Pastors Should Blog

Without giving extra-biblical mandates, Abraham Piper provides six winsome reasons why blogging is advantageous and fruitful for pastors. From the the DesiringGod blog (where else?), the son of John Piper encourages pastors about this online medium with words such as below:

There is no better way to simply and quickly share your writing than by maintaining a blog. And if you’re serious about your blog, it will help you not only in your thinking, but in your discipline as well, as people begin to regularly expect quality insight from you.

Piper continues by saying the blog is handy for further developing sermon points and recommending resources and materials to your people. He adds:

And more than just a catch-all for sermon spill-over, a blog is a perfect place for those 30-second nuggets of truth that come in your devotions or while you’re reading the newspaper. You may never write a full-fledged article about these brief insights or preach a whole sermon, but via your blog, your people can still learn from them just like you did.

Abraham's entire post can be found here.

For the "preacher boys," perhaps we're a step ahead--or maybe we just talk too much and are presumptuous to think others would even care about our thoughts on various topics. Probably a little of each.

Still, we should "fight the good fight" and keep blogging.

Apologetics Bible

I just read an article about the new Apologetics Study Bible released by B&H publishing Group of LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention. The article contained an answer to the question of Jesus’ resurrection from a historical standpoint.

The answer is from William Lane Craig a research professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, Calif. He has an irrefutable answer and is one of the best apologetics speakers I have ever heard on the existence of God, Jesus’ resurrection etc…

A few years ago I attended a debate at UT on the existence of God. He is a brilliant and articulate debater. He won hands down and the whole audience knew it.

(Now, you guys know I am all about apologetics, so do not take this the wrong way.)

To my total amazement when they opened the session for Q& A time, one of the questions was concerning Noah’s flood. Dr. Craig just bushed the question aside and said something like: I believe in a local flood anyway. I could not believe what I was hearing.

Scripture will not allow a local flood.

I don’t understand how somebody can be such an ardent defender of one part of Scripture and then when it comes to Genesis they just allegorize it, or explain it away.

John 5:46-6:1
46 For had ye believed Moses , ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Kent

Spurgeon's Writings

I was listening to a sermon today and the pastor was referencing Spurgeon’s books. He stated that Spurgeon had a great sense of humor and liked to use illustrations. However, he stated that all of his humor and illustrations had been deleted from his sermons. I had not heard this before. Maybe Elijah could check up on this at Southern, of course in all his spare time.

Kent

R.C. Sproul & Ben Stein: "Intelligent" Conversation

With the the release of the film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed coming nationwide on April 18, R.C. Sproul sat down for a conversation with Ben Stein, the narrator of the film and an avid supporter of the Intelligent Design movement. When two conservative intellectuals like these hold a discussion pertaining the implications of Darwinian thinking and its academic bias, you can't afford to miss out! The video works as a great overview for any of you who want to brush up on your apologetics in arguing against evolution (or just want clearer thinking on the subject). The video can be viewed above or here.

Here is an excerpt from the the Ligonier Ministries blog describing the video:

Many of you may recognize Mr. Stein as the teacher in the 1986 film, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, but he is also a writer, public speaker, and political activist. Recently, he became deeply involved in a film project that challenges the neo-Darwinian scientific community and exposes their hostility to intelligent design and all those who believe in it. The producers of Renewing Your Mind caught up with Mr. Stein during a preview of his new film entitled Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. The movie opens nationwide April 18. (In this reviewer's opinion, the Stein/Dawkins face off at the end of the film is worth the price of admission.)

Ligonier was also sure to note the following:

It is important to note that during this free exchange of ideas, not all of the opinions expressed by Mr. Stein in the interview are the views of Ligonier Ministries. Christians should recognize that the argument from design does not necessarily prove the Genesis view of creation. We are not part of the Intelligent Design movement, but certainly share similar concerns for freedom of speech and inquiries into cosmology. Our foremost concern is to uphold the inerrancy and inspiration of the Bible and the authority of our Creator.

Don't let that discourage you from watching. This conversation provides an excellent overview of the philosophical and scientific reasons not to embrace Darwinian evolution as it's currently taught. Furthermore, Sproul mentions many of the same reasons for not holding to naturalistic materialism that he expounds upon in his introductory work on classical apologetics -- Defending Your Faith. At the clip's end, Ben Stein himself breaks into enthusiastic praise of Sproul's sharp wit and vast knowledge of Western philosophy.

