Mark Driscoll on Spiritual Gifts

By Seeker

Mark Driscoll has just finished a six-part series on the gifts at Mars Hill. Mark describes what he feels are four distinct positions people take on the subject.

• Cessationist which he dispatches very quickly.
  
• Charismatic which he doesn t define clearly.
  
• Charismaniacs where he says that they effectively have a lower view of the Bible and undervalue it, at least in practice, even if they don t say so. He uses a great deal of humour here, which doesn t come out well in the transcript. He asks, "How do you know if you are in a charismaniac church?"
  
  
  1. If the husband and wife are co-pastors and she has big hair, and he has a charisma hair cut, a goatee, and a white suit!
  2. When the pastor smacks people on the head and they fall to the ground.
  3. If the name has the name "shekinah" or something similar in it . . .and especially if there are a lot of flames in the logo (Pyromaniacs watch out!)
  4. If they hand out praise flags or tambourines on the way in!
  
  
• Pentecostal similar to the charismatic, but the only way to know you have the Holy Spirit is if you speak in tongues.

Driscoll describes himself as "charismatic with a seat belt" which is a fantastic line!

He doesn t mention third wave, but seems to be arguing for that position, which is a nuanced version of the charismatic position. Driscoll clearly believes in an active God, and describes some dramatic prophetic-type experiences he has had personally. He believes, however, that all Christians are baptised in the Spirit when they are saved, and therefore doesn t mention any kind of second blessing. This is perhaps not unsurprising considering he states that personally he does not speak in tongues, although some members of the Mars Hill pastoral staff do.

It is interesting how tongues are emphasised less among most of those who take a more gradualist approach to the Spirit, i.e. He is with us always, and inspires the more "natural" gifts in almost the same way He does the more supernatural, and is available for us, but not in a dramatic crisis-like manner. In fact, the so-called three waves seem to progressively de-emphasise tongues. The first makes it essential, the second important, and the third an optional extra. Perhaps in the fourth wave there will be no tongues whatsoever! Personally, I am happier with a 2.0 or 2.5 position but I do respect Driscoll's reasons for his position.

Spiritual Gifts part VI
Play Now
Pastor Mark Driscoll preaches on the guidelines for speaking in tongues, prophecy, and women in the church.

Spiritual Gifts part V
Play Now
Pastor Mark Driscoll wades deep into the controversial and hotly debated issues of speaking in tongues and prophecy. As with all spiritual gifts, tongues and prophecy must be tempered by spiritual maturity, love, and a desire to humbly serve Christ.

Spiritual Gifts part IV
Play Now
Week 4 of a 7-week study of the spiritual gifts. This week we depart from the book of 1 Corinthians to examine the gifts of encouragement, giving, leadership, mercy, and hospitality.

Spiritual Gifts part III
Play Now
Week 3 of a 7-week study of the spiritual gifts. This week we examine the gifts of apostles, teaching, helps/service, administration, and biblical counseling/ pastoring.

Spiritual Gifts part II
Play Now
An examination of the gifts of faith, healing, miracles, and discernment. All of these gifts are inextricably linked to the freedom of God to act according to His will. The purpose of these and all gifts is to point to Jesus Christ.

Spiritual Gifts part I
Play Now
1 Corinthians 12:1-8; 11 Jesus said that one day Christians would do even greater ministry than He did by the empowerment and gifting of the Holy Spirit. This gifting, however, is often misunderstood. Paul provides clear teaching on the purpose, nature, and goal of "spiritual gifts."

Top 15 Finds of Biblical Archaeology

In this article Walter Kaiser explains the Top 15 Finds from Biblical Archaeology. Here's the list:

1. Ketef Hinnom Amulets
2. John Rylands Papyrus
3. Dead Sea Scrolls
4. Beni Hasan Painting
5. Basalt Stelae from Dan
6. Gilgamesh Epic
7. Pool of Gibeon
8. The Seal of Baruch
9. King Sargon II of Assyria
10. Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III
11. Caiaphas Ossuary
12. Pontius Pilate Inscription
13. Pool of Siloam
14. Beersheba Horned Altar
15. Cyrus Cylinder

Click here to see a number of articles on archaeology by the Gordon-Conwell faculty, the folks behind the Archaeological Study Bible.

