A Tale of Two Gospels

Mike Riccardi at the Cripplegate writes:

And [Jesus] also told this parable to some people who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt: “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.’ But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!’ I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

- Luke 18:9–14 -



What intrigues me about the Pharisee in this passage is that he thanked God for his moral uprightness and religious devotion. He is not claiming, perhaps like the rich, young ruler did, that he had kept God’s law and thus is deserving of eternal life. He doesn’t believe that he’s earned his salvation by works of righteousness achieved apart from divine grace. No, he goes to thank God for the grace and charity that God had worked in him, by which he has become acceptable to God. He believes that he is justified by his faith in God as well as the good works which proceed from the divinely-imparted righteousness inherent within him. And he does not go to his house justified.

Jesus told this parable to those who trusted in themselves that they were righteous. Apparently, Jesus thinks that if you believe that the ground of your acceptance with God—the basis of your salvation—is an inherent, God-wrought righteousness that is infused or imparted to you, you are trusting in yourself for righteousness. Trusting even partly in your good works as the basis for your salvation—even if you acknowledge and truly believe that they are 100% God-given—will not leave you going to your house justified.

The tax collector was a different story. The tax collector was broken in sorrow over his sin, so much so that he wouldn’t come near the front of the temple—so much so that he was literally and physically bowed low. He had apprehended the severity of his case before a holy God. He recognized that he had no good works by which to commend himself—whether they originated with him or whether they were graces that God worked in him. He despaired of having anything inherent in himself that could merit acceptance with this God of perfect righteousness. His only hope was to cry out for mercy. Literally: “God, be propitious towards me, the sinner!” “Lord, my only hope is that You would make propitiation for me. All my trust for my acceptance with You rests squarely in Your own sovereign provision of atonement!”

The tax collector went to his house justified.

He trusted nothing in himself. He recognized that he had no basis for righteousness inherent in himself. All of his hope, all of his faith, all of his dependence was upon the merciful provision of righteousness that comes through the propitiatory sacrifice of Another. And based upon Jesus’ conclusion to the parable in verse 14, we learn that God counts that kind of faith as righteousness.

The Pharisee was trusting in what he thought was his inherent righteousness, imparted to him and wrought by God. Yet he was condemned. The tax collector was trusting in an alien righteousness that was none of his own. And he was justified by faith alone. God declared him to be righteous based upon his faith in the righteousness of Another.



A tale of two gospels. One of them saves, the other condemns.

The Pharisee’s gospel was the gospel of Roman Catholicism. Roman Catholicism teaches that upon believing in Christ, the sinner is graciously made practically righteous by the infusion or impartation of righteousness to the believer. This inherent righteousness increases as the believer pursues good works and charity. Final salvation is a reward for such works of merit combined with faith.

But this is no gospel at all (Gal 1:6–9). This is not good news for us tax collectors who recognize that we have nothing good in ourselves by which to commend ourselves to God. No, if the ground of our justification depends in any part on our own good works, we know we have no hope. That is bad news. And it leaves us condemned.

But the Gospel of the Scriptures speaks differently. The Word of God teaches that when God grants repentance and faith to the sinner—the kind of faith that looks away from self and trusts entirely on the alien righteousness of Christ—God credits that faith as righteousness (Rom 3:28; 4:3–6). He imputes to the believer the righteousness and merit of Christ(Rom 5:18–19; 2 Cor 5:21; Gal 2:16; Phil 3:9), who fulfilled all righteousness in our stead (Rom 8:3–4; cf. Matt 3:15). And on the basis of the righteousness of His own beloved Son, to whom we are united by faith, He declares us righteous and acceptable in His sight. This is truly good news, for it provides for us that righteousness to which we could never even contribute.

What are you trusting in for your acceptance with God? This is the most important question you will ever answer. Are you trusting in Jesus plus: Being a good person? caring about people? humanitarian efforts? volunteer work? church attendance? baptism? going to confession? participating in the mass?

If so, let me invite you to look away from yourself, to survey afresh the severity of your sin in the light of God’s holiness, and to cry out in repentance to God for mercy based on the sacrifice of Christ alone. Stake all your hope for righteousness—all your hope for acceptance with God—on the sufficiency of Christ’s righteousness alone. Don’t trust in yourself to be righteous. Trust in Him to be righteous on your behalf. And go to your house justified.

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?

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

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?

Profiles in Cowardice

Have you heard the news?

Jason Collins, who played this regular season for the Celtics and Wizards, has announced to the world he was subject to unnatural, corrupting sexual desires — and that, so far from seeking help or freedom from them, he yielded to and pursued their indulgence.

The news media has overwhelming praised him for his "bravery" and "courage".

On top of that, he had to add that he was a "Christian".

ESPN report Chris Broussard, during a segment on Outside the Lines was asked his thoughts as a Christian:

Personally, I don’t believe that you can live an openly homosexual lifestyle or an openly, like premarital sex between heterosexuals. If you’re openly living that type of lifestyle, then the Bible says you know them by their fruits. It says that, you know, that’s a sin. If you’re openly living in unrepentant sin, whatever it may be, not just homosexuality, whatever it maybe, I believe that’s walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ. So I would not characterize that person as a Christian because I don’t think the bible would characterize them as a Christian.


