Semi-Churched

From Kevin DeYoung:

This is one of those posts I’ve wanted to write for awhile, but I wasn’t sure how to say what I think needs to be said. The danger of legalism and false guilt is very real. But so is the danger of disobedience and self-deception.

I want to talk about church members who attend their home church with great irregularity. These aren’t unchurched folks, or de-churched, or under-churched. They are semi-churched. They show up some of the time, but not every week. They are on again/off again, in and out, here on Sunday and gone for two. That’s the scandal of the semi-churched. In fact, Thom Rainer argues that the number one reason for the decline in church attendance is that church members don’t go to church as often as they used to.

We’ve had Christmas and Easter Christians for probably as long as we’ve had Christmas and Easter. Some people will always be intermittent with their church attendance. I’m not talking about nominal Christians who wander into church once or twice a year. I’m talking about people who went through the trouble of joining a church, like their church, have no particular beef with the church, and still only darken its doors once or twice a month. If there are churches with membership rolls much larger than their average Sunday attendance, they have either under-shepherds derelict in their duties, members faithless in theirs, or both.

I know we are the church and don’t go to church (blah, blah, blah), but being persnickety about our language doesn’t change the exhortation of Hebrews 10:35. We should not neglect to meet together, as some are in the habit of doing. Gathering every Lord’s Day with our church family is one of the pillars of mature Christianity.

So ask yourself a few questions.

1. Have you established church going as an inviolable habit in your family?You know how you wake up in the morning and think “maybe I’ll go on a run today” or “maybe I’ll make french toast this morning”? That’s not what church attendance should be like. It shouldn’t be an “if the mood feels right” proposition. I will always be thankful that my parents treated church attendance (morning and evening) as an immovable pattern. It wasn’t up for discussion. It wasn’t based on extenuating circumstances. It was never a maybe. We went to church. That’s what we did. That made the decision every Sunday a simple one, because their was no real decision. Except for desperate illness, we were going to show up. Giving your family the same kind of habit is a gift they won’t appreciate now, but will usually thank you for later.

2. Do you plan ahead on Saturday so you can make church a priority on Sunday? We are all busy people, so it can be hard to get to church, especially with a house full of kids. We will never make the most of our Sundays unless we prepare for them on Saturday. That likely means finishing homework, getting to bed on time, and foregoing some football. If church is an afterthought, you won’t think of it until after it’s too late.

3. Do you order your travel plans so as to minimize being gone from your church on Sunday? I don’t want to be legalistic with this question. I’ve traveled on Sunday before (though I try to avoid it). I take vacation and study leave and miss 8 or 9 Sundays at URC per year. I understand we live in a mobile culture. I understand people want to visit their kids and grandkids on the weekend (and boy am I thankful when ours come and visit). Gone are the days when people would be in town 50-52 weeks a year. Travel is too easy. Our families are too dispersed. But listen, this doesn’t mean we can’t make a real effort to be around on Sunday. You might want to take Friday off to go visit the kids so you can be back on Saturday night. You might want to think twice about investing in a second home that will draw you away from your church a dozen weekends every year. You might want to re-evaluate your assumption that Friday evening through Sunday evening are yours to do whatever you want wherever you want. It’s almost impossible to grow in love for your church and minister effectively in your church if you are regularly not there.

4. Are you willing to make sacrifices to gather with God’s people for worship every Sunday? “But you don’t expect me to cancel my plans for Saturday night, do you? I can’t possibly rearrange my work schedule. This job requires me to work every Sunday–I’d have to get a new job if I wanted to be regular at church. Sundays are my day to rewind. I won’t get all the yard work done if I go to church every week. My kids won’t be able to play soccer if we don’t go to Sunday games. If my homework is going to be done by Sunday, I won’t be able to chill out Friday night and all day Saturday. Surely God wouldn’t want me to sacrifice too much just so I can show up at church!” Not exactly the way of the cross, is it?

5. Have you considered that you may not be a Christian? Who knows how many people God saves “as through fire” (1 Cor. 3:15). Does going to church every week make you a Christian? Absolutely not. Does missing church 35 Sundays a year make you a non-Christian? It does beg the question. God’s people love to be with God’s people. They love to sing praises. They love to feast at the Table. They love to be fed from the Scriptures. Infrequent church attendance–I mean not going anywhere at all–is a sign of immaturity at best and unbelief at worst. For whenever God calls people out of darkness he calls them into the church. If the Sunday worship service is the community of the redeemed, what does your weekly pattern suggest to God about where you truly belong?

The Greatest Obstacle to Personal Happiness

Most people think that sinning is the best way to happiness. Otherwise, why would so many spend their days figuring out how to sin bigger and better?

However, sin is the greatest enemy to our happiness, as the Puritan Ralph Venning convincingly demonstrated many years ago. His teaching is summarized below, but his aim in it all was to show that sin is directly “against man’s good, both present and future, here in time and hereafter to eternity, in this life and world which now is and in that to come. It is against all and every good of man, and against the good of all and every man.”

1. It is against God and therefore against ourselves. Sin is our enemy because it is against God, and separates us from God, who is our greatest good and joy.

2. It is against the good of our body. It has corrupted our blood, made our bodies mortal, rendered us liable to and thereby vile. Before this body is laid in the grave, it is languishing, in a continual consumption, and dying daily, besides all the dangers that attend it from without.

3. It is against the good of our soul. A wrong done to the soul is much more to man’s hurt than a wrong done to the body. Nothing but sin wrongs a man’s soul, and there is no sin which does not do so.

4. It is against our well-being in this life. It deprives us of our livelihood, and of that which makes it worth our while to live. Sin is against man’s temporal good, either in taking it from him, or cursing it to him.

5. It is against our rest and ease. It increases our work, makes it harder, reduces our rest, and disturbs even our sleep.

6. It is against our comfort and joy. Both work and children, areas that should have been full of satisfaction and joy, produce sorrow and toil all our days.

7. It is against our health. It is the source of all diseases and sicknesses.

8. It is against a quiet conscience. Its guilt pierces deeply and painfully.

9. It is is against our beauty. There was no such thing as vanity or deformity till sin entered; everything was lovely before, and man above anything in the inferior world.

10. It is against the loving and harmonious co-habitation of soul and body. They were happily married, and lived lovingly together for a while, till sin sowed discord between them, and made them jar. There is now many a falling out between body and soul, between sense and reason; they pull in different directions; there is a self-civil war.

11. It is against our relationships. Our comfort or sorrow lies much in our relationships, but now that which was made for a help proves only too often a hindrance.

12. It is against our being. Sin aims not only that we should not be well, but that we should not be at all. How many it strangles in the womb! How many miscarriages and abortions it causes! Man no sooner begins to live, but he begins to die.

13. It is against our moral good. It has defiled and debased our body and soul, using each for filthy purposes.

14. It is against every faculty, sense, and member of our body: It is not any one faculty only that sin has defiled, but, like a strong poison, it soaks and eats through them all; so that whereas all was holy, and holiness to the Lord, it is now evil, and evil against the Lord.

15. It is against our memory. How treacherous is our memory as to good! but alas it is too tenacious as to evil!

16. It is against our understanding. It has blinded our understanding, and made us ignorant. It has depraved our understanding, and made us fools.

17. It is against our good in the life to come. If sin had only wronged man in this life, which is but for a moment, it would not have been so serious. But sin’s miserable effects are everlasting: if mercy does not prevent, the wicked will die and rise to die again, the second and a worse death.

You want to be happy? Target sin as your greatest enemy, not your greatest friend. It is the greatest obstacle to your happiness in every way.