Our Fundamentalist Future

By Nathan Busenitz

I am admittedly no prophet, nor the son of a prophet. In fact, I don’t even believe the gift of prophecy is still active today. So, I won’t blame you if you balk at my attempt to predict the future of conservative evangelicalism. Nonetheless, I’m going to give it a try. This is purely my opinion. But with that as a disclaimer, here goes:

Some Historical Background

The year was 1878. Modernism was on the rise, and its attack on the church was full scale.

In response, a group of conservative Bible scholars established a set of fourteen doctrinal principles to outline what they believed was the essence of biblical Christianity. Known as the “Niagara Creed” (because it was associated with the Niagara Bible Conference of 1883–1897), these principles laid the foundation for a movement that would later be called fundamentalism.

On the broader front, the dispensational organizers of the Niagara Bible Conference were joined by non-dispensationalists like B.B. Warfield and J. Gresham Machen in their fight against modernism. In 1910, the fourteen-point Niagara Creed was distilled into “five fundamentals” by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church. These five fundamentals were as follows:

1. The inerrancy of Scripture
2. The virgin birth and deity of Jesus Christ
3. The substitutionary atonement through God’s grace and human faith
4. The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ
5. The authenticity of Christ’s miracles (or later, by some dispensationalists, the imminent return of Jesus Christ)

It was also in 1910 that a wealthy Presbyterian layman, named Lyman Stewart, funded the publication of twelve pamphlets entitled The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth. These pamphlets, which together consisted of 90 essays written by 64 authors from several denominations, were published between 1910 and 1915. The articles themselves expanded on the five fundamentals, and strengthened the fundamentalist stance against modernism.

Those who embraced the five fundamentals (and were thus associated with The Fundamentals pamphlets) came to be known as “fundamentalists.” They were those who held tight to the fundamental doctrines of the faith in the midst of modernist compromise.

As conservative evangelicals today, our spiritual and doctrinal heritage goes back to those men.

Will History Repeat Itself?

Fast forward 128 years from 1878.

Now it’s 2006. Yet the basic theological issues of today are not all that different than in 1878. The church of their day was faced with the temptation to compromise. The church today is faced with the very same temptation. The only difference is that we put a “post” in front of the “modernism.”

So it’s not really that surprising to observe the numerous similarities between the early fundamentalist movement (of the late 19th/early 20th century), and what is already beginning to happen in conservative evangelical circles.

The original fundamentalists rallied around core doctrines, desperately desiring to honor the Scripture, and vowing to stand firm against the advances of modernism. Interestingly, they found their rallying point not in denominational ties, but in a common love for Christ and a shared commitment to the truth. Their fellowship crossed denominational boundaries, finding an outlet in national Bible conferences like the one held near Niagara Falls. The movement itself was led by godly leaders from various backgrounds. It was undergirded by doctrinal creeds, and it was promoted through preaching and writing.

In the face of postmodernism, today’s conservative Christian leaders are again rallying around the same core doctrines as the original fundamentalists. Vowing to stand firm against the advances of postmodernism, today’s “fundamentalists” again cross denominational lines. Baptists like Mark Dever and Al Mohler, independents like John MacArthur, Presbyterians like R.C. Sproul and Ligon Duncan, reformed charismatics like John Piper and C.J. Mahaney—they are standing united because something more important than denominational lines is at stake. The purity of the gospel is at stake.