Would you fault Chris for his response?  How does his response match up with what you think the Bible teachs?

When I first heard it, I thought "Wow!  I was not expecting that!"

All he did was to confess what the Bible teaches about sexual morality and about what God requires of every Christian—obedience (1 John 2:4). It was a clearer word than what you would hear in many pulpits. It was biblical. It was faithful. It was courageous.


But of course, Broussard has committed today's unpardonable sin:  being a Christian out loud in public.

There was an immediate backlash.  Katie McDonough at Salon.com called Broussard’s words “hateful.” Even ESPN issued a statement saying that it regretted the distraction from Jason Collins’ announcement.

So Broussard added this:

Today on OTL, as part of a larger, wide-ranging discussion on today's news, I offered my personal opinion as it relates to Christianity, a point of view that I have expressed publicly before. I realize that some people disagree with my opinion and I accept and respect that. As has been the case in the past, my beliefs have not and will not impact my ability to report on the NBA. I believe Jason Collins displayed bravery with his announcement today and I have no objection to him or anyone else playing in the NBA.

To that, ESPN felt compelled to add:

We regret that a respectful discussion of personal viewpoints became a distraction from today’s news. ESPN is fully committed to diversity and welcomes Jason Collins’ announcement.

So who was truly brave?
Of course, only Chris Broussard was to any degree brave, by to any degree indicating that he might agree with God's view of sin. He did it rather timidly, but to do it at all today is potentially to commit career hari-kiri.


Who was cowardly?   Well, I have to say Chris Broussard again, for saying that "Jason Collins displayed bravery with his announcement today." How? In what universe? Surely not in America. In America, this instantly guarantees Broussard protected-martyr status. Further, how is it brave to say "I'm giving in to base desires"? I guess in a perverted way, it's a kind of bravery to dare to associate yourself with a God who so totally condemns such behavior while insisting that you intend to rebel against Him and still count on His approval... but still, I'd chose words like gall and arrogance and lunatic hubris. Not "bravery."   And of course ESPN are cowards. They have to apologize for a Christian answering a question like a Christian. They have to say that "ESPN ...welcomes Jason Collins’ announcement." Why do they? What business of theirs is it to do so?

But worse, in so doing, they throw their own employee under the bus. They welcome Jason Collins' announcement — but do they welcome their employee's enjoyment of his First Amendment rights, and his conscientious practice of his own religious faith, which they have to know will surely expose him (not Collins) to excoriation and abuse?

This is our America church.  What are you doing about it?

HT:  Dan Phillips

Can You Be A Christian and Not Love Jesus?

Can a person truly be a member of God’s family and yet not be characterized by a love for Christ? Or to put it more directly, Can you be a Christian and not love Jesus?

The Free Grace advocate, in order to be consistent with the non-lordship system, must answer “yes” to this question. Thus, in his book Absolutely Free!, Zane Hodges vehemently rejects the assertion “that no true Christian fails to love God” (p. 130), accusing those who hold this belief as teaching a form of works-salvation. In the words of Hodges, “The scriptural revelation knows nothing of a doctrine in which Christian love for God is guaranteed by the mere fact that one is a Christian” (p. 131).

In other words, according to Free Grace, you can be a Christian and not love Jesus.

The Free Grace position is perhaps best illustrated by an example given by Zane Hodges. This quote comes from a message that Hodges delivered at the Church of the Open Door, pastored by G. Michael Cocoris. The series of tapes is entitled, “Great Themes in the Book of Hebrews.” The online source for this quote, along with several other similar quotes, comes from here.

I have a friend, and more than a friend, a man who labored with me side by side in the ministry of God’s Word in the little group that has become __________ Bible chapel and this friend has fallen away from the Christian faith. He graduated from Bob Jones University and from Dallas Theological Seminary. And about the time when he and his wife left Dallas his wife contracted a very serious illness which over the years got progressively worse until she was reduced to being a complete invalid, and after the death of his wife I visited my friend (who now lives in the Midwest and who teaches Ancient History in a secular university).

And as we sat in the living room together, face to face, he told me very frankly but graciously that he no longer claimed to be a Christian at all, that he no longer believed the things that he once preached and taught, and the situation was even worse than he described because I heard through others that in the classroom on the university campus he often mocked and ridiculed the Christian faith. As I sat in that living room I was very painfully aware that it was impossible for me to talk that man into changing his mind. It was impossible for me to talk him back to the conviction he had once held. It was impossible for me to renew him to repentance. You want to find someone harder to deal with than an unsaved person? Find a person like that….

Oh how disgraceful for a man to have known the truth and proclaimed the truth and then to deny the truth! He has put the Son of God to an open shame! Well you say, “I guess he’s headed for hell, right? I guess he’s headed for eternal damnation. He’s renounced his Christian faith.” Wait a minute. I didn’t say that, and neither does the writer of Hebrews. Let me remind you that Jesus said, “I am the bread of life. He that cometh to Me shall never hunger and he that believeth on Me shall never thirst.” And He also said, “He that cometh to Me I shall in no wise cast out.”… God’s will is that He lose no one (John 6:37-40). He has never lost anyone and He never will! And I grieve because my friend and brother has lost his faith but Christ has not lost him. He has lost his faith but Christ has not lost him! Do you believe in the grace of God? (emphasis added)

That is an astounding conclusion, especially in light of the New Testament’s emphasis on the perseverance of true faith and the dangers of apostasy. Nonetheless, it is statements like this that characterize the “Free Grace” (non-lordship) position, and help underscore the need for a biblical response.

