ and turned our gaze afresh upon the Lord, for beholding we will be changed. I think that is the definition of SUCCESS in the Kingdom of God.

Resting in His grace,
Jim

My Best Life Now by Joel Osteen ... Nope by Lucifer

2010-01-18T09:42:00.003-05:00

I came across this article by David Ravenhill, http://www.davidravenhill.net/ on the self life entitled DEAD MEN WANTED. I renamed it as he makes a good point about Osteen and the message he teaches. Enjoy ....

Crucifixion was the equivalent of being sentenced to the gallows, guillotine, electric chair or the firing squad—only much more painful and long lasting. Of course, all had the same final result: death. The cross brought a finality in every area of a man’s life. He was dead to the world; dead to his friends and family; dead to his pride and ambitions; dead to self interests; dead to future plans. Yes, the cross ended everything in a man’s life. Paul said; “I am crucified with Christ nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ lives in me.” He went on to say; “I am crucified to the world and the world is crucified to me.”

Small wonder then that we hear so little teaching or preaching on the cross today. Jesus challenged every one of His followers to take up their cross and follow Him. Today the church has virtually eliminated any and all reference to the true biblical message of the cross. This is no more strikingly evident than in the title of one of the most popular “Christian” books on the market today, Your Best Life Now.

Let’s face it, self hates to die and lose its pre-eminence. We do everything we can to make self look good, smell good and feel good. We relish those who pamper us, coddle us, fuss over us and help us. We flock to those who tell us how we can become even more self-centered and selfish than we already are.

Enter almost any Christian bookstore and you will see any number of self-help books dealing with everything from dieting to dressing for success. The apostle Paul perfectly described the attitude in much of today’s Church when he warned Timothy that in the Last Days men would be lovers of money, lovers of pleasure, lovers of self, more than lovers of God. (II Timothy 3:1-5) It is obvious that self is the root here. Money provides the means to pursue pleasure in order to ultimately indulge self’s ferocious appetite. Yes, it’s all about me and mine. We live in a hedonistic world where our only concern is, “What’s in it for me?” Let’s face it, if you trace the source of self to its origin, you arrive at Lucifer’s diabolical plan to usurp God’s place of supremacy and authority with his own. Perhaps Lucifer would have coined his autobiography, My Best Life Now.

Every fallen son of Adam is driven by this same overwhelming urge to “do it MY way.” But it is only when self is dethroned that God can take His rightful place as Lord and Master of a person’s life. Self is so powerful that the only way to successfully deal with it is through the cross.

Peter warned that there would come a time when false teachers would enter the church bringing with them damnable doctrines… “even denying the Master who bought them…” What could do more to deny Christ than to live for self rather than for Christ?

One of the great messages of Christ was that His Kingdom would tolerate no rivals. He made it perfectly clear that those who would follow Him would have to follow Him to Calvary.

Make no mistake about it: Those who preach a man-centered message are enemies of the cross and God’s Kingdom. This whole new emphasis on “seeker sensitivity” places the focus on man and his importance, rather than on the King and His Kingdom.

I suspect that those preaching this “gospel” are doing more to further the kingdom of Satan than even some of his most powerful demons.

What the Church needs in this hour are not those who are championing the self-life but those who are living for Christ. We don’t need more leaders who have a vibrant, thriving self-life. We need men who have learned the secret of dying to self. We need men dead to themselves and alive to Christ!

David Ravenhill has worked as a missionary, pastor and teacher for over 40 years. He shares the passion of his father, Leonard Ravenhill, for the Body of Christ to return to holy living. For more on David Ravenhill, visit www.davidravenhill.net

Resting in His grace ....
Jim

FROM DESPAIR TO DELIGHT

2010-01-12T21:25:00.006-05:00

About two weeks ago I was in our local Christian Bookstore buying more books. After having purchased one with my Christmas Gift Card, I continued to check out other books thumbing through them to see what new stuff was out. All of a sudden I came across a book, called "From Despair to Delight" by Pat Freeman. I said to myself, is this the same Pat Freeman that I knew 25 years ago? I opened the book and read the info on the author and sure enough it was. Wow, my heart leaped for joy as I had not seen her for almost 25 years. I emailed her that day and got in contact with her. As well my best friend, John who was a good friend of Pat's is mentioned in the book purchased a copy of it. He lent me his copy on Saturday and I read right through it and finished it tonight. What a blessing to read and it was a real encouragement to my heart and my walk with the Lord and I recommend this book highly to anyone who wrestles with how to walk by faith and trust God. Pat has gone through many trials and God has been with her all the way. If you read this book, I guarantee you it will bless you and help you grow in Christ.

It can be purchased on Amazon.com

http://www.amazon.com/Despair-Delight-Faithfulness-Change-Forever/dp/1600374867

May God richly bless you as you read Pat's life story.

James
Resting in His grace

A Real Authority on Global Warming

2010-01-08T06:28:00.001-05:00

John Coleman founder of the Weather Channel debunks GOREbal warming ... don't you think this guy knows what he is talking about.

The Real Purpose Driven Life

2010-01-07T06:52:00.002-05:00

Christians have been under the illusion and I believe erroneous teaching that God's highest desire for us human beings is they do right things - godly things. We need to express concern for others, we need to obey the laws, show and reflect proper respect and appreciation for God. This is simply not so. I believe that God's purpose for humans is that they become actual extensions of His life through a dependent relationship with Him. Of course that can only happen by being in union with Him through a relationship with His Son Jesus Christ. This is what we call new covenant righteousness. Obviously a life such as this will express itself in acts that are righteous. But the overall foundation for these acts is dependence. Not in the sense of God helping us but in God actually living through us.

It all started with Adam desiring to be independent of God. When that occurred he lost the life of God and began living a new life on his own. Thats been mankind's problem ever since. We want and crave and fight for independence from God. True happiness, true enjoyment of life only occurs when we are born again and a new life begins in us and we again lean on and begin to depend upon Him.

Jesus said, "Without me you can do nothing" Even as Christians, sometimes we resort to being independent of God. When that happens, we can do nothing.

Resting in His grace ....
Jim

Common Law Christian or Decaffeinated Christian

2010-01-03T10:39:00.002-05:00

Are you a Common-Law Christian? One who wants all the benefits of being married to Christ but one who does not want the full commitment of marriage to him. Or how about, are you a De-caffeinated Christian? One who wants all the taste and flavour or being a Christian but not the punch or jolt that real Christianity gives you. I've been thinking about this lately because for a while I think I have been that way, at least the past year or so. I am learning that God wants us to be committed to Him, 100%, 24/7 and its not easy. But I am also learning it's not up to me to do the task on my own but up to both of us to work together.

I am reminded of this verse:
"For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. " - Philippians 2:13

God is at work in our lives, He will give us the direction and the power, TO DO, if we only trust Him.

Resting in His grace
Jim

The Winter Olympics in Canada and another Letter

2010-01-02T07:53:00.002-05:00

My letter regarding the atrocious waste of money pertaining to the travails and travels of the Olympic torch was published in today's local paper, the London Free Press. Another milestone for me to have a letter published in the first paper of the second decade. When we turned the counter from 1999 to 2000 I had two letters published. One on the last day December 31, 1999 and one on January 1, 2000. Quite an accomplishment. A hundred years from now when my great, great grand kids are surfing the web or whatever they have then, if there is even a "then" they might run across my name. Anyhow this letter bemoans the atrocious waste of money in this Olympic Torch Relay.

http://www.lfpress.com/comment/letters/home.html?p=34373&x=letters&l_publish_date=&s_publish_date=&s_keywords=James%20D.%20Lush&s_topic=&s_letter_type=Letter%20to%20Editor&s_topic=&s_letter_status=Active&s=letters

Jim
"Resting in His grace"

US Submarines at the North Pole

2010-01-02T07:48:00.003-05:00

William Gairdner is one of the best Canadian conservative writers. On his website he makes mention of U.S. Submarines at the North Pole. Check it out, its fascinating. Global Warming LOL. Nuff said

http://www.williamgairdner.com/journal/2009/12/16/us-submarines-at-the-north-pole-in-1959-and-1962.html

New Year, New Day and a New Start

2010-01-02T07:24:00.013-05:00

I'm not very big on New Year's celebration for a number of reasons, some personal and some biblical. For me the bible teaches that we are to take one day at a time and to take no thought for the 'morrow. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing seriously against people throwing a New Year's Eve party but most are just really parties with booze etc. with a bunch of people getting drunk. I realize it's not as big as it was in the past and most folks have house parties etc. but it still is very frivolous. Thank God for the "Drinking and Driving laws" which our society has brought in the past few years or it would be even worse. This year my wife and I actually made it to midnight. The last time that happened was in 2000 when we were all worried about Y2K. Man what a farce that was. I stayed up till midnight to see if everything would come crashing down. Nothing happened. Anybody want to buy a skid of candles? LOL

Midnight came this year and my wife and I kissed each other and we rolled over and went to sleep awaiting a new day with the Lord. New Years Day was quiet, peaceful and uneventful for both of us. We started it off by having coffee together at our local watering hole, Tim Horton's and then just watch TV, spend time on the internet and read. I actually like STAT holidays as it causes our society to slow down and relax. Everything is closed except the coffee shops and people learn to cocoon and spend time with each other. I'm thankful for that, besides I dont have to spend the entire day driving my children around LOL

It's been awhile since I blogged on "Earnestly Contending" as my walk with the Lord the past year has been very week for several reasons. Hopefully over the next few months I can share and explain why. Actually the bottom line is SIN, but thats for another day.

Anyhow if anybody should happen to cruise on over and read this, Happy New Day not year as God has not promised us a complete new year let alone a tomorrow, just this moment. So relish this moment with God, if you should know him through Christ. If not I pray the Lord will draw you unto Himself

Jim

"Resting in His grace"

WOULD PAUL ANSWER THE CALL TO CHRISTIAN PATRIOTISM

2009-04-24T07:09:00.001-04:00

WOULD PAUL ANSWER THE CALL TO CHRISTIAN PATRIOTISM
By Mark Dinsmore, The Berean Call
http://www.thebereancall.org/node/7641

The Cross

2009-04-10T19:33:00.002-04:00

I have posted these two entries below by A.W. Tozer because somehow in today's world we have come to view the cross as a cute little thing. Something shiny that we wear around our necks or some little symbol on the roadside where an accident occurred. This is far from biblical truth and A.W. Tozer expresses the true biblical sentiment. Today is Good Friday the day we set aside to commemorate the crucifixion of Christ. Lets look at the cross biblically.

Resting in His grace
James

The Old Cross and the New

2009-04-10T19:30:00.001-04:00

(This wise saint went to be with the Lord in 1963. His messages were written more than forty years ago, yet they are as relevant now as they were then!)

Unannounced and mostly undetected there has come in modern times a new cross into popular evangelical circles. It is like the old cross, but different: the likenesses are superficial; the differences, fundamental.

From this new cross has sprung a new philosophy of the Christian life, and from that new philosophy has come a new evangelical technique -- a new type of meeting and a new kind of preaching. This new evangelism employs the same language as the old, but its content is not the same and its emphasis not as before.

The old cross would have no truck with the world. For Adam's proud flesh it meant the end of the journey. It carried into effect the sentence imposed by the law of Sinai. The new cross is not opposed to the human race; rather, it is a friendly pal and, if understood aright, it is the source of oceans of good clean fun and innocent enjoyment. It lets Adam live without interference. His life motivation is unchanged; he still lives for his own pleasure, only now he takes delight in singing choruses and watching religious movies instead of singing bawdy songs and drinking hard liquor. The accent is still on enjoyment, though the fun is now on a higher plane morally if not intellectually.

The new cross encourages a new and entirely different evangelistic approach. The evangelist does not demand abnegation of the old life before a new life can be received. He preaches not contrasts but similarities. He seeks to key into public interest by showing that Christianity makes no unpleasant demands; rather, it offers the same thing the world does, only on a higher level. Whatever the sin-mad world happens to be clamoring after at the moment is cleverly shown to be the very thing the gospel offers, only the religious product is better.

The new cross does not slay the sinner, it redirects him. It gears him into a cleaner and jollier way of living and saves his self-respect. To the self-assertive it says, "Come and assert yourself for Christ." To the egotist it says, "Come and do your boasting in the Lord." To the thrill-seeker it says, "Come and enjoy the thrill of Christian fellowship." The Christian message is slanted in the direction of the current vogue in order to make it acceptable to the public.

The philosophy back of this kind of thing may be sincere but its sincerity does not save it from being false. It is false because it is blind. It misses completely the whole meaning of the cross.

The old cross is a symbol of death. It stands for the abrupt, violent end of a human being. The man in Roman times who took up his cross and started down the road had already said good-by to his friends. He was not coming back. He was going out to have it ended. The cross made no compromise, modified nothing, spared nothing; it slew all of the man, completely and for good. It did not try to keep on good terms with its victim. It struck cruel and hard, and when it had finished its work, the man was no more.

The race of Adam is under death sentence. There is no commutation and no escape. God cannot approve any of the fruits of sin, however innocent they may appear or beautiful to the eyes of men. God salvages the individual by liquidating him and then raising him again to newness of life.

That evangelism which draws friendly parallels between the ways of God and the ways of men is false to the Bible and cruel to the souls of its hearers. The faith of Christ does not parallel the world, it intersects it. In coming to Christ we do not bring our old life up onto a higher plane; we leave it at the cross. The corn of wheat must fall into the ground and die.

We who preach the gospel must not think of ourselves as public relations agents sent to establish good will between Christ and the world. We must not imagine ourselves commissioned to make Christ acceptable to big business, the press, the world of sports or modern education. We are not diplomats but prophets, and our message is not a compromise but an ultimatum.

God offers life, but not an improved old life. The life He offers is life out of death. It stands always on the far side of the cross. Whoever would possess it must pass under the rod. He must repudiate himself and concur in God's just sentence against him. What does this mean to the individual, the condemned man who would find life in Christ Jesus? How can this theology be translated into life? Simply, he must repent and believe. He must forsake his sins and then go on to forsake himself. Let him cover nothing, defend nothing, excuse nothing. Let him not seek to make terms with God, but let him bow his head before the stroke of God's stern displeasure and acknowledge himself worthy to die.

Having done this let him gaze with simple trust upon the risen Saviour, and from Him will come life and rebirth and cleansing and power. The cross that ended the earthly life of Jesus now puts an end to the sinner; and the power that raised Christ from the dead now raises him to a new life along with Christ....

Dare we, the heirs of such a legacy of power, tamper with the truth? Dare we... alter the pattern shown us in the Mount? May God forbid. Let us preach the old cross and we will know the old power. - A.W. Tozer

The Cross Is A Symbol of Death

2009-04-10T19:29:00.001-04:00

The old cross is a symbol of death. It stands for the abrupt, violent end of a human being. The man in Roman times who took up his cross and started down the road had already said good-by to his friends. He was not coming back. He was going out to have it ended. The cross made no compromise, modified nothing, spared nothing; it slew all of the man, completely and for good. It did not try to keep on good terms with its victim. It struck cruel and hard, and when it had finished its work, the man was no more.

The race of Adam is under death sentence. There is no commutation and no escape. God cannot approve any of the fruits of sin, however innocent they may appear or beautiful to the eyes of men. God salvages the individual by liquidating him and then raising him again to newness of life.

That evangelism which draws friendly parallels between the ways of God and the ways of men is false to the Bible and cruel to the souls of its hearers. The faith of Christ does not parallel the world, it intersects it. In coming to Christ we do not bring our old life up onto a higher plane; we leave it at the cross. The corn of wheat must fall into the ground and die.

We who preach the gospel must not think of ourselves as public relations agents sent to establish good will between Christ and the world. We must not imagine ourselves commissioned to make Christ acceptable to big business, the press, the world of sports or modern education. We are not diplomats but prophets, and our message is not a compromise but an ultimatum. - A.W. Tozer

MY GREAT SINS FOR A GREAT SAVIOUR

2009-03-02T06:14:00.004-05:00

This was today's actually yesterday's devotional from Grace Gems. Let me encourage you to visit there often. It is an awesome site that gives wonderful devotion to our Great Saviour.

http://www.gracegems.org/

O God, I bless You that You have permitted me to lie down in sleep, and to awake this morning in safety. You have dispersed the darkness of another night—may no shadow of sin obscure the sunshine of Your favor and love. May the returning light of day be to me the type and emblem of that better radiance with which you visit the souls of Your people, when they are enabled, in Jesus, to behold a pardoning God seated on a throne of reconciliation and grace.

I come to You, acknowledging my transgressions in all their heinousness. I have nothing to plead in extenuation. Warnings have been abused, providences slighted, grace resisted, Your Spirit grieved. It is of the Lord's mercies I am not consumed—that You have not long before now consigned me, with all this load of unpardoned guilt, to that place where pardon is unknown.

But I do rejoice to know that "there is forgiveness with You, that You may be feared"—that I can bring my great sins to a great Savior. May I be enabled to feel that this all-glorious name of a reconciled God in Christ is "a strong tower," into which I may "run, and be safe." Give me grace, in self-renouncing lowliness, to disown every other ground of confidence or hope of mercy, and to cast myself, a broken-hearted, humbled penitent, at the feet of Him on whom was laid the burden of all my transgressions. May mine henceforth be the blessedness of those "whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered." May life's joys be sweetened, and life's sorrows sanctified, and life's terminating hour gladdened, with the assurance, "I am at peace with my God." May Your favor brighten every scene, and the sweet sense of Your reconciling love be interfused with all my occupations. If sorrow should cloud or darken, may I be brought to feel that there can be no true sorrow or disquietude to the soul which has found its rest in the finished work of Jesus, and which has attained that blessed peace here which is the prelude of glory hereafter.

Give me grace to walk more closely with You in the time to come. Being forgiven much, may I love You all the more. May my life be one habitual effort of self-crucifixion and sin-crucifixion, seeking to consecrate my soul's best energies to Him who is willing to "blot out as a thick cloud" all my transgressions. Overrule the discipline of Your providence for promoting within me this death of sin, and this life of righteousness. Amid earth's many disquietudes, its crosses and its losses, enable me with joy to look forward to that blessed hour when there shall be no more sin, and therefore no more sorrow—when every tear shall be wiped from every eye, and when I shall be permitted to know all that is comprehended in the holy beatitude, how "blessed" indeed are "the pure in heart," who are to "see God."

Direct, control, suggest, this day, all my designs and thoughts and actions, that every power of my body, and every faculty of my mind, may unite in devotedness to Your sole service and glory. And all I ask is for Jesus' sake. Amen.

A Poem by Isaac Watts

2009-02-18T07:58:00.000-05:00

Behold the potter and the clay,
He forms his vessels as he please:
Such is our God, and such are we,
The subjects of his high decrees.

Doth not the workman's power extend
O'er all the mass, which part to choose
And mold it for a nobler end,
And which to leave for viler use?

May not the sovereign Lord on high
Dispense his favors as he will,
Choose some to life, while others die,
And yet be just and gracious still?

What if, to make his terror known,
He lets his patience long endure,
Suff'ring vile rebels to go on,
And seal their own destruction sure?

What if he means to show his grace,
And his electing love employs
To mark out some of mortal race,
And form them fit for heav'nly joys?]

Shall man reply against the Lord,
And call his Maker's ways unjust,
The thunder of whose dreadful word
Can crush a thousand worlds to dust?

But, O my soul! if truths so bright
Should dazzle and confound thy sight,
Yet still his written will obey,
And wait the great decisive day.

Then shall he make his justice known,
And the whole world before his throne
With joy or terror shall confess
The glory of his righteousness.

After reading this all you can do is bow your knew before Him!

The Hymn - The Degrees of God

2009-02-18T07:50:00.003-05:00

WHATE’ER MY GOD ORDAINS IS RIGHT

HTTP://WWW.CYBERHYMNAL.ORG/HTM/W/H/A/WHATEERM.HTM

Words: Sam¬u¬el Rod¬i¬gast, 1676 (Was Gott tut, das ist wohl¬ge¬tan); trans-lat¬ed from Ger¬man to Eng¬lish by Ca¬ther¬ine Wink¬worth, 1863, and others. Rod¬i¬gast wrote this hymn to cheer his friend Gas¬tor¬i¬us, pre¬cent¬or at Je-na, who had b¬ecome ser¬i¬ous¬ly ill. Gas¬tor¬i¬us not on¬ly re¬cov¬ered, but went on to write the tune for Rod¬i¬gast’s words.
Music: Gas¬tor¬i¬us, Sev¬er¬us Gas¬tor¬i¬us, 1675 (MI¬DI, score).

Whate’er my God ordains is right, holy his will abideth.
I will be still whate’er he does, and follow where he guideth.
He is my God, though dark my road.
He holds me that I shall not fall, wherefore to him I leave it all.

Whate’er my God ordains is right, he never will deceive me;
He leads me by the proper path, I know he will not leave me.
I take, content, what he hath sent;
His hand can turn my griefs away, and patiently I wait his day.

Whate’er my God ordains is right, though now this cup in drinking,
May bitter seem to my faint heart, I take it all unshrinking.
My God is true, each morn anew
Sweet comfort yet shall fill my heart, and pain and sorrow shall depart.

Whate’er my God ordains is right, here shall my stand be taken;
Though sorrow, need, or death be mine, yet I am not forsaken.
My Father’s care is round me there;
He holds me that I shall not fall, and so to him I leave it all.

Rick Warren's Politically Correct Blasphemous Inaugural Speech

2009-01-21T19:24:00.003-05:00

I received this email in from an online friend ....

Received this in an email today

Subject: Rick Warren's Inaugural Prayer

Here you have it folks, Rick Warren’s Inaugural Invocation at the installation of Barak Obama as the 44th President of the USA. Read through it carefully and see if you find anything objectionable from a biblical standpoint. What is amazing is how many Christians have read this prayer and approved it but are clueless about Warren’s reference to “Isa”. Do you know who Isa is? I have included 3 main points at the bottom to share where I am coming from.

Blessings,

Tony Costa

P.S. Pray for those in authority (1 Tim. 2:1-2).

http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctpolitics/

Rick Warren's Inaugural Invocation

Ted Olsen | January 20, 2009 11:17AM
Let us pray.
Almighty God, our Father, everything we see and everything we can’t see exists because of you alone. It all comes from you. It all belongs to you. It all exists for your glory.
History is your story. The Scripture tells us, “Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God. The Lord is One.” And you are the compassionate and merciful one. And you are loving to everyone you have made.
Now, today, we rejoice not only in America’s peaceful transfer of power for the 44th time. We celebrate a hingepoint of history with the inauguration of our first African American president of the United States. We are so grateful to live in this land, a land of unequaled possibility, where the son of an African immigrant can rise to the highest level of our leadership. And we know today that Dr. King and a great cloud of witnesses are shouting in heaven.
Give to our new President, Barack Obama, the wisdom to lead us with humility, the courage to lead us with integrity, the compassion to lead us with generosity. Bless and protect him, his family, Vice President Biden, the cabinet, and every one of our freely elected leaders.
Help us, O God, to remember that we are Americans, united not by race, or religion, or blood, but to our commitment to freedom and justice for all. When we focus on ourselves, when we fight each other, when we forget you, forgive us. When we presume that our greatness and our prosperity is ours alone, forgive us. When we fail to treat our fellow human beings and all the earth with the respect that they deserve, forgive us. And as we face these difficult days ahead, may we have a new birth of clarity in our aims, responsibility in our actions, humility in our approaches, and civility in our attitudes, even when we differ.
Help us to share, to serve and to seek the common good of all. May all people of good will today join together to work for a more just, a more healthy and a more prosperous nation and a peaceful planet. And may we never forget that one day all nations and all people will stand accountable before you. We now commit our new president and his wife, Michelle and his daughters, Malia and Sasha, into your loving care.
I humbly ask this in the name of the one who changed my life, Yeshua, Isa, Jesus [Spanish pronunciation], Jesus, who taught us to pray:
“Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen."

Here are my thoughts:

1) Nice politically correct prayer.

2) Very subjective “in the name of the one who changed my life”. What if the Buddha changed someone’s life or Muhammad? Does that make that person’s experience the standard of objective truth? Note Warren did not attribute the rightful titles of “Lord” or “Savior” to Jesus, he spoke of him as someone who changed his life, instead of the only hope of the world. When the apostles preached in Acts and before the authorities, did they shrink back from proclaiming Jesus as Lord and Messiah or did they proclaim Him as the one and only way to God (Acts 4:12)?

3) The most insulting, blasphemous thing in my opinion that Warren said was calling Jesus “Isa” which is the Qur’an’s name for the prophet “Jesus”. Isa is not the name of Jesus in Arabic (he should have said “Yasua” which is the proper Arabic name for Jesus), but then again he seems to want to please the Muslims here as he did the Jews with the ‘Shema,’ “Hear O Israel…”. The Jesus of Islam and the Jesus of the Qur’an is NOT the biblical Jesus. The Jesus of Islam is “another” Jesus (2 Cor. 11:3-4). Warren is guilty of the worst form of equivocation here. This shows his utter ignorance of Islam. If he thinks the Qur’anic Jesus is the same as the biblical Jesus, he has deceived millions who listened to him.

In my opinion, Rick Warren has not changed, he is a people pleaser and he appears more concerned about offending people, than offending God. For me, it is better to lose people than to lose God and His precious Son.

