f The Wittenberg Door

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
My Photo
Name:

Commenting on Christendom, culture, history, and other oddities of life from an historic Protestant perspective.

Sunday, June 07, 2015

God’s sovereignty and The Purpose of Prayer

There’s a lot of bad information about prayer floating around. And for someone like me, who is not naturally inclined to hitting his knees, the subject can seem daunting. So it is with great delight that I came across this short survey on prayer at In Christ. Authored by Paul D. Adams, the focus study is how our prayers and God’s sovereignty intersect. He does an excellent job of dispelling the concerns many people have regarding that topic.

But what struck me the most was not the doctrinal aspect, but the practical. I have long since resolved the apparent issue between God’s sovereignty and our prayers; but prayer itself, in my day-to-day living, that is another story entirely. Because of this I was most taken with his section titled, Thinking about Prayer, where I found help by reminded as to why I’m praying in the first place:

  1. Prayer, at its most basic level, is an expression of our dependence upon God.

  2. Our purpose in prayer is to glorify God by seeing him actively accomplish his will here on earth. God, not us, must be the center focus of all our prayers and it is his will and not our own that we must pursue.

  3. Submission and solitude are essential ingredients in Jesus’ prayer life and should be in ours.

  4. Our intention in prayer should be that we recognize how God is working in and through circumstances, rather than merely change them.

  5. Thankfulness for God’s movement in the lives of our brothers and sisters allows us the opportunity to see God’s work in others and helps us avoid self-absorption.

  6. Prayer for knowing God better, gaining special insight into our eternal hope, and for power to live for God’s glory should govern all other requests.

  7. When we pray, we should emphasize a growing love for one another, pure and blameless living, and all that accommodates our maturity in Christ.

  8. A depth of insight into the limitless dimensions of Christ’s love for us can only be gained by prayer.

  9. God is more interested in us than in what we want and he occasionally denies our requests so that his glory and our good will be optimal.

Click here to read the entire post.

--The Catechizer

Labels:

Monday, March 09, 2015

Living Worthy of the Gospel


. . . let your conduct be worthy of the Gospel of Christ.

Philippians 1:27

The Gospel is not about what we have done; it's about what Christ has done. The only thing you and I contribute is sin and hatred of God. Jesus did everything righteously required by God of men. He obeyed God's law, in total —perfectly! He also suffered the infinite and righteous wrath of God against sinners, satisfying the Father's Holy indignation. To that end, He dispatches preachers to proclaim His finished work (Romans 1:13-19, 10:6-17) and graciously works faith into the hearts of men (Philippians 1:29, Ephesians 2:1, 4-9, Philippians 2:13). All of this is His work "lest any man should boast."

When saved, the “work “done by us (e.g., faith and repentance) is in response to that which the Triune God has done. In other words, our positive response to the gospel proclamation was God’s doing and not ours! We responded positively because of His work, not the other way around.

Given this amazing work by God on our behalf, we are charged in this verse to live "as becometh" (KJV) "worthy of" (NKJV)" of the Gospel; and in so doing, even then we can do no more than profess that "we are unprofitable servants" having done that which was "our duty to do" (Luke 17:5-10). This is because, like our positive response to the gospel, our good works also stem from God’s glorious grace. The difference, however, is our “good” works contributed nothing to our salvation, but they do contribute to our being conformed to the image of Christ in sanctification.

Grace and more grace. Our life in Christ begins and ends with His work and His mercy. How then can we not strive to live thankfully and faithfully? How then can we not live “worthy of the Gospel of Christ”?

--The Deacon

Labels: , ,

Thursday, March 05, 2015

Why Systematic Theology?


“[Systematic theology] is like the box top of a jigsaw puzzle, and every believer is a theologian in the sense of putting the pieces together. If we fail to recognize there is a box top (i.e., a unified whole) to Scripture, we will have only a pile of pieces.”

Michael Horton, The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way

In the words of LeCrae Moore, "I was a drug baby...," meaning, my grandmothers drug me to church. I was raised in an environment that was purportedly Christian. It’s still murky to me as to how much of that was based in cultural norms rather than Biblical imperatives. As I got older my allegiance to the latter became more pronounced--it all seemed a proper exercise of my free will. Looking back, though, now that I’m older, wiser, and more Biblically informed, I understand that this was a sovereign work of God's Spirit.

Over time my hunger for good teaching grew, and so did my discontentment with my spiritual diet. I was dissatisfied with my ability to weave all of my theological beliefs into a cohesive whole. Unlike many who come to the Doctrines of Grace through the study of the Scriptures, it was this "study" itself which I pursued. "How do I study the Bible so I that can be convinced of the verity of the concepts taught therein?"; "How do I know what the concepts are?"; "How do I walk someone through my belief system from point A to point B to point C, etc."; "How does what I believe about God relate to what I believe about man?” And, “How does that relate to what I believe about atonement, forgiveness, sin, the Law, the Old Testament?,” and so on.

