The Word of God

Yes, every jot and tittle. Every word that is in Scripture is to be valiantly, doggedly, and earnestly guarded and fought for, not just the parts some judge as "more important" leaving other parts as not worthy of spending time earnestly contending for. 

Jud 1:3  Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. 

Tit 1:9  He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. 

1Ti 6:20  O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called "knowledge," 

1Ti 6:21  for by professing it some have swerved from the faith. Grace be with you. 

Preston Sprinkle On Sodomy and Christians

In Febrary 2016 at the Christ Hold Fast conference, reformer Preston Sprinkle's session on the first night was based on his book, "People To Be Loved: Why Homosexuality Is Not Just An Issue". The review  of the book is at "The 'Gospel' Coalition" by Trevin Wax. As expected the book is dumbing down the issue of sodomy from a biblical perspective combined with church-shaming. That is to say, it's just another social justice restructuring of biblical Christianity's understanding and treatment of sodomy. It seems to be an echo of all the other articles written over at "Desiring 'God' Ministries" as well as what comes out of Tim Keller (as I've previously written about on this blog). In other words, it takes the Post-Modern view that truth is not clear, mixes it with some truth about the error of sodomy, and then slams Christians for not dealing with sodomy the way he thinks they should. "Same sex attraction" and sexual identity are also brought in as if that clouds the issue (it doesn't). Interestingly Wax had this to say in his review:

The first half of this book is a journey with Preston through the Scriptures, as he leads us to “lay aside our assumptions and genuinely seek to know what the Bible, not our tradition, says about homosexuality” (10). Preston is a Bible-guy, and a Reformation-guy as well, meaning that he believes Scripture stands over tradition, and so he returns to the text in order to understand and resubmit himself to the Word of God.

Most helpful in Preston’s survey of the Bible is the attention he places on creation, on God’s making of humanity male and female, on marriage, and how our relationships shine light on the gospel. He also does the historical work of showing what same-sex relationships were like in ancient times. And he makes a vitally important point when discussing Jesus’ sexual ethic:

“If we say that Christians should endorse same-sex relations, then we will need to recreate a rather un-Jewish Jesus and an un-Jewish New Testament” (68).

Indeed. And that is why some are making the case today that Jesus then was bound by his Jewish upbringing and held ancient perspectives on sexuality, but that Jesus now would affirm what 21scentury revisionists say is the way forward.

In some places, I disagreed with Preston’s biblical exegesis, most notably his claim that homosexuality (at least as we understand it today) is not in view in the account Sodom and Gomorrah. Preston is right that there were multiple sins at work in Sodom’s wickedness, as the Scriptures indicate, but we shouldn’t overlook the interpretive support throughout Jewish and Church history for the idea that homosexual practice was one of those sins. (Preston interacts with Kevin DeYoung on this topic. For further reading, check out the chapter “Sodom’s Sins” in Unchanging Witness.)

In places like this, I found that Preston’s “Bible-only” or “Bible vs. Tradition” mindset hindered rather than helped his project. When he claims that “for many years, the church stood on the wrong side of the question of slavery,” he is oversimplifying the subject in a way that distorts the true picture.

End quote. (Bold, my emphasis)

As in typical fashion, however, the reformer doesn't hold to Scripture only. He mixes the culture (and science it seems likely) as part of his exegeting Scripture. In other words, he doesn't go to Scripture alone for God's clear teaching against sodomy, he appeals to culture, first the Jewish one and then the current American one. The issue isn't so much how Jews and Gentiles in ancient or modern times viewed homosexuality (and trying to blur the issue by use of "same-sex attraction" labels and nonsense along with "sexuality identity", but rather that these things have been around for millennia and Scripture alone is sufficient to destroy every argument that sets itself up against Christ and His Word. To set aside biblical thinking on the horrific and perverted view of sodomy as if either there's some "new" way of understanding sexuality today, or presuming that it's wrong to start off with biblical presuppositions, is wrong. I would go so far as to say that the disgust at sodomy is actually normal because God is disgusted with it.

I consider this book and author and teaching to be another attempt at shaming Christians for their rightful disdain for sodomy. It is an attempt at trying to shame a normal reaction to such utter perverted wickedness such as sodomy (and in increasingly with pedophilia). It is to side with the world on this, even if he claims that he's in the "non-affirming" camp. That, by the way, isn't the same as rejecting all of homosexuality. It's a step down to seem more "balanced" and not as sharply against it. God however, is against sodomy and sodomites: it is a damning sin and one so wicked and perverted that He destroyed entire cities (at least three or four) because of it.