By contrast, the lordship view asserts that all true believers will be marked by a genuine and life-long love for their Savior.

Those who do not love Jesus demonstrate that they are not truly Christians. A person might give intellectual assent to the facts of the gospel, but if his life is void of love for Christ, he is still lost in his sins. As Paul said in 1 Corinthians 16:22, “If anyone does not love the Lord, he is to be accursed.”

There are many places in Scripture where this point could be defended. Of these, one of the most straightforward is John 8:42. In this passage Jesus Himself makes the issue unmistakably clear. Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me.”

The weight of our Lord’s words settles the issue: Those who do not love Christ are not part of the family of God. And how can we know if we love Christ? Later in the gospel of John, our Lord answers this question as well.

John 14:15: “If you love me you will keep My commandments.”

And also John 15:14: “You are My friends if you do what I command you.”

According to the lordship view, repentance is a divinely-initiated, divinely-empowered, divinely-enabled change of heart, a turning from love for sin and self to love for Christ. It is not a human work, but is a gift from God (2 Tim. 2:25), in which He changes the sinner’s heart at the moment of regeneration.

If this change of heart has not occurred, then regeneration has not taken place either. But if regeneration has occurred, then the heart has also been changed. And if the heart has been transformed, it will evidence itself in a life of love for Christ and obedience to Him (the “fruits of repentance”—cf. Luke 3:8; Acts 26:20).

If there is no obedience, John 14:15 says that it betrays a lack of love for Christ. If there is no love for Christ, John 8:42 says that God cannot be your Father. And if God is not your Father, then you are not saved. In fact, if God is not your Father, your father is the devil, as Jesus makes clear just a couple verses later in John 8:44.

This is the essence of lordship salvation (coming straight from the gospel of John).

As the apostle John wrote elsewhere, “By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.” (1 John 2:3–6)

Jesus Is On The Wrong Side of History

from Trevin Wax

A fictional conversation from the first century A.D.

  

Stefanus: I wish you would change your mind, Gratian. You are going to be made fun of and marginalized.

  

Gratian: Any suffering or ostracism I may face will not compare with the glory that awaits me.

  

Stefanus: Glory? I fear you are losing your mental grasp of things. Have you not seen the splendor and glory of the Empire? Don’t you see how Roman principles are extending throughout all the earth?

  

Gratian: The Empire looks powerful, yes. But God’s kingdom will outlast it.

  

Stefanus: Surely, you jest!

  

Gratian: Jesus said so.

  

Stefanus: You continue to speak about this backwoods Jew who taught all sorts of strange things. I fear for what may happen to you when you refuse to pinch incense at the altar and reveal your dedication to the Empire’s gods.

  

Gratian: I will refuse.

  

Stefanus: But why? You know that the Empire is a tolerant, broad-minded place for people of good will who believe in all sorts of gods…

  

Gratian: As long as worshipping Caesar trumps them all…

  

Stefanus: Of course, but you still have the freedom to worship privately as you please -

  

Gratian: - as long as publicly, I bow the knee to Caesar.

 
Stefanus: What is the harm in recognizing the absolute authority of Caesar?

 
Gratian: I would be telling a lie. The emperor is under King Jesus.

 
Stefanus: Keep your voice down. Do you realize what you are saying?

 
Gratian: I will answer to King Jesus. So will you. And so will Caesar.

 
Stefanus: You dare challenge the ultimate authority of the Empire? Can’t you see the progress of history? Are you so blind… to ignore that history is moving in Caesar’s direction? Recent surveys show that people are not putting up with you and your silly ideas… your simpleminded way of life.

 
Gratian: I don’t follow Jesus because He is popular, but because He saved me.

 
Stefanus: Think logically for a moment about this Jesus of yours and what he taught.

• He said he was the Savior, but anyone can see that Caesar is the one in whom we have security.

He said we should never divorce, but anyone can see it is in the best interest of men to be able to put away their wives.

He said we should care for the least of these, but anyone can see that poor fathers and mothers should be free to abandon their newborns to the trash heap.

• He said we should love our enemies, but anyone can see that we should favor our friends and punish our opponents.

He said we should never commit adultery or even lust after another, but anyone can see that sexual openness is more natural for human happiness.

He said there are things that don’t belong to Caesar, but anyone can see that Caesar is in charge of everything.

Gratian: What are you saying then?

 
Stefanus: That Jesus is obviously on the wrong side of history. The world is moving forward and you are stuck in the past following the bizarre teachings of a Jewish leader. Recant your strange beliefs! Or at least stay quiet about them.

Gratian: I cannot, and I will not. I do not see history the same way you do.

 
Stefanus: Why not?

 
Gratian: No matter how confident you are that history is moving in an upward progression and that the Roman Empire will expand across the earth and lead all to eternal peace and harmony, you are wrong. The kingdom I belong to will outlast the Empire, despite the appearances.

 
Stefanus: How do you know this?

 
Gratian: Because my King came back from the dead. And the One who defeats death is the One who defines history.