Jesus Christ is Lord of all (Acts 10:36)

Tony Costa

A Good Quote

2009-01-07T06:03:00.004-05:00

Yesterday while answering an email to my wonderful niece Deborah, I came up with this quote, which is original and copyrighted hehehehe

"The only worthy life to live is to live a life for Him who’s Worthy"

Resting in Him
James

Answered Prayer

2009-01-06T18:07:00.002-05:00

As many of you know, I have been suffering with terrible headaches the past three to four months. They just suddenly came on? I went to the doctors and he initially diagnosed me with Sinus infection but that turned out to be wrong. After that I went to emergency a couple of times and to a walk in clinic as the pain was unbearable. Through much prayer they have become better as well the Lord arranged for me to have my Cat Scan earlier than scheduled. The results came in on Monday and there is nothing showing - tumour wise. We give the Lord thanks for His sovereign and providential care over His children. I still get the mild headache and will need to follow up with my doctor as to whether they are migraines, cluster or whatever.

But in the meantime I thank God and His saints for their prayers. Have you ever wondered why God has ordained us to pray and how our prayers fit into His sovereign plan. To me it is a mystery but God certainly has commanded us to pray and to trust Him

Thank you Lord and thank you fellow saints

Bro Jim
Resting in Him

Our New Year's Bible Reading

2009-01-03T05:43:00.003-05:00

Every year I try to read through the entire Bible by starting in Genesis. Some day's I miss but I have learned its a relationship not a ritual. In yesterday's reading, that I read, I came across this scripture which I had never noticed before. It makes things so much clearer now.

“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife ....

As the radio commentary Paul Harvey says .... "And now you know the restttttttttttttttttt of the story.

Just a little bit of humour to start our new year.

James
Resting in Him

New Year ...... ITS TIME TO WORSHIP

2009-01-01T07:27:00.012-05:00

Enjoy this new worship song that I just found on the web today. It is awesome.

I WORSHIP YOU by Edward John
This is a lovely song which I just found on the web recently.

Resting in Him

May I Have A Moment Of Your Time

2009-01-01T05:27:00.006-05:00

Happy New Year, its now officially 2009 at least according to our standards. For God it's just another moment and believe it or not I wrestle with those words too. As the term "moment's" conveys a linear concept to time. Is there even such a thing as just a moment to God when He lives in the "ever present now". Upon further reflection I think there is. God lives in the "always constant every present moment." To Him all of time or eternity is "just one moment". You will never hear God say, "I can remember a moment when I ...." Maybe you and I can say that but God can not.

My advice and encouragement for you and for me this new year, this new day, this new moment is to "set your affections on things above", "to think on those things", to do all the "one anothers" in the New Testament that bring glory to God moment by moment through out our day. And as we add up all those moments, they will turn into a godly life that will glorify Him.

So take a moment and give thanks to God for your salvation and all that He has done and will do for you this year. And remember the words of Jesus, "I am with you always,(moment by moment)even unto the end of the world.

Suggestion for the US Inaugural Prayer by Rick Warren

2008-12-30T06:14:00.002-05:00

I found this on the web today thanks to a newsletter e-mail that I receive. It's a suggestion by Nicholas A. Jackson, coordinator for Exodus Mandate, a ministry that promotes Christian Education. I think he's on the right track but it would never happen as I am sure the Inaugural prayer needs to be filtered through the administration and approved before it can be read and knowing Rick Warren it will be luvvy duvvy, new agey and tend to embrace all people like his Purpose Driven Dribble did. But once just once don't you wish and pray that it would sound like this.

Lord we begin this year with our heads low and our hearts contrite.

We have neglected your Word and commandments.

Forgive us Lord for embracing “Change” without repentance.

Forgive us for putting “Country First" instead of Christ.

Forgive us for worshiping our presidential choice.

For promoting pragmatism, and endorsing evil.

Remind us our vote is the currency of our virtue.

Forgive us for applauding an Esther (Palin), when she was a sign of God’s judgment.

Remind us that judgment begins at the house of God.

Forgive us for putting our tax exempt status before Christ.

Forgive us for teaching that God is a God of love but not of justice and wrath.

For creating a God in our own image and worshiping him.

For preaching peace, peace when there is no peace.

Forgive us for loving sinners to death, when God says, He hates the workers of iniquity

Forgive our complacent American Church,

For using the rapture as an excuse for sloth.

For using taxation (coercion) to fight poverty when the Church should be serving them.

Forgive us for making innocent life “above our paygrade.”

For believing “life begins at conception” yet allowing embryo experimentation.

Forgive us Lord for voting single issue on the economy.

Remind us there can be no financial security until there is security in the womb.

Forgive us for having unjust measures, paper money (fiat currency) not backed by gold.

For rewarding covetousness and greed, and squandering our children’s inheritance.

Forgive us for decrying socialism (bailouts) while sending our Christian children to socialist schools.

Forgive us for railing against gay marriage (which we should) while indulging in pornography and embracing divorce.

Forgive us for battling AIDS (which we should) but neglecting the sin often at its root.

Forgive us for making global warming an idol.

Remind us you are coming in judgement with fire to judge the quick and the dead.

Lord may you use the coming financial storm to judge our idolatry, and make us more reliant on you, not our 401k's.

Use the coming tribulation to shake off the rotten fruit of the corporate, seeker sensitive mega-churches and leave fruit that lasts.

Turn the father’s hearts to their children, and bring true revival to America

Change is coming.

God Bless America,

In Jesus name, Amen

Just once, and I say again, just once I would love to hear this prayed or something like it.

Resting in Him
James

BLASPHEMY AT ITS FINEST

2008-12-30T05:55:00.008-05:00

Yesterday in Canada's so called national newspaper, the Globe and Mail,, very liberal I might add, they published the following editorial cartoon depicting President-elect B. Hussein Obama as the Lord Jesus Christ. How blasphemous can the liberal press get. This "slobbering love affair" with Obama has got to stop but unfortunately you and I both know, that it won't and this cartoon is proof of it.

Resting in Him
James

THE LOVE OF GOD IS GREATER FAR

2008-12-27T17:22:00.006-05:00

This video on Youtube received millions of hits this past year. It reminded me of the love of God as well as good friends ... enjoy.

The story and the video are real, although some of the facts are wrong.

The release and reunion of Christian the Lion took place in Kenya more than 30-years ago. The eRumor with the video link about Christian began circulating in July, 2008.

Australian John Rendall and his friend Ace Berg bought the lion cub from Harrods in London in 1969 when the world famous store had an exotic animals department. Herrods had gotten the cub from Illfracombe zoo and it was on display at the store in cage when spotted by Rendall and Berg.

Christian lived in the basement of Rendall's flat in Chelsea and for a year was a pampered cat. And a clean one too, according to Rendall. He unfailingly used a very large kitty litter box and was jointly cared for by Rendall, Berg, and two of their female friends.

Christian eventually grew to nearly 200 pounds and started growing a mane, which made him look fearsome even though he was very friendly and accompanied his owners to all kinds of events. He became a feature at Rendall's furniture store and one day Bill Travers and Virginia McKenna walked into the store and saw Christian. They were actors who had been in the film Born Free, the true story of a lion cub named Elsa that was successfully rehabilitated into the wild in Africa by conservationist George Adamson and his wife Joy.

It was decided that Adamson and Africa might be the next destination for Christian. Adamson was cautious because Elsa had been an African lion born in Africa. Christian was from London and had lived a very different first year of life.

In Arica, Christian befriended a lion from the Born Free film named Boy. Adamson added a female lion to the friendships and began the process of educating Christian about the wild.

Rendell and Berg would visit from time to time to check on Christian's progress but it was in 1974 that Adamson told them that Christian had finally adapted to the wild. He had a litter of cubs, did not return to the camp very often and was the leader of his pride (Boy had been shot and killed in a tragic event near the camp.)

Upon hearing the news, Rendell and Berg decided they would make a final trip to say goodbye even though Adamson told them it might be a waste of time. Christian had not been seen in nine months. But when the two men arrived in Kenya Adamson told them that Christian and his pride of lionesses and cubs had arrived the night before, almost as though he had known they were coming. Adamson said Christian was sitting on his favorite rock outside the camp waiting for them. The reunion, as seen on the video, was one of overwhelming joy and tears. Afterwards Adamson warned that the lionesses didn't seem too pleased with what was going on so it might be time to leave. It was the last time that Christian was ever seen.

Adamson continued his work in Kenya but was shot and killed in 1989 by either poachers or bandits.

A film and a book were made about the remarkable story of Christian the Lion.

NOW JUST THINK ABOUT THE LOVE OF GOD TOWARDS US HIS CHILDREN ...
Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? - Romans 8:35a

The love of God is greater far
Than tongue or pen can ever tell;
It goes beyond the highest star,
And reaches to the lowest hell;
The guilty pair, bowed down with care,
God gave His Son to win;
His erring child He reconciled,
And pardoned from his sin.

Refrain

O love of God, how rich and pure!
How measureless and strong!
It shall forevermore endure
The saints’ and angels’ song.

When years of time shall pass away,
And earthly thrones and kingdoms fall,
When men, who here refuse to pray,
On rocks and hills and mountains call,
God’s love so sure, shall still endure,
All measureless and strong;
Redeeming grace to Adam’s race—
The saints’ and angels’ song.

Refrain

Could we with ink the ocean fill,
And were the skies of parchment made,
Were every stalk on earth a quill,
And every man a scribe by trade,
To write the love of God above,
Would drain the ocean dry.
Nor could the scroll contain the whole,
Though stretched from sky to sky.

Isaiah 11:6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.

25 Stupid Reasons For Dissing Dispensationalism

2008-12-26T07:03:00.003-05:00

By Daniel J. Phillips
(http://bibchr.blogspot.com/2006/11/twenty-five-stupid-reasons-for-dissing.html)

It's just not "cool" to be dispensationalist, anymore. The system had particular prominence in the seventies and beyond, which excited a lot of envy and resentment among the non's ("Hey, what about us?"). So they produced a lot of sourpuss, wanna-be literature, trying to take back every area that dispensational writers had held.

They haven't fully succeeded. This really irritates them, because many of them still think that dispensationalists are unsophisticated knuckle-draggers at best, or heretics at worst. It's like listening to evolutionists talk about the Great Unwashed, who they see as too stupid to agree with them, still boneheadedly clinging to inane creationistic notions. They alternate between sniffing in disdain, and wondering why their outreaches fail to penetrate their foes' Stygian darkness.

But anti-dispies have succeeded with some folks, more (I think) through image than substance. They have convinced them that it isn't cool to be a dispensationalist.

Particularly, it's not cool to be Reformed and dispensationalist. In responding to a letter of mine about something entirely different (the problem of evil), decades ago, the great commentator William Hendriksen slapped me down something fierce. I had made the mistake of mentioning in passing that I was a Calvinist, and a dispensationalist. The great man told me you can't be "100% reformed/Calvinist" and dispensationalist. He told me to read this and that book, and not to write him again until I was 100%. As I recall, he even suggested that this doctrinal error lay at the root of my problem with evil.

Yet stubbornly here I am, still unrepentantly both, and still for the exact same reason: when I consistently apply the hermeneutic that God used to save me, I end up Reformed... and dispensationalist.

In the circles that my Reformedicity puts me in, I hear a lot of dissing of Dispensationalism. In hearing that, I also hear a lot of ignorance, a lot of envy, a lot of serious denial. This little essay addresses some of the worst that I most frequently hear. And so, without further eloquence:

1. All of the coolest guys are amillennial/"historical" premill/covenant/whatever. I suspect this is the real reason many adopt amillennialism. They want to be just like Augustine, or Calvin, or Owen, or Packer or Waltke or Whoever, or any of all those cool guys. It's just so cool to be cool. I'll admit it -- I've felt that pull. Just give up, give in, join the RHRG (Really Hip Reformed Guys). Then when they mock and make fun of people who still take all of the Bible seriously, it'll be okay. You'll be on the giving end, instead of the receiving end! Plus, prophecy doesn't require hard work anymore. Just shrug and say, "Jesus. The church. Whatever." Here, I'll show you:
o Mount Zion to be made the capital of the earth? "Jesus. The church. Whatever."
o Israel to be fully restored in spite of all her sins? "Jesus. The church. Whatever."
o Wars and conflicts such as have never happened, followed by unprecedented deliverance for the nation of Israel? "Jesus. The church. Whatever."
o Eight chapters of detailed prophecy about a temple such as has never yet been built? "Jesus. The church. Whatever."

See? Cool!

And I'll also say that it's largely true that the coolest have been, to say the least, non-dispensationalists. Most of my greatest theological and otherwise-Christian heroes were not dispensationalists: Machen, Spurgeon, Calvin, van Til, E. J. Young, and on and on.

But then there's that little principle that I also gained at my conversion, and that has saved my spiritual life countless times. I'm a Christian because of Jesus. My judge is God, my rule is His Word. Other believers (dead or living) are important, but not all-important. My business is with God's Word (Hebrews 4:12-13). This focus has kept me Christian through countless instances of treachery, hypocrisy, betrayal, malice -- and I'm not about to leave it when it comes to formulating my theology.
But if you're going to let peer-pressure mold your theological system, you had best not think too deeply about John 7:48 ("Have any of the authorities or the Pharisees believed in him?", the Pharisees snort). No, you'll have to embrace your inner approbation-lust, and ignore the fact that it is the opposite of God-centered faith ("How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?" -- John 5:44).
Especially try not to think of your Reformer heroes. In their day, all the coolest guys were Roman Catholic.

2. It's new. Sorry, must have missed the memo -- when was the last truth gleaned from the Bible? I knew the Canon was closed to addition; I didn't realize it was closed to study as well. Funny that anti-dispensationalists would effectively relegate Psalm 119:18 to a different dispensation.
And, while we're at it, tell me again -- how old are the five Sola's as a formulation? How about the acronym TULIP? Um, Covenant theology -- when was that systematized? And what was the chief objection raised to Luther by learned Roman doctors at Worms? Or go way back, fifth century -- how old is the doctrine of the Trinity now? "Old as the Bible," you growl? I totally agree. Same for dispensationalism.

3. It's not Reformed/Calvinistic. First, some shocking news: my goal in life is not to be judged as perfectly Reformed or Calvinistic. (I'm hopeful that brother Hendriksen, now with the Lord, would concur.) When I stand before the throne, I don't expect the Lord to say, "Let's see... how Reformed were you?" Anyway, maybe someone can point out where Calvin (or Luther, or Knox, or Zwingli, or Owen) maintained that, after he himself died, nothing remained to be learned, because he/they had been perfect in all his scholarship and thinking, and had exhausted every last bit of truth from the Bible. I can't think that these great men imagined that they had mined every last grain of ore from the vast Biblical treasury, leaving us today only to visit theological museums, or reminisce about how great it must have been to live when the Bible still had more to teach, and we had more to learn.
Hm. "Calvin the Apostle." Don't like it.

One last thought on these first three. If these are really big, determinative factors -- they have been, to a great many of dispensationalism's bitterest critics -- then it seems to me that we owe Rome an apology. In that case, we agree with Rome that we dare not directly delve into Scripture for ourselves. We agree with Rome that we need a Magisterium to filter Scripture for us. Like Roman Catholics, we're not allowed to see anything in Scripture that our (Reformed) Magisterium tells us isn't there; and with Loyola, we should say that white is black (and Israel is the Church), if Mother (Reformed) Church tells us so.

4. So many dispensationalists are goofs. Sure they are. I'll tell you another truth: so many Covenant Theology types are goofs. So many amills are goofs. So many Trinitarian inerrantist monergists are goofs. In fact, so many Christians are goofs. Better quit them all, right? Just become an amorphous nihilist? Oh, wait -- lots of amorphous nihilists are goofs, too. Guess I'll just have to exercise my priesthood, and think for myself, under God -- like He says I should (John 12:48; Hebrews 4:13). Next?

5. Dispensationalist writers have made false predictions. First, let's be more accurate. Since another thing to love about dispensationalism is that its advocates also affirm the sufficiency of Scripture, they tend not to be Charismatic, and so they don't fake "prophecy." Therefore, they don't make faux-supernatural predictions, as if they were prophesying. But it's true: some have said "I think X Bible teaching means that Y will happen," and some have been wrong.
Second, this game is a cheater's delight. Since the decoder-ring set spiritualizes all unfulfilled prophecy (except the bare fact of Jesus' eventual return) into shapeless goo, they have no specific predictions. No specific predictions = no falsifiability. So when you don't say anything is going to happen in the real world, you'll never be wrong. That's a coward's victory.
I give a lot more credit to the man who expects to see prophecy actually fulfilled in history, and makes a tentative but well-reasoned application that doesn't come to pass, than I do to the counsel-of-despair man who throws prophecy in a blender, reduces it to paste, and then mocks those who don't follow suit.

They are like the modern Charismatic counterfeit of "prophecy," whose perps hide under generalizations so vague that it is impossible to prove them wrong. Zero points for credibility.
Isn't it ironic? Jesus faulted His generation for not looking for the fulfillment of prophecy (Matthew 16:1-3). These oh-so-sophisticateds fault those who do. Thus, they have deftly turned that vice into a virtue.

6. The best scholars hate dispensationalism. Depends on what you mean by "best," doesn't it? I keep hearing that the best scholars hate the Bible. The best scholars hate Calvinists. The best scholars hate Christ. If you've been around academia much, and surveyed its shifting sands, you'll know at least one truths: scholars are just as subject to peer pressure as anyone. Sometimes even more so. I'd say I've not seen too many Profiles in Courage in academia. So go back to #1.

7. But the Reverend Doctor Professor _____ wrote a 600-page book destroying dispensationalism! Yeah. Have you ever noticed that it takes an awful lot of very detailed, sophisticated argumentation to "prove" that a passage doesn't mean what it says? If we're talking about the meaning of yom in Genesis 1, I can say "It means a day" in four words -- but it'll take hundreds, or even tens of thousands to "explain" that yom doesn't really mean what it clearly seems to mean. Once, I was asked if I could explain what a prophetic OT passage meant. "Sure," I replied. "Means what it says." That was my complete answer, and everyone knew exactly what I meant by it. Ohh boy, but that ticked off a guy whose obnoxious new girlfriend was Covenant Theology. But you know, before I was a Christian, I was in a cult whose answer to every uncongenial passage was, "We have to look for the deeper meaning." Funny how the "deeper meaning" was always the precise opposite of what the passage said, and exactly in harmony with what our cult believed. I left that sort of gameplaying behind with my conversion, and anything that even smells like it to me, smells.

8. You can't prove all those dispensational distinctives and prophetic features from the New Testament alone! Um, Bunky? Three words? "Plenary verbal inspiration." Dispensationalists do what all Reformed folks say they do: they believe in the whole Bible. Sort of got that idea from Jesus. So, just as no Reformed guy worth anything would accept such a demand as "Prove sovereign-grace election solely from 1 Chronicles 1:1," so no dispensationalist who believes in the principles of the Reformation should rise to the demand, "Prove every detail of your system from 1/3 of the Canon!" There is no passage that teaches everything that every other passage teaches. If so, God would have inspired a Bible with one verse.
Or perhaps a better statement would be that God did inspire a Bible with one verse. It's just a really, really long verse. And so, no believer in Reformed principles should indulge in trying to impose such a faulty premise. It's simply not Reformed to do so.

9. It isn't a spiritual hermeneutic. Gosh, this one's such a hanging curveball. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Where to start? First, take off that "Plato is my homey" T-shirt, so we can talk. Oops, didn't see that "The Docetists are my crew" T-shirt underneath. Off with that too.
So, tell me: the resurrected body of Jesus -- carnal? Or spiritual? I'll play the Jeopardy music while you look up 1 Corinthians 15:44f. (Hint: God made matter. He's really okay with matter. Matter matters. Sin ruined matter, the regeneration will redeem it.)
Finally, if none of that helped you out of your decoder-ring quagmire, this thought: try not to be more "spiritual" than God, 'kay? When God said Messiah would come from Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), He knew it meant "house of bread" -- but He meant the city anyway. I imagine what a CT would have done with that, before fulfillment: "What God is really saying would have been perfectly clear to the Jews. It was symbolic. Messiah would come from 'the house for bread,' from the storehouse of God's spiritual nourishment, and He would give life, as bread does. Those wooden literalists who look for fulfillment in an actual city are perverting the Word to their carnal imaginations."

Trying to out-spiritual God is really stupid.

10. Dispensationalists are antinomian. Bologna. I'm the former, and yet I'm not the latter. (In fact, gutless-gracers say I'm a legalist.) Makes just as much sense as saying amillennialists are Roman Catholic, because Roman Catholics are amillennial. Not only is there no necessary connection between dispensationalism and gutless-grace insanity, but the very hermeneutic that produces dispensationalism also deals howling, shrieking death to antinomianism.

11. We should interpret the Old by the New. In itself, fine. Show me where the New says the Old is a lie, a fake, a trick -- because that's what replacement theology makes it. What I read in the New Testament is Jesus Christ severely blaming unbelievers for not accepting what's there in plain sight (Matthew 16:1-3; Luke 16:29-31; John 5:45-47). I don't see Him saying, "I really can't blame you for not seeing this -- who could have? It was totally hidden from everyone!"
One hears, "The New is in the Old concealed; the Old is in the New revealed." Given the interpretive violence some folks do to the Word, a more appropriate version I've heard might be, "The Old is by the New restricted; the New is on the Old inflicted."

12. You can't take everything literally. Do you mean that literally? Of course you do. {pause}

13. Dispies are over-literal. Have you actually heard a dispensationalist lay out his hermeneutic? People who offer "over literal" as a seriously critique of dispensationalism have seemingly never read a book dealing with hermeneutics, written by a responsible dispensationalist. Try this for an interpretive principle:

When the plain sense of Scripture makes good sense, seek no other sense. Therefore, take every word in its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning, unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and fundamental and axiomatic truths, clearly indicate otherwise

It's a totally dispensational hermeneutic, and it's an equally dandy Reformed hermeneutic -- or should be. There's quite the chasm between saying "Of course God isn't literally a 'rock'," and saying "Mount Zion -- oh yeah. Has to be the universal Christian church!" Dispensationalists are what all Reformed folks would be, if they were consistent in their hermeneutics.

14. I think Hal Lindsey is stupid, and I like to make fun of him. Really? I think Harold Camping is stupid and, well, he is pretty easy to parody. Is this helpful?

15. I know some big names who used to be dispensationalists, and aren't. Really? I know some big names who used to be Christians, and aren't. I know some big names who used to be Calvinists, and aren't. Besides, when I hear a guy like [big vaunted amill expert "ex-" author] open his mouth on the subject, it's easy to see why he's an "ex." No evidence of a clue about dispensationalism in what I see him saying now.

When Peter, all full of himself, tells Jesus "We have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God" (John 6:69), Jesus replies, "Did I not choose you, the Twelve? And yet one of you is a devil" (John 6:70). I take it that our Lord saw Peter as relying on the consensus; so Jesus throws back at Peter, in effect, "...and what if your consensus becomes a consensus of one? What will you do then?" When Judas left, was Jesus less the Messiah and Holy One? (To be clear, my only point in this is that the issue is the Word and truth and what I, myself, do with it, and not how many are voting for an interpretation of it. Some -- in fact, I'd say most -- of the finest, holiest men and women who ever cracked a Bible were not dispensationalists.)

16. Dispensationalism is divisive. Just what Arminians say about Calvinism. I don't care from divisive. Everything Biblical is divisive to someone. My only concern: is it Biblical?

17. Dispensationalism is defeatist. Dispensationalism is just what you are when you treat all the Bible respectfully. That's defeatist? Let's see: man cannot solve his own problems, Christ must deliver His saints personally, must personally come in power, grace, and glory to set up His kingdom, human sin and rebellion are shown to be absolutely inexcusable, and Christ reigns forever to the eternal glory of the Triune God. Hunh. Sounds like Calvinism to me. But then again, happy-face Christianoids think Calvinism is defeatist. Guess there's a little Pelagius in everyone, eh?

18. Dispensationalism is fatalistic. Funny criticism, coming from Calvinists. If Calvinism is not fatalistic (and it isn't), neither is dispensationalism.

19. Dispensationalism is escapist. Hm, I hear a similar complaint about the Gospel all the time. "So let me get this straight: you sin and sin and sin, and then just believe in Christ, and it's all gone? But some humanitarian who isn't a Christian goes to Hell? How convenient." Viewed from one angle, yep: salvation is convenient. More than convenient, it's glorious, it's stupendous, it's amazing. When you think of all that Christ accomplished for His people on the Cross, all He rescued us from, and delivered us to -- yep, pretty darned convenient.

The pre-tribulational Rapture is small potatoes compared to that great salvation, a fortiori. It's hard to understand shrugging at God's hot fudge sundae, but then carping when He reaches out to place a cherry on the top. Compared to the deliverance from Hell in which all Christians believe, deliverance from the great tribulation is just really nice of God. But certainly not non-credible, on the lame grounds that it is "escapist." What kind of criticism is that from a professedly sola Scriptura guy, anyway?

20. Dispensationalism teaches a false offer by Christ. This is yet another one of those oft-heard criticisms that is amazingly ironic to hear from Calvinist lips/pens. It is precisely the criticism Arminians of all stripes make of Calvinist evangelism. "You're telling this non-elect guy that if he believes in Christ he'll be saved, even though he'll never believe and never be saved, because he's not elect." We Calvinists reply that the offer is absolutely genuine: if the man repents and believes, he will be saved.

So was the presentation of Christ to Israel.

I genuinely wonder, since such otherwise-smart people keep making this stupid criticism -- what do you think would have happened if Israel had, en masse, repented and believed in Christ at the First Advent? Nothing? Nothing would have been different? What if Adam had never sinned? What if Noah had swatted those two mosquitoes? What if, what if, what if?
I've got another. What if we left off the what-if's, and contented ourselves with the text of Scripture? Wouldn't that be nice? Wouldn't that be Reformed?