Did Jesus "Descend into Hell"?

With the advent of Easter, or I should say "Resurrection Day," John Piper discusses whether or not Jesus went to hell in between His death and resurrection. From the DesiringGod blog, Piper writes:

The Apostles’ Creed says, “[He] was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell. The third day He arose again from the dead.” There are many meanings given to this phrase. I simply want to ponder the traditional interpretation that Christ went to the place of the dead to preach the gospel to Old Testament saints that he might set them free for the full experience of heaven. This is the view of the Catholic Catechism and many Protestants as well. I don’t think this is what the New Testament teaches.

Piper mentions two passages from 1 Peter from where this idea is derived, specifically 1 Peter 3:18-20 which reads, "... being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah..." Piper explains:

With regard to 1 Peter 3:19, I take these words to mean that Christ, through the voice of Noah, went and preached to that generation, whose spirits are now “in prison,” that is, in hell. In other words, Peter does not say that Christ preached to them while they were in prison. He says he preached to them once, during the days of Noah, and now they are in prison.

Before stating his solution to remove the phrase "descended into hell" from the Apostles' Creed, Piper summarizes his interpretation.

I would say, therefore, that there is no textual basis in the New Testament for claiming that between Good Friday and Easter Christ was preaching to souls imprisoned in hell or Hades. There is textual basis for saying that he would be with the repentant thief in Paradise “today” (Luke 23:43), and one does not get the impression that he means a defective place from which the thief must then be delivered by more preaching.

To read the entire post, click here.

Piper commented more on the idea of Jesus' descent to the netherworld on an edition of "Ask Pastor John." There, he deals with the Ephesians 4:9 verse that says Christ "descended into the lower parts of the earth" and explains the phrase as meaning the earth, which is the lower parts. To read or listen to Piper's explanation, click here.

Arminian Encounter in Crossville?

Don't let your eyes deceive you. I had an encounter this Wednesday with some of the most apparently Armenian people I've ever met. And of all places, I ran into them at a winery! I thought most Arminians were opposed to alcohol consumption. They must not have been Baptist.


Of course, if you've paid close attention, I was speaking of Armenians with an e rather than an i. The folks pictured are from the Repulic of Armenia, three of them at least. The other three are from the Republic of Georgia. I took the photo while covering the story for the Crossville Chronicle. These Eastern Europeans had been visiting the states to gain understanding of how American food processing and agriculture works.

I wasn't able to speak with them since they seemed to understand very little English aside from the translator from the Armenian embassy. Had I though, it would've been tempting to tell them I hailed from the "Republic of Calvin."

I say all this to segway into setting up a time where we can together as a blog view the most extensive and well-presented documentary on Reformed theology to ever be produced -- Amazing Grace: The History & Theology of Calvinism.

It would be beneficial for us as the DVD presents of the debate over God's sovereignty in salvation and man's responsibility through the course of church history--from Augustine to the Reformation and on--and then moves on to examine and defend each letter of TULIP by Scripture.

What's more, the second disc is a 45-minute overview of how we apply our understanding of God's purpose in election toward evangelism. It's likely the most comprehensive audio-visual analysis of Calvinism one could find.


Produced by the Apologetics Group, which is now The Nicene Council, the two-disc film runs around 3.5 hours, but it's well worth the investment of time. Since Calvinism is one of the main issues pertaining to the blog, and many of you have yet to see the DVD even though it's been in my possession for more than two years, I thought viewing it together as a blog might be the best way to organize a time we can collectively set aside for the film. Any ideas? Maybe a Friday or Saturday in the coming weeks?


I plan to be in Kingston Saturday, March 29, if everyone interested would want to try that date. Throw some suggestions out there until we can come to a consensus. This is way too exciting of a possibility for me to not to at least offer. With as much certainty as a finite, fallible human can muster, I can assure everyone they will not walk away from watching the DVD unsatisfied, if not, entirely impressed.

Is Plan B the Best Plan?

There has been a very interesting story taking place in Illinois over the past few weeks. A certain group of pharmacists are not wanting to sell the morning after pill also know as "Plan B," due to the fact that their moral obligations prevent them from doing so. They believe that this pill could potentially exterminate an unborn child from the potential mother's womb. Such a pill would be murder and they do not want to take part in this type of medical treatment.

