Whose Fault is it that Sinners Perish?

By D. Scott Meadows, Pastor
In Reformed Baptist Fellowship
Monday, April 18, 2011

Salvation is far from the wicked:
For they seek not thy statutes. (Psa 119.155)

People blame God for hell. Some who do this then rationalize their hostility for God. Others twist the Scriptures and deny there is any eternal, conscious physical and spiritual torment of sinners in the afterlife, even though this has been the mainstream view of the historic Christian faith from the beginning, as our venerable confession testifies:

The wicked who know not God, and obey not the gospel of Jesus Christ, shall be cast into eternal torments, and punished with everlasting destruction, from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power[1].

One modern Scripture-twister is Rob Bell, getting much attention these days with his new book, Love Wins, where he wrote,

Of all the billions of people who have ever lived, will only a select number “make it to a better place” and every single other person suffer in torment and punishment forever? Is this acceptable to God? Has God created millions of people over tens of thousands of years who are going to spend eternity in anguish? Can God do this, or even allow this, and still claim to be a loving God?[2]

Even these brief comments afford many just grounds for criticism. Bell’s characterization of the elect as

“only a select number” belies the biblical testimony that they are “a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindred, and people, and tongues” …who shall stand “before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands” (Rev 7.9).

Also, we know of no biblical support for Bell’s thesis that human history has lasted “tens of thousands of years.” The genealogies from Adam to Christ suggest something closer to six thousand years.

But the most important problem with Bell’s comments is that he shares the same execrable presupposition of those openly hostile to God, namely, that hell reflects poorly upon him, as if he is or would be blameworthy for it.

In the above quotation, Bell asks four questions, and Scripture answers each one.

 

1.      Yes, there really are two eternal destinies called heaven and hell,[3] and only God’s elect will be eternally blessed in heaven.

“Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it” (Matt 7.13-14).

This does not contradict Rev 7.9, for it means relatively few compared to those who perish, but not few considered as a number in themselves, and how great God’s grace and mercy is toward these elect sinners who are in themselves no better than the reprobate suffering retribution.

 

2.      The eternal reality of heaven and hell is not only acceptable to God; it is the outworking of his purpose from before the world began. Announcing that foreordained plan, the prophet Daniel wrote,

“And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever” (Dan 12.2-3).

 

3.      Yes, God has created millions of people who are going to spend eternity in anguish.

He is “willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known,” and so he “endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction” (Rom 9.22).

“Vessels of wrath” is a metaphor for the reprobate; they are like bowls designed by God for the outpouring of his wrath. “Fitted” means “prepared,” that is, prepared by God for this very purpose, in contrast with the

“…vessels of mercy, which he had afore [beforehand] prepared unto glory, even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles” (9.23-24),

…that is, the elect. Other texts confirm this understanding of the passage.

“The Lord has made all for himself, yes, even the wicked for the day of doom” (Prov 16.4).

Of false teachers, Jude writes that they

“…were before of old ordained to this condemnation” (Jude 4).

Peter wrote of the same people that they were “as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed,” and therefore they

“shall perish utterly in their own corruption” (2 Pet 2.12).

 

4.      Yes, God does all this and allows this while claiming to be a loving God, and his claim has superabundant justification.

“God is love. In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him” (1 John 4.8-9).

Scripture insists upon God’s loving nature and his general love for all his creatures, along with his prerogative to give and withhold mercy as he pleases (Exod 33.19; Rom 9.18). To preach God’s love at the expense of his wrath is to manufacture a false god of human fancy.

Yes, hell is horrific. We cannot comprehend its endless terrors, but whose fault is it that sinners go there? Our text verse answers the question clearly.

 

The Wicked Are Damned And Doomed

The phrase, “salvation is far from the wicked,” is a very accurate way to render the Hebrew, identical in several modern translations (ASV, NASB, ESV). “Salvation” means deliverance from trouble. “The wicked” refers to sinners under God’s judgment. To say that salvation is far from them means, in this context, that they are condemned by God and bound to be punished for their sins at last except they repent. Their doom is near. We could say equivalently, “Wicked people are far from being saved.”

This is the biblical diagnosis of all who are without saving faith in Jesus Christ.

“He that believeth not is condemned already” (John 3.18).

“He that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him” (John 3.36).

Paul characterized Christians before their conversion as having been

“…without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world” (Eph 2.12).

We Christians used to be “by nature children of wrath, even as others” (Eph 2.3), that is,

“…deserving of God’s wrath [as much as anyone else]; but, through his grace, another has borne that wrath, as verses 4-7 goes [sic] on to say.”[4]

A vast portion of Holy Scripture is devoted to convincing us of these very things. Sinai thunders! The moral law announces death for transgressors. Both Old and New Testaments are filled with extended passages that describe in elaborate detail and in soaring flights of eloquence how severe is the punishment that sinners deserve, and how certain is their ruin while they continue impenitent.

This prophetic emphasis is amply justified by the slowness of the arrogant and unbelieving to believe such bad news about themselves, along with the greatness of God’s determination to have mercy upon many of them, and to convince them of their need for his mercy. It has long been observed that it is harder to get people lost[5] than saved. Once it really sinks in that our sins have made us children of hell and that only God’s grace can avail to save us, we are much more apt to set about seeking the Lord.

And ironically, false teachers like Rob Bell, as they undermine the biblical warnings, are paving the way to hell for millions. Beware!

 

The Wicked Are Justly Damned And Doomed

“For they seek not thy statutes.”

This second line of the our text verse lays the blame for their ruin at their own feet. The Lord repeatedly in Scripture asserts each person’s individual responsibility for his own actions.

“Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die” (Ezek 18.4).

“He [a hypothetical wicked son of a righteous man] hath done all these abominations; he [the son] shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him” (Ezek 18.13).

This is an expression that means that that wicked son has no one to blame but himself for his own death. Persisting in sin is suicidal, even though God is the just executioner of those committing capital offenses against him.

The New Testament teaches essentially the very same thing. After that most famous and beloved announcement in John’s gospel, the apostle of love continues explaining God’s ways with men this way:

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved (John 3.17-20).

While God is the ultimate cause of absolutely all things that happen, he is not the blameworthy or chargeable cause of anything that happens.[6] God’s sovereignty does not abolish man’s responsibility.

Psalm 119.155 indirectly proclaims God’s mercy, for it implies that if the wicked would seek God’s statutes, salvation would then not be far from them. This is the explicit call and offer of Isaiah 55.6-7.

⁶ Seek the Lord while He may be found,
Call upon Him while He is near.
⁷ Let the wicked forsake his way,
And the unrighteous man his thoughts;
Let him return to the Lord,
And He will have mercy on him;
And to our God,
For He will abundantly pardon.

Let us seize our opportunity, and not consign ourselves to hell! God is love, whether we perish or not. Amen.

_______________________________________________

[1]   1689 LBCF XXXII.2, citing Matt 25.46; Mark 9.48; 2 Thess 1.7-10.
[2]   From the Preface.
[3]   More precisely, heaven and hell continue until the general resurrection; then there will be a new creation and the lake of fire.
[4]   Bullinger, Figures of Speech, p. 833.
[5]   That is, to perceive their fearfully lost standing before God and state of spiritual death and ruin.
[6]    See Robert Reymond’s discussion of this in A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, p. 372.