Thousands of pastors across the nation are standing with them, as the success of modern Bible conferences (such as Shepherds’ Conference, Together for the Gospel, Desiring God, Ligonier, New Attitude, Resolved, etc.) continues to demonstrate. The organizers of Together for the Gospel have also developed a creedal statement—affirming key truths and denying key errors related to the gospel. This is precisely the approach of the original fundamentalists.

Like the original fundamentalists, these conservative evangelical leaders don’t agree on every secondary doctrine. But they do agree on the essentials. And that’s what makes them fundamentalists: they hold fast to the fundamental doctrines of the faith.

Now I’m not suggesting that the new fundamentalists call themselves “fundamentalists.” That name (in my opinion) has too much associated with it, in part because of the evangelical/fundamentalist split of the 1940s, and in part because the media has equated any type of fundamentalism with Islamic extremism. For that matter, I’m not suggesting they need a new label at all. (Though I do like the “Confessing Christian” term that the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals has used, as well as Ian Murray’s “Old Evangelical.”)

But I do see history repeating itself, should the Lord tarry. And I think reflecting on the example of the original fundamentalists gives us motivation to mobilize and encouragement to stand strong.

Over the next fifty years, I believe that similar lines will be drawn, similar alliances made, and similar battles fought as were seen 125 years ago. May God give us the courage and resolve of the original fundamentalists, as we stand firm for the truth against the tempting tidal wave of compromise.

God’s Plan for the Gay Agenda

By John MacArthur

If you’ve been watching the headlines over the last couple years, you may have noticed the incredible surge of interest in affirming homosexuality. Whether it’s at the heart of a religious scandal, political corruption, radical legislation, or the redefinition of marriage, homosexual interests have come to characterize America. That’s an indication of the success of the gay agenda. And some Christians, including some national church leaders, have wavered on the issue even recently. But sadly, when people refuse to acknowledge the sinfulness of homosexuality—calling evil good and good evil (Isaiah 5:20)—they do so at the expense of many souls.

How should you respond to the success of the gay agenda? Should you accept the recent trend toward tolerance? Or should you side with those who exclude homosexuals with hostility and disdain?

In reality, the Bible calls for a balance between what some people think are two opposing reactions—condemnation and compassion. Really, the two together are essential elements of biblical love, and that’s something the homosexual sinner desperately needs.

Homosexual advocates have been remarkably effective in selling their warped interpretations of passages in Scripture that address homosexuality. When you ask a homosexual what the Bible says about homosexuality—and many of them know—they have digested an interpretation that is not only warped, but also completely irrational. Pro-homosexual arguments from the Bible are nothing but smokescreens—as you come close, you see right through them.

God’s condemnation of homosexuality is abundantly clear—He opposes it in every age.

- In the patriarchs (Genesis 19:1-28)

- In the Law of Moses (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13)

- In the Prophets (Ezekiel 16:46-50)

- In the New Testament (Romans 1:18-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Jude 7-8)

Why does God condemn homosexuality? Because it overturns God’s fundamental design for human relationships—a design that pictures the complementary relationship between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:18-25; Matthew 19:4-6; Ephesians 5:22-33).

Why, then, have homosexual interpretations of Scripture been so successful at persuading so many? Simple: people want to be convinced. Since the Bible is so clear about the issue, sinners have had to defy reason and embrace error to quiet their accusing consciences (Romans 2:14-16). As Jesus said, “Men loved the darkness rather than the Light, [because] their deeds were evil” (John 3:19-20).

As a Christian, you must not compromise what the Bible says about homosexuality—ever. No matter how much you desire to be compassionate to the homosexual, your first sympathies belong to the Lord and to the exaltation of His righteousness. Homosexuals stand in defiant rebellion against the will of their Creator who from the beginning “made them male and female” (Matthew 19:4).

Don’t allow yourself to be intimidated by homosexual advocates and their futile reasoning—their arguments are without substance. Homosexuals, and those who advocate that sin, are fundamentally committed to overturning the lordship of Christ in this world. But their rebellion is useless, for the Holy Spirit says, “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10; cf. Galatians 5:19-21).