Fox news has an interesting story by Radley Balko on this here and he makes some very interesting points yet I cannot agree with everything he says. He seems to have the idea that we should just not make people do something. He feels that this would solve the issue. He says:
It seems to me that a good remedy for most of today's contentious issues is to let everyone live his or her life as they please, so long as they do no harm to anyone else.
My biggest problem with that is that there is still the allowance of abortion. That allows the murder of unborn children continue. However here are a few other things that he has said:

...it seems there are some pharmacists who have moral objections to dispensing medication they feel would make them party to an abortion, or at least to the taking of a potential human life. Anti-abortion groups have latched on to their cause, noting that the decision to become a pharmacist doesn't obligate one to facilitate treatments he or she finds morally abhorrent.

On the other side of the debate are the abortion rights groups. They want widespread access to these medications, arguing that ending a pregnancy essentially before it has begun ought to be more acceptable to anti-abortion groups than ending one when the fetus is more fully developed. We can't allow rogue pharmacists to leave women in a lurch (some not only refuse to fill prescriptions, they sometimes destroy them), they say.

Notice that the abortion rights groups are wanting us to compromise what we believe. Saying that ending the pregnancy "before it has begun" should be more acceptable to us. The probelm with that logic is that most people that hold to the anti-abortion side believe that life starts at conception. We do not think that it is any less malicous to kill a baby that is only a few hours old than we do one that is seven or eight or nine months old before it is born.

He continues:

Abortion-rights supporters are pushing for laws that would require every pharmacy to stock controversial medication (laws requiring the morning after pill to be on the shelves are already in place in Illinois and Massachusetts). They argue that because pharmacy is a heavily-regulated field in an area as important as health care, the state is obligated to ensure that everyone has access to all available treatments. Further, they argue, in some areas of the country, there may only be one pharmacy. Consumers don't have other options. If the only pharmacy in town won't stock birth control, they say, women in that town have effectively been denied their reproductive freedom.

What about that child's right to live? Is a woman's personal freedom to not have children more important than the sanctity of human life? Balko answers these questions about women's "rights" when he says:

This too is nonsense. The rights guaranteed to us in the Constitution are only guarantees against government trespasses. There is no "right" to goods, services, or care that someone else has to provide. Suppose, for example, that there is only one doctor in town. Would it also be acceptable to require him to perform abortions, even if he found them morally repugnant? What about breast augmentation? What if there were only one pharmacy in town, but it had to close for economic reasons? Could the town pass a law forcing its owners to operate the business at a loss, under the same justification that residents have a "right" to medication?
The solution is simple: If you don't like a particular pharmacy's policy regarding birth control or abortion-related medication, don't shop there. And if you're a pharmacist? Don't work there. But stop using the law to force everyone else to think, act, and believe as you do.

I agree with much that Balko says here but I have my disgreements as well. Over all I did like his article.
One time I had a teacher in school tell us that a single asprin could act as birth control that was 100% effective. If a woman would put the asprin between her knees anytime that she felt like having sex and hold it there until the urge passed, there is no way that she would ever get pregnant. What my teacher meant was absolutely right. The solution was very simple: If you do not want the possiblity of having children, don't have sex!

Proof Noah's Flood was Local

Photo unearthed in Middle East showing proof the Biblical flood was only local to the Mesopotamian area.

Easter Week in the American Culture

Just as the American culture so often does with holidays, it has distorted what Easter is supposed to stand for. To most people this holiday is nothing more than just that, another holiday. A weekend where we get three days instead of two and a time for rest and relaxation. Any reference to the cross or to the resurrection is gone.

When one in today's society hears the word "Easter" they do not generally associate this with a Christian holiday. They think of small children frolicking gleefully in the lush green pastures beneath the crisp blue sky while beams of sunshine kiss their cheeks as the search for beautifully colored eggs filled with chocolaty candies and sugary sweets. Sadly, Easter has become nothing more than another commercial holiday in the secular realm.