Judgment on Arrogant Assyria

5 Ah, Assyria, the rod of my anger;
the staff in their hands is my fury!
6 Against a godless nation I send him,
and against the people of my wrath I command him,
to take spoil and seize plunder,
and to tread them down like the mire of the streets.
7 But he does not so intend,
and his heart does not so think;
but it is in his heart to destroy,
and to cut off nations not a few;
8 for he says:
“Are not my commanders all kings?
9 Is not Calno like Carchemish?
Is not Hamath like Arpad?
Is not Samaria like Damascus?
10 As my hand has reached to the kingdoms of the idols,
whose carved images were greater than those of Jerusalem and Samaria,
11 shall I not do to Jerusalem and her idols
as I have done to Samaria and her images?” (Isaiah 10:5-11)

10:5 - "The rod of My anger" - God used Assyria as His instrument of judgment against Israel and Judah. He did the same with Babylon against Judah later on (Hab. 1:6).

"For behold, I am raising up the Chaldeans,
that bitter and hasty nation,
who march through the breadth of the earth,
to seize dwellings not their own." (Habakkuk 1:6)

It is by the sovereign decree and action of God the Assyrian was to serve as His rod of anger and discipline against His people. Like an offended father dealing with a disobedient son, God indicates that He is using the nation of Assyria to give His people Israel that well-deserved discipline.

Note the use of the the two inanimate objects, rod and club. They teach that the Assyrian - the then superpower - had no ability except what the Lord gives (John 19:11).

"Jesus answered him, 'You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above. Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin.' ”

He was an instrument in the Lord’s hands.

"Anger … wrath" are respectively felt anger and expressed anger and these are the driving forces behind the Assyrian. Woe: better (here) ‘Ho!’, a word of summons (cf. 7:18) rather than condemnation.

10:6 - "An 'godless' (or ungodly) nation." “My people” (v. 2), - refers to the people of Israel and Judah. God alone could send. He could send plagues and He could send prophets. Now He sends Assyria against an irreligious nation, even Israel and Judah. Once He had called them “my people”; now He speaks of them simply as “a people.” It is a people that provokes and deserves His wrath. The tempest will come, and wrath will be poured out upon Israel and Judah with the result that there will be a great despoliation. The enemy will trample the land just as the mire in the streets is trampled. It would be difficult to discover a figure more adapted to express the utter lack of concern of Assyria for the inhabitants of Israel and Judah. Note the strength of the parallelism in 6a, a parallelism which even advances to rhyme.

This verse speaks more to the Lord's motive in this action. "Send … dispatch" continue the note of divine initiative and authority behind the Assyrian incursion and contribute to the insistence on the executive, directive sovereignty of God in world affairs, which is central to the whole passage.

The first verb is intensive in form and denotes the directive of a superior to an underling; the second (lit.) ‘give him a command’, i.e. ‘brief him for the task’. Behind the mission is a divine moral purpose: godless (ḥānēp), see 9:17; who anger me, justly meriting my (overflowing) anger. Seize … plunder: these words contain the components of Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz, 8:1–4, and indicate the fulfilment of the word that was ‘made flesh’ in Isaiah’s second son (cf. 55:11).

Verses 7–11 (C1) describe Assyria’s motive.
The Lord intends a morally punitive expedition, but the Assyrian intends an extension of his own imperialism and the end of the national sovereignty of others.

10:7 "But he does not so intend..." - The 'He' here is Assyria and not God. The Assyrians did not intend to cooperate with God, but they had no choice in the matter! Their intention was simply to destroy and cut off nations. They did not realize that they were the Lord’s instrument, but thought their conquests were the result of her own power.

The Assyrian was an unconscious and unwitting instrument. At the same time Assyria was without excuse. Assyria should have realized, and all nations should realize, that in all that they do they are instruments in God’s hands. For Assyria this was a special providence, which, inasmuch as it was directed against the nation and the city where Yahweh dwelt, should have caused heart-searching. Assyria, the great power, has here become personified, and Isaiah speaks of this power as purposing and thinking in its heart.

Here we are given a graphic picture of the heart of a dictator. Assyria does not think that he is in the hands of God. His purpose, rather, is to destroy and to conquer many nations. To this pattern of thought the courses of tyrants and dictators have been true from the days of Assyria down to our own times, to Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and Khrushchev. God’s purpose was to have Assyria cut off Judah; Assyria would purpose to cut off many nations.

10:8–9. Assyria speaks and gives expression to his philosophy of war. He too has a word. I have princes, he says, princes who are subject to me and over whom I am lord, but these are kings as far as the rest of the world is concerned. I am the great king. Thus Assyria arrogates to himself a position that belongs alone to the true King of kings and Lord of lords. His war philosophy came to outward expression in his incursions and expeditions and in the words of Rabshakeh which were later addressed to Judah. “Hath any of the gods of the nations delivered his land out of the hand of the king of Assyria? Where are the gods of Hamath and Arpad? where are the gods of Sepharvaim, Hena, and Ivah? have they delivered Samaria out of my hand? Who are they among all the gods of the countries, that have delivered their country out of my hand, that the Lord should deliver Jerusalem out of my hand?” (2 Kings 18:33–35). These are the words of defiance, not of a conconsciousness that one is an instrument of the Lord. They are the words of rebellion.

The Assyrian has confidence based on his resources (8) and accomplishments (9). Already nations have become his vassals and their kings his commanders. In the paired towns, the first in each pair is further south than the second. Thus, from Carchemish on the Euphrates in the far north of Palestine to Calno, and from Arpad fifty miles to the south to Hamath a hundred miles north of Damascus, and on to Damascus itself and then to Samaria, his armies have proved invincible. Isaiah is a master of this sort of impressionistic picture of events (cf. 28–32), making us feel the surge and sweep of the advancing march: cf. the ‘tide’ picture in 8:6–8.

Interestingly, rhe enemy speaks as though Samaria had already fallen, so that Jerusalem would have to give earnest heed to this boast. Would Jerusalem be the next to fall? Could Jerusalem be any exception? The Assyrian thought not, but what would Judah herself think? Judah did NOT fall...at least not to Assyria!

10:10–11. - "What price Jerusalem then?" - With heavy irony, Isaiah ‘overhears’ the king of Assyria envisioning Samaria and then Jerusalem as even more helpless before him because, after all, they are not quite so proficient in their idolatry! But the reality is there in the balanced words "idols … images … images … idols": it was not armaments that rendered them helpless before Assyria but spiritual falsity!

Here is Assyria at the height of her boasting, directing words of conviction to Israel so that Israel would feel the necessity for surrendering. It is Assyria vaunting herself, but she uses Israelitish forms of speech. “Why,” she addresses Israel, “do you think that Yahweh your god can protect you? The nations round about, whose gods you have called idols, have each had gods, but they have all been deceived in their gods. With you too it will be the same. Just as my hand, my powerful hand, has found the idol kingdoms, kingdoms whose images exceeded those of Jerusalem and Samaria, much more will it find Jerusalem and Samaria themselves.” In boasting blasphemy Assyria designates the holy Yahweh of hosts an idol.