And that is why we LOVE the name JESUS, for He shall save His people from their sins (Matthew 1:21)! No one in the universe has done more to promote happiness than Jesus. He saves us from the greatest enemy to our happiness, and saves us to holy happiness and happy holiness forevermore.

My Favorite Santa Claus Story

There are a lot of Santa Claus stories floating around this time of year. Almost all of them are completely based in fantasy. Flying reindeer; a sleigh full of gifts; precarious chimney climbing; a fluffy red suit — all of that is total fiction. But when my kids used to ask me, “Dad, is Santa Claus real?” I didn’t say “No.” In fact, I answered in the affirmative. (Pause for dramatic effect.)
Like any good student of church history, I explained that Santa Claus was actually a fourth-century pastor named Nicholas of Myra who was later considered a saint by the medieval Roman Catholic Church. He was a favorite of Dutch sailors who called him, “Sinter Klaas” (or “Saint Nicholas”) which then came into English as “Santa Claus.” Of course, I was careful to point out that the modern American version of Saint Nicholas bears absolutely no resemblance to the fourth-century pastor from Asia Minor. The real Nicholas did not live in the North Pole. He was not Scandinavian. He did not drive a team of magical caribou. He did not work with elves. Nor did he travel the world every Christmas Eve exchanging presents for milk and cookies. No, he was a pastor. He worshipped the Lord Jesus Christ. And he would have been appalled at the way his legacy has been used to obscure the true meaning of Christmas. But I digress…

My point in this blog post is to relate my favorite story about Nicholas of Myra — the real Santa Claus. There are several historically-based legends about Nicholas — stories about his incredible generosity to the poor (which is where the connection between Santa Claus and gift-giving originates); and stories about how he secured the release of three innocent prisoners who had been condemned to death. But my favorite legend of them all involves the Council of Nicaea in the year AD 325. That council, of course, centered on one primary doctrinal issue: the deity of Jesus Christ. A heretic named Arius, not unlike Jehovah’s Witnesses today, adamantly denied that the Son of God possessed full equality with God the Father. So the Council of Nicaea convened to discuss the controversy, ultimately concluding that Arius was wrong and that his teachings should be condemned. It is in that context that we pick up this fascinating story about Santa Claus. Author William J. Bennett explains the story well:

Tradition says that Nicholas was one of the bishops attending the great council [of Nicaea]. As he sat listening to Arius proclaim views that seemed to him blasphemous, his anger mounted. He must have asked himself: Did I suffer through all those years in prison to listen to this man betray our beliefs?

His anger got the best of him. He left his seat, walked up to Arius, faced him squarely, and slapped his face. The bishops were stunned.

Arius appealed to the emperor himself. “Should anyone who has the temerity to strike me in your presence go unpunished?” he demanded. . . .

[Consequently,] Nicholas found himself under lock and key in another wing of the palace.

But in the end, the bishop of Myra got the result he wanted. When the arguments were done, the council rebuked Arius for his beliefs. The bishops drew up a statement that came to be known as the Nicene Creed, which affirms faith in the Holy Trinity and declares that Jesus is “of one substance with the Father.”

Perhaps Constantine secretly enjoyed watching someone put Arius in his place. Perhaps some of the bishops admired Nicholas for standing up forcefully, if overzealously, for his beliefs. Nicholas must have had friends and supporters in high places, because when the Council of Nicaea concluded, he was set free and his clerical robes were restored.

(William J. Bennet, The True Saint Nicholas [New York: Simon & Schuster, 2009], 38-40.)

So there you have it: the man our society has dubbed “jolly old Saint Nick,” upon hearing Arius openly deny the deity of Christ, became so incensed by Arius’s blasphemy that he stood up, traversed the room, and slapped the heretic in the face — in the midst of an imperial council for all to see. That is pretty dramatic! It’s possible, of course, that this account is only legendary. But even if it is, it is by far my favorite Santa Claus story. It reminds me of the fact that the real “Saint Nicholas” worshipped the Lord Jesus Christ. He was zealous for Christ’s honor and unwavering in his doctrinal convictions. He was even willing to confront error and heresy head on if necessary. (And not merely by putting coal in Arius’s stocking.) In the midst of a holiday season in which our culture tries to obscure the real meaning of Christmas by pointing to Santa Claus, I like to remind people that — if the real Santa Claus were still alive — he would be pointing people to Christ.

Charles Spurgeon: The Heart of a Soul Winner

Hailed as the greatest preacher of nineteenth-century England, Charles Haddon Spurgeon is arguably the preeminent preacher of any century. Regarded as the most widely successful expositor of modern times, Spurgeon heads virtually every list of renowned preachers. If John Calvin was the greatest theologian of the church, Jonathan Edwards the greatest philosopher, and George Whitefield the greatest evangelist, Spurgeon surely ranks as its greatest preacher. Never has one man stood in one pulpit, week after week, year after year, for almost four decades, and preached the gospel with greater worldwide success and lasting impact than Spurgeon. To this day, he remains "the Prince of Preachers."

Through the centuries, expositors such as Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, Calvin, and countless others have committed themselves to preaching in a verse-by-verse style through entire books of the Bible. But this was not Spurgeon's approach. Though he was "an expository preacher par excellence," Spurgeon drew his message each week from a different book in the Bible. This free style distinguished Spurgeon from these other great preachers, positioning him, first and foremost, as an evangelistic expositor.

Throughout his prolific ministry, Spurgeon was consumed with a gospel zeal. He made it his practice to isolate one or a few verses as a springboard to proclaim the gospel. He asserted, "I take my text and make a beeline to the cross." Every time Spurgeon stepped into the pulpit, he set his gaze intently on the salvation of sinners through the proclamation of the saving message of Jesus Christ. As Hughes Oliphant Old notes, Spurgeon was sent "at a particular time to a particular place to preach the eternal gospel for the salvation of souls and God's everlasting glory." Perhaps none can compare with Spurgeon as an evangelistic pastor.

Though he deeply loved theology, Spurgeon stated, "I would sooner bring one sinner to Jesus Christ than unpick all the mysteries of the divine Word." He reveled in seeking the salvation of the lost. Here is how Spurgeon described the central importance of evangelism in his ministry:

I would rather be the means of saving a soul from death than be the greatest orator on earth. I would rather bring the poorest woman in the world to the feet of Jesus than I would be made Archbishop of Canterbury. I would sooner pluck one single brand from the burning than explain all mysteries. To win a soul from going down into the pit, is a more glorious achievement than to be crowned in the arena of theological controversy . . . to have faithfully unveiled the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ will be, in the final judgment, accounted worthier service than to have solved the problems of the religious Sphinx, or to have cut the Gordian knot of Apocalyptic difficulty. One of my happiest thoughts is that, when I die, it shall be my privilege to enter into rest in the bosom of Christ, and I know that I shall not enjoy my Heaven alone. Thousands have already entered there, who have been drawn to Christ under my ministry. Oh! what bliss it will be to fly to Heaven, and to have a multitude of converts before and behind.

To understand this gospel focus is to feel the very pulse of Spurgeon's heart. To grasp this evangelistic zeal is to touch the live nerve of his soul. Simply put, he was compelled to preach the gospel and gather in the lost. As an expositor, Spurgeon truly possessed the heart of a soul-winner.

Why Did God Command the Children of Israel to Kill Every Man Woman And Child In The Promised Land?

Among the countless nuggets of wisdom I have received over the years from my father is this bit of gold—when you are reading your Bible and you come across something that makes you uncomfortable, resist the temptation to simply move on to something else. Where the Bible makes us uncomfortable is precisely where we need to slow down. It is compelling evidence of a specific weakness. When our thoughts or feelings bristle under God's Word, He is right and we wrong.