21. "For all the promises of God find their Yes in him" (2 Corinthians 1:20a). As if there's a dispensationalist that disbelieves this verse. I'd suggest that it's the decoder-ring set that disbelieves it. Dispensationalists believe that Christ will make good on all the Trinity's promises, as He carries out all the will of the Father, and is King of the mediatorial Kingdom. It's the CT's who would turn this verse to "For all the promises of God find their 'Ha-ha, fooled you!' in him," or "For some of the promises of God find their No in him."

22. Dispensationalism teaches two ways of salvation. Sigh. Maybe if this is answered for the 950,000th time, it will go away? This old corker has been responded to and documented more times than a department-store "Santa" has said "Ho ho ho."

So what, exactly, are we talking about? Oh, you mean like this? "Grace offers escape from the law only as a condition of salvation -- as it is in the covenant of works --, from the curse of the law, and from the law as an extraneous power." Oh yeah, that's bad. What rotten dispensationalist wrote that? That "rotten dispensationalist" Louis Berkhof (ST, p. 291). Allis and others have made similar statements that, isolated, sure sound like offers of two methods of salvation. Statements capable of misunderstand and misrepresentation are not the sole provenance of dispensationalists. Golly, it'd be nice to wake up tomorrow to a world in which I can focus on the text, and not constantly see the discussion derailed by red herrings like this one. Could there be a reason why anti-dispies don't want to do that?

23. "Hey, I'm a CT/amill/postmill/preterist whatever, and I use grammatico-historical exegesis on everything!" Suuuuure you do, Bunky. And I'm a muscular, slim 25-year old published author with multiple doctorates who pastors a successful church and teaches in seminary -- plus I have a full head of hair! It's really more than just a river in Egypt for you, isn't it, brother? When you tell me that Israel is the church, that only the prophetic curses have realtime fulfillment, but that the prophesied blessings are all spiritualized, you and G-H exegesis have long since gone the way of the Beatles. CT is your Yoko.

24. Dispensationalism divides the people of God. Wait -- isn't it complementarianism that does that? The Bible says, "there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28) , but complementarians teach that men and women are still distinct, even though they're in Christ, and have distinct roles. Calvinists/Reformeds tend to be complementarians, yet they affirm that men and women are distinct in Christ in one way, yet they affirm that they are one in Christ, in another way. Isn't that a contradiction? "But-but-but," sputters a Reformed complementarian, "that's stupid! You can be distinct, and yet one! Look at the Trinity! The Persons are distinct, yet they are one God! They have different functions, and there is an economy of relations, yet they are one! That's an inane criticism!"
Oh, I totally agree. It's inane. It's stupid. It's lame. So... why do you go for the same inane, stupid, lame line of reasoning when it comes to Israel?

I just keep wondering why the same people who have no trouble understanding why men and women can be distinct and yet one, fall all apart into hysterics and start doing horrible things to the Bible when it comes to Israel. Why can't Israel have a certain and sure ethnic future (as God promised, in the starkest and most undeniable terms, about a gazillion times), and yet be part of one people of God? Why do we have to turn God into a liar and a promise-breaker (see Jeremiah 31:35-37), in order to salvage some preconceived construct we made up?

Having said all that, I don't think it's fundamental to dispensationalism to make divisions as stark as some pioneers did, as if Israel's eternity is 'way over there, and the Church's is right over here, and never the twain shall mix. I don't tend to think that way, myself.

25. Dispensationalism fails to see Christ in every verse of the Bible. Again with the being-more-spiritual-than-God sin. This is maybe one of the most damaging Reformed traditions (in the worst sense of the word): the insistence by some of putting perfectly innocent texts on the rack, and torturing them until they scream "Jesus!" This turns God into a Clintonesque, smooth-talking trickster. He fools His audience into thinking He's talking about Israel, but He's really talking about something they couldn't have conceived of. He offers them an egg and some bread, and then gives them a stone and a serpent. "I promise to bless you, I swear it. {Later} Oops, presto! Not really you at all! Someone else! But I do have a dandy curse just for you -- and this time, I really do mean you!"

Christ is indeed all over the Bible, directly or indirectly (Luke 24:27, 44, etc.). But to insist that a text is unworthy of God if it really talking about what it seems to be talking about is (A) to adopt a suicidal hermeneutic, (B) to make God into the worst unethical bait-and-switch salesman, and (C) to pour shame on the very hermeneutic of Christ and the apostles. If we abandon Scripture to adopt this hermeneutic, we invalidate Jesus' constant refrain to His enemies:
"Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. 46 If you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?" (John 5:45-47)
If this decoder-ring hermeneutic were true, his enemies could justly and correctly have replied, "There is no way we could be judged by Moses' writings, or the prophets. God said 'Israel' and meant 'not ethnic Israel at all, but the Christian church.' He named cities, but didn't mean them. He promised full national restoration in the most specific terms, again and again, but never meant it. All His threats He meant exactly as He said them, and all His promises meant something totally unrelated. So no, Jesus, Your teaching turns revelation into obscurement, and gives us a perfect, bona-fide excuse for rejecting You. God didn't give us the right decoder-ring when He put out the garbled, encrypted code. It's not our fault."

Of course this is nonsense. Christ and the apostles treated the OT with full respect. Bethlehem meant Bethlehem, a donkey meant a donkey, Jerusalem meant Jerusalem, Israel meant Israel. It was because the OT was to be read as outlined in point #10, above, that Jews (and everyone) could then (and now) be held guilty before God: because they rejected the plain and clear sense of the text. What was bad for them is bad for us.

God forbid we "honor Christ" in theory by dishonoring Christ in practice.

This is the hermeneutic God saved me from in saving me from the cult of Religious Science, decades ago. We did the same thing, always finding "deeper meaning" that was in fact opposite meaning to texts we simply didn't like, because they didn't fit into our system. By the grace of God, the folks I'm criticizing don't do it to Christological, soteriological, or other passages. Only to prophetic passages. If they did the same across the board, they'd not be Christian.
It is not dishonoring to Christ to believe that He said what He meant, and meant what He said. The reverse is what dishonors Him, no matter how honorable the intent.

I reserve the right to revise and expand this list, but I see these as top repeat-offenders.

So in close: do I respect anti-dispensationalists? Some of the anti's are people I immensely respect in many ways. They are my betters, and that, too, in many ways. I mean that with total sincerity.

But in their criticism of dispensationalism?

Not so much. These brothers and sisters are better than the position that's holding them back. Would that they'd take their fine minds, the fervent and godly hearts, their mighty pens, and their bold spirits, and do as much justice to Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah and the other prophets, as they have done to Paul and the other apostles. It's hard work. It'd be great to have their help, to have them lay some bricks, instead of just throwing them.

For more information:
· Check out this essay (and its links) on what dispensationalism is and isn't.
· For a grounding, explication, exposition, and application of the hermeneutic that (equally) produces the Sola's and dispensationalism, see this essay.

WHAT GOD ORDAINS IS ALWAYS GOOD by Samuel Rodigast

2008-12-25T15:37:00.003-05:00

What God Ordains Is Always Good Samuel Rodigast

1. What God ordains is always good;
His will abideth holy.
As He directs my life for me,
I follow meek and lowly.
O God indeed...
In every need...
Doth well know how to shield me;
To Him, then, I will yield me.

2. What God ordains is always good.
He never will deceive me;
He leads me in His own right way,
And never will He leave me.
I take content...
What He hath sent...
His hand that sends me sadness
Will turn my tears to gladness.

3. What God ordains is always good.
His loving thought attends me;
No poison can be in the cup
That my Physician sends me.
My God is true...
Each morn anew...
I'll trust His grace unending,
My life to Him commending.

4. What God ordains is always good.
He is my Friend and Father;
He suffers naught to do me harm,
Though many storms may gather.
Now I may know...
Both joy and woe...
Some day I shall see clearly
That He hath loved me dearly.

5. What God ordains is always good.
Though I the cup am drinking
Which savours now of bitterness,
I take it without shrinking.
For after grief...
God grants relief...
My heart with comfort filling
And all my sorrow stilling.

6. What God ordains is always good.
This truth remains unshaken.
Though sorrow, need, or death be mine,
I shall not be forsaken.
I fear no harm...
For with His arm...
He shall embrace and shield me;
So to my God I yield me.
© Public Domain
CCLI Song No. 167832
CCLI License No. 2048851

Merry Christmas

2008-12-25T08:14:00.005-05:00

Today is Christmas. It's Christmas morn' right now. I have been up early. I always am. But early Christmas morn' is such a blessing, more pleasant and joyous than all other early mornings. As i type this right now, believe it or not its 8:14 a.m. in the morning and everybody is still sleeping, even the grandkids. When our children were younger, much younger as little babes, they would wake us up at 5:00 o'clock sometimes even earlier. We were so tired due to the drudgery of the day before, especially my sweetheart, Cristina. Those days are gone. There is a joy to that as well as a sadness in not seeing the gleam in their eyes with all the gifts under the tree. My prayer now for them as they are older is that the gleam in their eye would be for Him, the greatest gift ever given.

I read this quote this week about Christ and wanted to share it with you. It says so much about Christmas than anything else. What a gift from the Father.

All the good things that can be reckoned up here below have only a finite and limited goodness. Some can clothe but cannot feed; others can nourish but cannot secure; others adorn but cannot advance; all do serve but none do satisfy. They are like a beggar's coat made up of many pieces, not all enough either to beautify or defend. But Christ is full and sufficient for all His people: righteousness to cover all their sins, plenty enough to supply all their wants, grace enough to subdue all their lusts, wisdom enough to vanquish all their enemies, virtue enough to cure all their diseases, fulness enough to save them to the utmost. He is bread, wine, milk, living waters, to feed them; He is a garment of righteousness to cover and adorn them: a Physician to heal them; a Counseller to advise them; a Captain to defend them; a Prince to rule; a Prophet to teach; a Priest to make atonement for them; a Husband to protect; a Father to provide; a Brother to relieve; a Foundation to support; a Root to quicken,; a Head to guide; a Treasure to enrich; a Sun to enlighten; and a Fountain to cleanse; so that as the one ocean hath more waters than all the rivers of the world, and one sun more light than all the luminaries in heaven, so Christ is more to a poor soul than if it had all the world a thousand times over - John Spencer

From the book HIS PART AND OURS by J. Sidlow Baxter

One Of My Favorite Christmas Songs

2008-12-22T21:26:00.000-05:00

And John Berry does it so well

Happy Kwanzaa

2008-12-19T16:51:00.002-05:00

By now you are getting out all the Kwanzaa decorations and getting ready to celebrate, you’re not and you know nothing about the holiday of Kwanzaa, well read on. Its very interesting, a great piece, spread the truth

The politically incorrect truth about Kwanzaa
Marcia Segelstein - OneNewsNow Columnist

Maybe your child's "holiday" concert at school includes Kwanzaa songs these days. Our elementary school did. One grade each year was assigned that holiday, with a young student offering a brief explanation of what Kwanzaa is about, dressing in appropriate Kwanzaa accessories, and singing Kwanzaa songs.

Maybe your child's preschool teacher is reading aloud one of the many children's books on Kwanzaa which you also probably see displayed at your local library. Maybe as a craft, your little one is making a construction paper "kinara," the Kwanzaa candle holder.

Perhaps your children have been taught about Kwanzaa's seven principles: unity, self-determination, collective responsibility, cooperative economics, purpose, creativity, and faith.

Maybe you think that's all innocuous enough, right? Well, if your children are being taught what most of us have been led to believe -- i.e. that Kwanzaa is an ancient African tradition, celebrated at harvest time, and observed by blacks around the world -- they're being taught lies.
Despite the fact that it's now de rigueur for U.S. presidents to offer up an official Kwanzaa message annually, and for greeting card stores to display their Kwanzaa lines each year, and for the U.S. Postal Service to issue Kwanzaa stamps, and for children to assume Kwanzaa's up there with Christmas and Chanukah in terms of important holidays during this season, there's probably a lot you don't know about Kwanzaa.

Kwanzaa was invented in 1966 by black radical and ex-convict Ron Karenga, now known as Dr. Maulana Karenga. Karenga has an interesting history. He helped to found a radically anti-white organization called the United Slaves, because he believed that the Black Panthers were insufficiently violent.

Over the years, Kwanzaa has "evolved" from its original incarnation. Back in 1999, the official Kwanzaa website declared that the celebration was intended to foster "conditions that would enhance the revolutionary social change for the masses of Black Americans." Karenga created a black, red and green flag, along with a pledge to go along with it: "We pledge allegiance to the red, black and green, our flag, the symbol of our eternal struggle, and to the land we must obtain; one nation of black people, with one G-d of us all, totally united in the struggle, for black love, black freedom and black self-determination." The website's been cleaned up considerably since then. All that radical talk can't be good for selling Kwanzaa cards and "kinaras."

Those seven principles your children are learning about are the same seven principles of the Symbionese Liberation Army. Do you remember the famous photo of Patricia Hearst with the SLA banner in the background? Each head of that seven-headed cobra (the SLA symbol) represented one of the principles which today define the meaning of Kwanzaa.

In case you were wondering what the fourth principle of cooperative economics means, by the way, one of the many children's books on Kwanzaa offers an explanation: "Buying from each other is a good way to make a community strong." So be sure to check the skin color of that store owner before you spend your money.

And what about faith, the seventh priniciple? Does Kwanzaa have anything to do with religion or God? Uh, no. That helpful children's book clarifies it. "People can have faith in themselves, in their parents, in their teachers, and in their race." Anita Hill is pictured with the caption: "Law professor Anita Hill displays the imani [faith] principle by having faith in herself. Jesse Jackson is pictured with the caption: "Kwanzaa is a good time to study African-American leaders, such as Jesse Jackson." Not surprisingly, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas didn't make the cut.

Did I mention that it's a holiday based on race? According to one of the many Kwanzaa websites, "The celebration of Kwanzaa is a means for Black people to reaffirm their commitment to themselves, their families, their community, and the black struggle for equality." As it says in another of the many children's books on Kwanzaa, "It celebrates a whole race of people." After one holiday concert, my then second-grader asked if we could celebrate Kwanzaa. I decided to save lengthier discussions for later, and gave the short answer: "No, because we're not black." Can you imagine schools, the media, and the culture in general embracing a holiday based on being white?

Despite what the official Kwanzaa website states, there is absolutely no evidence that the holiday is "celebrated by millions throughout the world African community." Nor is it "ancient," as the website declares. I doubt that most Africans have ever even heard of it, because it has no African roots. There is no harvest celebration in Africa in December.

Kwanzaa is a fraud. It is a holiday based on skin color. It is the invention of a former black nationalist and ex-convict.

And we are like the townsfolk in the story of The Emperor's New Clothes, afraid to say that he's just plain naked.

Who Needs The TULIP When You Have Grace

2008-12-16T20:48:00.004-05:00

I am reading a book called "By Grace Alone" written by Pastor Jim McLarty http://www.salvationbygrace.org/ . In the book he writes that John Calvin discovered the doctrines of grace in the bible and formulated them into the acronym - TULIP. But we don't need the term TULIP to teach us about the doctrines of grace. They are in the bible. He calls it GRACE.

G - Gracious Election
R - Ruined Sinners
A - Accomplished Redemption
C - Compelling Love
E - Everlasing Life

The above embraces the doctrines of grace. I like it

Resting in Him
James

A Good Quote from Today's Devotionals

2008-12-10T06:40:00.004-05:00

"By brothers, Christ made love the stairway that would enable all Christians to climb to heaven. Hold fast to it, therefore, in all sincerity, give one another practical proof of it, and by your progress in it, make your ascent together." - Fulgentius of Ruspe

The Legend of the Candy Cane

2008-12-09T19:17:00.003-05:00

I received an e-mail in from a dear online friend regarding the Candy Cane, that delicious treat that we adore at Christmas time.

This is, as the story states, a legend. However, the words and thoughts can make us look at the Candy cane in a whole different light. The Legend of the Candy Cane (Author Unknown)

Look at the Candy Cane

What do you see?

Stripes that are red

Like the blood shed for me

White is for my Savior

Who's sinless and pure!

"J" is for Jesus,

My Lord, that's for sure!

Turn it around

And a staff you will see

Jesus my shepherd

Was born for Me!

Many years ago, a candy maker wanted to make a candy at Christmas time that would serve as a witness to his Christian faith. He wanted to incorporate several symbols for the birth, ministry and death of Jesus. He began with a stick of pure white hard candy; white to symbolize the Virgin Birth and the sinless nature of Jesus; hard to symbolize the solid rock, the foundation of the Church; firmness to represent the promise of God. The candymaker made the candy in the form of a "J" to represent the name of Jesus, who came to earth as our Savior. He thought it could also represent the staff of the Good Shepherd, with which he reached down into the ditches of the world to lift out the fallen lambs who, like all sheep, have gone astray.

Thinking that the candy was somewhat plain, the candymaker stained it with red stripes. He used three small stripes to show the stripes of the scourging Jesus received, by which we are healed. The large red stripe was for the blood shed by Christ on the cross so that we could have the promise of eternal life. Unfortunately, the candy became known as a candy cane - a meaningless decoration seen at Christmas time. But the true meaning is still there for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.

Detroit Church Prays over SUV's

2008-12-09T19:08:00.003-05:00

SUV'S AT THE ALTAR, A DETROIT CHURCH PRAYS FOR A BAILOUT

The Pastor's message was entitle, "The Hope of the Hybrid." Yes you read it right. With sport-utility vehicles at the altar and auto workers in the pews, one of Detroit's largest churches on Sunday offered up prayers for Congress to bail out the struggling auto industry.
"We have never seen as midnight an hour as we face this week," the Rev. Charles Ellis told several thousand congregants at a rousing service at Detroit's Greater Grace Temple. "This week, lives are hanging above an abyss of uncertainty as both houses of Congress decide whether to extend a helping hand."
Local car dealerships donated three hybrid SUVs to be displayed during the service, one from each of the Big Three. A Ford Escape, Chevy Tahoe from GM and a Chrysler Aspen were parked just in front of the choir and behind the pulpit.
Ellis said he and other Detroit ministers would pray and fast until Congress voted on a bailout for Detroit's embattled automakers. He urged his congregation to do the same.

What need be said about this ridiculous farce. Only one thing. I sure am glad that the pig industry isn't in dire straights. Actually this is a sham on what a worship service should be and what kind of a message we should be preaching. We are supposed to edifying the body of Christ with truth, not gutter nonsense like this.

Theology, Eschatology and the Headlines

2008-12-09T18:57:00.005-05:00

I have never been a big theological fan of forming your eschatology from the latest headline found in the paper. Rather the other way around. Your eschatology is formulated from serious biblical study and the events that occur fall within that frame work. I do believe we can read the signs of the times. Today while reading the Financial Times, I came across this article.

From the Financial Times …. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7a03e5b6-c541-11dd-b516-000077b07658.html

AND NOW FOR A WORLD GOVERNMENT

I have never believed that there is a secret United Nations plot to take over the US. I have never seen black helicopters hovering in the sky above Montana. But, for the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible.

A “world government” would involve much more than co-operation between nations. It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws. The European Union has already set up a continental government for 27 countries, which could be a model. The EU has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force.

So could the European model go global? There are three reasons for thinking that it might.
First, it is increasingly clear that the most difficult issues facing national governments are international in nature: there is global warming, a global financial crisis and a “global war on terror”.

Second, it could be done. The transport and communications revolutions have shrunk the world so that, as Geoffrey Blainey, an eminent Australian historian, has written: “For the first time in human history, world government of some sort is now possible.” Mr Blainey foresees an attempt to form a world government at some point in the next two centuries, which is an unusually long time horizon for the average newspaper column.

But – the third point – a change in the political atmosphere suggests that “global governance” could come much sooner than that. The financial crisis and climate change are pushing national governments towards global solutions, even in countries such as China and the US that are traditionally fierce guardians of national sovereignty.

Barack Obama, America’s president-in-waiting, does not share the Bush administration’s disdain for international agreements and treaties. In his book, The Audacity of Hope, he argued that: “When the world’s sole superpower willingly restrains its power and abides by internationally agreed-upon standards of conduct, it sends a message that these are rules worth following.” The importance that Mr Obama attaches to the UN is shown by the fact that he has appointed Susan Rice, one of his closest aides, as America’s ambassador to the UN, and given her a seat in the cabinet.

A taste of the ideas doing the rounds in Obama circles is offered by a recent report from the Managing Global Insecurity project, whose small US advisory group includes John Podesta, the man heading Mr Obama’s transition team and Strobe Talbott, the president of the Brookings Institution, from which Ms Rice has just emerged.

The MGI report argues for the creation of a UN high commissioner for counter-terrorist activity, a legally binding climate-change agreement negotiated under the auspices of the UN and the creation of a 50,000-strong UN peacekeeping force. Once countries had pledged troops to this reserve army, the UN would have first call upon them.

These are the kind of ideas that get people reaching for their rifles in America’s talk-radio heartland. Aware of the political sensitivity of its ideas, the MGI report opts for soothing language. It emphasises the need for American leadership and uses the term, “responsible sovereignty” – when calling for international co-operation – rather than the more radical-sounding phrase favoured in Europe, “shared sovereignty”. It also talks about “global governance” rather than world government.

But some European thinkers think that they recognise what is going on. Jacques Attali, an adviser to President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, argues that: “Global governance is just a euphemism for global government.” As far as he is concerned, some form of global government cannot come too soon. Mr Attali believes that the “core of the international financial crisis is that we have global financial markets and no global rule of law”.

So, it seems, everything is in place. For the first time since homo sapiens began to doodle on cave walls, there is an argument, an opportunity and a means to make serious steps towards a world government.

But let us not get carried away. While it seems feasible that some sort of world government might emerge over the next century, any push for “global governance” in the here and now will be a painful, slow process.

There are good and bad reasons for this. The bad reason is a lack of will and determination on the part of national, political leaders who – while they might like to talk about “a planet in peril” – are ultimately still much more focused on their next election, at home.

But this “problem” also hints at a more welcome reason why making progress on global governance will be slow sledding. Even in the EU – the heartland of law-based international government – the idea remains unpopular. The EU has suffered a series of humiliating defeats in referendums, when plans for “ever closer union” have been referred to the voters. In general, the Union has progressed fastest when far-reaching deals have been agreed by technocrats and politicians – and then pushed through without direct reference to the voters. International governance tends to be effective, only when it is anti-democratic.

The world’s most pressing political problems may indeed be international in nature, but the average citizen’s political identity remains stubbornly local. Until somebody cracks this problem, that plan for world government may have to stay locked away in a safe at the UN.

To Know Grace You Must Know Yourself

2008-12-08T06:18:00.003-05:00

This morning during my time with the Lord, I read the following from "Ears From Harvested Sheaves" by J. C. Philpot. What a glorious devotion to read and learn from.

"But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound" - Romans 5:20

In order to know what grace is in its reign over sin, and in its superaboundings over the aboundings of iniquity, we must be led experimentally into the depths of the fall. We must be led by God himself into the secrets of our own heart; we must be brought down into distress of mind on account of our sin and the idolatry of our fallen nature. And when, do what we will, sin will still work, reign, and abound, and we are brought to soul poverty, helplessness, destitution, and misery, and cast ourselves down at the foot-stool of His mercy - then we begin to see and feel the reign of grace, in quickening our souls, in delivering us from the wrath to come, and in preserving us from the dominion of evil. We begin to see then that grace superabounds over all the aboundings of sin in our evil hearts, and as it flows through the channels of the Saviour's sufferings, that it will never leave its favoured objects till it brings them into the enjoyment of eternal life! And if this does not melt and move the soul, and make a man praise and bless God, nothing will, nothing can! But until we have entered into the depths of our own iniquities until we are led into the chambers of imagery, and brought to sigh, groan, grieve, and cry under the burden of guilt on the conscience and the workings of secret sin in the heart - it cannot be really known. And to learn it thus, is a very different thing from learning it from books, or ministers. To learn it in the depths of a troubled heart, by God's own teaching, is a very different thing from learning it from the words of a minister or even from the Word of God itself. We can never know these things savingly and effectually, till God himself is pleased to apply them with his own blessed power and communicate an unctuous savour of them to our hearts, that we may know the truth, and find to our soul's consolation, that the truth makes us free.

A Dark and Perplexing Time

2008-11-26T06:16:00.002-05:00

This past year has been a year of trial and tribulation. I wish that I could share all from my heart about it but there is not enough time nor is there enough courage in me to be transparent regarding my sin and my walk with God which at times has been utterly displeasing towards Him and at times utterly obstinate. The flesh is as as the Word of God says, wretched. And so the tribulation continues and the chastening hand of my Heavenly Father is heavy upon me and I feel that I am in a dark and desolate place. The evil one, Satan delights in this as our faith and trust in the Lord weakens under the pressure and pain. His evil smile and glee continues on as he sees the despondent child of God weaken and go into despair as the pain continues, as the doubt continues.

But our blessed comforter The Holy Spirit leads us to the word and reassures us of God's steadfast love. I am not saying it is easy as it is not but "the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak." I found such comfort today in this devotional as I continue reading Grace Gems.

http://www.gracegems.org/book4/god26.htm

But Zion said, "The Lord has forsaken me, and my Lord has forgotten me." Can a woman forget her nursing child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? yes, they may forget, yet will I not forget you. Isaiah 49:14-15

There are seasons in the experience of many of God's people, when, by reason of outward trials or inward troubles, they feel desolate and desponding. Spiritual comforts are gone. They have little of the hallowed communion they once enjoyed with their heavenly Father—little fervor or filial nearness in prayer—little pleasure in reading the Word or attending the Sanctuary. A chilling blight has passed over their spiritual being. In the bitterness of conscious estrangement from the God of their life, they are led to harbor the secret thought—"The Lord has forsaken me, and my Lord has forgotten me."