God's condemnation of homosexuality is abundantly clear--He opposes it in every age.

- In the patriarchs (Genesis 19:1-28)
- In the Law of Moses (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13)
- In the Prophets (Ezekiel 16:46-50)
- In the New Testament (Romans 1:18-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Jude 7-8)

God says that even the desires of homosexuality is perverted (see Romans 1).

In Matt. 5 Jesus says that the lusts in the heart are tantamount to doing the sin with the body before God. Moreover in Romans 1 sodomy is listed as "LUSTS of their HEARTS" that God finally turned those who refused to acknowledge Him, over to; that He gave them up to "a debase MIND".Scripture also lists sodomy as "unnatural", "dishonorable passions", and"consumed with passion for one another". Such is the description of those who refuse to acknowledge God as Creator. For those in Christ, they DO acknowledge Him as Creator and moreover, love and obey Him, therefore they don't suffer such hardness of hearts. They have a NEW heart at regeneration. Previously I posted on God's plan for the homosexual agenda. In it I quoted John MacArthur and I think it bears repeating: God's condemnation of homosexuality is abundantly clear--He opposes it in every age. - In the patriarchs (Genesis 19:1-28) - In the Law of Moses (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13) - In the Prophets (Ezekiel 16:46-50) - In the New Testament (Romans 1:18-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Jude 7-8) So if God is so clear on homosexuality, there is no way to accept it on any level, but that's what the liberals are doing as they secretly sneak in among us and then redefine things by trying to cloud the issue regarding sodomy. They try to use "science" and psychology, and even try to equalize the unnatural passion and lust of sodomy as if its like any other sin. That way they can play the victim and say it's merely a struggle like, say, drinking (eternal victimhood is a play right out of psychology's playbook---you never have victory over the sin or its desire but rather always struggle, thus always "recovering" but never recovered). The sins of Sodom and Gommorah were sexual in nature and therefore earned God's special judgement. If He destroyed not only those two cities, but the surrounding ones because of such heinous sexual immorality, then how in the WORLD can "Christians" think He's any less angry and less holy now with sodomy? Both the Old and New Testaments show God's absolute consistency regarding sexual immorality. Or do these "Christians" fancy themselves more tolerant and "loving" than the HOLY HOLY HOLY God of Israel Himself? If liberals can't get sodomy into the churches by full frontal attack, they'll do it by a more subtle means--incrementalism, psychology, the great sin-equalizer, and victimization.

More on articles I've posted on the issue of sodomy and Evangelicalism here.

The other issue is, as the liberals in the world do, Sprinkle apparently tries to equate slavery with sodomy and condemn Christians for both in their treatment of both. To equate these two is totally ridiculous. Scripture never equates the two and yet it addresses both. In fact, Scripture never calls for social justice regarding slavery. It doesn't tell Christians to protest their government, walk off the plantation, riot, or disobey in any way slave masters. Quite the opposite:

1Pe 2:18  Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. 19  For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. 20  For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. 21  For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. 

If a person had the opportunity to be set free, Scripture states the believer should take it:

1Co 7:20  Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called. 

1Co 7:21  Were you a bondservant when called? Do not be concerned about it. (But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.) 

1Co 7:22  For he who was called in the Lord as a bondservant is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a bondservant of Christ. 

1Co 7:23  You were bought with a price; do not become bondservants of men. 

1Co 7:24  So, brothers, in whatever condition each was called, there let him remain with God. 

The letter "Philemon" deals with a run away slave by that name, who got saved through Paul's evangelism. Instead of keeping Philemon with him (thus "social justice"), Paul did the right thing and sent him back with instructions to his master to treat him as fellow heir of Christ and to forgive Philemon of anything wrong he caused or any debt he incurred (Paul was willing to have all if charged to his account). 

Yet in all cases homosexuality and it's lusts of the heart are condemned throughout all of Scripture. It is a damnable sin according to  1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Jude 7-8.

So neither in regard to slavery or homosexuality, does Scripture demand social justice (of course today's view of social justice isn't justice but vengeance, homofascism, and acceptance of such sin).