What is even more sad is how this idea has permeated into Evangelicalism. A great number of Christians do more to enjoy the "holiday" of Easter rather than remember the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Now, please don't misunderstand me here. I am not saying that I believe Easter egg hunts or enjoying candy to be immoral. They are fine, but they have their place and their place is certainly not above Christ and his sacrifice. Easter should be a time of remembrance and appreciation of the sacrifice of the lamb of God. Jesus was the lamb of God that was slain as the sacrifice for the sins of all who would believe in him. The Bible says:

But He was pierced through for our transgressions,He was crushed for our iniquities;The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,And by His scourging we are healed.
Is. 53:5

He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification.
Rom. 4:25

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures
1 Cor. 15:3-4

Just as many were astonished at you, My people, So His appearance was marred more than any man And His form more than the sons of men.
Is. 52:14

Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered. And having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation
Heb. 5:8-9

And most importantly during Easter:

The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid; for I know that you are looking for Jesus who has been crucified. "He is not here, for He has risen..."
Matt. 28:5-6

Easter is to be a time of celebration and praise to our Savior Jesus Christ for suffering on our behalf and for rising from the dead as proof of our justification. What a glorious time of year this is for Christians! We serve a risen Savior. The icy cold fingers of death could not hold him for Jesus holds the keys to death, hell and the grave. My family has started a new tradition this year. We will be eating lamb at least one time during the Easter weekend to remind us of the spotless and innocent lamb that was slain on our behalf. Praise God for His perfect sacrifice!

A Powerful Lesson from ER

Yes, you read correctly. The NBC drama series ER points to our desperate need for reconciliation with God and how postmodern, new age concepts fall way short in dealing with our guilt and the reality of sin. At this point, I'll stop and let the YouTube clip speak for itself. Below is an excerpt from the Way of the Master describing the video:

A number of people called our attention to this clip from the popular TV series ER. It really is amazing for secular televison. The "Fair Use" law allows us to teach from it without violating copyright laws. Please send it all over the Internet.

Since I'm not sure how to embed the video on the blog, here is the URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06HGc_jb6tk

It's around nine and one-half minutes, but it's well worth your time. I encourage you to pass it on to as many as you can, believer and unbeliever alike.

Spurgeon on the Rapture

Charles Spurgeon rarely laid out his eschatological beliefs. He was more concerned with "Where are YOU going to spend eternity" than "when and how is eternity coming."

let me know what you think:

" If thou art now broken in pieces by a little adversity, what will become of thee in the day when all the tempests of God shall be let loose on your soul? If thou hast run with the footmen, and they have wearied thee, what wilt thou do in the swellings of Jordan? If thou canst not endure the open grave, how canst thou endure the trump of the archangel, and the terrific thunders of the last great day? If thy burning house is too much for thee, what wilt thou do in a burning world? If thunder and lightning alarm thee, what wilt thou do when the world is in a blaze, and when all the thunders of God leave their hiding-place, and rush pealing through the world? If mere trial distress thee and grieve thee, oh, what wilt thou do when all the hurricanes of divine vengeance shall sweep across the earth and shake its very pillars, till they reel and reel again? Yes, friends, I would have you, as often as you are tried and troubled, see how you bear it—whether your faith then stance and whether you could see God's right hand, even when it is wrapped in clouds, whether you can discover the silver lining to the black clouds of tribulation. God help you to come out of the scales, for many are weighed in them and have been found wanting."


Here, it SEEMS that old Charlie Spurge believes that Christians will be present on Earth during the (or at the very least a) great Tribulation.

He references a "burning world," "the trump of the archangel, and the terrific thunders of the last great day."

He's definately not referring to the final judgment here (he does that on the next page).

Problem: it's a little ambiguous as to whether or not he is specifically referring to Christians, the unregenerate, or merely anyone who hears him (i lean to the third option-so far in my reading i find that to typically be the way he preaches [he preaches to everyone, or else he spells out a certain group])

The subpoint in which this quote is found in "the scales of providence" so i assume he's talking to everybody.

THEREFORE, if my interpretation of the sermon is correct, it appears that Spurgeon believed i a post-tribulational rapture.

(The quote was taken from "The Scales of Judgment" NPSP vol. 5, page 261)

(and yes, i wrongfully referred to that as MTP vol. 5 in one of my other comments)

Not that this will help anybody, i just thought it was neat,
--Elijah

Russell Moore on the Atonement

In light of the recent discussions on the atonement, I was pleased to read Russell Moore, Dean of the School of Theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, discuss some of the very issues I wanted clarification upon in regard to the doctrine of Multiple Intentions/Unlimited Limited Atonement.