God points to the tenderest type of earthly love—the mother with her infant hanging on her breast, or seated by its cradle tending it in sickness. That infant's cry may fail to rouse the hireling from slumber; but with wakeful ear she anticipates its every need. For days and nights she seats herself by the couch of the tiny sufferer—smoothing every dimple in its pillow, and kissing away the hot tears from the fevered cheek.

Such, says God, is the most touching picture of tender human affection. "Yes," He adds, "they may forget." There may be exceptional cases where a mother may be found untrue to her offspring, and nature prove faithless to her strongest instincts. "Yet I will not forget you!"

Think of this. If His dealings should at times appear inexplicable, if amid baffling dispensations, we may be led at times to say, with Gideon of old, "If the Lord be with us, why is all this befallen us?"—let us hush the unkind misgiving—by the remembrance, that the affection of the fondest human parent to her offspring is but a feeble shadow compared to that of Him who pities as a father, comforts as a mother, and loves as God alone can do! The earthly parent sees it needful at times, to employ salutary rebuke and discipline. So does our Father in heaven at times consider it necessary to let His tenderest affection to His covenant people take the form of chastisement. But His faithfulness on that account dare not be questioned or impeached. He chastens us because He loves us. The time will come when all that is now dark and perplexing will be explained and vindicated. "What a day is before us," writes one who has the glowing wish fulfilled, "when we shall be able to adore His faithfulness, without the teaching of it by a crossed will and disappointed prospects!"

Go, burdened one, fearlessly on. He has said, "I will never leave you nor forsake you." That loving eye never slumbers—that wakeful vigilance is never suspended. Do not dishonor God by unbelieving distrust of His word and ways. Look back on the past—trace His footprints of love—the unmistakable tokens of His presence and supporting grace—let these be encouragements for the present and pledges for the future. The dearest earthly friend may forget you—distance may sever—memory may fail—the mind may become a blank—the old familiar greetings may be met only by an unconscious gaze—Death may have already, and at some time will, put his impressive seal on the most sacred interchanges of human affection—"YET I will not forget you!"

Yet I still belong to You; You are holding my right hand. Psalm 73:23

The Consistent Christian

2008-11-23T09:36:00.001-05:00

This blog entry was written by William Seeker in 1660.

IT WILL BE BITTER IN YOUR BELLY

(William Secker, "The Consistent Christian" 1660)

"The wages of sin--is death." Romans 6:23

The 'ways of sin' may have popular approval--but they shall also have divine abhorrence marked upon them.

This Delilah may please us for a time--but she will betray us at last!

Though Satan's apples may have a fair skin--yet they certainly have a bitter core!

Methinks the flaming sword in one hand, and the golden scepter in the other hand--should guard us from the forbidden tree; and make our hearts like wet tinder to all the sparks of Satan!

Reader, if you behold nothing but pleasure in the commission of sin--you will experience nothing but the most dreadful pain in the conclusion of sin! "The wages of sin--is death." All workmen should have their wages; and it is only reasonable that those who employ you--should pay you. But, however you may delight in the works of sin--you will by no means relish the wages of sin! Ah, what wise man would toil so long in sin's drudgery--whose wages are no better than eternal misery!

Though all sins are not equal in their nature--yet all sins are in their very nature, deadly. "The wages of sin--is death." The candle of man's life is blown out--by the wind of his lusts! The corruption of nature--tends to the dissolution of nature. Reader, you began to be sinful--when you began to be mortal. If you had never had anything to do with sin--death could never have had anything to do with you.
It is at that vile enemy, SIN--which God shoots all His arrows!

Sin is like a serpent in your bosom--which stings you! Sin is like a thief in your closet--who plunders you! Sin resembles poison in the stomach; or a sword to the heart--both of which tend to death! Like John's little book--sin may be sweet in your mouth--but it will be bitter in your belly!

The foul dregs--lie at the bottom of the vessel. The golden cup of sin--is filled with the most poisonous ingredients! Sinner, that which is now like a rose flourishing in your bosom--will in a very little time be like a poisoned dagger at your heart!
While such a 'Judas' kisses--he kills! While the ivy twines round the oak--it eats out its sap.

If sin were not so delightful--it would not be so deceitful. Like a cunning angler--sin shows the bait, but conceals the hook! If you, O man, are found nibbling at the bait--you may justly expect the hook! O think, you who now boast in nothing so much as sin--that there is a time approaching, when you will be ashamed of nothing but sin! You will be eternally sinful--but you cannot be eternally joyful. In hell, all that sugar will be melted, in which this bitter pill of sin was wrapped! Hell is too hot a climate--for wanton delights to live in!

The pleasures of sin are but for a season--but the torments of unpardoned sin are of an eternal duration! Death will turn all the waters of pleasure--into blood! The serpent of sensual delight--always carries a deadly sting in its tail! All the blaze of worldly pomp--will soon end in midnight darkness and horror!

It is better to make your lodgings in a bed of snakes--than in the forbidden bed of sinful lusts!

When the pale horse of death goes before--the red horse of wrath follows after! When the sinner's body goes to the worms to be consumed--then his soul goes to hell to be tormented! A wise man knows, that it is far better to forego the pleasures of sin here--than to undergo the pains of wrath hereafter!

"There was a certain rich man who was splendidly clothed, feasting lavishly every day." What pleasure does Dives now reap in hell, from all the choice banquets he sat down to, on earth? "I am in agony in this fire!" The stench and torment of everlasting burnings--will take away the sweetest perfumes which ever covered sin!

Faith

2008-11-22T22:36:00.002-05:00

I thought I would confuse you today ...

It is not faith that saves us? ...

but faith in Christ ...

It is not, strictly speaking, even faith in Christ that saves, ...

but Christ that saves through faith ...

The saving power resides exclusively ...

not in the act of faith ...

or the attitude of faith ...

or in the nature of faith ...

but in the object of faith.

B. B. Warfield quoted by Sinclair Ferguson, In Christ Alone

Today is Remembrance Day or Veteran's Day

2008-11-11T06:33:00.000-05:00

Just a Pittance of Time

2008-11-10T06:04:00.003-05:00

A PITTANCE OF TIME by Terry Kelly

http://www.terry-kelly.com/

When I was 14, I remember trudging off to the Sailor's Memorial at Point Pleasant Park in Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada with my classmates from The School for the Blind and with our house parent / counselor, Mr. Fraser, a proud veteran sailor of the Canadian Navy.

On that November 11th day, the weather was not really conducive to a stroll in the park, and we made this fact very clear to Mr. Fraser. He didn't seem to be overly concerned about our protests to venturing out in to the rain that couldn't quite decide if it would be cold and wet, soaking and chilling us to the bone, or freezing like shrapnel and attempting to puncture our young uncovered flesh.

We arrived at the Sailor's Memorial ten minutes before the ceremony was scheduled to begin and continued with our unacknowledged whining, that is, until one minute before the two minutes of silence was about to begin when Mr. Fraser faced us and spoke in his commanding and mesmerizing tone.

"Gentlemen, all of you, face this direction", which happened to be straight in to the freezing rain, "stand straight with your hands at your sides, and for the duration of the next two minutes, think of all the gifts and good things you have in your lives. Notice how quickly the time will pass and how you won't mind the weather. As you list all of your good fortunes, say thank you to the thousands of veterans and to those who have died for each of you so you can be free. By the way, if Hitler had achieved his plan, there'd be no blind or disabled people allowed to live in this country of ours"!

It was amazing how the realization of Hitler's plan seemed very personal to the lot of us who were blind and visually impaired. To this day I not only remember my blessings on November 11th, I give thanks for all I have each and every day of my life.

Have you ever noticed how your ability to deal with troubles and challenges is relative to your level of gratitude?

Come this November 11th, I invite you to join me in two minutes of silence, A Pittance of Time, and take stock of all the goodness in your life as we honour those who have given of themselves for us and others.

REMEMBRANCE DAY

2008-11-10T05:59:00.003-05:00

Tomorrow is Remembrance Day and for the next few entries, I wish to take the time to remember and memorialize those men and women who died for the freedom that we experience in our country. Don't forget to take 2 minutes of silence tomorrow at 11:00 a.m.

God's Sovereignty Was Unfolded

2008-11-06T06:36:00.003-05:00

I received an email in from some good christian conservative friends in the city, telling me that if I was sad over the Obama election to rejoice and that this might help. It's good .........

As I left the office yesterday, I wept.

I wept. I wept for the anticipated voting results.

I wept for our country. I wept for my family, and I wept for myself. I then collected myself and got together with a few friends and family to witness together the news of the night regarding America's choice for its President.

We took a shellacking yesterday. We were taken to the woodshed. And, we had it coming. Our God has been so merciful to America. He has protected our skies, waters, cities, our communities. He has granted us fresh air, farm land and its wondrous farm products. He has granted us freedom of speech and religion and press and even so much more.

Our living standard has been so far beyond any other peoples of the world.

In many of our communities, there is seemingly a church on every corner. Christian books and Bibles adorn our bookshelves in our very own homes. Our airwaves have Christian programming in abundance.

Inspite of His blessing and His hand upon us we are a wayward people. We have worshipped other gods. Pornography fills our airwaves and millions upon millions watch it, buy it, act out from it and go back for more and some (many) go to church on Sundays unrepentant this Sunday and the next.

Untold numbers hold back their tithe from the Lord, His church, His ministries, as many place self-pleasuring as their priority.

This election, in my opinion, wasn't so much a referendum on our culture (though it was) as much as a referendum on the church.

And I don't know what to do about it other than this. I want to be right with God - starting with myself. I want to be true to Him in all I say and do - oh help me God.

I'm thankful - so very thankful that I am a part of a church that has a pastor that is preaching and teaching Truth (not whatever is popular at the given time) but His Truth. I am receiving spiritual food and so is my family and that is vital that they know Him and are growing in their knowledge of Truth and application of it.

I want to be true in sitting Sunday after Sunday under the Word of God. I want to be a man of prayer, a man that tithes and gives beyond the tithe, that loves my wife as Christ loves the Church, that visits the lonely, the shut in and lives for Christ - pursuing holiness and turning away from wickedness; a man that loves my children and grandchildren and a person that my loved ones can know now and remember as a man who walked with the Lord.

We were taken to the woodshed yesterday. I'm not depressed, discouraged, nor angry. God, indeed, IS in control!

I'm encouraged and strengthened knowing that God's sovereignty was unfolded last evening. His ways are perfect.

Christ loves the church!

He gave His only begotten Son for it. This world is not our home. We are to live as pilgrims in a foreign land - forsaking the world; not being conformed to it but presenting our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God which is our reasonable service.

May God raise up His remnant in these darkening days that the world may know that Christ lives - that He may be glorified!

"O Father, You are Sovereign"

O Father, You are sovereign
In all the worlds You made;
Your mighty Word was spoken,
And light and life obeyed.
Your voice commands the seasons
And bounds the ocean’s shore,
Sets stars within their courses
And stills the tempests’ roar.

O Father, You are sovereign
In all affairs of man;
No powers of death or darkness
Can thwart Your perfect plan.
All chance and change transcending,
Supreme in time and space,
You hold your trusting children
Secure in Your embrace.

O Father, You are sovereign
The Lord of human pain,
Transmuting earthly sorrows
To gold of heavenly gain,
All evil overruling,
As none but Conqueror could,
Your love pursues its purpose—
Our souls’ eternal good.

O Father, You are sovereign!
We see You dimly now,
But soon before Your triumph
Earth’s every knee shall bow.
With this glad hope before us
Our faith springs forth anew:
Our Sovereign Lord and Savior,
We trust and worship You!

This is by Bill Johnson of the American Decency website ... http://www.americandecency.org/

James
Resting in Him

The Day After the Elections of 2008

2008-11-06T06:32:00.002-05:00

James White of Alpha and Omega Ministry gives his thoughts on the elections...

"The cultural shift toward Darwinian humanism was displayed in its fullest form yet in the elections of 2008 in the US. Here are my thoughts." - James White

Grace

2008-11-05T20:46:00.001-05:00

A FEW WORDS ABOUT GRACE
by William R. Newell

The Nature of Grace:

1. Grace is God acting freely, according to His own nature -- as Love; with no promises or obligations to fulfill; and acting of course, righteously -- in view of the cross.
2. Grace, therefore, is uncaused in the recipient: its cause lies wholly in the GIVER, in GOD.
3. Grace, also is sovereign. Not having debts to pay, or fulfilled conditions on man's part to wait for, it can act toward whom, and how, it pleases. It can, and does, often, place the worst deservers in the highest favors.
4. Grace cannot act where there is either desert or ability: Grace does not help -- it is absolute, it does all.
5. There being no cause in the creature why Grace should be shown, the creature must be brought off from trying to give cause to God for His Grace.
6. The discovery by the creature that he is truly the object of Divine grace, works the utmost humility: for the receiver of grace is brought to know his own absolute unworthiness, and his complete inability to attain worthiness: yet he finds himself blessed -- on another principle, outside of himself!
7. Therefore, flesh has no place in the plan of Grace. This is the great reason why Grace is hated by the proud natural mind of man. But for this very reason, the true believer rejoices! For he knows that "in him, that is, in his flesh, is no good thing"; and yet he finds God glad to bless him, just as he is!

The Place of Man under Grace:

1. He has been accepted in Christ, who is his standing!
2. He is not "on probation."
3. As to his life past, it does not exist before God: he died at the Cross, and Christ is his life.
4. Grace, once bestowed, is not withdrawn: for God knew all the human exigencies (needs) beforehand: His action was independent of them, not dependent upon them.
5. The failure of devotion does not cause the withdrawal of bestowed grace (as it would under law). For example: the man in I Cor. 5.1-5; and also those in 11.30-32, who did not "judge" themselves, and so were "judged by the Lord, -- that they might not be condemned with the world"!

The Proper Attitude of Man under Grace:

1. To believe, and to consent to be loved while unworthy, is the great secret.
2. To refuse to make "resolutions" and "vows"; for that, is to trust in the flesh.
3. To expect to be blessed, though realizing more and more lack of worth.
4. To testify of God's goodness, at all times.
5. To be certain of God's future favor; yet to be ever more tender in conscience toward Him.
6. To rely on God's chastening hand as a mark of His kindness.
7. A man under grace, if like Paul, has no burden regarding himself; but many about others.

Things Which Gracious Souls Discover:

1. To "hope to be better" is to fail to see yourself in Christ only.
2. To be disappointed with yourself, is to have believed in yourself.
3. To be discouraged is unbelief, -- as to God's purpose and plan of blessing for you.
4. To be proud, is to be blind! For we have no standing before God, in ourselves.
5. The lack of Divine blessing, therefore, comes from unbelief, and not from failure of devotion.
6. Real devotion to God arises, not from man's will to show it; but from the discovery that blessing has been received from God while we were yet unworthy and undevoted.
7. To preach devotion first, and blessing second, is to reverse God's order, and preach law, not grace. The Law made man's blessing depend on devotion; Grace confers undeserved, unconditional blessing: our devotion may follow, but does not always do so, -- in proper measure.

Studies in Deuteronomy
by William R. Newell

Instead of blessing the people altogether on the ground of promise, that is altogether in view of Christ's coming work, He says "If you obey My law, I will bless you." Obedience first, then blessing, is the order under the law. There is nothing for the people to fall back on, except their own obedience now. They may indeed remember that they are God's chosen people, according to His covenant with the fathers: but the law has come in since those days, and they are under it. So Moses insists, in Deuteronomy, on their obedience as the condition of everything, as they are about to enter their inheritance.

Now the position of the Christian is entirely different. It is of absolute importance that we understand this. Thousands upon thousands of Christians today are in bondage because they do not see the essential difference between our position and that of Israel under the law. Now, Israel depended upon their own obedience to get their blessings in the land. Christians get their blessings because Christ obeyed in their stead. This gives them rest of heart, so that they have leisure to love God for His own sake, and learn to delight in His will.

But there are hardly any Christians who dare believe this. That is, they cannot apprehend such grace as this. They think, of course, that their blessings depend upon their faithfulness, their earnestness, their consecration, etc. But, this is not to be under grace (where God says we are Rom. 4:14) but under law; that is, under responsibility to do, in order to have, which is the order of the law, not that of grace.

Grace says, "You have been blessed already, in Christ Jesus, with all spiritual blessings." Eph. 1:3 The only obedience that pleases God now, is the obedience of FAITH, which enters boldly in, and appropriates these things that Christ's obedience unto death has secured for us.
Now I know someone will read these words who will say: ''Yes 'but we must do our part', ere we can claim or enjoy these spiritual blessings." The which shows that such a person is at heart, a miserable legalist to this day believing neither that Christ is the end of the law, nor that His work has really made these heavenly things actually ours. This is the hellish insult that unbelief ever flings into the face of God, that His Word is not good for the exact face of it.

The primary reason Christians today are living such unhappy, such empty, such weak and fruitless lives, is not (I dare to say it), that they are "not consecrated," "not surrendered," "not self-denying," "not obedient," not this and that and the other that the thousand and one preachers of legal holiness are complaining -- not these at all: the trouble, the one great trouble, is, Christians do not believe that they are free from the law, in Christ Jesus; and that they already have the glorious blessings they are seeking after, and need only claim them, to enjoy them. People dare not believe that Christ has done all the obeying and fulfilling for them, and that "their part" is simply to enter in and enjoy the infinite spoils of Christ's victory.

Someone needs to die for this great truth in their own day, as Paul died for it once and all the martyrs since. God bring it back to the church, this glorious truth of grace! "By the obedience of the ONE, the many are made righteous," and are blessed for His sake alone. Rom 5 Eph 3.

Thoughts on the US Election

2008-11-03T21:18:00.004-05:00

I was going to put my thoughts to paper on the US election tomorrow but instead I decided to link to my son's new blog and post a video by John Piper on the US election. Piper says it well and so does Matthew.

Check it out ....

http://reformo.blogspot.com/2008/11/thoughts-on-election.html

James
Resting in Him

Heaven - No More Night

2008-11-03T21:05:00.004-05:00

Lately I have been sick, and when resting on the sick bed, in pain, one's thoughts focus on God and what He is trying to accomplish in your life. You also begin to think of others who are worse off than you and I think of former friends who suffered much worse than me and how they are now with the Lord and are no longer suffering. My best pal, Ted and Earl and many others. This song, "No More Night" sung by David Phelps gives us a just a little glimpse of what heaven and eternity will be like living with our Saviour .... Jesus

Here are the lyrics:

The timeless theme, Earth and Heaven will pass away.
It’s not a dream, God will make all things new that day.
Gone is the curse from which I stumbled and fell.
Evil is banished to eternal hell.

No more night. No more pain.
No more tears. Never crying again.
And praises to the great "I AM."
We will live in the light of the risen Lamb.

See all around, now the nations bow down to sing.
The only sound is the praises to Christ, our King.
Slowly the names from the book are read.
I know the King, so there’s no need to dread.

No more night. No more pain.
No more tears. Never crying again.
And praises to the great "I AM."
We will live in the light of the risen Lamb.

See over there, there’s a mansion, oh, that’s prepared just for me,
Where I will live with my savior eternally.

No more night. No more pain.
No more tears. Never crying again.
And praises to the great "I AM."
We will live in the light of the risen Lamb.

All praises to the great "I AM."
We’re gonna live in the light of the risen Lamb.

James
Resting in Him

Wow Look What Man Just Built

2008-11-02T09:12:00.003-05:00

Wow did you see where a bunch of Hollywood starlets just raised $70,000,000 million dollars for charity. Wow did you just read where the some arab country in the middle east is building a trillion dollar skyscraper that is absolutely glorious. Wow ....

In today's devotional reading I read the following verses in 1 Peter vs 24-25.

"For all flesh is as grass and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth and the flower thereof falleth away. But the word of the Lord endureth for ever."

All that mankind prides himself on - his wealth, his rank in life, his talents, his beauty, his learning, his splendor, his equipage, his apparel, etc. etc. will all wither and fall away.

Only our surety in Christ will last forever. Only God's word is unmoved, it is fixed. It is absolutely permanent. Amidst all the revolutions on earth, amidst the turmoil of our elections whether in Canada, the USA or Russia, God's word is steadfast. Amidst all the fading glories of natural objects, and the wasting strength of man, God's truth remains unaffected. The beauty of His Word never fades; its power is never weakened. The gospel of Jesus Christ is as lovely today in the year 2008 as it was when it was first revealed to man, and it has as much power to save as it had when first applied to a human heart.

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

James
Resting in Him

Lord Teach Us To Preach

2008-11-01T21:41:00.003-04:00

I picked up a copy of Andrew Murray's classic, "With Christ in the School of Prayer" at the Goodwill Store today for $1.97. I am surprised that I never had had a copy in my library. Anyhow I went for a coffee tonight and read a bit and I just wanted to share a little bit with you.

"Jesus never taught His disciples how to preach, only how to pray. He did not speak much of what was needed to preach well, but much of praying well. To know how to speak to God is more than knowing how to speak to man. Not power with men, but power with God is the first thing."

Enuff said for those who desire to pray

James
Resting in Him

Toronto School Board's War Against Halloween

2008-10-30T06:40:00.003-04:00

I'm not a big fan of Halloween. It's origins are wicked and today's Halloween has certainly gone overboard but this column by David Menzies who appears Wednesdays on The Michael Coren Show on CTS TV in Canada is very good. What this column shows is that political correctness has run amuck and will continue to get worse as the years go by. By attacking Halloween it reinforces their attack about legitimate Christian holidays like Easter, Christmas etc. If they are going to keep "Christ" down then they have to attack it all. This is the beauty or the evil of "pluralism", which ever way you see it.

Comment: How the Toronto school board sterilized Halloween

Forget about the War on Christmas. The mavens of political correctness have a new target in their crosshairs: Halloween.
A case in point: the Toronto District School Board has several “concerns” with respect to the imagery – and even the foodstuffs – associated with All Hallow’s Eve. In fact, some schools in Toronto and elsewhere now refer to Halloween as “Black and Orange Day,” fearing the H-word itself will be as potentially offensive to certain groups as Christmas may be for some non-Christians. The TDSB’s Halloween policy is outlined in its 2008 Teaching Resource for Dealing with Controversial and Sensitive Issues in Toronto District School Board Classrooms. This document, dripping with spine-tingling bureaucratese, outlines six reasons why Halloween isn’t as fun as you might think.
For instance:

1. “Halloween is a religious day of significance for Wiccans and therefore should be treated respectfully.”
According to Kurt MacIntosh, the TDSB’s supervising principal of equity and inner city, nobody knows how many students of the Wiccan faith attend Toronto schools. Nor have complaints been quantified.

2. “Peer and social/media consumer pressures target all children and their families as consumers of costumes, makeup, food products, etc. Many students and their families can feel this socio-economic marginalization keenly.”
The TDSB is on to something here. Indeed, my six-year-old son, Sean, was planning on dressing up as Iron Man this year. But since money is too tight to mention, Sean realized Dad wouldn’t be able to afford repulsor ray gloves or a pair of jet-propulsion boots. “Daddy, forget about buying me a costume this year,” Sean said the other day. “I just realized social/media consumer pressures are fueling my desire to dress-up as a superhero. I’ll stay at home on Black and Orange Day this year so that you don’t feel any socio-economic marginalization, keenly or otherwise.”

3. “The images and icons associated with consumer-oriented Halloween can come into conflict with some students’ and their families’ religious beliefs.”
Does dressing up as a zombie mock the resurrection of Christ? In any event, the TSDB’s MacIntosh notes that “tombstones, the trivialization of death, and gore” are offensive to both Christians and Muslims. Still, if a devout [fill in religion here] student was offended by Halloween celebrations – or, more accurately, if the parents of that student were offended – wouldn’t it make more sense for that pupil to stay home on Oct. 31 rather than alter Halloween celebrations for the entire student body?

4. “The food products that are marketed heavily during the Halloween period can come into conflict with students’ and their families’ dietary habits.”
Certainly this is the biggest red herring put forth by the anti-Halloween camp. Since “offensive” food products are marketed all year long, surely it is within the bailiwick of parents to control such foodstuffs. Besides, Halloween fun at our strictly peanut-free schools involves dressing up, not consuming copious quantities of conflicting candies.

5. “Some students have had first-hand traumatic experiences of violence that make talking about death, ghosts, etc., extremely alienating.”
The TDSB has no tangible evidence to support the position that a rubber werewolf mask might “alienate” or “traumatize” a child who has previously experienced violence. Are we to assume children who have experienced trauma are forever incapable of embracing make-believe fun on Halloween?

6. “Many recently arrived students in our schools share no background cultural knowledge of trick-or-treating or the commercialization of death as ‘fun.’”
Forget Halloween. Surely “recently arrived students” have no cultural knowledge of Canadian history, the lyrics to the national anthem, or for that matter, the delayed offside rule in hockey. Isn’t it incumbent upon teachers to, well, teach the kids about Canadian culture?

Halloween is all about kids from all cultures and faiths dressing up and having fun. The TDSB appears to be basing its policy paper more on phantom concerns than quantifiable complaints.
Happy Black and Orange Day, nevertheless.

Covenant verses Dispensational Theology .... LAW VERSE GRACE

2008-10-27T15:56:00.005-04:00

Covenant Theology Versus Dispensationalism
A Matter of Law Versus Grace
By Bob Nyberg

Oh brother, not another dissertation on doctrine!? Many of us have that attitude when it comes to these "high-fa-lootin'" multi-syllable theological words. But we all practice what we believe to be true, therefore doctrine does make a difference!