Also, if Sprinkle equates sodomy (or as some like to call it same-sex-attraction - and yes it is the same perversion as a result of not acknowledging God as Creator per Rom. 1), with any other sin, that too would be wrong. Not all sin is equal. And while one sin earns Hell, not all sin is equally henious. I've discussed this here:

So if God is so clear on homosexuality, there is no way to accept it on any level, but that's what the liberals are doing as they secretly sneak in among us and then redefine things by trying to cloud the issue regarding sodomy.  They try to use "science", psychology, and even equalize the unnatural passion and lust of sodomy as if its like any other sin. That way they can play the victim and say it's merely a struggle like, say, drinking (eternal victimhood is a play right out of psychology's playbook---you never have victory over the sin or its desire but rather always struggle, thus always "recovering" but never recovered). The sins of Sodom and Gommorah were sexual in nature and therefore earned God's special judgement. If He destroyed not only those two cities, but the surrounding ones because of such heinous sexual immorality, then how in the WORLD can "Christians" think He's any less angry and less holy now with sodomy? Both the Old and New Testaments show God's absolute consistency regarding sexual immorality. Or do these "Christians" fancy themselves more tolerant and "loving" than the HOLY HOLY HOLY God of Israel Himself?

If liberals can't get sodomy into the churches by full frontal attack, they'll do it by  a more subtle means--incrementalism, psychology,  the great sin-equalizer, and victimization.

 It is precisely because of man's sin that some choose sodomy. Respect for a person being a human being is limited in scope and application.  I suggest reading the Old Testament and Revelation to see how much emphasis God places on these people He made in His image and whether that affected His judgement against them or deflected His holy wrath.

Elyse Fitzpatrick: she teaches both men and women

At the "Christ Hold Fast" conference this past February, it appears that Elyse Fitzpatrick taught a mixed audience. In her bio and in the schedule, there's no mention of a "women's only" breakout session. She taught in the main session and was also was part of the panel discussion which also was for  conference customers. Her bio reads:

ELYSE FITZPATRICK

Elyse holds a certificate in biblical counseling from CCEF (San Diego) and an M.A. in Biblical Counseling from Trinity Theological Seminary. She is a conference speaker and has authored 21 books on daily living and the Christian life.

Photos from the 2016 CHF conference:

As you can see neither in her bio or in the scheduled discussions is Fitzpatrick's talks are labeled as "women only". But Scripture commands women to not teach men:

1Tim. 2: 11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 1Tim2: 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women  will be saved  through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

1Cor. 14: 33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the congregations of the saints, 34 women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. 36 Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37 If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. 38 If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.

Being silent would indicate what Paul has also said in 1Timothy: no teaching men. Period. Why? Because Eve was made second after Adam. She was not the leader, he was. She was deceived, Adam was not. The reason women are not to teach men is because they are far more easily led into deception, as we see with these three women, and then will lead others like Eve did.

We've seen women do this before: Kay Arthur, Beth Moore, and Priscilla Shirer. My article addressing all three women is here. They have a facade of being a teacher of women but in reality, they are teaching both men and women, thus not only violating the clearest of commands in Scripture, but also accepting and even promoting mysticism as well as accepting of other religions like Roman Catholicism, for example.

Women who consider themselves teachers of Scripture should be able to read, understand, and apply the commands regarding women's roles, but apparently they cannot. Therefore they can't be trusted with the rest of biblical Truth.

Beware of Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Beginning with the Scriptures, Bonhoeffer was dangerous:

Critical to evangelicalism is our view of the Bible. The word of God was certainly very important to Bonhoeffer but in a very different sense from evangelicalism. He rejected the liberalism of Harnack with its idea of Scripture as merely man’s thoughts about God. Bonhoeffer believed in revelation and that God speaks through the word. However he did not believe in the Bible as scientific (empirical) truth and he certainly did not believe in the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture. His view, like that of Barth, was that the word can become the word of God to you when you are reading it. It is not in itself the word of God but God can speak through it. So, for example, he taught his students to spend a half hour each day meditating on a verse of Scripture, not looking at it in the original, not consulting commentaries, not concerned about what it literally meant in the Bible, but simply concentrating on what God had to say to them at that point that day. It can become the word of God to the meditating individual. Bonhoeffer stated, ‘The Holy Scriptures alone witness to the divine revelation, which occurred as a one-time, unrepeatable and self-contained history of salvation’. There is a huge difference between the Scriptures being a witness todivine revelation and being divine revelation. He happily accepts the so called ‘findings’ of higher (destructive) criticism. He rejects for example the biblical account of creation in favour of evolution. Bonhoeffer on one occasion told his congregation unequivocally that the Bible is filled with material that is historically unreliable. Even the life of Jesus, he said, is ‘overgrown with legends’ (myths) so that we have scant knowledge about the historical Jesus. Bonhoeffer concluded that the life of Jesus cannot be written. He followed Rudolf Bultmann in finding the New Testament full of myths which have to be ‘demythologised’. Bonhoeffer wrote, ‘My opinion of it today would be that he (Bultmann) went not “too far” as most people thought, but rather not far enough. It’s not only “mythological” concepts like miracles, ascension, and so on … that are problematic, but “religious” concepts as such’.

