Walking through the Bible

Dear Friends of the Ministry,

An exciting documentary titled Walking the Bible has been produced for PBS television by TMC Entertainment. This three-hour special is full of compelling high-definition film that was shot in ten countries on three continents, tracing the stories of the Old Testament. Dr. John MacArthur has sent his endorsement, with the following statement:

"The Bible describes the work of God as He spoke and acted through real people in real places in real time. Walking the Bible brings that truth to life by taking you to the actual lands where the people of God lived out their faith. You'll come away with a greater appreciation for the culture and geography of Bible times after you watch this series."

Walking the Bible will air on three consecutive Wednesday nights after the first of the year: January 4, 11, and 18 at 8:00 p.m. local time everywhere.

PBS says that January is their highest-rated month in terms of viewership, and, given that this will be broadcast on all 353 PBS affiliates nationwide, a potential audience of millions will be exposed to the Bible - perhaps in a way like never before. I hope you will pray for the success of this broadcast and that you'll tell others about it.

Have a blessed Christmas,

Pat Rotisky
Personal Secretary to John MacArthur

Megachurch madness

Article taken from http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/09/national/09church.html?pagewanted=2&emc=eta1

When Christmas Falls on Sunday, Megachurches Take the Day Off
Some of the nation's most prominent megachurches have decided not to hold worship services on the Sunday that coincides with Christmas Day, a move that is generating controversy among evangelical Christians at a time when many conservative groups are battling to "put the Christ back in Christmas."

Megachurch leaders say that the decision is in keeping with their innovative and "family friendly" approach and that they are compensating in other ways. Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, Ill., always a pacesetter among megachurches, is handing out a DVD it produced for the occasion that features a heartwarming contemporary Christmas tale.

"What we're encouraging people to do is take that DVD and in the comfort of their living room, with friends and family, pop it into the player and hopefully hear a different and more personal and maybe more intimate Christmas message, that God is with us wherever we are," said Cally Parkinson, communications director at Willow Creek, which draws 20,000 people on a typical Sunday.

Megachurches have long been criticized for offering "theology lite," but some critics say that this time the churches have gone too far in the quest to make Christianity accessible to spiritual seekers.

"I see this in many ways as a capitulation to narcissism, the self-centered, me-first, I'm going to put me and my immediate family first agenda of the larger culture," said Ben Witherington III, professor of New Testament interpretation at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Ky. "If Christianity is an evangelistic religion, then what kind of message is this sending to the larger culture - that worship is an optional extra?"

John D. Witvliet, director of the Calvin Institute of Christian Worship at Calvin College, asked: "What about the people in society without strong family connections? The elderly, single people a long distance from family, or people who are simply lonely and for whom church and prayers would be a significant part of their day?"
The uproar is not only over closing the churches on Christmas Day, because some evangelical churches large and small have done that in recent years and made Christmas Eve the big draw, without attracting much criticism.

What some consider the deeper affront is in canceling services on a Sunday, which most Christian churches consider the Lord's Day, when communal worship is an obligation. The last time Christmas fell on a Sunday was in 1994. Some of these same megachurches remained open them, they say, but found attendance sparse.

Since then, the perennial culture wars over the secularization of Christmas have intensified, and this year the scuffles are especially lively. Conservative Christian groups are boycotting stores that fail to mention "Christmas" in their holiday greetings or advertising campaigns. Schools are being pressured to refer to the December vacation as "Christmas break." Even the White House came under attack this week for sending out cards with best wishes for the "holiday season."
When the office of Gov. Sonny Perdue of Georgia sent out a press release last Friday announcing plans for a "holiday tree" lighting, a half-hour later it sent out another saying, "It is in fact a Christmas tree."

For years, it has been an open secret that many mainline Protestant churches are half empty - or worse - on Christmas Day. The churches' emphasis has been instead on the days leading up to Christmas, with Christmas Eve attracting the most worshipers. Some of the megachurches closing on Christmas this year have increased the number of services in the days before.

But for the vast majority of the other churches, closing down on Christmas Sunday would be unthinkable.

"I can't even imagine not observing Christmas in an Episcopal church," said Robert Williams, a spokesman for the Episcopal Church USA. "The only thing I could think of would be a summer chapel that might be shut down anyway."

In many Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, known for their rich liturgical traditions, Christmas Day attracts far more worshippers than an average Sunday. Grown children return with their parents to the parishes they belonged to when they were young.

From the Catholic perspective, the whole purpose of the holiday is to celebrate it as a religious holiday in the company of the community, and for Catholics that means at Mass," said Robert J. Miller, director of research and planning in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.

Canceling worship on Christmas Day appears to be predominantly a megachurch phenomenon, sociologists of religion say.

"This attachment to a particular day on the calendar is just not something that megachurches have been known for," Nancy Ammerman, a sociologist of religion at Boston University, said. "They're known for being flexible and creative, and not for taking these traditions, seasons, dates and symbols really seriously."

At least eight megachurches have canceled their Christmas services. They are only a fraction of the 1,200 or so in the country, but they are influential, Scott Thumma, a sociologist of religion at Hartford Seminary, said. The trend has been reported in The Lexington Herald-Leader and in other newspapers.

Besides Willow Creek, the churches include Southland Christian Church in Nicholasville, Ky.; Crossroads Christian Church in Lexington, Ky.; Fellowship Church in Grapevine, Tex.; Redemption World Outreach Center in Greenville, S.C.; North Point Community Church in Alpharetta, Ga.; First Baptist in Atlanta; and Mars Hill Bible Church in Grandville, Mich.

Many other megachurches that are staying open on Christmas Day are holding fewer services than they would on a typical Sunday. New Birth Missionary Baptist Church, in Lithonia, Ga., with about 25,000 members, will hold only one of its usual two services this Christmas Day.

Bishop Eddie L. Long, the senior pastor, said that his church was "always promoting family," and that many members of his congregation were transplants to the Atlanta area who traveled far away to be with their families on Christmas.

"We're encouraging our members to do a family worship," Bishop Long said. "They could wake up and read Scripture and pray and sometimes sing a song, and go over the true meaning of what Christmas is, before opening up their gifts. It keeps them together and not running off to get dressed up to go off to church."

His church offers streaming video of the Sunday service, and Bishop Long said he expected a spike in viewers this Christmas. "They have an option if they want to join their family around the computer and worship with us," he said.

Staff members at Willow Creek said they had had few complaints from members about the church closing on Christmas. Said the Rev. Mark Ashton, whose title is pastor of spiritual discovery: "We've always been a church that's been on the edge of innovation. We've been willing to try and experiment, so this is another one of those innovations."

The real question is not why churches are skipping Christmas, but why individual Christians are skipping church on the second holiest day on the Christian calendar next to Easter, said Mr. Thumma.

"I think these critics who decry the megachurches should really be aiming their barbs at individual Christians who are willing to stay at home around the Christmas tree instead of coming and giving at least part of that day to the meaning of the holiday," he said. "They should be facing up to the reality of that."

www.Abort73.com

Friends,

Prepare to weep over this information/visual images/reality. America the beautiful, land of the free and home of the brave (or something like that)



Please check out this site



www.Abort73.com

No Church! Why? It's CHRISTmas!?!

Grace Community Church and Northview Church (here in Indy) have recently stated they will not be having church Christmas Sunday.


Please Read what Tom Ascol had to say about this trend ( from http://www.founders.org/blog/ )


What Christmas Church Closings Indicate
What I find even more disturbing than churches actually cancelling their Lord's Day services are the reasons that are being given to support their decisions. So far, what I have read or heard (from both the internet and our local media) as justifications for shutting down Christian churches on Sunday, December 25 can be grouped into several categories.

Convenience
The kind of production that Sunday services require in some larger churches is simply too difficult and involved to ask the staff and volunteers to do that on a holiday as important as Christmas. If it did not incovenience so many people to hold Lord's Day services, then, according to some of the reasons being given, some churches would opt to stay open on Christmas.

Pragmatism
Some church leaders simply faced the facts that their members are simply going to stay home that day, regardless of what is scheduled with the church. A local Christian radio station manager for WAY-FM made it clear this morning that he was going to spend the day at home with his family, no matter what. He even interviewed his United Methodist pastor (who plans to hold a scaled down service on that Sunday) as a way of showing that his plans should not be "judged" by anyone who disagreed with him. Another pastor in our area said that when polling his congregation it became apparent that many simply planned to skip church that day. So instead of facing the embarassing reality of the low level of commitment that exists in the church, he decided to cancel it.

Just desserts
Another line of reasoning sounds something like the old McDonald's commercial: "You deserve a break today..." People work so hard for 364 days a year (or 51 Sundays a year, as a variant rationale goes) that they deserve not to have to go to church on December 25. Those who have made this case sound like worshiping with God's people is such a pain and burden that no one should begrudge getting out from under that load on a day as special as Christmas. One pastor, commenting on Saddleback's planned shutdown indicated that since that church does so much good, no one should question their decision to take a Sunday off. After all, even Walmart shuts down on Christmas, why shouldn't a church have the same prerogative?

Family values
Familes ought to be together. There are so many pressures that pull them apart, especially during the Christmas season, that it is the least that the church can do to shut down on the Lord's Day in order to promote family togetherness. This is actually viewed as a noble decision, rooted in love for families.

Evangelism
One church even argued that since very few unconverted people are expected to attend on that Sunday, it would not be cost-effective to hold services that day. The reasoning goes like this: since the church's main responsibility is to reach lost people, if they will not come on Christmas, then we will not waste our time and energy at putting on a service.

I am sure that there are other stated reasons and I am sure that many who have offered variations of those I have mentioned above would like to elaborate or refine their comments. Be that as it may, the obvious, glaring omission in all of these excuses is any appeal to the Word of God. It is as if the decision whether or not a church should gather on the Lord's Day is purely subjective. I have mentioned this before but it applies again here--wouldn't it be helpful if someone along the way stopped and asked the question, "Does God have an opinion on this?"

Does God care if a church cancels its worship service on the Lord's Day because it falls on December 25? If He does, then shouldn't we listen to it and heed it? If He doesn't, then let those who advocate canceling Lord's Day services say so plainly. They should say something like this: "We are canceling Lord's Day worship services and God doesn't care one way or the other. The Bible has nothing to say about this. We are completely free to do this."