Volumes have been written explaining the teachings of both covenant theology and dispensationalism. This brief paper is not intended to define these systems of interpretation. In fact, it's assumed that the reader already understands the basic tenets of dispensationalism. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that covenant theology places the believer under Old Testament law.

A Bit of History
In order to understand the development of covenant theology, we need to take a brief look at church history.

Some covenant theologians would have us believe that their belief system was that of the founding fathers of the early church. They try to make a case that dispensationalism is a mere infant when compared to the grand old scheme of covenant theology. However, the truth of the matter is that systematized covenant theology is actually of recent origin. Cornelius Van Til, a covenant theologian, admits, "the idea of covenant theology has only in modern times been broadly conceived." Louis Berkhof, another covenant theologian, wrote, "In the early Church Fathers the covenant idea is not found at all."

Dr. Ryrie points out:

It [covenant theology] was not the expressed doctrine of the early church. It was never taught by church leaders in the Middle Ages. It was not even mentioned by the primary leaders of the Reformation. Indeed, covenant theology as a system is only a little older than dispensationalism. That does not mean it is not biblical, but it does dispel the notion that covenant theology has been throughout all church history the ancient guardian of the truth that is only recently being sniped at by dispensationalism.

Covenant theology does not appear in the writings of Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, or Melanchthon… There were no references to covenant theology in any of the great confessions of faith until the Westminster Confession in 1647, and even then covenant theology was not as fully developed as it was later by Reformed theologians. The covenant (or federal) theory arose sporadically and apparently independently late in the sixteenth century.

Yet having said all this, much of the erroneous teachings of covenant theology can find its roots centuries earlier.

For the first three centuries the predominant belief of the early church was that Jesus Christ would literally return to the earth to reign for a thousand years. A number of historians have documented this belief of the early church Fathers. The evidence is indisputable. However, around 170 A.D. certain factors began to undermine the belief of Christ's literal return to establish a physical earthly kingdom.

The book of Revelation written by the Apostle John ends with the Lord Jesus declaring, "Behold, I come quickly (20:20)". About a hundred years had passed and this promise had yet to be fulfilled. Obviously, something was wrong! Some church leaders in Asia Minor decided to reject the book of Revelation from the canon of scripture. They may have reasoned that this supposed declaration by Jesus must somehow be false. In actuality there were a number of factors that influenced them in their decision to reject Revelation from the canon of scripture:

o A certain group of Christians had taken their premillennial beliefs to an unhealthy extreme. Therefore anyone who believed that Jesus would return to establish a literal kingdom upon earth was viewed with suspicion.

o Many early Christians taught that Christ would soon return and crush the Roman power that was ruling the empire. Some of the leaders of the early church felt that it would be better to sacrifice their premillennial belief rather than face more intense persecution.

o There was also a strong anti-Semitic spirit in the eastern church. The thought of Christ regathering Israel to their land was an abomination to them.

o A new method of Biblical interpretation known as Alexandrian theology greatly changed the view of scripture. Origen (185-254) and other scholars in Alexandria developed a system of Biblical interpretation based on allegory. Origen and his contemporaries were greatly influenced by pagan Greek philosophy. They tried to integrate this into their theology. According to Greek philosophy all physical matter was inherently evil. Therefore the idea of a literal earthy, millennium with physical blessings could only be erroneous. This allegorical or spiritualizing method of interpretation allowed these theologians to read almost any meaning they desired into the Bible. Thus they were able to do away with a literal return of Christ to establish a physical earthly millennial kingdom.

All of these factors set the stage for the rejection of premillennialism. In the early days of his Christian faith Augustine (354-430) was premillennial. However, through time he abandoned the idea of a literal return of Christ to establish a physical kingdom on earth. He used this new allegorical method of interpretation to explain away the literal return of Christ and thus amillennialism was born. In his book, The City of God, Augustine taught that the Universal Church is the Messianic Kingdom and that the millennium began with Christ's first coming. When the church lost the hope of the imminent return of Christ it plunged headlong into the dark ages. The seeds of false interpretation bore fruit giving rise to Roman Catholicism and a works-based religion. Augustine's amillennial teaching continued to be the standard view of organized Christendom until the 17th century. Occasionally premillennial groups challenged that doctrine through out the dark ages, but they were a small voice compared to the powerful Roman Catholic church.

On October 31, 1517 Martin Luther nailed his Ninety-five Theses on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg. One of the primary factors that caused him to break away from the Roman Catholic Church was his understanding of Sola Fide—the doctrine that man is justified by faith alone without works. Through Luther and the reformers, God restored the doctrine of salvation by grace back to His true church. The reformers understood grace in regard to salvation, but for Christian living they fell into the Galatian error of works. They knew that they couldn't keep the law in order to gain salvation, but the law became the rule for living the Christian life. Little did they realize that sanctification is also by grace.

When the reformers broke away from the Roman Catholic church, they carried a lot of baggage with them. Amillennialism was one such fetter that kept the church in bondage to the law.

You might be wondering, "how does a doctrine about the ‘end times' affect the teaching of law and grace?" That's a good question. Augustine and his contemporaries faced a dilemma. It had been years since the Lord Jesus had said, "behold I come quickly." By doing away with the literal return of Christ for His church, Augustine no doubt felt that he was helping God out. After all, if there was no literal return of Christ and no literal millennium, then Christ could be reigning over His spiritual kingdom up in heaven. The literal promises given to Israel in the Old Testament could be spiritually applied to the church. However, applying those promises to the church came at a tremendously high cost. Attached to the promises given to Israel was also the Old Testament law. If the church is "spiritual Israel" then she must also keep the law—if not for salvation, then at least for Christian living.

Anytime man decides to help God out, he just makes trouble for himself. A good illustration of this is found in the account of Chronicles. When king David decided to bring the ark of the covenant back to Jerusalem he put it on an ox-drawn cart. But in the law God specifically told Israel that priests were to carry the ark on poles. In 1 Chronicles 13:9-10 we read, "And when they came unto the threshing floor of Chidon, Uzza put forth his hand to hold the ark; for the oxen stumbled. And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzza, and he smote him, because he put his hand to the ark: and there he died before God." Uzza paid dearly for trying to help God out. His intentions may have been good, but the results of his efforts were devastating.

Proverbs gives us some very sobering advice about tampering with the Word of God: "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar [Prov 30:6]." Concerning the book of Revelation, the Lord Jesus Himself said, "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book [Rev 22:18-19]." In all of these warnings, nothing is said about those who would distort God's Word through allegorical interpretation. Augustine's intentions may have been noble when he tried to help God out. He may have felt that amillennialism could help to explain Jesus' statement in Revelation about His soon return, but the results of Augustine's efforts were devastating.

Throughout the Old Testament many so-called religious leaders opposed God's true prophets. Jeremiah predicted Judah's demise if she kept rebelling against the Lord. The religious elite of that day claimed that he was a traitor. They threw him into a cistern and left him there to die. False prophets opposed Jeremiah's predictions and the result was the Babylonian captivity. These false prophets didn't learn anything from this captivity. They continued to tamper with God's Word which ultimately resulted in 400 years of silence—the Old Testament equivalent of the dark ages.

I'm not equating Augustine with the false prophets of Jeremiah's day. Those false prophets knowingly distorted and opposed God's Word. I don't think that Augustine intentionally tried to distort God's Word. His intentions were noble. Like Uzza, he simply tried to give God a helping hand. Under the dispensation of the law, Uzza lost his life for his noble attempt. But Augustine lived in the dispensation of grace. He did not pay for his noble attempts with loss of life. Never-the-less, the church has paid dearly for Augustine's attempt to steady the solid foundation of Scripture. Just as Israel received her just rewards—400 years of silence—so too the church plunged head-long into the dark ages following Augustine's misguided efforts.

Israel's 400 silent years ended with the bright hope of the birth of Messiah and the promised Messianic Kingdom. But that hope soon dwindled with Israel's rejection of Messiah. The promise of the Messianic Kingdom was put on hold until Israel would be ready to accept her Messiah.

So too, the dark ages ended with the bright hope of the reformation and the rediscovered truth of salvation by grace. But that bright hope was tarnished by the snares of legalism that kept the reformers in bondage. When Martin Luther stepped away from the Roman Catholic church he drug with him the ball and chain of amillennialism's law-based teachings. The Lutheran, Reformed, and Anglican reformers rejected premillennialism as being merely "Jewish opinions." They continued to maintain the amillennial view which the Roman Catholic church had adopted from Augustine.

J.B. Stoney notes that:
In the Reformation there was, through grace, a great deliverance. The ground-work of Christianity was recovered; namely, justification by faith. But though this was recovered, it was not maintained that the old man was crucified on the Cross, and hence they only refused the exaction of popery, but considered the flesh as still before God. Refusing the exaction was right; but the retention of that on which the exaction could be made, the old man, was and is the weakness of the Reformation.

Miles Stanford also observes that:
The Lutheran Church is an example of … little birth truth and no growth truth, resulting in legalism, lack of eternal security, and even a charismatic element as well as liberalism. In general, the Reformation-oriented Reformed Churches, with birth truth but little or no growth truth, also reflect this imbalance in their unscriptural application of "the law as the rule of life" for the believer.

Dr. William R. Newell pretty well sums it up when he wrote:
Almost all the theology of the various ‘creeds of Christendom' date back to the Reformation, which went triumphantly to the end of Romans Five, and, so far as theological development or presentation of truth was concerned, stopped there.

The reformation brought back the truth of salvation by grace, but reverted to the law for living the Christian life. This law-grace paradox continued to plague the church until John Nelson Darby and his contemporaries came on the scene in the early 1800's. Darby adopted the literal, historical-grammatical method of Bible interpretation. As Darby studied God's Word in this light, the distinction between Israel and the church seemed to leap off the pages of Scripture before his eyes. He and his contemporaries took the truths of dispensationalism and put them into a more systematized form. God used this to restore to the church not only the imminent, premillennial return of Christ, but also the teachings of grace for living the Christian life.

During the time period between Luther and Darby, covenant theology came into being. Unfortunately, it reflected the "law-based" doctrine of Amillennialism.

Covenant theology was introduced to America primarily through the Puritans. Dispensational theology came to America primarily through Brethren teachers such as Darby and his contemporaries.

Covenant Theology and the Law

Dr. Renald Showers defines covanant theology "as a system… which attempts to develop the Bible's philosophy of history on the basis of two or three covenants. It represents the whole of Scripture and history as being covered by two or three covenants."
Dr. Ryrie says:
Formal definitions of covenant theology are not easy to find even in the writings of covenant theologians. Most of the statements that pass for definitions are in fact descriptions or characterizations of the system. The article in Bakers Dictionary of Theology comes close to a definition when it says that covenant theology is distinguished by "the place it gives to the covenants" because it "represents the whole of Scripture as being covered by covenants: (1) the covenant of works, and (2) the covenant of grace." This is an accurate description of the covenant system. Covenant theology is a system of theology based on the two covenants of works and grace as governing categories for the understanding of the entire Bible.
In covenant theology the covenant of works is said to be an agreement between God and Adam promising life to Adam for perfect obedience and including death as the penalty for failure. But Adam sinned and thus mankind failed to meet the requirements of the covenant of works. Therefore, a second covenant, the covenant of grace, was brought into operation. Louis Berkhof defines it as "that gracious agreement between the offended God and the offending but elect sinner, in which God promises salvation through faith in Christ, and the sinner accepts this believingly, promising a life of faith and obedience."

Some Reformed theologians have introduced a third covenant, the covenant of redemption. It was made in eternity past and became the basis for the covenant of grace, just described, between God and the elect. This covenant of redemption is supposed to be "the agreement between the Father, giving the Son as Head and Redeemer of the elect, and the Son, voluntarily taking the place of those whom the Father had given him." These two or three covenants become the core and bases of operation for covenant theology in its interpretation of the Scriptures.

Without trying to explain all the details of covenant theology I will simply say that it has many problems:

o It begins by assuming two (or three) covenants that are never mentioned in Scripture.

o It tries to unify scripture by saying that Biblical distinctions are merely different phases of the same Covenant of Grace. For example, Berkoff insists that the Mosaic Covenant is essentially the same as the Abrahamic Covenant. Yet, the apostle Paul asserts the distinctiveness of these two covenants in Galatians 3:18. Even a cursory reading of these two covenants reveals that the Abrahamic Covenant was unconditional whereas the Mosaic Covenant had many conditions attached.

o It denies the distinctiveness of the gospel of grace and the gospel of the kingdom.

o It denies the distinction between Israel and the Church.

o It uses a double standard with regard to interpretation of Scripture. Covenant theologians use the historical-grammatical method of interpretation, except for passages concerning future events. When dealing with passages regarding the future of Israel or the kingdom of God they revert to Augustine's allegorical or spiritualizing method of interpretation.

o It places the believer under the law.

This last point, in my opinion, is probably the most devastating blow against Christian doctrine and practice. The Galatian error of law and works has plagued the church from its very beginning. Covenant theology has only served to promote this error.

Previously, we noted that the Westminster Confession and the Puritans were two of the primary tools that advance covenant theology. Let's take a look at what one Puritan theologian had to say with regard to the Westminster Confession. Dr. R.L. Dabney [1820-1898], a well-known Southern Presbyterian [Covenant] theologian, brought out the difference between the Puritan's Westminster Standards, and the grace-stand of Luther and Calvin.

The cause of this error [the teaching of assurance of salvation] is no doubt that doctrine concerning faith which the first Reformers, as Luther and Calvin, were led to adopt from their opposition to the hateful and tyrannical teachings of Rome. These noble Reformers... asserted that the assurance of hope is of the essence of saving faith. Thus says Calvin in his Commentary on Romans, "My faith is a divine and scriptural belief that God has pardoned me and accepted me."

Calvin requires everyone to say, in substance, I believe fully that Christ has saved me. Amidst all Calvin's verbal variations, this is always his meaning; for he is consistent in his error... for as sure as truth is in history, Luther and Calvin did fall into this error, which the Reformed churches, led by the Westminster Confession of Faith, have since corrected. (Discussions of Robert L. Dabney, Vol. I, pp. 215-16)

According to Reformed, Puritan, covenant theology the idea of telling believers that they can know for sure they are saved is a grievous error. The covenant view of assurance is diametrically opposed to what Luther and Calvin taught. Can you know for sure that you are saved? Not according to Dabney, and his covenant friends. The end result is a gospel of works with NO assurance of salvation.

Yes, doctrine in one area will surely affect doctrine in all other areas. When you start mingling Israel and the Church you open yourself up to all kinds of errors. On the surface it might not seem like one's view of future events is important, but when you see the trouble it leads to, I'm inclined to think that it behooves us to avoid the "slough of covenant despond!"

Dispensational Theology and the Law

The traditional view of dispensational theology kept Israel separate from the church. It kept the law separate from grace. Yet, in recent years that distinction has become blurred. Small cracks were seen in the dispensational dike about 30 to 40 years ago. Walter C. Kaiser Jr., a non-dispensational theologian, observed:

Somewhere in the decade of the 1960s, one of the most significant developments in dispensationalism took place. It happened so quietly, but so swiftly, that it is difficult to document, even to this day. This is what changed the whole course of dispensationalism: the view that there were two new covenants, one for Israel and one for the church, was decisively dropped. The implications of such a move are enormous, as the events that followed duly testified.

The new covenant was made with "the house of Israel and the house of Judah," yet the church was obviously enjoying the benefits of this same covenant. They drank the "blood of the covenant" in the Lord's Supper, and they had "ministers of the new covenant."

But when Israel and the church were viewed as sharing one and the same covenant, the possibilities for major rapprochement between covenant theology and dispensationalism became immediately obvious. Moreover, that one factor ended the major roadblock in a key hermeneutical rule that dispensationalism had repeatedly stressed in the past: keep Israel's mail separate from the mail that was written for the church. Thus, 2 Chronicles 7:14 ("If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves…"), for example, did not need to be restricted, as had been taught, solely to Israel but could now be addressed to the whole church. On the same bases, the Sermon on the Mount was released from its future kingdom setting for use by the whole body of Christ now.

Today those cracks have turned into a virtual flood as a new brand of dispensational theology has come on the scene. Progressive dispensationalism (which is really regressive in nature) has continued to blur these Biblical distinctions even more. This new brand of dispensationalism is really a compromise between dispensational and covenant theology.

Within the dispensational ranks we have men like John MacArther who claims to be a dispensationalist. On the one hand he says:
Dispensationalism is a fundamentally correct system of understanding God's program through the ages. Its chief element is a recognition that God's plan for Israel is not superseded by or swallowed up in His program for the church… And in that regard, I consider myself a traditional premillennial dispensationalist.

But on the other hand he states:
There is a tendency, however, for dispensationalists to get carried away with compartmentalizing truth to the point that they can make unbiblical distinctions. An almost obsessive desire to categorize everything neatly has led various dispensationalist interpreters to hard lines not only between the church and Israel, but also between salvation and discipleship, the church and the kingdom, Christ's preaching and the apostolic message, faith and repentance, and the age of law and the age of grace. The age of law/age of grace division in particular has wreaked havoc on dispensationalist theology and contributed to confusion about the doctrine of salvation.

It's no wonder that Dr. MacArthur advocates the works oriented gospel known as Lordship Salvation. He refuses to recognize the difference between the gospel of the kingdom and the gospel of grace. He blurs the distinctions between Israel and the church… between law and grace… between discipleship and salvation. As you read through the writings of Dr. MacArthur, you will see that the majority of authors he quotes are Puritan, Covenant, Reformed theologians. His theology has definitely been tainted by the law.

Dr. Newell rightly observed:

It is a harmful perversion of the truth of God to teach (as did the Puritan theologians) that while we are not to keep the law as a means of salvation, we are under it as a ‘rule of life.' Let a Christian only confess, ‘I am under the law,' and straightway Moses fastens his yoke upon him, despite all his protests that the law has lost its power. Men have to be delivered from the whole legal principle, from the entire sphere where law reigns, ere true liberty can be found.

There are numerous doctrines and practices that are eroding the foundations of dispensational theology. Men such as Dr. MacArther and Dr. Charles Stanley would lead us to believe that as Christians we have no sin nature. They tell us that our problem lies in the fact we have residual bad habits that are left over from when we were sinners. By ignoring the sin nature in us, they are merely putting a "Band-Aid" over the real problem. They deal with symptoms and not the cause. They would try to utilize the law in order to keep the flesh under control. They resort to the world's system of "behavior modification" to deal with a spiritual problem. They leave Christians wallowing in Romans chapter 7 with no hope of reaching Romans chapter 8. Dr. MacArther has followed the slippery path right behind his so-called progressive friends and the myriad of others who would mix law with grace.

One of the most depressing articles that I came across was an exposition of Romans chapter 7 written by A. W. Pink, a covenant theologian. According to him, Romans 7 is the normal Christian life. We can never hope to gain the victory found in Romans 8during our lifetime. This is the hope that law-based religion holds out to you and I.

I've attempted to show the pitfalls and dangers of embracing a law tainted doctrine. Yet, even those of us who promote the teachings of grace have a morbid propensity to slip back into the law in our own Christian life. For instance, we receive a material blessing and begin to wonder what we did to deserve it. Or when something bad happens to us we wonder what evil we did to deserve it. We naturally think that somehow we must merit God's blessings. Or we think that our failures result in demerit in the eyes of God. This type of mentality comes from the law—not grace.
The way we treat each other also reveals our failure to understand and appropriate grace. Sometimes we feel that we should only give grace where grace is due. But grace that is deserved is not grace—it's merit. It's a good thing that God doesn't just give us grace when we deserve it. We'd be in big trouble if that were true!
When bank-tellers are taught to tell counterfeit money from real they are given genuine currency to handle. By knowing the real, they will be able to see the false. Only a solid understanding of grace will keep us from being ensnared in the tangled web of law-based covenant theology.

End Notes:
1. Cornelius Van Til, "Covenant Theology," in Twentieth Century Encyclopedia (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1955), 1:306
2. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (second revised and enlarged edition; Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1941), 211.
3. Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism, Revised and Expanded (Moody Press: Chicago,1995),185.
4. Renald E. Showers, There Really is a Difference! A Comparison of Covenant and Dispensational Theology (The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, Inc: Bellmwr, NJ, 1990)
5. Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism, Revised and Expanded (Moody Press: Chicago,1995),183-184.
6. Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. "An Epangelical Response" in Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church-The Search for Definition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 369.
7. John R. MacArthrur, Jr. The Gospel According to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan), 25.
8. Ibid.

"Eternity to the godly is a day that has no sunset; eternity to the wicked is a night that has no sunrise."

MY LORD I DID NOT CHOOSE YOU

2008-10-27T15:51:00.000-04:00

My Lord, I did not choose You,
For that could never be;
My heart would still refuse You,
Had You not chosen me.
You took the sin that stained me,
You cleansed me, made me new;
Of old You have ordained me,
That I should live in You.

Unless Your grace had called me
and taught my opening mind,
The world would have enthralled me,
to heav’nly glories blind.
My heart knows none above You,
For Your rich grace I thirst,
I know that if I love You, You must have loved me first.

Written by: Josiah Conder (1789-1855

Michael S. Malone, ABC News Is Ashamed To Be Called A Journalist

2008-10-27T10:43:00.003-04:00

This is probably one of the best articles I have read regarding the bias the main stream press has shown during this election campaign. It's a tad long but worth the read. I wonder how long he will remain on ABC News - James

This comment from Newsbuster.org

So strong were his words that they should be required reading for all the Obama-loving media members that have disgraced themselves as well as their industry this year, especially if Malone's assertion that they're doing this to protect their own careers via a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine that will "crush the alternative media" is correct (h/t LGF via NBer Paul Wright, picture courtesy Santa Clara University):

Editing Their Way to Oblivion: Journalism Sacrificed For Power and Pensions
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
By Michael S. Malone

The traditional media is playing a very, very dangerous game. With its readers, with the Constitution, and with its own fate.

The sheer bias in the print and television coverage of this election campaign is not just bewildering, but appalling. And over the last few months I’ve found myself slowly moving from shaking my head at the obvious one-sided reporting, to actually shouting at the screen of my television and my laptop computer.

But worst of all, for the last couple weeks, I’ve begun — for the first time in my adult life — to be embarrassed to admit what I do for a living. A few days ago, when asked by a new acquaintance what I did for a living, I replied that I was “a writer”, because I couldn’t bring myself to admit to a stranger that I’m a journalist.

You need to understand how painful this is for me. I am one of those people who truly bleeds ink when I’m cut. I am a fourth generation newspaperman. As family history tells it, my great-grandfather was a newspaper editor in Abilene, Kansas during the last of the cowboy days, then moved to Oregon to help start the Oregon Journal (now the Oregonian). My hard-living - and when I knew her, scary - grandmother was one of the first women reporters for the Los Angeles Times. And my father, though profoundly dyslexic, followed a long career in intelligence to finish his life (thanks to word processors and spellcheckers) as a very successful freelance writer. I’ve spent thirty years in every part of journalism, from beat reporter to magazine editor. And my oldest son, following in the family business, so to speak, earned his first national by-line before he earned his drivers license.

So, when I say I’m deeply ashamed right now to be called a “journalist”, you can imagine just how deep that cuts into my soul.

Now, of course, there’s always been bias in the media. Human beings are biased, so the work they do, including reporting, is inevitably colored. Hell, I can show you ten different ways to color variations of the word “said” - muttered, shouted, announced, reluctantly replied, responded, etc. - to influence the way a reader will apprehend exactly the same quote. We all learn that in Reporting 101, or at least in the first few weeks working in a newsroom. But what we are also supposed to learn during that same apprenticeship is to recognize the dangerous power of that technique, and many others, and develop built-in alarms against their unconscious.

But even more important, we are also supposed to be taught that even though there is no such thing as pure, Platonic objectivity in reporting, we are to spend our careers struggling to approach that ideal as closely as possible. That means constantly challenging our own prejudices, systematically presenting opposing views, and never, ever burying stories that contradict our own world views or challenge people or institutions we admire. If we can’t achieve Olympian detachment, than at least we can recognize human frailty - especially in ourselves.

For many years, spotting bias in reporting was a little parlor game of mine, watching TV news or reading a newspaper article and spotting how the reporter had inserted, often unconsciously, his or her own preconceptions. But I always wrote it off as bad judgment, and lack of professionalism, rather than bad faith and conscious advocacy. Sure, being a child of the ‘60s I saw a lot of subjective “New” Journalism, and did a fair amount of it myself, but that kind of writing, like columns and editorials, was supposed to be segregated from ‘real’ reporting, and at least in mainstream media, usually was. The same was true for the emerging blogosphere, which by its very nature was opinionated and biased.

But my complacent faith in my peers first began to be shaken when some of the most admired journalists in the country were exposed as plagiarists, or worse, accused of making up stories from whole cloth. I’d spent my entire professional career scrupulously pounding out endless dreary footnotes and double-checking sources to make sure that I never got accused of lying or stealing someone else’s work - not out any native honesty, but out of fear: I’d always been told to fake or steal a story was a firing offense . . .indeed, it meant being blackballed out of the profession.

And yet, few of those worthies ever seemed to get fired for their crimes - and if they did they were soon rehired into an even more prestigious jobs. It seemed as if there were two sets of rules: one for us workaday journalists toiling out in the sticks, and another for folks who’d managed, through talent or deceit, to make it to the national level.

Meanwhile, I watched with disbelief as the nation’s leading newspapers, many of whom I’d written for in the past, slowly let opinion pieces creep into the news section, and from there onto the front page. Personal opinions and comments that, had they appeared in my stories in 1979, would have gotten my butt kicked by the nearest copy editor, were now standard operating procedure at the New York Times, the Washington Post, and soon after in almost every small town paper in the U.S.