On the sound doctrine of the Atonement: Bonhoeffer did not believe in substitutionary atonement – Christ suffering as a substitute for our sins, dying in our place to earn eternal life for us. The cross of Christ certainly is important to him, but in a very different way – it is as an example and an inspiration. He is concerned that we live cross-centred lives and by that he means that we take up our cross and follow Christ, living lives of self-denial. Yes, as with Barth, there is a great emphasis on grace, but the idea of Christ as the Lamb of God taking away our sins by his suffering hell for us is missing. To evangelicalism that is a critical omission. Indeed Bonhoeffer would argue that we are saved by the incarnation – Christ taking our nature – rather than by His atoning death. He taught that in the body of Jesus Christ, God is united with humanity, all of humanity is accepted by God, and the world is reconciled with God. In the body of Jesus Christ, God took upon Himself the sin of the whole world and bore it. ~William Macleod, Banner of Truth

Nancy DeMoss Wolgemuth, Ronnie Floyd, and Mark Batterson Promote Pagan Witchcraft Circle-Making

photo source

Jeff Maples at Pulpit and Pen blog reports of celebrity teachers like Nancy DeMoss Wolgemuth, Mark Batterson, SBC president Ronnie Floyd are promoting the pagan practice of circle-making:

One of the most basic devices used in ancient pagan spirituality is the “circle of protection.” You find it everywhere from the Eastern mystery religions to modern witchcraft. The circle of protection was commonly used in old Gypsy magic, as it was thought to create an impenetrable barrier of protection around those in which it was created.

Shaheen Miro writes in an article titled The Gypsy’s Tricks for Spiritual Cleansing and Protection: Circle of Protection,

Creating a circular boundary is an ancient form of spiritual protection. The space within the circle becomes consecrated ground. The circle itself becomes a barrier keeping all unwelcomed things at bay.

The use of this protective circle and other forms of witchcraft have been an integral part of Gypsy spiritual life and culture since the earliest foundations. It’s quite common for cultural traditions to be carried over from generation to generation, even when other religions, including Christianity, become an accepted or even prominent expression of spirituality. One famous Gypsy from the late 19th century and early 20th century, named Rodney “Gipsy” Smith, is widely regarded as a great Christian evangelist and revivalist from England. The practice of integrating the Gypsy witchcraft circle of protection into Christianity is widely attributed to Smith. When asked of Smith how to start a revival, he replied:

Find a piece of chalk, and find an empty room. Go into that room and shut the door. Draw a circle on the floor with that chalk, kneel down in that circle, and ask God to start revival right there.

Of course, this practice of circle-making can be found nowhere in Scripture. This is purely a pagan practice that Mr. Smith adapted from his cultural upbringing to fit with his newly found Christianity. So does this practice of circle-making by Mr. Smith really have anything to do with the ancient Pagan circles of the Gypsies?

Sadly this witchcraft circle-making heresy has crept its way into orthodox evangelical circles....

End quote.

Go here for the whole article.

The Global Flood

photo source

ICR’s founder compiled a list of reasons why the Genesis Flood was universal (“The Universality of the Deluge”).* Here is a short commentary he penned as an introduction to this comprehensive study guide:

Central to the question of the historicity of the early chapters of Genesis is the question whether the Noahic Flood was global or only regional. A worldwide flood would have cataclysmically changed the entire surface of the globe, including any fossil-bearing sedimentary rocks that may have been formed prior to that time. Consequently, the earth’s present fossiliferous sediments must date largely from the time of their deposition in the waters of the great flood.

On the other hand, the modern evolutionary system of earth history denies any such global cataclysm and is based on the assumption of uniformitarianism. The sedimentary rocks and their fossil contents have been interpreted as evidence of a vast series of evolutionary ages extending over billions of years of time, deposited slowly and generally uniformly over the earth as living organisms gradually evolved into higher and higher forms during those ages.

The “day-age theory” is the attempt by Bible expositors to accommodate these evolutionary ages within the framework of the six days of creation. The “gap theory” is the attempt by other expositors to accommodate them outside the framework of the six days of creation. Both such theories, if consistent, are associated with the “local flood theory,” since a universal flood would have destroyed the sedimentary framework of the geological ages. That is, a universal flood precludes the historicity of the geological ages, and vice versa.