Bill O'Reilly, Gay Marriage, and the Bible

I happened to see a video this morning in which Bill O'Reilly was arguing with Laura Ingraham over O'Reilly's complaint that conservatives need to do more than "thump the Bible" in making our case against gay marriage. Not only was O'Reilly incredibly arrogant and rude, but his colossal mistake highlights the key issue in the culture war today.

O'Reilly presupposes that the Bible is not an acceptable source of authority for our culture. Conservatives must accept that liberals will not listen to Scripture and therefore craft a moral consensus on grounds other than the Bible. What he fails to realize is that apart from God and his Word, the only moral consensus possible to man is an evil pagan idolatry. It is precisely because the Bible has been excluded from public discourse that our nation is so aggressively pursuing a debauchery like that of the ancient Canaanites and is suffering a societal breakdown of, well, biblical proportions. The only way to reverse this trend is to reassert the Bible's validity for both private and public moral standards.

Another way to say this is that Bill O'Reilly fails to realize that the Bible is the revelation of a true and living God: as Francis Schaeffer put it, he is "the God who is there." For this reason, the decisive issue of our time pertains precisely to our attitude to God's Word. Apart from a respectful embrace of biblical authority, there is nothing to halt our plunge into the abyss. Or, to put it differently, the true issue today is not what the Supreme Court will think about gay marriage but what the true and living God thinks about America.

Biblically, there is no other explanation for the wholesale breakdown of our society and the rapidly accelerating sexual perversity than God's judgment. The only solution is the Bible. So instead of persuading Christians to accept the societal marginalization of God's Word, O'Reilly would do better to urge Christians to become more militantly biblical. Like every other once-godly nation, we will stand or fall based on our attitude towards God's Word.

Finally, this reminds Christians that the most important institution in America today is the church. Unless our pulpits proclaim the truth and grace of Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit, and unless Christians live such bold and gracious lives that attract the interest of the watching world, there can be no hope for our generation. Whatever the Supreme Court decides and whatever confusion is wrought by the pundits of the left and of the right, there is great hope for America if God's people regain a missionary zeal for the gospel and a holy passion for God and his Word.

Gun Control or Heart Change?

Gun Control or Heart Change…Which is Really Needed?

Though people have analyzed the issue of the Sandy Hook tragedy from a multitude of aspects–socially, psychologically, etc.–we can NOT consider these murders, merely an act of physical violence. Man consists of body and soul—physical and spiritual. We were created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27) and were made living souls (Genesis 2:7).

In the beginning, in the Garden of Eden there was no death. Death was introduced to mankind as a result of sin and disobedience against God’s command (Genesis 2:15-17).

The Apostle James diagnoses the root cause for all strife, arguments, and wars: one person doesn’t get what he wants, so he’s willing to do anything to get it, even if that means committing murder (James 4:1-2).

That was the issue in the first murder recorded in the Bible. You know the story. Cain was angry with his brother Abel (Genesis 4:5); God confronted him on his anger (Genesis 4:6); and rather than deal with his heart of anger, Cain murdered Abel (Genesis 4:8). He didn’t have access to a gun (that implement wouldn’t be created until many years later) but Cain’s selfish, sinful heart compelled him to rise up against his brother. You can take man’s gun, but if he is intent on killing you, he will use a knife or his bare hands.

It is the wicked heart of man that must be dealt with. The prophet Jeremiah tells us the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked (Jeremiah 17:9). That includes you and me. There are none who are righteous, and no one naturally seeks after God (Romans 3:10-11). We are not inherently good. In fact we are all born as sinners who break God’s law. Therefore, our hearts must be changed by Jesus, Who gives us a new nature and a desire to love Him and others (Matthew 22:37-39). In fact, the Gospel empowers a Christian to love not only the “nice” guy down the street, but also those who are His enemy (Matthew 5:43-47). Man, who loves his sin, must hate his sin and turn from his wicked way in repentance and place his faith in Christ, Who atoned for sin on the cross (Isaiah 55:7).

Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount that murder begins in the heart (Matthew 5:21-26). Murder finds root in hateful thoughts toward others. Jesus Christ teaches in this passage that mankind is guilty of breaking God’s law not only when they commit the external act of murder, but also even when they harbor anger in their hearts. The ability to commit the act of murder resides within the human heart, were it not for God’s grace giving us a greater desire to please Him than ourselves. It doesn’t matter how moral a person appears outwardly. If man isn’t changed from within by God, there is no limit to his displays of wickedness.

Many people have responded to the Sandy Hook tragedy with loud cries for gun reform. Gun laws and external restraints placed upon man will not curb shootings and other similar violence. Behavior modification will always fall short. Unless man’s heart is changed by the Gospel of Jesus Christ and given a greater love for God, others, and what is right, we will not see the kind of change in society that brings peace.

There’s much more to be said, but I will leave it here, unless you have further questions. God has not been silent, but has written the Bible with all the answers to life. I’m happy to take any and every opportunity to try to clarify to others what He means by what He has said.

Every Pastor's Job Description

From John MacArthur:

Many of my favorite people are pastors. I grew up the son of a pastor and the grandson of a pastor. And after more than four decades of my own pastoral ministry, and many years of training young men for their own, I think I have a good understanding of a pastor’s heart—both his joys and his struggles.