But what really shattered my faith - and I know the day and place where it happened - was the War in Lebanon three summers ago. The hotel I was staying at in Windhoek, Namibia only carried CNN, a network I’d already learned to approach with skepticism. But this was CNN International, which is even worse. I sat there, first with my jaw hanging down, then actually shouting at the TV, as one field reporter after another reported the carnage of the Israeli attacks on Beirut, with almost no corresponding coverage of the Hezbollah missiles raining down on northern Israel. The reporting was so utterly and shamelessly biased that I sat there for hours watching, assuming that eventually CNNi would get around to telling the rest of the story . . .but it never happened.

But nothing, nothing I’ve seen has matched the media bias on display in the current Presidential campaign. Republicans are justifiably foaming at the mouth over the sheer one-sidedness of the press coverage of the two candidates and their running mates. But in the last few days, even Democrats, who have been gloating over the pass - no, make that shameless support - they’ve gotten from the press, are starting to get uncomfortable as they realize that no one wins in the long run when we don’t have a free and fair press. I was one of the first people in the traditional media to call for the firing of Dan Rather - not because of his phony story, but because he refused to admit his mistake - but, bless him, even Gunga Dan thinks the media is one-sided in this election.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not one of those people who think the media has been too hard on, say, Gov. Palin, by rushing reportorial SWAT teams to Alaska to rifle through her garbage. This is the Big Leagues, and if she wants to suit up and take the field, then Gov. Palin better be ready to play. The few instances where I think the press has gone too far - such as the Times reporter talking to Cindy McCain’s daughter’s MySpace friends - can easily be solved with a few newsroom smackdowns and temporary repostings to the Omaha Bureau.

No, what I object to (and I think most other Americans do as well) is the lack of equivalent hardball coverage of the other side - or worse, actively serving as attack dogs for Senators Obama and Biden. If the current polls are correct, we are about to elect as President of the United States a man who is essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography. That isn’t Sen. Obama’s fault: his job is to put his best face forward. No, it is the traditional media’s fault, for it alone (unlike the alternative media) has had the resources to cover this story properly, and has systematically refused to do so.

Why, for example to quote McCain’s lawyer, haven’t we seen an interview with Sen. Obama’s grad school drug dealer - when we know all about Mrs. McCain’s addiction? Are Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko that hard to interview? All those phony voter registrations that hard to scrutinize? And why are Senator Biden’s endless gaffes almost always covered up, or rationalized, by the traditional media?

The absolute nadir (though I hate to commit to that, as we still have two weeks before the election) came with Joe the Plumber. Middle America, even when they didn’t agree with Joe, looked on in horror as the press took apart the private life of an average person who had the temerity to ask a tough question of a Presidential candidate. So much for the Standing Up for the Little Man, so much for Speaking Truth to Power, so much for Comforting the Afflicted and Afflicting the Comfortable, and all of those other catchphrases we journalists used to believe we lived by.

I learned a long time ago that when people or institutions begin to behave in a manner that seems to be entirely against their own interests, it’s because we don’t understand what their motives really are. It would seem that by so exposing their biases and betting everything on one candidate over another, the traditional media is trying to commit suicide - especially when, given our currently volatile world and economy, the chances of a successful Obama presidency, indeed any presidency, is probably less than 50:50.

Furthermore, I also happen to believe that most reporters, whatever their political bias, are human torpedoes . . .and, had they been unleashed, would have raced in and roughed up the Obama campaign as much as they did McCain’s. That’s what reporters do, I was proud to have been one, and I’m still drawn to a good story, any good story, like a shark to blood in the water.

So why weren’t those legions of hungry reporters set loose on the Obama campaign? Who are the real villains in this story of mainstream media betrayal?

The editors. The men and women you don’t see; the people who not only decide what goes in the paper, but what doesn’t; the managers who give the reporters their assignments and lay-out the editorial pages. They are the real culprits.

Why? I think I know, because had my life taken a different path, I could have been one: Picture yourself in your 50s in a job where you’ve spent 30 years working your way to the top, to the cockpit of power . . . only to discover that you’re presiding over a dying industry. The Internet and alternative media are stealing your readers, your advertisers and your top young talent. Many of your peers shrewdly took golden parachutes and disappeared. Your job doesn’t have anywhere near the power and influence it did when your started your climb. The Newspaper Guild is too weak to protect you any more, and there is a very good chance you’ll lose your job before you cross that finish line, ten years hence, of retirement and a pension.

In other words, you are facing career catastrophe -and desperate times call for desperate measures. Even if you have to risk everything on a single Hail Mary play. Even if you have to compromise the principles that got you here. After all, newspapers and network news are doomed anyway - all that counts is keeping them on life support until you can retire.

And then the opportunity presents itself: an attractive young candidate whose politics likely matches yours, but more important, he offers the prospect of a transformed Washington with the power to fix everything that has gone wrong in your career. With luck, this monolithic, single-party government will crush the alternative media via a revived Fairness Doctrine, re-invigorate unions by getting rid of secret votes, and just maybe, be beholden to people like you in the traditional media for getting it there.

And besides, you tell yourself, it’s all for the good of the country . . .

Other Things I've Learned - B. Hussein Obama is a Dyed In The Wool Socialist

2008-10-27T10:30:00.004-04:00

Obama Bombshell Redistribution of Wealth Audio Uncovered
>> Help spread this you tube video as much as possible <<

Things I've Learned on the Journey

2008-10-27T09:46:00.006-04:00

This morning while rummaging through some old papers, I came across a devotion entitled, Things I've Leaned on the Journey. It originally was located on a website, http://www.pursuingchrist.com/ but it is no longer on the web. So I have to type it all out rather than cut and paste. It is very good and I want to share it with you

THINGS I'VE LEARNED ON THE JOURNEY - PART I
"Turn my eyes from worthless things and revive my heart toward you." - Psalm 119:37

(These are the author's words not mine, but in many respects my walk compares with his)

I have been a Christian now since June of 1978. Lets see that means I began this path a little more than 22 years ago. I wish I could tell you that in those 22 years, I have steadily been growing in my walk with the Lord and His presence grew nearer every day, but the reality in my walk with the Lord could be more compared to the stock market with long periods of steady climbs (not lately though - Jim) and weeks of severe crashes. I thought today that I would try to point out a few of the lessons that I have learned so far on this journey.

1. He is God and I am not. I am learning that I don't call the shots. As much as I think I am in control - as much as I want to be in control, I have come to realize that He does a much better job at being God than I do. When I try to control things in my natural strength and abilities I usually end up with a big mess.

2. I am 100% dependent on God 24 hours every day. I have come to realize that the Christian life cannot be lived in my own strength. Attempting to do so is a work in futility. I have come to realize that I need to depend on God the same way that a small child depends on his parents. I have learned that his is the walk God is calling each of His children to. The walk of childlike faith.

3. Activity for God does not replace your relationship with God. Busines or a Martha spirit is one of the thing that I must fight constantly. It is so easy to try to want to earn God's approval by the things that we do for Him. Whenever Ministry or good works or activity for God replaces your intimate, holy quest for God and time alone with Him, it can become hollow religious activity, devoid of life, joy or lasting fruitfullness. There was a good reason why in the midst of huge ministry needs, Jesus would often steal away to be with His Father. I must constantly remember that it is not so much what I do for Christ that matters, but He is much more concerned with what He is doing in me.

(TO BE CONTINUED)

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

2008-10-25T18:00:00.004-04:00

FAITH IS BELIEVING
THAT WHAT YOU
CANNOT SEE WILL
COME TO PASS

FEAR IS BELIEVING
THAT WHAT YOU
CANNOT SEE WILL
COME TO PASS

- Edwin Louis Cole

Pulpit Magazine on Politics and the Gospel

2008-10-25T17:53:00.007-04:00

Great blog, great articles.
Check out this link ...
Politics, Activism and the Gospel

Spurgeon on Politics

2008-10-25T17:44:00.004-04:00

(by Charles Spurgeon)

With the Canadian election over and the U.S. election just around the corner, I thought it would be appropriate to hear from one of the world's greatest preachers, Baptist too!

In particular, we must keep ourselves unspotted from the lepers of the world. There is a certain number of leprous men in the world. You can tell them by their conversation; and sometimes you cannot help going very near where they are; but if you hear them cry, “Unclean!” just give them a very wide berth. . . . We are to keep ourselves from all spots of the world when we have to mingle with it. Notice, there are spots which come from your circumstances. . . .

[Among these circumstances] are politics; you know what party politics are. We are all trying to [usher] in another set of maggots to eat the cheese; that is about all it amounts to; first turn out one lot, and then turn in another. It comes to little more than that. Even in the pursuit of really good matters of policy, do you know any Christian man who goes into politics who is the better for it? If I find such a man, I will have him stuffed if I can, for I have never seen such a specimen yet. I will not say, do not attend to politics; but I do say, do not let them spot you.

JUST A THOUGHT

2008-10-18T17:09:00.003-04:00

“When societies are bent on self-destruction through immolation of their own core values and traditions, not much can be done. Multiculturalism is not a culture. It is a flight from culture. It presents culture as a T- shirt; something to put on or take off at the right time. But real cultures do not operate this way; they are soul-embodying realities. Any nation that fails to sustain itself by teachinga core culture (around which other cultures may rotate, so to speak), will eventually fragment and pass away. Before that time comes it will transform from a common home into a kind of motel, with each in his or her own space which they can check into or out of at will without relating to anyone else. In this motel the only common interactions will be pragmatic, commercial, and legal.”

The Four F's and the Four G's

2008-10-18T15:46:00.007-04:00

Last night while in a chat room, entitled, "Can You Help Me Find Joe Plumber", I was afforded the opportunity to speak regarding true conservatism verses liberalism and why the USA would be in trouble if His Serene Majesty, the 'O' Man aka B. Hussein Obama was elected President or soon to be King of the USA. My little talk centered on the foundations of a conservative government and how that true freedom rested in the individual who lives his life based on moral law.

One of the best conservative writers in Canada is William Gairdner.Several years ago he was on a radio talk show in my home town of London, Ontario and I had the opportunity to get through to talk to him. I asked him what was wrong with Canada. Many of the leftist ideas being employed in our country were like a fever which is just an indicator of a more serious problem in the body, like an infected gall bladder etc.

What was Canada's infected gall bladder. The radio host said, "there is no way that Mr. Gairdner can answer that in 25 words or less."

Mr. Gairdner sad, "yes I can." Here is what he said on the radio but is now on his website:

In common parlance, countries that change from bottom-up to top-down, have in reality accepted a substitution of one set of values for another. They have abandoned what I call the four F's, and accepted the four G's.

The four F's are: freedom, family, free enterprise, and faith, and these are the essential cornerstones of a free society. But you know the country is based on the four G's when, instead of more freedom, you get more government; instead of a focus on the natural family, you get a focus on politically-defined groups; instead of the promotion of free enterprise, you get a focus on grants and tax grabs; instead of the moral direction provided by religious moral law, you get the official promotion of godlessness in schools and the public square.

He then proceeded to explain that there are five forms of radicalism that operate in our society to bring about this switch from the four F;s to the four G's.

RADICAL FEMINISM

The first, and perhaps most virulent of these is radical feminism, which seeks to overthrow the entire human biological order by promoting the fantastical idea that the sexes are exactly the same, and that any social differences in the way they choose to live must have resulted from brainwashing. But as Harvard professor Michael Levin dryly suggests, "any parent who has raised both boys and girls, and still thinks they are born the same, has already withstood more evidence to the contrary than any laboratory could possibly provide." On this score, and the sparkling British critic Kenneth Minogue pointed out in a delicious review in the Times Literary Supplement, that the first mistake we can make is to identify feminism with women, most of whom have never remotely supported it. "Feminist theory," as he puts it, is the dominant element of women's studies, and while polemically colourful, it does not really belong in the cool groves of academe. It is passionate and salvationist in a way similar to Marxism, to new religious movements, and occult enthusiasms: all of these know in advance not only the conclusions they will arrive at, but the appropriate attitude towards those conclusions. Academically, it is mostly unsophisticated. A little light generalizing work is followed by polysyllabic decoration and some spray-on indignation."
(But the people don't support radical feminism, so the law is its instrument).

RADICAL ABORTION/EUTHANASIAThe second radicalism (these are all linked) is the radical abortion/euthanasia movement, which attempts to substitute "the dignity of death" for "the sanctity of life," and thus to overthrow the order of love in society. Those who want a real shock should read my chapter on abortion in The War Against the Family. Euthanasia is just an extension of the abortion argument (which is pediatric euthanasia). The choice to kill someone inside you easily develops into the choice to kill someone outside you, to kill yourself, or to kill someone who wants you to kill them. Canada is now rushing into a period where formal euthanasia will surely be practiced by state physicians licenced to kill. Only too late will we discover that the ultimate form of substantive equality in the socialist state, is expressed by the right of the state itself to eliminate undesirables in the name of that same equality - for the good of the state. The state will have to let your sixty-year-old mother with a fixable heart problem die, because to save her will consume dollars that are better spent on someone younger, goes the argument.
(Once they understand the evil consequences of legalized killing, the people never support it - so the law is its instrument).

RADICAL PANSEXUALISM

The third radicalism is the radical pansexual movement, of which the homosexual, pornography, and incest movements, are parts. This radicalism seeks to overthrow the sexual order of western society, which is based on restrictions as to the number, gender, and age, of legal sexual partners. It does this in the name of "love", and on the grounds that because we are all naturally good, then all consenting sex, with whomsoever, and however, must also be good. It completely dispenses with our two-thousand-year-long tradition of attempting to teach the young the difference between good love, and bad love (such as self-love, incest love, love of little boys, polygamy, love of adultery, and so on). For history clearly shows how in the name of a generalized ideal of love rooted in uncontrolled human appetites, any behaviour can be justified. [Since these remarks were first written, Canada has proceeded to legalize homosexual marriage.]
(The people don't like pansexualism, or homosexuality - so the law is its instrument).

EDUCATIONAL RADICALISM

The fourth radicalism is educational radicalism, and here we have a continuous attempt, as the Swedes put it, "to divest the parents of their authority over their own children." These radicals seek to overthrow the private family order of civil society. The connection here is from Plato, to Rousseau, to John Dewey - to teacher-training institutions such as OISE, in Toronto. The strategy is to persuade the public that the teachers are trustees of the nation's children, not for the family, but for the state. It was Canada's Laurier Lapierre who, in 1978, intoxicated with the vision of the top-down, redistributive state, declared that "the child of Ontario is not a family child. He is an institutional child. It is not the school that is the extension of the home, but the home that is the extension of the school."

And former Calgary Board of Education Chairman (and law professor) Alex Proudfoot, was more blunt. He told a meeting of astonished parents: "The child is not your child. Canadian children are the property of the state, like our oil, our gas, and our pipelines...it's the law."
(But the people don't like educational radicalism - so the law is its instrument).

LEGAL RADICALISM

And finally, we have legal radicalism, the most powerful of all, emanating from law schools, law reform commissions, and tribunals and charters of every description, all of which gleefully circumvent the democratic process.

It is the legal fraternity, as Nisbet points out "that is rapidly becoming the most powerful wing of the political clerisy," and the reason is that they have figured out how to change the nation by saying: "to hell with the majority," as they seek to overthrow what they believe is the dim-witted democratic order of a free society.

The chief culprit in this exercise is Canada's 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to which our formerly sovereign and free legislators are now subordinate. For the Charter specifically promotes and entrenches the notion of substantive equality and other blatantly socialist programs, to be decreed by unelected judges whom no power in the land can remove. In doing so, it smothers our formerly free parliamentary sovereignty under a new judicial sovereignty. Canada's may be the only Charter in the world that intentionally subsidizes hundreds of thousands of citizens to stay in parts of the country where we all know there are no jobs, and never will be any jobs. It also identifies whole classes of citizens who shall be favoured over other classes according to linguistic, gender, religious, ethnic, or other such differences, in the most blatant form of legal discrimination imaginable. This is arbitrary law at its worst, ensconced as high principle in the nation's highest legal document. In other words, it's not really law at all. It's plain old power politics.

This new egalitarian form of power, a power that suppresses the human distinctions due to natural merit, talent, and “degree,” as Shakespeare once again so memorably put it, soon becomes “an universal wolf, that soon eats up itself."

But even this, it seems, is not sufficient:

Professor Sue Sherwin of Dalhousie law school informed us in October of 1993 that the reform of legal and political systems alone is inadequate. What we really need to change, she says, is "the private realm, the way people think."

And that is the rallying call for the modern Gnostic project, for the legal clerisy, and especially for the academic bourgeoisie, comfortably entrenched in the unversities of North America, who promote the state as the defender, not of individual freedom under the law, but as a draconian dispenser of an arbitrary, coercive, and material substantive equality.
And so I want to end with the simplest and most chilling truth about such forced equality, a truth understood most fully - perhaps only - by the millions who have endured frigid seas and alien mountains as they desperately fleeing the miseries of arbitrary law:

If you want more of this kind of equality, you need more government, and if you want total equality, you need total government.

Without a doubt you can see all elements of these radical movements working in our society, both in Canada and the USA. The average citizen does not study or learn about the idea of freedom and looks to the state as their defender and basically keeps his head in the sand or in the other opening

James
"Resting in Him"

Where Have I Been

2008-10-17T10:40:00.005-04:00

Hi folks,

People have been asking and wondering where I have been with the blog.

No, I have not been in prison, mind you up here in Canada being in prison is not all that bad. Being in prison is like being in CLUB MED with all the luxuries.

No, I was not kidnapped by aliens, even though many have wondered about that and believe that I have been. "Nano Nano"

No, I did not lose my salvation. I believe in eternal security.

Well then what is the excuse.

Several actually. Busy with life, busy with work, and apathy. Yes I have been apathetic towards life the past year or two. You are probably asking why?

Midlife crisis maybe, the kids are getting older and create even a heavier demand but thats all part of being a parent but at times you wish you had more time for yourself and your wife.

Plus we had served at our former church for about 5-6 years and then somehow it went into a power struggle with the Pastor who wanted total control over the Board etc.

After we left our old we have attended two baptist churches. Yes they were Baptist but we were not happy with the style of worship or some of the things that they were teaching. They are Arminian in perspective. So we are looking for a good sovereign grace church and there are none other than a covenant theology/amillenial church which I could never attend. There eschatological beliefs would effect every aspect of their preaching etc.

As well I had an outing with a "so called" brother in Christ in a small group and the entire group has shunned us for about a year. I guess all the talk about small group unity, love, support etc. was simply that, talk. I tried talking to him about it but he did not want too.

So in many respects it affects your spiritual walk and in turn effects every aspect of life. I'm thankful that I continue to read my bible and study it as well as my on going habit of reading Christian books.

So, forgive the whining and I hope to keep the blog updated more often.

James
"Resting in Him

Bar Stool Economics

2008-10-17T10:30:00.003-04:00

From Jim, by the way my family and I are not rich but do believe in truth and the facts.

“The Rich don’t pay enough taxes”
I’m sure you have heard this yelled before by the commies, the socialists etc., probably even Gina Barber and Irene Mathyssen (two local socialists on my City Council.)

Remember a socialist is simply a communist without a rifle, if you think your taxes are high now, vote in the NDP and see what happens, Remember Bob Rae and Ontario a few years back

But read this below and hopefully you will understand.

By the way, 90-95% of all monies generated by tax revenue in the USA is from about 5%of the population … yes you heard me right … the rich do pay taxes and they pay most of it . hmmmmmmmmmm

By the way my apologies to any of you if you’re a Commie or a socialist, I know how much the truth must offend you.

And yes I was tempted to send it to Gina, Irene and Bob Rae (socialist politicians in Canada) but I’m sure they have heard it before, go directly to Number 2 at the bottom

Bar Stool Economics

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers, he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so: The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings)
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead o f $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant the men began to compare their savings.

'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'

'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'

'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man.. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him.. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia

1.For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
2.For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

James
"Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged." - Ronald Reagan

Whats All the Flack About THE SHACK

2008-07-27T14:07:00.002-04:00

I bought the book, THE SHACK about two weeks ago. It was mentioned in a newsletter that I received and the next day early in the morning as I was cruising the tube, the author, William P. Young was on James Robison's television show. I normally don't watch Robison but he had this author on, so I was somewhat puzzled as too why I would come across this mention of the book in two days. I listened to the author and as well as Robison's endorsement of the book.

So rather than make a judgement call on this book without reading it, I purchased it the next day from my local christian book store. The owner was in the store at the time and he mentioned that he and his wife read the book. I asked him what he thought of it and he said, read the book, then we will talk. Right away the flags went up and I knew either that I would totally agree with the author or totally disagree with the author.

I am about two thirds through the book and so far, I would say I am totally in disagreement with the author and find that this book is so far from scriptural truth no wonder it is being accepted by weak christians in an age of apostacy. It reeks with "emergent church" heresy and the basic foundation truth is new age gnosticism.

Tim Challies has written a great book review on it and I encourage you to read this review before you purchase the book:

I am certain that there is no other book I’ve been asked to review more times than William P. Young’s The Shack, a book that is currently well within the top-100 best-selling titles at Amazon. The book, it seems, is becoming a hit and especially so among students and among those who are part of the Emergent Church. In the past few weeks many concerned readers have written to ask if I would be willing to read it and to provide a review. Because I am always interested in books that are popular among Christians, I was glad to comply.

The Amazon reader reviews for The Shack are remarkable. With 102 reviews already posted, it is maintaining a five-star rating with fully ninety three of the reviewers awarding five stars. Only two have offered one star. A search of blogs and websites turns up near-unanimous enthusiastic (and almost unbridled) praise for the book. “This book is a life-changer, a transformer.” “[The Shack] has become a favorite book OF ALL TIME.” “I am changed. I pray indelibly. My oh my!” This book, which was released in May but which has already gone into its fourth printing, is making a major impact. It has obviously struck a chord with Christians.

I’ll warn in advance that this review is going to be long. My major focus will be the book’s content though I’ll pause to glance fleetingly at the book’s style as well. Because I’ve received so many questions and because the author covers so much ground in the book (and sometimes in a way that is somewhat unclear) I am going to proceed carefully and with many quotes.

There are two things I would like to note about this type of book—theological fiction. First, because of the limitations of the genre, it is sometimes difficult to really know what an author means by what he says. There is often some question as to what comes from the author and what comes from the characters. The author cannot always adequately explain himself; nor can he provide footnotes or references to Scripture. It can be challenging, then, to turn to the Bible to ensure that what he teaches is true. This makes the task of discernment doubly difficult, for one must first interpret the fiction to understand what is being said and then seek to compare that to the Bible. We will do well to keep this in mind as we proceed.

Second, we must also realize that, because of the emotional impact of reading good fiction, it can be easy to allow it to become manipulative and to allow the emotion of a moment to bypass our ability to discern what is true and what is not. This is another thing the reader must keep in mind. We cannot trust our laughter or our tears but must allow our powers of discernment to be trained to distinguish good from evil (see Hebrews 5:14). Discernment is primarily a Spirit-empowered discipline of the mind rather than an emotional response.

So let’s look at this book together, doing the task God requires of us when he tells us to be men and women of discernment—Christians who heed God’s admonition to “test everything; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil.” We’ll simply compare what Young teaches to the Bible.

The Book as a Book
First, a word about the book as it is written. William Young shows himself to be a capable writer, though I would not have believed it through the first couple of chapters. The book began with far too many awkward sentences and awkward sentence constructs (e.g. “One can almost hear a unified sigh rise from the nearby city and surrounding countryside where Nature has intervened to give respite to the weary humans slogging it out within her purview”). But as it went on and as the story took over the book became easier to read. The story itself is interesting enough, though certainly it lacks originality. The last chapter should have been left on the editing room floor and the final paragraph (before the “After Words”) was a ridiculously terse attempt to provide closure to remaining plot lines. But on the whole the book is readable and enjoyable. Never does it become boring, even after long pages of nothing but dialog.

But Young did not write this book for the story. This book is all about the content and about the teaching it contains. The book’s reviews focus not on the quality of the story but on its spiritual or emotional impact. Eugene Peterson grasps this, saying in his glowing endorsement, “When the imagination of a writer and the passion of a theologian cross-fertilize the result is a novel on the order of “The Shack.” This book has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan’s “Pilgrim’s Progress” did for his. It’s that good!” Could it really be that good? Is it good enough to warrant positive comparison to the English-language book that has been read more widely than any other save the Bible? Let’s turn to the book’s content and find out.

What Is The Shack?
The Shack revolves around Mack (Mackenzie) Philips. Four years before this story begins, Mack’s young daughter, Missy, was abducted during a family vacation. Though her body was never found, the police did find evidence in an abandoned shack to prove that she had been brutally murdered by a notorious serial killer who preyed on young girls. As the story begins, Mack, who has been living in the shadow of his Great Sadness, receives a strange note that is apparently from God. God invites Mack to return to this shack for a get together. Though uncertain, Mack visits the scene of the crime and there has a weekend-long encounter with God, or, more properly, with the godhead.

What should you do when you come to the door of a house, or cabin in this case, where God might be? Should you knock? Presumably God already knew that Mack was there. Maybe he ought to simply walk in and introduce himself, but that seemed equally absurd. And how should he address him? Should he call him Father, or Almighty One, or perhaps Mr. God, and would it be best if he fell down and worshipped, not that he was really in the mood.