If the Genesis flood actually was worldwide, then the strained exegesis associated with the day-age and gap theories becomes unnecessary and harmful. In the tabulation below, therefore, are listed [ninety-five] reasons why the flood should be accepted as a true global cataclysm.

Here Are 95 Reasons Why the Genesis Flood Was Global...

End quote.

Go here for the list and the entire article.

God's Word

"Gods Word is to be received with childlike simplicity and not quibbled over: received as a whole, and not merely those parts which appeal to us or accord with our views."

~ Arthur Pink, "The Life of Arthur W. Pink"

Whosoever Will: GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY AND THE HUMAN WILL

photo & excerpt source

GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY AND THE HUMAN WILL
A.W. Pink

“It is GOD which worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure” [Phil 2:13].

Concerning the nature and the power of fallen man’s will, the greatest confusion prevails today, and the most erroneous views are held, even by many of God’s children. The popular idea now prevailing, and which is taught from the great majority of pulpits, is that man has a “free will”, and that salvation comes to the sinner through his WILL cooperating with the Holy Spirit. To deny the “free will” of man, i.e. his power to choose that which is good, his native ability to accept Christ, is to bring one into disfavour at once, even before most of those who profess to be orthodox.

And yet Scripture emphatically says, “IT IS NOT of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy” Rom. 9:16. Which shall we believe: God, or the preachers?

But some one may reply, Did not Joshua say to Israel, “Choose you this day whom ye will serve”? Yes, he did; but why not complete his sentence? — “WHETHER the gods that your fathers served which were on the other side of the flood, OR the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell” Joshua 24:15! But why attempt to pit scripture AGAINST scripture? The Word of God never contradicts itself, and the Word expressly declares, “There is NONE THAT SEEKETH after God” Rom. 3:11. Did not Christ say to the men of his day, “Ye WILL NOT come to me, that ye might have life” John 5:40? Yes, but some DID come to him, some DID receive him. True and who were they? John 1:12,13 tells us: “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, to them that believe on his name: WHICH WERE BORN, not of blood, NOR OF THE WILL of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but OF GOD”!

But does not Scripture say, “Whosoever will may come”? It does, but does this signify that everybody has the will to come? What of those who WILL NOT come? “Whosoever will may come” no more implies that fallen man has the power (in himself) to come, than “Stretch forth thine hand” implied that the man with the withered arm had ability (in himself) to comply. In and of himself the natural man has power to reject Christ; but in and of himself he has not the power to receive Christ.

And why? Because he has a mind that is “enmity against him” Rom. 8:7; because he has a heart that hates him John 15:18. Man chooses that which is according to his nature, and therefore before he will ever choose or prefer that which is divine and spiritual, a new nature must be imparted to him; in other words, he MUST be born again!

So, does it lie within the power of the sinner’s will to yield himself up to God? Let us attempt an answer by asking several others: Can water (of itself) rise above its own level? Can a clean thing come out of an unclean? Can the will reverse the whole tendency and strain of human nature? Can that which is under the dominion of sin originate that which is pure and holy? Manifestly not!

If ever the will of a fallen and depraved creature is to move God-wards, a Divine power must be brought to bear upon it which will overcome the influences of sin that pull in a counter direction. This is only another way of saying, “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me, DRAW HIM” John 6:44. In other words, God’s people must be MADE WILLING in the day of his power Psa. 110:3.

As said Mr. Darby, “If Christ came to save that which is LOST, free will has no place. Not that God prevents men from receiving Christ — far from it. But even when God uses all possible inducements, all that is capable of exerting influence in the heart of man, it only serves to show that man will have none of it, that so corrupt is his heart, and so decided his will not to submit to God (however much it may be the devil who encourages him to sin) that nothing can induce him to receive the Lord, and to give up sin. If by the words, ‘freedom of man’, they mean that no one forces him to reject the Lord, this liberty fully exists. But if it is said that, on account of the dominion of sin, of which he is the slave, and that voluntarily, he cannot escape from his condition, and make choice of the good — even while acknowledging it to be good, and approving of it — THEN HE HAS NO LIBERTY WHATEVER (capitals ours). He is not subject to the law, neither indeed can be; hence, they that are in the flesh cannot please God.”