These days, my heart aches for pastors.


It aches because today their job is as difficult as it has ever been. We live in an anti-authority culture—one that has lost all respect for people in positions of authority and influence. The modern mindset is to tear down everybody and everything. It’s a destructive culture, driven by fierce pride and runaway self-esteem. It seems very few pastors are run out of their churches over bad sermons or ineffective ministry—usually, they’re run out by a person or a group contending for power and authority.


That difficulty is compounded by the intimidation of massive media ministries and celebrity preachers on TV, the Internet, and in flat-screen churches all over the country. Pastors today are told they need to embody an entrepreneurial spirit—that they need to grow their churches the way you would grow a business. They hear a lot about needing to impact the culture and engage the community, and they get all kinds of pragmatic advice on how to accomplish that. They’re told they need to reach beyond the church and revolutionize society. In fact, it seems much of the modern pastor’s work is supposed to take place outside the church.


That’s a discouraging, disheartening message for men who love the church and have given their lives in service to God’s people. It’s also unbiblical. Pastors have one job. They’re not called to be cultural evangelists, entrepreneurs, or revolutionaries. They’re called to faithfully feed the flock of God. They’re called to be shepherds.


Consider the apostle Peter’s instruction to church leaders in 1 Peter 5:1-2.

Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness.


The solemn duty of every pastor is to feed God’s sheep. And as a pastor, the day you let your eyes move beyond the people sitting in your church is the day you’ve lost your purpose.


The focus of pastoral ministry is not the people outside the church, and it’s not drawing unbelievers to the church. The focus is on the people inside the church—the flock the Lord has sovereignly drawn together and entrusted into the care of a shepherd. The pastor has been set apart, as the apostle Paul put it, “for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ” (Ephesians 4:12-13).


Pastors are not called to the culture, and we’re not called to the unconverted. We have been mandated to feed our flocks so they can grow spiritually. We’re called to serve the redeemed people of God as an agent of sanctification and protection. The measure of a man’s effectiveness in ministry is not the number of people in his congregation every week—it’s the Christlikeness of his congregation.


Over the next few days we’re going to take a closer look at what Scripture says about the marks of an excellent pastor.
...
Regardless of your role in your local congregation, I know the next several days will provide you with rich insight into God’s Word and lasting spiritual encouragement.

The Greatest of All Protestant Heresies

Sinclair Ferguson writes:

Let us begin with a church history exam question. Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542–1621) was a figure not to be taken lightly. He was Pope Clement VIII’s personal theologian and one of the most able figures in the Counter-Reformation movement within sixteenth-century Roman Catholicism. On one occasion, he wrote: “The greatest of all Protestant heresies is _______ .” Complete, explain, and discuss Bellarmine’s statement.

How would you answer? What is the greatest of all Protestant heresies? Perhaps justification by faith? Perhaps Scripture alone, or one of the other Reformation watchwords?


Those answers make logical sense. But none of them completes Bellarmine’s sentence. What he wrote was: “The greatest of all Protestant heresies is assurance.”


A moment’s reflection explains why. If justification is not by faith alone, in Christ alone, by grace alone — if faith needs to be completed by works; if Christ’s work is somehow repeated; if grace is not free and sovereign, then something always needs to be done, to be “added” for final justification to be ours. That is exactly the problem. If final justification is dependent on something we have to complete it is not possible to enjoy assurance of salvation. For then, theologically, final justification is contingent and uncertain, and it is impossible for anyone (apart from special revelation, Rome conceded) to be sure of salvation. But if Christ has done everything, if justification is by grace, without contributory works; it is received by faith’s empty hands — then assurance, even “full assurance” is possible for every believer.


No wonder Bellarmine thought full, free, unfettered grace was dangerous! No wonder the Reformers loved the letter to the Hebrews!


This is why, as the author of Hebrews pauses for breath at the climax of his exposition of Christ’s work (Heb. 10:18), he continues his argument with a Paul-like “therefore” (Heb. 10:19). He then urges us to “draw near … in full assurance of faith” (Heb. 10:22). We do not need to re-read the whole letter to see the logical power of his “therefore.” Christ is our High Priest; our hearts have been sprinkled clean from an evil conscience just as our bodies have been washed with pure water (v.22).


Christ has once-for-all become the sacrifice for our sins, and has been raised and vindicated in the power of an indestructible life as our representative priest. By faith in Him, we are as righteous before the throne of God as He is righteous. For we are justified in His righteousness, His justification alone is ours! And we can no more lose this justification than He can fall from heaven. Thus our justification does not need to be completed any more than does Christ’s!


With this in view, the author says, “by one offering He has perfected for all time those who come to God by him” (Heb. 10:14). The reason we can stand before God in full assurance is because we now experience our “hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and … bodies washed with pure water” (Heb. 10:22).


“Ah,” retorted Cardinal Bellarmine’s Rome, “teach this and those who believe it will live in license and antinomianism.” But listen instead to the logic of Hebrews. Enjoying this assurance leads to four things: First, an unwavering faithfulness to our confession of faith in Jesus Christ alone as our hope (v.23); second, a careful consideration of how we can encourage each other to “love and good works” (v.24); third, an ongoing communion with other Christians in worship and every aspect of our fellowship (v.25a); fourth, a life in which we exhort one another to keep looking to Christ and to be faithful to him, as the time of his return draws ever nearer (25b).