The kind of reasoning that is coming out in defense of church closings has more in common with the world and its ways than it does with the Bible. And this is further evidence of how far American evangelicalism has fallen away from basic, biblical Christianity. At some point, like Machen did in the early 2oth century with liberalism, we are going to be forced to admit that what passes under the banner of evangelicalism simply is not Christian, no matter how many Christian trappings are retained.

Our only hope is reformation and revival.

Doctrine is practical by John MacArthur

Doctrine Is Practical
by John MacArthur
from http://www.phillipjohnson.blogspot.com/

I have in my library a book by the spiritual father of a quasi-Christian cult. He argues that doctrinal statements, systematic theology and propositional truth claims are contrary to the spirit of Jesus' ministry.

That seemed a rather bizarre notion when I first heard it years ago. But the belief that Christ is against doctrine is a notion I seem to be encountering with increasing frequency.

No idea could be much further from the truth. The word doctrine simply means "teaching." And it's ludicrous to say that Christ is anti-teaching. The central imperative of His Great Commission is the command to teach (Matthew 28:18-20).

Yet there's no shortage of church-growth experts, professional pollsters, and even seminary professors nowadays who are cautioning young pastors that doctrine is too divisive, too threatening, too heady and theoretical—and therefore simply impractical.

Impractical? I agree that practical application is vital. I don't want to minimize its importance. But if there is a deficiency in preaching today, it is that there's too much relational, pseudo-psychological, and thinly life-related content, and not enough emphasis on sound doctrine.

Moreover, the distinction between doctrinal and practical truth is completely artificial; doctrine is practical. In fact, nothing is more practical than sound doctrine, because there's ultimately no basis for godly behavior apart from the truth of God's Word.

Practical insights, gimmicks, and illustrations mean little if they are divorced from divine principle. Before the preacher asks anyone to perform a certain duty, he must first deal with doctrine. He must develop his message around theological themes and draw out the principles of the texts. Then the truth can be applied.

Romans provides the clearest example. Paul doesn't give any exhortation until he has given eleven chapters of theology.

He scales incredible heights of truth, culminating in 11:33-36, where he says, "Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor? Or who has first given Him that it might be paid back to Him again? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen."

Then in chapter 12, he turns immediately to the practical consequences of the doctrine of the first 11 chapters. No passage in Scripture captures the Christian's responsibility in the face of truth more clearly than Romans 12:1-2. Resting on eleven chapters of profound doctrine, Paul calls each believer to a supreme act of spiritual worship—giving oneself as a living sacrifice.

So doctrine gives rise to devotion to Christ. What could be more practical? And the remainder of the book of Romans goes on to explain still more practical outworkings of one's dedication to Christ.

Paul follows the same pattern in Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and 1 Thessalonians. The doctrinal message comes first. Upon that foundation he builds the practical application, making the logical connection with the word therefore (Romans 12:1; Galatians 5:1; Ephesians 4:1; Philippians 2:1) or then (Colossians 3:1; 1 Thessalonians 4:1).

So we have imposed an artificial meaning on the word doctrine. We've made it something abstract and threatening, unrelated to daily living. That has brought about the disastrous idea that preaching and teaching are unrelated to living.

The scriptural concept of doctrine includes the entire message of the gospel—its teaching about God, salvation, sin, and righteousness. Those concepts are so tightly bound to daily living that the first-century mind did not see them as something separate from practical truth.

The New Testament church was founded on a solid base of doctrine. First Timothy 3:16 contains what many expositors believe is an early church hymn: "God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." There, in capsule form, is the basis of all Christian teaching. Without that, no practical application matters.

The next few verses of 1 Timothy describe what happens when men depart from the basis of biblical truth: "Some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods, which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth" (4:1-3).

In other words, lying, hypocrisy, a dulled conscience, and false religious practices all have root in wrong doctrine.

No ministry activity is more important than rightly understanding and clearly proclaiming sound doctrine. In 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, Paul commissions two young men to the ministry. His central theme is the importance of adhering to sound doctrine.

Paul charged Timothy: "In pointing out these things to the brethren, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, constantly nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound doctrine which you have been following" (1 Tim. 4:6). "Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching," Paul adds, "persevere in these things; for as you do this you will insure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you" (v. 16).

Titus 2:10 says we "adorn [or honor] the doctrine of God" by how we live. When it comes to affirming sound doctrine, what we do carries far more significance than what we say. That's why it's disastrous when a pastor, seminary professor, or any kind of Christian leader fails morally. The message he proclaims is that his doctrine is unrelated to life. And for those whose lives he has touched, doctrine becomes merely an intellectual exercise.

True doctrine transforms behavior as it is woven into the fabric of everyday life. But it must be understood if it is to have its impact. The real challenge of the ministry is to dispense the truth clearly and accurately. Practical application comes easily by comparison.

The Church by C Kolstad

I love serving the body of Jesus Christ. The church after all is the only organization in the New Testament that Jesus promised to bless and to preserve. Consider our Lord’s words in Matthew 16:18, “And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it.” The true church of God is invincible because Jesus promises to protect it. God’s people belong to a cause that cannot fail. Richard Phillips adds, “No matter what attacks the devil unleashes on the church, the church will always prevail.” This security is bound up in the promise of Christ Himself.

The church belongs to Jesus. It is His church (see Matt. 16:18). He secured the church through his atoning death and resurrection (see Eph. 1:22-23, 5:23-30, 1 Cor 6:20, Acts 20:28). The individual Christian’s invincibility is forged in the sovereignty of God’s protection (Rom 8:28-31); such is true concerning the universal church as well (Matt. 16:18-19).

Most of us love cheering for or playing on winning sports teams. We are much more motivated to be apart of a company that we believe is bound to succeed than to work for one that is failing. That is one of things that is so awesome about Christ’s church; because God is for it, we know it can not fail!

I do not know about you, but this amazing truth motivates me to pour my life, my blood, my sweat, my tears, in short, my all into God’s church. The Lord of the church reminds us of an important principle in Matthew 6:17-20, "Do not lay up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal; for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” A practical way you can apply this passage is by committing yourself to a local assembly (1 Peter 4:10-11). “If the Lord Jesus Christ cherished the Church so much that He died for her, is it too much for Him to ask His followers to cherish the Church and live for her?” (Joel Beeke)

The New Testament repeatedly emphasizes the importance of the local church (Hebrews 10:24-25). Pastor John MacArthur puts it this way, “Active local church membership is imperative to living a life without compromise. It is only through the ministry of the local church that a believer can receive the kind of teaching, accountability, and encouragement that is necessary for him to stand firm in his convictions.” In the infamous words of Alan Rivers, “What’s your ministry beloved?”

One of my favorite hymns, written in the 1800’s by Timothy Dwight, sums up my heart on this subject very well:

I love Thy kingdom, Lord,
The house of Thine abode,
The church our blessed Redeemer saved
With His own precious blood.
I love Thy church, O God.
Her walls before Thee stand,
Dear as the apple of Thine eye,
And written on Thy hand.

For her my tears shall fall
For her my prayers ascend,
To her my cares and toils be given
Till toils and cares shall end.

“To Him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen.” (Eph 3:20).

Understanding the Postmodern-Emergent Mind

By Jerry Wragg www.gibcjupiter.org

This is taken from Phil Johnson's site (under comment section) but i think it is well worth your read. If you don't have time to read DA Carson's critique of the Emerging Church then you really should read this blog. It was written in response to another person (who is sympathetic with these new movements). http://phillipjohnson.blogspot.com/2005/11/ugliness-everywhere.html

pomo = post modernism
EC = The emerging church


"Chewing before you swallow is one thing...but putting everything and anything into your mouth is just plain unhealthy!
See 1 Cor. 3:18-23 and 1 Tim. 6:3-5"

"One more thing...
You said, '...hurling Bible verses into the void, as if they interpret themselves, doesn't help'

First, the texts I cited were not "hurled into [a] void", but clearly were offered in the context of my caution about indiscriminate intake. It should've been obvious that I believe those passages teach us how to be discerning, never giving human wisdom any divine ground. But if I should've been clearer, I'm sorry.
Second, at least my volley includes some reference to places in scripture that I think bring clarity to our interlocution. If you want to dispute what I infer from these verses and offer a better understanding, be my guest...but don't accuse me of Bible hit-and-runs. Many of my comments have included passages that I believe, according to the exegetical work I've done, directly answer some of the issues. I must say, that's more than I've received from you my friend. You're right...verses don't interpret themselves, but neither will they ever enjoy such attention if the "dialogue" muses on in the pattern so far established.
Oh yeah, one more thing (I feel like Columbo), you strongly challenged Phil regarding an alleged "ignorance" of the profitable discussion taking place in pomo and EC circles.
OK...so you think the talk is positive. Now what? Are we supposed to feel bad that we don't agree. Honestly, I've heard, read, and otherwise eavesdropped on most of what is "definable" in the postmodern and emerging world...and I don't see any real, long-term, edifying positives.

Oh sure, their preoccupation with man's finiteness as an alternative to the rationalist arrogance of modernism might earn a brief "atta-boy", except that they use this "humble" concession as the main trump against a reachable objectivity (an arrogance of another kind---sorry, "atta-boy" removed).
Perhaps we could award them for championing "authentic relationships" over cold "linear proof" models, except that their definition of "authentic" is its own immoveable, linear proof by which they deem rational evidence inauthentic (since when did our culture become more superior at understanding social and intuitive influences than other eras?---sorry, "atta-boy" removed).
Or maybe we might thank the pomo's and EC'ers for their genuine interest in the worthiness and equality of all cultures, except that again this other-cultures sensitivity is used to argue that the subjective complexities of human communication make objectivity impossible (how in the world did I ever "connect" in South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Greece, England, Scotland, South America, and France with so much abstraction?---sorry again, "atta-boy" removed).
You see, I'm truly thankful for the privilege of coming under the sanctifying grace of God's word in order to answer the challenges of postmodernism and the EC. What I will not do is join a "conversation", even a "positive" one, that requires me to check my Bible or my certainty at the door simply because the moderators think believing in attainable absolutes is "epistemologically naive", "academically obtuse", and "culturally insensitive". Whatever "relational positives" such dialogue promises, the dangers, in my judgment, far outweigh them.
Will the purveyors of this "new kind of Christianity" be around in 30 years to clean up the mess and take responsibility? The history of every movement entrenched in subjectivity demostrates otherwise. Everyone says "woops!", but the seed-planters are no where to be found."