Without knowing the term, I was in pursuit of "systematic theology.” A number of years ago I was introduced to the Heidelberg Catechism and was struck by the way each question naturally flowed into the next. "What comfort do we have...?” “What knowledge is necessary to avail oneself of this comfort?” “From where do you know these things?” “What is required of us?” Is this possible?..." I knew shortly after discovering this treasure that I had found what I was looking for.

If you have a desire to improve your understanding of the Bible, then learning how to systematize Scripture’s teachings is a great place to start. The historical, orthodox creeds of the Church can help you do just that, as well as resources available from Logos Bible Software. Here are a few titles now available for download:



--The Deacon

Labels: , ,

Sunday, February 08, 2015

Suffering and the Providence of God

Life is messy, and at times very painful. We Christians are given no promise of escaping the vicissitudes of this sojourn unscathed. There will be suffering. But how are we to view this suffering in light of the knowledge that God is sovereign and ordains all things that come to pass? How are we to respond?

R.C. Sproul takes up this topic in an article titled, For My Good? Here’s an excerpt:

Romans 8:28, which is a favorite for many of us, states that “all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose” (NKJV). There’s no other text that demonstrates so clearly and magnificently the beauty of God’s sovereign providence than that one. The text does not say that everything that happens to us, considered in and of itself, is good; rather, it says that all things that happen are working together for our good. That is the master plan of God’s redemptive providence. He brings good out of evil. He brings glory out of suffering. He brings joy out of affliction. This is one of the most difficult truths of sacred Scripture for us to believe. I’ve said countless times that it is easy to believe in God but far more difficult to believe God. Faith involves living a life of trust in the Word of God.

As I live out the travail that follows life on this side of glory, hardly a day goes by that I am not forced to look at Romans 8:28 and remind myself that what I’m experiencing right now feels bad, tastes bad, is bad; nevertheless, the Lord is using this for my good. If God were not sovereign, I could never come to that comforting conclusion — I would be constantly subjected to fear and anxiety without any significant relief. The promise of God that all things work together for good to those who love God is something that has to get not only into our minds, but it has to get into our bloodstreams, so that it is a rock-solid principle by which life can be lived.

I believe this is the foundation upon which the fruit of the Spirit of joy is established. This is the foundation that makes it possible for the Christian to rejoice even while in the midst of pain and anxiety. We are not stoics who are called to keep a stiff upper lip out of some nebulous concept of fate; rather, we are those who are to rejoice because Christ has overcome the world. It is that truth and that certainty that gives relief to all of our anxieties.

You can read the entire article here.

--The Catechizer

Labels:

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

Does Sin Cost a Believer His Salvation?


One of the terrors I endured early in my Christian life was that of continually believing that I was teetering on destruction, that I was constantly oscillating between salvation and perdition. Have I repented enough? Have I done enough to feel that I was again in God’s good graces? What about all the sins I’ve committed that I can’t recall or of which I am unaware?

As much as I wanted to believe that my salvation was by faith in Christ and in him alone, I was still faced with the grim consequences of my soteriology: God provided grace, but it was my decision to either take his hand or to slap it away. And it was my decision to continue in this salvific enterprise--and my sin was a definite issue. Was I still saved at any given moment? I couldn’t be sure. Despair was often the result.

Later, once I discovered that salivation indeed belonged to the Lord, I was set free! Free to worship God and to enjoy him and this life. God was the author and the finisher of my faith, not me. He holds me in his hand, and isn’t relying on my grip to keep me from falling away. What an occasion for rejoicing!

From Ligonier . . .

But I’m convinced that the Bible teaches that what God begins in our life, he finishes. Paul teaches, for example, in Philippians, “He who has begun a good work in you will perfect it to the end.” My confidence rests in the fact that Jesus promises to intercede for me daily as my Great High Priest. My confidence for my future salvation rests in my confidence that God will keep his promise and that Christ will intercede for me and preserve me. Again, if it were left to me, I would obviously fall away. I like to look at it this way: I’m walking the Christian life with my hand in God’s hand. If my perseverance depended upon my holding tightly to God’s hand, I would surely fall away because at some point I would let go. But I believe that the Scriptures teach us that God is holding my hand, and because he is holding my hand, I don’t have to fear that I will fall ultimately and finally.

Now that doesn’t mean that Christians don’t involve themselves in serious sins and what we would call in theology “serious and radical fall,” but the issue we’re discussing here is whether a Christian will ever fall totally and finally. In the New Testament John tells us, for example, that “those who went out from us were never really with us,” and that “Christ does not lose those whom the Father has given to him.” So my confidence again rests in the intercession of Christ and God’s ability and promise to hold on to me. In and of myself I am capable of sinning even unto the loss of my salvation, but I’m persuaded that God in his grace will keep me from that.

You can read the rest here.

--The Catechizer

Labels: ,

Saturday, January 24, 2015

John Calvin on Holiness

Sanctification is a slow, painful process that lasts until Glory. Indeed, we’ll only make small strides in this life. But strive we must. The holiness of our Lord must always be before our eyes. (How easy it is to lose sight of this, Lord help us!) John Calvin spilled much ink on this topic and his insights are valuable. Ligonier summarizes some of Calvin’s thoughts over at their blog. Here’s how it begins:

Holiness consists in conformity to Christ. Calvin writes, “Because the Father has reconciled us to Himself in Christ, therefore He commands us to be conformed to Christ as to our pattern.” Indeed, he continues, “Unless we ardently and prayerfully devote ourselves to Christ’s righteousness we do not only faithlessly revolt from our Creator, but we also abjure Him as our Savior.”

This is strong language. The word ardently conveys the idea of eager zealousness, or as we might say today, “going all out” or “giving 100 percent.” The word abjure means “to renounce strongly,” as in Peter’s third denial of the Lord when “he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, ‘I do not know the man’” (Matt. 26:74).

Calvin leaves no room for a middle ground. Either we ardently pursue the example of Christ or else we strongly renounce Him by our conduct and lifestyle. How different this standard is from the attitude of so many of today’s Christians, who are quite casual or halfhearted in their pursuit of Christlikeness. But from Calvin’s matter-of-fact writing style, it is clear that he regards a zealous pursuit of holiness as the normal Christian life.

You can read the entire post here.

--The Catechizer

Labels:

Wednesday, January 14, 2015

Is Sanctification By Faith Alone?


We contribute nothing, save sin, to our justification. We do, however, participate in our sanctification. Unlike justification, sanctification is not by faith alone. Kevin DeYoung reminds us of this distinction in a post over at the Gospel Coalition site. He begins his piece by answering the question, Is sanctification by faith alone?

The short answer is no. Though it sounds very Protestant, it is not correct to say “sanctification is by faith alone.”

That requires some explanation.

In saying sanctification is not by faith alone, I’m not saying the work we do is somehow owing to us and not to God. He works in and we work out. But if we say sanctification is by faith alone, aren’t we severely reducing what we mean by saying justification is by faith alone? It was the mistake of Catholics to inadequately distinguish between justification and sanctification. If in trying to honor justification by faith alone we provide the same formula for sanctification, we are destroying the former as much as the latter.

You can read the entire post here.

--The Catechizer

Labels:

Monday, December 29, 2014

Fighting Sexual Temptation

Martin Luther said, “You cannot keep birds from flying over your head, but you can keep them from building a nest in your hair.” Temptations of all types will be with us during our sojourn in this life, and sexual ones often seem the most sweet. Too many times, though, we dwell on fighting these desires instead of focusing upon the desires that we should have. In Kevin DeYoung’s fine book on the Heidelberg Catechism, The Good News We Almost Forgot, he has this to say in his discussion on the seventh commandment . . .

“Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” (Matt. 5:8). This has been the most helpful verse for me in fighting lust and the temptation to sexual immorality. We need to fight desires with desires. Satan tempts us by holding out something that will be pleasurable to us. We aren’t tempted to gorge ourselves on liverwurst, because for most it doesn’t hold out the promise of great pleasure. But sex does. Pornography does. A second look does. The Bible gives us many weapons to fight temptation. We need to fight the fleeting pleasure of sexual sin with the far greater, more abiding pleasure of knowing God.

The fight for sexual purity is the fight of faith. It may sound like nothing but hard work and gritting your teeth, the very opposite of faith. But faith is at the heart of this struggle. Do we believe that a glimpse of God is better than a glimpse of skin? Do we believe that God’s steadfast love is better than life. (Psalm 63:3). We’d probably sin less if we spent less time thinking about our sins, sexual or otherwise, and more time meditating on the love and holiness of God.

--The Catechizer

Labels:

Monday, December 01, 2014

How the Church Failed Brad Pitt

From the Wittenberg Door archives...

"She [his college girlfriend] helped me more than anyone else as far as setting off in my own direction," he explains. "It was my first year in college and I was pushing back against the religion thing. In my eyes it was a mechanism of guilt, this engrained system, used to keep the flock in servitude." Brad was raised a conservative Southern Baptist. "Guilt is the thing I find most evil about it. It's the thing I rail against the most. She helped me in defining what I believed.

"Religion works," he goes on. "I know there's comfort there, a crash pad. It's something to explain the world and tell you there is something bigger than you, and it is going to be alright in the end. It works because it's comforting. I grew up believing in it, and it worked for me in whatever my little personal high school crisis was, but it didn't last for me. I didn't understand this idea of a God who says, 'You have to acknowledge me. You have to say that I'm the best, and then I'll give you eternal happiness. If you won't, then you don't get it!' It seemed to be about ego. I can't see God operating from ego, so it made no sense to me.

Brad Pitt in a Parade.com interview

Based on the reasons Brad Pitt gives for abandoning his Baptist roots, I think that we can surmize the following:

  • He doesn’t understand man’s plight

  • He doesn’t understand God's nature

Man’s Plight

Mr. Pitt finds guilt the most evil thing about Christianity. We can infer from his comments that he thinks his feelings of guilt are a result of his Baptist upbringing; that without that upbringing he would live a guilt-free life. But is that the case? Do those outside of the Christian community live a conscience-free existence? The answer is, unless you’re a sociopath, no (Rom. 2:14 – 15).

What Mr. Pitt should have learned in church is that people of all types of rearing experience the crises of conscience known as guilt, and the reason for this is simple: we feel guilty because we are guilty.

Scripture teaches that Adam’s sin brought spiritual death to us all (Gen. 2:16–17, 3:1–7; Rom. 5:12; Eph. 2:1–3; Col. 2:13). As a result, men are spiritually deaf, blind, and completely corrupted (Ecc. 9:3; Jer. 17:9; Rom. 8:7–8; 1 Cor. 2:14); also, men are slaves of sin (John. 8:34; Rom. 6:20; Tit. 3:3) and children of the devil (Eph. 2:1–2; 2 Tim. 2:25–26; 1 John 3:10). So how does natural man respond to the revelations God has given him such as a guilty conscience? He suppresses the truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18). This is all something Mr. Pitt should have learned in church.

God’s Nature

Mr. Pitt is offended by the idea that God would require honor. I suppose his view is that any being who would have himself honored is undue that honor. An odd claim coming from a man who accepted the honor of his peers through both Golden Globe (he won one) and Academy Award nominations. I don’t’ recall him repudiating these accolades. Apparently, he is due honor, but God isn’t.

Here’s why God deserves honor:

There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.

God has all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He has made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them. He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things; and has most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleases. In His sight all things are open and manifest, His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain. He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands. To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them.

Westminster Confession of Faith (1646)

Again, something he should have learned in church.

Conclusion

The reasons Mr. Pitt gives for abandoning his childhood faith show that he doesn’t understand Christianity. As mentioned, all of this should have been learned in church, but his church failed him. Not only that, his parents failed him too. But Mr. Pitt is not alone. We see a trend of children departing the faith as soon as they enter the college parking lot. So what are we as the church and as parents to do?

Catechize

To catechize a child is to instruct her in the faith using questions and answers. It’s a method that traces its history back to Scripture (Mat. 16:13, 22:42). The catechism that I use in my home is the Heidelberg Catechism. Completed by Zacharius Ursinus and Caspar Olevianus in 1563, the Heidelberg Catechism offers 129 questions and answers and is divided into three parts: man’s guilt, God’s grace, and our gratitude. Here’s a sample:

Q. What is your only comfort in life and death?

A. That I, with body and soul, both in life and in death, am not my own, but belong to my faithful Savior Jesus Christ, who with His precious blood has fully satisfied for all my sins, and redeemed me from all the power of the devil; and so preserves me, that without the will of my Father in heaven not a hair can fall from my head; yea, that all things must work together for my salvation. Wherefore, by His Holy Spirit, He also assures me of eternal life, and makes me heartily willing and ready henceforth to live unto Him.

The best way to inoculate your child (or yourself, for that matter) against error is by knowing the truth. Catechization is a tried and true method of learning the faith that has stood the test of time. Perhaps this could have made the difference in Brad Pitt’s life.

--The Catechizer

Labels: ,

Thursday, April 24, 2014

What Does it Mean to be Salt and Light?

Phil Johnson penned a fine article for Table Talk on what it means to be salt and light (Matt. 5:13-16). He has also posted it at the Pyromaniacs blog. Here’s an excerpt:

That text [Matt. 5:13-16] is often cited as if it were a mandate for the church to engage in political activism—lobbying, rallying voters, organizing protests, and harnessing the evangelical movement for political clout. I recently heard a well-known evangelical leader say, "We need to make our voices heard in the voting booth, or we're not being salt and light the way Jesus commanded."

That view is pervasive. Say the phrase "salt and light" and the typical evangelical starts talking politics as if by Pavlovian reflex. But look at Jesus' statement carefully in its context. He was not drumming up boycotts, protests, or a political campaign. He was calling His disciples to holy living.

You can read the entire post here.

--The Catechizer

Labels:

Monday, April 21, 2014

Don’t be Bamboozled by “Christian” Movies


Over at Gospelspam.com, Marcus Pittman has written a review of the film, "Heaven Is For Real." In the review, he decries the pandering of Hollywood to its evangelical consumer base. The saddest part, he goes on to elaborate, is that evangelicals eat it up. Some seem to think as long as Hollywood is making movies with so-called Christian themes it's a good thing in and of itself. What is overlooked, however, is that it is the content of the message, not the intention of the producers of the content, which matters most.

Paul expounded on this truth in his letter to the church in Philippians. In verses 15-18 of Chapter 1 he says the message of the Gospel is effective, irrespective to the motives of the proclaimers of that message. Notice how differently this reads when current reasoning is applied: "Some, to be sure, are preaching a different Christ than the one revealed in Scripture (in fact the message they preach is absolute heresy!), but some preach Christ accurately. Both know that I am appointed for the Gospel and both mean well. The latter proclaim carefully exegeted truth with good intentions, while the former proclaim their heresies with similar good intentions in mind. What then? Only that in every way, whether falsehood or truth, as long as some sort of Christ is proclaimed, and that from good intentions, in this I will rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice."

The whole of the law is to "...love the Lord your God with all of your heart, all of your soul, and all of your MIGHT" (Deuteronomy 6:5, ESV - emphasis added, Heidelberg Catechism question and answer #4). If the heart and soul were all that were mentioned, one could entertain the thought that consideration of intentions alone would be sufficient; but , when all of one's MIGHT is added, actions have to be taken into account. So, the ends no longer can be a justification for the means. It is of utmost importance that WHAT is done and WHY it's done are harmonious with GOD's commands. The second chapter of the book of James is dedicated to the idea of one who proclaims to believe but whose actions do not conform to that proclamation. The Prophet Joshua, in his last recorded address to the Israelites, exhorted the people to serve God in "sincerity and truth" and also to conform their practices in accord with GOD's commands (Joshua 24:14).

Be mindful of the content of the media you consume and avoid being bamboozled by the Christian window dressing. The entire movie review can be read here.

Grace & Peace - The Deacon

Labels: ,

Friday, March 14, 2014

No Plan B


Recording artist Odd Thomas wrote and performed a spoken word poetry piece concerning discipleship, titled “No Plan B.” In the piece, Thomas compares the “fast-food mentality” of American Culture at large with the way the American Church approaches the Great Commission and discipleship. He describes the sinful way in which many evangelicals go about their lives’ personal pursuits, disregarding actual evangelism, expecting others (clergy, missionaries, theologians, etc.) to “pick up the slack.”

Thomas also decries the prevalence of pantheistic, pluralistic, post-modernistic worldviews in the church. He challenges the listener to survey their local congregation on definitions of terms which should be Theology 101 for believers: the Gospel (Heidelberg Catechism question and answer #1), faith (Heidelberg Catechism question and answer #21), the chief end of man (Westminster Larger Catechism question and answer #1), and the greatness of God (Belgic Confession of Faith, Article #1). He contends that the probable answers will be a mix of allusions to hope, heavily tainted with humanism, drenched with doses of mysticism and large quantities of moralism.

Finally he asserts that the church’s failure to fervently evangelize is law-breaking. He states that true repentance from this sin exists in confession of rebellion and selfishness; and, in reconsidering redemption…Plan A. He describes this plan in terms of a pre-creation covenant amongst the three persons of the Trinity, to save fallen men and women. In this covenant, the Father planned redemption for specific individuals, the Son purposed to purchase those whom the Father chose, and the Spirit would then execute the application of the plan in the hearts, minds, and lives of these people.

Click here to see and hear the performance of the poem.

--The Deacon

Labels:

Saturday, February 08, 2014

The Sovereignty of God and Prayer

A day without prayer is a day that totally denies the sovereignty of God and glorifies the free will and self sufficiency of man.

Prayer has always been my weak spot. Frankly, I’d rather read, study, and write. But we are commanded to pray, and that is a sufficient-enough reason to do it. This is contrary to the nonsense I learned in my early years in Christianity: that prayer was a way to get God to do things, that it is where we battle Satan, and that it is how we fulfill our “Can you not tarry and hour” time-requirement (“Drat! Only 14 minutes has passed—Time for more mindless babbling!)

But prayer isn’t primarily about us. Now don’t get me wrong; we do have skin in the game—We have real needs, troubles, and pains that our Heavenly Father wants us to bring to Him. We are to pour out our hearts to Him; we are to make our requests known. Nevertheless, prayer isn’t an exercise of therapeutic naval-gazing. We must not lose sight of this important piece of the prayer puzzle: Prayer is primarily about God— it’s about His glory, His grace, and yes, His sovereignty.

John Reisinger fleshes-out six basic facts about prayer and God’s sovereignty in a piece fittingly called, The Sovereignty of God in Prayer:

  1. Believers in both the OT Scriptures and the NT Scriptures had no problem believing in both the absolute sovereignty of God and the necessity of prayer.
  2. Prayer can be used as a means of refusing to submit to what we know is the will of God!
  3. It is not wrong for us to pray what has been termed "selfish prayer."
  4. Prayer is ASKING, not TELLING God what to do.
  5. A belief in the sovereignty of God will not hinder real prayer, but instead it will foster it.
  6. Prayer is essential because God has ordained it as one of the means to accomplish His decrees.

You can read the details of each fact here.

--The Catechizer

Labels:

Tuesday, February 04, 2014

Finding God’s Will


When speaking of God’s will, Scripture uses the word “will” and the idea of the “will of God” in two ways: sometimes, to mean God’s counsel—and at other times to refer to the revealed will of God, or His commands, such as in 1 Thes. 4:3, “. . .it is God’s will that you should be holy.”

Though the Bible speaks of God’s will in these two ways, evangelical Christians use the idea in a third way. The problem is that the third way—that of “finding God’s will” by mystically discovering what God wants us to do—does not appear in Holy Scripture.

What people mean when they speak of “finding God’s will” is that there is a plan God has for our lives which we will live if only, at every fork in the road, we make the right choice. But how are we to choose since the Bible never tells us specifically what job to take, whom to marry, etc.? It is at this point that an expectation of immediate guidance, given directly to the soul by the Lord comes into play.

Yet in Scripture, Christian ethics, the living of a holy life, the doing the right thing never require us to know information that God has about the future. Rather, the Bible has a very different doctrine of guidance and decision making.

In addition to prayer, seeking godly counsel, and evaluating our circumstances from a Biblical perspective, the Bible points us first to the sufficiency of the Scriptures which “thoroughly furnish the man of God for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16–17). When the Bible is properly understood, a Christian man or woman has all the principles of conduct needed to make wise and godly decision. The Bible is sufficient and therefore rules over whatever impressions we may otherwise gather from our circumstances.

Insofar as the choices we make are not contrary to God’s Word, we are at liberty to choose many different things according to our likes, preferences, or pleasures. God has left us free to exercise genuine freedom. He commands only that we choose wisely and well, according to His Word, though we are reminded that even when we do not, we do not escape the divine will or frustrate His plan. The blessings that follow may come in the form of trials or the form of prosperity. That is God's business, not ours.

Indeed this is faith. To live with advance knowledge is not faith. To trust the Lord to keep His Word to us—no matter what our circumstances may be—to rest content to live by His Word come wind, come weather, that is faith!

The above is an excerpt from a sermon titled, The Holy Spirit’s Guidance, preached by Dr. Robert S. Rayburn, pastor of Faith Presbyterian Church in Tacoma, Washington.

--The Catechizer

Labels:

Thursday, January 30, 2014

Disappointed by Jesus?

Using a fictional conversation between Joseph Barsabbas (lost the coin toss to Matthias, Acts 1:26) and a disappointed young man, the Desiring God blog offers some insightful comments about disappointment. Here’s how it begins:

How does God want us to deal with the emotion we call disappointment?

Joseph Barsabbas was disappointed by Jesus. Joseph was a candidate to replace Judas Iscariot as one of the Twelve, but when the lot was cast it “fell on Matthias” (Acts 1:26). I’ll bet that was a blow.

The Bible never mentions Joseph again. But tradition says he later became the Bishop of Eleutheropolis (32 miles southwest of Jerusalem) and died a martyr. Assuming that’s accurate, imagine what Joseph may have learned about disappointment and how he might have counseled a disappointed young disciple twenty years later.

________

Bishop Joseph looked at his sullen disciple. “You’re disappointed.”

“Yes,” replied Primus.

“Why?”

The answer seemed obvious. Primus suspected a teaching moment. “I was just hoping for the appointment to the Antioch church that Asher received.”

“Well, that’s the occasion of your disappointment. My question is why are you disappointed?”

You can read the rest of the conversation here.

--The Catechizer

Labels:

Sunday, January 26, 2014

Christians and Divorce

Unfortunately, divorce is becoming more-and-more common among Christians, almost rivaling the divorce-rate of unbelievers. When we think of Biblical reasons for divorce adultery and desertion immediately jump to mind. But what exactly constitutes either adultery or desertion? Pastor Bill Smith explores these questions at The Aquila Report.

As part of his discussion he provides us with a helpful summary of the topic in a question and answer format. Here’s a portion:

Where does God teach about divorce?
Deuteronomy 24:1-4; Malachi 2:13-16; Matthew 5:31,32; Matthew 19:3-9; Mark 10:2-12; Luke 16:18; 1 Corinthians 7:10-16.

Does God allow divorce?
Divorce is always a tragedy. It is contrary, as Jesus teaches us, to God’s intent for marriage. The Roman Catholic Church does not allow divorce, hence the complicated system for annulment, which is taken to mean that the marriage never existed. However, Protestants have generally taught that, because marriage takes place between sinners in a fallen world, there are some circumstances when divorce is allowed.

When does God allow divorce?
There are two circumstances. One is sexual sin (adultery) that breaks the one-flesh marriage bond. The other is desertion (abandonment) that cannot be remedied because the one who leaves refuses to return.

What sexual sins constitute grounds for divorce?
The Greek word Jesus uses is porneia. It is a general word for sexual immorality. Here I quote from the position paper approved by the PCA General Assembly in 1988: “We agree that porneia refers to ‘sexual immorality.’ But sexual immorality could be understood to include all sorts of sexual sins… To be sure, these are sins that impinge against the one-flesh relationship, but they do not necessarily break it. We ask then, ‘What does Jesus mean by porneia in this passage as the grounds for divorce?’ We believe Jesus intended porneia to be understood in a more limited way, as referring to those external sexual actions which would clearly break the one-flesh relationship…we must distinguish between those sexual sins that clearly break the one-flesh union and those that don’t. (Those that break the one-flesh union [do so] precisely because they involve sexual union with a being other than one’s marriage partner, i.e, they amount to adultery.)

Other acts of sexual immorality do not as clearly serve to break the one-flesh relationship… they do not unmistakably break the one-flesh relationship; but if a person becomes so obsessed with them that they become a substitute for fulfilling the conjugal rights of the spouse, then they could be understood to break the one-flesh union……some sexual sins may hurt the marriage union without breaking it. But when the sin becomes externalized in such a way that it becomes a substitute for the one-flesh relation with one’s spouse, then the Session may judge it as being the equivalent of porneia.”

What is desertion?
“Several considerations incline us to agree with those… who have maintained that desertion can occur as well by imposition of intolerable conditions as by departure itself…(Note: The only possibility considered in the report is physical violence which leads to the abused person’s leaving, because the abusing partner forces the abused partner to flee the home for physical safety.) We are quick to add, however, that the list of sins tantamount to desertion cannot be very long. To qualify, a sin must have the same extreme effect as someone’s abandonment of his spouse… The Bible gives no justification for divorce based on merely inward, emotional, and subjective reasons. Even if we find justification for interpreting desertion in a broader sense …(it) must be broadened only within the boundaries of serious objective acts of desertion. (It) must not be interpreted in any way that opens the floodgates to divorces based on subjective reasons, such as ‘irreconcilable differences,’ ‘emotional separation,’ ‘loss of affection,’ or the like.

There is often great pain involved in marriage, and God intends for people to work through the pain and learn to love even when we are not loved by the other. Emotional problems in and of themselves are not Biblical grounds for divorce. And the elders of Christ’s church must not surrender to worldly pressures and allow that which God does not allow…”

You can read the rest here.

--The Catechizer

Labels:

Saturday, December 21, 2013

The Perfume of Love

The Puritans get a bad rap these days, often depicted as a stern, joyless, loveless lot. By and large this couldn’t be further from the truth. Not only did they take great joy in the things of God, but also in the gifts given to them in this world. One of which was love. The Puritans spilt much ink on this concern: Love God,; love your neighbor; love those in the church; love your family (with love of spouse being the subject of many a passionate letter).

Thomas Watson (c. 1620—1686), Puritan preacher and author, reminds us that we must love “cordially and fervently” in his very insightful exegesis of 1 Peter 1:22: See that you love one another with a pure heart fervently.

The Holy Scripture makes the love of the brethren the surest note of a man who shall go to heaven, 1 John 3:14. Christ and His Apostles beat much upon this string of love—as if this made the sweetest music and harmony in true religion. The consideration of this has put me upon this subject.

All the graces have their beauty—but there are some that more adorn and set off a Christian in the eye of the world, such as humility and love. These two graces, like precious diamonds, cast a sparkling luster upon religion. I have designed to speak of the last of these at this time, "See that you love one another with a pure heart fervently." Love is a grace always needful, therefore never out of season, though too much out of use. My text, like the River of Eden, parts itself into four heads:

  1. The command, "See that you love."

  2. The extent of this love, "One another."

  3. The manner of this love, "With a pure heart."

  4. The degree of this love, "Fervently."

Love purely; that is—opposed to hypocrisy. Love must be with the heart. It must not be a 'mere complement', which is like a painted fire. Pretended love is worse than hatred.

Love fervently; that is—opposed to neutrality. Love must flame forth. It must not be as the smoking flax—but as a burning lamp. The Hebrew word for love imports an ardent and zealous affection; no water must quench it.

You can read the rest here.

--The Catechizer

Labels:

Tuesday, December 17, 2013

Why Lust?

Clay Jones, D.Min. Associate Professor of Christian Apologetics at Biola University, makes a great point about lust at his blog. Here’s how it starts:

The trouble with lust isn’t that we lust. As I’ve said before, we were born to lust. You see, God created humans as beings with strong desires. God could have created humans with weak desires but then we wouldn’t care much for even honorable things like friendship, or sex (it’s not wrong to desire sex, after all), or marriage, or children, or God. But since God gave us strong desires, the key is to focus our desires after what is right: God and His Kingdom.

You are either going to lust after God and His Kingdom or you are going to lust after people, possessions, positions, and pleasures. But, no matter what, you are going to lust.

Many people giving advice on controlling lust miss this point and without it, you will never have victory. The last thing a Christian should do is spend much of his or her life focusing on not lusting. After all, everyone knows that the way to stop thinking about pink elephants is to start thinking about purple ones, and the way to stop thinking about worldly lusts is to start thinking about heavenly ones. We must learn to long for God! Learn to enjoy what He’s giving us for eternity.

You can read the entire post here.

--The Catechizer

Labels:

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

Excuses for Not Praying


Prayer doesn’t come naturally to me. I’ve always admired those “prayer warriors" who’ve worn-out many a pair of jeans because of prolonged sessions on their knees. I’d much rather study. But prayer is an important part of the Christian life, so I press on (at least most of the time).

There are, of course, many other reason why we don’t pray as we should. D.A. Carson addresses some of the most common reasons over at Monergisim.com. Here’s one that struck close to home for me:

I Feel Too Dry Spiritually To Pray

Hidden behind this excuse are two presuppositions that are really quite monstrous. The first is that the acceptability of my approach to God in prayer out to be tied to how I feel. But is God especially impressed with us when we feel joyful or carefree or well rested or pious? Is not the basis of any Christian’s approach to the heavenly Father the sufficiency of Christ’s mediating work on our behalf? Is not this a part of what we mean when we pray “in Jesus’ name”? Are we not casting a terrible slur on the cross when we act as if the usefulness or acceptability of our prayers turns on whether we feel full or dry? True, when we feel empty and dispirited we may have to remind ourselves a little more forcefully that the sole reason why God accepts us is the grace that he has bestowed upon us in the person and work of his Son. But that is surely better than giving the impression that we are somehow more fit to pray when we feel good.

The second unacceptable presupposition behind this attitude is that my obligation to pray is somehow diminished when I do not feel like praying. This is to assign to my mood or my feelings the right to determine what I ought to do. And that, of course, is unbearably self-centered. It means that I, and I alone, determine what is my duty, my obligation. In short, it means that I am y own god. It is to act as if the Bible never says, “Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer” (Rom. 12:12, emphasis added).

You can read the entire list here.

--The Catechizer

Labels:

Thursday, November 07, 2013

What Does it Mean to be Salt and Light?

Phil Johnson penned a fine article for Table Talk on what it means to be salt and light (Matt. 5:13-16). He has also posted it at the Pyromaniacs blog. Here’s an excerpt:

That text [Matt. 5:13-16] is often cited as if it were a mandate for the church to engage in political activism—lobbying, rallying voters, organizing protests, and harnessing the evangelical movement for political clout. I recently heard a well-known evangelical leader say, "We need to make our voices heard in the voting booth, or we're not being salt and light the way Jesus commanded."

That view is pervasive. Say the phrase "salt and light" and the typical evangelical starts talking politics as if by Pavlovian reflex. But look at Jesus' statement carefully in its context. He was not drumming up boycotts, protests, or a political campaign. He was calling His disciples to holy living.

You can read the entire post here.

--The Catechizer

Labels: ,