Now in conclusion let us anticipate and dispose of the usual and inevitable objection — WHY PREACH THE GOSPEL IF MAN IS POWERLESS TO RESPOND? Why bid the sinner come to Christ if sin has so enslaved him that he has no power in himself to come? Reply: — We do not preach the Gospel BECAUSE WE believe that men are free moral agents, and therefore capable of receiving Christ, but we preach it BECAUSE WE ARE COMMANDED TO DO SO Mark 16:15; and though to them that perish it is FOOLISHNESS, yet, “unto us which are saved it is THE POWER OF GOD” 1 Cor. 1:18. “The foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men” (1 Cor. 1:25). The sinner is dead in trespasses and sins Eph 2:1, and a dead man is utterly incapable of willing anything, hence it is that “they that are in the flesh (the unregenerate) cannot please God” Rom. 8:8.

To fleshly wisdom it appears the height of folly to preach the Gospel to those that are DEAD, and therefore BEYOND the reach of doing anything themselves. Yes, but God’s ways are different from ours. It pleases God “by the FOOLISHNESS OF PREACHING to save them that believe” 1 Cor. 1:21. Man may deem it folly to prophesy to “DEAD BONES” and to say unto them, “O, ye dry bones, hear the word of the Lord” Ezek. 37:4. Ah! but then it is the word OF THE LORD, and the words he speaks “they are spirit, AND THEY ARE LIFE” John 6:63. Wise men standing by the grave of Lazarus night pronounce it an evidence of insanity when the Lord addressed a DEAD man with the words, “Lazarus, Come forth.” Ah! but he who thus spake was and is himself the Resurrection and the Life, and at HIS word even the dead live!

We go forth to preach the Gospel, then, not because we believe that sinners have within themselves the power to receive the Saviour it proclaims, but because the Gospel itself IS THE POWER OF GOD UNTO salvation to everyone that believeth, and because we know that “as many as were ordained to eternal life” Acts 13:48, SHALL believe John 6:37 10:16 — note the shall’s!) in God’s appointed time, for it is written, “Thy people SHALL be willing in the day of THY power” (Psa. 110:3)"

~ Arthur Pink

God Never Needs Us To Glorify Himself

"God was under no constraint, no obligation, no necessity to create. That He chose to do so was purely a sovereign act on His part, caused by nothing outside Himself, determined by nothing but His own mere good pleasure; for He "worketh all things after the counsel of His own will" (Eph. 1:11). God is no gainer even from our worship. He was in no need of that external glory of His grace which arises from His redeemed, for He is glorious enough in Himself without that. What was it moved Him to predestinate His elect to the praise of the glory of His grace? It was, as Ephesians 1:5 tells us, according to the good pleasure of His will."

~ Arthur Pink, "The Solitariness of God"

This is so true and destroys John Piper's

false claim of "God is MOST glorified when YOU are satisfied in Him" tagline.

The Atheist

                                                                 photo source

Priscilla Shirer: is your church studying one of her studies this Fall?

Bud Ahlheim at Pulpit and Pen reminds us:

This is a reminder about the danger of Shirer. It does not take much discernment to recognize her as a false teacher with toxic teaching. If Christ’s presentation of the antithetical “two paths” is correct (Matthew 7:13) – and, OF COURSE, it is – Shirer’s anti-orthodox, anti-Biblical teaching falls on that undesirable, though emotionally appealing, wide path. She promotes a contemplative, emotions-based, mystical form of faith that is completely foreign to “the faith once for all delivered to the saints.”  (Jude 3)

If you are in a church that will, this fall, promote Shirer’s curricula for women’s “Bible” studies, know this: it is evidence that the pastor and leadership of that church do not practice Biblically-commanded discernment. (1 John 4:1,Philippians 1:9-10, Colossians 2:8, 1 Timothy 6:3-5, Romans 12:2, Romans 16:17-18)  They are not “contending” for the “sound doctrine” (2 Timothy 4:3) of the faith.

(Indeed, ask yourself the question, what wolves – if any – is my pastor warning me against?  It’s a critical part of his role as a shepherd, but one that is virtually absent in the modern evangelical church.  Most prefer, it seems, to keep you engaged with popular falseness, rather than edified and challenged by clear Scriptural truth.)

You can find more on Shirer HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, andHERE.  For more Pulpit & Pen posts on Shirer, go HERE.

End quote.

The rest of the article is here.

