Monday, November 27, 2006

Nothing Rosie about O’Donnell’s views

By Will Hall @ http://www.bpnews.net/bpcolumn.asp?ID=245591323__rosie_l

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--It seems almost trite to say, “Rosie O’Donnell has done it again.”

She’s insulted the collective intelligence of Americans a number of times (at least four) since she emerged as a co-host on ABC's "The View," and it seems the public has developed something akin to “Rosie fatigue.” While her previous outlandishness garnered wide press coverage, her latest tirade barely raised a fuss.

What did she say this time?

In a Nov. 9 exchange on "The View," O’Donnell chided one of her co-hosts not to be alarmed by terrorists, saying the choice was between faith or fear (she clarified that by faith she meant in humanity and equality, not Christianity).

“You can walk through life believing in the goodness of the world, or walk through life afraid of anyone who thinks different than you and trying to convert them to your way of thinking," she said.

Co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck rebutted, “Well, I’m a person of faith, but I also believe ..." when O’Donnell cut her off.

“Well, then, get away from the fear,” O’Donnell admonished. “Don't fear the terrorists. They’re mothers and fathers.”

It seems we have an about-face from O'Donnell's Sept. 12 declaration when she charged, “Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America where we have separation of church and state.”

Conveniently, on the one hand she uses terrorists to create a negative caricature of Christians. But just as conveniently, on the other hand she uses the imagery of American mothers and fathers to suggest that terrorists are no threat.

The irony is that research shows evangelical moms and dads, those committed to their faith and not just nominally affiliated with a faith tradition, make the best parents and that children thrive in these Christian homes. A snapshot of the research shows:

-- Christian couples who regularly attend church and actively practice their faith in the home are happier and experience divorce 32 percent less than secular couples.

-- Evangelical mothers hug and praise their children more than other mothers. Meanwhile, evangelical fathers, more than any other group of men, are affectionate to their wives and children and are more involved in their children’s lives.

-- Children in homes of faithful Christian parents score better scholastically, enjoy better physical and mental health and participate less in risky behavior than their peers.

Unfortunately, critics like O’Donnell don’t want to make an honest comparison between "radical" Christianity and radical Islam. The contrast is too stark in favor of those sold out for Christ -– those who live their faith by active participation in church and by exampling Christ-like behavior in the home. Instead, naysayers about Christianity like O’Donnell would rather ignore the facts and argue the exceptions or the margins as the rule.

The reality is that radical Christianity has the potential of wonderfully transforming America and the world (moms and dads and all), not bringing either to its knees in fear.

Regrettably, O’Donnell’s only brushes with transformation have been superficial, the product of marketing herself for her career: She hid her homosexuality to become Mary Tyler Moore-like, the "queen of nice" who was in love with Tom Cruise ... but only as long as she hosted her own television show and worked in feature films; after ending her talk show stint, she morphed into a raunchy standup comedienne, drastically changing her looks (complete with a masculine haircut) and personality (marked by foul-mouthed routines); now, she’s back again to the presentable look (new hairdo and wardrobe) of a talk show host, although she’s more of a bully than in her past daytime role.

O’Donnell is the adoptive parent of three children. Not much is public about her home life, except she lives with a lesbian partner. What is clear, though, is that if she wants to be the mom in a loving home that fosters the best of health and growth for her children, what she needs most is the radical Christianity she so abhors.

But that’s just my view.
--30--
Will Hall is the executive editor of Baptist Press.

Christians and Christmas Trees

By John MacArthur @ http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/11/27/christians-and-christmas-trees/#more-295

Christians and Christmas Trees

As the Christmas Season approaches, questions like this sometimes arise. Like everything in life, it is important to approach these issues with biblical discernment.

In this case, we see nothing wrong with the traditional Christmas tree. However, some have taught that it’s wrong for anyone to have a Christmas tree in their home. But are their reasons valid? We don’t think so. Let’s look at the two most common objections people make against having a Christmas tree.

First, some object on the basis that Christmas trees have pagan origins. It is believed that Boniface, English missionary to Germany in the eighth century, instituted the first Christmas tree. He supposedly replaced sacrifices to the god Odin’s sacred oak with a fir tree adorned in tribute to Christ. But certain other accounts claim that Martin Luther introduced the Christmas tree lighted with candles. Based on that information you could say the Christmas tree has a distinguished Christian pedigree.

However, even if a pagan background were clearly established, that wouldn’t necessarily mean we could not enjoy the use of a Christmas tree. Perhaps the following analogy will help.

During World War II the American military used some remote South Pacific islands for temporary landing strips and supply depots. Prior to that time the indigenous tribal people had never seen modern technology up close. Large cargo planes swooped in filled with an array of material goods, and for the first time the islanders saw cigarette lighters (which they deemed to be miraculous), jeeps, refrigerators, radios, power tools, and many varieties of food.

When the war was over, the islanders concluded that the men who brought cargo were gods, so they began building shrines to the cargo gods. They hoped the cargo gods would return with more goods.

Most people do not even know about this religious superstition. Similarly, few know anything about the worship of trees. When a child pulls a large present out from under the Christmas tree and unwraps a large model cargo plane, no one views that object as an idol. Nor do we view the Christmas tree to be some kind of gift god. We understand the difference between a toy and an idol just as clearly as we understand the difference between an idol and a Christmas tree. We see no valid reason to make any connection between Christmas trees and wooden idols or the worship of trees. Those who insist on making such associations should take note of the warnings in Scripture against judging one another in doubtful things (see Romans 14 & 1 Corinthians 10:23-33).

Christians and Christmas TreesAnother common objection is the claim that Christmas trees are prohibited in Scripture. Jeremiah 10 is commonly used to support this viewpoint. But a closer look at the passage will show that it has nothing to do with Christmas trees and everything to do with idol worship. Verse eight says, “A wooden idol is a worthless doctrine.”

Idol worship was a clear violation of the Ten Commandments. Exodus 20:3-6 says, “You shall have no other gods before Me. You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.”

There is no connection between the worship of idols and the use of Christmas trees. We should not be anxious about baseless arguments against Christmas decorations. Rather, we should be focused on the Christ of Christmas and giving all diligence to remembering the real reason for the season.

Pray













Posted by Eric Simmons @http://www.newattitude.org/beta/blog/entry.php?category=Application&id=169#jumpdown

Have you ever been in a group context and you start talking about a subject you know little about—but you talk as though you know a lot about it. And the more you talk the more painfully obvious it is to everyone that you have no idea what you are talking about. With the invention of Google it seems as though everybody is an expert with just the click of the mouse.

Have you ever been in a group context and you start talking about a subject you know little about—but you talk as though you know a lot about it. And the more you talk the more painfully obvious it is to everyone that you have no idea what you are talking about. With the invention of Google it seems as though everybody is an expert with just the click of the mouse.

I think this could be our tendency and temptation with the subject of prayer. Our Christian culture is inundated with information about. I did a Google search under the word prayer and Google pulled up almost 94 million sites dedicated to the topic of prayer. Amazon had almost 202 thousands books on the topic.

Prayer is one of those topics I think we can speak authoritatively about. But we spend little time actually doing it! Do we pray? Do you pray?

Let’s all assume for a minute that we don’t know how to pray. Let’s not think we know what we are talking about. Let’s come like children to the feet of the Father and ask along with the disciples the simple question, “Jesus, would you teach us to pray.” Let’s recognize from the beginning, whether we have been walking with Jesus for 2 months or 20 years, we need to be taught by Jesus how to pray.

A few weeks ago I preached from Luke 11:1-13 at my church. The context of the passage is that as Jesus was privately praying, the disciples were eavesdropping. There was something in the way Jesus prayed that the disciples wanted to find out about. They wanted to know how this Rabbi, this Teacher, this Savior and Prophet prayed.

What Jesus does in this passage is he directs us to 3 things that we should know when we pray.

1. Who do we pray to?

This seems like a very simple question. But I want to take a moment and really meditate on the answer. It is so simple and so familiar to us that we can easily ignore and forget whom we are praying to. Failure to remember whom we pray to will devastate our prayer life. The answer to “who?” is what motivates and moves us to pray.

So who do we pray to? God.
The eternal, transcendent, omnipotent, unchangeable, omnipresent creator.
The holy, all knowing Judge who will pour out wrath on sinful beings like us.
This is who we pray to.

Let that set in for a moment.

What does Jesus want us to call God? A six letter word that will change your prayer life: “Father” (verse 2). Darryl Bock comments that for the disciples the opening note of Jesus’ prayer was marked by intimacy and real relationship. No longer were God’s people going to be distant. No not distant, but close, like children to their father.

Does that not build your faith to pray more? To approach him more? You do not come into the presence of an angry judge when you pray or a distant creator. No, you come into a family room sit down before your precious father who is listening and you can ask him anything.

Meditate on this for all it’s worth. This is where we get the passion to be diligent in prayer. This fuels our desire to pray. This turns our heart from “I gotta pray” to “Sweet, I get to pray.”

2. What should we pray for?

When you pray, say: “Father, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come. Give us each day our daily bread, and forgive us our sins, for we ourselves forgive everyone who is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation.” (Luke 11:2-4 ESV)

In this brief, simple prayer God gives us direction on what to pray. This is not a strict formal prayer; it is a pattern to pray.

There are five bold petitions in this prayer. These five petitions reflect the heart and priorities of God for us to pray. This is what he treasures.

1. Pray that God’s name would be more fully revealed and glorified to all the world.
2. Pray that God’s rule and reign would come in fullness
3. Pray for daily provision.
4. Pray for forgiveness.
5. Pray for protection from temptation.

Look at these petitions as a whole for a moment. This is not an exhaustive list by any means, but I think in the mind of God these are the most important things for us to pray about. They are his priorities for us.

Does this pattern of prayer match your pattern of prayer? Do your priorities match His? What we pray for most can be a huge indicator of what is a priority to us. Are God’s glory, God’s Kingdom, God’s Gospel that brings forgiveness, God’s dominion over evil, God’s gracious provision for his children the first categories on your mind and heart to pray for?

Prayer reveals our heart and what we really treasure. So let us treasure and delight in what God delights in.

3. What should our attitude be in prayer?

Be persistent. Be shameless in your asking and praying. Don’t stop asking. Jesus says to us today: Keep on asking. Keep on seeking. Keep on knocking.

God is encouraging shameless persistence. Let that sink in for a moment. I know that is hard to imagine.

Goerge Mueller observed, “the great fault of the children of God is, they do not continue in prayer; they do not go on praying; they do not persevere. If they desire anything for God’s glory, they should pray until they get it.”

Have you ever prayed like this for anything? Are there any prayer requests that you have given up on or didn’t really try? I think God is saying to start asking. The answer is near. Keep asking. What a promise.

”What father among you, if his son asks for a fish, will instead of a fish give him a serpent; or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”
(Luke 11:11-13, ESV)

You make requests to a generous Father who is leaning forward, ready to answer you. God is not reluctant in answering any prayer, and he wants us to persist in prayer.

But why does God make us wait so long? Why is he so slow to answer?

When the Father in heaven gives us a slow answer—when he wills that we prevail for a season—it is because he is giving us a fish and not a serpent. He is giving us what is good for us. There is something in the prevailing—the asking and seeking and knocking—that we need, that is good for us. And he knows best.

So keep asking; be shameless and persistent in your requests. God is leaning forward ready to hear you and answer you! Ask, seek, knock.

Charles Spurgeon said, “Where God leads you to pray, he means you to receive.”

One qualification: God’s answer maybe no. We must trust that God knows best when we hear no. He may say no because to answer the request would be harm to us. He may say no because our motive is selfish and not about his glory. He may say no because there is willful sin in our life that he wants us to repent of first because it is breaching our relationship with him. But here is a promise: God will answer all prayer. And his answer, even if it’s no, is for our greatest good. And he has promised to give his very spirit to those that ask. That is by far greater than anything else.

I think this passage can be summed up in one central truth.
God answers all prayers, so persistently pray about all things!

Every day God the Father invites us as his children to sit down in front of him and he says to us, “Kids, ask today, seek today, knock today. How do you want to watch me work today? How would you like me to reveal my glory and my kingdom today? Ask and you shall receive today. Seek and you will find today. Knock and I will open the door today.”

As we pray persistently we get to sit and watch the Father work his wonderful ways. Let’s persistently pray about all things.

Listen to the whole message from 10.29.2006, here.

WJDW-What Jesus Demands from the World-Demand #7 — Abide in Me

By Bob Hayton @ http://fundyreformed.wordpress.com/Click to order

Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. (John 15:4-5)

As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love. (John 15:9)

If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. (John 14:11)

Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:31)

What abiding is.

To abide, is to stay, continue, or dwell. So Piper says, “Jesus meant: ‘Stay in me. Continue in me. Keep me for your dwelling.’” With the figure of the vine, we understand a little better what “abiding” is. Piper says it best: “Abiding in Jesus means staying vitally connected to the life-giving, power-giving, fruit-producing branch, namely, Jesus.”

What abiding produces.

Piper claims abiding is the “moment-by-moment cause of every good thing in our lives”. Of course, he gets this from Jesus’ statement “Apart from me you can do nothing”. So in John 15, abiding in Jesus results in fruit. No fruit without abiding. So Piper again states that abiding means “staying vitally connected, hour by hour, to the one who alone produces in our lives everything he demands.”

What abiding isn’t.

Abiding produces fruit, so abiding cannot be that very fruit. It is wrong to think we are obeying Christ’s demand to abide if we are just “bearing fruit” or “keeping Jesus’ commandments”. That is the fruit of abiding. Maybe we don’t have abiding quite pigeonholed yet. So…

How do we abide?

Jesus says abide “in me” (Jn. 15:4) and “in my love” (Jn. 15:9). He also says to abide “in my word” (Jn. 14:11). All of this points toward “abiding as continual trust in the truth of Jesus’ words and in the certainty of his love.” We would not be abiding in Jesus’ love if we stopped beleiving that we are loved by him. We would not be abiding in Jesus’ word, if we ceased believing in the truth of that word. Abiding is a continual trust in Jesus’ love and in His words, in other words, a continual trust in Him as a person.

Piper concludes that “abiding in Jesus—in his love and in his word—is trusting that he really is loving us at every moment and that everything he has revealed about himself and his work for us and our future with him is true.”

A warning.

Jesus’ demand that we abide in Him is a warning. In Jn. 8:30-31 (quoted above), Jesus ties abiding in with being a “true” disciple. In John 15, Jesus speaks of the utter destruction of those who, in the words of Piper, “appear to be truly in the vine, but are not”. All of this is to warn us that if we are not abiding, if our lifestyle is one that consistently does not trust in Jesus’ love and in Jesus’ Word continually, then we might very well not be genuinely born again. We may still be on our way to hell.

Such warnings do not prove that we can actually lose our salvation. 1 Jn. 2:19 teaches that those who fall away were never truly saved, they just seemed to be. These warnings should also not cause us to try to earn our salvation by working real hard. No, they are what God uses to prod us onward along that straight and narrow way—the hard way. At times we will need to be warned that our lifestyle is not matching our profession. And they ultimately remind us that it is only God’s free grace given to us because of Jesus Christ’s perfect life, death, and resurrection, that gives us a secure place in heaven. The very warnings to continue believing will help us believe and call us to find refuge in Jesus Christ through ongoing faith and trust. [See this post for more on this point.]

Encouragement.

Piper stresses that ultimately we cannot “abide” on our own. God keeps us in the vine. He does not let us slip through His hand (Jn. 10:27-29). Jesus prays for us and sovereignly determines that our faith will not fail (cf. Luke 22:31-32).

So with all this in mind, let us purpose to abide, moment by moment, in a vibrant trust in Jesus—His love and His Word. Let us seek to put His Word in front of our eyes, so that reading it faithfully, we will be nourished and abide in the vine. Let us use the means of grace in our lives and take advantage of our church and our relationships with other believers, so that we keep on keeping on. Let us press on to higher ground!

—See all posts on, the Demands of Jesus


∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 • Rom. 15:5-7

Professor Ken Samples' Series on Islam

by Kim Riddlebarger @http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/

Professor Ken Samples' lectures on Islam, have all been posted on the Christ Reformed Infoblog. Ken did a great job with these--very informative, especially good for those of you who have never been exposed to the teachings of Islam. Click here: Christ Reformed Info - MP3's and Real Audio (of Academy Lectures)

There are six lectures posted (some in Real Audio, all in MP3). Scroll down.


In Christian-Muslim relations, peace not served by ignoring history

Honesty and realism, i.e., anti-dhimmitude, from Charles Chaput, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Denver:

...Catholics who do know history may remember the following:
Islam has embraced armed military expansion for religious purposes since its earliest decades. In contrast, Christianity struggled in its divided attitudes toward military force and state power for its first 300 years. No “theology of Crusade” existed in Western Christian thought until the 11th century. In fact, the Christian Byzantine Empire had already been resisting Muslim expansion in the East for 400 years before Pope Urban II called the First Crusade — as a defensive response to generations of armed jihad.

Much of the modern Middle East was once heavily Christian. Muslim armies changed that by imposing Islamic rule. Surviving Christian communities have endured centuries of marginalization, discrimination, violence, slavery and outright persecution — not always and not everywhere; but as a constant, recurring and central theme of Muslim domination.

That same Christian suffering continues down to the present. In the early years of the 20th century, the Muslim Ottoman Empire murdered more than 1 million Armenian Christians for ethnic, economic, but also religious reasons. Many Turks and other Muslims continue to deny that massive crime even today. Coptic Christians in Egypt — who, even after 13 centuries of Muslim prejudice and harassment, cling to the faith — continue to experience systematic discrimination and violence at the hands of Islamic militants.

Harassment and violence against Christians continue in many places throughout the Islamic world, from Bangladesh, Iran, Sudan, Pakistan and Iraq, to Nigeria, Indonesia and even Muslim-dominated areas of the heavily Catholic Philippines. In Saudi Arabia, all public expressions of Christian faith are forbidden. The on-going Christian flight from Lebanon has helped to transform it, in just half a century, from a majority Christian Arab nation to a majority Muslim population.

These are facts. The Muslim-Christian conflict is a very long one, rooted in deep religious differences, and Muslims have their own long list of real and perceived grievances. But especially in an era of religiously inspired terrorism and war in the Middle East, peace is not served by ignoring, subverting or rewriting history, but rather by facing it humbly as it really happened and healing its wounds.

http://jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/

This is what happens when you try to appease Islamic Fascists

Posted by michele @ http://reformedchicksblabbing.blogspot.com/2006/11/this-is-what-happens-when-you-try-to.html

So, the military removed the Prime Minister in Thailand and put in his place a Muslim with the hope that he would be able to solve their problem with terrorism but it has only made it worse:
Hundreds of schools in Thailand's restive south will shut their doors in response to increasingly vicious attacks by suspected Muslim insurgents against teachers and schools, an official said Saturday.

The closure, which begins Monday, affects all 336 primary and secondary schools in the province of Pattani, where two teachers were fatally shot by suspected insurgents in the past two days.

In one of the killings, attackers shot a school principal Friday, and then set his body on fire. The principal became the 59th teacher or school official killed in three years of violence, said Bunsom Thongsriprai, president of the Teachers' Association in Pattani.

[...]

Thailand's new military-installed government has pledged to make peace in the south a priority, and reverse the hardline policies of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who was ousted in a Sept. 19 coup.

Defense Minister Boonrawd Somtat said Friday that insurgents had stepped up violence to keep residents from accepting new peace overtures from the authorities.

"They have intensified violent attacks to intimidate and terrify people," Boonrawd said, adding that the shadowy groups behind the violence have not accepted government offers to hold talks.
Doesn't this tell you something? They don't want peace, you can't negotiate with them, they want domination. If you want to appease them, give them the keys to your capitol and let them institute Sharia law.

(via)

The Evidential Problem of Evil

Posted by Jeremy @ http://parablemania.ektopos.com/archives/2006/11/evidentialevil.html#more

This is the the twenty-eighth post in my Theories of Knowledge and Reality series. Follow the link for more on the series and for links to other entries as they appear. The last post looked at responses to the logical problem of evil. This post moves on to the evidential problem of evil.

Most philosophers have conceded that the logical problem of evil does not disprove theism. That does not stop them from offering a different version of the problem of evil against the existence of God. William Rowe is probably the most prominent philosopher defending the problem of evil today. He calls this version of the argument the evidential problem of evil.

The evidential problem of evil begins with the existence of evil, but it takes a different strategy. It does not seek to disprove the existence of God by finding a contradiction between the existence of evil and the existence of God. It simply seeks to show that the existence of God is unlikely given the kinds of evil, the amount of evil, how long evil has gone on, and so on. The facts about evil are that it is a lot more than just human free choices. Even if human free will explains some evil, some evil seems not to be explained so easily that way. Even if there are good reasons for God to allow some evil, is all evil explained so easily? What about cases where a little less evil would have accomplished the same purposes? Do we need to have all the kinds of evil? Did it need to go on this long? Does it need to be as widespread as it is? Do the individual cases of evil need to be as bad as they are?

The evidential problem of evil puts forward the lump sum of the facts about evil as its starting evidence. It does not conclude that this proves there is no God, as the logical problem did. It simply sees this lump sum of all the facts about evil as very strong evidence against the existence of God. Very strong evidence is still not a proof. Of course, if it is very strong evidence, and that evidence cannot be countered with alternative explanations, then perhaps no one should believe in God. We may be able to come up with explanations for a good deal of evil in the universe, but that does not mean we have explained all of it. If there seems to be no good explanation for a good deal of the evil that we can observe, is that not a good sign that some of it really has no good explanation? If that is true, then there probably is no reason why a good being would allow it. Therefore, there probably is no such being.

Responses to the Evidential Problem of Evil

It might be easiest to see the theistic responses to the evidential problem of evil if we separate the problem into several different questions.

A. What about kinds of evil that aren’t the result of the free actions of human beings?

B. God might allow free human beings to make evil choices, but why wouldn’t God immediately restore things to the way they were so that the world would not continue to contain evil?

C. Even if God would not restore things immediately, wouldn’t a good God prevent innocent beings from experiencing the consequences of that evil?

D. Even if God would not prevent the consequences or restore things immediately, why does it have to go on this long, and why does it have to be as bad as it is and as widespread as it is? Wouldn’t a good God want to minimize the effects of evil?

E. Even if these questions can all be answered somewhat satisfactorily, we do not have a complete explanation of evil. Isn’t that still evidence against God, if we can’t come up with a complete explanation of the amount of evil, the kinds of evil, the distribution of evil, the depths of evil, the length of time evil occurs, and so on? Explaining some evil helps resist seeing that evil as evidence against God, since it explains why God would allow that evil. But how can that remove all the evidence that the total sum of evil presents against God?

Theists have spent thousands of years looking at such questions, and these posts will not really do justice to everything that has been said, but I do hope to capture some of the more important things that recent philosophers have drawn on in responding to the latest versions of this argument in the form they have taken from philosophers such as William Rowe. In the next few posts, I will consider these questions, starting with questions A and B in the next post.

Saturday, November 25, 2006

Why We Don't Pray As We Should

By Brian Colmery @ http://colmery.blogspot.com/2006/11/why-we-dont-pray-as-we-should.html

Ask any pastor about the church’s weekly prayer meetings and you’ll get one of the following answers:

1. “Oh, I remember those. Good times, good times.”
2. “I hear that they’re going well.”
3. “They’re not great. We pretty much pray for old ladies bunions and stuff.”

It’s rare that you find a church today that has a prayer meeting that could be described as “vibrant” with a straight face. And when, like I’m doing now, the pastor tries to ascertain why prayer meetings, though well and good, aren’t what they could be, answers are hard to come by.

There’s a cycle of thoughts you go through, as a pastor in that situation, when you try to figure out what needs to be done. First, you think about the prayers in the bible, and the prayers in history, and all those crazy stories you hear in seminary about answered prayer and how Spurgeon had roughly 1.2 million people in the church basement praying for every service. Then you think about your own prayer life, how it needs work, and struggle for a while between the ease of thinking “well, I pray more than most people I know” and the difficulty of recognizing that God didn’t make “everyone you know” the standard. After hacking your way through that one, you start thinking about how you’re probably going to eat a peanut butter sandwich for dinner. And how maybe the whole “online dating” thing isn’t such a bad idea if it might eventually lead to dinners that involve more than a bag of bread, two jars, and a knife. Or that might be just me.

Then you shake that off and start to think of how, while the prayer meetings aren’t up to the legendary standard of Mueller or the like, it’s not like they’re bad. I mean, people are getting prayed for, and that’s good. Right? A mini debate takes place somewhere in your head, and then you think: well, maybe we just need improvement. A little tweaking. And so, like the good seminary graduate, you think: I’ll just teach it. Pre-prayer meeting devotionals, pushing the effectiveness of prayer. A few extreme stories about God’s faithfulness.

Then you remember the last six times you tried that, and the blank stares you received. And so you resign yourself to having “okay” prayer meetings for a while, consoling yourself with a hastily made (but liberally slathered with jelly) sandwich. A few months later, you start the process all over again.

This time around, though, it’s not dinner time and I’m not near my kitchen, so my “distract-via-sandwich” option isn’t on the table. No pun intended. And what’s donned on my is this little doozy:

We don’t pray the way we should because we don’t really want our prayers to be answered.

You look around a prayer meeting, and it’s not so much that people don’t cognitively believe that prayer works. Or at least that it should, in theory, with all the qualifying, apologizing, and caveats we’ve made to get God off the hook for all that “you ask, you get” talk in the Bible. Everyone’s pretty much on board with that (again, in theory). The problem is that, if we actually start to access this belief and stand on it in any legitimate way (not as supplementary to our own efforts or concerning things peripheral to our real concerns), then God might just actually make good on those promises that He gave. And if God actually makes good on those promises that He made, we’re actually going to have to change the way we live.

It’s the reason why Jesus asked the paralytic in John 5 if he wanted to be healed. It seems like a dumb question, on the face of it – who wouldn’t want to walk around? But after 38 years of living without legs, being healed meant more than just a change in circumstances. It meant he’d have to change too—getting a job instead of accepting people’s charity, not just laying around all day, becoming a productive member of society. Healing (both physical and spiritual) brings with it responsibility and expectation. And what we really want, deep down, is for our circumstances to change without us having to change along with them.

We don’t pray as we should because, deep down, we know that if God answers our prayers we’re going to have to change the way we live. If God really answers my prayer to bring a lot of new converts into the church, I’m going to have to deal with a lot of baby Christians in need of discipleship. If God really answers a prayer for a new job, then I have to show up on time to work. If God really answers my prayer for more mature Christian friends, then I’m going to have to deal with them challenging some of the things I do or say. If God really answers my prayer for humility, I’m going to have to go through some very challenging circumstances. If God really answers prayer, I’m going to be accountable for the things that I neglect to pray for, I’m going to find that the reason I don’t have what I want is that I don’t ask, and I’m going to find that I’d really rather watch television than deal with God showering down blessings if having those blessings mean I have increased responsibility.

So, instead of facing that reality, we fill our heads and our prayers with thoughts of mild physical discomfort, healing for people we hardly know (and thus don’t have to invest in), and things that, when it all comes down, don’t really matter that much to us. And when we do pray for what really matters, we do it so half-heartedly that any other person in the room would be impressed with our theology but not convinced that we actually care one way or the other. Because, deep down, we know that we might not really want God to work that way. Because, if we pray with conviction and fervency, God might actually answer our prayers.

There are plenty of other reasons we don't pray as we should, but I believe that this one is near the top. And so the question we have to ask ourselves is this: we’re not anti-God, nor anti-spiritual growth. But are we actually willing to be close to God if being close to God means our lives will change? Or are we so concerned with not crossing our lines of comfort that our prayer life has been neutered, all the while wondering why our prayers go unanswered by a God who knows our hearts?

"Library Thing" Book Catalogue Review

Review by Tim Challies @ http://www.challies.com/


While I was slurping down lunch today I spent a few minutes playing with LibraryThing's "Unsuggestion" feature. For those who have no idea what I am talking about, LibraryThing is a neat little site that allows you to catalog your books. Or as the site says, "LibraryThing is an online service to help people catalog their books easily. You can access your catalog from anywhere--even on your mobile phone. Because everyone catalogs together, LibraryThing also connects people with the same books, comes up with suggestions for what to read next, and so forth." I began using the service in September of last year and since then have cataloged all of my new books through it (I have yet to add a lot of older books that don't have ISBN numbers handy). You can see my list here.

One of LibraryThing's fun features is "LibrarySuggester." Using this tool, you can input the name of a book and the program will search through other people's libraries and determine what other similar books you may enjoy. For example, inputting Sprouls's Chosen by God reveals that 148 LibraryThing users have that book in their library. It then provides these suggestions based on other books in those same libraries: The holiness of God by Sproul, Bondage of the Will by Luther, Evangelism and the sovereignty of God by Packer, Desiring God by Piper, and so on. While not a flawless system, it does tend to provide solid suggestions.

A related feature is the "Unsuggester" which "takes 'people who like this also like that' and turns it on its head. It analyzes the seven million books LibraryThing members have recorded as owned or read, and comes back with books least likely to share a library with the book you suggest." Now the most popular books in LibraryThing are by J.K. Rowling. In fact, the six most-owned books are all from the Harry Potter series. I thought it would be interesting to run her books through the Unsuggester to see who the program would come up with. I was not at all surprised to see that the Anti-Rowling is none other than John Piper. The top two unsuggestions (and three of the top seven) all belong to Piper. The Dangerous Duty of Delight ranks first with Seeing and Savoring Jesus Christ coming second and The Justification of God falling seventh. So if you own books by Rowling, chances are that you do not own books by Piper.

I laughed to see that the top two unsuggestions for Bill Clinton's My Life are none other than Calvin's Institutes and Piper's Don't Waste Your Life (which, I suppose, means that Christian hedonism does not inspire people to admire those who adhere to the real thing).

A Here and Now Christianity

Posted by David Wayne @ http://jollyblogger.typepad.com/jollyblogger/2006/11/a_here_and_now__1.html#more

I was in youth ministry for five years and often heard that most conversions happen before the age of 18. I forget the figures that were parroted about, but it was something like 90-95% of those who become Christians do so before the age of 18. So, in other words, if someone is not saved by the age of 18 there is very little likelihood they will get saved later. In recent years I have heard people say that the magic age is now 14, if we don't get them by 14, most hope is lost.

Such figures are wonderful motivators for youth ministry and I and many others have placed a premium on youth ministry as a result.

But I have come to be less and less enamored with those figures. For one, it renders adult evangelism almost hopeless, and I don't think we want to do that. Secondly, I think we have simply accepted those things as a given and we ought to resist them. In other words, if it turns out to be true that few come to Christ after the age of 14 or 18 we ought not just to accept that, but we need to re-examine our evangelistic practices.

One thing seems to be true though, and that is this - 14 or 18 is not the terminal date for conversion for some other religions, particularly Islam. In other words, maybe it is not the case that people inevitably become more and more secular as they get older and that is why they are more and more resistant to conversion. Maybe Christians have just not been able to effectively communicate the gospel to older generations.

A classic short study on this is the Christianity Today article called "The Adult Gospel" where the author, Larry Poston, writes:
In the late 1800s, Edwin Starbuck conducted ground-breaking studies on conversion to Christianity. Ever since then,scholars, attempting either to verify or disprove his findings, haverepeatedly demonstrated them to be accurate. Most observers agree thatwhat Starbuck observed is to a large extent still valid. From thesestudies we learn two significant things: the age at which conversion toChristianity most often occurs, and the motivational factors involvedin conversion.

Starbuck noted that the average age of a person experiencing a religious conversion was 15.6 years. Other studies have produced similar results; as recently as 1979, Virgil Gillespie wrote that the average age of conversion in America is 16 years.

Starbuck listed eight primary motivating factors: (1) fears, (2) other self-regarding motives, (3) altruistic motives, (4) following out a moral ideal, (5) remorse for and conviction of sin, (6) response to teaching, (7) example and imitation,and (8) urging and social pressure. Recent studies reveal that people still become Christians mainly for these same reasons.
What conclusions can be drawn from this information? First, the average age of conversion is quite young. Postadolescent persons do not seem to find Christianity as attractive as do persons in their teens. Indeed, for every year the non-Christian grows older than 25, the odds increase exponentially against his or her ever becoming a Christian.

Poston did some of his own research on religious conversions, but he widened it to include Muslims. He found this:
My research at Northwestern University investigated religious conversion from another angle. Rather than duplicate the efforts of earlier scholars who limited themselves to the Christian experience, I explored the phenomenon of conversion to another missionary religion—Islam. I examined the published accounts of 60 Western converts to Islam and personally interviewed 10 others. The results contrasted sharply with Starbuck's statistics.

The average age of a Western convert to Islam is approximately 31 years, almost double that of the convert to Christianity. Several persons were in their forties, fifties, and sixties. Islam seems to appeal to a much older group of people. This age difference made the subject of motivating factors of great interest as I investigated why Muslims are apparently reaching an age group in Western societies that Christians are not.

He five main reasons for this but the one I am most interested in for this post is the fourth:
Fourth, Islam is practical. It is considered a this—worldly religion in contrast to Christianity, which is perceived as abstract in the extreme. Muhammad left his followers a political, social, moral, and economic program founded on religious precepts. Jesus, however, is said to have advocated no such program; it is claimed that the New Testament is so preoccupied with his imminent return that it is impractical for modern life.

Poston goes on to say that all of the elements that adult converts find so attractive in Islam are present in Christianity, but we have underplayed them to our detriment.

I read Poston's article for the first time years ago and the reason it came to mind afresh today was that I read a post on the OnMovements blog that captured the essence of what Poston was talking about. This blogger quotes Rodney Stark in his new book Cities of God, to the effect that it was indeed the "this worldly" orientation of early gospel preaching that led to the rise of Christianity in the Roman world:
The power of Christianity lay not in its promise of otherworldly compensations for suffering in this life, as has so often been proposed. No, the crucial change that took place in the third century was the rapidly spreading awareness of a faith that delivered potent antidotes to life’s miseries here and now! The truly revolutionary aspect of Christianity lay in moral imperatives such as “Love one’s neighbor as oneself,” “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” “It is more blessed to give than to receive,” and “When you did it to the least of my brethren, you did it unto me.” These were not just slogans. Members did nurse the sick, even during epidemics; they did support orphans, widows, the elderly, and the poor; they did concern themselves with the lot of slaves. In short, Christians created “a miniature welfare state in an empire which for the most part lacked social services.” It was these responses to the long-standing misery of life in antiquity, not the onset of worse conditions, that were the ‘material’ changes that inspired Christian growth.

I'm going to have to take issue with one aspect of the quote here. I have to demur when Stark says that "the truly revolutionary aspect of Christianity lay in moral imperatives." A statement like that evacuates the gospel of all meaning and implies that, at heart, what Christianity offers is a newer and better moral code. In truth, Christianity offers an end to moral codes as a means of justification.

At the same tiime, "what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering" (Romans 8:3). In other words, the law has no power to compel obedience to itself, moral imperatives have no power to enable compliance to themselves (see also Colossians 2:20-23). The moral imperatives that Stark cites were not new and unique to Christianity, they had been present (if not explicitly, at least implicitly) in Judaism, particularly in the Ten Commandments. What the Christian gospel brought was the heart transformation that and indwelling of the Spirit that enabled the desire and obedience necessary to follow through on the moral imperatives already present in the Ten Commandments.

Nonetheless, Stark isn't writing as a theologian, rather as a historian/sociologist and his comment is very helpful. It illustrates that, apparently, for the early church the consequences of regeneration/justification/salvation were more "this worldly," in contrast to later generations which focused on otherworldly consequences.

This is an emphasis that many are recovering today. Some are nervous because a "this worldly" type of Christianity is reminiscent of early 20th century liberalism and the social gospel. Further, this is a theme in the writings of N. T. Wright, whose views on justification are of a concern to many. It is also a major theme of the emerging/emergent church, of which many are suspicious. Some fear that a move to a more "this worldly" orientation to salvation and the gospel is a move toward liberalism.

But such is not the case. The gospel is that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, through Christ alone. This discussion is not over the nature of the gospel itself, rather over it's consequences. It is not a discussion on how one is saved, but a discussion about what is one saved unto.

In that respect it is perfectly reasonable, biblical and orthodox for conservative Christians to give greater prominence to the this worldly effects of salvation in their gospel proclamation.
A few weeks ago Richard Pratt was at our church and this was a major theme of his messages (you can listen to his messages here, here and here). He emphasized over and over again that Jesus did not die for the sole purpose (or even the main purpose) of taking believers out of this earth to heaven. Jesus lived and died to bring the kingdom of heaven to earth and He is bringing the kingdom of heaven to earth through His followers. Not to worry, in salvation our afterlife is secured and we will be in the presence of Jesus Christ for eternity. After all, Paul says in I Corinthians 15:19:
If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.

The hope of resurrection is our blessed hope, yet it is worth pointing out that Paul didn't offer the hope of resurrection as a replacement for hope in this life, but as an addition to hope in this life. The Corinthians weren't rebuked for having a "this life" hope in Christ, it was those whose "only" hope was in this life who were rebuked.

When Jesus spoke of heaven, His main concern was not in telling His people how they could leave this earth for heaven. Rather His main concern was in bringing heaven down to earth for the sake of His people and showing His people how to take the kingdom of heaven throughout the whole earth.

This, I believe, lies at the heart of what Stark is referring to. There was a greater emphasis on the "this world" effects of the gospel and this transformed early believers into great "this worldly" saints who themselves became the "potent antidotes to life's miseries here and now."
Another way of phrasing this is to see it in terms of the "now" and "not yet," of the kingdom of heaven. A standard formulation for years has been that the kingdom is here now but it is not yet here in it's fullness. Whereas believers in recent centuries have effectively emphasized the "not yet" aspects of the kingdom, early believers more effectively emphasized the "now" aspects and it brought about a changed world.

One final comment to this already too long post. With this I am not advocating any of the common versions of Christian triumphalism which seek to bring the kingdom in through social and political means. The kingdom comes as the gospel spreads. It's just that I think that as the gospel spreads, this gospel of the kingdom will inevitably have many salutary effects in the here and now.

Towering "Babel": Movie Review


posted by Ben Witherington @ http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/

There are movies that are disturbing and then there are movies that are moving, and then there are movies that are both disturbing and moving and result in something of a paradigm shift. If you have seen "Six Degrees of Separation" this movie is somewhat like that in its premise-- that there can be a very direct connection between people far removed from each other that do not know each other. In this movie it is a gun and a bullet that connect the dots rather than a person, per se. If you have seen "Crash" then you will also understand something of what is going on in "Babel" where racism and xenophobia come into play, but so also do kindness and goodwill and compassion across such ethnic and racial and social and religious lines.

But perhaps you will be tempted to ask the question Jesus asked his mother once-- "What is that to you and me?" This is where the title of the movie "Babel" comes into the picture. You will remember the primeval story of human overreach. Fallen humanity was united having a common language and decided to build a stairway to heaven. God wasn't having any of such arrogance and idolatry and so he confused the languages. Henceforth we all live in a world of linguistic and cultural confusion, and sometimes the only things that connects us are negative things-- like fear and prejudice and violence.

In the movie Babel there is an American gun, which belongs to a Japanese man, who goes to Morocco to go hunting, and gives the gun to his guide Hassan as a thank you gift. This might have been of no real earth shattering significance except his sons take the gun and engage in target practice while watching their goats. One shot, actually hits something-- a bus, and in fact it hits a passenger in the bus, an American woman traveling through Morocco on a tour with her husband (played by Cate Blanchett and Brad Pitt, and the latter will get some Oscar nods for his performance in this film). Then all Hades breaks loose. A doctor is needed, an embassy is called, the owner of the gun is sought out in Japan, a culprit is looked for, and meanwhile back at home the American couple's children are taken by their Mexican nanny across the border from San Diego to a wedding-- and their is more trouble on the journey back. I will not spoil the story for you, but the Mexican director Alejandro Innaritu has woven together a suspensful and moving tale which grips you for two hours and twenty two minutes (the movie is rated R for some nudity and bad language).

So what is the message of this film? Interestingly enough the director seems to be making another Biblical point, and not one connected with Babel. It is that bad actions always have negative consequences somehow, for someone. This is true for the person who fired the gun, and it is equally true for the nanny who takes the children across the border, when she is illegally in the U.S. So, are we being told that despite the fallenness and the chaos that there is a moral order to this human connnectedness, or at least moral consequences to immoral actions? Yes, I think that is part of the point. But this is a movie which one needs to watch several times to catch all the nuances. Suffice it to say that it is one of the most compelling movies, though also in various ways depressing, as well. In other words, like the Matrix movies, its perfect for our post-modern overly connected 21rst century world.

2006-2008 US Conferences

The Quest: A Journey Through Biblical Masculinity . . .

is a regional Sovereign Grace Ministries conference to be held January 11-13, 2007 at the Hershey Lodge in Hershey, Pennsylvania.

Men, ages 15 and older, throughout the northeast and midwest regions of the United States will be gathering to explore the Biblical foundation of masculinity, how to defend Biblical manhood in a culture that doesn't acknowledge it, and practical ways to apply Biblical masculinity in the home, workplace, church, and relationships.

The main session speakers will be Joshua Harris, Dave Harvey, and Peter Greasley. Bob Kauflin will lead worship.

  • JOSHUA HARRIS
    Senior pastor of Covenant Life Church in Gaithersburg, Maryland.

  • DAVE HARVEY
    Senior pastor of Covenant Fellowship Church in Glen Mills, Pennsylvania.

  • PETER GREASLEY
    Senior pastor of Christchurch in Newport, South Wales (UK).

  • BOB KAUFLIN
    Director of Worship Development for Sovereign Grace Ministries, and pastor and worship leader at Covenant Life Church in Gaithersburg, Maryland.

Registration opens on September 1st. Registration cost (which does not include meals) is $89 for adults 18 and older, and $74 for teens 15-17.

More information on the speakers, lodging, and registration, along with links to promotional videos, is available here

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Desiring God Conference for Pastors: The Holiness of God

Web Site
February 5-7, 2007
Location: Hilton Minneapolis
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Ministry: The Bethlehem Conference for Pastors is a ministry of Desiring God
Audience: The Bethlehem Conference for Pastors is a gathering of church leaders for serious thought, honest discussion, and earnest prayer concerning crucial Biblical teachings in historical and contemporary perspective.
Recurrence: Annual

Keynote Speaker: R. C. Sproul
Pastoral Speaker: Thabiti Anyabwile
Missions Speaker: William Mackenzie
Biographical Speaker: John Piper (on Andrew Fuller)

Learn more about the speakers.
Read John Piper's invitation.
Listen to Piper talk about the conference.
Register to attend.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolved
Web Site
February 16-19, 2007
Location: Long Beach Convention & Entertainment Center
Long Beach, California
Ministry: Resolved is a ministry of Grace Community Church
Audience: The conference targets primarily College-age students and young adult Christians.
Recurrence: Annual
Cost: $125
Features:
General Sessions
Seminars
Meals Provided
Live-blogging

Speakers:
John MacArthur
John Piper
Steve Lawson
Rick Holland
C.J. Mahaney

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Shepherd's Conference
Web Site
March 7-11, 2007
Location: Grace Community Church
Sun Valley, California
Ministry: The Shepherd's Conference is a ministry of Grace Community Church
Audience: The conference targets primarily pastors and church leaders. Registration is open only to men.
Recurrence: Annual
Cost: $299
Features:
General Sessions
Seminars
Meals Provided (Lunches and snacks are provided)
Live-blogging

Speakers:
John MacArthur
John Piper
Steve Lawson
Albert Mohler
Mark Dever
Ligon Duncan
Seminars are led by pastors and elders of Grace Community Church and professors from The Master's College and Seminary.

Notes:
The Shepherd's Conference has become renowned for its giveaways. Attendees can expect to leave with 20+ new books. If you do not bring an extra bag to take them home, you can have them shipped from the conference.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contending for the Truth - Ligonier Ministries National Conference
Web Site
March 15-17, 2007
Location: First Baptist Church of Orlando
Orlando, Florida
Ministry: Ligonier Ministries National Conference is a ministry of Ligonier Ministries
Audience: The conference targets a general audience and is open to everyone.
Recurrence: Annual
Cost: $129-$169
Features:
General Sessions
Seminars
Meals Provided (Lunches and snacks are provided)

Speakers:
R.C. Sproul
John MacArthur
John Piper
Albert Mohler
Ravi Zacharias
R.C. Sproul Jr.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sovereign Grace Ministries' Leadership Conference
Web Site
April 11-13, 2007
Location: Covenant Life Church
Gaithersburg, MD
Ministry: Sovereign Grace Ministries' Leadership Conference is a ministry of Sovereign Grace Ministries
Audience: The Sovereign Grace Ministries' Leadership Conference is an annual event for pastors, leaders, church administrators, leaders-in-training, and potential leaders.
Recurrence: Annual
Cost: TBA
Features:
General Sessions

Speakers:
R.C. Sproul
C.J. Mahaney

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Basics: A Pastor's Conference
Web Site
May 7-9, 2007
Location: Parkside Church
Cleveland, Ohio
Ministry: The Basics is a ministry of Truth for Life
Audience: The conference targets pastors.
Recurrence: Annual
Cost: TBA
Features:
General Sessions

Speakers:
Alistair Begg
To Be Announced...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Attitude 2007 Conference
Web Site
May 26-29, 2007
Location: Louisville, Kentucky
Ministry: New Attitude 2007 Conference is a ministry of Sovereign Grace Ministries
Audience: The conference targets primarily single Christians and is open to everyone.
Recurrence: Annual
Cost: TBA
Features:
General Sessions
Seminars
Live-blogging

Speakers:
John Piper
Josh Harris
More To Be Announced...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Baptist Founders Conference
Web Site
June 26-29, 2007
Location: Bethel Baptist Church
Owasso, OK
Ministry: Southern Baptist Founders Conference is a ministry of Founders Ministries
Audience: The conference targets a general audience and is open to everyone.
Recurrence: Annual
Cost: TBA
Features:
General Sessions

Speakers:
To Be Announced...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Desiring God 2007 National Conference
Web Site
October, 2007
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Ministry: Desiring God 2007 National Conference is a ministry of Desiring God
Audience: The conference targets a general audience and is open to everyone.
Recurrence: Annual
Cost: TBA
Features:
General Sessions

Speakers:
John Piper
To Be Announced...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overcoming the Eclipse of God - Ligonier Ministries Pastors Conference
Web Site
October 22-25, 2007
Location: Lake Mary, FL
Ministry: Ligonier Ministries Pastors Conference is a ministry of Ligonier Ministries
Audience: The conference targets pastors and is open only to men.
Recurrence: Annual
Cost: TBA
Features:
General Sessions
Seminars
Meals Provided (Lunches and snacks are provided)

Speakers:
R.C. Sproul
More To Be Announced...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007 Alpha & Omega Conference
Web Site
Winter, 2007
Location: To Be Announced...
Ministry: 2007 Alpha & Omega Conference is a ministry of Alpha & Omega Ministries
Audience: The conference targets a general audience and is open to everyone.
Recurrence: Annual
Cost: TBA
Features: General Sessions

Speakers: James White
To Be Announced...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2007 Regional Conferences


The Law of God and the Christian
Web Site
January 12-13, 2007
Location: Westminster Seminary
Escondido, CA
Ministry: The Law of God and the Christian is a ministry of Westminster Seminary
Audience: This conference is open to everyone.
Recurrence: Unknown
Cost: $40
Features:
General Sessions
Seminars
Speakers:
Bryan D. Estelle
W. Robert Godfrey
Michael S. Horton
Hywel R. Jones
David M. VanDrunen

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philadelphia Conference on Reformed Theology
Web Site
Multiple - See Below

Location: Sacramento, CA
March 2-4, 2007

Jackson, MS
March 23-25, 2007

Grand Rapids, MI
April 20-22, 2007

Philadelphia, PA
April 27-29, 2007

Ministry: Philadelphia Conference on Reformed Theology is a ministry of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals
Audience: These conferences target a general audience and are open to everyone.
Recurrence: Annual
Cost: TBA
Features:
General Sessions

Speakers:
Each conference will feature some of the following speakers:

Donald Carson
Mark Dever
Ligon Duncan
Albert Mohler
Richard Phillips
Philip Ryken
R. C. Sproul

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Sovereignty of God - Ligonier Ministries 2007 Regional Conferences
Web Site
Multiple - See Below
Location: Charlotte, NC
September 7-8, 2007

Portland, OR
September 14-15, 2007

New York, NY
TBA

Ministry: The Sovereignty of God is a ministry of Ligonier Ministries
Audience: These conferences target a general audience and are open to everyone.
Recurrence: Annual
Cost: TBA
Features:
General Sessions

Speakers:
Each conference will feature:

R. C. Sproul
Special Guest (TBA)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking Ahead To 2008

These are conferences, primarily bi-annual conferences, that will be held next in 2008 (and will not be held in 2007).

Together For The Gospel
Web Site
April 15-17, 2008
Location: Kentucky International Convention Center
Louisville, KY
Ministry: Together For The Gospel is a ministry of Together for the Gospel
Audience: The conference targets primarily pastors and registration is open to everyone (ladies are permitted in 2008).
Recurrence: Bi-annual
Cost: TBA
Features:
General Sessions
Live-blogging

Speakers:
Mark Dever
Ligon Duncan
C.J. Mahaney
Albert Mohler
John Piper
R.C. Sproul
More To Be Announced...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WorshipGod08
Web Site
Summer, 2008
Location: Covenant Life Church
Gaithersburg, MD
Ministry: WorshipGod08 is a ministry of Sovereign Grace Ministries
Audience: The conference targets a general audience and is open to everyone.
Recurrence: Bi-Annual
Cost: TBA
Features:
General Sessions
Seminars
Live-blogging

Speakers:
Bob Kauflin
More To Be Announced...

Friday, November 24, 2006

Would God Be 'Fair' if He Offered To Save No One?


By Jim B. @ http://www.oldtruth.com/blog.cfm/id.2.pid.544

The discussion that ensued in the comments of my post earlier this week demonstrated the widespread confusion in the modern Church over the state of mankind and the role of the Gospel. Many Christians today are not afraid to say "it wouldn't be fair if God didn't give EVERYONE a chance to be saved". They include people in countries where they know the Gospel is non-existent. Incredibly, to defend this idea of fairness, they end up implying that there are ways to get around the need for the Gospel to be preached, as well as the need for missionaries to be sent. All of this in the name of 'fairness'. So let me ask a key question here, would God be fair if He offered salvation to nobody at all?

For starters, let's make sure we have an understanding of what effect Adam had on us. Here's verses 12 and 19 from Romans 5, please at least be familiar with that chapter if you are going to leave a comment below. You might also watch The Fall (movie) here on Old Truth if you haven't done so already.

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned. (Interesting side note to ponder: 'all sinned' is past tense)
For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.
Next question, why does God send anyone to Hell? Let's be precise here. Is it because they were not the "elect"? No, that's not the reason. Is it because they didn't "choose Jesus"? No, strictly speaking - that's not it either. The real reason is because they are guilty of sin, sin against a Holy God.

Now let's go back to Romans 5 and ask, who has ever (or ever will) pass into eternity without being guilty of sin? The answer is nobody (only Jesus did that).

Is God fair (and by that most people really mean "is God just") then in damning a human or an angel, for all of eternity, on account of sin?

Clearly, if anyone does end up in Heaven, it's because of God's grace.
But who does God owe this grace to? Lorraine Boettner answers in this short excerpt from his book:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Grace, from its own nature, must be free; and the very inequality of its distribution demonstrates that it is truly gratuitous. If any one could justly demand it, it would cease to be grace and would become of debt. If God is robbed of His sovereignty in this respect, salvation then becomes a matter of debt to every person.

If ten men each owe a certain creditor one thousand dollars and he (for reasons of his own) forgives the debts of seven but collects from the other three, the latter have no grounds for complaint.

If three criminals are sentenced to be hanged for having committed murder and then two of them are pardoned -- perhaps it is found that they have rendered distinguished service to their country in time of war-- does that render the execution of the third unjust? Plainly, No; for in his case there is no intervening cause as to why he should not suffer for his crime. And if an earthly prince may justly do this, shall not the sovereign Lord of all be allowed to act in the same manner toward His rebellious subjects? When all mankind might have been punished, how can God be charged with injustice if He punishes only a part of them?

[Imagine] a lady who goes to an orphanage and from the hundreds of children there, chooses one, adopts it as her own child and leaves the rest. She might have chosen others; she had the means to keep others; but she chose [only] one. Will you tell me that woman is unjust? Will you tell me that she is unfair, or unrighteous, because in the exercise of her undisputed right and privilege she [only] chose that one child to enjoy the comforts of her home, and become the heir of her possessions, and left all the others, possibly to perish in want, or sink into the wretched condition of gutter-children?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, back to the main question of this post, then . . .

Would it be fair if God didn't give mercy to anyone?

Think about it and answer in the comments below. If He sent all sinners
(the whole human race) to Hell, would He still be fair, just, and good?

Perhaps in thinking through things in this post, some will reconsider their opinions on the earlier post, while keeping in mind these thoughts from Greg Koukl at STR.org:



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One question frequently stops Christians in their tracks: "If the Gospel alone saves, then what about the heathen in Africa who never heard?" Can God justly convict a man who hasn't heard about Jesus? Some people hear the Gospel and reject it, but most never hear it. How can God condemn them? Christians are ill-equipped to respond because they don't really understand something vital about sin and mercy. Sin brings guilt. Mercy is a gift. Anyone who is a sinner receives punishment he deserves. Anyone who is saved receives mercy he does not deserve and which is not owed him. Think of this question:
How could the sheriff send anyone to jail if he didn't offer him a pardon first? The answer is simple. If he's guilty, the sheriff is justified in throwing him in jail. There is no obligation to offer a pardon to a guilty man.

The same is true of God. He can justly convict a man who has broken His law even though the sinner has heard nothing about God's pardon in Jesus. God owes no one salvation. He can offer it to whomever He wishes. That's why it's called grace.

"...neither were thankful..."

by Dan Phillips

Not very "seeker sensitive" of him, but when Paul wants to talk about the Good News, he starts out with lots and lots of bad news (Romans 1:18ff.).

The apostle's opening salvo against humanity begins with the global cause in "all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth" (v. 18), and ends with a damning list of effects (vv. 28-31), and the summary statement: "Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them" (v. 32).

Towards the beginning, Paul memorably styles mankind as anapologetous, "incapable of defense," "without defense, "without excuse" (v. 20). He presents this as the result of God's self-revelation in creation; and then Paul further explains their indefensibility in v. 21 -- "because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor did they give thanks." The "as God" is put forward syntactically; you could woodenly render it, "they did not as God glorify nor thank."

God is owed glory and thanks. It is His due, it is fitting, it simply follows from the majesty of His being. Paul does not here give further reasons; J. B. Phillips' paraphrase says "to thank him for what he is or does," but the apostle does not. Simply because He is God, before He says or does one thing, He is inherently worthy of glory, and worthy of thanks.

Yesterday was Thanksgiving in America, and I'm sure some of us chuckle a bit, as we do at the Day of Prayer. As if a husband had "kiss the wife" on a list of things to do once a day, so once a year we say we are supposed to do what we really should be doing every day of the year -- praying, and saying "Thank You." If we only do it that one day, and only because Washington, Congress, or whoever said that we should, the reality of the day is questionable.

But our society can't hold on to even such a simple, basic concept. The convivial Martha Stewart, according to a comment by Tracy over at my blog, said something like, "We have a lot to be thankful for in this country. We owe a lot of thanks to the farmers who provide our wonderful produce like these beautiful cranberries." And we've all heard of government indoctrination centers ("public schools"), in which the children are taught that the purpose of Thanksgiving was to thank the Indians for teaching survival skills. Often enough, one sees moderating, vague statements such as "we should all be thankful," or "Americans express gratitude" -- which, if it were submitted as an essay in our non-government school, would be greeted with a curt "to whom or what?" In red ink.

The real attitude of too many was doubtless expressed in the prayer of that great sage Bart Simpson: "Dear God, we paid for all this stuff ourselves, so thanks for nothing." Good luck and hard work, those are our real benefactors.

Only by the Biblical vision of God can and do we see the crude, low, even treacherous nature of this attitude of ingratitude.
  • You paid for it yourself? How is it that you had "all this stuff" to buy, in the first place? God (Acts 14:17).
  • Your hard work? Who is it who even gives you the breath you breathe, let alone the health you enjoy? God (Daniel 5:23; cf. James 4:13-17).
  • Your stable economy? Who is it who appoints your leaders, and gives you a stable economy, if you have one? God (Psalm 75:7; Daniel 2:21; 4:25; Romans 13:1-5).
  • Your "good luck"? What's that? There is no such thing. There is only a God who controls all things, down to the roll of the dice (Psalm 115:3; Proverbs 16:33).
And if this is true of even the paganest pagan -- and it is -- how much truer is it of the Christian?
  • You have a knowledge of God and Christ? Where did that come from, but a sovereign act of God (Matthew 11:27).
  • You have the least spiritual life in your breast? And how did you manage that? You didn't. It comes straight from the hand of God (Ephesians 2:1f.)
  • You have saving faith? And how did that happen to a God-hating rebel, if not by a work of God's grace alone (Ephesians 2:8-10; Philippians 1:29).
  • You have glimmers of holiness, of any sort, in your life? And how can an unholy wretch produce that? He cannot. It is a result of the eternal, sovereign election of God (Ephesians 1:4).
  • You cling to Christ for your salvation, you persevere in faith? And how do you, weak and unable to do anything in yourself (John 15), work that out? You do it by the power of God (1 Peter 1:5).
We could go on, and on, and on.

...and I really think we should.

That's my point.

Dan Phillips's signature

Evangelicalism and the Environmental Movement


By John MacArthur @ http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/11/24/evangelicalism-and-the-environmental-movement/#more-285

I do think we have a responsibility to care for the environment—we ought to care for every resource God has provided for us.

That’s illustrated in the Old Testament account where God put Israel in the Promised Land, a fertile land flowing with milk and honey. God provided them that productive land and commanded them to let the soil rest every seventh year.

You shall sow your land for six years and gather in its yield, but on the seventh year you shall let it rest and lie fallow, so that the needy of your people may eat; and whatever they leave the beast of the field may eat. You are to do the same with your vineyard and your olive grove (Exodus 23:10-11; cf. Leviticus 25:1-7).

God gave that command because He didn’t want them to exploit the land and extract all its life. Allowing the land to rest every seven years ensured that it rejuvenated itself and continued to provide in the future.

When the Lord gave the Israelites the Mosaic Law, He warned them if they apostatized, He would remove them from the land (Deuteronomy 28). Sadly, the children of Israel did just that and came under judgment—the Northern tribes fell to Assyria in 722 B.C., and Judah to Babylon in 605 B.C. In fact, God designated the Babylonian captivity as a seventy-year captivity to rest the land for all the Sabbath years that Israel violated (cf. Leviticus 26:33-35; 2 Chronicles 36:17–21).

So I believe we are charged to treat responsibly all the wonderful resources God has given us. But that, in fact, has very little to do with the environmental movement. The environmental movement is consumed with trying to preserve the planet forever. But we know that isn’t in God’s plan.

The earth we inhabit is not a permanent planet. It is, frankly, a disposable planet—it is going to have a very short life. It’s been around six thousand years or so—that’s all—and it may last a few thousand more. And then the Lord is going to destroy it.

I’ve told environmentalists that if they think humanity is wrecking the planet, wait until they see what Jesus does to it. Peter says God is going to literally turn it in on itself in an atomic implosion so that the whole universe goes out of existence (2 Peter 3:7-13).

This earth was never ever intended to be a permanent planet—it is not eternal. We do not have to worry about it being around tens of thousands, or millions, of years from now because God is going to create a new heaven and a new earth. Understanding those things is important to holding in balance our freedom to use, and responsibility to maintain, the earth.

Just a footnote. Though this earth is our temporary home, do take time to enjoy God’s beauty. Take care of your yard. Stop to smell the flowers. Enjoy the forests. God placed those rich resources on this planet for our comfort and His enjoyment. Let us be thankful to Him for that.

Who is this Jesus?


by Pastor John Samson @ http://www.reformationtheology.com/2006/11/who_is_this_jesus_by_pastor_jo.php#more

In a communist Russian dictionary, Jesus is described as "a mythical figure who never existed." Of course, no serious historian could hold to that position today. The evidence is overwhelming as to the fact that Jesus existed, not just from the Gospels and other Christian literature around the first century, but also from non-Christian sources.

Well respected historians of the day, including Tacitus (a Roman) speak of him, as well as the noted Jewish historian Josephus. He writes "Now there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him, both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians so named after him, are not extinct at this day." Josephus: Antiquities XVIII 63f

Of course, a whole book is needed to cover all the evidence regarding the existence of Jesus. In fact, Josh McDowelI has already written one, called "He walked among us." Suffice it to say that there is overwhelming evidence to say that Jesus was a real historical person.

At this point you might say, "O.K. so he existed, but what does that have to do with me?"

Knowing that Jesus existed is not only relevant to lovers of history, but, as we shall see, is of supreme importance to everyone. Why? The answer lies in discovering who this Jesus really was.

In all the surveys I've conducted, asking people who they thought Jesus was, I received a number of different answers. Some said, "He was a good teacher who lived 2,000 years ago." Others, that "He was a miracle worker and one of the many ways to God." Others said that they didn't know who Jesus was, and didn't want to look into such a controversial question. Of course, I met a number of people that said, "Jesus was and is the Son of God."

"But what's the big deal? Does it really matter what we think about Jesus?"

My answer may startle you, but I suggest that your answer to this question, is the biggest single issue in your life! "What?" you might say. Yes, who you believe Jesus to be is the most important question you will ever be asked. That's because if Jesus is the Son of God, and His claims are true, then your acceptance or rejection of Him will mean either eternal life with Him, or eternal separation from Him, and an eternity in hell!! Wow, that's heavy duty stuff, but let me give you an example to illustrate what I'm saying.

Suppose I met you in the street, and said, "Hi, I'm John Samson, and I'm the only way to God. Me and God, we're one. If you've seen me, you've seen God. I am the Way, the Truth and the life, no one comes to God but through me. If you believe in me you'll have eternal life, but if you don't you'll be punished forever."

How would you react? Well there's a number of ways you could react. One of them would be to call for the guys in white coats to come and collect me!

But, wait a minute. Did you know that the things I said about myself to you in the street, are exactly the same things Jesus said about himself? Now think logically about this.

If Jesus was not all that He claimed to be, then it would be impossible for him to be put in the class of a good teacher. Why? Because Jesus' whole teaching centered around who he was claiming to be. Jesus was the one making those claims, not the Christians that followed him. The problem is that he has led multiplied millions astray by following after him as the way to God.. if indeed, Jesus was not who He claimed to be! He would be nothing more than another false teacher, leading his followers into error. This would make him just another clever con man.

"So, he can't be a good teacher, if he is leading people into deception. I get that! But what else are my options?"

Well another option is that Jesus was a stark raving lunatic!

"Come on! That's hardly likely!"

Well I'd agree - I've never heard anyone suggest Jesus was a madman but we must face that possibility. In fact, experts in the realm of psychology and the mind sciences have commented that in their study of Jesus from the Gospels, they conclude that he was perhaps the person who was "most whole" in all of history. It's nice that they say that, but could they be wrong?

Well the evidence points towards the fact that Jesus was fully aware of his surroundings, and that he knew he was the fulfillment of biblical prophecy. We all know the story of Jesus birth, but did you know that these events were foretold centuries beforehand in the Old Testament prophecies of the Messiah. He was born of a virgin, in a town called Bethlehem, as the Bible declared he would be (see Isaiah 7:14; Micah 5:2). And just before you say that he tried to fulfill prophecy to claim he was the Messiah, let me just point out that it is pretty impossible to control who your parents are and where you'll be born. Ever tried it?

In fact, he fulfilled around thirty prophecies in just one day - the day He died. He even claimed that after his death He would be raised again to life in three days. This was a known claim of Jesus, and the Romans made sure that a strong troop of soldiers were posted around his tomb to make sure that none of Jesus' disciples could secretly break in to the tomb, steal the body, and claim that Jesus was raised from the dead. One scholar of history has said that there is more evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, than any other event in history. That's quite a claim isn't it? (for more on this I recommend Frank Morrison's book, "Who Moved the Stone?")

Let me take you to a passage in Matthew's Gospel Chapter 16. It reads as follows:

13 When Jesus came into the region Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, "Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?"
14 So they said, "Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
16 Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
17 Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

Obviously, Jesus said and Jesus taught, that he was the Christ (or Messiah) the Son of God.

"So, are there any other views on who Jesus is? Any other options?"

Actually, there are only three options to choose from concerning who Jesus was:

#1 JESUS WAS MAD - He was a misled man who deceived many because he was deceived himself

#2 JESUS WAS BAD - He was a deceiver, a con man, who managed to start a whole world wide religion OR...

#3 JESUS WAS GOD! - He was exactly who He claimed to be.. Certainly, the Bible teaches that Jesus is the Divine Son of God.

John 1:1 says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God." Talking of Jesus, verse 14 of that same chapter says, "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us..."

(You can check out more references on this yourself if you look up these verses in a Bible: Isa 9:6; John 20:28,29; Acts 20:28; Titus 2:13; Heb 1:8; 2 Peter 1:1; - these are just a few of the many verses that could be quoted).

Josh McDowell once wrote the following, "The issue with these three alternatives is not which is possible, for it is obvious that all three are possible. But rather, the question is 'which is more probable?' Who you decide Jesus Christ is must not be an idle intellectual exercise. You cannot put Him on the shelf as a great moral teacher. That is not a valid option. He is either a liar, a lunatic, or Lord and God. You must make a choice. 'But,' as the Apostle John wrote, 'these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and' - more important - 'that believing you might have life in His name' (John 20:31)." (More than a Carpenter, Tyndale House Publishers, 1977, pp. 33-34.)

The popular author and British theologian C.S. Lewis understood the issue so well. He once wrote, "I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg - or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to." (Mere Christianity, The MacMillan Company, 1960, pp. 40-41.)

So that's it! Those are the options. Jesus of Nazareth was either MAD, BAD OR GOD! The choice is yours to make. But remember, you must choose well, because if Jesus is indeed who He claimed to be, then the moment after you die, you will face Him, and stand to give an account for your answer. Jesus Himself could not have been more clear on this when He said, "...unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins." (John 8:24)

Here's the good news, if you make Jesus the Lord (the Boss) and Savior of your life, you can look forward to eternal life with Him.

"For God so loved the world that He gave His One and only Son, that whoever believes in Him, should not perish but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)