Interestingly, this was a part of God's charge against Israel...they had treated Him as if He was an idol...and they had brought idols into His holy place. The unredeemed have little perception of what God truly cares about...and thus cannot evaluate accurately what He will get angry about. They, of course, think that they do...just as Assyria "understood" world events in their day. Israel perceived themselves themselves themselves wrongly because they did not perceive themselves Biblically - a mistake that men must seek desperately to avoid; and that God has sent you and I to to help them to avoid by giving them information in the form of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Samuel Davies on Christ's Greatest Joy

  

Samuel Davies, was a pastor and educator from the 1700's. This thought from his is significant, especially as we are remembering the death of our Lord Jesus….

 

“…Though many recent writers have spoken of God’s vulnerability and weakness demonstrated on the Cross, we must see this truth in the context of God’s sovereignty. Christ chose this “weakness.”

Christ humbled himself. His obedient death on the cross reflects a deliberate weakness. “The reason my Father loves me,” Jesus said, “is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord” (John 10:17–18). He willingly chose to suffer as a victim. Scripture portrays a God so strong he can take on weakness to overpower all opposition and accomplish his eternal purposes.

“Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied.” (Isaiah 53:11)

“The happiness of Christ’s exalted state consists, in a great degree, in the pleasure of seeing the designs of His death accomplished in the conversion and salvation of sinners....

See the strength of the love of Jesus! If you are but saved, He does not begrudge His blood and life for you. Your salvation makes amends for all His sufferings. This He accounts His greatest joy—a joy more than equivalent to all the pains He endured for you. He has full satisfaction for all the sorrows you have caused Him.”

—Samuel Davies, “The Sufferings of Christ, and Their Consequent Joys and Blessings”

U.N. Prepares to Debate Whether 'Mother Earth' Deserves Human Rights Status

From Fox News

United Nations diplomats recently set aside pressing issues of international peace and security to devote an entire day debating the rights of “Mother Earth.”

A bloc of mostly socialist governments lead by Bolivia have put the issue on the General Assembly agenda to discuss the creation of a U.N. treaty that would grant the same rights found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to Mother Nature.

Treaty supporters want the establishment of legal systems to maintain balance between human rights and what they perceive as the inalienable rights of other members of the Earth community -- plants, animals, and terrain.

Communities and environmental activists would be given more legal power to monitor and control industries and development to ensure harmony between humans and nature. Though the United States and other Western governments are supportive of sustainable development, some see the upcoming event, “Harmony with Nature,” as political grandstanding -- an attempt to blame environmental degradation and climate change on capitalism.

“The concept ‘Mother Earth’ is not universally accepted,” said a spokesman from the British Mission to the U.N. about Bolivia’s proposal.

“In general, our view is that we should focus on tackling important sustainable development issues through existing channels and processes.” 

The General Assembly two years ago passed a Bolivia-led resolution proclaiming April 22 as “International Mother Earth Day.” The measure was endorsed by all 192 member states. But Bolivian President Evo Morales envisioned much more, vowing in a speech to U.N. delegates that a global movement had begun to lay “out a Declaration on the Rights of Mother Earth.”

Morales, who repeatedly says “the central enemy of Mother Earth is capitalism,” called for creating a charter that defends the right to life for all living things. Morales, who was named World Hero of Mother Earth by the General Assembly, has since made great strides in his campaign.

In January, Bolivia became the world’s first nation to grant the natural environment equal rights to humans. Bolivia’s Law of Mother Earth is heavily influenced by the spiritual indigenous Andean world outlook that revolves around the earth deity Pachamama, roughly translated to Mother Earth.

The Bolivian law establishes 11 rights for nature that include:

1. The right to life and to exist;
2. The right to pure water and clean air;
3. The right to not have cellular structure modified or genetically altered;
4. The right to have nature’s processes free from human alteration. (and 7 others)

The law also establishes a Ministry of Mother Earth to act as an ombudsman, which will ensure nature is

“…not being affected my mega-infrastructure and development projects that affect the balance of ecosystems and the local inhabitant communities.”

Emboldened by this triumph, Morales’ goal is to emulate his domestic achievement as a U.N. treaty. In a 2008 address to a U.N. forum on indigenous people, he said the first step in saving the Earth is to “eradicate capitalism” and to force wealthy industrialized countries to “pay their environmental debt.” Morales presented 10 points, or Evo’s Ten Commandments, as they are affectionately called by devotees, to save the planet.

Among them is a call to end the capitalist system, and a world without imperialism or colonialism. Respect for Mother Earth is Commandment 6. U.N. critics slammed the decision to devote an entire day debating Mother Earth legislation as not only a waste of time and resources, but a major blunder.

“The UN is a one-act show,” said U.N. watchdog Anne Bayefsky, of Eye on the U.N., in which

“Western democracies are responsible for the world’s ills and developing countries are perpetual victims.”

Bayefsky said the General Assembly’s focus on Mother Earth distracts from more pressing issues and problems at the U.N.

“The rights of inanimate objects violated by developed countries are considered a useful focal point this month,” she said, adding that, “Syria is scheduled to be elected next month to the U.N.’s top “human” rights body, and Iran is on the U.N.’s top women’s rights body.” Syria is one of the sponsors of the “Mother Earth” treaty.

Bolivia’s ambassador to the U.N., Pablo Solon, who will represent Morales at the debate and ‘expert’ panel discussions at U.N. headquarters, said, “Presently many environmentally harmful human activities are completely legal,” including those that cause climate change.

“If legal systems recognized the rights of other-than-human beings,” he says, such as mountains, rivers, forests and animals,

“courts and tribunals could deal with the fundamental issues of environmental contamination.”

It is not clear if Bolivia’s new tough environmental laws will actually go as far as to protect life forms like insects, but the legislation does include all living creatures.

 

[I don’t think that much needs to be said here does it?  This is idolatry at its’ “finest”…]

Affliction

J.C. Ryle

"Affliction is one of God's medicines! By it He often teaches lessons which would be learned in no other way. By it He often draws souls away from sin and the world, which would otherwise have perished everlastingly. Health is a great blessing but sanctified disease is a greater. Prosperity and worldly comfort, are what all naturally desire, but losses and crosses are far better for us if they lead us to Christ. Let us beware of murmuring in the time of trouble. Let us settle it firmly in our minds, that there is a meaning, a “needs be”, and a message from God in every sorrow that falls upon us. There are no lessons so useful as those learned in the school of affliction. There is no commentary that opens up the Bible so much as sickness and sorrow. The resurrection morning will prove, that many of the losses of God’s people were in reality, eternal gains. Thousands at the last day will testify with David,

“It is good for me that I have been afflicted” (Psalm. 119:71)!"

The Ox Knows Its' Owner...