So, what is God’s response to the homosexual agenda?

Certain and final judgment. To claim anything else is to compromise the truth of God and deceive those who are perishing.

As you interact with homosexuals and their sympathizers, you must affirm the Bible’s condemnation. You are not trying to bring damnation on the head of homosexuals, you are trying to bring conviction so that they can turn from that sin and embrace the only hope of salvation for all of us sinners—and that’s through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Homosexuals need salvation. They don’t need healing—homosexuality is not a disease. They don’t need therapy—homosexuality is not a psychological condition. Homosexuals need forgiveness, because homosexuality is a sin.

I don’t know how it happened, but a few decades ago someone branded homosexuals with the worst misnomer—“gay.” Gay used to mean happy, but I can assure you, homosexuals are not happy people. They habitually seek happiness by following after destructive pleasures. There is a reason Romans 1:26 calls homosexual desire a “degrading passion.” It is a lust that destroys the physical body, ruins relationships, and brings perpetual suffering to the soul—and its ultimate end is death (Romans 7:5). Homosexuals are experiencing the judgment of God (Romans 1:24, 26, 28), and thus they are very, very sad.

First Corinthians 6 is very clear about the eternal consequence for those who practice homosexuality—but there’s good news. No matter what the sin is, whether homosexuality or anything else, God has provided forgiveness, salvation, and the hope of eternal life to those who repent and embrace the gospel. Right after identifying homosexuals as those who “will not inherit the kingdom of God,” Paul said, “Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Corinthians 6:11).

God’s plan for many homosexuals is that they come to salvation. There were former homosexuals in the Corinthian church back in Paul’s day, just as there are many former homosexuals today in my church and in faithful churches around the country. With regenerated hearts, they sit in biblical churches throughout the country praising their Savior, along with former fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, thieves, coveters, drunkards, revilers, and swindlers. Remember, such were some of you too.

What should be your response to the homosexual agenda? Make it a biblical response—confront it with the truth of Scripture that condemns homosexuality and promises eternal damnation for all who practice it. What should be your response to the homosexual? Make it a gospel response—confront him with the truth of Scripture that condemns him as a sinner, and point him to the hope of salvation through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. Stay faithful to the Lord as you respond to homosexuality by honoring His Word, and leave the results to Him.

Where Do People Get Their Ideas of Church?

By Mark Roberts

Part 3 of series: What is a Church? Biblical Basics for Christian Community

People today have a wide variety of ideas about what a church should be. If you ask a dozen people you'd probably get a dozen different answers.

One of my favorite answers came during a children's sermon preached by a young seminarian. This story was related to me by someone who was in the congregation that fateful day. For those of you unfamiliar with this genre, a children's sermon comes in a worship service when the folks twelve and under are brought forward for a sermonette by the pastor or some other church leader. Often the sermon begins with a question like, "What is God?" The preacher gets a bunch of funny – and incorrect – answers, and then offers the right answer, sometimes with a visual aid.

At any rate, a young man was doing his seminary internship at a church. As low man on the totem pole, he got tabbed for the children's sermon, and decided to talk about what the church really is. He gathered the children together in the front, and began with his question: "So, boys and girls, what is a church?" He fully expected that the kids would say a church is a building and so forth. He'd get to wrap up with the correct answer, that the church is not the building but the people. As soon as the seminarian uttered his question, one of the boys shot his hand into the air.

"Yes," the young preacher said, "what is a church?"

"The gathered assembly of believers in Jesus Christ," was the boy's answer.

The seminarian was speechless, not knowing where to go from here. The kid had said exactly what the preacher was going to reveal at the end of a three-minute dialogue. From his point of view, there wasn't anything more to say. So after a few seconds of embarrassed silence, he thanked the boy and dismissed the children. (What the seminarian did not know was that the theologically-sophisticated boy was the son of a seminary professor in the congregation, and should never have been called on first!)

Most people don't get their ideas of church from seminary professors, however, or even from their fathers. Rather, then get them from a wide variety of sources. At a recent meeting of leaders from my church, I asked, "What shapes people's expectations of church? Where do people get their ideas of what a church ought to be?" Their answers were revealing:

1. People get their ideas of church from their past experience of church.

Indeed, this is surely true for people who have some past experience of church. These days, more and more people come to church with no religious background whatsoever. But most folks still have at least some prior history of church, even if it's limited to weddings and funerals. As a pastor, I've found that people usually have both positive and negative experiences from which to draw. They want a church to be like what they've experienced in some ways, but not like other aspects of previous churches where they've been involved.

Many people look upon their past church experience through the rose-tinted glasses of nostalgia. I've had people from my church, for example, complain about some innovation in worship and talk about how wonderful their church was growing up. When I ask if their church helped them to know Christ, to grow as His disciple, or to have a desire to worship God, they'll say something like, "No, but that's not the point." Looking back, they love what they remember about worship in their childhood church. But, in point of fact, that church did not actually teach them to know and love the Lord, and it didn't even help them want to worship God when they were young.

In tomorrow's post I'll discuss three other ways people get their ideas of what a church should be.

Why Sing? | Part 1

By Scott Aniol

Why do we have music in church?

This may seem like an odd question. Most — if not all — churches have music, don’t they? This is just how it has always been, right?

While this may seem like an odd question, I believe it is nevertheless an important issue to discuss because of the myriads of faulty answers people will give when answering the question. For instance, I have heard people say that the music of a worship service is simply prelude to the preaching. These kinds of people view music as nonessential to a worship service; we could eliminate it altogether and they wouldn’t miss it at all. Others say that music “sets the mood” for the preaching. This is still a “prelude to preaching” type of thinking, although these people would probably say that music is a good thing because it does “prepare our hearts” for the message. A third group — and this is what I’ve heard more often in our circles — will say that the reason we have music in churches is so that we can teach and affirm biblical truth. This answer may sound a bit better, but I will still insist that it is no better an answer than the other two.

The reason these answers are so faulty is that they completely miss the crucial reason that we use music in church. They focus only on the words of music in the church and give no thought to the actual music itself or even to the poetic form of the words. You can recognize a person with this kind of reasoning because when they are evaluating music for use in the church, the only question they ask is, “Are the words biblical?” This is a great question, but it’s not enough.

I am going to argue that the purpose for music in the church goes beyond simply the words. The reason we have music involves more than just a nice setting for teaching and affirming biblical truth.

What is the purpose of the church?

In order to answer the question of why we have music in church, we must first step back and ask questions about the purposes of churches in general. The Bible gives the church specific missions to fulfill, and if the church engages in any activity that does not support its mission,then that activity should be eliminated.

Establishing Mature Followers of Christ

With specific reference to believers, churches are responsible to establish mature followers of Christ. Ephesians 4:11-16 perhaps best demonstrates this mission of the church:

It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12 to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

14 Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. 15 Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. 16 From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.

How does a church accomplish this goal of maturing believers? Simply stated, the church accomplishes this by encouraging its members to follow the Bible. Through various means, Christians become more mature as they submit to biblical directives.

What is important, however, is that the church aim for the whole of man to obey all of God’s commands. Every part of man must be matured. In the Bible, God addresses what we think, what we do, and how we feel — mind, will, and emotions. This is no better illustrated than in the great Hebrew confession of faith found in Deuteronomy 6:4-6:

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. 5 Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. 6 These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts.

God addressed all three parts of man. He first addressed what they must believe in their minds: that God is one and that he is Yahweh. He then addressed their emotions: they are to love that God. And finally, he addressed their wills: they must obey that God. The rest of Scripture deals the same way with man — his mind, will, and emotions are to fall under the rule of God. All three work together in order for a person to glorify God: doctrine, action, and affection.

So if a church is going to “establish mature followers of Christ who declare God’s excellencies,”then it must aim to improve the whole of man: his beliefs, his actions, and his emotions. This is the duty of everyone in the congregation, and especially the leadership.

Declaring God’s Excellencies Corporately in Worship

Before we discuss how a church might accomplish this maturing, let us focus specifically on the purpose of a church in its congregational worship. Our Lord said in John 4 that God desires people who worship in “spirit and truth.” He was contrasting the common religious thought of the day that said that worship had to be done in certain outward forms in specific locations. Christ emphasized that true worship is inward responses to biblical truth. This response to truth can take the form of action or affection. So here again we have all three elements of man that congregational worship must address: truth, morality (action), and right affection (spirit).

Now, we must also notice that these three elements of man are intricately connected. The Bible doesn’t separate the three. Anything that is biblically true is therefore good because it comes from God, and it should stir the affections. We must love righteousness that is based on truth. And our affections must be based on truth and goodness. We cannot separate the three.

The Means to Establishing Mature Followers of Christ

So how, then, does a church accomplish its mission of establishing mature followers of Christ? Let us look at each of the three elements we’ve discussed, keeping in mind that they are interconnected.

First, a church helps to mature the mind primarily through biblical teaching. This can be in the form of a formal Bible class, Sunday School, training times, or weekly preaching. We cannot make too much of consistent biblical teaching that aims at shaping what believers think and believe. Therefore, maturing the mind is accomplished primarily through words.

Second, a church helps to mature the will through applying the Bible and through exhortation. As the Word of God is taught, a pastor will admonish believers to follow what it says and change their lives if they do not conform to its teaching. A church that emphasizes truth but neglects application of that truth in holiness and conformity to God’s commands is negligent. Therefore, maturing the will, too, is accomplished primarily through words.

Most good churches strive to accomplish these two goals. We make much of doctrine, and we make much of holiness. However, it is the third element of man that many have failed to carefully consider.

How does a church help to mature believers’ emotions? Certainly truth and righteousness are at the root of biblical affections, so the use of words through teaching and preaching does help to mature believers’ emotions as well. But the fact of the matter is that emotion simply cannot be adequately put into words. If I want to tell you what you should believe, I use words. If I want to tell you how you should act, I use words. But If I want to tell you how you should feel, words are inadequate. Furthermore, words are not only incapable of telling you how you should feel, but they are also inadequate as expressions of how you feel. Any husband knows what it is to be unable to adequately express with words the love he has for his wife. No wife is satisfied with an occasional, “I love you” — only words to express what can better be expressed by other means. Sometimes a look or a touch does more to express heartfelt affection than any words can. Or this is why we have love poems — they help us express love in a way that cannot be expressed with just words. Likewise, Christians need another language than just words to both prescribe the affections they should have for God and describe the affections they do have for God.

That other language is music.

^{———-
Scott Aniol is an assistant pastor at First Baptist Church in Rockford, IL. He received a bachelor’s degree in church music at Bob Jones University. He graduate work in choral conducting and church music history at Concordia University in River Forest, Illinois. He earned a master’s degree in Musicology at Northern Illinois University and is currently pursuing a Master of Arts in Theology at Central Baptist Seminary in Minneapolis, MN. He maintains a website to encourage the development and expression of ordinate affection to the Lord: www.ReligiousAffections.org.}

Medieval Contemporary Christianity

ByWilliam Dudding


Last night I watched the movie "Luther" again. I am always inspired by his life and his stand against the established church of his day. The contemporary church reminds me alot of the medieval church of years gone by. Luther had to stand up against externalism, formalism, tradition, prejudice, and false doctrine. Christianity was nothing more than cosmetic externals, relics, and superficiality.Here are a few charactaristics of the medieval church that are happening again today:

Powerless Preaching - The medieval church preached church tradition and not sound doctrine. Today "traditional" is out of style, but the preaching is still powerless. Pep talks, and sugary speeches bloat the church attender so he walks out thinking he's full, when all he got was a spiritual milkshake. The people think because there is a reference to the Bible here and there, that somehow what is being said is benefiting them, but they don't know that they are really starving.

Entertaining the Simple Ones - The Medieval church believed that the common person was too dumb to understand the Bible. So, theatricals were performed by the church in the town square. Sounds a little like the entertainment that goes on in contemporary churches today. The "seekers" can't understand biblical truth, so we need to give it to them in a medium that that he can relate to because his attention span can only process information for 15 minutes at a time.

Beautiful Cathedrals - In downtown San Jose, Saint Joseph's Cathedral is a place I like to go to and just admire the building. It fills me with a sense of awe, but then as I look around at the idols and I am reminded that they are damning millions of people, I am filled with a sense of sadness. In modern contemporary churches, the buildings are state of the art, and have great curb appeal, but what's going on inside of them is next to idolotry.

Latin Vulgate Onlyism- Luther would have been burned alive if the Catholic church could have done it. He translated the Bible into the common people's language and the Roman Catholic hiearchy was outraged! In fundamentalism, they attitude is almost the same concerning the King James Bible. Maybe in 400 years there will be a sect of NIV Onlyists!

Ignorant Clergy and Laity - Most people of the middle ages were illiterate, especially when it came to the Bible. Unfortunately, you can go to certain Christian colleges and graduate as a biblical illiterate today. Luther didn't even own his own Bible until he had earned is doctorate in theology. Today, many of our preachers don't even know what's in the Bible, but they're up there teaching it. The people are getting watered down gospel preaching, shallow surface level Bible teaching, and they are spiritually anemic. In 20 years from now, the contemporary seeker sensitive churches will be unrecognizable in doctrine. People will attend church for years and have no clue what sin is nor will they know that they are in any danger of it.

We are in desparate need of a spiritual awakening. It's been about 150 years since the last one and we are overdue for one again.

Pro-Choicers Warn Against 3d Ultrasound

by seeker

In an interesting post entitled 3D foetal scans 'dangerously misleading', The British newspaper The Daily Mail relates that a group of scientists wants to warn us that ultrasounds of 12 week fetuses "sucking their thumbs and walking in the womb are dangerously misleading." How, you say? Well, it makes them look like actual babies.

The fact is, now that we can visualize them, we can no longer believe the disingenuous, murder-justifying rhetoric of the left calling such babies a "clump of cells." And the lefties know this.

The implication for abortion is that we need to consider MOVING BACK the date for legal abortions, as I have consistently said.

The 3D images of unborn babies apparently behaving in a similar way to newborns raised questions over whether the upper limit for abortions should be reduced form 24 weeks.

Of course, they make the argument that the baby's brain isn't that "functional" (if you've ever had a newborn, they're not all that functional either - they cant focus or communicate or hold their bowels!). Note the "expert" description below.

Dr Huseyin Mehmet, a reader in developmental neurobiology at Imperial College London, said that a foetal brain at 23 and 24 weeks was "extremely immature" and described it as being like an orange that has been sliced in half.

Pro-lifers ably responded

Julia Millington, of the Pro-Life Alliance, said it was irrelevant whether someone looking at the images fully understood the science behind it or not.

She said people responded to the humanity of the images rather than the science behind them. "It is accepted generally that although a foetus appears to be smiling, it is not doing so in the way we smile," she said.

"When the ultrasound images were first made public we were told it could just be a reflex response. But that doesn't change the reality that we can see how well developed an unborn baby is."

[]

She said: "I do not think they will diminish the impact of the images because the thing that people respond to is what they see as the humanity of the unborn child.