Standards for Rulers

People generally detest dishonesty, liars, cheaters, and immorality in their leaders, even in this Post-Modern day and age. The fact is, people generally want rulers with higher standards and God demands it. To say “we’re not voting for a pastor” is a cop-out for a high standard and is to accept a lower standard than what God demands. In fact, God will give a people the leader they demand and if that is a bad one, it merely reflects the heart of the people.

The case of Saul makes the point: the Israelites rejected God’s decision of having judges rule them because the judges became unrighteous and the people wanted to be like the rest of the world with a king. God therefore handed them a king who would be wicked, like them:

1Sa 8:4  Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah;

1Sa 8:5  and they said to him, "Behold, you have grown old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint a king for us to judge us like all the nations."

1Sa 8:6  But the thing was displeasing in the sight of Samuel when they said, "Give us a king to judge us." And Samuel prayed to the LORD.

1Sa 8:7  The LORD said to Samuel, "Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them.

The warning by God about the abuse and mistreatment Saul (who by the way would enact socialism--take from property owners and give to others; and a bit of Communism: determine the professions of the people) would enact over the people wasn’t enough to steer them back to God’s way:

1Sa 8:18  "Then you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the LORD will not answer you in that day."

Here is what God says regarding rulers:

False speech of a ruler is unfitting: Prov 17:7

All kings should fear God: Ps. 75:11-12

It is an abomination for rulers to do evil: Pro. 16:12

It is by righteousness that their throne is established: Prov 16:12

Kings and rulers of the world counsel and plan together against God and will be punished: Ps. 2:1-2 (see Rev. 11:18, Rev. 6:15-16)

Mouths of rulers shouldn’t give unfair judgments: Prov. 16:10

Loyalty and fairness: Prov. 20:28; 29:14

Youth is not desirable in a king: Eccl. 10:10

Being an old but foolish king that no longer takes warnings is not good: Ecc. 4:13

God hates the arrogant pride, evil conduct, and perverse speech of all (which includes rulers): Pro. 8:13

It is not for kings to drink wine or rulers to desire beer—otherwise they forget what was decreed and pervert justice for all the oppressed: Prov. 31:4-5

Rulers are to judge righteously and defend the cause of the oppressed and need, and speak up for those without a voice: Prov. 31:8-9

All rulers are to praise the name of Yahweh : Ps. 148:11

Rulers are not to be a terror for good conduct, but bad: Rom. 13:3

Rulers are God’s instrument to be avenger and bring wrath upon wrong doers: Rom. 13:4

It is by God’s wisdom that kings reign and rulers enact just laws: Prov 8:15-16

Women rulers are a curse: Is. 3:12

So, in a nutshell, honesty, fairness, righteousness, justice, loyalty, fearing God and His name, not a youth, not a woman, terror for bad conduct not good, no drinking wine or beer are required. When Evangelicals say "we're not voting for a pastor" when justifying electing a "lesser evil", they need to consider if these requirements are similar to those for being a pastor (minus the government ability to reward good behavior/punish bad behavior--and take in taxes).

The Conversion of Sinners Should Not Be Our All-Consuming End

"Once a man makes the conversion of sinners his prime design and all-consuming end and NOT THE GLORY OF GOD, he is exceedingly apt to adopt a wrong course. Instead of striving to preach the Truth in all its purity, he will tone it down so as to make it more palatable to the unregenerate. Impelled by a single force, moving in one fixed direction, his object is to make conversion easy; and therefore, favorite passages (like John 3:16) are dwelt upon incessantly, while others are ignored or pared away. It inevitably reacts upon his own theology; and various verses in the Word are shunned, if not repudiated. What place will he give in his thoughts to such declarations as, "Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots?" (Jer. 13:23); "No man can come to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw Him" (John 6:44); "Ye have not chosen Me, but I have chosen you" (John 15:14)?

He will be sorely tempted to modify the truth of God's sovereign election, of Christ's particular redemption, of the imperative necessity for the super-natural operations of the Holy Spirit."

~ Arthur Pink, "The Wrong Emphasis!"

Greg Laurie Teaches False Doctrines At Latest Harvest Crusade

"Listen to this. Jesus Christ spoke more about Hell than all the other preachers of the Bible put together," Laurie said. "He knows of its reality. Know this: the last thing God wants is for anyone to go to Hell."

"Newsflash! God doesn't send people to Hell. You send yourself there," Laurie explained. "Hell is not made for people. Hell, according to Jesus, was made for the Devil and his angels. Listen, friend, if you end up in Hell one day, you will have to practically climb over Jesus to get there."