The Lament of God is preceded by by a statement of the great wickedness of Judah. What is profound, and what is seen time and again in Isaiah, is the tie between Israel's great wickedness and their "ignorance" of God's law and ultimately I'll God Himself. What it is important to understand is that this ignorance is neither incidental nor accidental. It is, rather, a deliberate ignorance. See for instance:

2 Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth;
for the Lord has spoken:
“Children have I reared and brought up,
but they have rebelled against me.
3 The ox knows its owner,
and the donkey its master's crib,
but Israel does not know,
my people do not understand.” (Isaiah 1:2-3)

This ignorance is put forth immediately by Isaiah, God's people did not know Him, and this in spite of the kind of knowledge and familiarity that should characterize families! We are not talking about any small lapse in knowledge here. Israel should have had knowledge of their God and Isaiah makes it clear that that knowledge was absent, not because of any circumstance, but because of their rebellion.

Further, it is a profound and, from a certain point of view, ridiculous ignorance. Whereas animals normally regarded as "stupid" readily know their owners; and they live but one lifetime; Israel having been related to their Lord for generations does not know their Heavenly Father! The absurdity, were it not so tragic and alarming, would almost be funny!

Given the obvious differences between men and animals, we can only conclude then that this ignorance is a deliberate ignorance. And that is exactly what Isaiah wishes for us to conclude.

The mentioning of the word "rebellion" is intended to suggest for us a feed that Isaiah will return to again and again. Rebellion is that which causes meant to act against "common sense". Animals, lacking reason, and therefore lacking the ability to rebel in the fashion which humans can rebel, (that is against their God and against their created nature) recognize their "owner's crib". It is men, "intelligent and sophisticated" that rebel against the One who made them.

It is interesting to notice that the current generation that Isaiah was speaking to was in the state of "not knowing". Because of the rebellion of previous generations, the current generation had ended up in a state that was the result of previous rebellion. Surely, they too were rebellious, and we're casting aside the witness of God in their lives. If anything, the ministry of Isaiah to them as recorded in the book of Isaiah demonstrates that truth.

But they were in a condition that was the result of long generations of unbelief. Isaiah makes that clear from these two verses. The unintended result of those generations pursuing their own agenda; of doing what they wanted instead of submitting to God and obeying his commands; was that they inflicted on future generations the judgment of God!

Isn't this the very definition of sin! We think of ourselves and our thinking stops there. We're not interested in anything that speaks to any priority other than what satisfies our immediate desire and our immediate satisfaction.

Philosophically, I'm certain that if we sat down and thought the matter through, all would say that we want the best for future generations. But when push comes to shove most people do what satisfies them and what scratches the immediate itch. The problem is, unless such activity is in line with what the Word of God says, it is rarely what will benefit we and our family, and the future generations in the long run.

The Glory of God is Primary

by John Samson

“In this system of theology [the doctrines of grace], the glory of God is central. As every planet revolves around the blazing sun, every truth of sovereign grace rotates around this one fixed point – the glory of God. The unrivaled pre-eminence of God stands at the focal point of this theological universe. That God is to be the chief object of praise in the display of His grace is what energized this solar system of truth. As the compass always points north, so the doctrines of grace constantly point upward the lofty heights of the glory of God.”¹

I believe the second generation of Protestant Reformers really understood this truth and that is why they went as far as they did in the Synod of Dordt to respond to the Remonstrants by calling Arminianism heresy – because they saw it as the first steps on the road that leads to Rome and away from the “true north” of giving glory only to God for salvation.

_______________
1  Steve Lawson, Foundations of Grace, A Long Line of Godly Men, Volume 1, page 31.

Chinese Authorities Arrest Beijing “Megachurch” Pastor

by Ethan Cole,
Christian Post AP

Police arrested the senior pastor of one of the largest unregistered churches in Beijing on Saturday and have put many congregants under house arrest for trying to hold Sunday service outdoors, said a rights group focused on religious freedom in China.

Authorities have arrested the leader of a large unregistered church in Beijing

Senior Pastor Jin Tianming, who founded the 1,000-member Shouwang Church in the 1990s, was detained yesterday after his church intended again to attempt to hold worship service outdoors, according to Texas-based China Aid Association.

Last week, hundreds of church members were arrested and then released when they tried to hold service at an open-air venue.

Leaders of Shouwang Church have repeatedly asserted that the outdoor gathering is not politically motivated. They claim that their members are forced to worship outdoor because the Chinese government has prevented them from securing a permanent space for service.

The church was evicted from the restaurant it was previously meeting at and officials reportedly pressured a landlord from turning over the keys to a building Shouwang Church had purchased for more than $4 million.

“We urge the Chinese government to exercise restraint and refrain from using violence that would further escalate the conflict with peaceful Shouwang worshippers who ask for nothing more than simply to exercise their right to religious freedom,”

…said China Aid founder and president Bob Fu.

The Chinese government, as of late, has increased its crackdown on dissidents and protesters, according to the US State Department’s report on human rights released this week.

“In China, we’ve seen negative trends that are appearing to worsen in the first part of 2011,”

…said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Clinton highlighted that dozens of lawyers, activists, bloggers and others who challenged the Chinese government’s authority have been arrested for exercising their - internationally recognized right to free expression - .

Many believe that China’s crackdown comes out of its fear of possible revolts as some citizens, inspired by the uprising in the Arab world, call for - Jasmine - protests.

Given the government’s current sensitivity towards dissent, a gathering of hundreds of non-registered Christians in plain public view would be a threat.

In China, it is illegal to take part in religious organizations outside of the state-sanctioned faith bodies. For Protestant churches, this means they must register with the Three-Self Patriotic Movement and China Christian Council (TSPM/CCC) in order to operate legally.

But many churches choose not to register with the TSPM/CCC based on the principle that Jesus is the head of the church and not the government. Unregistered churches in China are often called - house - or - underground - churches.

Shouwang, one of the largest house churches in Beijing, is likely facing especially harsh pressure from the Chinese government because the incident has received much international media attention and authorities are portrayed in a negative light.

Besides detaining Senior Pastor Jin Tianming, authorities are also said to have pressured landlords to evict church members from their homes, and to have detained another Shouwang Pastor, Li Xiaobai, and his wife.

At the moment, the whereabouts of Pastor Jin Tianming is unknown.

According to CAA, more than a dozen house churches in Beijing have joined to issue a statement in support of Shouwang Church and in calling for a weekly prayer vigil for the congregation and its leaders.

The Cross is Not Proof of Our Worth But of God’s Grace

by Pastor Mike Ratliff
Possessing the Treasure Blog

But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ (Luke 18:13 ESV)

In our day it is not unusual to hear a man-centered version of the Gospel message that has everything turned around backward and is presented in such a way that is meant to appeal emotionally to unbelievers with a statement such as, “Christ’s crucifixion is proof of our worth to God!” The appeal is meant to show that if Christ was willing to go to Cross to save sinners like us then that proves we are of value to God. I have even heard one version of this that says that Jesus would have gone to that Cross even if it was for just one unrepentant sinner. Is that found anywhere in God’s Word? I have never found it. Instead, what I see clearly presented there is that all of us are undeserving sinners and even dead (Ephesians 2:1-3). Until God regenerated us, we are spiritual corpses, that is, without spiritual life. Therefore, grace that is not all grace is no grace. Grace that saves means that God has done everything; if He does not do everything, then it is not grace.

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9 ESV)

For by grace you have saved through faith. And this not of yourselves, it is God’s gift; not of works, lest anyone should boast. (Mike’s personal translation of Ephesians 2:8-9 from the NA27 Greek text.)