That said, it is understandable that so many would recoil from God's command that every living person in Canaan be put to death as His people conquer the land. No mercy for those women and children, no compassion on the aged, God's instructions were as clear as they were brutal.

Many outside the faith have planted their flag here, arguing that our God is immoral, monstrous. Many on the fringes of the faith perform sundry exegetical gymnastics to wiggle out from under the account. Many faithful believers are simply puzzled and embarrassed. The God we worship, however, the true and living God, did in fact give this command, and rightly so. If we would rightly worship Him, even here we would praise His name.

There are at least two reasons why God did this. The first is evidenced in what came to pass when Israel did not obey God in this command. God wanted the land cleared of all temptations to His people to turn from Him, His worship and His law. The Canaanites were a threat to the purity of God's people. He had set them apart, consecrated them, adopted them. In giving this order, He was protecting them.

Joshua, for all his faithfulness, left the job unfinished. Once Israel was in the ascendency, once they felt safe, they began to think it might prove helpful to leave some of the Canaanites around, to fetch their water and chop their wood. The book of Judges reveals the results. Those few who were spared became a snare, just as God predicted they would. Soon, everyone did what was right in their own eyes.

Of course one might understand this motive, and still be horrified. These Canaanites were not mere abstractions, but real people. Is it not still rather cruel to kill them all simply for seeking to protect the moral purity of Israel? Perhaps, were that God's only motive. The second reason God commanded them all to be put to death is because they were all, every man, woman and child of them, sinners. And the wages of sin is death. In short, God did this for the same reason He does all that He does, for the good of His people, and for His own glory.

It is because we are sinners, and because God so often showers us with grace, that we lose sight of the justice of God, and the blackness of sin. When we read about the execution of the Canaanites we ought not to ask, "How could God do this?" but "Why does He not kill us all?" The shocking part of the story of the conquest of Canaan is God's love for His rebellious people, not His just wrath toward other rebels. From the moment of our conception we are all under God's just death sentence. Every moment of every day is a momentary stay of execution. When we forget this truth we show ourselves to be the sinners we are. But praise His name, Christ came into the world to save sinners. He who knew no sin became sin for us, and died a sinner's death that we might live. May we who are called by His name never lose either the amazing, or the grace, in amazing grace.

Why We Should Legalize Murder for Hire

I'll be the first to admit it; hit men are shady. But they are shady because they are doing work that no one else wants to do, work that is, in fact, illegal. By labeling contract killing a "crime," we have obscured the fact that hit men provide a valuable service to society. Many women find themselves trapped in unwanted marriages. Matrimony severely curtails a woman's freedom, and husbands can be unreasonably demanding. A woman in such a situation is vulnerable. She sees only one way out, and so she makes the difficult decision to kill her husband.

 But the inconvenient truth is that a woman hiring a hit on her husband will likely have to pay tens of thousands of dollars, with no guarantee that the kill will actually take place. Legalizing the transaction would remove uncertainty. Hired guns could be vetted, trained, and held to professional standards of safety. No one wants a hit to go bad. Removing the threat of prosecution would drastically lower the cost of contract killings. Legalizing murder for hire would bring a sordid industry into the light.

 While divorce may be an attractive alternative to murder for hire in most cases, some women do not have the emotional and financial resources to go through a divorce. A contested divorce can take more than a year to resolve. After attorneys drain the couple's finances, the woman will be left with little money to get on with her life. Additionally, a discrete and well-timed hit protects a husband from the pain of discovering that he is no longer wanted. A truly skilled assassin can take his target painlessly in an instant, without any suffering. The end of a marriage can potentially ruin a woman's life, but if her husband can be taken out quickly and cleanly, it can be a new beginning for her.

 Murder for hire is an uncomfortable subject, and I personally could never order a hit. The better course is to avoid unwanted marriage in the first place. Yet this is not a decision that anyone else can make for a woman. It is her marriage; only she can decide when it must end.

 I realize readers may be hesitant to endorse this proposal, but stop to consider the profound way that the legalization of abortion has taken away the stigma against a woman who wants to kill her child. Abortion was once considered murder and thus could only be obtained secretly and at great risk to women. Now, our country celebrates women who exercise their choice to kill their family members. Why shouldn't we extend this right, and give women the choice to kill their partners?

Church Leaders Who Permit Carnality and False Conversions

Is It Ever OK To Lie?

From Jesse Johnson at The Cripplegate:

Is it ever not a sin to lie? Or—to let the double negative cancel itself out and get right to the chase—does God ever put you in a position where sinning is the right thing to do?

This question is as bothersome as it is perennial. It invariably comes attached to this hypothetical: say you lived in Nazi Germany, and you have Jews hiding in your living room, and the SS guards knock on your door and ask if you are hiding Jews. What do you do? Do you lie?

Let me give you my conclusion, and then try and walk you there with me. First: GOD HATES LYING. So yes, it is always a sin to lie, and no, it is never ok to lie. Proverbs 12:12-13 explains why:

“No disaster overcomes the righteous, but the wicked are full of misery. Lying lips are detestable to Yahweh, but faithful people are His delight.”

Lying lips are one of the seven things that God finds detestable (Proverbs 6:16). Christians are called to let their yes be yes, and lying violates that basic principle (James 5:12). Meanwhile, God is a God of truth (John 14:7), while the devil is the father of lies (John 8:38). Lies are an affront to providence, as they imply that the world would be better if God simply would have worked it out more to our liking. Thus every lie is an attack against the sovereignty of God, and essentially places you in opposition to that which is true. Instead of lying, speak the truth (Col 3:9, Eph 4:22, 24).

It really is that simple.

The Philosophical Problem

The question is it ever ok to lie comes from a faulty ethical construction. In Christian ethics there are basically two schools: graded ethics, and absolute ethics. Graded ethics says there is a triage to God’s commands, and some are more important than others. When they contradict, always follow the more serious one. For example, they would say the duty owed to the Jews hiding in your living room is greater than the commands against lying. So it is better to lie than to betray those in your living room.

On the other hand, those that hold to absolute ethics (like me, Moses, and Jesus) say that all commands from God are binding, and it is never ok to set aside any of them. God doesn’t grade on a curve, so we shouldn’t view his commands in some kind of order of importance.

Those that hold to graded ethics use verses like Mark 12:31 (where Jesus says that Loving the Lord your God and loving your neighbor are the two greatest commandments) as evidence that God holds some of his commands to be higher than the others. Whereas one who follows absolute ethics would look at Mark 12:31 and say that those commands are greater because the other commands are flow out of them—which to say that violating any command would in some way be an offense to either your neighbor or God, but likely both.

The simple problem with the graded-ethics approach is that it is not taught by the Bible—verses like Mark 12:31 notwithstanding. The first person to be stoned to death in the OT was executed for picking up sticks on the Sabbath, so at the very least that causes some problem for the concept of graded morality. Regardless of absolute vs. graded ethics, the first people God strikes dead in the New Testament are Annanias and Sapphira for lying to the Holy Spirit. The moral of that has to be: if you are going to rate sins in some kind of order of seriousness, lying should be pretty close to the top.

The Hypothetical Problem

But this takes us back to the Jews hiding in the living room. What then? Well, when scheming up hypothetical ethical dilemmas, you have to remember that hypotheticals are literally problematic. They are contrived precisely because they expose a supposed weakness in a person’s argument.