~Greg Laurie as reported by the "Christian" Post

Except that 1) no one has to practically climb over Jesus to go to Hell. Apparently this is a Jesus that isn't big enough to be a block between man and Hell for most people, and 2) God is the Righteous Judge of all souls and He absolutely sends people to Hell:

Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds.

Rev 20:15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Mat 7:23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'

Mat 25:41 "Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;

Scripture doesn't say that Hell wasn't meant to have people in there. What it says is that the rebellious beings--human and angelic--all earn the same punishment.

CP also reported that "According to Harvest Crusades, over 3,960 people in attendance at Angel Stadium decided to proclaim or recommit their lives for Christ following Laurie's address."

Furthermore, It also reported that on Friday night 37,000 people were at the crusade, with more watching online. This means over 37,000 + people heard false teaching (and yes, he led them in the mythical "Sinner's Prayer") and will likely repeat the false doctrines.

This is ironic considering he also said this recently:

He explained that the Bible shows "in the last days, there would be false teachers. And, it also says that in the End Times ... there would be an apostasy. When someone gets up and says that the Bible is not the Word of God, I really don't care what their point is. That, to me, is apostasy."

~ Greg Laurie as reported by the "Christian" Post. Thou art the man, Laurie.

Grace

"Grace is never exercised at the expense of righteousness. Grace upholds rather than ignores our responsibilities toward God and toward our neighbor. The grace of God that bringeth salvation, teaches us to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts, and to live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world (Titus 2:12)."

~ Arthur Pink, “Gleanings in Genesis”

Andy Stanley Says Christianity Doesn't Hang By The Thread of the Bible

More demonic attacking of Scripture, this time by Andy Stanley, as Bud Ahlheim from Pulpit And Pen reports:

You don’t need to “repent and believe” to be “a part” of Andy’s church. There’s no need to be born again, or even profess to be. As with last week’s message, Stanley reaffirms that you don’t even need the Bible.

“Christianity does not exist because of the Bible. It is the other way around. The reason there is the Bible is because of Christianity. And this is one of the concepts that so many people outside our network of churches have a hard time understanding.”  Andy Stanley

Pointing to the audience before him, Stanley says, “I think that you get it.” Why do people in Andy Stanley’s church understand his denial of Scripture as a valid presuppositional apologetic intended to bring back to church membership people who left church because they were obviously not Christian to begin with?

“Because you’re above average intelligence if you attend one our churches, okay? You get this.”  Andy Stanley

His straight-faced delivery of this line, gathering some chuckles from the crowd, yet reflects Stanley’s response to the critics who have challenged his denial of Scripture. He and his Northpoint crowd know something others don’t. “But at some point,” he says, “we need to grow up and see this the way it actually is. And the great news is that Christianity does not hang by the thread of the Bible.”

~End quote. Pulpit And Pen blog

Wrong, Stanley!

1Pe 1:23 for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God. 24 For, "ALL FLESH IS LIKE GRASS, AND ALL ITS GLORY LIKE THE FLOWER OF GRASS. THE GRASS WITHERS, AND THE FLOWER FALLS OFF, 25 BUT THE WORD OF THE LORD ENDURES FOREVER." And this is the word which was preached to you. (Peter is quoting Is. 40:6-8).

Mat 4:4 But he answered, "It is written, "'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.'"

Stanley's in "good" company though:

Michael  Patton of Credo House and author ofThe Theology Program (is your church using this program?):

Quote:

I believe that the Scriptures could contain error and the Christian faith remain essentially in tact. Why? BecauseChristianity is not built upon the inerrancy of Scripture, but the historical Advent of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Christ because man, lived a perfect life, died an atoning death, and rose on the third day not because the Scriptures inerrantly say that these events occurred, but because they did in fact occur. The truth is in the objectivity of the event, not the accuracy of the record of the event. 

Let me take this one more step further. The fact is that we don’t even need the Scriptures in order for Christianity to be true.Remember, the Christian worldview is Christocentric (centered around the Advent of Christ), not bibliocentric (centered around the Bible). 

Not only is it true that Christianity is not dependent upon inerrancy, inspiration, and recording of the events, but it is also not reliant upon our knowledge of the events.

~ "The Inerrancy and Sole Authority of Scripture Attacked by Peter Enns (former Westminster Theological Seminary Professor), Greg Koukl (Stand To Reason), and Michael Patton (The Theology Program)"

As to Stanley's flattery of the intelligence of his audience:

Rom 16:17  Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them.

Rom 16:18  For such men are slaves, not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites; and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting.