To Home-school Or Not To Home-school?

What a question. One that will certainly evoke lots of emotion and heat. Nevertheless it is a much needed argument. Let me say up front what I believe so that one does not have to fumble all the way through the article to see my conclusion. I firmly believe that the home-schooling model most lines up with the Scriptural data. Let me also say that I do not believe any public schooling is inherently sinful. In fact I think both cases can become sinful. It all boils down to motive. There are of course extreme cases on both sides and people often point to those as reasons for not doing the other. But we must get down to why we either home-school or send out children to public school and what does God say?

First, the Bible is clear that all training and raising of children belongs to parents ( Deut. 4:9, 6:6-7, 11:19, 32:46, Eph. 6:4). Period. The responsibility of the child's growth lies with the them. From the father down to the mother. This is true not just in academics but in spiritual truths. Far too many households are passing the buck and relying on others to teach their children biblical truths (doctrine). I've seen many people blame the public school system for "corrupting" their children and others blame pastors for not equipping young people enough on matters like evolution vs. creation e.t.c before they go off to college and become "worldy." Undoubtedly the public school system bears its guilt for hating God and promoting immoral principles. Pastors have their share of blame for neglecting certain topics. However, all training of children remains the responsibility of the parents. If you are sending your child to public school and notice the subtle or blatant endorsement and promotion of homosexuality, you're responsibility, no matter the cost, is to pull them out and teach the biblical truth on the matter. We can attempt to pass the buck on others to train our children academically and morally for our convenience but at the end of the day what our children learn and are taught lies in the responsibility of the parents. The same can be said for the home-schooled child that grows up and goes off into high school or college and becomes "worldy" because they were not informed on certain matters. We can pass the buck onto pastors but the pastor is not responsible for raising up another's child. That great privilege is a blessing and command from the Lord to parents:

13 “And if you will indeed obey my commandments that I command you today, to love the LORD your God, and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul, 14 he will give the rain for your land in its season, the early rain and the later rain, that you may gather in your grain and your wine and your oil. 15 And he will give grass in your fields for your livestock, and you shall eat and be full. 16 Take care lest your heart be deceived, and you turn aside and serve other gods and worship them; 17 then the anger of the LORD will be kindled against you, and he will shut up the heavens, so that there will be no rain, and the land will yield no fruit, and you will perish quickly off the good land that the LORD is giving you. 

18 “You shall therefore lay up these words of mine in your heart and in your soul, and you shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. 19 You shall teach them to your children, talking of them when you are sitting in your house, and when you are walking by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. (Dt 11:13–19) 

4 Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. (Eph 6:4)

When I hear of stories of rebellious young people falling into worldliness because of a failure from them to defend certain biblical truths against non-believers, it conveys to me that they were not taught enough doctrinally in the home. We can't dump that problem on pastors or the church. It begins in the home.

This leads me to problems with both models. One of my biggest concerns with the home-schooling method is this real tendency to neglect teaching children doctrine or theology (of course without having to call it such). It is one thing to protect our children from the corrupt God hating influences of the world but it is quite another to expect the church alone to inform our children of the doctrinal foundations we stand upon. The church and pastors may get sixty minutes, if that, to proclaim theological truths with our children. Yet, the parents have the whole week with the children to teach them the Word of God. I still find it a very present reality that many believing home-schoolers have bible verses memorized and know enough about abstaining from pre-marital sex, drugs, drunkeness, lying, e.t.c. yet really struggle with articulating the Gospel and being able to explain the doctrine of justification by faith alone. We need not just limit it to theological truths but academic as well. We are very quick teach on American history yet our children are almost completely ignorant in regards to Church history. When in reality the latter is far more important to the well being of our children than the former. While I am a believer in home-schooling, I am a believer that it should be done rightly for the right reasons.

Now for my main problem with the public- school method and it's proponents. It seems to me that the main reason ,which is it's main defense, is from a social aspect. Many Christian parents do not want to home-school their children because they don't want them to become "socially handi-capped", "socially awkward", "socially dysfunctional." And usually what they mean by "socially awkward" is that one cannot hang out and have fun with others while talking about things that have no relevance to a persons growth in Christ. While social development is important (how else are we going to fulfill the great commission) it is not said to be the greatest need for children. In fact in the commands that God gives to parents for raising children, I cannot recall one that emphasizes being socially equipped as of primary importance. Social interaction is not the primary goal. The training and discipline of the Lord is. Furthermore, some of the greatest atrocities of in the public-school history have been committed by "socially dysfunctional" kids that grew up in public-school. Putting ones child in that system is no guarantee that a child will be a social mogul. Nor is putting your child in public-school a guarantee that you child will learn how to defend the faith against non-believers. I will dare say that many advocates of public-school over home-school can't defend the faith themselves! So it is almost a given that they are not teaching their children more than just cute Bible stories. Then to send their children off to public-school in hopes that they will learn to interact with un-believers to defend the faith is a recipe for  unbelief. Try putting a person in the office of President of the Unites States of America without any training hoping he will learn how to defend the U.S. constitution in the process and see how that works out? Wait we are seeing it. It is a recipe for disaster!

In conclusion home-schooling fits more with Biblical information. We have commands from the Lord to raise our children in the knowledge and fear of Him. That is an essential part of parenting. Whether you like it or not, trusting your child into the care of secular society in the public-school system is to allow them a large portion of time to grossly parent your child. It gets even scarier to think how much the public-school system hates God and absolute truth. While subtly or blatantly teaching children to openly and brazenly defy Him. That is not bringing up children in the "discipline and instruction of the Lord." Let me finally remind you that either is not inherently sinful but can be sinful when done for the wrong reasons and neglecting to rear up your children as commanded by Scripture. While I am a proponent of home-schooling, I am also sympathetic towards those that have their children in public school for financial (both parents need to work for the needed income) and family reasons ( household is large i.e. too many children to home-school at once). My advice to both sides is to make sure your child is getting the proper biblical instruction at home. After all that is your job.