Moore has been working on a series titled "Theology Bleeds: Great Commission Emphasis." As of late, he has posted a strain of articles on Christ as the Warrior-King claiming His throne through God's plan of redemption. From March 5, in "Triumph of the Warrior-King: A Theology of the Great Commission, Part 3," Moore writes:

The centrality of Christ in the accomplishment of redemption establishes both the universal scope of the mission of Christ and the freeness of the gospel offer, seen in the way Jesus is called the Savior of "the world," literally the entire cosmos (John 3:16-17). The universal scope of the sacrifice of Christ for the sins of the world further grounds the global and cosmic nature of the Great Commission.

Some Christian theologians have tended to abstract the atonement from Christ himself, as though the atonement were simply a strictly commercial transaction of so-much wrath for so-much sin. And yet, the New Testament presents propitiation more specifically in terms of the sinner's union with Christ as his substitute and representative.

Moore argues that Christian theologians, specifically five-point Calvinists, concentrate too much on the atonement in "economic" terms, the proportionate amount of holy wrath for each individual sin. Students at Southern have told me that he calls such historic Reformed view of the atonement "man-centered" since it's so concerned with the sins of individuals rather than Christ's intent to show Himself as King. Furthermore, for us as a blog, we finally have an official statement from a four-point Calvinist in regard to the expected limited atonement objection of double payment.

Not only does Moore note the overemphasis on the balanced equation of divine punishment upon Christ in the place of sinners, he points out in the prior paragraph that the natural understanding of the Great Commission in its universal scope would lead to a natural understanding of an atonement with a universal scope.

Moore continues by explaining how a sinner becomes right with God according to this view.

Thus, the apostle John writes: "And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only but also for the whole world" (1 John 2:2 NKJV, emphasis added). This does not result in universalism precisely because the benefits of the atonement come only through union with Christ the covenant king. Believers, before they came to faith, were not justified before God, and their sins were not seen as propitiated, even though no one disputes that Jesus objectively died for them.

Instead, Scripture writes, we too were "children of wrath, like the rest of mankind" (Eph 2:2 ESV). Jesus propitiates the wrath of God in his sacrifice, but the benefits of this propitiation become the believer's when he comes into union with Christ through belief in the gospel. This faith union is the transition from condemnation to righteousness, from wrath to grace, from the dominion of Satan to the kingdom of Christ (Col 1:13-14). Theologian Bruce Demarest correctly concludes that "by divine intention Christ's suffering and death are universal in its provision and particular in its application."

The SBTS dean is keen to observe that our salvation was not actualized at the cross. We still had to come to faith for the wrath of God to no longer abide upon our heads (John 3:36). In the same sense that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us only at the point of saving faith, the propitiation for our sins does not take place toward us until we individually repent and trust in Christ, which is when we are linked to the atonement's benefits.

In other words, just as God does not see us as righteous before coming to Christ, He does not subside in His just anger toward us until faith links us to Christ as the propitiation (satisfying sacrifice) for our sins. What's more, it was God's intent for Christ to bear the sins of the whole world (meaning every person who ever lived) while only meaning to apply the blessings the atonement brings to the elect, Moore says.

In the footnotes of the post, Moore cites J.L. Dagg's Manual of Theology as a source for this understanding of the atonement. Since I have that book, I will have to brush up on his analysis of the doctrine in the coming days.

Moore also explains the implications this view has toward our understanding of those who never come to trust in Jesus.

Those who refuse to come to Christ insist on standing before God without a Mediator. Thus, they bear their own sins (Num 18:22; John 3:18), and receive a heightened condemnation as those who have "trampled" the blood of Christ (Heb 10:26-31). The freeness of the gospel offer means that Great Commission Christians must crucify any hesitation to proclaim the gospel to any sinner in any place at any time. The gospel of the apostles is not offered only to the elect, but to all sinners without distinction. Thus, Jesus and the apostle Paul calls on Christians to plead with persuasion and urgency for all sinners, on behalf of Christ himself, to be reconciled to God through the atoning mission of Jesus (2 Cor 5:17-63).

Moore's comments do cause me to examine the issue further before coming to a final, case-closed verdict. Of course, as with any doctrine, I must be open to biblical rebuke and correction. Most assuredly, I will post my thoughts in detail once I come to a more comfortable, settled position on the subject.

Finally, regardless of where each of us stand on this issue, let us be faithful to the Great Commission in proclaiming a Christ whose death on a cross at a place called Calvary is sufficient to blot out the transgressions of any sinner.

I'd love to know your thoughts on Moore's commentary and where each one of you lean on the extent of the atonement (and why, if possible).

The entire article on how the atonement relates to the Great Commission can be found here. Russell Moore is the executive director of The Henry Institute (www.henryinstitute.org).

Foreknowledge =? Foreordination

The Misses and I are currently working our way through a study on the doctrines of grace. In the book we are reading, we recently read a chapter on God's foreknowledge of all events (past, present, and future). One of the arguments the author seems to be making can be summed up with the following:

--- Foreknowledge implies certainty. Certainty implies foreordination. ---

Now I am not saying that I disagree with the above. Common sense dictates that this must be true. For example, if I were a teacher giving a pop quiz to my students. For me to have foreknowledge of the quiz answers, I must be certain of the questions on the quiz. For me to be certain of the questions on the quiz, I would have had to have predetermined what they were going to be, whether I created them myself or selected them from a teacher resource book.

What I am attempting to explore with this line of thought (and hopefully discussion) is if there is another possibility, one which we have not considered, such that the summation above is actually a non sequitur argument. Which is to say that though foreknowledge does imply the certainty of events, does certainty really imply foreordination? And the bigger question - Does God's foreknowledge prove foreordination?

I suppose my whole problem with this seemingly common sense observation is that it is just that-common sense, and more specifically common sense from the perpspective of a finite mind. Certainly I have considered that I am overthinking this, but I cannot shake this verse

Isaiah 55:8“ For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” says the LORD.

It just seems to me that by applying our logic and understanding, we are limiting God's power. Thoughts?

True Christians vs. Professed Christians

I have been participating in a public discussion chat room where anyone can start a thread about any subject. There are many threads about politics, sex, race, and a ton about various religions. As you can guess, there are several about "christians" and who Christ actually is.

One that I found particiularly interesting discussed why Christians acted "ugly" toward others. It started talking about sinful nature, the devil, etc. but it broke down into a challenging discussion between professed Christians and those who do not believe (one athesit and one wiccan, in particular).

After "watching from the sidelines" so to speak for several days, I had to inject a question to challenge both sides. My question was: is it easy to be a Christian?

I got a response from the wiccan that it was easy. Just believe in the "big man upstairs" and everything will be just fine. A Christian said it was easy and hard at the same time. A professed non-believer stated that believing and following were different. Toward that end, here is my response and explanation:

Excellent post.You brought up two very important aspects in Christian theology: belief and following.I would agree that it is easy to believe. James 2:19 says that demons believe in God, "You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble!" During His ministry on earth, many demons testified about the "who" Jesus was.Following Jesus becomes more difficult. Christ said that it is difficult to follow Him.In Matthew 16, Jesus states:24 Then Jesus said to His disciples,“If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. 25 For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it."Has anyone ever tried to deny "himself"? You must be willing to give up everything for Christ. Not that Jesus will require you to give up everything, but He might; and to be a true believer you have to be obedient out of your love for Him.Not only that, you have to take up your cross daily. Killing yourself, your nature and leaning wholly on Jesus. You will have to suffer to be a Christian.Christ also speaks of the "narrow gate" that one will pass through into life.Believing = easy. Following = hard. The reason, I feel, that many Christians act ugly is that we fall into the trap of not denying ourselves and not taking up our cross daily. We get so caught up in being a Christian that we don't focus on Christ.My prayer is that those who have been called to be a Christian will be a follower of Christ: A TRUE follower of Christ.

As you can see, a thread like that would challenge many notions of what professed Christians believe. Do we as the church teach and preach the truth about how hard it is to follow Christ? Are we candy-coating the truth too much? Do we try to convince people more then allow God's spirit to work?

My guess would be as a whole the answer would be yes. It is sad, but true.

Opening of a Bible Park in Tennessee

Not saying anything for or against this, but I hope the Noah's Ark ride is
killer...

R

http://www.dnj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080304/NEWS01/803040302/1002

Should Christians Get Tattoes?

Before being certain that the Bible prohibits tattoos, consider
the context of the Leviticus passages. Just like many other laws God
gave to Israel, they seemed "arbitrary" in nature but were done so to
make them stand out amongst the pagan nations. It'd be like saying that
we in America in 2008 are not to "boil a goat in its mother's milk." Is
that a law given to all people at all times or just the ancient
theocracy of Israel to set them apart? I think there may be sin in
getting a tattoo if a Christian were to do so to find their identity
outside of Christ, but I don't think the command given in Leviticus is
in reference to tattoos as they're given nowadays, but to keep Israel
from participating in pagan practices, just like boiling a goat in its
mother's milk was likely some sort of pagan ritual in that day.

Christian Alcohol Consumption

Here is an excellent article written by someone whose credentials I did not look up, but seems to at least take part in the SBC. He presents nearly the same argument about alcohol consumption that many people who have stopped to study the issue (I believe even Mohler) have come up with. As I understand it, Mohler does not allow his students to consume alcohol, but it has nothing to do with biblical condemnation of alcohol consumption (I believe that Josh can weigh in on Mohler's argument better than I could).

In summary of the article (the article is actually about Spurgeon drinking and smoking):
The author agrees that drinking alcohol (in moderation) is not condemned in scripture. Spurgeon later in life chose abstinence because at that period in England there were a lot of people falling into alcoholism and they chose to point to the fact the "Spurgeon drinks" and "Spurgeon smokes" to justify their addiction.

Everyone agrees that if you have a problem with drinking, meaning you cannot in your own mind morally justify it, then you shouldn't drink. If you cannot control your consumption, then you should not drink. I have heard the argument that drinking, like smoking, is bad for your body...that is far from the truth and I can provide you with tons of scientific articles proving that drinking, again strictly in moderation, is very beneficial to your health. Can you give me the same data for Coca-Cola?

People will also argue that preachers should not drink. It is my belief that preachers are men just like the rest of us, so are bound just like we are. If a preacher feels though that he is truly the cause of people in his congregation stumbling into sin (alcoholism) then he should analyze his actions. The Bible says that deacons shouldn't be given to "much wine" but does not say that a deacon should not consume it at all. If you feel that drinking will cause someone you know to become an alcoholic or drunkard, then do not drink with them and do not discuss with them your personal belief, it is your choice to make. They should also understand it is their own choice to make, that they are alone responsible for whatever may come of it.

The author's article points out that you should not condemn a brother for his choice to drink, just as a brother that chooses to drink should also not condemn another that chooses not to. So without further ado...here is the link to the article (don't worry, it's short and easy to read...you don't even have to think a lot as it does not present lots of scripture to analyze, it just provides his opinion about Charles Spurgeon).
http://trevinwax.com/2006/12/06/spurgeon-the-drinker-the-rest-of-the-story/

--David

Unlimited Limited Atonement

I came across this outline when trying to find an adequate explanation
of four-point Calvinist's view of the atonement. Before you dismiss the
argument, please note that it's not the traditional Arminian view of
what Christ did on the Cross that is largely accepted in today's
evangelical churches.

I came to realize that several solid theologians hold this view,
including a few notable ones on faculty at at Southern Seminary. I'm
not swayed by the their position, as I feel the historic Reformed view
of the atonement is already consistent with some of the points it
makes. But I can't be closed off to the possibility that I have wrongly
interpreted the Scripture or imposed the view of the Reformed tradition
upon it. I'll do my best not to be a flip-flopper, but I want to look
at the issue with integrity. As I said, I still heavily lean toward the
historic position of five-point Calvinism on the doctrine.

Still, I send the article so that you would be exposed to it and be
able to think through the doctrine for yourselves. I think the Multiple
Intentions View, as it's called, emphasizes some aspects of what Christ
did that we fail to point out much of the time. The link is to an
outline put together by Bruce Ware from Southern. He's a systematic
theology professor and a very brilliant one at that. The outline should
be in PDF format. Let me know what thoughts you might have.

Thanks to Elijah for bring the issue to my attention following
discussion had in his systematic theology class.

http://www.powerofchange.org/blog/docs/ware_atonement.pdf

Let me know if the link doesn't work. It's well worth your time and
attention.