Monthly Archives: May 2013

The Law without Law

Posted on by
Reply

In an insightful and yet pithy article entitled the idea that there are no transcendent, binding rules for right and wrong that all humans are morally required to submit to, is that it allows us to live in peace. That is, if you have your ethics, and I have my ethics, well then there is no real need for us to fight over whose ethic wins. (So long, as, of course, our lives never actually cross.) The real value is far more sinister. We find ethical relativism appealing because we find our own guilt unappealing. Though we seek to suppress such knowledge, we all know that God is, that He is holy, that we are not, and that we are in trouble. Not the kind of pleasant thoughts one wants to go to sleep thinking on, so we suppress that truth. Do away with ethics and we do away with His holiness, our guilt, and therefore our trouble.

Trouble is, we don’t live in our own solipsistic bubbles. Our worlds do collide. Consider the case of Jason Collins, the NBA player who recently announced in Sports Illustrated, that he engages in sexual acts with men. On the one hand we are not supposed to judge him. After all, there is no transcendent standard that says men should only take their pants off with their wives. On the other hand, we are supposed to not judge him. Wait. How did that get in there? Sodomy is fine because there is no moral standard we all must meet. But we must all approve sodomy because there is a moral standard we all must meet. Says who? If there is no transcendent moral standard by which we must condemn sexual perversion, where did this transcendent moral standard come from, that insists we must not condemn sexual perversion? Somebody is imposing their own ethic here, and it’s not the Christians.

Jason Collins is the first male professional athlete to admit he mistreats men. For that he has received magazine covers, applause from the entire Good Morning American television crew, congratulatory phone calls from the first lady, and a thumbs up from her husband. Where, I am left wondering, was all this for the first male professional athlete to admit he mistreats dogs? Where was the Michael Vick coming out party? I want to live in a world where dog fighters need no longer live in fear and shame. How many young dog fighters could have been set free from unspoken bigotry if the world had simply affirmed Michael when he bravely acknowledged his habits? It’s a cold world when a dog fighter can’t be affirmed in what he is.

That’s different? Why? Because dogs can’t give their consent, while Mr. Collins’ victim and victimizers can and do? So who made consent the magic word? (And is it really that magic? What about adult incest? Will we celebrate our diversity, and hand Jackie Robinson’s mantle to the first professional athlete to come out of the adult incest closet?) Why does consent make all personal moral decisions now become transcendently sound moral decisions? Did God say consent is the key? Or was that just some men? And if other men disagree? Why is consent privileged, thereby making child molesters suddenly become evil? By what standard?

Ethical relativism is not merely absurd. It is instead that tool by which God’s judgments are not just banished, but judged as beyond the pale. The end game isn’t “Nobody gets to affirm right and wrong” but “You Christians may not affirm right and wrong.” Which is why sexual perverts do not merely ask for tolerance but demand affirmation. Their own worldview won’t allow it, but when has that ever stopped them?

Apologetics to the Glory of God

Posted on by
Reply

My friend, Pastor Jeff Durbin of Apologia Church (Chandler, Arizona) and Apologia Radio speaks at the ‘Concerned Christians National Conference 2013’ on a biblical approach to apologetics and evangelism. The topic is: Apologetics to the glory of God.

Jeff teaches on the necessary elements of apologetics:

1. No neutrality
2. Humble boldness
3. Evangelism (the call to repent and believe) cannot be separated from apologetics
4. How we engage in Apologetics is a moral issue
5. Specific examples are given

O Love That Will Not Let Me Go

Posted on by
Reply

O Love that wilt not let me go,
That in thine ocean depths its flow
May richer, fuller be

O light that foll’west all my way,
I yield my flick’ring torch to thee;
My heart restores its borrowed ray,
That in thy sunshine’s blaze its day
May brighter, fairer be

O Joy that seekest me through pain,
I cannot close my heart to thee;
I trace the rainbow through the rain,
And feel the promise is not vain,
That morn shall tearless be

O Cross that liftest up my head,
I dare not ask to fly from thee;
I lay in dust life’s glory dead,
And from the ground there blossoms red
Life that shall endless be.

David Phelps:

May my name be found amongst them

Posted on by
1

Someone wrote this…..

“I used to do a lot of pulpit supply and I wanted to be funny, cool and popular. One evening I was visiting with an older preacher and he said, ‘When a man enters the pulpit, he stands between God and God’s people.’

That changed me forever.

The next time I entered a pulpit, a dread fell on me, I knew that there were lost souls listening to me. My knees and hands trembled, my heart broke and the Gospel became an urgent necessity. I never preached another sermon without a path to the cross, without a clear proclamation of the Gospel and rarely without hot tears.”

God bless the faithful pastors who preach the Words of life.

May my name be found amongst them.

Ligon Duncan on Hebrews 6

Posted on by
Reply

Here are a few brief thoughts from Dr. Ligon Duncan on Hebrews 6:4-12:

This past Sunday morning we considered one of the most difficult and challenging passages in all of Scripture, Hebrews 6:4-12. Verses 4-6 are the toughest: “4 For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.” (ESV) So I thought it might be helpful to review it by means of a Q&A.

One thing we have stressed in our study is that we must remember that the aim of Hebrews is not to unsettle the assurance of true believers but rather to express the seriousness of reneging on our commitment to Christ. To renounce our confession of Christ actually or functionally is to step across a line from which we may never return. Thus, we must neither be inappropriately discouraged by this passage, nor must we muffle its warning.

A Pastoral note about this passage:

Lloyd-Jones, in a sermon he preached on Romans 8:17-39, once said: “I can definitely say after some 35 years of pastoral experience that there are no passages in the whole of Scripture which have more frequently troubled people and caused them soul agony than the passage in Hebrews 6:4-8 and the corresponding passage in Hebrews 10:26-29. Large numbers of Christians are held in bondage by Satan owing to a misunderstanding of these particular statements. I do not say that these are the two most difficult passages in the Bible – I do not regard them as such – but I do assert that they are passages the devil seems to use most frequently in order to distress and to trouble God’s people.”

1. What is the specific situation addressed in this passage?

The author of Hebrews is addressing Hebrew Christians, probably in Palestine, who are wavering in their commitment to Christ. For whatever reason, they have begun to question the necessity of Christ, in his person and work, for ultimate fellowship with God. Perhaps influenced by Essene teaching, they are contemplating a return to Judaism or some form of it. They have noted the similarities between Christian and Jewish teaching, and in light of their Jewish religious background (and perhaps pressure from Essene teachers), they are wondering why do we have to believe these extra teachings of Christianity? Aren’t the old ways just as good? Didn’t they come from God too? Consequently, they are contemplating reverting to their former Judaism and abandoning their distinctively Christian confession of faith.

2. What is the specific warning being given in this passage?

If you have confessed Christ as Lord and have become, as it were, a partaker of the blessings of the kingdom of heaven, and then you subsequently reject Christ and deny your confession of him, you are evidencing the kind of a hard heart that is actually incapable of true repentance, because it has no esteem for Christ. It is not that you are incapable of choice thereafter, but that in view of your moral condition you are incapable of repentance. In fact, it is not so much what you have done that has made you incapable of repentance, but rather the hardness of your heart is evidenced in the fact that you cannot repent (because you will not).

3. What do we mean by “apostasy”? Can it happen?

Apostasy means to fall away from the profession of our faith. Yes, it can and does happen. There are many examples of it in Scripture. Note: “apostasy” does not mean “losing your salvation” it means “abandoning your profession of the faith.” The distinction is important, as seen by 1 John 2:19.

4. What are the various views on perseverance? What is the Presbyterian view?

Three views are found among Protestant Christians. First, one popular view is that once a person has made a “decision” or prayed “the sinner’s prayer” (that is, once someone has professed faith) they are thereby regenerated and thus can never lose their salvation no matter how they live from then on (often called “easy believism”). Second, there is the Wesleyan-Arminian view that says that those who truly believe and who have truly been regenerated can lose their salvation by failing to keep up their faith [but they can also later be “saved” again]. Third, the Calvinistic view that says all who truly embrace Christ by faith are eternally saved. Those who are saved are sanctified by the Spirit and persevere in the faith by his grace (often called “perseverance of the saints”).