Monthly Archives: April 2016

The Gospel Cannot Be A Product

Posted on by
Reply

if followed, empties the truth out of the gospel. First, the needs consumers have are needs they identify for themselves. The needs sinners have are needs God identifies for us, and the way we see our needs is rather different from the way he sees them. We suppress the truth about God, holding it down in ‘unrighteousness’ (Rom. 1:18). We are not subject to his moral law and in our fallenness are incapable of being obedient to it (Rom. 8:7), so how likely is it, outside the intervention of God through the Holy Spirit, that we will identify our needs as those arising from our rebellion against God?

No, the product we will seek naturally will not be the gospel. It will be a therapy of some kind, a technique for life, perhaps a way of connecting more deeply with our own spiritual selves on our own terms, terms that require no repentance and no redemption. It will not be the gospel. The gospel cannot be a product that the church sells because there are no consumers for it. When we find consumers, we will find that what they are interested in buying, on their own terms, is not the gospel.”

–David F. Wells, The Courage to Be Protestant (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 52-3.

Extraordinary Prayer

Posted on by
Reply

1976 (Transcribed by David Edgington)

If my people called by My name, shall humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.

What’s involved in this? God expects us to pray!

But we must not forget what Jonathan Edwards said when he said to promote explicit agreement and visible union of all God’s people in “extraordinary prayer.” What do you mean by “extraordinary prayer”?

When you find people getting up at 6 o’clock in the morning to pray, or having a half night of prayer until midnight – that’s extraordinary prayer. When they give up their lunch-time and go and pray at a noon day prayer meeting – that’s extraordinary prayer. But it must be united and concerted.

It doesn’t mean that a Baptist becomes any less of a Baptist or an Episcopalian is less loyal to the 39 articles or that a Presbyterian turns his back on the Westminster Confession – not at all! But they recognize each other as brothers and sisters in Christ and they are prepared to pray together in concerted prayer that God may hear and answer. We haven’t reached that stage yet.

This national conference on prayer … is … unprecedented in some ways. It’s a sign of the direction in which we are moving. It’s what I call “extraordinary prayer”.

But you folk who are here – those who listen to my voice – must take it back to your churches. And when they are prepared to set aside time to pray for a spiritual awakening. That’s when God is going to answer.

Now some people say, “that means then its up to us.” Oh no we can’t say that either. Matthew Henry said, “When God intends great mercy for His people, He first of all sets them a praying.”

Even God is sovereign in this matter. But we must respond. He has chosen never to work without our cooperation. So whether your interpretation of revival is Calvinistic or Arminian – it’s a very simple thing. You must pray – then God will work.

May God help us so to pray. Amen.

Prince and the Jehovah’s Witnesses

Posted on by
Reply

stormsDr. Sam Storms has written an article today entitled “DID PRINCE KNOW THE PRINCE OF PEACE?” – original source many have wondered whether or not he might have known Jesus Christ as his Savior. I must confess that I never followed the career of Prince and I never intentionally listened to any of his music. I say “intentionally” because somewhere along the way I may have heard him sing, even though I wouldn’t have known who it was at the time. But I’m not here today to assess his talents as a musician. I’m sure many reading this were fans. I was not.

In any case, reports are that Prince was at one time a Seventh-Day-Adventist (a religious group with which former presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson affiliates). But from all that I’m hearing, Prince converted and became a Jehovah’s Witness. Some may think that because he was open and active in his practice of this religious faith that he was a born-again Christian, a follower of the Jesus of the Bible.

Rest assured, I’m no man’s judge. But I am the judge (as you must be also) of whether or not claims made by certain religious sects, cults, or other groups align with the teaching of the Bible. And I can say without hesitation that the teachings of the Jehovah’s Witnesses do not.

Several things about their understanding of God and Christ should be noted.

First, Jehovah’s Witnesses deny the truth of the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity, so they argue, is a Satanic invention which originated in ancient Babylon (@ 2,200 b.c.). The Jehovah’s Witnesses are, strictly speaking, Unitarian in their understanding of God.

Second, prior to his earthly advent Jesus Christ was known as Michael, the archangel. He is a creature, the first product of Jehovah God’s creative work. He was neither then, now, nor will he ever be equal with Jehovah. In this sense the JW’s are akin more to the fourth-century heresy of Arianism than they are to evangelical Christianity. NT scholar Bruce Metzger has rightly pointed out that according to JW theology, “Throughout his existence . . . Jesus Christ never was co-equal with God” (“The Jehovah’s Witnesses and Jesus Christ: A Biblical and Theological Appraisal,” Theology Today, 70). He is not eternal, so say the JW’s, because, to use the words of Arius himself, “there was a time when he was not” (Metzger, 70).

Third, Jehovah’s Witnesses provide their own distinct (and distorted) translation of John 1:1 that reveals much of their theology. According to what is known as the New World Translation (NWT), John 1:1 reads as follows: “Originally the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” Metzger points out that a footnote which is added to the first word, “Originally,” reads, “Literally, ‘In (At) a beginning’” (74). This rendering is more destructive than even they realize, for it is tantamount to an affirmation of polytheism (the existence of many gods). Continue reading →

Natural Selection

Posted on by
Reply

ken-ham“…natural selection is not “molecules-to-man evolution” (hereafter referred to as evolution)! It is true that evolutionists will use the term evolution for natural selection, but that doesn’t mean that everyone who believes in natural selection believes in Darwinian evolution!

Natural selection removes or reorganizes genetic information, allowing different traits, such as different beak sizes (e.g., the finches of the Galapagos), to show up. Those organisms best suited to their environment survive while the others die off or don’t reproduce as well. Of course, those that thrive pass along their unique combination of genes to the next generation, skewing the gene pool in their favor. Eventually this can allow new species (such as a new species of finch) to arise. But this isn’t evolution! It’s really just an outworking of the phenomenal amount of genetic variability God built into each kind of organism.

Evolution requires an addition of brand-new information so that novel traits (never seen before) can arise. You can’t change an amoeba into an astronaut without adding new information and new features! But natural selection can’t do that. It can remove or reshuffle information, but it can never create brand-new information. Because natural selection is the exact opposite of evolution, it can’t be a mechanism for this unobserved process. And mutations don’t add new information either.

We always see organisms reproducing according to their kind, just as it says in Genesis (Genesis 1). There is a huge amount of variety within a kind (think of poodles, Great Danes, wolves, dingoes, and boxers), but one kind has never been observed to turn into another kind, nor is there a mechanism for this imagined evolution.”

– Ken Ham

Full article here.

Complaining to God?

Posted on by
Reply

if Moses can do it, if Job can do it, then it must be my prerogative as a Christian to voice my bitterness and complaints.”

But we need to notice not just the complaints the biblical saints sometimes make, but the responses God gives. Let’s take Job’s complaint as an example. As Job struggled with his afflictions, he found it impossible not to grumble that God would let one as righteous as he was suffer so greatly. Eventually, however, God answered Job’s complaints with stern words: “Who is this who darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Now prepare yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer Me” (Job 38:2–3).

What did Job say? Did he continue to complain? No.

Instead, he declared: “I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know… Therefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes” (42:3b, 6). He was severely rebuked for the attitude that he expressed to God. Likewise, Habakkuk the prophet complained bitterly that God was not being just by allowing wickedness to go unchecked. He demanded an answer from God, and when God gave it, Habakkuk said, “My body trembled; my lips quivered at the voice; rottenness entered my bones; and I trembled in myself” (Hab. 3:16a).

It’s vital that we understand prayer in terms of the qualifications that are found throughout the Bible. By considering the scope of the Bible’s teaching on this subject, we may conclude that it is acceptable to bring all our cares to God, including matters that may move us to frustration or anger. However, we must not come to God in a spirit of complaint or anger against Him, for it is never proper to accuse God of wrongdoing.

Three Views of Salvation

Posted on by
Reply

JI-PackerThe problem with analogies is that at some point, they almost always fail. While the illustration does not give sufficient account of the biblical portrait of man (the man would need to be dead at the bottom of the river) it does achieve the purpose of answering the specific question, “Which of those three men is the truest illustration of what God does to save us?”

“Long ago, when I was an undergraduate, I had an experience on one of the rivers in Oxford where students love to pole themselves around in flat-bottomed boats called punts. I do not know if undergraduates do it in the universities of this country, but we do it in Oxford. The experience was my falling into the river. I can still remember the surprise I had when I suddenly found myself upside down in the water and that there were strands of green weed around my head and the light was up at my feet. You do not forget that sort of thing quickly, and on the basis of that experience I construct for you the following illustration.

Imagine a man who has fallen into a river. He cannot swim. The weeds have caught his feet. He is threshing around, but he cannot get free and will not be above the surface for very long. His state is desperate. Three people come along on the bank. One looks at him and says, ‘Oh, he’s all right; if he struggles he’ll get out; they always do. It’s even good for his character that he should have to struggle like this. I’ll leave him.’

The second person looks at the poor struggling man and says, ‘I’d like to help you. I can see what you need. You need some tips about swimming. Let me tell you how to swim.’ He gives him a great of good advice, but he stops there.

Then there is the third man who comes along and sees the measure of the trouble. He jumps in, overcomes the man’s struggles, gets him free from the weeds that have caught him, brings him to shore, gives him artificial respiration, and puts him back on his feet. Which of those three men is the truest illustration of what God does to save us?

These three views have theological names. The first corresponds to what is called Pelagianism: its only message is self-help. A hard and unfeeling form of Christianity it is. The second corresponds to what is called Arminianism: God tells us how to be saved, but stops there. The third corresponds to Calvinism. And you can see how the illustration fits. God takes the initiative. Christ comes right down to where we are, enters into our trouble, and does all that has to be done. He breaks the bonds of sin that bind us, brings us to land (that is, to God), restores life, and makes us believers, all this by his sovereign grace which saves absolutely and wonderfully from first to last.”

“To All Who Will Come,” in Serving the People of God: The Collected Shorter Writings of J. I. Packer, Volume 2 (Paternoster Press), 200-01.