Written by JWragg

C.H. Spurgeon on tolerance

"Our forefathers were far less tolerant than we are, and it is to be feared that they were also more honest. It will be a sad discount upon our gain in the matter of charity if it turn out that we have been losers in the department of truthfulness.

There is no necessary connection between the two facts of growth in tolerance and decline in sincerity, but we are suspicious that they have occurred and are occurring at the same moment.

We freely accord to theological teachers a freedom of thought and utterance which in other ages could only be obtained by the more daring at serious risks, but we also allow an amount of untruthfulness in ministers, which former ages would have utterly abhorred. . . .

Our love to the most unlimited religious liberty incites us to all the sterner abhorrence of the license which like a parasite feeds thereon.

the plea of spiritual liberty, of late years certain teachers who have abjured the faith of the churches which employ them, have nevertheless endeavored, with more or less success, to retain their offices and their emoluments. . . .

Our complaint is . . . not that the men changed their views, and threw up their former creeds, but that having done so they did not at once quit the office of minister to the community whose faith they could no longer uphold; their fault is not that they differed, but that, differing, they sought an office of which the prime necessity is agreement.

All the elements of the lowest kind of knavery meet in the evil which we now denounce. Treachery is never more treacherous than when it leads a man to stab at a doctrine which he has solemnly engaged to uphold, and for the maintenance of which he receives a livelihood. . . .

It is frequently bewailed as a mournful circumstance that creeds were ever written; it is said, "Let the Bible alone be the creed of every church, and let preachers explain the Scriptures as they conscientiously think best." Here again we enter into no debate, but simply beg the objector to remember that there are creeds, that the churches have not given them up, that persons are not forced to be ministers of these churches, and therefore if they object to creeds they should not offer to become teachers of them; above all, they should not agree to teach what they do not believe."

BY Spurgeon

Calvin on sound doctrine

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

Hold the form of sound words. Some explain it thus: Let thy doctrine be, as it were, a pattern which others may imitate. I do not approve of that view. Equally removed from Paul’s meaning is Chrysostom’s exposition, that Timothy should have at hand the image of virtues engraven on his heart by Paul’s doctrine. I rather think that Paul commands Timothy to hold fast the doctrine which he had learned, not only as to substance, but as to the very form of expression; for — the word which Paul employs on this occasion — denotes a lively picture of objects, as if they were actually placed before the eyes. Paul knew how ready men are to depart or fall off from pure doctrine. For this reason he earnestly cautions Timothy not to turn aside from that form of teaching which he had received, and to regulate his manner of teaching by the rule which had been laid down; not that we ought to be very scrupulous about words, but because to misrepresent doctrine, even in the smallest degree, is exceedingly injurious.

–– John Calvin, from his commentary on 2 Timothy

Postmodern openness

Phil Johnson is one of Andrea and I's former pastors. He is a gifted writer and a good preacher. This was a great article he recently wrote for www.phillipjohnson.blogspot.com

I know I don't post very often. In part because the best stuff i have to offer/say is found in my sermons (www.fbccarmel.com). I preached yesterday on Jude 3 in the AM and on "The Agonies of Gethsemane" during the PM communion service.

This article fits in perfectly with my series on Jude. Please give me feedback regarding my most recent sermon "The Contenders" from Jude 3........

"The favorite buzzwords of the postmodern spirit all sound so warm and friendly, don't they? Conversation, dialogue, openness, generosity, tolerance. Who wouldn't want to participate in discourse with someone who truly prized human values such as those?

On the other hand, the very same Zeitgeist has demonized a host of other essential biblical values, such as authority, conviction, clarity, and even truth. In the milieu of the emerging discussion, this second category of words has been made to sound harsh, unreasonable, arrogant, and extreme—if not downright evil.

Moreover, postmodern human values are increasingly being defined in a way that expressly precludes eternal biblical values. For example, the prevailing opinion nowadays is that you cannot be "open" and certain at the same time. A person who speaks with too much conviction is ipso facto deemed an "intolerant" person. Above all, anyone who recognizes the full authority of Scripture and insists that God's Word deserves our unconditional submission will inevitably be accused of deliberately trying to stymie the whole "conversation."

This is not to suggest that disagreement per se is prohibited in the postmodern dialectic. Quite the contrary, "deconstruction" is all about disputes over words. Postmoderns thrive on dissent, debate, and contradiction.

And (giving credit where credit is due) it should be noted that postmodernists can sometimes be amazingly congenial in their verbal sparring with one another.

One thing the participants in the postmodern "conversation" simply will not tolerate, however, is someone who disagrees and thinks the point is really serious. Virtually no heresy is ever to be regarded as damnable. The notion that erroneous doctrine can actually be dangerous is deemed uncouth and naive. Every bizarre notion gets equal respect. Truth itself is only a matter of personal perspective, you see. Everything is ultimately negotiable.

Now, if you want to join the postmodern "conversation," you are expected to acknowledge all this up front—at least tacitly. That's the price of admission to the discussion. Once you're in, you can throw any bizarre idea you want on the table, no matter how outlandish. You can use virtually any tone or language to make your point, no matter how outrageous. But you must bear in mind that all disputation at this table is purely for sport. At the end of the day, you mustn't really be concerned about the truth or falsehood of any mere propositions.

Some "conversation." The ground rules guarantee that truth itself will be a casualty in every controversy, because regardless of the substance or the outcome of the dialogue, participants have in effect agreed up front that the propositions under debate don't really matter.

Entering the "conversation" at all is tantamount to breaking the seal on a software package. The moment you do it, you have putatively given your consent to the postmodernist's ground rules. If you then violate those rules—meaning if you take any doctrine too seriously or insist that Scripture is really authoritative—you will be savaged as someone who is cruel, intolerant, unenlightened, and hopelessly arrogant.

That's why it is well-nigh impossible to have an authentic, meaningful conversation with a devoted postmodernist and ever see anything genuinely resolved. The postmodernist by definition has no real hope or expectation of arriving at the truth of any matter. That's not the goal of the postmodernist exercise. It's not even a desirable objective. The only real point is to eliminate certitude altogether. This is done not by settling disputes, but by silencing or assimilating everyone who resists the unrestrained free flow of the postmodernist idea-exchange.

Truth is under attack on countless fronts today. What's popular these days—even among professing Christians—is glorying in ambiguity and uncertainty. Precious few are still committed without reservation to the truth and authority of Scripture. The very last thing I would willingly do in times like these would be to pledge a moratorium on candor or agree to a ceasefire with people who delight in testing the limits of orthodoxy. See Nehemiah 6:2-4." BY Phil Johnson www.spurgeon.org

Jude 3

I am preaching this Sunday on Jude 3. This may be the most powerful text i have ever preached from....I can't wait for Sunday!!!!!!!!!!


The Contenders (Jude 3)

“To Protect and (Pre)serve”
the faith, that was once for all delivered to the saints.

Similarities between 2 Peter and Jude

2 Peter 2:1-33 Jude 4-18

2 Peter 2:6 Jude 7

2 Peter 2:10 Jude 8

2 Peter 2:11 Jude 9

2 Peter 2:12 Jude 10

2 Peter 2:18 Jude 16

2 Peter 3:2-3 Jude 17-18


2 Peter 2:6; “and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly thereafter;”

Jude 7; “Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.”



2 Peter 2:12; “But these, like unreasoning animals, born as creatures of instinct to be captured and killed, reviling where they have no knowledge, will in the destruction of those creatures also be destroyed.”

Jude 10; “But these men revile the things which they do not understand; and the things which they know by instinct, like unreasoning animals, by these things they are destroyed.”



2 Peter 2:18, “For speaking out arrogant words of vanity they entice by fleshly desires, by sensuality, those who barely escape from the ones who live in error”

Jude 16; “These are grumblers, finding fault, following after their own lusts; they speak arrogantly, flattering people for the sake of gaining an advantage.”

Understanding the Sufficiency of the Scriptures: By Jerry Wragg

Pastor Jerry Wragg impacted my Christian life in such remarkable ways. He was the finest mentor I ever had (outside of my parents).

This blog he recently wrote is totally worth your time: READ ON.........

from http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=12723103&postID=113203049972981888

JerryW said...

"I really hesitated offering this response because it is way too long, and is largely experience-driven (my own). But it raises questions that I believe have been on the heart of every believer on both sides of the continuation vs cessation issue (sorry, Phil Johnson, for bringing this up again). Incidentally, if you’re from a cessationist background but your claim is that your continuationism is only exegetical without having changed how you actually relate to God (e.g. revelations), then you either haven’t held the view very long or you aren’t practicing what you claim to believe. In fact, I can’t imagine why someone would conclude that scripture teaches continuationism without vigorously pursuing such interaction with the Creator, especially if it guarantees daily, albeit less authoritative and reliable, data directly from on high.

Be that as it may, on to my personal experience (what a knife-edge to walk). I have lived my entire Christian life being sanctified, making crucial decisions, raising a family, facing an evil culture, shepherding the flock of God, praying, seeing God work intimately in my life, knowing His pleasure, smarting under His discipline, learning to be selfless, cultivating humility, being powerfully led by His Spirit, becoming more courageous in bold evangelism, establishing deep doctrinal convictions, loving Jesus Christ and His cross beyond words, and experiencing the overwhelming wonder of worshiping my God---all exclusively through the instrument of the “living and abiding word of God” in His hand! What does this prove? Only that until its biblical arguments are convincing, none of what continuationism promises holds any necessary attraction for me. If God does reveal Himself “freshly” for my practical daily walk by some other means than the Bible I sure haven’t missed it. The Lord is as “fresh” to me now as ever! Does He strongly compel me to do this or that and go here or there? His word assures me that He does, by means of the Spirit’s sanctifying grace (as I yield to His written will – Eph. 5:18), by the mind of Christ renewing my fleshly reasoning (as I obey the truth - 1 Cor. 2:15; 2 Cor. 10:5), by doctrinal convictions cured over time (as I develop discernment – Heb. 5:14), and by the refining of my faith (as I entrust myself to Christ’s written promises, providential care, and saving love – Rom. 8:26-30). Some may ask, “what about those everyday practical ‘forks in the road’ where the dilemma of making a ‘wrong’ decision seems to demand ‘clearer insight into the future’”? For me, such cases are fairly routine and I resolve them in two ways: (1) I exhaust all possible avenues of wisdom commanded in scripture, namely, seeking wise counsel, applying any biblically explicit principles, examining subtle motives and unbiblical ideas that cloud my thinking, and trusting that the Spirit is working out His sovereign will in my life. Having first given the matter these considerations and found no more compelling clarity, I move forward in faith (even if I’m not quite sure, hence the faith!); (2) The previous steps build a deeper discernment over time so that such considerations begin to occur imperceptibly. No more “answer” is needed, nor do I believe one is offered by the Lord. Otherwise, how would I come to know and trust the promised goodness of God in the “waiting”?