 4 Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. (Eph 6:4)

Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando

Thoughts On Islam's Intolerance and Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani

I remember, as a young man, my zeal to defend Islam from (what in my mind were) ignorant Christians blinded by conservatism and patriotism. I remember, defending Islam in classes, reassuring my fellow classmates that all Islam meant was submission to Allah's will, and Allah, was well- God. I remember telling others that these men who flew planes into buildings were men who did not represent true Islam.

I was wrong.

The truth is that Islam does means submission to Allah's will, but Allah's will as written in the Qur'an is complete world dominance by the sword (Surah 8:39,9:29). The truth is that Allah is not the one and true living God of the bible. And, that those who flew planes into buildings, were just being consistent with 1) Islam's violent history, 2) What the Qur'an teaches.

Recently, I've been hearing plenty about Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani, a 30 year old pastor who has been arrested and sentenced to death in Iran. What people don't know, is that Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani has been detained since 2009. Pastor Youcef  has been convicted of apostasy. Inspite of his claim that he has always been a Christian. The clerics in Iran still see him as an apostate due to the fact that his ancestors practiced Islam. It seems though, that people don't know or forget, that Muslims believe that all people are born muslims or in a state of "Fitrah". That is, in Islam, we are born knowing that Allah is the one and true living God. And it is our parents, and or enviornment, that causes us to stray from that path (See: Sahih Muslim, Book 033, Number 6426). Using this logic, all people who turn to Christianity are apostates.

During June 2010 - January 2011, Elam ministries reported 202 arbitray arrests (alone in Iran) for Christians who publicly practiced their faith.

And this sort of persecution is not restricted to Iran. Pakistan, forexample, is infamously known for it's strict blashphemy laws.

If not dealt with by the Islamic government, Christians are often killed by vigilante Muslims for their so called "blasphemy". This is true Islam, once established in a state. Muslim apologists can continue, if they so desire, to quote Surah 2:256 " There is no compulsion in religion". But in the eyes of many muslims, this verse has been abrogated by verses like Surah 9:73, "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed."

Pastor Youcef has been asked three times now, to repent of his Christian faith. Here is the dialouge as it is told:

Pastor Youcef-  "Repent means to return. What should I return to? To the blasphemy that I had before my faith in Christ?"

Judge- "To the religion of your ancestors, Islam,"

Pastor Youcef - "I cannot,"

This is the hypocritical intolerance of Islam manifested. They'll cry injustice when there is debate in regards to ONE mosque being built near ground zero, but ignorantly and purposefully seek to avoid discussions over the violent history of Islam, and present day persecution of Christians in Islamic states.

Let us not forget, to pray for our brethren that are persecuted all over the world.

In Christ, awretchsaved

ELAM's Data

Who Needs Creeds?

The Church needs creeds. Why? Because many that have come and will come, professing the name of Christ have distorted, denied, confused, altered, twisted, perverted the precious truths of God's Word. And we live in an age where Christians, for many reasons, remain largely uninformed about biblical truths. Creeds were needed then and most certainly now.  As C. FitzSimons Allison explains:

As the story of the good news spread into the Mediterranean world, a variety of misrepresentations of and omissions from the gospel occurred. The church quite early found it necessary to set limits and to correct teachings that threatened the Christian experience, contradicted the gospel and fed on the human temptations to flight and self-centeredness. These limits are called creeds. Obviously Jesus did not go around with a blackboard with the creeds written on it, letting his disciples ask questions and explaining the meaning of his relationship with the Father and the Holy Spirit as well as the relationship between his divinity and is humanity. He did not ask the disciples for assent to propositions about himself. The creeds were only gradually developed to distinguish the Christian faith from Docetic and Adoptionist twists. Those who attempted to take the faith into either of these two direction were called heretics (from haireo- to choose) who chose for themselves an interpretation contrary to that received by the faithful whose lives had been radically changed. Heretics actually made a contribution to this process by forcing the Christian Church both to set some limits on what could properly be called "Christian" and to preserve the essentials of the story of Jesus Christ so that the faithful would not be led into the destructive directions of flight or self-centeredness.*

Take for example the Heidelberg Catechism. Although not technically a creed it still has a similar function and answers some basic questions concerning essential Christian doctrine.  For example question 40:

Question 40. Why was it necessary for Christ to humble himself even unto death?

 Answer. Because with respect to the justice and truth of God, satisfaction for our sins could be made no otherwise than by the death of the Son of God.*

Or question 56:

Question 56. What believest thou concerning “the forgiveness of sins?”

Answer. That God, for the sake of Christ’s satisfaction, will no more remember my sins, neither my corrupt nature, against which I have to struggle all my life long, but will graciously impute to me the righteousness of Christ, that I may never be condemned before the tribunal of God.

It is amazing that if those simple questions were asked today, many a believer would struggle to give a correct answer. Yet, this catechism has been around since the sixteenth century and has simplified, without diluting, answers to basic Christian doctrines. Oh, we need creeds now just as much as ever! They help protect us from strange teachings and they protect the flock from people like this and this who mock the faithful that love the Word of God.


 2 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. 3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, 4 and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. 5 As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry. (2 Ti 4:1–5). Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando




* C. FitzSimons Allison, The Cruelty of Heresy ( Harrisburg, PA: 1994), p. 49-50

*Ursinus, Z., & Williard, G. W. (1888). The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism (219). Cincinnati, OH: Elm Street Printing Company.

* Ursinus, Z., & Williard, G. W. (1888). The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism (305). Cincinnati, OH: Elm Street Printing Company.

THE PERFECT MAN - Part 1

Is being created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27) enough to insure that man will act according to that image in a manner that proclaims and shines forth the image he was created in?

Before answering that question, consider what and who the Triune God of Scripture is, not what He does (though this will come into play later in the article).

God is infinite and eternal and self-sustaining, needing nothing outside Himself to be perfectly good, and perfectly satisfied, according to His character, which is so transcendently good that man cannot even stand in the presence of that glory He is without being struck dead (Exodus 33:18-20); moreover, in His perfection, God dispenses both His mercy and His justice as He sees fit within Himself to do, without any being able to call such into question (Exodus 34:6-7; Job 38:1-2; Daniel 4:34-35; Romans 9:14, 20).

Therefore, the God of Scripture – the Triune God we who are His are able to know to the degree to which He has revealed Himself – is, by dint of His very nature, incapable of doing wrong, acting in injustice, and cannot, in validity, be questioned as to what He does or does not do by man.

Now, man was created perfect, and in the image of God, which God declared, along with the rest of the perfect creation He had made, “very good” (Genesis 1:31).

The fact that God created man in His image does not mean that man was created as an infinite, eternal, always existing being, self-sustaining in himself, as, by definition, man was created, and so finite, while God is uncreated (Exodus 3:14), yet determined to make Himself known to His creatures in myriad manners, of which we read to the church-nation Israel, was both through special revelation and the connect to their Patriarchs (Exodus 3:15-14:31).

Getting to know the Triune God of Scripture as He presents Himself in it, is a most important truth, for though the Father, Son and Spirit share the same infinite, eternal, uncreated essence, there is subjection in the Triune God according to the manner in which He works within Himself: the Son is subject to the Father, and the Spirit is subject to the Father and the Son.

Thus, we have God, perfectly content within Himself, loving Himself, needing nothing. This is important to note, for in creating, God, who has no needs outside of Himself, is seen not to have created to fulfill any need He has, since all such are perfectly, infinitely, satisfied, within His nature, and the divine relations of the Persons of the Triune God. Thus, as stated in the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 regarding our Triune God, in Chapter 2, Of God and of the Holy Trinity, we have:

Paragraph 1. The Lord our God is but one only living and true God;¹ whose subsistence is in and of Himself,² infinite in being and perfection; whose essence cannot be  comprehended by any but Himself;³ a most pure spirit,⁴ invisible, without body, parts, or passions, who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto;⁵ who is immutable,⁶ immense,⁷ eternal,⁸ incomprehensible, almighty,⁹ every way infinite, most holy,¹⁰ most wise, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will,¹¹ for His own glory;¹² most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him,¹³ and withal most just and terrible in His judgments,¹⁴ hating all sin,¹⁵ and who will by no means clear the guilty.¹⁶

¹ 1 Cor. 8:4,6; Deut. 6:4
² Jer. 10:10; Isa. 48:12
³ Exod. 3:14
⁴ John 4:24
⁵ 1 Tim. 1:17; Deut. 4:15,16
⁶ Mal. 3:6
⁷ 1 Kings 8:27; Jer. 23:23
⁸ Ps. 90:2
⁹ Gen. 17:1
¹⁰ Isa. 6:3
¹¹ Ps. 115:3; Isa. 46:10
¹² Prov. 16:4; Rom. 11:36
¹³ Exod. 34:6,7; Heb. 11:6
¹⁴ Neh. 9:32,33
¹⁵ Ps. 5:5,6
¹⁶ Exod. 34:7; Nahum 1:2,3

Existing as He is, completely other than, unique, and needing nothing to add to His completeness, yet He willed to create first one, then another, creature; the first in His image, the second after the image of the first (1 Corinthians 11:3), according to the infinite, eternal order of the three divine Persons within the Triune God, but without His absolute autonomy and total completeness, for these created, finite beings were to be willingly dependent upon Him.

I would refer the reader also to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Confession in the chapter:

Paragraph 2. God, having all life,¹⁷ glory,¹⁸ goodness,¹⁹ blessedness, in and of Himself, is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creature which He hath made, nor deriving any glory from them,²⁰ 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,²¹ and He hath most sovereign dominion over all creatures, to do by them, for them, or upon them, whatsoever Himself pleases;²² in His sight all things are open and manifest,²³ His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to Him contingent or uncertain;²⁴ He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works,²⁵ and in all His commands; to Him is due from angels and men, whatsoever worship,²⁶ service, or obedience, as creatures they owe unto the Creator, and whatever He is further pleased to require of them.

¹⁷ John 5:26
¹⁸ Ps. 148:13
¹⁹ Ps. 119:68
²⁰ Job 22:2,3
²¹ Rom. 11:34-36
²² Dan. 4:25,34,35
²³ Heb. 4:13
²⁴ Ezek. 11:5; Acts 15:18
²⁵ Ps. 145:17
²⁶ Rev. 5:12-14

Paragraph 3. In this divine and infinite Being there are three subsistences, the Father, the Word or Son, and Holy Spirit,²⁷ of one substance, power, and eternity, each having the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided:²⁸ the Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father;²⁹ the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son;³⁰ all infinite, without beginning, therefore but one God, who is not to be divided in nature and being, but distinguished by several peculiar relative properties and personal relations; which doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of all our communion with God, and comfortable dependence on Him.

²⁷ 1 John 5:7; Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14
²⁸ Exod. 3:14; John 14:11; I Cor. 8:6
²⁹ John 1:14,18
³⁰ John 15:26; Gal. 4:6

This section of the Confession shows the submission of, not inequality (since all three divine Persons, or “subsistences,” share the same essence completely, as put in the confession), of each divine Person, without changing the fact that God is One in essence.

This is where it gets confusing for those who do not know what the Scripture teaches about man, as he was first created, and as he was to operate, and how in Adam, all humanity was being tested – there are those today who deny this cardinal doctrine of original sin resulting in the fall of the race, who think they can live a life of sinlessness, and this is from a fundamental ignorance of what took place in the fall.