The phrase, “And this not of yourselves, it is God’s gift,” translates, ”καὶ τοῦτο οὐκ ἐξ ὑμῶν, θεοῦ τὸ δῶρον·” Many want to debate that this is God’s gift and part of it is not. Some want the grace and the salvation to come from God, but the faith to come from us. Let’s look at this passage with that reasoning part of the mind God gave us my brethren. In the first part of v8 Paul sums it up by saying that we are saved (σώζω) by grace (χάρις) through faith (πίστις). No one argues that. Would Paul then repeat the same thing by saying “grace is a gift of God,” or “salvation is a gift of God”? We don’t do that in English or any other language so why would Paul do that? Therefore, he is also making the point that faith is a gift (δῶρον) of God as well.

Paul tells us here that God makes our salvation a gift and not of a works whereby we do something to earn it so that no one may boast. God gets all the glory through the salvation of those whom He saves.

Now think back to the those horrible sermons we talked about earlier that try to manipulate people to make a decision for Christ using emotion and trying to show how important we are to God, et cetera. No my brethren, no one believes the Gospel and is saved or even responds to it until God gives them the power, the gift of faith, to believe.

This faith must be from God, for if we say that faith is of ourselves, then faith becomes a human work, as in partaking of a sacrament or just “being a good person.” Faith does not determine salvation; grace determines salvation. God has done it all. John MacArthur has said,

“When we accept the finished work of Christ on our behalf, we act by the faith supplied by God’s grace.”

Our faith comes as a gift from God’s grace.  Soli Deo Gloira!

Possessing the Treasure

by Mike Ratliff

God Chose What is Foolish in the World to Shame the Wise

Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him? (James 2:5 ESV)

During His earthly ministry, as our Lord walked through Roman occupied Galilee, Samaria, and Judea and other parts of what we call the Middle East in our time, the “so-called educated experts” criticized Him with respect to His education credentials (John 7:14-15). What was His response? Did He back down? Did He buy into the authority of these men as carrying any weight that He must take into account in regards to the truth He taught and preached? No! He countered by challenging their competence.

Think of the outrage today if someone like me who has no letters after his name like Doctor of Theology or whatever were to do as our Lord did and directly challenged one of these high placed religious leaders whose fruit of apostasy is continually being revealed as they refuse to follow the will of God. However, that is the very basis our Lord used to disqualify those who challenged Him (John 7:17, 19).

Is it possible for the obedient Christian walking in the Lordship of Jesus Christ to do this? According to John 7:17 and John 8:31-32, the Christian, being indwelt by the Holy Spirit and dwelling in Christ’s Word knows the truth. The reverse is also true. Those outside the will of God, even if they hold high office in some church have actually refused to acknowledge God and the truth about Him, which will lead them into futility and error in all fields of thought (Romans 1:18-21). On the other hand, the obedient Christian knows the truth because all things pertaining to life are granted through knowledge of God (2 Peter 1:3).

The obedient Christian who defends the faith can challenge the reasoning of these people no matter what their standing because their unrighteousness blinds them. No matter how sophisticated or well educated an apostate is, he or she can be presented an effective apologetic by any believer because that apologetic does not depend so much on the abilities and training of the presenter as it does on the blessing and enablement of the God Who bears it home.

But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; (1 Corinthians 1:27 ESV)

However, this does not mean that we should all just drop what we are doing and go on the attack with those theologians with whom we disagree. No, we must follow a properly guided method paying careful attention to refrain from appealing to the autonomous principles of secular thought to bring understanding to those with who we are in disagreement. The unbeliever’s method, standard, and starting point are inherently contrary to that saving understanding at which we must aim. Autonomy and understanding are mutually exclusive. We will fail miserably and most assuredly, quickly, if we rest our case on the very same presuppositions that infest those with whom we are debating. The apostate or unbeliever has his or her presuppositions firmly rooted in an attitude of autonomy; since these are the source of their lack of understanding they assuredly cannot provide us the path to bring them to understanding.

The entire human race is dead in trespasses and sin, falling short of the glory of God (Ephesians 2:1, 5; Romans 3:23; 5:15); because of this, no one seeks after God or has understanding (Romans 3:10-12). There are no exceptions within the ranks of the unregenerate. Sin has led the unbeliever to exalt his own imaginations and to ignore the revelation of God, and thereby the unbeliever’s reason is always deflected into futile erroneous, and unrighteous conclusions. What does the unbeliever say from his or her heart (from which are the issues of life)? He or she says that there is no God, and thereby shows that they have no knowledge or understanding (Psalm 53:1-4; Romans 3:10-12).

When the apologist defends his or her faith, it is against these people and some of them are professing Christians with high titles and positions in denominations and churches, seminaries, and universities. Of course, some of them claim to be Jesus followers while trying to take your arguments down through any means possible, valid or invalid. Not all enemies of the Cross and the Truth of our Lord Jesus Christ are professing atheists, but they all fit the description in the paragraph above. Yes, that is right unbelievers can be very religious. They lack understanding and their reasoning is unprofitable. In their minds, they are children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3). His or her mind is at enmity with God and they are unable to do God’s will (Romans 8:7).

When the apologist defends his or her faith, the sinner’s intellectual assumptions, operation, and competence are on trial, not the revelation of Christ. The rebel thinker walks according to his own thoughts and is, therefore, locked into the foolishness that proceeds from his heart (Isaiah 65:2; Mark 7:21-22). Apostates are those who have departed from the faith so they unavoidably speak falsehood and teach demonic lies (cf. 1 Timothy 4:1-2; Romans 1:25)

Now, if you took what we've said so far and put it through the politically correct, it’s a sin to offend anyone value system that is diluting the power of the church in our time, this all seems harsh and, I am sure, will be unpopular with most people. Because the church is so compromised in our time and contemporary apologists are so often sharing the autonomy of secular thought, they are unwilling to indict its root foolishness hence the rampant apostasy amongst our Christian leaders because those who should be calling them out are not doing so for the most part.

We must understand that the principle antithesis between Christian epistemology (the understanding of how things are known, perceived or understood) and apostate epistemology must be underscored instead of merely tolerated or overlooked for the sake of a false “unity.” In contrast to the man whose thoughts are vain stands the man who is instructed out of God’s law (Psalm 94:11-12; cf. 1 Corinthians 3:20). The Christian rejoices that he operates, not according to fleshly wisdom, but according to God’s grace (2 Corinthians 1:12).

What kind of apologetic, if it is not to share the autonomy of unbelieving thought, can be successful in bringing the unbeliever to an understanding of the truth? Like faithful preaching, faithful defense of the Gospel must be rooted in the Word and the Spirit. God can only be known by a voluntary revelation by the Son and Spirit of God (Matthew 11:27; 1 Corinthians 2:10). Together they deal with man’s ethical hostility to God’s revelation and enable him to have a saving knowledge of his Creator.

Unbelievers come to faith as God give them understanding which they formerly lacked when their mind has been opened (Luke 24:45) and they have been convicted by the Spirit of Truth (John 16:8). This Spirit continually witnesses to Christ, conducting His case before the world as Christ’s legal representative for the defense (i.e., the “Advocate”; John 15:26). The success of apologetics depends on the work of the Holy Spirit (cf. John 3:3, 8). As the unbeliever comes to abide in Christ’s Word, he or she has God and knows the Truth (John 8:31-32; 2 John 9). Until he or she gains the mind of Christ, they are completely unable to know Spiritual things (1 Corinthians 2:14, 16).

Having the mind of Christ requires humility (cf. Philippians 2: 5, 8), that thereby the renunciation of self-sufficiency in order to obey the truth of God. One can only come to knowledge of Him who is Truth (John 14:6) when the Son grants him the understanding that is lacking (1 John 5:20). I am sure you also see that only those who are under the Lordship of Christ are in this blessed company.

The apologist is called upon to give a faithful witness to the truth, rather than to attempt to improve on the Lord’s wisdom by autonomous arguments. No one was ever argued into the Kingdom of God. Being confident of his or her ability to challenge apostate thought, the believer must reason, not according to the principles of secular thought, but on the presupposed truth of Christ’s word, and looking to the power of His Spirit to bring conviction, conversion, and understanding. A successful apologetic, being given according to Christ’s Word and Spirit, is a function of the grace of God, not human cleverness and wisdom.

As I defend the faith prayerfully, totally reliant on the grace of God and His truth from His Word, I have never faltered or, as some would say, “blown it.” On the other hand, when I first started out in this ministry, that was most certainly not the case. I had to “blow it” and learn to not play by the rules of those who hate God’s truth. I had to learn to depend entirely on the presuppositions that God’s truth is all we have and that those who oppose it have nothing but the wisdom of this world, which actually destroys the truth. It was as I learned these things and structured the rules for debate here on this blog that God began to use this ministry to both edify the saints and shut the mouths of His enemies.

I am just a δοῦλος of the Κύριον ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστόν. [A Servant of the Lord Jesus Christ]

Be Exalted, O Lord - For Your Goodness To Me

Oh Lord, even on my best of days, I am forever reminded of my need to be humble and lowly before You. But of course this is not a bad thing! It rather is a very good thing. It speaks of me coming at least to a passing knowledge of Your Word, and by that to at least a basic knowledge of Who You are as opposed to who I am.

You have taught, and are teaching me to search my heart and to repent. You cause me to see my sin, to see myself as I am and to flee to You for help.

You have said it and have confirmed it with an oath, that you have no pleasure in the death of sinners like me, but rather desire that I should turn and live. (Ezekiel 33:11) Therefore will I rend my heart, and not my garment, and return to the LORD my God; for He is gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love. Who knows whether He will not turn and relent, and leave a blessing behind Him?

Actually, because of Christ, we do know! He has relented, He has turned, and He has given blessing. Undeserving as I am, He has blessed me and He will bless me and lift me up. But I must recognize that that blessing and that lifting up is in Christ and in He alone.

Oh Lord, I say with the song, "how can I say thanks for the things you have done for me?" Repetitive as it is, it is all that there is to say.

I thank You that I have an Advocate with the Father, even Jesus Christ the righteous, (1 John 2:1) He is therefore able to save me to the uttermost, as well as all those who draw near to God as a Father, through Him as a Mediator, This is because He always lives to make intercession for His people. (Hebrews 7:25) I thank You that I have a High Priest chosen from among men and appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God. He offers gifts and sacrifice for sin, and deals gently with the ignorant and wayward; (Hebrews 5:1-2). He has become the source of eternal salvation to all who obey Him. (Hebrews 5:9)

You have appointed for me a great High Priest, in whose name I may draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, that I may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need. (Hebrews 4:16)

Lord, what will you do for your great name? (Joshua 7:9) Do this for your great name: Pour out your Spirit on all flesh, (Joel 2:28) and let the word of Christ dwell richly in the hearts of all. (Colossians 3:16)
• Be exalted, O Lord, among the nations, be exalted in the earth! (Psalm 46:10)
• Be exalted, O God, above the heavens! Let your glory be over all the earth! (Psalm 57:11)
• Be exalted, O LORD, in your strength! We will sing and praise your power. (Psalm 21:13)

Lord, do great things with your glorious and everlasting arm, to make for yourself a glorious and everlasting name. (Isaiah 63:12-14) O let your name be magnified forever, saying, ‘The Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, is Israel’s God.’ (1 Chronicles 17:24).

Is the Enjoyment of God as “Man’s Chief End” Theocentric or Anthropocentric?

  

Yesterday, in our morning service, we talked about what the “chief purpose” of the cross of was. I argued that its’ purpose was to demonstrate that God was righteous and just, even though He gave the appearance of be unrighteous in the Old Testament when He “passed over” sin, as in the case David and so many others.

The Apostle Paul calls this mindset "the mind that is set on the flesh" (Romans. 8:6-7), and says that it is the way the "natural person" thinks.

14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Cor. 2:14)

The chief purpose of the cross was to defend God’s character and prove His holiness. The unredeemed misunderstand all of this because the start from the wrong starting point. They begin from an Anthropocentric beginning point as opposed to a Theocentric starting point. Because their starting point takes off with their own needs and wants in view, they have no hope of arriving at the right conclusions.

Some have even been so bold as to suggest that when the Shorter Catechism tells us that man’s chief end is “to enjoy God forever” that this is, in the minds of some, to promote a man-centered rather than a God-centered motivation for living. It seems to encourage Christians to serve God for what they can get from him rather than for what they can give to him.

This has prompted some to interpret the Catechism’s formulation as follows:

“…man’s chief end or purpose is to glorify God; enjoying God is not in any sense coordinate with glorifying God but simply a by-product or consequence of glorifying God. In other words, we should strive to glorify God altruistically–without any concern for personal benefit. Personal benefit is simply an unsought-for result of pursuing our chief end or purpose for existence.”

I think John Frame offers a more accurate depiction of the Catechism’s (and the Bible’s) teaching:

The Catechism adds a second phrase to its formulation of our chief end: “to enjoy him forever.” At first it is difficult to see how these two phrases fit together. The first is theocentric, but the second appears to be anthropocentric. The first is distinctively biblical, but the second sounds rather like the goal of pleasure in secular teleological ethics.

It helps to notice, however, that even the second phrase is centered on God. We are not to enjoy ourselves, but to enjoy him. So the second phrase call us to find our chief enjoyment in God, not in the world. To embrace the enjoyment of God as the goal of life is to sing with Asaph:

Whom have I in heaven but you?
And there is nothing on earth that I desire besides you.
My flesh and my heart may fail,
but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever.
For behold, those who are far from you shall perish;
you put an end to everyone who is unfaithful to you.
But for me it is good to be near God;
I have made the Lord God my refuge,
that I may tell of all your works. (Ps. 73:25-28).

Although Asaph uses forms of the first person pronoun ten times in this passage, and thirty-three times in the whole psalm, these verses are profoundly theocentric. So when the Catechism moves from the first phrase to the second, it is not moving from God-centeredness to man-centeredness. Rather, it is looking at God-centeredness from two perspectives.

In the end, one cannot glorify God without enjoying him. The goal expressed by WSC, 1, is, in the most profound sense, not two-fold, but one.  The human emerges from and is a result of the accomplishment of the larger, more significant first goal, the glorification of God.

Cited from John Frame
The Doctrine of the Christian Life
(Presbyterian & Reformed, 2008), 302-03, 306.

Orienting Your Piety: Not before Men

Taken From the Kairos Journal
April 8, 2011 Edition

“Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them . . .” (Matthew 6:1)

We live in a world where form triumphs daily over substance and where appearance trumps reality at every turn. In a media-driven, image-conscious society, politicians strive not so much to do good, but to be seen to do good; not so much to be ethical, as to be perceived as ethical. Elections are won and lost more because of media-savvy consultants than because of worthy policies. The temptation is intense for pastors to transfer the orientation of their piety in the direction of their parishioners rather than their heavenly Father.

In Matthew 5-7, it is essential to notice that Jesus is directing His teaching primarily to His disciples (5:1), the future leaders of the worldwide church. It is therefore no accident that Jesus, in His comparisons and contrasts, focuses so much on the Pharisees, whom He had Himself labeled “teachers of Israel” (John 3:10). So in chapter 5, the Pharisee’s teaching is the foil for Jesus’ teaching, and in chapter 6, the piety of these teachers in the classic disciplines of praying, fasting, and giving is the foil for the ideal piety which Jesus recommends. He begins His critique of their piety with the observation that they practiced their righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them. What motivated the Pharisee’s showy piety? Pride and self-righteousness were undoubtedly factors, but the evidence of the rest of the Gospel^[1]  invites us to consider a pedagogical motive. The Pharisee’s performance of his piety was designed to impress others and thus to invite imitation.

While it is true that the principles of the Sermon on the Mount are applicable to all disciples, at all times and in all places, the disciple who would teach other disciples - the pastor - must be especially attentive to them, just as he is especially vulnerable to the pitfalls Jesus describes. His desire for his flock to evidence genuine piety can lead him to practice a hypocritical piety that betrays the gospel. In doing so, not only does he do himself a great disservice and put himself in great danger, but he also puts an obstacle in the path of his watchers.

The verdict of the Gospels is unanimous: public, showy piety, whatever its motivations, drove people away from God, His law, and the temple, and its practitioners hounded the Son of God to death. Piety before others to be seen by them is contrary to the gospel, which tells of the grace of the righteous God in His dealings with humble sinners.

So let pastors pray and commune with their heavenly Father; let them give generously of their income to further the kingdom; let them fast with joy in this period of the bridegroom’s absence. Of course there is a place for the pastor to publicly model discipleship, but his private practice of piety should resemble the majority of the iceberg, which remains under water. It is never doubted by those who sit under a godly minister, and it is the only sort that will genuinely transform the Church.

___________________________________________
[1] Witness the exchange between Jesus and the Pharisees in 15:1-9 and Jesus’ excoriating condemnation of the Pharisees in 23:1-36.

Eternal Punishment and the Fate of Those Who Haven’t Heard

By Justin Taylor
From the Gospel Coalition Blog

Here are two excellent posts that help to clear away some misconceptions about the biblical teaching on eternal punishment and those who haven’t heard the name of Jesus:

• Kevin DeYoung, “God’s Wrath: Consequence or Curse?“
• Sam Storms, “Bell’s Hell and the Destiny of Those Who’ve Never Heard of Jesus“

Two excerpts follow, but I’d encourage you to read both all the way through.  My comments follow…

DeYoung:

Divine punishment—hell, in its eternal form—is not simply what we get because we make poor decisions or decide to live a selfish life. Hell is what we get because God is offended by our sin and punishes it. We see everywhere in Scripture that divine wrath is a curse on the ungodly, not a mere consequence for self-centered decisions. Hell is much more than God simply allowing us to have our own way and to experience all the bad effects of our choices. Hell is God’s active, just, holy wrath poured out on the disobedient.

Storms:

Let me say this as clearly as I can: No one will ever suffer for any length of time in hell or anywhere else for not believing in the Jesus they never heard of. Should I say that again or is it enough to ask that you go back and read it again?

___________________________________

Not to mimic Sam Storms, but let me very clear as well, this is what is at stake in the current debate in modern Christianity. Both of these men simply CAN’T be correct. Neither can there be a “compromise” that can reconcile the two of their positions together. The two of them are antithetical, that is, they are opposites, polar opposites. They are on the opposite of the world theologically speaking. Either the unredeemed, those who have not heard of the Lord Jesus, will suffer His judgment or they will not. Further, either that judgment will involve condemnation and suffering or it will not. Further, either that judgment falls upon all men or it does not.

Both Mr. DeYoung and Mr. Storms are correct in recognizing that it must be one or the other. It cannot be both. What you and I must grapple with is of which is it?

As with so many things in life the matter falls down to issue of theology. Biblical theology. What is it that determines what is true and what is not. Sadly, for so many in our modern age, that has boiled down to a more subjective standard than the object of standard of the Word of God. Oh, we still appeal to the Word of God, but we do it in the exact reverse of the fashion in which God intended for us to do so.

We for our opinion, based on their own preferences, and then we look for Scripture to support that idea. Rather, as best we are able, we must look to the Scripture first and allow it to inform us concerning what we ought to think concerning a given matter.

Admittedly, this is a very difficult proposition. Certainly, we are human beings and as human beings we have our opinions. Those opinions are difficult to suppress. No one can approach any issue with a “blank slate”. But the issue for any Christian is to submit those opinions to the authority of God’s Word and not vice versa!

Is this difficult and does it take care? Of course it does. But if we are to be true to the intention of God and His Word and if we are to actually find His desire for a given issue (which is what everyone “says” they really want) then this is where we must go.

Otherwise, inevitably, we end up in the quagmire of human opinion. And that is surely a place where no one wishes to be.

No Emergency Pill For You?

By Cathy Lynn Grossman
From the “Faith and Reason” Blog
USA TODAY

There's a fast way to tell someone's point of view on the sale of contraceptives.

People who think pharmacists who oppose abortion should not be required to sell the "morning- after pill" call laws to support these "conscience laws." People who think women should have access to legal medications they need call them "refusal laws."

According to Religion News Service,

In 2005, then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich issued a ruling to force "pharmacies to fill prescriptions without making moral judgments.

But when the state tried to enforce this, two pharmacists, aided by the American Center for Law and Justice, went to court for the right to refuse. Tuesday, Circuit Judge John Belz wrote that governor's ruling was unconstitutional, that it would be...

... coercing individuals or entities to provide healthcare services that violate their belief.

The pharmacists and the ACLJ are delighted. The ruling affects commercial pharmacies as well as individuals who might pick and choose which FDA-approved legal medications they believe should be dispensed. As the Center's site notes, the judge's ruling points out:

Even as to emergency contraception, the Court heard no evidence of a single person who ever was unable to obtain emergency contraception because of a religious objection.

Meanwhile, The state's attorney general is appealing and the American Civil Liberties Union is joining in. Colleen K. Connell, Illinois ACLU director pointed out:

The court's ruling fails to account for the important constitutional rights at issue when women are denied access to reproductive health care and medication.

The battle over whose conscience trumps whose medical choices is far wider than Illinois, of course. It puts health workers who bring their faith and values to their jobs in tension with their clients, patients and customers who may have different beliefs on whether or when to have children.

The ACLU is tracking cases state by state and in Congress and finds this tension goes beyond contraception issues. Some example: Congress is looking at:

• Efforts to prevent birth control from being included as part of the preventive care package of health care reform.
• Congress is considering a bill to allow hospitals to refuse to provide a pregnant woman with an abortion, even if the procedure would save her life.
• A bill before the South Carolina legislature would allow health care providers and facilities to refuse to participate in abortions and other reproductive health services, with no exclusions for emergency care and no provision for a lifesaving abortion.
• A bill before the Alabama legislature would allow any institution, health care provider, or health insurance company to refuse to provide any referral, procedure, or payment for any health care based on moral or religious objections.

____________________________________________

Sad;y, we watch as our society disintegrates before our eyes, and not just here, but in so many areas.  I belong to a generation, as does the generation before me, when these very ideas were literally unthinkable for the vast, vast majority of people.  Yet today, the leadership of our nation fights for these as “rights” and thinks themselves virtuous for doing so.  How have we become so backwards?

It has happened because our churches have left the preaching of the plain Word of God for the milk toast of pleasing men.  It has happened because we have decided that we are more concerned with feelings happy people than we are with seeing to it that we are pleasing our Lord and Master.  Truly, we are in the place of the slaves in the vineyard who are joyfully frolicking about because they have decided that the Master of the vineyard has gone away and left the care to them and will not return.  They will run it their way!

How very sad!  For He will one day return and I fear that that day approaches sooner than we think…

How to Pray for Your Enemies (Part 2)

John Piper,
What Jesus Demands from the World (Crossway, 2006), 225–226.

But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. (Matthew 5:44)

Bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. (Luke 6:28)

As we pray for our enemies, it is to be with genuine love that sincerely hopes for the very best for them. John Piper writes:

[T]he demand to pray for our enemy tells us what that best is that we should want for our enemy. Fourteen verses after this command in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus tells us what he expects us to pray. He tells us to pray like this:

Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name.
Your kingdom come,
your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. (Matt. 6:9–13)

It would be unwarranted to think that the loving prayer for our enemy should ask for less important things than we are told to pray for ourselves. So I assume this prayer is what we should pray for our enemies.

This means that we should ask God that our enemy first and foremost come to hallow God’s name, that he value God above all and reverence him and admire him in proportion to God’s worth.

• We should pray that our enemy come under the saving sway of God’s kingly rule and that God would exert his kingly power to make our enemy his own loyal subject.
• We should pray that our enemy would love to do the will of God the way the angels do it in heaven with all their might and without reservation and with purest motives and supreme joy.
• We should pray that God would supply our enemy with all the physical resources of food and clothing and shelter and education and health care and transportation, etc. that he needs to fulfill God’s calling on his life. We should want this for him the way we want it for ourselves.
• We should pray that his sins would be forgiven and that he would be a forgiving person.
• And finally we should pray that God protect him from temptation and from the destructive powers of the devil.

This is what love prays.

Is Christianity at fault for the failings of the Civil War? (Part 2)

Yesterday, we talked about a theory put forward, not for the first time, as to the levin and causes of the Civil War. he postulates that it had it's main roots in what is known as the "Second Great Awakening" and the moral surety and even superiority that it engendered. Because men were convinced that their positions on issues like slavery and states rigs were rooted in the will of God, this writer maintains, they were unwilling to compromise and come to agreement with one another. War was the only option. That leads us to another point:

There is also a third issue, and that is a misunderstanding of what exactly happened during the Second Great Awakening. The author maintains that what happened during the Second Great Awakening is to be treated as a legitimate "awakening". Biblically speaking, it was not. Let's think about that for a moment.

The Second Great Awakening was very different than the First Great Awakening. That great work of God was a legitimate work in every sense of the word and it showed that it was in the results over the colonies during the generation or two after it blossomed. But like every revival, every revival in recorded history, it died out just a generation or two after it occurred, and ungodliness began to set in.

God had indeed chosen America in which to do a marvelous work. Just as He had chosen England to do the marvelous work of missions He has also chosen America to be a part of that marvelous work of reaching the world for the Lord Jesus.

But like all those before us we were dull of hearing, hard of forehead and calloused of heart. After God sent revival under Jonathan Edwards, we again went our own way. But the work that came under the Wesley's and others was a different work. It was a more subjective, emotional work rather than a work that was based on God's Word alone. It preached a more active gospel, a more "you can do it" gospel. It was the time for women's suffrage, and of course, it was the time that God was moving to abolish slavery around the world. Both of those things were wonderful, worthy causes; causes that the church should have been involved in long before the 1800s and should have been speaking out on behalf of vehemently before they were forced to speak out on behalf of at this time.

The problem was not that the church addressed these issues. The problem was the identification of the gospel with these issues. That is likewise happening today. It is a great tragedy. The gospel is about salvation from sin, it is not about addressing social issues, no matter how grave or seriously those social issues are.

To make the gospel about social matters is to put the cart before the horse. Anyone can correct a social issue. Not anyone can commend themselves to God. To be right with God is a matter that only Jesus Christ could correct. It is only his righteousness that could commend us to the Father. Anyone can set themselves between someone who is dealing with an injustice, anyone can feed a hungry child, anyone can stop a wife from being abused. But only Christ, the perfect Lamb of God, could come and live and then give Himself for sin. He did what we could not and would not do. That in turn, then gives us the basis upon which we can do those other things.

It is not that those things are not important, of course they are! They are critical, they are immensely important! Jesus said that all Gods people must bear fruit! But we must keep those works where they belong in the stream of things. The fruit cannot be portrayed as appearing before the branches of the tree or before the tree itself! The works cannot be placed in front of the work of our Lord

This is a part of the idea that the writer of this article does not understand. He does not understand that what happened in the Second Great Awakening was that many people who saw themselves as being "awaken" were only professing religion and were not truly awakened.

I do not expect this writer to either understand or agree with this assessment. But this is a theological assessment, and I am confident in its accuracy. I have read the sermons of many of these preachers and I have looked at the results of these revivals and they do not demonstrate what the Scripture says concerning what a genuine revival ought to demonstrate.

This does not mean that there was no revival, it does not mean that nobody got saved at that time. It doesn't mean that there was no awakening at then. It simply means that this awakening was not a Great Awakening as it has been painted.

The implication is that it could not have the effect on the Civil War that this writer implies that it did have. Rather, because there had been a long downwards spiral from the end of the first First Great Awakening in the late 1700s, I believe one can make a serious argument that it is the increasing depravity of man, his evil heart and consequent actions that are the cause of both the occurrence of the Civil War and its severity. Had there been an actual "awakening" I firmly believe there would not have been a Civil War.

What I'm reviewed people do not understand, what they consistently misunderstand (and I believe deliberately so because of their nature) is that where redeemed people are, where godly people are there is agreement. The problem is that unsaved people don't know what the definition of a redeemed person is! They think that anyone who calls themselves a Christian is indeed a Christian! And of course, that is not so. Just because one stands for any length of time in a garage doesn't make them an automobile.