So if you are going to play the hypothetical game, remember that God is sovereign, and with that comes his promise that every instance of temptation he will always provide a way of escape (1 Corinthians 10:13)… and that escape is NEVER going to involve sinning. God does not open your escape hatch through sin. In fact, in the context of 1 Corinthians 10, sin is the very thing that God gives you an escape from.

Thus, in any hypothetical moral dilemma you need to remember that there is an unstated contingent—namely, God will give you a way out that does not involve sin.

Back to the guards at the door

So we are back to the guards knocking on the door, and the Jews hiding in the living room. The ground rules are that you can’t sin, and that lying is a sin, and delivering people over to their death is unloving, which is to say that it too is sinful. What is left to do?

Well, this decision is really made before you took the Jews in. When you gave them refuge in your house, you did so while taking responsibility for their safety. If you are brave enough to hide them, then you better be brave enough to protect them. How can you hide them but not be willing to physically defend them? If the guards knock on your door, respond by telling them that they have no right to enter your house, and that what they are doing is morally reprehensible—but that Jesus offers forgiveness for their sins, and they need to repent. Then slam the door, and take the hypothetical from there. A person who is brave enough to lie but not brave enough to be a martyr, isn’t brave at all.

What about war time ethics

As absolutist as that sounds, the Bible keeps room in its moral constructs for war time ethics. God uses countries to bear the sword and punish evil doers. It is expected that war includes both deception and violence. An army can fake left and go right, because they are bearing the sword to suppress evil. But that is fundamentally different than a person—a civilian, if you will—who lies because they have a secret moral agenda. Even if their morality is right, it is undercut by lying because (remember) God will never put you in a position where lying is right thing to do.

What about Rahab

No conversation on lying would be complete without Rahab sneaking on to the set. “What about her?” you ask. “Didn’t she lie?” Well, yes…but that is hardly the point of that narrative. Rahab sided with Yahweh over and against her nation. She heard of God’s work in the wilderness, and when she met the spies, she was soundly converted by faith alone. That faith immediately manifested itself in her devotion to God and his people (James 2:25).

So the point of the Rahab narrative in Joshua 2 is that an idol-worshiping prostitute was radically saved, and that God then used her to help Israel enter the promised land. Did she lie? Yes. She had been a believer for all of ten minutes, so cut her some slack. Is she in the hall of faith in Hebrews 11? Yes. As shocking as it might seem, there are some believers who were both liars and prostitutes (or Sampson, who was a liar while with a prostitute). Yet somehow the gospel is greater than sin, and salvation comes through faith alone. Rahab is always held out as an example of faith for siding with God’s people, and is never held out as an example of lying for the glory of God.

Why I Find Your Pride So Annoying

There is no fault which makes a man more unpopular, and no fault which we are more unconscious of in ourselves.

And the more we have it ourselves, the more we dislike it in others.

The vice I am talking of is Pride. . . .

. . . In fact, if you want to find out how proud you are the easiest way is to ask yourself, “How much do I dislike it when other people snub me, or refuse to take any notice of me, or shove their oar in, or patronise me, or show off?”

The point is that each person’s pride is in competition with every one else’s pride.

It is because I wanted to be the big noise at the party that I am so annoyed at someone else being the big noise.

—C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (1952), chapter 8.

"The Word Is Not In Them"

From Ray Ortlund:

The prophets will become wind;
the word is not in them. Jeremiah 5:13

“[The sermons] are the words of one who has felt himself forced to speak by a greater than human power. . . . the tremendous impetus behind the preacher.”

A report of the preaching of Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, recorded in Iain H. Murray, David Martyn Lloyd-Jones, The First Forty Years, 1899-1939 (Edinburgh, 1982), page 144.

True preaching is more than preaching truth. It is also deeply personal. It rises from within a man. He is fully aware and engaged and intelligent. But he is forced to speak, compelled not by the expectations of others around but by the power of God within.

A man can preach the word, but still the word is not in him. It has not yet become interior to him, experientialized to him, a part of him. Such preaching is mere wind. True preaching is brewed within, as the gospel enters into a man, floods his awareness, rearranges his own interiority, and surges out of him as something divine and yet still his own.

To preach in the power of the Holy Spirit is not to take a good thing and make it even better. Preaching the truth in one’s own strength is destructive (1 Corinthians 1:17). “The word is not in him.” Preaching the gospel in the power of God is the only true preaching. All lesser preaching is sinful and to be repented of.

May the Lord help all of us pastors! May we resolve, God helping us, never again to preach a single sermon without power from on high — and deep within!

Pretty Boy Preachers

From Unashamed Workman:

Dr Steven J. Lawson spoke yesterday to a group of Irish pastors. His subject was “The Gospel Focus Of Charles Spurgeon.” Some of the content was encouraging. Much of it was tremendously challenging. However my ‘personal takeaway’ was Dr Lawson’s discussion of Spurgeon’s bold audacity in the pulpit.

Spurgeon feared no man. Constrained only by the bounds of God’s Word, Spurgeon said what he liked,when he liked, how he liked. The problem with Spurgeon was not that men misunderstood his meaning. The problem was that men understood him completely. Spurgeon’s style was plain, direct, outspoken and urgent. Spurgeon wasn’t trying to be popular. He was trying to bring the ​truth​ to your soul.

In relation to this, Steven Lawson shared two quotes with us. I believe he had borrowed these from Adrian Rodgers. The first quote was,

The pastor should always enter the pulpit with his resignation letter in his pocket.

The other was:

The problem with preachers today is that no-one wants to kill them anymore.

By my observation, this is often true. Many preachers just want to be ‘nice.’ They cherish being winsome above being earnest. They desire popularity above faithfulness. They tremble more at the thought of offending their congregation, than they fear the thought of offending their God.

In the words of Dr Lawson: there are just too many “pretty boy preachers.”

Are you praying for your pastor?

Why Should We Preach Christ in Every Sermon?

From Fred Malone at Founder's Blog:

1. Biblical hermeneutics requires us to preach Christ in every sermon. The historical rise of literal-grammatical-historical hermeneutics in the history of interpretation has been a very good thing. There is general agreement among evangelical teachers that the Bible should be taken literally (unless it uses metaphor, typology, allegory, parable, etc.), grammatically (using the original languages for exegesis), and historically (dealing with the historical context of the text). As part of this method, we also include the idea of “Scripture interpreting Scripture.” This is the foundation of exegeting a text and then expositing it in the sermon. This method is intended to prevent eisegesis in a text in order to be faithful to God’s specific Word. Sometimes, this method is used to justify not preaching Christ in every sermon if He is not mentioned specifically in the text, especially when expounding an OT text.

However, grammatical-historical exegesis is not the complete hermeneutical method used by Reformed interpreters. Reformed hermeneutics espouses grammatical-historical-theological exegesis. The addition of theological exegesis for each text is sometimes called “the analogy of faith.” It means that the exegesis of each text must look at the full theological context in which it resides; i. e., the place in biblical history, the covenant context in which it resides, and its relationship to the overall theology of the Scripture. This means that the overall theology of Scripture, which is Christ-centered, must be included in the full exegesis of the text. This is not eisegesis. It is theological exegesis.

Let me add that this theological element in hermeneutics is not quite the same as “Scripture interpreting Scripture.” An exegete may use cross-reference or word-studies of a text, comparing Scripture with Scripture and still miss the overall theology of Scripture in the exegesis. The analogy of faith takes the whole counsel of God into account, the faith once-for-all delivered to the saints, when interpreting the text. For instance, when preaching on an OT text, one may use the literal-grammatical-historical method, including Scripture interpreting Scripture in cross-references and word-studies, expounding the text faithfully in its original meaning in the OT. However, our Lord explained that He came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets. To explain the OT text and to expound its original contextual meaning without taking into account how our Lord fulfilled it in His person and work ignores the full theological interpretation of the text. So, one may expound accurately the OT text and its meaning in context without its full theological meaning in light of the completion of all revelation according to the analogy of faith.

To preach Christ in every sermon is more than just preaching a text in its literal-grammatical-historical meaning then going off into an unconnected explanation of the gospel. Rather, it is to expound how that text is connected to and fulfilled theologically in Jesus Christ, the theological center of God’s revelation to man. This method does not demean the OT as less inspired or not as important as the NT. Such caveats are not helpful or accurate. Rather, it recognizes that every OT text reaches its full meaning as contributing the revelation of Jesus Christ in all the Scriptures.

One more thing about the theological method of interpretation. It recognizes that all men are born condemned under law in the fall of Adam and that from Gen. 3:15 on, the rest of Scripture reveals the coming of Christ under grace. This is the old Law and Gospel theology that was central to the Reformation’s rediscovery of the gospel. All Scripture must be interpreted in light of the Law and the Gospel theology which reveals Jesus Christ to man. This enables the expositor to preach the gospel in every sermon legitimately without eisegesis. Charles Bridges, in The Christian Ministry, said:

The mark of a minister “approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed,” is, that he “rightly divides the word of truth.” This implies a full and direct application of the Gospel to the mass of his unconverted hearers, combined with a body of spiritual instruction to the several classes of Christians. His system will be marked by Scriptural symmetry and comprehensiveness. It will embrace the whole revelation of God, in in its doctrinal instructions, experimental privileges, and practical results. This revelation is divided into two parts--the Law and the Gospel--essentially distinct from each other, though so intimately connected, that an accurate knowledge of neither can be obtained with the other (222).

2. Biblical example requires us to preach Christ in every sermon. We now live under the New Covenant of Jesus Christ, the completed revelation of God to man. We have been given the full revelation of God in the faith once-for-all delivered to the saints. Our example of preaching and teaching is now displayed in how Christ and His Apostles preached and taught. His teaching of Himself, each sermon in Acts to unbelievers, and each Epistle to believers is fully Christ-centered. Even if we take a text from Christ or the Apostles' writings which do not explicitly mention the Lord Jesus Christ, they must be explained in light of their whole teaching in the context of His message and the whole Epistle’s message. These are our examples of biblical preaching under the New Covenant.

For modern-day examples of such preaching, you only have to look at the greatest preacher of the 19th century, Charles Spurgeon, and the greatest preacher of the 20th century, Martyn Lloyd-Jones. They both followed the grammatical-historical-theological method of hermeneutics to preach Christ in all the Scriptures.

Quote of the Day

“The modern-day gospel says, ‘God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life. Therefore, follow these steps, and you can be saved.’ Meanwhile, the biblical gospel says, ‘You are an enemy of God, dead in your sin, & in your present state of rebellion, you are not even able to see that you need life, much less to cause yourself to come to life. Therefore, you are radically dependent on God to do something in your life that you could never do.” 

– David Platt

Quote of the Day

“If God had perceived that our greatest need was economic, He would have sent an economist.

If he had perceived that our greatest need was entertainment, he would have sent us a comedian or an artist.

If God had perceived that our greatest need was political stability, he would have sent us a politician.

If he had perceived that our greatest need was health, he would have sent us a doctor.

But he perceived that our greatest need involved our sin, our alienation from him, our profound rebellion, our death, and he sent us a Savior.” 

– D. A. Carson

Worship Is More

Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.

—Romans 12: 1–2

Popular opinion these days often limits worship to singing. Music leaders are called “worship leaders.” So the congregation “worships” for a while, and then hears a sermon, possibly followed by more “worship.” True worship, however, includes so much more. Most obviously, it includes the entire activity of the church as she assembles for worship each Lord’s Day, especially the reading and exposition of the Word. But even that is only a small portion of the worship that God expects of us.

Worship does not only occur in public services and assemblies. It should occur in the Christian’s daily living. So Paul exhorted the Christians in Rome, “Offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship.” Theology lived out in responsible action and obedience is worshipping God. When performed in faith, all the duties of the Christian life commanded in Scripture are means of worshipping God. “And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” Worship of God is the supreme end of the Christian church, whether considered locally or universally, or in the individual lives of its members.

—Mark Dever, The Church: The Gospel Made Visible

Sola Scriptura Applied

Behind the assertion that Christian worship must consist of . . . God-prescribed elements is the Protestant understanding of the sufficiency of Scripture—the idea that the Scriptures sufficiently reveal everything God’s people need for salvation, perfect trust, and perfect obedience. The sufficiency of Scripture has many implications, including the conviction that Scripture should regulate the way God’s people should approach God in worship. This principle has often been called “the regulative principle.” The regulative principle applies the Protestant belief in the authority of God’s Word to the particular doctrine of the church (most often it is referenced in discussions of public worship).
Many people have debated what specific applications should be drawn from the regulative principle for the weekly gathering of the saints. For example, does the principle require or forbid taking an offering during a service? having a choir? using drama in lieu of a sermon? and so forth. Yet before the particular points of application are tackled, the basic principle should be clearly and firmly set in place: God has revealed what basic components of worship are acceptable to him. Left to themselves humans do not worship God as they should, not even those who are blessed by him. One needs only to think of the unacceptable sacrifice of Cain or the golden calf of the Israelites.

In response to humanity’s lack of knowledge and desire to worship him rightly, God graciously grants humanity his Word. The first two of the Ten Commandments show God’s concern for how he is to be worshipped. Jesus condemned the Pharisees for aspects of their worship. Paul instructed the church at Corinth on what should and should not occur in their assemblies. In short, recognizing the regulative principle amounts to recognizing the sufficiency of Scripture applied to assembled worship. In the language of the Reformation, it amounts to sola scriptura.

—Mark Dever, The Church: The Gospel Made Visible

Baptism and Maturity

Scripture limits baptism according to spiritual status, not age. But does that mean that children who profess faith should be baptized? Not necessarily. While believer’s baptism does not necessarily mean adult baptism, it is wise to delay baptism until a certain level of maturity is achieved.  Mark Dever writes:

While Scripture clearly reserves baptism for believers, it does not directly address the age at which believers should be baptized. Nor does the command to baptize forbid raising questions about the appropriateness of a baptismal candidate’s maturity. The fact that believers are commanded to be baptized does not give a church license to baptize indiscriminately, especially where maturity-of-life issues make it difficult to assess the credibility of a profession of faith. New Testament baptisms largely appear to have occurred shortly after conversion, but every specific individual mentioned is an adult coming from a non-Christian context, two factors which make the church’s job of attesting to the credibility of a profession of faith simple and straightforward.

As a matter of Christian wisdom and prudence, therefore, the normal age of baptism should be when the credibility of one’s conversion becomes naturally discernable and evident to the church community. A legitimate secondary concern is the effect of the child’s baptism on other families in the church. The least spiritually discerning parents—with the best intentions—have too often brought pressure on their compliant children to be baptized. Such children have thereby been wrongly assured of their salvation and have been further hardened to hearing the gospel later in life. Tragically, the hope they most need may be hidden by the act meant to display it.

—Mark Dever, The Church: The Gospel Made Visible

Outward Signs

Mark Dever on the inseparable relationship of the Word and the ordinances:

When churches practice baptism and the Lord’s Supper, they obey Christ’s teaching and example. In so doing, they portray Christ’s death and resurrection, the testimony of every believer’s own spiritual birth, as well as the church’s collective hope for the final resurrection and reunion with the Lord. These two practices, in short, proclaim the gospel. Thus, even congregations that have long forsaken biblical doctrine regarding regeneration, Christ’s substitutionary death, or the hope of heaven, still proclaim these truths in their liturgies as they reenact these signs. The new birth may be ignored, but baptism portrays it. Christ’s atonement may be denied in the sermon, but the Supper proclaims it. In such cases tradition at the table speaks more truth than the preaching from the pulpit. Practicing baptism and the Lord’s Supper demonstrates obedience to Christ, and they are intended to complement by visible sign and symbol the audible preaching of the gospel.

Conversely, a church fails to obey Christ’s command when it neglects either of these two signs. Such failure removes that church from a submission to the larger teaching of Scripture. And it separates a congregation from the apostolic and universal practice of Christ’s followers. Scripture acts as a counterweight against anyone—whether a congregation or a person—who decides to be a Christian and yet neglects baptism or the Lord’s Supper. This neglect, or denial, separates the person from those who truly follow Christ. While neither baptism nor the Lord’s Supper is salvific, a deliberate neglect of either puts a question mark on any profession of faith. In this sense baptism and the Lord’s Supper act as the marks of a true church. They are the outward signs, or visible boundaries, which distinguish a particular people from the world. Yet matching that outward message is an inward message. The ordinances remind Christians of the fellowship they enjoy with God and one another.

—Mark Dever, The Church: The Gospel Made Visible

Created By God's Revelation

In his book Nine Marks of a Healthy Church, Mark Dever placed expositional preaching at number one. This is no novel opinion. The Belgic Confession of Faith of 1561 also placed preaching of pure doctrine first of three distinctive of a true church. Mark Dever explains why preaching holds such a high position in the life of the church:

God’s people in Scripture are created by God’s revelation of himself. His Spirit accompanies his Word and brings life.

The theme of “life through the Word” is clear in both the Old and New Testaments. In the Old Testament, God created life in Genesis 1 by his breath. God spoke and the world and all living beings were created. In Genesis 1:30, the living creatures are described as having the “breath of life” in them. So in Genesis 2:7, God breathed this same breath of life into those creatures made specially in his image—men and women.

After the first man and woman fell away from God by rebelling against him, God sustained them and their descendants by his word—a word of promise given to them in Genesis 3:15. Again in Genesis 12:1–3, his word called Abram from Ur of the Chaldees to become the progenitor of God’s people. In Exodus 3:4, God called on Moses with his word to bring his people out of Egypt. In Exodus 20, God gave his people his 10 “words,” and throughout the Pentateuch, God’s Word is the shaping influence on his people. Throughout the Old Testament, God ministered to his people by his word. He created them and recreated them through the priests’ teaching of the law and the prophets’ inspired guidance.

Ezekiel 37 presents a dramatic picture of recreation in particular. The people of Israel were in exile, depicted as an army so devastated only their bones remained. God commanded the prophet Ezekiel to preach to these bones. As Ezekiel did, the Spirit of God accompanied Ezekiel’s words, and the bones were brought to life:

And as I was prophesying, there was a noise, a rattling sound, and the bones came together, bone to bone. I looked, and tendons and flesh appeared on them and skin covered them, but there was no breath in them. Then he said to me, “Prophesy to the breath; prophesy, son of man, and say to it, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe into these slain, that they may live.’” So I prophesied as he commanded me, and breath entered them; they came to life and stood up on their feet—a vast army. (vv. 7–10)

The consistent message of Scripture is that God created his people and brings them to life through his word.

Moving to the New Testament, God’s word again plays the central role as the bringer of life. So the eternal Word of God, the Son of God, became incarnate for the salvation of God’s people (John 1:14). Jesus came to preach God’s word, to uniquely embody it, as well as to accomplish God’s will through his perfect life, atoning death, and triumphant resurrection. He founded his church and taught his followers to go into all nations, preaching the message of reconciliation to God through faith in him (Matt 28:18–20). Therefore, Paul wrote that “faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ” (Rom 10:17).

—Mark Dever, The Church: The Gospel Made Visible

Not Evangelism

Evangelism means preaching the gospel. That is all, and there is no substitute.

[S]ocial action or “mercy ministries” (e.g., soup kitchens, medical clinics, etc.) must never be mistaken for evangelism. They may be a means to evangelism, but they are not evangelism. The church’s main responsibility is gospel proclamation. Nothing must obscure the church’s central obligation to preach the gospel. Expounding Scripture in the local church equips members to understand and express God’s character of justice and mercy appropriately to the world. And this rightly means touching on issues of poverty, gender, racism, and justice from the pulpit. Such teaching, however, should normally occur without committing the church to particular public policy solutions. For example, Christian preachers could strenuously advocate the abolition of human trafficking without laying out specific policy proposals for how to do it. Christian preaching can speak to [sic] what ought to be done without assuming it has the expertise to untangle all the means necessary for achieving those good ends.

A non-Christian’s greatest need is to hear the gospel. The proclamation of the gospel addresses the greatest part of human suffering caused by the fall. It is central to fulfilling the Great Commission (Matt 28:18–20). And it is central to fulfilling the great commandments (Mark 12:29–31; cf. Gal 6:2). For the Christian these commandments must lie at the heart of any cultural mandate (Gen 1: 28).

—Mark Dever, The Church: The Gospel Made Visible

What Is A Christian?

What is a Christian? 

One who, by the grace of God, can declare that he justly deserves the wrath of God, save for the mercy of Jesus Christ alone. He casts aside all hope in his self-righteousness and puts away all pride in his own goodness. One who is glad to be regarded as spiritually bankrupt, a poor sinner, saved by the free grace and righteousness of Christ and, with a grateful heart, yields in allegiance to Him alone as LORD and sovereign. In a word, one who "glories in Christ Jesus and has no confidence in the flesh." (Phil. 3:3)


How about you?  What would you say?

Three Ways, Not Just Two

Ray Ortlund writes:

Your life and mine are not so simple as a question of doing the Lord’s work versus doing the devil’s work. We face not two but three possibilities: (1) doing the Lord’s work in the Lord’s way, (2) doing the Lord’s work in our own way, (3) doing the devil’s work. And the great divide is not between 2 and 3 but between 1 and 2.

To do the Lord’s work in the Lord’s way is to humble ourselves and prayerfully depend on the power of the Holy Spirit, according to Scripture alone, moment by moment.

To do the Lord’s work in our own way is to move forward with our good intentions and true theology and just keep doing what seems obvious and successful and even right. But on that final day, the Lord will look at it and say, “This belongs not to me, but to you. It was not for me, but for your own glory. I do not see it as an accomplishment. I see it as a hindrance.” And it will fall from our hands forever.

It gets worse.

To do the Lord’s work in our own way is to risk doing the devil’s work. When Peter tried to persuade Jesus to bypass the cross, the Lord said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan” (Matthew 16:23). How did Peter go so shockingly wrong? Jesus explained: “You are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.” Peter did not have to set his mind on the things of Satan to become useful to Satan. All he had to do was set his mind on the things of man. On obvious, understandable, human things. Like survival, popularity, saving face, and so forth. That’s all it takes. It is easy, even natural. Which is why Jesus had to tell Peter what was really going on. Peter hadn’t decided for Satan. He had just proceeded in his own way, without allowing himself to be overruled by the counterintuitive ways of God revealed in Scripture. If we are not consciously redirecting ourselves into the surprising ways of God, the Lord stops using us and must say to us as, in fact, he said to no one less than the apostle Peter: “You are a hindrance to me.”

To do the Lord’s work in our own way is to become destructive with good intentions, true theology and what seems obvious, successful and right.

To do the Lord’s work in the Lord’s way is searching and costly. We pay a price. But it is glorious. The Lord himself is in it. And he is nowhere else.

How Can We Tell When God Is Really At Work?

In The Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God (1741), Jonathan Edwards pulled out of 1 John 4 the biblical indicators that God is at work, even if the people involved are complicating it with their own sins and eccentricities. And we do complicate it. In this life, the work of the gospel is never pure, always mixed. But we do not need to be stuck in analysis-paralysis. The true gold of grace is discernible, within all the mess, in four ways:

One, when our esteem of Jesus is being raised, so that we prize him more highly than all this world, God is at work.

Two, when we are moving away from Satan’s interests, away from sin and worldly desires, God is at work.

Three, when we are believing, revering and devouring the Bible more and more, God is at work.

Four, and most importantly, when we love Jesus and one another more, delighting in him and in one another, God is at work.

Satan not only wouldn’t produce such things, he couldn’t produce them, so opposite are these from his nature and purposes. These simple and obvious evidences of grace are sure signs that God is at work, even with the imperfections we inevitably introduce.

If we hold out for perfection, we will wait until we are with the Lord. True discernment keeps our eyes peeled for fraudulence but also unleashes us, and even requires us, to rejoice wherever we see the Lord at work right now.

Don’t turn away because of the non-gold; prize the gold. Defend it. Rejoice over it. God is giving it.

The Difference Between Congregational Worship and a Concert

John Piper, writing in 2008:


Thirteen years ago we asked: What should be the defining sound of corporate worship at Bethlehem, besides the voice of biblical preaching?

We meant: Should it be pipe organ, piano, guitar, drums, choir, worship team, orchestra, etc. The answer we gave was “The people of Bethlehem singing.”

Some thought: That’s not much help in deciding which instruments should be used. Perhaps not. But it is massively helpful in clarifying the meaning of those moments.

If [our church] is not “singing and making melody to the Lord with [our] heart,” (Ephesians 5:19), it’s all over. We close up shop. This is no small commitment.

James K. A. Smith, writing last year, made a similar point. While there may be a few exceptions to what he says here, I think he’s exactly right with regard to the main thrust of Christian congregational worship.

1. If we, the congregation, can’t hear ourselves, it’s not worship.
Christian worship is not a concert. In a concert (a particular “form of performance”), we often expect to be overwhelmed by sound, particularly in certain styles of music. In a concert, we come to expect that weird sort of sensory deprivation that happens from sensory overload, when the pounding of the bass on our chest and the wash of music over the crowd leaves us with the rush of a certain aural vertigo. And there’s nothing wrong with concerts! It’s just that Christian worship is not a concert. Christian worship is a collective, communal, congregational practice–and the gathered sound and harmony of a congregation singing as one is integral to the practice of worship. It is a way of “performing” the reality that, in Christ, we are one body. But that requires that we actually be able to hear ourselves, and hear our sisters and brothers singing alongside us. When the amped sound of the praise band overwhelms congregational voices, we can’t hear ourselves sing–so we lose that communal aspect of the congregation and are encouraged to effectively become “private,” passive worshipers.

2. If we, the congregation, can’t sing along, it’s not worship.
In other forms of musical performance, musicians and bands will want to improvise and “be creative,” offering new renditions and exhibiting their virtuosity with all sorts of different trills and pauses and improvisations on the received tune. Again, that can be a delightful aspect of a concert, but in Christian worship it just means that we, the congregation, can’t sing along. And so your virtuosity gives rise to our passivity; your creativity simply encourages our silence. And while you may be worshiping with your creativity, the same creativity actually shuts down congregational song.

3. If you, the praise band, are the center of attention, it’s not worship.
I know it’s generally not your fault that we’ve put you at the front of the church. And I know you want to model worship for us to imitate. But because we’ve encouraged you to basically import forms of performance from the concert venue into the sanctuary, we might not realize that we’ve also unwittingly encouraged a sense that you are the center of attention. And when your performance becomes a display of your virtuosity—even with the best of intentions—it’s difficult to counter the temptation to make the praise band the focus of our attention. When the praise band goes into long riffs that you might intend as “offerings to God,” we the congregation become utterly passive, and because we’ve adopted habits of relating to music from the Grammys and the concert venue, we unwittingly make you the center of attention. I wonder if there might be some intentional reflection on placement (to the side? leading from behind?) and performance that might help us counter these habits we bring with us to worship.

You can read the whole thing here.

14 Ways to Use the Bible

The Bible is wonderful because it gives us a knowledge of God, of men, of the universe, and of redemption.

No other book can be compared to it in this respect, but it not only informs us about these important truths, it also tells us what we are to do with it.

We have within the Bible itself instruction as to our attitude toward it.

In it we are exhorted to:

1. Read it. Nehemiah 8:8. And may I suggest that it be read slowly, carefully, prayerfully, in large portions, repeatedly, reverently and with a willing spirit to follow its precepts.

2. Believe it. Romans 10:8. Because it is the Word of faith. It has been given to increase our faith in God and His working in the Universe.

3. Receive it. James 1:21. Here it is the engrafted word that is to be received as the soil received the seed, or the tree receives the graft. Taking the Word of God in our heart life, allowing it to grow and bear its own fruit in motives and actions.

4. Taste it. Proverbs 19:10. For it is the good Word of God. Some seem to be afraid of the Bible for fear it will require them to do something they do not wish to do. Be not afraid; it is good and right in all its requirements.

5. Eat it. Jeremiah 15:16. This process suggests that we not merely taste but actually live by it, as Jesus said, “Ye shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.” Matthew 4:4.

6. Hold it fast. Titus 1:9. It is a faithful word. All its promises are true; all its history is true; and its statements are truth. Therefore we are to rest our faith upon it.

7. Hold it forth. Philippians 2:16. Because it is the Word of Life. All who come under its beneficent rays feel its life giving power.

8. Preach it. 2 Timothy 4:2. Here it is called simply the Word. It suggests that we are not to preach any one part of it or any one phase of it, but preach it in its entirety and fullness.

9. Search it. John 5:29. This suggests work and patience. The Greek word carries the idea of “ransack” as the housewife goes through the home at housecleaning time; or “to track” as the hunter laboriously follows the game through the brush, so we are to search for truth and run down the lines of God’s revelations to man.

10. Study it. 2 Timothy 2:15. Here is a word that means close application to the Word of God, as the builder minutely studies the plans of the architect before erecting the structure.

11. Meditate on it. Psalm 1:2. This word has much the same meaning as “eat” for it means literally “to chew the cud.” Turning the Word of God over and over in the mind till the sweetness of its truths feed our souls.

12. Compare it. 2 Corinthians 2:13. This is not so much what we do with the Scriptures as what the Holy Spirit does with them in our hearts. This is a divine commentary always at hand. Or as John puts it in 1 John 2:27, “But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie—just as it has taught you, abide in him.”

13. Rightly divide it. 2 Timothy 2:15. This is not an arbitrary division of subjects but the following of a line of truth from the first place mentioned to the last place mentioned; noticing it in all its relation to other truths and as the word literally means “the cutting of a straight line” of truth in the Bible.

14. Delight in it. Psalm 119:92. Seven times in this Psalm the Psalmist speaks of delighting in God’s word. This should always be the heart ambition and attitude.

Lies Sin Tells Us

LIE: This is such a minor, insignificant sin! It’s not really a big deal in God’s eyes.

TRUTH: Every sin is a horribly offensive to God. Sin is the sum of all evils, the opposite of all that is good, holy, and beautiful. Even the smallest of my sins required the death of the Son of God. There is no such thing as a minor sin. Every sin is cosmic treason.

LIE: I’ll give into sin this one time, then I’ll be done with it. I just need to get it out of my system.

TRUTH: Every time I give into a sin it becomes more difficult to break the power of that sin. Sin has a way of sinking it’s barbed hooks deep into my heart. I can’t simply sin and then walk away from it unscathed. The more I give in to sin, the more entangled I become. Sin always leaves scars.

LIE: This sin is part of who I am. I’ve always struggled this way and I always will sin this way.

TRUTH: Sin does not define my identity! I am a new creation in Christ. Christ has set me free from the enslaving power of sin. I absolutely do not have to obey the sinful passions that surge through me. I may have always struggled this way, but my past does not define my future.

LIE: I need to give in to this sin in order to be happy.

TRUTH: Sin never provides true happiness. It promises sweetness, yet ultimately delivers a payload of destruction, dissastisfaction, ruined relationships, and hardness of heart.

LIE: God wants me to be happy, therefore it’s okay for me to give in to sin.

TRUTH: God does want me to be happy. However, my happiness will only rise as high as my holiness. Sin ultimately erodes and destroys true holiness and true happiness.

Quote of the Day

“Men, your primary responsibility in your home, after your wife, is you to disciple your own children. And if you don’t do it, you’re in sin; you are in sin. And if you turn it over to a Sunday school teacher, you are in sin. And you are to be teaching these children more than just stories about animals that went into Noah’s ark. You’re to be teaching them about God, about radical depravity, about blood atonement, about propitiation, expiation, justification, sanctification; you are to teach your children!”

– Paul Washer

The Goodness of God and the Reality of Evil

Dr. Mohler reflects on the tornado in Oklahoma: “Every thoughtful person must deal with the problem of evil. Evil acts and tragic events come to us all in this vale of tears known as human life. The problem of evil and suffering is undoubtedly the greatest theological challenge we face.”

 
Keep Reading...

Quote of the Day

“…as the pulpit goes, so goes the church. Never has this been more true than it is in this present hour. The fact remains, no church can rise any higher than its pulpit. The spiritual life of any congregation and its growth in grace will never exceed the high-water mark set by its pulpit.”

– Steven Lawson

Quote of the Day

Corporate worship is designed to fill your heart with such excitement and contentment with God's glory that no other glory can compete.

Three Reasons to Think About Heaven

The Word of God is far from silent on what eternity will be like in the eternal heaven (i.e. the New Earth). But why has God seen fit to reveal these truths to His people?

There are at least three reasons why the future reality of heaven ought to influence believers in the present. These might be summarized as: hope, holiness, and the honor of God.

Hope. The reality of heaven provides hope for the future, even in the face of trials or death. Thus Paul could tell the Thessalonians that believers do not grieve “as the rest of the world who have no hope” (1 Thess. 4:13). As Charles Spurgeon observed:


The very happiest persons I have ever met with have been departing believers. The only people for whom I have felt any envy have been dying members of this very church, whose hands I have grasped in their passing away. Almost without exception I have seen in them holy delight and triumph. And in the exceptions to this exceeding joy I have seen deep peace, exhibited in a calm and deliberate readiness to enter into the presence of their God.

Writing about his trials, the apostle Paul similarly explained to the Corinthians, “For momentary, light affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison, while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal.” Because believers know what the future ultimately holds, they can face the temporal troubles of this life with confidence and courage.

Holiness. In addition to producing hope, the reality of heaven promotes holiness in the lives of the redeemed. In the words of one commentator, “The New Jerusalem is the reality that finalizes the hopes of God’s people and rewards them for all they have endured. It also is intended to spur the readers to greater faithfulness in the present, knowing what is at stake” (Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, 727.)

Recognizing that they will soon be in the presence of their heavenly King, those who belong to Christ desire to please Him and reflect His perfect character in every way possible. As the apostle John wrote in his first epistle, “We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is. And everyone who has this hope fixed on Him purifies himself, just as He is pure” (1 John 3:2b–3).

Believers understand that they will be rewarded by Christ for their faithfulness in this life (2 Tim. 4:8). The reality of a heavenly future puts the priorities and pursuits of this life in proper perspective (cf. Matt. 6:19–21). Such an eternal mindset motivated the nineteenth-century missionary, Adoniram Judson, who said:


A few days and our work will be done. And when it is once done, it is done to all eternity. A life once spent is irrevocable. … Let us, then, each morning, resolve to send the day into eternity in such a garb as we shall wish it to wear forever. And at night let us reflect that one more day is irrevocably gone.

Those words echo the heartbeat of the apostle Paul, whose entire ministry was motivated by eternal concerns. As he told the Corinthians, “Therefore we also have as our ambition, whether at home or absent, to be pleasing to Him. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad” (2 Cor. 5:9–10).

The Honor of God. Finally, biblical eschatology provides a vivid reminder of the fact that the purpose behind all of salvation history is the glory of God. Ultimately the manifestation of that glory will culminate in the blazing light of the new heavens and earth. It will radiate throughout the New Jerusalem and engulf every one of heaven’s inhabitants. For all of eternity, believers will bask in the wonder of God’s grace and glorify Him for His infinite mercy and kindness. The unmerited favor of God will thrill the hearts of the redeemed throughout all of eternity, and they will praise and exalt Him as a result. The awe of redemptive love will fuel their worship. As Richard Baxter so aptly expressed,


As we paid nothing for God’s eternal love and nothing for the Son of His love, and nothing for His Spirit and our grace and faith, and nothing for our eternal rest… what an astonishing thought it will be to think of the unmeasurable difference between our deservings and our receivings. O, how free was all this love, and how free is this enjoyed glory. . . . So then let DESERVED be written on the floor of hell but on the door of heaven and life, THE FREE GIFT.

With inexhaustible joy, believers from every age of human history will join together in unending adoration and thanksgiving to God for the unmerited kindness of His grace (cf. Rev. 5:9–14). Clearly, the reality of heaven ought to motivate believers in their homeward journey, as they navigate through this world as sojourners and citizens of another realm (Phil. 3:20). To do that effectively, they must set their eyes on Him and the glorious future He has promised (Col. 3:1–2; Heb. 12:1–2). Focusing on God’s kingdom in eternity is not a hindrance to the life of faith; it is the essence of it (Heb. 11:16). As one evangelical author rightly concludes:


Understanding Heaven doesn’t just tell us what to do, but why. What God tells us about our future lives enables us to interpret our past and serve him in our present. . . . We need to stop acting as if Heaven were a myth, an impossible dream, a relentlessly dull meeting, or an unimportant distraction from real life. We need to see Heaven for what it is: the realm we’re made for. if we do, we’ll embrace it with contagious joy, excitement, and anticipation. (Randy Alcorn, Heaven, 443)

Quote of the Day

What will it cost to be a true Christian? “it will cost him his self-righteousness. He must cast away all pride and high thoughts, and conceit of his own goodness. He must be content to go to heaven as a poor sinner, saved only by free grace, and owing all to the merit and righteousness of another.”

– J. C. Ryle

Quote of the Day

“Missions is not the ultimate goal of the church. Worship is. Missions exists because worship doesn’t.”

– John Piper

Quote of the Day

“God’s sovereignty does not negate our responsibility to pray, but rather makes it possible for us to pray with confidence.”

– Jerry Bridges

Quote of the Day

“The religion of some people is constrained, like the cold bath when used, not for pleasure, but from necessity for health, into which one goes with reluctance, and is glad when able to get out. But religion to the true believer is like water to a fish; it is his element; he lives in it and could not live out of it.”

– John Newton