Such is usually from being taught the Scriptures, or teaching one’s self, without the benefit of the Spirit of God being the one who teaches, and if done purposefully, is the height of arrogance against God, resulting in such a misunderstanding of His Holy Word that it leads many astray into a Pharisaic legalism, and the Lord addressed this, during His first advent, directly: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.” (Matthew 23:15 – ESV)

To God alone be the glory - Bill Hier

TO BE CONTINUED...

God, Christians, and Emotions

Brian Borgman does a great job in his book Faith and Feelings: Cultivating Godly Emotions  in the Christian Life theologically driving home a proper understanding of emotions both in God and Christians. This oft neglected subject certainly needs more attention in the Christian community. Here are some snippets:

We are under a twofold obligation to understand our emotions. First, the emotions are a biblical subject. Since the Bible has much to say about the emotions, it is imperative for us to understand what it teaches. Whenever God speaks, on whatever subject he addresses, we are obliged to listen and learn. Second, the emotions are a deeply personal subject, playing a prominent role in each of our lives. Therefore, it is vital to understand what the Bible has to say for our own personal maturity. It is only when we gain a biblical perspective on this significant part of our humanity that we can begin to grow and put the mind and the emotions and the will in their right positions. As we learn to understand and handle our emotions biblically, we begin to mature in new ways. My pastoral experience has taught me that a biblical understanding of the emotions and the application of these truths can become a virtual greenhouse for spiritual growth and maturity.

 If our emotions are to be sanctified, if our emotions are to be conformed to the image of Christ, then we must have a grasp on what the Bible says. If we are going to successfully cultivate our emotions for greater godliness and put to death those destructive, ungodly emotions, then we must have a handle on what the Bible says about them. A biblical theology is foundational for us if we ever hope to understand our emotions and grow spiritually. A commitment to the sufficiency of Scripture must undergird our approach. A confidence in the grace of God is a prerequisite if we are to change. Once that commitment and confidence are firmly in place, we can begin the journey with the expectation that God will teach us, prune us, and grow us.*

Some Christians teach that emotions are bad and need to be suppressed. From the philosophical side of life Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics argued that passions (emotions) could not coexist with moral virtue. Emotions are contrary to reason and all ratioal principles, thus they are contrary to all that is desirable and good. Therefore, moral virtue includes the subduing of the emotions. A common Christian version of this says that the mind is all that is important. The emotions do nothing but mess us up. They cannot be trusted and should be suppressed. A stoic and cerebral Christianity is the result.*

Just as some Christians elevate reason and dismiss the emotions, others believe that the emotions are the most important thing about us. This view or, rather, feeling turns many Christians into experience junkies who just want to have an emotional high. Such experiences are the sum and substance of their Christianity. They reduce their faith to an empty emotionalism. Being led by the Spirit is nothing more than how a person feels about something. Feelings determine duty. Doctrine is determined by “how I feel about it,” thus, “I don’t believe that doctrine because it makes me feel yucky.” The idea that the emotions should be changed, sanctified, or cultivated is not even on the radar.*

The Bible does not give us a clinical definition of the emotions, but it does give us numerous words that describe both the source and expression of the emotions. The Bible often commands our feelings, commending or condemning certain emotions. This is an important observation in establishing a working definition. In the Bible, emotions are not amoral. We are responsible for how we feel, and we are expected to exercise self-control and have certain emotions.*

We begin our biblical-theological foundation with the starting point of all true theology—God. The theology that does not begin with God will end in error. God is the beginning, middle, and end of all things (Rom. 11:36). In the Bible God displays a variety of emotions. We could even say that emotions are part of his divine nature or person. Matthew Elliott straightforwardly asserts, “It is clear that the Old Testament presents Yahweh as an emotional God. . . . God’s emotions play a key role in many texts, as God feels with intensity.” This is an important yet neglected area of the doctrine of God.*

However, the sheer weight of biblical evidence demands that we see God as a being who has real emotions and feels intensely. Nichols defines God’s emotional capacity: God’s emotivity is His supreme capacity to act responsively and sensationally; to feel pure and principled affections of love and hate, joy and grief, pleasure and anger, and peace; in accord with His supreme, spiritual, and simple Being and impeccable virtue.4. Immediately we must qualify our statements on God’s emotions for the simple reason that we cannot experientially relate to this dimension of God because we are so different. The real danger is to impose our emotional experiences on God and thus be guilty of the indictment of Psalm 50:21, “You thought I was just like you” (HCSB). We must keep in mind that God’s emotional capacities are both invulnerable and perfect. His emotions are not dependent on anything outside of himself. Although he responds to and is moved by human events, he is never emotionally vulnerable, never surprised by an event or overcome with emotion. His feelings are not subject to sinfulness, since he is holy. His emotions are perfectly righteous in their essence and exhibition. Elliott again notes, “God’s emotions are always in line with His holiness and moral character. God’s emotions are always correct, righteous and moral because He is always correct, righteous and moral.”*

Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory, Fernando

*Borgman, Brian Steven (2009-04-01). Feelings and Faith: Cultivating Godly Emotions in the Christian Life (p. 22). Good News Publishers/Crossway Books. Kindle Edition.
*Ibid, p. 23
*Ibid, p. 24-25
*Ibid, p. 25
*Ibid, p. 31
*Ibid, p. 31-32

The Primacy Of Preaching

‘The pulpit leads the world.’ Few would dare to advance this claim today, but it would not have sounded an exaggeration in the last century. At the same time, those who discerned the privilege of preaching were distressed by those who did not. One example of this distress was Dr. James W. Alexander, son of Archibald Alexander the first professor in the new Princeton Theological Seminary in 1812, and himself a professor there from 1849 to 1851. For twenty years he had been a pastor, however, for, as Charles Hodge said of him, ‘the pulpit was his appropriate sphere.’

I fear none of us apprehend as we ought to do the value of the preacher’s office. Our young men do not gird themselves for it with the spirit of those who are on the eve of a great conflict; nor do they prepare as those who are to lay hands upon the springs of the mightiest passions, and stir up to their depths the ocean of human feelings. Where this estimate of the work prevails, men even of inferior training accomplish much ... The pulpit will still remain the grand means of effecting the mass of men. It is God’s own method, and he will honour it ... In every age, great reformers have been great preachers ...

Preaching is not only influential in the lives of others, Alexander later argued; it is also very fulfilling for the preacher: é There is happiness in preaching. It may be so performed as to be as dull to the speaker as it is to the hearers; but in favoured instances it furnishes the purest and noblest excitements, and in these is happiness. Nowhere are experienced, more than in the pulpit, the clear, heavenward soaring of the intellect, the daring flight of imagination, or the sweet agitations of holy passion. Because of this power and this pleasure, small wonder that Alexander Whyte of Edinburgh, just after the turn of the century, could admonish a discouraged Methodist minister with these words: ‘Never think of giving up preaching! The angels around the throne envy you your great work. ’That was in 1908. The previous year saw the publication of the Congregational theologian P. T. Forsyth’s book Positive Preaching and the Modern Mind. These are its opening words: ‘It is, perhaps, an overbold beginning, but I will venture to say that with its preaching Christianity stands or falls.’* (Stott, Between Two Worlds, p. 36-38).

Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando

 *Stott, John R. W. (1994-01-01). Between Two Worlds: The Challenge of Preaching Today (pp. 36-38). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. Kindle Edition. 

Church And Sleep

Even the greatest preachers have had people sleep on them. It can say more about the sleeper than it does about the preacher. Don't get me wrong many men in the pulpit certainly give cause for sleeping during a service for preaching the Word in a boring manner. Sometimes one is left to wonder if the pastor is even convinced that it is God's Word he is proclaiming. However, if the Word is being heralded, than every effort must be made to listen. After all, no sane person would fall asleep in something so important as a job interview, would they? Why do we think differently with a church service that should be centered on the preaching of the Bible?

I fear there are many reasons why people sleep during a worship service. As I mentioned above, we pastors sometimes preach in a boring manner. We can treat the sanctuary as if it is a classroom. Other times we are too concerned with imparting information without having meditated on the truth(s) of the message so as to be moved in our souls of what is being revealed by God. When the Word is proclaimed in a boring manner that only communicates to the congregation that it is not worth fighting the heavy eyes to pay attention to the message. We must not bore them to death. The Word of God is not boring so let's not preach like it is.

I fear that many do not understand what is happening when the "man of God" is in the pulpit speaking on behalf of God. They think he is merely suggesting things to make their lives practically better or that he is there to entertain them to keep them interested in the things of God. If they are not getting these during a service off to sleep they go. Now, again, pastors are partly to blame for this since they have catered to these demands and even sought them out. They want to hear the praises of the people and one of the easiest ways to get them is to humor people. I cannot recall how many times I've heard someone say " I really love pastor so and so because he is really funny!" Folks there's a place for humor in life and perhaps even at times in the pulpit but the gathering of God's people for worship is not about humor and being entertained. Woe to the pastor that deliberately tries to be funny to entertain and woe to the people that go to a service seeking to have a good laugh. Martyn Lloyd-Jones says it perfectly:

I would not dare say that there is no place for humour in preaching; but I do suggest it should not be a very big place because of the nature of the work, and because of the character of the Truth with which were dealing. The preacher is dealing with and concerned  about souls and their destiny. He is standing between God and men and acting as an ambassador for Christ. I would have thought that as that is the overriding consideration, the most one can say for the place of humour is that it is allowable if it is natural. The man who tries to be humorous is an abomination and should never be allowed to enter a pulpit. The same applies to the man who does it deliberately in order to ingratiate himself with the people.* 

We do not gather for worship to be entertained and the preacher must not feed that desire. As Cotton Mather wrote:

The great design and intention of the office of a Christian preacher are to restore the throne and dominion of God in the souls of men; to display in the most lively colours, and proclaim in the clearest language, the wonderful perfections, offices and grace of the Son of God; and to attract the souls of men into a state of everlasting friendship with him.*

There is more to say and perhaps, Lord willing, there will be a second part. Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando

*Lloyd-Jones, Martyn, Preaching And Preachers ( Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1971), p. 241

*Stott, John R. W. (1994-01-01). Between Two Worlds: The Challenge of Preaching Today (p. 31). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. Kindle Edition.

What Sparked The Reformation? In Luther's Own Words...

‘I simply taught, preached, wrote God’s Word: otherwise I did nothing. And when, while I slept, or drank Wittenberg beer with my Philip and my Amsdorf, the Word so greatly weakened the papacy that never a Prince or Emperor inflicted such damage upon it. I did nothing. The Word did it all.’*

Calvin also echos similar sentiments when he describes what a true church is:

‘Wherever we see the Word of God purely preached and heard’, he wrote, ‘and the sacraments administered according to Christ’s institution, there, it is not to be doubted, a Church of God exists.’ In fact, this ministry of Word and sacrament, the audible and visible proclaimation of the gospel, must be adjudged ‘a perpetual token by which to distinguish the Church’.*

Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando


*Stott, John R. W. (1994-01-01). Between Two Worlds: The Challenge of Preaching Today (p. 25). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. Kindle Edition.

And Now Back To Our Regular Scheduled Program...

We now return to my two favorite topics- the Gospel of Christ and preaching. The two most definitely go together. There is nothing as satisfying to my soul than to hear or read a preacher herald the glorious Gospel. As I have been studying (hence all the posts about Lloyd-Jones) the life and sermons of Dr. Martyn Lloyd- Jones, I am always drawn to Christ through his preaching. What a joy it must have been to sit under his preaching. Not teaching but preaching. Imparting information is one thing but to herald the Word of God is quite another. Anyone can impart biblical information but not everyone is called and gifted by God to preach. All preachers are teachers but not all teachers are preachers.

What then is preaching? Well, the "Doctor" once gave a lecture on "What is Preaching." As usual, on this subject he starts with his own inadequacies and then deals with the negatives before the positives.

Well, to me preaching is a great mystery; it is one of the most mysterious things of all, and that is why I find it eludes any kind of analysis. I do not know what your experience is but, personally, I find that I never know what is going to happen when I enter a pulpit. I am constantly being surprised- sometimes in the sense of being disappointed, but at other times surprised at the amazing grace of God. Sometimes when I go into a pulpit, thinking I am going to preach in a wonderful way, it is disastrous. Other times, when I go with inadequate preparation because I have been travelling, am doing too much, and really feeling that I have no right to be in the pulpit at all, I find ease and facility and am aware of power. That is my difficulty. There is this mysterious element in preaching that makes it well nigh impossible for one to speak about it.*

I say that I have been wrestling with this subject for forty years and more and I have had two experiences which I shall never forget. I have a feeling that I have only really preached twice in my life, and on both occasions I was dreaming.*

...a man who does not know something about his unworthiness has no right to enter the pulpit at all.* 

Again there was a term used which I abominate, the term 'pulpiteer'. You had great pulpiteers, the Henry Ward Beechers and people like that, who did infinite harm to preaching. These were great masters of assembly, bombastic men who reigned mid and late Victorian era.*

What is the difference between preaching and delivering a lecture? I think this is most important. I think I have detected the tendency for people to imagine that giving a lecture from a pulpit it becomes preaching. But it does not...I say that is not preaching. There is a place for lecturing. Lecturing is essential and there must be teaching in the church. But all I am concerned to say is that is not preaching.*

Some people seem to think that preaching consists of a running commentary on a passage of Scripture. I am not saying this does not have its place and function. You take a paragraph and make a comment on every single verse as a kind of running commentary. That is not preaching.*

The preparation goes on inside one's mind and heart and spirit. I do not know how it happens at all...*

What is this point, then, about preaching? Well, it is the extraordinary situation in which something is happening  between the man who is speaking and the congregation that is listening... Here are spiritually minded people they have come prepared and they are under the influence of the Spirit, and so these two things are blended together. There is a unity between preacher and hearers and there is a transaction backwards and forwards. That, to me, is true preaching... When there is true preaching you cannot do that (put a book down), you are gripped, you are taken up, you are mastered. And I argue that is an essential and a vital part of preaching.*

If a man reads a manuscript in the pulpit it is destructive of true preaching. I query even the rightness of writing a sermon out in full and committing it to memory.*

A sermon which is perfect in form, its diction, and in everything else, is one that militates against preaching. You know the apostle Paul in his writings suddenly forgets, as it were, what he had set out to say. Sometimes he interrupts his own thought; he does not complete his own sentences and he never ends them. How do we explain these breaks, these anacolutha, as they call them? Well, this is the freedom of the Spirit. Paul is taken up; he mentions the name of the Lord and off he goes to some great apostrophe. Then he may never return.*

Now here is an example of his own preaching taken from one of his sermons preached in his first ministry at Aberavon:

The more I think about it, the less surprised I am at the apparent and increasing failure of organised Christianity to appeal to the masses in these days; for the plain and obvious fact is that we, who still continue to attend our places of worship, have more or less 'sold the pass' and have neglected or given that vital principle which ever was and always will be the true heritage of the church of Christ on earth. For it appears, on looking into it, that the church has always triumphed and had her greatest successes when she has preached the two-fold message of the depravity of human nature and the absolute necessity of the direct intervention of God for its final salvation, or, in the words of Peter, that 'there is no other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.' A church which preaches that, either attracts or repels, you either join her or hate her and persecute her,- one thing is for certain, you cannot ignore her, for her message will not ignore you; it hurts, it upbraids, it condemns, it infuriates, or else it draws you. You are either right in, or definitely outside. If you feel you can save yourself, then this message annoys you, you resent the impertinence and the interference with your life; but if you are lost and helpless you run into her open arms for release and salvation.* 

Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando

* Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Knowing the Times (Edingburgh: Banner of Truth, 1989), quotes taken from chapter titled "What is Preaching", p. 258-278

* Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Evangelistic Sermons at Aberavon ( Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1983), pp. 1-2

   

On "Calvinist Worship"

Calvinism has always sought to remove distractions from the due worship belonging to the Triune God. In our day, churches strive on making worship culturally relevant. In the minds of many, the church must create a worship setting that resembles the world inorder to captivate the culture. They fail to realize that by structuring worship in direct likeness to the culture, worship is subject to change and left at the imagination of finite men. No longer is "..singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord "(Col 3:16) enough, no. The preacher must now rely on something other than what God has commanded as worship, inorder to keep his congregation satisfied. Here is renowned church historian Owen Chadwick on Calvinist Worship and the removal of distractions during the Reformation:


"The Swiss principle demanded Scriptural authority for all things in ecclesiastical polity and the worship of the Church. Simplicity was godly, all else was distraction. The medieval church seemed to the Reformed like an overfurnished clutter, a shop of antique junk, where the worshipper could not apprehend true holiness because his vision was screened by trinkets, side altars, statues, coloured windows, pomp, vestments, saints, and ceremonies, as though the listening ears of prayer were deafend by the clangour of ritual noise. Some simple folk, especially women, regretted the loss of colour, the departure of the statues and banners. Not so the true Calvinist. He felt as though he had been present at a cleansing of the Temple, elevated and purged in spirit, conscious of a wind of Hebraic purity rushing through the church, sweeping away squalor and superstition and the ornaments which anchored his soul to earth."


awretchsaved

*Chadiwck, Owen. The Reformation. London: Penguin, 1990. (Pg.184-185)

On A Final Note Regarding Israel

I find it appropriate to explain something things that Reformed folks believe concerning Israel. It is proper since many Dispensationalists and Christian Zionists don't understand what we believe. I also speak from experience.  Many assume they know what covenantalists believe because they have been taught by Dispensationalists on our position. Others get upset when people object to their view of Israel and assume they know what their opponents position is and simply react in ignorance. Concerning the latter group Stephen Sizer aptly says, "Dispensationalists like to think that they alone read the Bible literally and are more consistent than other Christians, who for example 'spiritualize' away the promises made to the Israelites. That is probably why they get upset when some conservative evangelicals beg to differ."* In any case they seem to not want to learn our Biblical position. And if they do wish to learn it may be because they wish to get ammo for their objections rather than to sincerely understand.

Since quite a few Dispensationalists have used the "I'v been studying the Bible for (insert number of years)" argument and I've only been studying a measly nine years. I will allow others that have been studying the Bible longer or just as long, as said Dispensationalists, to speak. Bear in mind that this is by no means an exhaustive affirmation of the covenantal view but to alleviate fears and to help clear up mass confusion.

John Stott:

Away then with anti-Semitism! It has been an appalling scandal in the history of Europe, and even the Christian Church has been implicated. Christians should be 'pro-Semitic', in the sense that we recognize how the people of Israel have been highly favoured by God. We Gentiles are their debtors, Paul wrote (Romans 15:27). We owe them a huge spiritual debt especially in their bequest to the world of both the Scriptures and the Christ.

Who, then, according to the New Testament perspective, is Israel today?  The answer will have enormously surprised most of its readers, and still surprises many today. It is that true Israel is neither Jews nor Israelis, but believers in the Messiah.*

Stephen Sizer:

It is not that the church has replaced Israel. Rather, in the new covenant church, God has fulfilled the promises originally made to the old covenant church. So, for example, when Jesus affirms Peter's declaration of faith and says, 'on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of death will not overcome it' (Matthew 16:18), the Greek word translated by 'church' is ekklesia- the very word used in the Greek translation of the Old Testament to describe God's people.*

It is true that at various times in the past, churches and church leaders have toelrated or incited anti-Semitism and even attacks on Jewish people. Racism is a sin and without excuse. Anti-Semitism must be repudiated unequivocally. However, we must not confuse apples and oranges. Anti-Zionism is not the same thing as anti-Semitism, desite the attempts to broaden the definition. Criticizing a political system as racist is not racist. Judaism is a religious system. Israel is a sovereign nation. Zionism is a political system. these three are not synonymous. I respect Judaism, repudiate anti-Semitism, encourage interfaith dialogue and defend Israel's right to exist within borders recognized by the international community and agreed with her neighbours. But like many Jews, I disagree with a political system that gives preference to expatriate Jews born elsewhere in the world, while denying the same rights to the Arab Palestianians born in the country itself.* 

This is a favourite 'straw man' of Christian Zionists. They criticize their opponents for implying that that church has 'replaced' Israel. The implication is that the Jewish people cease to have any role within the purposes of God. This is clearly refuted in Romans 9-11.* 

The New Testament does not teach that the Gentiles have superseded the Jews. But neither does it teach that the Jewish people retain a position of superiority over the Gentiles or over the church. There is continuity between the believers under the old covenant who looked forward to the coming of Christ and believers under the new covenant who look forward to his return. When Jesus died he broke down the wall of separation between Jew and Gentile.*

See, it really isn't as scary as many Dispensationalists say it is. A little honest learning can go a long way. Both sides must sincerely seek to understand the other's position. Or else you run the risk of objecting to a statement with ignorant gibberish.


"For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,.."(Eph 2:14–15). Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando


*Stephen Sizer, Zion's Christian Soldiers?, ( Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2007), p. 15

Ibid, p. 167

*Ibid, p. 15

*Ibid, p. 17

*Ibid, p. 16

*Ibid, p.55

The Real Definition Of 'Replacement Theology'

It is ironic that some Christian Zionists accuse their critics of holding to a 'replacement theology'- the idea that the church has replaced Israel- when many actually believe Israel will soon replace the church as God's people on earth. They have, as Dr. Gilbert Bilezikian observed, made 'Israel the bride and the Church the concubine.*

I have been arguing a similar point to that of Stephen Sizer (the source of the above quote) since I left Dispensationalism. People may be wondering why I am coming so strong on this topic. The answer is because I've seen all the confusion that has been caused by the Dispensational folly. To teach a future replacement of the Church with Israel has caused great harm and massive confusion to the Bride of Christ. People have approached me (innocently and some arrogantly), as I've preached on certain texts, with objections and questions like "but isn't that a promise for Israel?" (the new covenant).

Confusion and the arrogant and even silly statements such as this one by John Hagee:

For 25 almost 26 years now, I have been pounding the evangelical community over television. The Bible is a very pro-Israel book. If a Christian admits 'I believe the Bible,' I can make him pro-Israel supporter or they must denounce their faith. So I have the Christians over a barrel, you might say.*

Or this one from the International Christian Embassy, Jerusalem:

This promise (Gen. 12:3) was given to the Hebrew Patriarchs Abraham and Jacob- or Israel. So whoever blesses Israel will be blessed. But how can you bless Israel? The answer is easy: prayer; finances; come to Israel as a volunteer.*

In regards to Hagee's claim- it is quite laughable. It is the second one that is very alarming. Of all the ways Christians are supposed to "bless" Israel, not one of them is the proclamation of the Gospel of Christ Jesus! If any 'replacement theology' is going on it is the replacing the proclamation of Jesus Christ to Israel with volunteering!