It is the good tree that produces good fruit, not the other way round. We are not saved by works; we are saved for works. In fact we are God’s workmanship at work (Eph. 2:9–10)! Thus, rather than lead to a life of moral and spiritual indifference, the once-for-all work of Jesus Christ and the full-assurance faith it produces, provides believers with the most powerful impetus to live for God’s glory and pleasure. Furthermore, this full assurance is rooted in the fact that God Himself has done all this for us. He has revealed His heart to us in Christ. The Father does not require the death of Christ to persuade Him to love us. Christ died because the Father loves us (John 3:16). He does not lurk behind His Son with sinister intent wishing He could do us ill — were it not for the sacrifice his Son had made! No, a thousand times no! — the Father Himself loves us in the love of the Son and the love of the Spirit.


Those who enjoy such assurance do not go to the saints or to Mary. Those who look only to Jesus need look nowhere else. In Him we enjoy full assurance of salvation. The greatest of all heresies? If heresy, let me enjoy this most blessed of “heresies”! For it is God’s own truth and grace!

Gay Animals?

This is not a joke. You really can’t make this stuff up. Here’s the report from the UK’s Independent:

A university academic has criticised David Attenborough’s wildlife shows for not featuring enough gay animals.


Three of the veteran broadcaster’s shows are identified in a new study as perpetuating the notion that animal relationships are predominantly heterosexual.

Dr Brett Mills of the University of East Anglia says wildlife documentaries should be offering viewers a wider perspective on animal behaviour.

Researchers found BBC wildlife documentaries portray animals as heterosexual families too often, even though animals can also be gay.

Read the rest here. Then read Jonah 4:11.

Quote of the Day

“[The] term ‘decide’ has always seemed to me to be quite wrong. A sinner does not ‘decide’ for Christ; the sinner ‘flies’ to Christ in utter helplessness and despair saying — Foul, I to the fountain fly, Wash me, Saviour, or I die. No man truly comes to Christ unless he flies to Him as his only refuge and hope, his only way of escape from the accusations of conscience and the condemnation of God’s holy law. Nothing else is satisfactory. If a man says that having thought about the matter and having considered all sides he has on the whole decided for Christ, and if he has done so without any emotion or feeling, I cannot regard him as a man who has been regenerated. The convicted sinner no more ‘decides’ for Christ than the poor drowning man ‘decides’ to take hold of that rope that is thrown to him and suddenly provides him with the only means of escape. The term is entirely inappropriate.”

- D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones

Women in Combat

Denny Burk responds to the news.

“Our civilization just took a gigantic leap backward today, though I’m wondering if anyone will notice. Today Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta removed a rule that restricts women from serving in the front lines of combat.”


Keep Reading...

Its Just Oprah, not Metanoia

I found the juxtaposition startling. I had just finished jotting down notes on John the Baptist’s ministry in Luke 3:1-20, the short of which was “Repent!” I then scanned some news headlines and noticed that Lance Armstrong confessed. Wow! But he did so on a couch next to Oprah. Give me a break.


Repentance translates a Greek term, metanoia (μετάνοια; “change of mind, thought”), that indicates an alteration in one’s perspective that results in a change of behavior or pattern of life. It’s Old Testament roots are shub (שׁוּב; “turn; return”), as in return to God (e.g., Mal 3:7). As the converse side of faith – you turn from sin and turn toward God – repentance is no less the fruit of His sovereign grace as faith itself (e.g., Acts 11:18; 2 Tim 2:25). Unfortunately, repentance is often confused with a regret or an apology. But repentance is thorough, public and not self-preserving. You are renouncing what you once thought was acceptable and so no longer living in it. To get as practical as John the Baptist, you cease hating others by hoarding goods and begin to share (Luke 3:11). You no longer exploit opportunities beyond your reasonable authority (Luke 3:12). Or you quit using power over others simply for personal profit (Luke 3:14). You get the idea.

I’ve always favored Pink’s definition of repentance as capturing the thrust of the Bible’s teaching:

Repentance is a supernatural and inward revelation from God, giving a deep consciousness of what I am in His sight, which causes me to loathe and condemn myself, resulting in a bitter sorrow for sin, a holy horror and hatred for sin, a turning away from or forsaking of sin. It is the discovery of God’s high and righteous claims upon me, and of my lifelong failure to meet those claims. It is the recognition of the holiness and goodness of His Law, and my defiant insubordination thereto. It is the perception that God has the right to rule and govern me, and of my refusal to submit unto Him. It is the apprehension that He has dealt in goodness and kindness with me, and that I have evilly repaid Him by having no concern for His honor and glory. It is the realization of His gracious patience with me, and how that instead of this melting my heart and causing me to yield loving obedience to Him, I have abused His forbearance by continuing a course of self-will… Thus, genuine and saving repentance is taking sides with God against myself.

- A.W. Pink, Repentance: What Saith the Scriptures?

In other words, repentance is not private, nor ambiguous, nor unrecognizable. It is as evident as the fruit hanging in an orchard (Luke 3:8). You know when you’ve repented and you know when someone else has, too. When they take sides with God against themselves, they’ve repented. When they pull up a chair with Oprah, you know they haven’t.

What’s funny is that even the LA Times gets this point:
This charade should cause an outcry. It is orchestrated manipulation of serious news and an affront to a public that adored and admired him for his athletic feats and charitable use of his celebrity. We weren’t very happy with baseball stars such as Mark McGwire and Alex Rodriguez when they, after years of denying or ducking the issue, admitted steroid use. But at least they came clean to reporters whose job it is to ask the things the public deserves to know. No hankies or couches. Just the cold truth.
Armstrong should be doing this in a big room filled with people with journalistic chops and the experience and inclination to use them. We have more than a handful of Pulitzer Prize winners in the L.A. Times newsroom willing and able. The New York Times and Washington Post could fill the room with capable reporters. CNN has plenty. The TV networks too.
… If you are going to ‘fess up, don’t make a Hollywood show out of it. This is making a sham out of shame.
Sadly, this Oprah episode will get a huge audience. We are a society of celebrity gawkers. We need less “Access Hollywood” and more PBS and NPR, but that’s not happening. It would be nice, on this one, if we could avoid slipping further into the abyss.

Lance Armstrong owes us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. And he owes it to us from somewhere other than the Oprah show, in which they cue the tears and hankies before they cut to commercial.

Bill Dwyre, in an article titled “Lance Armstrong Picks Wrong Way to Come Clean after Playing Dirty,” summed up the whole situation well: “This is making a sham out of shame.”

The LA Times gets it, but I wonder how many Christians will confuse Armstrong’s theatrics (not to mention Oprah’s opportunism!) with actual contrition, real repentance. Truth is, in many of our churches, we will accept a lot less than this as a substitute for repentance. When someone is overwhelmed by the consequences of their actions, or they regret the shame of being discovered, or some crisis shocks them into a (short-lived) sobriety, or if they just “feel bad” about what they’ve done – we’ll often call it repentance. But it is not. And we do not even need time to tell.

Repentance is not self-preserving – do you think that the tax collectors and soldiers who came to John were going to have to adjust their standard of living by repenting? Repentance is not private – people were actually to start receiving tunics and giving less to the soldiers and tax collectors. But Armstrong is just altering his public persona, from self-sufficient athlete to self-sufficient celebrity who was “brave enough” to feel bad about being caught on a television event. He’s just taking a different tack to privately preserving self-sufficiency.
Oprah has said that she’ll leave it for others to judge whether Armstrong is actually contrite – which translates a Greek idiom that means: “Be sure to watch!” I won’t be watching, I don’t need to. Because I’m pretty sure what John the Baptist would have said, “It’s just Oprah, not metanoia."

Is Mormonism a Cult Or What?

A few months ago Franklin Graham found himself in all sort of evangelical hot water when he removed a page from the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association’s website that had labeled Mormonism as a cult. The timing of the removal—a few weeks before the presidential election and a few minutes after Billy Graham gave his presidential imprimatur to Romney—made any nuanced reasoning behind the Graham’s move impossible.

They compounded their problems when their defense of the action was “God has not called us to call other people names”—a defense which is about as thoughtful and persuasive as saying “Mormons really are nice people after all.” As Dan Phillips over at Pyromanics pointed out, how can you possibly argue with someone when they say that God has not called them to do what you think they should be doing? Doesn’t that mean you are arguing with God? Who, exactly, do you think you are?

But there remains an obvious question that bears exploring: Is Mormonism a cult? I want to put forward a nuanced answer: it depends on what you mean by Mormons, and it depends on what you mean by cult.

First the cult part:

I read dozens of blogs skewering the Grahams for their defrocking Mormonism of its cult status, but I don’t remember seeing anyone lay out what exactly it means to be a cult. Certainly there are several definitions of cult. What are they, and how does one qualify?

In Walter Martin’s classic The Kingdom of the Cults, he borrows a definition form a book published in 1955 which defines cult as “any religious group which differs significantly in one or more respects as to belief or practice from those religious groups which are regarded as the normative expressions of religion in our total culture.”

But that definition is obviously inadequate. First, it hinges on the word significantly. Second, it is way too broad. It basically defines any group which has as a different “practice” than the “normative expressions of religion in the total culture.” What does “total culture” mean in an era of immigration and satellite TV? I’m sure that was a suitable concept in the 1950’s, but I don’t see how it works today. By that definition, Hinduism could be a cult in Florida, but not in Michigan, and certainly not in India. Meanwhile, Christianity itself would be considered a cult Nepal or Rome.

Martin was aware of that weakness of the definition, and so he added his own criteria: “A group of people gathered about a specific person’s misinterpretation of the Bible.” So for Martin a cult is a religious group that:
has significant differences in practices from normative expressions of religion in “total culture” is built around a specific misinterpretation of the Bible

But that definition also fails on some pretty basic levels. Do two Baptist churches that disagree on dispensationalism get to label each other as cults? It also fails because it definescult specifically in relation to Christianity. What about Islam? Certainly there are cults in Islam—most Muslims consider The Nation of Islam a cult, for example. Yet that is not possible with Martin’s definition. [Note: Martin does not seem to follow his own definition very carefully. He considers both the Baha’i movement an d Buddhism cults, even though they don’t seem built around a specific misinterpretation of the Bible.]