On that note, I have often wondered why so many Christians seem to “need” specific clarity from God in the daily issues of life. If an intimate walk with Christ demanded a whole set of daily, personal revelations guaranteeing the “best path for me” how would I ever learn simple entrustment? Moreover, wouldn’t I be held responsible for carrying out every prescriptive detail of the revealed plan? And since I already lack faith where the scriptures are concerned, wouldn’t my immaturity quibble even more over God’s specific path for me because “His ways are not my ways…and His thoughts are higher than my thoughts”? In addition, how would I ever have enough spiritual insight to comprehend what He has ordained for me in each moment of my life, and how could I bear the burden of failing to line up with it all? And if inner promptings are direct revelations from God to me personally and I fail to obey to the detail, haven’t I violated His directly revealed will in the same manner as disobeying His written word? But some will say, “Isn’t it the same issue when cessationists fail to follow a “strong conviction” to witness to the guy at the bus stop”? No, because though God has directly commanded that we call all men to repent, He has not revealed his perfect and specific will for each circumstance. Upon further reflection, I may be guilty of selfishness and self-preservation by not responding to inward convictions I have come to believe over time (e.g. compassion for the lost, selfless and courageous evangelism), and must learn to respond more discerningly to Kingdom-opportunities. But I am in no danger of rebellion against a direct “word-for-the-moment” revelation. Quite frankly, I haven’t been able to keep up with all that scripture commands or promises as it is, so I’m compelled to believe that there is much more yet to be “experienced” as I behold wondrous things from His word and tremble to heed them. So far, God has strengthened my faith by His word alone apart from such specific revelations. If I’ve missed such a crucial resource as fresh, divine revelation for my sanctification during the last twenty-three years, you would think that glaring perversion, gross spiritual atrophy, serious doctrinal confusion, and frequent ruinous decisions would litter the landscape of my Christian experience (evidences all too common among many who live by revelations outside of scripture). After all, if a believer neglects any other spiritual discipline (including the use of spiritual gifts in the body), even for a short time, the watered seed of dereliction does bloom! Yet, in every persistent battle with the flesh (e.g. pride, weak faith, ignorance, laziness, unforgiveness, idolatry, and more) and my own daily struggle to humbly trust the Lord for His perfect will (a work-in-progress known all too well by my family and close friends) I have found scripture a ready and utterly sufficient weapon against the enemy, and a thorough implement for spiritual surgery. True, continuationists may make the same assertion, but not without being inconsistent. Continuationism necessitates the conclusion that cessationists have missed the personal work of the Spirit available to all believers, and therefore are floundering in a sea of non-dynamic adherence to ancient words alone. As a logical consequence, cessationist-churches must be “quenching the Spirit[‘s]” most significant work by emphasizing the specific application of ancient scripture over the contemporary and individual-specific revelations given directly by God. I fail to see how these conclusions can be avoided given the continuationist’s claim that private revelations occur today.

So what do we make of those nagging “checks and promptings” in our “spirit”? Are “strong impressions” (i.e. to witness to someone, to listen to a radio preacher, to be a missionary, to speak a serendipitous word of encouragement, etc.) to be taken as “direct” revelations from the Lord? For the continuationist, the answer is yes, not only because of an alleged lack of a verse or passage to the contrary (never mind that cessationism has yet to be dispensed of with so little an offering), but also because these revelations represent a needed specificity the Bible, it is claimed, never intended to offer. I would submit, however, that the answer depends on what is meant by “direct”. For instance, the singular testimony of scripture regarding Christian growth is that as one’s understanding of biblical truth deepens through obedience, strong conviction, passion, and discernment increases exponentially (Heb. 5:14; 1 John 2:13-14). Now, if I’m inwardly (indeed, almost audibly) compelled at some moment to share Christ with someone, must I conclude that the Lord has directly revealed His future will to me for that moment? Isn’t it possible (even more probable) that I am simply being “directed” through biblical convictions which the Spirit has seasoned through obedience over time, for His providential and effective use at that particular moment? Or, perhaps I’m experiencing a range of normal, biblical thoughts brought on by a combination of biblical truth and Christian experience? Our minds (inner man) work this way in every other arena of life, why must we suddenly spiritualize every strong “notion” and divinize each inner “impression”? Perhaps some clarity can be gained by looking at the way our conscience works. The scripture’s teach that the conscience strongly “condemns” or “affirms” us, depending upon how we respond to the strongest inner standards of conviction we believe (Rom. 2:14-15). Such condemnation and affirmation may be so inwardly powerful that it seems like audible “screaming”! Yet, no one would claim (I hope) that the promptings of the conscience are direct revelations from God. In fact, it is dangerous to give the conscience ultimate authority since it can be wrongly trained, sending false alarms where no sin exists, or no alarms when real guilt is present. It seems to me that inner convictions operate in a similar fashion. The more biblically refined my convictions, the more Spirit-driven my strong “impressions”. But if I mistake sensitive and mature spiritual convictions for “direct revelation” from God I will most assuredly “hear” God’s will where He has not spoken, and miss His clear written direction in pursuit of more than He offers in the Bible. Another example may help---if I have strong “impressions” about specific ways to apply the biblical admonition “Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church”, am I receiving direct revelation specifically for my marriage? If not, how do I know the difference, since it is claimed that God gives “fresh revelations” for the practical areas of my life? And if, on the other hand, by applying scripture to my marriage I have strong convictions about ways to love my wife more biblically, what is lacking? As I see it, the idea of direct, divine, freshly revealed specifics for my life cannot be a both/and proposition. Either I believe that all inner thoughts specific to my life are directly given by God to complement the general principles of His written revelation, or they are the fruit of a Spirit-trained mind being “led” by obedience-produced convictions.

More to the point…these “promtings” and “impressions” are easily explained as God’s providential leading in a spiritually seasoned believer whose biblical convictions “speak to them” in the milieu of daily living. These strong thoughts can result in experiences ranging from the mundane to the seemingly impossible. They DO NOT demand the belief that God has directly spoken beyond scripture. His providence working through obedient believers is all that is needed (Phil. 2:12-13) to experience His leading. Lest we think this is only an issue of semantics, I believe what continuationists call “fresh revelation” is actually the Spirit’s providence combined with strong biblical convictions at best, or the accommodation of weak faith by desiring a “sensation” of knowing God’s specific will at worst.

In light of the above, my experience (apologies for the argument from experience) with Christ has now become the “trained-behavior” that keeps me wondering if continuationism is more the result of wanting something that obedience to the written word already affords.

My point is not that experience rules my conclusions, only that my experience continues to prove what God’s word overwhelmingly claims, namely that it provides everything the Christian needs until glory."

Is Piper wrong here?

I really liked this letter......... Read on


A Pastor's Opinion as to Bethlehem Baptist Church's Unfortunate and Dangerous Decision

By Dr. Roy Hargrave
Senior Pastor
Riverbend Community Church
Ormond Beach & Palm Coast, Florida

On August 9, 2005, the Council of Elders of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, Minn., approved the following motion (23 "yes", 1 "no"): “The Elders recommend to the church that the Constitution and By-Laws be amended in accordance with revision 08-09-05 as amended by the Elders (on 08/09/05), of the document entitled Baptism and Church Membership at Bethlehem Baptist Church”.

To my knowledge, this motion has not yet been approved by the congregation at Bethlehem. Information that is cited in this “open” letter, concerning the details of this recommendation by the Elders of Bethlehem Baptist Church, may be found here.
An Open Letter to Bethlehem Baptist Church:

It is with a high regard for the Bethlehem Baptist Church and its senior pastor, Dr. John Piper, that I make the following observations. My motive is not out of malice or the desire to stir up a controversy among the brethren. On the contrary, it is with great fear and trepidation that I seek to enter into disagreement with a man that I consider one of the great stalwarts of the faith in our day.

John Piper has been greatly used of God in ways that are both known and unknown. He has been a catalyst for reformation among young men and women around the world, and he possesses what many of us believe to be a God-given influence which is presently unequaled among leaders of the reformed faith (especially Baptists). The consequences of this influence have not left Bethlehem Baptist Church unaffected by his contagious passion for the glory of God and the salvation of the lost.

I have spent two weeks in that wonderful church. Bethlehem's witness for Christ and His glory impacted my life and ministry in ways that I cannot describe. I love that church and its pastor, who I believe has been and continues to be a mighty weapon in the hands of God. Dr. Piper has been used of God for a renewal of vision and passion for a God-enhanced theological and practical approach that affects everything from preaching to missionary zeal. It is his sanctified heart and mind that God has bestowed upon him that sets him apart from the mass of preachers in our day. He is a man of God who should be held in high regard among the brethren.

And though John Piper would never seek such favor among us, we must acquiesce to God’s Word in 1 Thess. 5:12-13, “ . . . esteem them (those who diligently labor among you . . . and give you instruction) very highly in love . . .”.
I must also qualify my objections by stating definitively that Bethlehem Baptist Church is a local, autonomous congregation and possesses the governmental liberty to make determinations without regard for external influence. It does not mean, however, that those decisions are biblically correct.

I must also stipulate that my determination to make this an "open letter" to Bethlehem Baptist Church is due to the widespread distribution (internet and other means) of that church's decision on changing its qualifications for church membership. It has been Bethlehem's desire (for which I am extremely glad) in recent years to have a broader influence on the evangelical world through the means of publishing, internet access and conferences that make responses like this inevitable.

Though Bethlehem has the freedom and authority to make this decision, it has ramifications which may be broader than ever imagined. This is certainly true for those of us who are Baptists. As a Southern Baptist pastor for the past 32 years, I think I know somewhat about the kind of negative feedback which will occur in our ranks among those who come from a more Arminian perspective.