As he tried to establish some inner mental balance, the anger that he thought had so recently died inside him began to emerge. No longer concerned or caring about what to call God and energized by his ire, he walked up to the door. Mack decided to bang loudly and see what happened, but just as he raised his fist to do so, the door flew open, and he was looking directly into the face of a large beaming African-American woman.

This large and oh-so-stereotypical matronly African-American woman is God (or at least an anthropomorphism of God she chose to take on in order to communicate with Mack). Throughout the story she is known as Papa. Near the end, because Mack requires a father figure, she turns into a pony-tailed, grey-haired man, but otherwise God is this woman. Jesus is a young to middle-aged man of Middle-Eastern (i.e. Jewish) descent with a big nose and rather plain looks while the Holy Spirit is played by Sarayu, a small, delicate and eclectic woman of Asian descent. By this point many people will choose to close the book and be done with it. But for the purposes of this review, let’s just assume you are able to get past seeing God and the Holy Spirit portrayed in this way and let’s press on.

There is very little action in The Shack and the bulk of the book is dialog, mostly as the members of the Trinity communicate with Mack, though occasionally we see glimpses into their relationship with one another. The banter between the members of the Trinity, most of which is geared towards helping us understand the love that exists between them, leads to some rather bizarre dialog. Take this as a typical example:

Mack was shocked at the scene in front of him. It appeared that Jesus had dropped a large bowl of some sort of batter or sauce on the floor, and it was everywhere. It must have landed close to Papa because the lower portion of her skirt and bare feet were covered in the gooey mess. All three were laughing so hard that Mack didn’t think they were breathing. Sarayu said something about humans being clumsy and all three started roaring again. Finally, Jesus brushed past Mack and returned a minute later with a large basin of water and towels. Sarayu had already started wiping the goop from the floor and cupboards, but Jesus went straight to Papa and, kneeling at her feet, began to wipe off the front of her clothes. He worked down to her feet and gently lifted one foot at a time, which he directed into the basin where he cleaned and massaged it.

“Ooooh, that feels soooo good!” exclaimed Papa, as she continued her tasks at the counter.

Young covers a wide variety of theological topics in this book, each of which is relevant to the theme of Mack’s suffering and his inability to trust in a God who could let his daughter be treated in such a horrifying way. The author is unafraid to tackle subjects of deep theological import—a courageous thing to do in so difficult a genre as fiction. The reader will find himself diving into deep waters as he reads this book.

Much of what Young writes is good and even helpful (again, assuming that the reader can see past the human personifications of God). He affirms the absolute nature of what is good and teaches that evil exists only in relation to what is good; he challenges the reader to understand that God is inherently good and that we can only truly trust God if we believe Him to be good; he acknowledges the human tendency to create our image of God by looking at human qualities and assuming that God is simply the same but more so; he attempts to portray the loving relationships within the Trinity; and so on. For these areas I am grateful as they provided helpful correctives to many false understandings of God.

But the book also raised several concerns. Young covers many topics and time would fail me to discuss each of them. Instead, I will look at concerns with some of the book’s broader themes and will do so under several theological headings.

The Trinity
Young teaches that the Trinity exists entirely without hierarchy and that any kind of hierarchy is the result of sin. The Trinity, he says, “are in a circle of relationship, not a chain of command or ‘great chain of being’… Hierarchy would make no sense among us.” Now it’s possible that he is referring to a kind of dominance or grade or command structure that may well be foreign to the godhead. But a reading of the Bible will prove that hierarchy does, indeed, exist even where there is no sin. After all, the angels exist in a hierarchy and have done so since before the Fall. Also, in heaven there will be degrees of reward and there will be some who are appointed to special positions (such as the Apostles). And the Bible makes it clear that there is some kind of hierarchy even within the Trinity. The Spirit and the Son have submitted themselves to the Father. The task of the Spirit is to lead people to the Son who in turn brings glory to the Father. Never do we find the Father submitting to the Spirit or to the Son. Their hierarchy is perfect—without anger or malice or envy, but it is a hierarchy nonetheless.

There are other teachings about the Trinity that concerned me. For example, Papa says “I am truly human, in Jesus.” This simply cannot be true. God [the Father—a term that the author avoids] is not fully human in Jesus. This melds the two persons of God in a way that is simply unbiblical. Some of what Young teaches is novel and even possible, but without Scriptural support. For example, he teaches that the triune nature of God was an absolute necessity since without it God would be incapable of love. His reasoning is not perfectly clear but seems to be that if God did not have such a relationship “within himself” he would be unable to love. But this is not taught in the Bible.

Overall, I had to conclude that Young has an inadequate and often-unbiblical understanding of the Trinity. While granting that the Trinity is a very difficult topic to understand and one that we cannot know fully, there are several indications that he often blurs the distinct persons of the Trinity along with their roles and their unique attributes. Combined with his novel but unsupported conjectures, this is a serious concern.

Submission
Young uses the discussion about the Trinity as a bridge to a the subject of submission. Here he teaches that each member of the Trinity submits to the other. Jesus says, “That’s the beauty you see in my relationship with Abba and Sarayu. We are indeed submitted to one another and have always been so and will always be. Papa is as much submitted to me as I to him, or Sarayu to me, or Papa to her. Submission is not about authority and it is not obedience; it is all about relationships of love and respect. In fact, we are submitted to you in the same way.” Why would the God of the universe seek to be submitted to mere humans? “Because we want you to join us in our circle of relationship.” Genuine relationships, according to the author, must be marked by mutual submission. “As the crowning glory of Creation, you were made in our image, unencumbered by structure and free to simply ‘be’ in relationship with me and one another. If you had truly learned to regard each other’s concerns as significant as your own, there would be no need for hierarchy.” Submission, according to this book, must be mutual, so that husbands submit to wives while wives submit to husbands, and parents submit to children while children submit to parents. While the Bible does teach that we are to submit to one another, it also teaches that God has ordained some kinds of hierarchy. While a husband is to submit his desires to his wife, even to the point of sacrificing his life for her, he is never called to submit to her in an authoritative sense. Wives, though, are commanded to submit to their husbands, acknowledging that the husband is the head of the family. Similarly, all people are to submit to the God-given authorities and every person is responsible to submit to God.

This understanding of absolute equality not just in value (which the Bible affirms) but also in role and function (which the Bible does not affirm), leads to a strange idea about why God created Eve out of Adam. He teaches that it was crucial for man be created before woman, but with woman hidden inside man. Had this not happened, there could not have been a proper circle of relationship since otherwise man would always come from woman (through childbirth), allowing her to claim a dominant position. She came out of him and now all men come out of her. This allows total, absolute equality, says Young. I can think of absolutely no biblical proof for this and neither does the author offer any.

And so we see that Young uses The Shack to teach an unbiblical understanding of submission. And he uses this topic to bridge to another.

Free Will
Young’s understanding of free will seems to follow from submission. “I don’t want slaves to do my will,” says Jesus. “I want brothers and sisters who will share life with me.” Speaking in veiled terms about conversion or something like it, Jesus says, “We will come and live our life inside of you, so that you begin to see with our eyes, and hear with our ears, and touch with our hands, and think like we do. But, we will never force that union with you. If you want to do your thing, have at it. Time is on our side.” God, it seems, has already forgiven all humans for their sin and has willingly submitted himself to them, though only some people will choose relationship. He is fully reconciled to all human beings and simply waits for them to do their part. Never does Young clearly discuss the consequences that will face those who refuse to accept this offer of union.

Overall, Young presents a God who is unable or unwilling to break into history in any consequential way. He is sovereign at times, but certainly not so in conversion (a topic that receives only scant attention) and is limited by the free will choices of human beings. Scant attention is paid to God’s fore-ordination, the understanding that nothing happens without it somehow being part of His decree (even while God cannot be accused of being the author of evil). Papa explains to Mack, “There was no way to create freedom without a cost.” But nowhere in the Bible do we find that God is somehow made captive by human free will and that He has to allow things to proceed in order to maintain His own integrity as Creator. Always God is sovereign, even over the free will choices of men. Our inability to understand how this can be does not preclude us from the responsibility of believing it.

Forgiveness
Much of the story focuses on forgiveness. Mack has to learn to forgive first God (or at least to come to an intellectual understanding of why God was unable to intervene to save Missy) and then, at the book’s culmination, to forgive the murderer. I am adamantly opposed to the idea that we would ever need to forgive God for anything. However, because this teaching is seen only vaguely in the novel, I will pass over it for now and turn to another area of forgiveness—that of unconditional forgiveness.

Nowhere in Scripture will we find the idea that we can or should forgive an unrepentant person for this kind of crime. Rather, Scripture makes it clear that repentance must precede forgiveness. Without repentance there can be no forgiveness. This is true of God’s offer of forgiveness to us and, as we are to model this in our human relationships, must be true of how we offer forgiveness to others. So when, at the book’s climax, Mack cries out “I forgive you” to the murderer (who is not present and has not sought forgiveness) he cannot offer true forgiveness. Neither can true forgiveness exist where Mack is unable to pursue reconciliation with this man. Forgiveness makes no sense and means nothing if we require it in this way. It may make a person feel better about himself, but it cannot bring about true forgiveness and true reconciliation. And so Young teaches a therapeutic, inadequate and unbiblical understanding of forgiveness.

Scripture and Revelation
There are few doctrines more important to Christian living than this one—understanding how it is that God chooses to communicate with human beings. Though the Bible teaches that Scripture is the “norming norm,” many Christians give precedence to other supposed forms of revelation, and particularly promptings, leadings and “still, small voices.” Sure enough, such an emphasis is seen clearly in The Shack. How will we hear from God in day-to-day life (away from the miraculous shack)? “You will learn to hear my thoughts in yours,” says Sarayu. “Of course you will make mistakes; everybody makes mistakes, but you will begin to better recognize my voice as we continue to grow our relationship.” And where will we find the Spirit? “You might see me in a piece of art, or music, or silence, or through people, or in Creation, or in your joy and sorrow. My ability to communicate is limitless, living and transforming, and it will always be tuned to Papa’s goodness and love. And you will hear and see me in the Bible in fresh ways. Just don’t look for rules and principles; look for relationship—a way of coming to be with us.”

Beyond looking for new revelation, The Shack says little about how God has communicated or will continue to communicate with us in Scripture. There are a couple of times that it mentions the Bible, but never does it point to Scripture as a real authority or as the sufficient Word of God. “In seminary [Mac] had been taught that God had completely stopped any overt communication with moderns, preferring to have them only listen to and follow sacred Scripture, properly interpreted, of course. God’s voice had been reduced to paper, and even that paper had to be moderated and deciphered by the proper authorities and intellects… Nobody wanted God in a box, just in a book. Especially an expensive one bound in leather with gilt edges, or was that guilt edges?” Here we see Young pointing away from Scripture rather than towards it. Through Mack he scoffs at the idea that God has spoken authoritatively and sufficiently through the Bible. And if he points away from Scripture he points towards subjective promptings and leadings.

Though common, such teaching is dangerous and directly detracts from the sufficiency of Scripture. When we admit that God has not, in the Bible, said all that He needs to say to us, we open the doors for all manner of new revelation, much of which may contradict the Bible. What authority is there if not the Bible? Ultimately the issue of revelation is an issue of authority and too many Christians are willing to trust their own authority over the Bible’s. What authority does Young rely on as he brings teaching here in The Shack? Does he look to a higher authority or does he look mostly to himself? The reader can have no confidence that Young loves and respects God’s Word has He chose to give it to us in Scripture.

Salvation
The book contains surprisingly little teaching about salvation. When Young does discuss conversion, he places it firmly in the camp of relationship but also uses the stereotypical phrases such as “this is not a religion” and “Jesus isn’t a Christian.” Jesus apparently loves all people in exactly the same way, having judged them worthy of his love. Young also wades dangerously close to universalism saying that Jesus has no interest in making people into Christians. Rather, no matter what faith they come from, he wishes to “join them in their transformation into sons and daughters of my Papa.” He denies that all roads lead to him (since most roads lead nowhere) but says instead, “I will travel any road to find you.” Whether Young holds to universalism or not, and whether he believes that all faiths can lead a person to God, the book neither affirms nor refutes.

Conclusion
Many other topics receive less attention but also raise concerns. For example, Jesus comments on religion, politics and economics saying “They are the man-created trinity of errors that ravage the earth and deceives those I care about.” But Young offers no biblical proof that this is something Jesus would teach. In other places God seems to gloss over sin, judging certain sins almost inconsequential. And so it goes.

So where does all of this leave us? It is clear to me that The Shack is a mix of good and bad. Young teaches much that is of value and he teaches it in a slick and effective way. Sadly, though, there is much bad mixed in with the good. As we pursue his major theological thrusts we see that many of them wander away, by varying degrees, from what God tells us in Scripture.

Despite the great amount of poor theology, my greatest concern is probably this one: the book has a quietly subversive quality to it. Young seems set on undermining orthodoxy Christianity. For example, at one point Mack states that, despite years of seminary and years of being a Christian, most of the things taught to him at the shack have never occurred to him before. Later he says, “I understand what you’re saying. I did that for years after seminary. I had the right answers, sometimes, but I didn’t know you. This weekend, sharing life with you has been far more illuminating than any of those answers.”

Throughout the book there is this kind of subversive strain teaching that new and fresh revelation is much more relevant and important than the kind of knowledge we gain in sermons or seminaries or Scripture. Young’s readers seem to be picking up on this. Read this brief Amazon review as an example: “Wish I could take back all the years in seminary! The years the locusts ate???? Systematic theology was never this good. Shack will be read again and again. With relish. Shared with friends, family, and strangers. I can fly! It’s a gift. ‘Discipleship’ will never be lessons again.” Another reviewer warns that many Christians will find the book difficult to read because of their “modern” mindsets. “If one is coming from a strong, propositional and, perhaps, fundamentalist perspective to the Bible, this book certainly will be threatening.” Still another says “This book was so shocking to my “staid” Christianity but it was eye opening to my own thoughts about who I think God is.” At several points I felt as if the author was encouraging the reader to doubt what they know of Christianity—to deconstruct what they know of Christian theology—and to embrace something new. But the faith Young reconstructs is simply not the faith of the Bible.

Eugene Peterson says this book is as good and as important as The Pilgrim’s Progress. Well, it really is not. It is neither as good nor as original a story and it lacks the theological precision of Bunyan’s work. But really, this is a bit of a facile comparison. The Pilgrim’s Progress, after all, is allegory—a story that has a second distinct meaning that is partially hidden behind its literal meaning. The Shack is not meant to be allegory. Nor can The Shack quite be equated with a story like The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe where C.S. Lewis simply asked (and answered) this kind of question: “What might Christ become like if there really were a world like Narnia, and He chose to be incarnate and die and rise again in that world as He actually has done in ours?” The Shack is in a different category than these more notable Christian works. It seeks to represent the members of the Trinity as they are (or as they could be) and to suggest through them what they might teach were they to appear to us in a similar situation. There is a sense of attempted or perceived reality in this story that is missing in the others. This story is meant to teach theology that Young really believes to be true. The story is a wrapper for the theology. In theory this is well and good; in practice the book is only as good as its theology. And in this case, the theology just is not good enough.

Because of the sheer volume of error and because of the importance of the doctrines reinvented by the author, I would encourage Christians, and especially young Christians, to decline this invitation to meet with God in The Shack. It is not worth reading for the story and certainly not worth reading for the theology

My Prayer by my son Matthew

2008-07-13T21:15:00.003-04:00

I am thrilled beyond comprehension to read these words from my son. The Lord is continuing to do a gracious work in Matthew's life. About a year ago or there abouts the Lord began a work in Matt's life that is seeing an abundance of fruit. I think what you read below will prove that to you. It brings a joy beyond a Father's understanding to see God work in His children. I pray this for all my children and grand children that God will graciously draw them unto Himself. Enjoy these words of a new found Puritan.

I have a simple prayer that I ask the Lord so often that I wonder if the repetitious movement of my lips and heart has lost all significance with Him. I know that the answer to this statement is of course no, but that does not always calm my heart. I know that all the prayers I ask God in faith are heard, and I may not receive the answer I want, but God still hears my prayers. I ask the Lord from the very deepest abyss of my heart that He can impart more love and faith into my heart, and that in the further realization of His forgiveness I will repent. I have often asked God to harden my heart unto the flesh and soften my heart unto God's ways in the hopes that God can move my heart and spirit. I know that when I placed faith in the works of Christ on the cross that He gave me "a new heart and put a new spirit" in me and removed "the heart of stone" and that He says that He will put His Spirit within me and that with that He will cause me to walk in His statutes, and be careful to observe His ordinances. (Eze 36:26-27) More importantly He made a promise that applies to all who are born of Abraham whether by Spirit or by Flesh in faith, God says to us "you will be My people, and I will be your God." (Eze 36:28)

I want God to do this, and I realize that God's ways are higher than my way; I want only for Him to control my life. In the infinite knowledge and love of God I should trust Him and His love and by my forgiveness repent of my sins both inward and outward; the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. I should be able to in faith look at Christ and even in the depth of my thoughts imagine the pierced side and imprints in His hand when He suffered on that cross for me. Oh on that day that it pleased Jehovah to crush His only begotten, not in the act of death and wrath which Christ suffered, but the pleasure that in this act He can redeem Himself a people; a people that will be His that He can say "I will be your God". It is written that "the LORD was pleased to crush Him, putting Him to grief". It is also written "That He was cut off out of the land of the living for the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due?" We deserve rightly the justice of God and with this death, but Christ suffered for His sheep. "As a result of the anguish of His soul, Jehovah will see it and be satisfied; By Jehovah's knowledge the Righteous One, Jehovah's Servant will justify the many, as He will bear their iniquities." (Isa 53:11) He suffered the wrath of God for the iniquities that were not His, but He did this to give glory to God. Christ had the iniquities of the world imputed unto Him so that the Elect could have the righteousness imputed unto them. This is one great injustice that Christ died for the ungodly, but by God's pleasure He did.

Luckily this is not the end of the story of Christ and His death as a suffering servant; "His grave was assigned with wicked men, yet He was with a rich man in His death, because He had done no violence, nor was there any deceit in His mouth." He did rise out of the grave and was given life where life did not exist. He is the risen Lord and He has conquered death so that in the glory of God a people may be set aside from the world and so that He can be their God and they can be His people. God rose to the throne on High where the One Most High reigns forever and He took His rightful place at the right hand of God the Father and just as He said on that cross so can He rightly say to God the Father; "It is done!" And God says to Christ "Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet." "He will shatter kings in the day of His wrath" "He will judge among the nations." (Psalms 110:1,5-6)

It is in that day of the Lord that the two races of men will stand before God; "EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Philippians 2:10-11) Whose race are you a part of? Are you a part of the dying race of Adam or the everlasting race of Jesus Christ? All who have Adam as an advocate will be cast down with their father Satan and they will be judged for the very works, and "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23). Because all have sinned all deserve the righteous judgment of God. Now if you stand under the headship of Christ your works will not be looked at, for all the unrighteous acts which were committed by God's people will be stricken clean. "Come now, and let us reason together, says the LORD, though your sins are as scarlet, they will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, they will be like wool." (Isa 1:18) Those who are called and believe on Christ have an Advocate in Heaven who stands before the throne of the One Most High and stands before the Accuser of Brethren. When Satan accused God's people of sin, Christ stands up and claims oh so graciously "I died for the ungodly" and when Satan accuses God's chosen of ignoring His ways, Christ stands strong and claims "While they were without strength I died for the ungodly." There is no accusation Satan or any other whether on Heaven or Earth can make against the Elect. Those who God calls are those whom God is faithful to. "God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord." (1 Cor 1:9) "For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus." (Phi 1:6)

Do you not want to stand innocent before the Throne of God or are you confident in yourself, your merit, and your works? It is easy to place a little faith and "you believe that God is one you do well; the demons also believe, and shudder." In God's infant grace why would He offer forgiveness to someone and let them continue in their owns paths of both the flesh and self-reliance? God promises to take a people and give them a new nature, a new home, and a new heart and this comes with the believe in His Son and the realization of love and forgiveness. We all have personal sins which are outward in a world that accepts them or inward that we fear to tell our closest friends, only in trusting God can we overcome these sins. "If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us." (1 John 1:10) Faith in Christ is not a decision that one makes on any day of His life, nor is it is a decision that is made simply. We are not saved by going to Church, by living morally, by living better than the average person, by reading His word, or any other work that you may have been fed by the so called religious. We are not saved by any work that man can do; we are saved by the work of God when He took the flesh and died on the cross. Why would God start a work in giving His Chosen the very faith which enables them to believe and leave them be. Our very nature is the opposite of God in every manner, and proof of this is seen in the acts which we do not consider sin, but are as unrighteous as murder. I know I personally have stolen from my employer; I have done this by taking unapproved breaks or by not giving my fullest and I can assure you that God has convicted by heart recently that I should submit to those who are in charge, for they are ordained of God. Not only this, but something I stopped about two years ago was the stealing of the Actors, Producers, Directors and Stage Hands of movies; So often do people download music and movies illegally and not a bead of sweat or tear of sorrow is expressed and why? Well we do not see this as immoral, our society has told us that the horrendous acts which God deems an abomination to His sight or an immorality or unrighteousness are proper, upright and good, and because of this we trust our nature and the world and ignore God and His ways. Here is a list of unrighteousness that Paul outlines the nature of man as "being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;"

When you read that do you see anything that accuses you of sin? Well realize it is that sin that Chris died for. Christ died for the ungodly who were without strength and dead in the trespasses of their own sin. So the question comes are you willing to take a moment and think on the eternal instead of the worries of your life? Are you ready to give your life up, quit relying on yourself, quit living for yourself, and give up to God? Are you ready to trust in a Father who promises LOVE, CARE, FORGIVENESS and ETERNAL LIFE? Are you ready to trust that the God who promises rest for those are stricken with worries and troubled life will provide this? If you are then believe in the acts of Christ on the cross, take a moment in prayer and consult God. You cannot trust the heart of flesh, but if God provides you with a new heart look unto the cross, and whether in sweat, tears or panting trust God, believe in Christ and all He did. If in forgiveness you believe on the cross, realize that the next step is to love God, now that you are given a new heart you can love God. Christ said "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments." I know that the pleasures of this world are more appealing and more thrilling than walking in God's way, but realize a lifetime of pleasure will never amount to an eternity of Hell. Secondly it only seems hard to give up sin when you are so saturated with it. I know that walking with fellowship of God is by far the most exhilarating thing on the planet. Just today it struck me that I was in fellowship and talk with the creator of the Universe, and as I looked at the grass, the flowers and the trees I realized that I am speaking with the Creator of all around me. I was so overwhelmed that tears started to swell in my eyes as I realized how little I was and that a perfect and holy God forgave me. I realized how pathetic and low I am in comparison to God and I felt so broken in spirit and felt horrible for the sin in my life, both past, present and the sins of the future, I felt horrible that Christ died for me. I almost wished God would strike me with the curses that Job suffered under the hand of Satan. I would rather suffer punishment than suffer the guilt and anguish of a God who forgives my sins. Like the prodigal son God so freely forgives all my sins and the weight on my heart that God so freely forgives me made me want to turn from all sin and this very country filled with it and run, run to the hills, and run and hide for all eternity so that in the hopes that I may not sin.

So realize that in forgiveness we are given a new nature, and repentance unto God means that we realize our worth and the true harm of sin both on ourselves and God and we should want to sin, and the more God sanctifies us the more we will walk in His ways and the holier we will be and the greater our lives will be with Christ. Our heart, soul, and spirit will be in harmony if we walk in His ways and we will live righteous lives for the sake of the Kingdom. So I say again think on the eternal and not the moment of yourself, and realize that today may be the Day of Salvation for you. If you take this very moment and believe on the Cross the next steps are absolute obedience. Go tell your closest friends, a complete stranger, or talk with your new God and Saviour through prayer. Next in obedience and a confession of faith you should be baptized and continue each day in trust, faith and prayer and repent of your sins.

So I pray this prayer, God I need you and I am hopeless without you. Please give me more faith and love so that I can walk in your ways. Please God help me. Please God teach me to walk according to your ordinances as you promised and teach my repentance. God please take what I have written and please touch the heart of those who you will call or have called and give their hearts faith and love so that they will see you for what you are; a holy, just and loving God. I only want to do your will and pray that you will guide the course of my life so that I can accomplish all that you want.

In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen ... Matthew Lush

The Cross and Fallen Man

2008-07-06T09:01:00.004-04:00

Yesterday while perusing through the used book section of a discount store, I was fortunate enough to pick up mint copies of A.W. Tozer's books, "That Incredible Christian" and "Men Who Met God."

I began reading, "That Incredible Christian" and the very first words spoke to my heart and I just had to share them with my readers.

The current effort of so many religious leaders to harmonize Christianity with science, philosophy and every natural and reasonable thing is, I believe, the result of failure to understand Christianity and, judging from what I have heard and read, failure to understand science and philosophy as well.

At the heart of the Christian system lies the cross of Christ with its divine paradox. The power of Christianity appears in its antipathy toward, never in its agreement with, the ways of fallen men. The truth of the cross is revealed in its contradictions. The witness of the church is most effective when she declares rather than explains, for the gospel is addressed not to reason but to faith. What can be proved requires no faith to accept. Faith rests upon the character of God,not upon the demonstrations of laboratory or logic.

The cross stands in bold opposition to the natural man. Its philosophy runs contrary to the processes of the unregenerate mind, so that Paul could say bluntly that the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness. To try to find a common ground between the message of the cross and man’s fallen reason is to try the impossible, and if persisted in must result in an impaired reason, a meaningless cross and a powerless Christianity.

Take a moment and chew on these nuggets of deep spiritual truth. I can hardly wait to read this book.

Resting in Him
James

Thats Why They Call It Grace

2008-07-02T18:41:00.002-04:00

The Good-O-Meter

I was sent an e-mail with this video and I think this is one of the best videos I have seen on what grace is. One picture is worth a thousand words.

Resting in Him
James

Battle Hymn of the Christian not just the Republic

2008-07-02T06:27:00.004-04:00

I have said this before and will say it again, this is one of the great songs of American history and Christian history. This hymn was born during the American civil war, when the writer, Julia W. Howe visited a Union Army camp on the Potomac River near Washington, D. C. She heard the soldiers singing the song “John Brown’s Body,” and was taken with the strong marching beat. She wrote the words the next day:

I awoke in the grey of the morning, and as I lay waiting for dawn, the long lines of the desired poem began to entwine themselves in my mind, and I said to myself, “I must get up and write these verses, lest I fall asleep and forget them!” So I sprang out of bed and in the dimness found an old stump of a pen, which I remembered using the day before. I scrawled the verses almost without looking at the paper.

The hymn appeared in the Atlantic Monthly in 1862. It was sung at the funerals of British statesman Winston Churchill, American senator Robert Kennedy, and American presidents Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon.

Here is a youtube presentation of the Gaither Homecoming singing this song, which by the way, the Lord willing will be song at my funeral. After listening to the song, take a moment and prayerfully read the words. They are awesome.

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord;
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword;
His truth is marching on.

Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! His truth is marching on.

I have seen Him in the watch fires of a hundred circling camps
They have builded Him an altar in the evening dews and damps;
I can read His righteous sentence by the dim and flaring lamps;
His day is marching on.

Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! His day is marching on.

I have read a fiery Gospel writ in burnished rows of steel;
“As ye deal with My contemners, so with you My grace shall deal”;
Let the Hero, born of woman, crush the serpent with His heel,
Since God is marching on.

Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Since God is marching on.

He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment seat;
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer Him! be jubilant, my feet;
Our God is marching on.

Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Our God is marching on.

In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me:
As He died to make men holy, let us live to make men free;
[originally …let us die to make men free]
While God is marching on.

Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! While God is marching on.

He is coming like the glory of the morning on the wave,
He is wisdom to the mighty, He is honor to the brave;
So the world shall be His footstool, and the soul of wrong His slave,
Our God is marching on.

Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Our God is marching on.

The last line attests to the sovereignty of our Great God, "So the world shall be His footstool, and the soul of wrong His slave."

Resting in Him
James

Eschatology Debate

2008-07-01T08:40:00.005-04:00

Last night on Pal Talk in one of the Theology rooms, there was a debate on premillenialism. Unfortunately the moderator was a reform theologian and the majority of reformers embrace covenant theology which I believe is wrong in many areas, especially paedobaptism, the baptizing of babies.. There is a difference between Dispensationalism and Covenant theology and I think the foundation for this difference is a proper hermeneutic. A consistent literal interpretation is essential to properly understanding what God is always saying in the Bible. Yet some believe that consistent literal interpretation is either impossible or impractical. One critic believes it to be a presumption that is unreasonable and an impossible ideal. In spite of the many false characterization, what do those who believe in Premillenialism mean by a consistent literal interpretation?

Thomas Ice has a great article on this, you can find it on our website at this link,
THE FIRST FOUNDATION - A CONSISTENT LITERAL INTERPRETATION along with three other articles that expound upon premillenialism.

I have posted it here for your convenience:

A DEFINITION OF LITERAL INTERPRETATION

The dictionary defines literal as "belonging to letters." Further, it says literal interpretation involves an approach "based on the actual words in their ordinary meaning, . . . not going beyond the facts."2 "Literal interpretation of the Bible simply means to explain the original sense of the Bible according to the normal and customary usages of its language."3 How is this done? It can only be accomplished through an interpretation of the written text which includes consideration of the grammatical (according to the rules of grammar), historical (consistent with the historical setting of the passage), contextual (in accord with its context) method of interpretation. This is what literalists mean by consistently literal interpretation.

GRAMMATICAL, HISTORICAL,CONTEXTUAL INTERPRETATION

Grammatical

The grammatical aspect of literal interpretation considers the impact that grammar plays on a passage. This means that a student of the text should correctly analyze the grammatical relationships of words, phrases, and sentences to one another. Literal interpreter Dr. Roy Zuck writes,

When we speak of interpreting the Bible grammatically, we are referring to the process of seeking to determine its meaning by ascertaining four things: (a) the meaning of words (lexicology), (b) the form of words (morphology), (c) the function of words (parts of speech), and (d) the relationships of words (syntax).4

Dr. Zuck has been teaching biblical interpretation for many years at Dallas Seminary and I believe his recent book Basic Bible Interpretation is the best place to start for anyone interested in learning how to interpret the Bible. Dr. Zuck gives further amplification of the four areas he noted above:

In the meaning of words (lexicology), we are concerned with (a) etymology-how words are derived and developed, (b) usage-how words are used by the same and other authors, (c) synonyms and antonyms-how similar and opposite words are used, and (d) context-how words are used in various contexts.

In discussing the form of words (morphology) we are looking at how words are structured and how that affects their meaning. For example the word eat means something different from ate, though the same letters are used. The word part changes meaning when the letter s is added to it to make the word parts. The function of words (parts of speech) considers what the various forms do. These include attention to subjects, verbs, objects, nouns, and others, as will be discussed later. The relationships of words (syntax) are the way words are related or put together to form phrases, clauses, and sentences.5

The grammatical aspect of literal interpretation lets us know that any interpretation conflicting with grammar is invalid.

Historical

Proper interpretation of the Bible means that the historical context must be taken into account. This aspect means that one must consider the historical setting and circumstances in which the books of the Bible were written. Dr. Paul Tan explains:

The proper concept of the historical in Bible interpretation is to view the Scriptures as written during given ages and cultures. Applications may then be drawn which are relevant to our times. For instance, the subject of meat offered to idols can only be interpreted from the historical and cultural setting of New Testament times. Principles to be drawn are relevant to us today.

Contextual

"A passage taken out of context is a pretext." This slogan is certainly true! Yet, one of the most common mistakes made by those who are found to have misinterpreted a passage in the Bible is that of taking a verse out of its Divinely ordered context. Even though a sentence may be taken from the Bible, it is not the Word of God if it is placed into a context which changes the meaning from that which God intended in its original context. Dr. Zuck says:

The context in which a given Scripture passage is written influences how that passage is to be understood. Context includes several things:

the verse(s) immediately before and after a passage

the paragraph and book in which the verses occur

the dispensation in which it was written

the message of the entire Bible

the historical-cultural environment of that time when it was

written.

A widely used example of a verse taken out of context is 2 Chronicles 7:14: "and My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray . . . " Usually this is quoted as an explanation for why America is in decline. Because "My people" are addressed, it is said that the success of a nation is dependent upon the obedience of Christians to the Lord. Thus God blesses or curses a nation in accordance with Christian obedience. Then 2 Chronicles 7:14 is cited as a formula for national restoration because the passage says to "humble themselves and pray, and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

I believe that this is an illustration of a passage taken out of context because of the following contextual factors:

"My people" are said in 2 Chronicles 6:24 to be "Israel" as is also indicated by the flow of the historical context.

Solomon is preparing to dedicate the just completed Temple and 7:14 is God's renewal of the Mosaic Covenant under which Israel and only Israel operates.

Since this passage involves Israel and not the church it is improper to speculatively relate it to present day American Christianity. Proper contextual interpretation would allow for the general observation that God delights in a humble and obedient people, but obedience and pray should be offered according to His plan for the church.

FIGURES OF SPEECH

Literal interpretation recognizes that a word or phrase can be used either plainly (denotative) or figuratively (connotative). As in our own conversations today, the Bible may use plain speech, such as "He died yesterday" (denotative use of language). Or the same thing may be said in a more colorful way, "He kicked the bucket yesterday" (connotative use of language). An important point to be noted is that even though we may use a figure of speech to refer to someone's death, we are using that figure to refer to an event that literally happened. Some interpreters are mistaken to think that just because a figure of speech may be used to describe an event (i.e., Jonah's experience in the belly of the great fish in Jonah 2), that the event was not literal. Such is not the case. A "Golden Rule of Interpretation" has been developed to help us discern whether or not a figure of speech was intended by an author:

When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.8

Literalists understand that a figure of speech is employed by Isaiah teaching that the Adamic curse upon nature will be reversed in the millennium when he says, "And all the trees of the field will clap their hands" (Isa. 55:12d). This figure is discerned by specific factors in the context in which it was written, all dealing with the removal of the curse upon nature at this future time. Even though figurative language is employed, it will literally happen in history.

LITERAL VERSES LITERAL

Dr. Elliott Johnson of Dallas Seminary has noted that much of the confusion over literal interpretation can be removed when one properly understands the two primary ways the term has been used down through church history: "(1) the clear, plain sense of a word or phrase as over against a figurative use, and (2) a system that views the text as providing the basis of the true interpretation."9 Thus, literalists, by and large, have used the term literal to refer to their system of interpretation (the consistent use of the grammatical-historical system; Johnson's #2), and once inside that system, literal refers to whether or not a specific word or phrase is used in its context in a figurative or literal sense (Johnson's #1).

Johnson's second use of literal (i.e., systematic literalism) is simply the grammatical-historical system consistently used. The grammatical-historical system was revived by the Reformers. It was set against the spiritual (spiritualized) or deeper meaning of the text that was a common approach during the Middle Ages. The literal meaning was used simply as a springboard to a deeper ("spiritual") meaning, which was viewed as more desirable. A classic spiritualized interpretation would for example, see the four rivers of Genesis 2-the Pishon, Havilah, Tigris and Euphrates-as representing the human body, soul, spirit and mind. Coming from such a system, the Reformers saw the need to get back to the literal or textual meaning of the Bible. For instance, Martin Luther wanted to debate John Eck from the text of the Bible.

The system of literal interpretation is the grammatical-historical or textual approach to interpretation. Use of literalism in this sense could be called "macroliteralism." Within macroliteralism, the consistent use of the grammatical-historical system yields the interpretative conclusion, for example, that Israel always and only refers to national Israel. The church will not be substituted for Israel if the grammatical-historical system of interpretation is consistently used because there are no indicator in the text of Scripture that such is the case. Therefore, one must bring an idea from outside the text by saying that the passage really means something that it does not actually say. This kind of replacement approach is a mild form of spiritualized, or allegorical, interpretation. So when speaking of those who do replace Israel with the church as not taking the Bible literally and spiritualizing the text, it is true, since such a belief is contrary to a macroliteral interpretation.

Consistently literal interpreters, within the framework of the grammatical-historical system, do discuss whether or not a word, phrase, or the literary genre of a biblical book is a figure of speech (connotative) or is to be taken literally/plainly (denotative). This is Johnson's first use of literal which could be called "microliteralism." Thus, within microliteralism, there may be discussion by literalists as to whether or not a given word or phrase is being used as a figure of speech, based on the context of a given passage. Some passages are quite naturally clearer than others and a consensus among interpreters develops, whereas other passages may find literal interpreters divided as to whether or not they should be taken as a figure of speech. However, this is more a problem of application than of method.

Reconstructionist Ken Gentry, in his attack on consistent literal interpretation, argues that "consistent literalism is unreasonable."10 One of the ways he attempts to prove his point is by arguing that, since literalists take some words and phrases as figures of speech, they are not consistently literal.11 He asserts that, "the dispensational claim to 'consistent literalism' is frustrating due to its inconsistent employment."12 Gentry seeks to discredit literalism by giving examples of literalists who interpret certain passages as containing figures of speech, citing this as inconsistent with the system of literal interpretation. According to Gentry, the literalist has to abandon literal interpretation when he realizes that Jesus refers figuratively to Himself as a door in John 10:9.13 Gentry is not defining literal interpretation the way literalists do. Therefore, his conclusions about literal interpretation are misguided because he commonly mixes the two senses described by Johnson. When speaking of the macroliteralism, he uses an example from microliteralism, and vice versa, therefore appearing to have shown an inconsistency in literal interpretation. In reality, the examples cited fall within the framework of how literalists have defined what they mean by literal interpretation.

CONCLUSION

God's Word is to be understood through literal interpretation. It is an important foundation stone supporting the Pre-Trib Rapture, because when the Bible is consistently interpreted literally, from Genesis to Revelation, the Pre-Trib position is hard to avoid.

Yes Pride is an Appropriate Word

2008-06-30T06:26:00.007-04:00

Yesterday, they celebrated the Toronto Gay Pride parade. And yes I do believe that
the name of the parade is appropriate. It all has to do with pride, but not the kind of
pride they are talking about but the kind of pride that the bible talks about. What is even more disturbing and frightening is that this event is one of the largest ones in North America attracting close to a million visitors. People of all ages, parents and children included view this parade as men and women parade down Yonge Street in Toronto some totally naked and some performing sexual acts that are too gross to talk about on this blog.

It's amazing how fast our society has deteriorated in the past 20-30 years. If I had told you 40 years ago that the day would come when there would be a parade full of homosexuals marching with millions of people watching, you would have called me crazy. Yet here we are. On one hand sad but on the other, for Christians we can rejoice because the bible says, "As in the days of Noah, so shall it be in the second coming of the Lord Jesus". So rejoice, your redemption draweth nigh.

Resting in Him
James

Arminianism and Calvinism - Tozers Thought

2008-06-28T20:14:00.002-04:00

I chat on Paltalk frequently and one of the most common debates is the debate between Arminians and Calvinists. This is Tozer's thought. I sent it out a year ago on a THOUGHT FOR THE DAY email ....

The Thought for the Day is a quote from Tozer on the age old dilemma of Arminianism and Calvinism. By the way I am not a Calvinist but I am a Sovereign Grace believer but I do like the Tozer quote and think he is right on the money!!

And I’ll never forget the advice he gave me. At the time I thought it was rather inconclusive and not too helpful. But I listened carefully. He said, “My son, when you get to college you’re going to find that all of the boys will be gathered in a room discussing and arguing over Arminianism and Calvinism night after night after night. I’ll tell you what to do, Cliff. Go to your room and meet God. At the end of four years you’ll be way down the line and they’ll still be where they started, because greater minds than yours have wrestled with this problem and have not come up with satisfactory conclusions. Instead, learn to know God.”
“In Pursuit of God” – The Life of A.W. Tozer, James L. Snyder p132
Resting in Him
James

OH OH Canada!!!

2008-06-28T19:10:00.004-04:00

In a few days, it will be Canada's birthday. As they call it up here, Canada Day. It used to be called Dominion Day but thanks to former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and his fellow communists, oops, socialist, oops Liberals, they got rid of that name as it was too biblical. When Canada was originally formed they chose that name based upon the scripture found in Psalms, which talks about God's dominion from sea to sea and Canada is a country from sea to sea.

Psalms 72:8 He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth.

So it only seemed fit for the Liberal Party of Canada to outlaw this name because as I said earlier its too biblical and would never fit into the new cultural mosaic of our multicultural society.

Yes Canada certainly has changed over the past 40-50 years. We have constantly seen the seduction and rape of our Judeo-Christian values so much so that you would never recognize this country if you had the ability to come back and see what it was like. I have often commented that when I was a little boy I looked forward to growing up on Canada but now that I am here, I am an embarassed Canadian.

I posted this on my blog last year for Canada Day and I think it's only appropriate to do it again. It originally was posted on Charles Adler's website:

Dear Charles:

I found this on a US web blog and thought it was worth passing along....

It paints a clear picture of our history and future.

What you see when you gaze north in my direction, My Friends, is the continual emasculation of a once proud and dynamic nation and its' people. I honestly wonder what the future holds for Canada, but at this point I can think of little more than an economically hobbled backwater completely bereft of any identity and willingness to stand up for itself; a slow decline into regionalism and eventually a national implosion. Years ago, up until the late 1950's, Canada was a nation that believed it could do anything despite its' small population. Our aerospace industry was the envy of the world. Avro built and flew a multi-engine passenger jet years before Boeing launched the 707 generating interest from airlines worldwide and keen attention from the U.S. Military, not to mention building the Arrow, a fighter jet far better than anything in the sky at the time. All of that came to naught. Our telecommunications expertise was second to none, we patrolled the skies over Europe and had a seat at the international table far in excess of what one would expect from a nation of our size. A nation that sends soldiers far beyond proportion to its' population gets that kind of respect (1 million troops in WWI from a nation of only 10 million). No
more. I could go on but I'll spare the bytes. Now we don't even know who or what we are, if anything.

It's tempting to lay the blame for this at the feet of Trudeau, but that's too simplistic. The truth is far deeper. Socialist, and yes Communist, infiltration of our unions and media in the 60's and 70's allowed individuals intent on weakening the country by destroying its' identity to rise and control these organizations, and the meek "lie back and take it quietly" attitude of many Canadians compounded the problem. Canadians by and large have a "subject" mentality as opposed to feeling like citizens who actually own our own country. An over powerful government took more and more taxes to support more and more socialist programs that employ so many people that they become voting blocs and special interests unto themselves, with
the result being politicians too meek to confront them. Ordinary Canadians gradually realized they had no real voice in the halls of power so they took the defensive route and put their heads down and just focused on keeping a roof over their heads in the atmosphere of ever rising tax burdens. Feeling no one in Ottawa would listen the people stopped talking, and gradually the national identity, very similar to the pioneering identity of Americans, was lost. We now have no identity, and when you can't define yourself what reason is there to protect anything?

Ask most Canadians what defines Canada and you'll hear the Liberal mantra:
Multiculturalism and National Health Care (soon to add National Child care after yesterday's budget). Think about that for a minute. Our identity is that we don't really have one and we're all so afraid of the future that we need the government to look after our needs. Paranoid, self absorbed and bereft of anything of substance we can grasp onto as a nation. In search of anything to define ourselves some (by all means not all or probably not even a true majority) substituted "we're not Americans" as a way of defining ourselves. How mature. Since that is no definition of anything it lead to the knee jerk anti-Americanism found in much of our media and cultural institutions. This decision on missile defense is another example. If we're
not Americans we have to be different from them simply to prove our independence, even if the position flies in the face of the national interest. Martin is sooooo determined to look strong (in fact even Liberal supporters are shocked at how incompetent he has shown himself to be) that he apparently feels the only way to do this is to oppose the U.S. for opposition sake. This isn't leadership, it's cowardice.

Canada stood to benefit mightily from open participation in the Missile Defense Program, and at basically no cost. We have technology industries that would have benefited, both from a technical and economic perspective. Forget that now, I suspect. Much of the damage wrought by the fool Chretien would have been put aside, now it will be compounded many times over. Decisions have consequences and there will be big ones here. The destruction of our aerospace industry in the 50's drove our best and brightest engineers to flee to the U.S. where NASA and defense companies were happy to scoop them up. Our socialized medicine has driven scores of doctors and nurses south of the border to the point that our health care system is in slow collapse. The growing navel gazing and self righteous U.S. bashing will
eventually result in more and more freedom loving Canadians who actually see what's going on in the world to abandon Canada as lost and relocate to the land liberty calls home.

I've been furious at our governors many many times, and this Federal Government in particular, but today along with my anger I feel deeply embarrassed to call myself Canadian. We're a nation that has lost it's soul, lost it's way, and it increasingly seems that we've lost our collective mind. The future is grim, I'm afraid. It's a shame, we held out such promise once, but that I suppose was a long time ago in a very different Canada. Pity.

The voice of one crying in the wilderness

In many ways, I feel like this fellow who posted this piece. I am a voice crying in the wilderness. Only problem is most Canadians thanks to a social welfare net, a liberal media and a liberalized government are totally deaf to it.

In a book that I am reading by Mark Steyn called, America Alone, one of the best quotes from the entire book is the following.

A fellow commented on freedom and said:

"I never really fought for my freedoms, I usually just sat back and enjoyed them"

Thank God, I am looking forward to a better country ...

Hebrews 11:16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

Resting in Him
James

How Did We Ever Manage In The Past

2008-06-28T18:57:00.004-04:00

Today is Saturday and my lovely wife Cris went over to her Mom and Dad's to help out with the laundry, groceries etc. On the way home we stopped off at Dairy Queen for a quick snack. I had a "small" strawberry milk shake. Yes you heard right, strawberry, I just love them. I asked the girl not to make it too thick. When I began to drink the shake, it was way too thick so I went back to the counter and asked the girl to add some more milk to it and to thin it out.

"I am sorry we are not allowed to do that for sanitary reasons, once the Shake has been purchased we can not re-twirl it on the mixer." I struggled through the shake but when I sat down with my wife, I commented to her. "How did we ever manage 40-50 years ago when we had none of this stuff" Yesterday on the radio when we were driving up to Clinton, some guy on a talk show was spouting off about his new "Water Treatment System" and how it is better than tap water etc. He also commented, "Don't drink out of any garden hoses either, as they are full of all kinds of nasty stuff." I said to Cris, "When we were kids, we drank out of garden hoses all summer long, and nobody ever died from them."

I called the radio talk show and asked the host to ask the "nutbar" how many people he knew of that died from drinking from tap water or from a garden hose. But by then the "nutbar" had gone. But the host did agree with me that he had a vested interest in selling his "water treatment system."

Back to my original point ... how did we ever manage in the past.

Lets think for a minute ...
- ate the tar on the roads when we were kids
- ate the white glue in school
- tobagganed down the hill without a helmet
- played on exercise equipment at school made out of wood
- ate hamburgers cooked at a greasy spoon
- drank old fashioned milkshakes and if too thick they poured it back in the same container and re-spun it
- etc. etc.

I ask you again, "HOW DID WE EVER MANAGE IN THE PAST??????????"

Resting in Him
James

We Had A Berry Nice Trip

2008-06-28T18:51:00.003-04:00

Yesterday my wife and I went for a drive in the country to Bartliff's Restaurant in Clinton, Ontario. Its about 100 kilometers from where we live. Every summer during Strawberry season, we drive up there to buy their Strawberry pie. Without a doubt it is the best Strawberry pie in the world. We usually bye two as one won't just cut it. We pace ourselves so that we don't over indulge. Yes, you are correct, I am a diabetic, but we only go around once and I am not giving up my Bartliff pie.

Are You In The Father's Will

2008-06-26T05:11:00.006-04:00

I've read many stories in the paper and heard of such a things as this happening but in Los Angelos a 72 year old man who lived a life of poverty died in a back alley with only three dollars in his pocket and more than $200,000 in the bank. Apparently he was heir to an inheritance that would have enabled him to live a comfortable life, but he refused it.

In Christ, believers have received an even greater inheritance, a spiritual inheritance. God Himself has made us His heirs. And since we are children of God, He has also made us fellow-heirs with Christ (Romans 8:17). All that Christ owns, we own it with Him. And another thing, this inheritance is so certain, so secure, that despite our suffering on this earth, we will one day receive our inheritance.

What will that inheritance entail? We will be "glorified with Him." This truth is designed to encourage us amid our sufferings. The hardships and trials that we now experience will be nothing compared to the wonder of our glorified body we shall receive at the Lord's return.

Through the Lord Jesus, God has lifted us out of bondage to the Law and set us free. We are no longer slaves under the bondage and burden of the Law; rather we have been purchased out of slavery and adopted into sonship. As sons we are heirs of God (Galatian 4:7). We are "heirs of the promise," assured that we will ultimately obtain the inheritance (Hebrews 6:17). In this hope we have "strong encouragement ... an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast: (vv. 18-19). Are you living in a back alley, a spiritual back alley, scavenging garbage cans for food? God has given you a great spiritual inheritance. Rejoice! Lift up your head! Despite difficult circumstances today you will have a glorious tomorrow when you claim your heavenly inheritance.

Yes, if you're a believer, you are in the Father's will. And we dont have to wait until the will is read like here on earth. We already know the outcome and what we inherit. Rejoice.

Resting In Him

James

Seeking to Serve the Saviour

2008-06-26T04:29:00.009-04:00

I am on vacation this week, but today I am going to head into work for a few minutes to print off a picture of my son and to courier an application for him to Heritage Bible College. He plans on taking a One Year Certificate Course by Distance Learning so he can apply it to a Bachelor of Religious Education (BRE). About two years ago the Lord got ahold of my son Matthew's heart in a special way when his Grandpa had a near fatal heart attack. The Lord used that to speak to Matt and ever since then Matt has been seeking the Lord's will for his life and he senses God's call to serve Him. A christian parent has no greater joy than to see their children come to know the Lord and to walk with Him and to serve Him, whether in full time ministry or through a local church.

Whatever the Lord has for my Matthew in the future, both his mother and I are proud of him as he seeks an education in order to serve Him. Will you join with us in prayer that God will use Matt in the growth of His Church and Kingdom. The picture of Matt is of course when he was a little boy and the little Care Bear which we still have in the Keepsake cabinet was a gift from our dear friends Pastor Don and Zala Brubacher who now minister in Huntsville, Ontario.

James
Resting In Him

A New Picture On The Profile

2008-06-09T14:09:00.008-04:00

I also changed the picture on my profile to a David and Goliath pic. I think it truly represents the soldier of God who earnestly contends for the faith. David fought the giants that were out to destroy Israel. May I also do the same with the Sword of the Spiri. By the way, what do you think, do you like the picture? One further note, my chest doesn't look like that, LOL

James
Resting in Him

Yes the Format has Changed

2008-06-09T13:43:00.003-04:00

I have been derelict in updating my blog. I apologize for that. There are a few reasons why... sick ... sick ... and busy with life. I also have changed the format back to it's original style. I have no reason why I changed it from this because I really do like this color scheme.I hope you like it too, let me know. Enjoy

James
Resting in Him