So are there any better definitions of cult?

The dictionary defines cult as “any particular system of religious worship” (Webster’s Dictionary). This is why when reading OT commentaries (or NT Wright…) there are constant references to the OT temple worship as “cultic.” It doesn’t mean that it was a false religion, but simply means that it was “religious.” Obviously the dictionary definition of the word is so broad that it is not really helpful. After all, by that definition every religion is a cult.

There is a better definition of cult. Many sociology books describe a cult as being a religious group that has the following distinctions:

• Built around a charismatic leader (or his successor) who is generally infallible
• A break off of another religion, and claims that it is correct while the group they left is apostate.
• Considered on the fringe of society, and outside of social norms (often aided by a sense of secrecy to the inner workings of the religion).

This definition is repeated in many sociology text books, and is quite helpful. For example, you can see how Catholicism would fit the first two, but not the third, and thus is rightly not considered a cult. Meanwhile, it is narrow enough that it does not include all false religions, while being broad enough that it can also include groups like the Nation of Islam or Baha’i.

So that moves to the category of Mormonism. Does Mormonism fit these distinctives? They are built around a charismatic leader and their prophet is considered infallible (he has direct revelation from God, of course). It is obviously an apostate form of Christianity, so check there as well.

But are they considered on the fringe of society? That leads to the second question:
What do you mean by Mormon?:

Mormons essentially fall into two categories. Latter-day Saints (LDS), and Fundamentalist LDS. For the LDS, their temples are tourist attractions, Bryce Harper is a baseball phenom, Romney ran for President without his Mormonism being as big of a deal as Kennedy’s Catholicism, and Senate Majority Leader is a LDS (to say nothing about the fact that college students idolize American Idol David Archuleta). Every year, it is becoming tougher and tougher to argue that the church of LDS is on the fringe of society.

But the FLDS is another story all together. They are the fringe groups of Mormons in Texas, the Utah Arizona boarder, and parts of Canada. They practice polygamy, have their own prophets, are break-offs from the the church of LDS , and have been anathematized by the LDS. This group seems to fit every definition of cult, and even the LDS regard them as a cult.

So when people ask me “is Mormonism a cult?” I answer with two questions: “It depends on what you mean by Mormons. If by Mormons you mean the polygamists in the hills living in isolation, then yes. If by Mormons you mean LDS, then it depends on what you mean by cult.”

The dictionary definition calls Mormonism a cult, right along with every other religion in the world. Sociological definitions, along with Martin’s own definition, all hinge on if Mormonism is considered outside the norm of our culture. It is certainly a grey area. After all, it ,would be very difficult to say in Salt Lake City or Provo that Mormonism differs from the “normative expression of religion” (Martin’s definition) in that community. When you add the concept that Martin uses of “total culture” then certainly you have to consider politics (Mitt Romney, Henry Reid), music (David Archuleta), and sports (Bryce Harper). When you consider those categories, it becomes harder and harder to be dogmatic on the word cult. Even if it is one today, how many more years does that label stick? How many stars do there need to be before something is no longer on the fringe of the culture?

What is clear is that Mormonism, whether LDS or FLDS, is a false religion. It teaches a false way to God, and leads to eternal judgment. It is built on lies, and spreads through propaganda. And the only way for Mormons to be saved is to repent from their false religion, and find refuge in the gospel of Jesus Christ. That is what God has called the Grahams to preach, and who knows? Maybe that is exactly what they said to Romney before they took their webpage down.

Regardless, it is essential for Christians if they understand the uniqueness of the gospel and how to invite those who don’t know it to believe it—whether or not they are part of a cult. The real battle is over the gospel, not over a sociological category about whose religion is more influential in the culture.

Astrology

Astrology teaches that the position of the planets and stars at the instant a person is born determines personality and even spiritual disposition. It teaches that everything that happens in a person’s life is caused by the position of the planets and stars and that God is not in control of what happens on earth — it is predestined by the position of the planets and stars.
The Bible condemns astrology in no uncertain terms:

Stand now with your enchantments and the multitude of your sorceries, in which you have labored from your youth; perhaps you will be able to profit, perhaps you will prevail. You are wearied in the multitude of your counsels; let now the astrologers, the stargazers, and the monthly prognosticators stand up and save you from what shall come upon you. Behold, they shall be as stubble; the fire shall burn them; they shall not deliver themselves from the power of the flame. (Isaiah 47:12-14)

Some quotes:
‎”The good Christian should be aware of astrologers, and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the astrologers have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of hell.” – Augustine of Hippo

“Esau and Jacob were born of the same father and mother, at the same time, and under the same planets, but their nature was wholly different. You would persuade me that astrology is a true science?” – Martin Luther

Slavery and the New Testament

From Andy Naselli...

Many modern readers assume that slavery in the New Testament is equivalent to the race-based slavery of the African slave trade. While not defending the Greco-Roman institution of slavery, Tim Keller and Don Carson explain why it’s important not to equate it with the race-based slavery that we may be more familiar with.

Keep Reading...

Quote of the Day

“A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God’s truth is attacked and yet would remain silent.”

– John Calvin

Quote of the Day

“You are not redeemed by a profession of faith but by the possession of faith.”

– R.C. Sproul