For those who may not know it, Southern Baptists are in the underlying throes of a theological conflict. There is everything from Pelagianism (at least semi-Pelagianism) to Hyper-Calvinism in our ranks, and great confusion is in our future if this matter is left unattended. We have everything from cold, dead, passionless theologues to high-flying preachers who baptize their converts in baptistries shaped like red fire engines. One of the SBC's past presidents has even stated that we are now practicing “infant baptism” through the abuse of Vacation Bible School evangelism.

I don’t want to leave the impression that there is nothing positive happening in our ranks. On the contrary, there are a number of good things happening in our midst. I'm talking about things that especially relate to a renewal among our young college and seminary students for a passion for God’s glory and a restoration of the biblical gospel. These young minds and hearts are apparently sick of the fluff and hollowness of a man-centered theology and the carnal use of human manipulation resulting in a bloated church membership and false conversions.

This leads me to the point of this decision at Bethlehem, especially for Southern Baptists. This renewal among our Baptist young men and women has been greatly aided by the conviction and forthrightness of Dr. Piper. Some would even argue that no other person has been as influential as Dr. Piper for this on-going reformation. I would certainly be hard-pressed to name anyone who has been used of God among Southern Baptist youth to the extent that Dr. Piper has in the past decade.
Now in light of Bethlehem's decision to receive some into the congregation who have been baptized as infants, we must part with Dr. Piper and Bethlehem. It will certainly be used by those who still possess enormous influence in our denomination to draw young Baptist students away from reading Piper’s works and listening to his sermons. I heard it stated over four years ago by a well-known leader in our ranks that this “Calvinism in our midst will always lead to a full covenantal theological approach which ultimately practices infant baptism.”

Of course, we who embrace the precious Doctrines of Grace responded by saying that was ludicrous. We may have been wrong. Granted, the ignoring of our own history in Southern Baptist life has led many to be blinded to the fact that the great stalwarts like Boyce, Dagg, Manly and Broadus, as well as Lottie Moon, were Calvinists. Coincidentally, these valiant Baptists never turned away from the Baptistic understanding of believer’s baptism. Of course, those who possess wisdom will not "throw the baby out with the wash." Many of us will continue to read Dr. Piper’s works and listen to his sermons. But this does not diminish the negative impact this unfortunate decision will cause in our ranks.

All the above is worthless speculation if there is no substance to my disagreement with Bethlehem’s decision. Besides reading the anticipated amendments to Bethlehem’s By-Laws concerning the approval of receiving some who have been baptized as infants (without immersion after regeneration), I have read and re-read the appendices which set forth arguments (primarily from Dr. Piper) that seek to justify the substance of the decision in this matter.

Again, I must reiterate my understanding of the church's authority as a local church to make such arguments and approve of such practices. However, the church's high visibility, especially among Baptists, demands a response from those who will be affected within their denominations.

There are three areas of concern that I would hope Bethlehem would consider.
First, there is the matter of biblical authority and accuracy. Granted, while all who would claim a full and infallible interpretation of Scripture would rightfully be considered arrogant, it still remains a legitimate goal of all who believe the Bible to seek a rightful dividing of it. Disagreements over interpretive issues occur on a regular basis among men of God who sincerely seek the Truth, but when that truth is known, there must be no room for capitulation.

John Piper has said unequivocally that the immersion of believers is the only legitimate and proper understanding of New Testament baptism. He has also preached explicitly against the covenantal view of baptism replacing circumcision as the sign of entering the New Covenant. Clearly, he has stated, (to paraphrase) faith is the required entrance into the enjoyment of this New Covenant. This is certainly the view which has been held among Baptists for centuries.

Also, Bethlehem has stated in its documents: The teaching and practice of baptism at Bethlehem Baptist Church is defined in Section 12 of the BETHLEHEM BAPTIST CHURCH ELDER AFFIRMATION OF FAITH. The key paragraph states: We believe that baptism is an ordinance of the Lord by which those who have repented and come to faith express their union with Christ in His death and resurrection by being immersed in water in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. It is a sign of belonging to the new people of God, the true Israel, and an emblem of burial and cleansing, signifying death to the old life of unbelief and purification from the pollution of sin. Thus, the official Bethlehem position is that only baptism by immersion of believers will be taught and practiced by the church. Customarily, therefore, all members of the church will have been baptized by immersion as believers.
It is, therefore, without controversy that Dr. Piper and Bethlehem interpret the Scripture as stating that only believer’s baptism through immersion is the legitimate mode and method of New Testament baptism. If this is plainly believed (as it appears to be) by the elders and membership of Bethlehem, then what form of reasoning would lead them away from the accuracy and authority of Scripture? Perhaps I simply don’t understand. But it seems, in my opinion, to demonstrate a subtle compromise of known truth, which will establish a dangerous precedent.
Secondly, though Dr. Piper and Bethlehem possess what Baptists believe to be a biblical view of practice in the church, they may be guilty of "incrementalism." This term is used by some to describe the slow and subtle movement away from biblical authority. In Spurgeon’s day, it was called the “downgrade.”
I don’t want to put Bethlehem’s decision in the dark light of the incipient liberalism of the 19th Century. But to put it bluntly, if the Bible, in Dr. Piper's own words, teaches believer’s baptism only, then what possible reasoning could be used to practice what is self-designated as the acceptance of “the minimum doctrinal and life standards for membership"?

Now, I must hasten to agree, in principle, with the spirit of the statement. Obviously, it would be unwise for any church to expect new converts and members to be theologians and expert practitioners of New Testament ecclesiology. However, the letter of the above statement is questionable in light of the determination to permit the allowance of error (according to the church's own theology), due to a possible “violation of their (the new members') conscience.” In this case, I don’t think the word “doctrinal” should be in the statement, since what they are allowing is not doctrinal but experiential.

I do not want to misrepresent the matter as Bethlehem sees it, so here is the reasoning in this matter in that church's own words. However, we believe it is fitting that membership in the local church (distinct from leadership in the local church) should have prerequisites similar to the prerequisites for membership in the universal church. In other words, we believe it is unfitting to deny membership to a person who, by faith in Christ, gives evidence of regeneration.
I don’t mean to appear condescending when I say this, but aren’t there some members of the “universal church” who are unlearned and immature to the extent that they will not submit to the authority of a local church?

We could argue about the legitimacy of the conversion of these people, but I think we would all admit that some truly saved people are not members of a local church for wrong reasons. Of course, chastisement is certainly in their future, but that does not change the fact that they exist. Another problem I have with this line of Bethlehem's reasoning is the failure to recognize the distinction between the local church and the universal church.

How often does the Bible speak about the universal church? Very little, and usually in a future perspective. For instance, the innumerable body of believers around the throne of God in the book of Revelation is a future vision. The point is, the Bible, when speaking specifically of “church,” is usually referring to the local manifestation of the universal body, which is the local church or congregation. It must be understood, that the requirements of entrance into the universal and local church are clearly distinctive. All, or at least most, would agree that entrance into the universal body of Christ is the work of regeneration resulting in conversion, justification and glorification.

But entrance into the local church is very different. For instance, regeneration is not necessarily required for entrance. Before readers blow a fuse on this one, let me explain. We know that true regeneration is only known by God and the one regenerated. When “converts” are allowed entrance into the local church, we are limited in our judgment as to the fruits which are "meet for repentance." We cannot be certain of another person’s salvation when he/she enters the local church. If we could, there would be no "tares" in our midst. Even the most ardent church in this matter of seeking to discover the external manifestations of true conversion fail at times to judge properly. As pertaining to the present controversy, while entrance to the universal church does not require believer’s baptism, entrance to the local church does.

On the day of Pentecost, Peter said to the seekers, “Repent and be baptized . . .” The Word also adds in Acts 2:41 (NASB) So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

This qualification of baptism need not be debated, for Bethlehem has agreed to the biblical nature of it by stating, unequivocally, “We will not admit into membership persons who refuse to practice any form of baptism at all.” This statement, in my opinion, creates a theological dilemma for Bethlehem. First, how can this be reconciled with the church's desire for entrance into the local congregation to be synonymous with membership in the universal church while requiring a requirement for local membership which is not required for entrance into the universal church? Is this regeneration resulting in conversion and justification alone? Secondly, it creates a quagmire by requiring, inconsistently, I might add, a baptism, which by Bethlehem's own admission, is unscriptural. This is incrementalism--reasoning which is not only against the clear teaching of Scripture but against reason itself.
To this point, I have expressed my concerns in a brief fashion as to the question of biblical authority and the danger of incrementalism. Now I must close with my third and final argument. I must be extremely careful at this point because I may be entering into motives which I cannot possibly discern. Therefore, I will only speak in general terms without accusing our dear brothers and sisters at Bethlehem of something that is probably not true of them.

I have observed, among Baptists who have embraced the Doctrines of Grace, a unique camaraderie with those with whom we disagree on other theological matters. One of the causes of this is the enormous hostility we sense from our own Baptist brothers who think of us as almost “cultish”. This offends many Reformed Baptists, who often feel more kinship with Presbyterians (and others) than with our own. This is unfortunate in one way and commendable in another.

It is unfortunate, especially among our own in the SBC, that we should all examine the truth we preach in our own denomination. We should do so before judging the likes of those who only embrace doctrines which many of our seminary professors comply with every year by signing what is called the Abstracts of Principles. This document states, among other things, that Election is God's eternal choice of some persons unto everlasting life--not because of foreseen merit in them, but of his mere mercy in Christ--in consequence of which choice they are called, justified and glorified.

It is commendable that we should embrace, love and fellowship with our converted brothers of different stripes--especially if they believe that salvation is a free act of God’s grace whereby in Christ alone is there salvation through faith alone. Our Presbyterian brothers and others should be our friends, even though we disagree about some matters of importance, though not vital to salvation and entrance into the universal church.

But for us, as Baptists, or for that matter, for them, as Presbyterians, to contradict what we hold to be according to God’s Holy Word as Truth is a dangerous proposition. We have former Presbyterians at Riverbend Community Church, but they have submitted to the authority of the local church and followed the Lord in believer’s baptism through immersion. If their consciences do not allow for it, we gladly invite them to stay under the ministry of the Word in our church (though not as members). If they can’t, they can leave and go where their consciences are not pricked. I may be wrong, but I see confusion reigning when we allow for something we know is unbiblical by nature so as not to violate someone’s conscience.