Covenantalists are not liberal, anti-Semitic or into 'replacement' theology. That some dispensationalists believe Israel will replace the church is another matter...*

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise... And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God" (Ga  3:28-29,6:16).  Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando


*Stephen Sizer, Zion's Christian Soldiers?, ( Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2007), p. 43
* Ibid, p. 11
* Ibid, p. 43
*Ibid, p. 17

An Example Of Puritan Piety: John Bruen

I am always encouraged while reading on the examplary lives of past saints. One man who little is said of goes by the name of John Bruen. John was a laymen, (which is probably why little is said of him) but I was edified by reading small portions about his life in Owen Chadwick's work: " The Reformation".

"He rose at five a.m. in winter, between three and four a.m. in summer, and spent an hour or two in meditating upon the Bible, interceding for his family or writing out a sermon which he had lately heard,to such purpose that when he died he left many orderly volumes of manuscript devotions in his study. He observed the text 'seven times a day will I praise thee' at fixed points of the day. He woke his household by ringing a bell for family prayers, and though most of his prayers were extempore, he always began with a collect to convince the ignorant who thought a set form to be unlawful. He chose godly men from the neighbourhood to be his servents, catechized them, and held meetings with them to discuss cases of conscience; and after evening prayers the servants used to continue their devotions in the kitchen. He bought two large Bibles and put them on lecterns in his hall and parlour that the servants and visitors might consult them."

" His motto which he used to write on the title page of his books, was Hallelujah. He keenly observed the particular providences, and kept a journal of them, from which these extracts have survived:

1601. My servant going with his cart laden, fell down, and the wheels being iron bound went over his leg, yet hurt him not at all: Laus Deo, praised be God

1602. My son John going into the field, took up a scythe to see how he could mow, the scythe entered into his stocking to the shinbone, shaving his hair, and came out at the back side of his leg, and touched no flesh nor skin: Laus Deo, praised be God."

"To his tenants he was always charitable, not exacting high rents, encouraging their labour, making an annual allowance to buy winter clothes for the poor, visiting them when sick, sometimes giving them his good suits. In times of scarcity he fed many at his table. His hospitality was bountiful, and far from the coventional portrait of a puritan."

Owen Chadwick concludes:

"Such men were impregnated with Biblical texts; conscious of the imminent hand of God upon every act and moment; denying the possibility of chance; so teaching the utter depravity of man since the fall of Adam, and the glory of redeeming power......".

I hope you are blessed by this and encouraged to increase your devotion to the Lord.

In Christ, awretchsaved


*Chadiwck, Owen. The Reformation. London: Penguin, 1990. (Pg.180-182)

A Question(s) For Christian Zionists

A brief clarification- I do not use the term "Zionist" in a derogatory manner. It is the simplest way to identify Christians that believe certain land belongs to believing or unbelieving Jews.

My question is this: If there happens to be a Palestinian family (there really are many) in Palestine that are part of the bride of Christ- are they to support the unbelieving nation of Israel, as they force them into refugee camps and inflict pain and suffering on their family, because the Jewish people believe that land is divinely theirs? What are they to do? Would you have them join the very people that are causing them harm? What if the said family does not wish to leave their home, which allegedly belongs to "Israel?" What would you have them do?

A fair and honest question. Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando

For Our Arab Brothers...

I just started reading a book- Arabs in the Shadow of Israel: The Unfolding of God's Prophetic Plan for Ishmael's Line by Tony Maalouf. I believe the name of the book says it all. I just thought I would share a short bit from it:

I do not remember the various details of the message, but I still recall that somehow the subject turned to Abraham and Hagar. "If Abraham was not so impatient," said the speaker, "we would have been spared much headache in the Middle East today." Implied was that Abraham's impatience before God-compared to our great patience, obviously-led to Ishmael's birth and sustained enmity and struggle between the line of Ishmael and the line of Isaac until today. Though it was not the first time I had heard similar claims about Abraham's role in the birth of Ishmael, it was the first time I stopped to ponder the reasons behind and the consequences of such criticism. What increased my interest in the subject was an earlier discovery of a veiled truth regarding Ishmael. Over the past few years, I have come to conclude that negative comments like that of the West Coast preacher betray three crucial facts related to the line of the slave woman. First, they show how narrow our view of God's sovereignty is. The same God who planned a redemptive role for the line of Isaac (Gen. 17:19) designed a major historical role for the line of Ishmael as well (16:10; 17:20). God planned to save thousands of those guilty of crucifying Christ through the same death they were culpable for (Acts 2-3).

Second, they reveal how much current events in the Middle East influence our interpretation of the biblical text. Finally, they disclose our ignorance of many details in biblical and secular history, for we assume that history supports our theology in the matter of Ishmael's enmity to Isaac, when it does not. Had Abraham not been so impatient, we might have been spared the headache of the Arab-Israeli conflict in the Middle East today. Yet replacing Arabs with another ethnic group might have only changed the name of the conflict and unfortunately kept the headache. On the other hand, removing Hagar's descendants from the picture would affect many details we tend to ignore in God's design of world history and human redemption. First, it removes large sections of secular history important to the fulfillment of God's purpose. Most important, it removes a multitude of names written in the book of life throughout salvation history. Finally, it removes several inspired portions of the biblical text related to this specific ethnic line. The West Coast preacher may not have intended his casual comment to cause such damage. It was most likely a passing remark, and not premeditated. It may also have been said as an irony in order to magnify human guilt and vindicate God in his ways. Yet, this passing statement is only one among many signals that betray a negative stereotype concerning the slave woman and her line, common in many Christian circles today. The confusion can only be overcome by an in-depth study of the Word of God and an objective pursuit of the truth. However, the negative image of Ishmael in Christian circles in the West may be related, among other things, to deeply rooted biases against Arabs in general in broader Western societies.* (Underlining mine).

We shall not forget our Arab brethren.

 "As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I have blessed him and will make him fruitful and multiply him greatly. He shall father twelve princes, and I will make him into a great nation" (Ge 17:19–20). Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando


*Tony Maalouf. Arabs in the Shadow of Israel: The Unfolding of God's Prophetic Plan for Ishmael's Line (p. 17-19). Kindle Edition.