What are our children growing up under our ministries going to learn from this? We often hear that actions speak louder than our words. I hope that Dr. Piper, the Elders and members of Bethlehem Baptist Church will reconsider this monumental decision. If they do not, I will still love, pray for, read and learn from these great saints of God. But I will thoroughly disagree with their decision concerning entrance into a local church and what many of us believe to be their unwitting deterioration of valuing the absolute authority of God’s Word in all matters of faith and practice.

(Eccl 10:1 NASB) Dead flies make a perfumer's oil stink, so a little foolishness is weightier than wisdom and honor. Let us all take heed, lest while we guard against the monstrosities of soteriological error, we let the little foxes spoil the vines in our vineyard.
Humbly Submitted,

Dr. Roy Hargrave
Senior Pastor
Riverbend Community Church

“The Old Evangelicalism: Old Truths for a New Awakening.”

Iain H. Murray is one of my favorite modern-day writers. He has written some amazing Christian biographies on Lloyd-Jones, Spurgeon, Edwards, and Pink (to name just a few). I try and purchase everything this Christian author writes. His book “Evangelicalism Divided” is one of my all-time favorites. It should not surprise you then to hear this article is dedicated to Murray’s newest book “The Old Evangelicalism: Old Truths for a New Awakening.”

In the preface Murray writes, “I have entitled the book ‘The Old Evangelicalism,’ not because that is explicitly the theme, but because the material consistently shows that, on a number of fundamental truths, the evangelicalism of the last hundred years contrasts unfavorably with what went before.”

We live in a society that wants to constantly disconnect the present from the past. This worldly mindset has sadly snuck into the Church as well. Many professing Christian leaders are destroying the time-honored traditions of the past (such as true biblical preaching). Many Pastors have made the connection between this type of thinking and the Seeker Friendly/Emerging Church movement. (Pastor MacArthur explained this clearly during Shepherd's Conference 05). If not kept in check this philosophy often begins to tinker with biblical theology and sound doctrine as well. (Not to mention hermeneutics, see the new "Redemptive Hermeneutic" advocated by men like Rob Bell of Mars Hill).

In light of passages like Jude 3 (which I will be preaching on November 27th) this is tragic. Believer’s have been called to defend and preserve a body of fundamental doctrines (the gospel), which Jude calls, “The faith, which was once for all delivered (or passed down) to the saints.” This is one of the most important verses in all of Scripture.

A.W. Tozer put it this way, “Nothing is new that matters and nothing that matters can be modernized. The old way is the true way and there is no new way.” This is precisely why Charles Spurgeon told his seminary students, “To be effective preachers you must be sound theologians.” Sound theology is not just important to preachers. To live an effective God-honoring life we must know the Truth. To function as a Christ-exalting church we must know the Word and apply it appropriately. Maintaining a healthy marriage that implements the roles and goals of the Bible requires sound theology. The list above could go on and on.

I close with a Spurgeon quote that Murray includes to further illustrate the importance of historic theology in light of this New Evangelicalism: “It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he had revealed to others….A respectable acquaintance with the opinions of the giants of the past, might save many an erratic thinker from wild interpretations and outrageous inferences.”

May all of us seek to rediscover this “old evangelicalism,” so we too can help usher in a “new awakening.”


“Soli Deo Gloria”

Caleb Kolstad

Piper on Missions

Answers to Objections to Going into Missions: What I Said at Missions in the Main Hall
November 2, 2005

When I spoke at Missions in the Main Hall Sunday night, I tried to give a biblical response to possible obstacles that are in the way for some people that may keep them from moving forward toward missions. My prayer is that God would use these responses to call more of you to go. Here are eight objections and a biblical response.

1. “I am not smart enough.”

“Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.” (1 Corinthians 1:20-21)

“Consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise.” (1 Corinthians 1:26-27)

2. “My body and my personality are not strong enough.”

“But we have this treasure in jars of clay, to show that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us.” (2 Corinthians 4:7)

“[Christ] said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.’ Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong.” (2 Corinthians 12:9-10)

3. “I am not a good speaker.”

“Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.” (1 Corinthians 1:17)

“Moses said to the Lord, ‘Oh, my Lord, I am not eloquent, either in the past or since you have spoken to your servant, but I am slow of speech and of tongue.’ Then the Lord said to him, ‘Who has made man's mouth? Who makes him mute, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the Lord? Now therefore go, and I will be with your mouth and teach you what you shall speak.” (Exodus 4:10-12)

4. “I am afraid of the horrors I read about in the newspapers.”

“Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world. And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore (katartisei—“mend” or “repair” your horribly disfigured body when the lions in the coliseum are through with you), confirm, strengthen, and establish you.” (1 Peter 5:8-10)

5. “I am afraid I won’t be fruitful”

Your responsibility is not to be fruitful but to be faithful.

“And [Jesus] said, ‘The kingdom of God is as if a man should scatter seed on the ground. He sleeps and rises night and day, and the seed sprouts and grows; he knows not how. The earth produces by itself, first the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear. But when the grain is ripe, at once he puts in the sickle, because the harvest has come.” (Mark 4:26-29)

“I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth.” (1 Corinthians 3:6-7)

6. “There is plenty to do here.”

True, but there is a division of labor and God calls some to MISSIONS, not just evangelism. The difference is seen in Romans 15:19-24:

“So that from Jerusalem and all the way around to Illyricum I [Paul] have fulfilled the ministry of the gospel of Christ; and thus I make it my ambition to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named. . . Now, since I no longer have any room for work in these regions . . . I hope to see you in passing as I go to Spain.”

How could Paul say there was no room for work when there were millions in that region to be evangelized? Because evangelism is not missions.

7. “I am not married.”

The best spouse is found on the path of obedience. “An excellent wife [or husband!] who can find? She [and he!] is far more precious than jewels” (Proverbs 31:10). The finding is exceedingly hard. It will happen on the road of obedience.

8. “I fear that when I get there it might turn out I made a mistake and will come home with shame.”

Which is worse, shame for having endeavored to follow Christ in missions, or fear to venture? Shame before others for making a mistake will not hurt you; it will humble you and can make you more useful in a new situation. But fear will make you useless everywhere. Consider Ecclesiastes 11:4 and what it says about risk: “He who observes the wind will not sow, and he who regards the clouds will not reap.” Meaning: without taking the risk of sowing when the seed might be blown away and reaping when the rain might ruin the harvest, you will starve.

Oh, how precious is the freeing word of God,

Pastor John

A Wise Email From the Pew

I’ll be honest, I have a teaching on the church by Dever on tape and have seen him speak twice…I love his perspectives and insight and heart. He is clear, articulate and very simple and straightforward…even a dumb guy like me can understand what he is saying and where he is going with his points. Unlike Mohler, who I love, but talks even over the head of Sproul in his use of the English language…I only wish I were as smart as either of those guys.

His quote of Andy Stanley “going verse-by-verse is easy” (emphasis mine). Stanley went on to ask, “Do you know what your responsibility is as a pastor? It is to minister to felt-needs not to preach verse-by verse through Scripture.” is almost directly from the mouth of Rick Warren. When we were in the process of leaving our previous church, the pastor sat me down and asked me why we were leaving. I laid out the reasons clearly, and one of them was his desire to NOT teach / preach expositionally. He then popped in a VHS tape of Rick Warren speaking at a pastor’s conference at Saddleback…some 1500 pastors. Warren said very clearly and emphatically the same exact thing Stanley says above. Warren went on to say preaching expositionally is old, outdated and should NOT be done…the people need to have their felt / needs spoken to. My reply to that was simple…humanity’s greatest “need” is to have their sin dealt with, not figure out how to have a good day. He disagreed and 30 minutes later I left and never came back to that church. That church is Heartland Church at 96th and I-69.

We (the church) are really confused as to what constitutes “church life”…aren’t we? I love Dever’s simple approach to his ministry…preach the Word. I know you can appreciate this, and I know both of you know there is more to it than that. But if you aren’t preaching the Word, everything else is just chasing your tail and doesn’t glorify God.

Mark T

The Master's Seminary

TMS???
It is healthy for all of us to acknowledge the short-comings in our own lives, in our own local churches, and even at our own alumni seminaries. This (TMS) blog site has been doing a lot of this lately. We have been pretty hard on our school.

I’m going to share a story that I think beautifully illustrates the leadership our school is blessed to have. The Master’s Seminary, in many ways, is really shaped by the influence and direction of three men: Dr. MacArthur, Dr. Mayhue and Dr. Busenitz. I praise God for bringing these men together to lead our great seminary.

My dad was called to FT ministry late in his life. Yet when God decided to call him, my Dad did not hesitate to obey. He moved our family of 6 from a small city in Wisconsin to the evil city of Los Angeles. :) It was an enormous step of faith on my parents end yet God was faithful every step of the way (Joshua 1:9).

When our huge U-Haul trucked into L.A. we received notification that the seminary students who were scheduled to move us in were not able to help us out anymore. Yet in God’s amazing providence He provided. Dr. Busenitz, Karen, and his two sons came over and helped us move in all our stuff. Dr. Busenitz, the Dean of Students, rolled up his sleeves to serve his students. He left his Th.D at the door and helped a family in need of assistance.

These are the type of men TMS has leading the school. Servant-leaders who truly love the Church; Gifted men who’d die for the truth; Men of integrity.

Yet Pastor Begg reminds us, “The best of men are still men at best.” The faculty at TMS is fallible and may on occasion make some big mistakes. The school is definitely not perfect (I believe more of that has to do with the student body then the faculty). Men like me, don't do very much to help the reputation of a fine institution.


All I know is that, warts included, the Master’s Seminary is the finest Bible institution that I know of. I thank God every day for allowing a loose-canon like me the opportunity to study at TMS.

The Power of the Word: By Jerry Wragg

This was an excellent post by Jerry Wragg:

"Here's the bottom line---Preachers who regularly taste the grace of God's word in their personal sanctification (including failure and renewal) could never have so little trust in its power. These self-styled champions of relevance betray some level of personal weakness for which the solution has not been scripture, repentance, and a new holy zeal, but rather a re-casting of God's commands in more culture-friendly tones (which of course eases the tension or guilt they may have over stubborn sin-patterns in their own life).

The result is a new "church" environment where the lowest common spiritual character is deemed "normal" for believers (a clear violation of Phil. 3:17; 1 Cor. 4:16; 11:1; Eph. 5:1, etc.).

Anyone striving to "be holy [themselves] in all [their] behavior" (1 Pet.1:15) is quickly labeled "irrelevant", then marginalized because, after all, "no real Christian today can live like that"! And, who could argue with this thinking since every true believer feels the weight of failure, weakness, and stubborn sins? No one can claim to have “obtained it, or…become perfect”.

Yet, the sanctifying grace of God is found in a relentless pursuit of Christ's glory fully formed in us (Phil. 3:12-16). Paul clearly says to "keep following in line" in the standard of maturity we've already reached...then "press on" again.

The church growth movement, while filled with many sincere but undiscerning followers of Christ, is really a movement of those who are losing their resolve to biblically strive, and have adopted secular ideas about “normal” Christian morality. We could say that it’s not really a “growth” movement at all---It’s a “stunted growth” movement…an atrophied church…a group made up of numerous undiscerning bandwagonites, a fair amount of discouraged, withering saints, and a majority of moral unbelievers.

When we come along and speak of the power, sufficiency, and relevance of holy scripture…it is an increasingly strange sound in their ears!"

Preaching to the choir,

Jude

I just preached 2 sermons from Jude 1-2 this Sunday. I was inspired when i heard Jude taught at the Shepherd's Conference. What a great Epistle.

If you want to hear my sermons on JUDE 1-2 go to www.fbccarmel.com


Take Care,

Caleb

"Doctrinally ignorant cowards, need to inoculate themselves with a vaccine msg. from Jude.

This is a powerful, much needed Book, for the 21st century Church."

A Trip to South Bend

A couple friends from our new home church invited us to a Notre Dame FB game. The trip to South Bend was rather uneventful. The flatness of this state is rather alarming. :) Plus, corn fields are not so pretty this time of year. All in all Indiana is a great place to live.

Anyways, the campus of ND is beautiful. Why the Catholics chose South Bend, IDK?

For a brief moment my flesh was captivated by the external religion of ND. We watched the FB game vs BYU and had a great time. Their truly is not a bad seat in the building….. Though I would never leave the true Christian faith I could see myself apostatizing the Wisconsin Badgers and becoming a local fan of ND. Becaue i've lived in like 5 states i really have never had a local team to cheer for. After all, the Pastor’s son is a Notre Dame fan? As an Italian, loyalty is very important to me so I don't know.

Rally sons of Notre Dame:
Sing her glory and sound her fame,
Raise her Gold and Blue
And cheer with voices true:
Rah, rah, for Notre Dame
We will fight in ev-ry game,
Strong of heart and true to her name
We will ne'er forget her
And will cheer her ever
Loyal to Notre Dame

Cheer, cheer for old Notre Dame,
Wake up the echoes cheering her name,
Send a volley cheer on high,
Shake down the thunder from the sky.
What though the odds be great or small
Old Notre Dame will win over all,
While her loyal sons are marching
Onward to victory.

101 Reasons to Visit the Kolstad's

Bear Slide GC: 6770 E. 231st St., Cicero, 46034; (317) 984-3837. Pro: Mark Wisman. Public. 18 holes, par 71, 7,041 yards (tournament) 74.6/136; 4,848 (forward) 69.5/117. Greens fees: $40 Mondays-Thursdays, $51 Fridays-Sundays/holidays. Cart: $15, special discount pricing may apply. No metal spikes. Practice facility, driving range. Outings accepted.
Bent Tree GC: 2302 W. 161st St., Westfield, 46074; (317) 896-2474. Pro: Mike O'Toole. Public. 18 holes, par 71, 6,600 yards (tournament) 72.6/130; 5,151 (forward) 70.6/122. Greens fees: $37 Mondays-Thursdays, $48 Fridays-Sundays/holiday (both fees include cart). Early bird and twilight rates available. No metal spikes. Driving range, practice area. Outings accepted.
Bridgewater Club: 16008 Bridgewater Club Blvd. Carmel, 46033; (317) 867-4653. Pro: Dave Carich. Private. 18 holes, par 72; 9 holes par 28. 7,062 yards (tournament) 74.4/137. Green fees: $75, carts $17.50 per person. No metal spikes. Practice facility, including 6-acre short game practice area, driving range. Outings accepted.
Britton GC: 9750 E. 131st St., Fishers, 46038; (317) 849-8894. Pro: Chris Lovrine. Public. 18 holes, par 70, 5,707 yards (tournament) 67.3/122; 4,668 (forward) 67.3/116. Greens fees: $10 for 9 holes, $20 18 holes. Cart: $5.30/$10.60 per person. Membership plans available. No alcoholic beverages or coolers. Outings accepted.
Brookshire GC: 12120 Brookshire Parkway, Carmel, 46033; (317) 846-7431. Pro: Brian Ballard. Public. 18 holes, par 72, 6,900 yards (tournament) 72.8/131; 5,000 (forward) 70.9/120; Annual memberships available. Guest greens fees: $38 weekdays, (18 holes, riding) $48 weekends (18 holes, riding, includes cart, which is required on weekends/holidays until 2 p.m.); twilight rates start at 2 p.m. No metal spikes. Driving range, practice area. Outings accepted.
Crooked Stick GC: 1964 Burning Tree Lane, Carmel, 46032; (317) 844-9928. Pro: Tony Pancake. Private. 18 holes, par 72, 7,518 yards (professional) 76.9/144, 5,207 (forward) 70.2/120. No metal spikes. Driving range. No outings.
Forest Park GC: Ind. 19 North at Forest Park, Noblesville, 46060; (317) 773-2881. Pro: Gary Deakyne. Public. 9 holes, par 35, 3,043 yards (tournament) 68.7/111; par 36, 2,664 (forward) 66.3/105. Greens fees: $10 weekdays, $12 weekends/holidays. Cart: $6.50, per person, free on Monday. Small practice area. Small outings accepted.
Fox Prairie GC: 8465 E. 196th St., Noblesville, 46060; (317) 776 6357. Pro: John Mohler. Public. 27 holes, Central 9, par 36, 3,403 yards; East 9, par 35, 3,398; West 9, par 36, 3,364 (championship), Central East 72.8/130, Central West 72.6/129, East West 72.4/131; Central 9 par 37, 2,670; East 9, par 37, 2,518; West 9, par 36, 2,581 (forward) NR. Greens fees: $22 Mondays Thursdays, $27 Fridays Sundays/holidays. Cart: $14. Season membership plans available. No metal spikes. Driving range. Outings accepted.
Gray Eagle GC: 12500 Brooks School Road, Fishers, 46038; (317) 845-2900. Pros: Scott Morris, Butch Penry. Public. 18 holes, par 72, 6,739 yards (tournament) NR, par 72, 5,289 (forward) NR. Greens fees: $35 with cart weekdays, $43 with cart weekends. Before 10 a.m. Mondays -- Fridays $25 with cart. No metal spikes. Driving range. Indoor golf simulators. Outings accepted.
Harbour Trees GC: 333 Regents Park Lane, Noblesville, 46060; (317) 877-3611. Pro: Lon Kinney. Private. 18 holes, par 71, 6,563 yards (tournament) 71.4/135; 5,169 (forward) 69.5/126. Guest greens fees: $45 weekdays, $55 weekends/holidays. No metal spikes. Driving range. Outings limited.
The Hawthorns G&CC: 12255 Club Point Drive, Fishers 46038; (317) 845-0330. Director of golf: Jim Gerber. Private. 18 holes, par 72, 7,126 yards (championship) 74.5/134; 5,166 (forward) 70.4/118. Guest greens fees: $65 weekday, $75 weekends/holidays. Cart: $18. No metal spikes. Driving range and practice area. Limited to outings on Mondays.
Ironwood GC: 10955 Fall Road, Fishers 46038; (317) 842-0551. Director of golf: John Scott. Public. 27 holes; Valley 3,424 yards, Lakes 3,477, Ridge 3,236 (tournament); Valley 2,476, Lakes 2,628, Ridge 2,307 (forward), Valley-Lakes 74.5/142, 70.4/126. Lakes-Ridge 73.6/140, 69.5/121. Ridge-Valley 72.4/133, 67.9/115. Greens fees: $43 weekdays, $49 weekends/holidays, including cart; $30 morning special: Mondays -- Fridays before 10 a.m., Practice area, driving range. Instruction available. Outings accepted.
Mohawk Hills GC: 1042 Golfview Drive, Carmel, 46032; (317) 844-3112. Pro: Steve Shanks. Public. 9 holes (with alternate tees for 18-hole rounds), par 35, 3,072/3,091 yards (tournament) 69.8/120; 2,736/2,736 (forward) 71.5/111. Greens fees: $14.75 nine holes, $22.50 18 holes. Cart: $7.50 nine holes, $15 for 18 holes. Special fees on Tuesdays, Saturdays, Sundays: $12 for nine holes, $19 18 holes. Cart fees after 2 p.m. $5.25 per person, 9 holes; $10.50 per person, 18 holes. Irons-only range, practice area. Outings accepted.
Pebble Brook GC: 3110 Westfield Road, Noblesville, 46060; (317) 896-5596. Pro: Scott Steger. Public. 36 holes. South Course par 72, 6,555 yards (tournament) 70.8/122; 5,261 (forward) 70.5/121. North Course par 70, 6,392 yards (tournament) 70.5/118; 5,806 (forward) 68.8/114. Greens fees: $28 weekdays, $33 weekends/holidays. Cart: $15 (mandatory at all times on North Course; mandatory on South Course weekends/holidays until 1 p.m.). Season membership plans available. No metal spikes. Driving range. Outings accepted.
Plum Creek CC: 12401 Lynwood Blvd., Carmel, 46033; (317) 573-9900. Pro: John Pielemeier. Semiprivate. 18 holes, par 72, 6,731 yards (tournament) 72.5/127; 5,209 (forward) 69.6/117. Greens fees: $49 Monday-Thursdays, $59 Fridays-Sundays/holidays. Cart included (mandatory Fridays-Sundays/holidays until 1 p.m.). No metal spikes. Driving range. Outings accepted.
Prairie View GC: 7000 Longest Drive, Carmel, 46033; (317) 816-3100. Pro: Darren Thomas. Public. 18 holes, par 72, 7,073 yards (tournament) 74.5/139; 5,203 (forward) 70.5/122. Greens fees: $90 (includes cart). No metal spikes. Practice facility, driving range. Outings accepted.
Purgatory GC: 12160 E. 216th St., Noblesville, 46060; (317) 776-4653. Director of golf: Mike Merchant. Public. 18 holes, par 72, 7,754 yards (tournament) 78.1/142; 4,562 (forward) 66.9/115; Greens fees: $55 Mondays-Tuesdays, $60 Wednesdays-Thursdays, $70 Fridays-Sundays/holidays (includes cart). No metal spikes. Junior course, driving range, practice area, putting course. Outings accepted.
River Glen CC: 12010 Clubhouse Drive, Fishers, 46038; (317) 849-8274. Pros: Eric Flowers and Scott Casey. Public. 18 holes, par 71, 6,712 yards (tournament) 71.5/125; 5,412 (forward) 70.5/120. Greens fees: $29 Mondays-Thursdays, $36 Fridays-Sundays/holidays. Cart: $10 (Mandatory Fridays 10 a.m.-4 p.m., Saturdays-Sundays/holidays before 2 p.m.); Membership plans available. Driving range. Outings accepted.
The Sagamore Club: 11455 E. 166th St., Noblesville, 46060; (317) 776-2000. Director of Golf: Ross Smith. Private. 18 holes, par 72, 7,173 yards (tournament) 75.2/139. Green fees: included in membership. No metal spikes. Practice facility, driving range. No outings accepted.
Stony Creek GC: 11800 E. 166th St., Noblesville, 46060; (317) 773-1820. Owner: Sam Taylor. Public. 18 holes, par 71, 6,503 yards (tournament) 71.3/121; 5,093 (forward) 68.7/109. Greens fees: $22 Mondays-Thursdays and before 11 a.m. Fridays, $30 Fridays after 11 a.m. and weekends/holidays. Cart: $6 weekdays, $12 noon to 3 p.m. Fridays and weekends. Par 3 course open. Greens fees: $7; $5 ages 5-12. No metal spikes. Season membership plans available. Driving range. Outings accepted.
Twin Lakes GC: 3200 W. 96th St., Carmel, 46032; (317) 872-6206. Pro: Kirk Hanaway. Private. 18 holes, par 72, 6,877 yards (tournament) 73.4/134; 5,094 (forward) 69.7/118. Guest greens fees: $35 weekdays, $42 weekends/holidays. Cart: $15. No metal spikes. Driving range. Limited outings.
Woodland CC: 100 Woodland Lane, Carmel, 46032; (317) 846-5044. Pro: Pat Welch. Private. 18 holes, par 72, 7,191 yards (tournament) 74.9/142; 5,055 (forward) 69.2/121. Redesigned Pete Dye championship course reopened July 4, 2002.{bsol} Guest greens fees: $55 weekdays, $75 on weekends/holidays (when accompanied by member). No metal spikes. Driving range. Limited outings. Six sets of tees.

Ast. Pastor (Worship/Outreach)

My home church is looking for a FT Ast. Pastor (Worship/Outreach). If you know of anyone who would be like-minded please give me a call 317-846-1343.


Associate Pastor of Worship Ministries: First Baptist Church is seeking an associate pastor of worship ministries to serve our congregation of 265 located in the suburban community of Carmel, Indiana.

We are a body of believers committed to the doctrines of grace and exegetical teaching. We are searching for a man of like faith and practice. Our preferred worship style is a balance of traditional and praise elements rather than entertaining performance.

The candidate should have the ability to work as a team member on a pastoral staff of three and be committed to excellence in personal, family and congregational conduct.

Primary ministries will include planning and leading the public worship gatherings of the congregation as well as recruiting and training worship personnel as appropriate. The successful candidate will also be able to assume additional significant pastoral responsibilities.

Candidates should explore our website at www.fbccarmel.com. Resume submissions are preferred via email at ckolstad@fbccarmel.com

Active Obedience (Pt 6)

Jesus Perfect Life is Reckoned as Our Perfect Obedience to God’s Holy Law.

Jesus Christ is a Believers hope for future glory. All true Christians are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ Jesus alone. “He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of His glory, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.”

Restating the previous paragraph, justification is a judicial act of God by which God declares sinners righteous in Christ alone, by grace through faith alone. It includes both the active obedience of Christ (His keeping the Law in our stead) and His passive obedience (His dying on the cross and paying the penalty of the Law for us). Thomas Brooks sums it up this way, “Remember, once for all, that the actions and sufferings of Christ make but one entire and perfect obedience to the whole Law; nor had Christ been a perfect and complete Savior, if he had not performed what the Law required, as well as suffered the penalty which the Law inflicted.”

Christ’s perfect life of obedience and death on the cross provides not only our pardon from sin but our perfection in Him as well. The great theologian Jonathan Edwards wrote, “To suppose that all Christ did is only to make atonement for us by suffering, is to make him our Savior but in part. It is to rob Him of half His glory as Savior.”

The gospel according to Jesus is understood in the theological terms of substitution and imputation. “Imputation is the act in which God counts sinners to be righteousness through their faith in Christ on the basis of Christ’s perfect ‘blood and righteousness,’ specifically the righteousness that Christ accomplished by his perfect obedience in life and death.” Piper defines Christ as our Substitute in two senses: “In His suffering and death he becomes our curse and condemnation (Gal. 3:13; Romans 8:3). And in his suffering and life He becomes our perfection (2 Corinthians 5:21).

The basis of justification includes the “positive” imputation of Christ’s perfect righteousness to the Believer’s account and the “negative” imputation of all the Believers’ sin to Christ’s account. Christ’s bore the punishment for sin on His own shoulders at the cross. God treated Christ as if He committed every sin of every believer who ever would believe; and He treated us as if we had lived His perfect life of obedience. Likewise Hodge concludes, “It is, perhaps, more correct to say that the righteousness of Christ, including all He did and suffered in our stead, is imputed to believers as the ground of his justification, and that the consequences are, first, the remission of sin, and secondly, the acceptance of the believer as righteous.”

In Matthew 3, Jesus arrives from Galilee to meet up with John the Baptist. He asks John to baptize Him, but John tries to prevent this from happening since he realizes that Jesus (the God-man) should be baptizing him. In verse 15 Jesus answers him saying, “Permit it at this time; for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Jesus was baptized because He did whatever the Father led Him to do and He did whatever a righteous person under the Law would do. It is this perfect life of obedience that is imputed to a believers account at justification. Jesus understood that He came not only to pay the penalty for our Law breaking, but also to fulfill in our place the original demands of the Law!

Galatians 4:4-5 says, “But when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, in order that He might redeem those who are under the Law, that we might receive adoption as sons.” Everyone born after Adam is born under the Law of God. The Law’s requirement is total perfection. James 2:10 puts it this way, “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.” The Law reflects God’s holy character and thus demands total perfection. “To violate a commandment is to disobey God Himself and render a person guilty before Him.” Romans 6:23 explains that, “the wages of sin is death.” So in a nutshell, every person born under the Law is guilty and deserves condemnation from God.

The only people who can stand before Holy God’s presence are those who are perfectly holy and righteous themselves. This eliminates anyone from entering into heaven because all mankind sinned in Adam (Romans 5) and have sinned at least one time in their lives (Romans 3:9-20; Psalm 130:3).

The apostle Paul understood this and wrote about it in his letter to the Philippians. In chapter 1, verse 11 he writes, “Having been filled with the fruit of righteousness which comes through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God.” The righteousness Paul speaks of is totally apart from anything man has done or accomplished. It is an external righteousness that Christians inherit only through their union with Him.

This is better stated in Phil. 3:8-9, “More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish in order that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith.” Piper comments, “The conceptual framework here is not that faith is our righteousness, but that, because of faith, we are united to Christ in whom we have a righteousness ‘from God.’”

2 Corinthians 5:21 puts it this way, “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” This passage clearly teaches the doctrines of substitution and imputation. Jesus became sin by nature of our sin being imputed to Him. It is heresy to think that Jesus ever sinned or became a sinner. If He had sinned even once, than the 6 topics discussed in this essay would all be worthless. The reality of imputation is in Paul’s mind as he writes these verses. “But if Christ’s being sin for us implies the imputation of our sin to Christ, then it is not arbitrary or unnatural to construe the parallel-our ‘becoming the righteousness of God in him’-as the imputation of God’s righteousness to us. We ‘become’ God’s righteousness the way Christ ‘was made’ our sin.” This is glorious reality of substitutionary atonement and imputed righteousness. Jesus Christ is the Believers perfect righteousness!

The righteousness of Christ’s perfect life of obedience on our behalf is received by faith. The justified believer is in a better state than that of pre-fall Adam by virtue of this imputed righteousness; Because of our union with Christ, His perfect life of obedience is now our saving righteousness.

Covenant theologians teach that Adam was given the opportunity to merit salvation through total obedience to the “Covenant of Works.” It is not the purpose of this particular essay to delve into that theological construct. The Bible does teach that the Law and covenants of God demand total perfection (Jeremiah 11:4). Pre-fall Adam had the opportunity to remain in total communion with God had he never sinned. Scripture does not clearly explain what would have happened if Adam obeyed God’s commandments perfectly.

The Bible seems to teach that even though pre-fall Adam was sinless he still was not perfectly righteous. Perfect righteousness that is imputed to believers account at justification can never be lost! Romans 5:12-19 teaches that all mankind sinned in Adam but that in Christ (the second Adam) all men are declared righteous. “Adam acted sinfully, and because we are connected to him, we are condemned in him. Christ acted righteously, and because we are connected to Christ we are justified in Christ. Adam’s sin is counted as ours. Christ’s ‘act of righteousness’ is counted as ours.” Christians are declared righteous solely on the basis of Christ’s active and passive life of obedience.

Galatians 4:4 says that Christ came to save those “born under the Law.” The Law is not fulfilled solely by paying the penalty when it is broken; it also has to be obeyed perfectly in order to satisfy God’s holy requirements. “Why is imputation the only hope of the sinful soul? Because it is the one who knows the stain of sin who knows that he must have a righteousness that is not his own.” By His active obedience Christ lived a perfect life under the Law, and by His passive obedience He paid the penalty for sin. The Law of God is satisfied, Christians are redeemed, and God remains both just and justifier.


CONCLUSION

Jesus perfect life is reckoned as the Believers perfect obedience to God’s holy Law. Christians should confidently say with Isaiah (Is 45:24) “only in the LORD are righteousness and strength.” He is the perfect Messiah, the perfect Mediator, the perfect Example, the perfect High Priest and Sympathizer, the perfect Sacrifice, and for Christians, their perfect Righteousness.