Above All Earthly Pow'rs: Conference Audio

David Wells
The Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World

Justin Taylor, John Piper, Tim Keller, Mark Driscoll
A Conversation with the Pastors

Voddie Baucham
The Supremacy of Christ and Truth in a Postmodern World

Tim Keller
The Supremacy of Christ and the Gospel in a Postmodern World

Mark Driscoll
The Supremacy of Christ and the Church in a Postmodern World

Justin Taylor, Voddie Baucham, John Piper, D. A. Carson, David Wells
Speaker Panel

D. A. Carson
The Supremacy of Christ and Love in a Postmodern World

John Piper

The Supremacy of Christ and Joy in a Postmodern World
Read Listen

Encouragement for Pastors of Smaller Churches

John Piper and Don Carson's answer with regard to pastors of smaller flocks:



2006 Desiring God National Conference

Saturday Afternoon Q & A

JT: John, a question for you, I imagine that a lot of pastors who may be here could be discouraged in the size of their church. They see you talking or Mark Driscoll and he preaches substitutionary atonement and 800 people come the next week, and they preach substitutionary atonement and 8 people leave the next week. What sort of encouragement would you give to the small-town pastor or to the rural pastor who feels like for them to make a difference they have to drop everything and move to the city, that to make a difference for Christ they have to do something like that. What sort of encouragement would you give to those churches?

JP: I would say that feeding the flock of God is the most precious and high calling in the world. Peter said to Jesus three times: feed my sheep, feed my sheep, feed my sheep and don’t ever give up. There’s always room for growth, we can always do better. I come away from conferences like this discouraged--I mean, don’t you? Everyone of these guys discourages me. I just think, “I’m not doing that well, I’m not doing that well, I’m not doing that well.” So, well, you know, that’s life.

It’s a great thing to rest in the calling that God has given you and to cherish the Word of God. To study it and to explain it and to apply it and to exult over it is the highest calling that I know of. Now, there’s got to be witness in rural areas. I mean, it would just be absurd, and Tim Keller would be the first to say so, that we don’t have churches in small towns, or that we don’t have churches in the country. He’s outraged at the abandonment of the city. Something’s askew when evangelicals leave the city. It’s not that everybody should go to the city. What’s wrong is, that, why there’s been such an exodus. What’s going on there? That needs to be redressed. Now, there’s enough people in this room right here to fix those problems. We can have churches in the small towns and churches in the big cities. So, God calls people in different ways and He gifts people in different ways. And there are pastors who flourish in a small town.

And you have to have different expectations in a small town. Because, say you have 800 people in this town, and you’ve got a charismatic church, you’ve got a Roman Catholic church, Lutheran church, and you’ve got a Baptist church and you’re the Baptist pastor. Everybody’s aligned already, the lines are drawn. Everybody knows where everybody stands. There’s, you know, ten families who don’t go to church anywhere. And everybody knows who they are. Now, what is a ministry like that supposed to look like? Faithful, loving exposition, feeding, growing up, reaching out, forming relationships. It’s gotta look different.

You can’t be beat up by an urban pastor who says you’ve gotta go out and dress this way--everybody dresses the same in this town, absolutely, everybody’s the same. Be encouraged that God loves rural people, and He loves His church in rural situations. And God loves His Word and the faithful exposition of His Word, and God loves the faithful showing up at a funeral or a bedside. God loves all those things. Every place has its challenges. Sometimes I think I’d just like to go there and end my days with a flock without all of the complications of suburbs and campuses, and multiple worship services, and staffing that cuts this way and this way and you’re trying to draw charts that make sense and have small groups all over the place. Wouldn’t that be nice if the church was just a small group, and you knew everyone by name? That’s a glorious calling.

DAC: There are different degrees of gift. If we’re doing something wrong that we can fix within the calling and gift God has given us, and a conference like this helps us fix it--just one or two small things--then in addition to the encouragement from the Word that’s a good thing.

But on the other hand, I was brought up in French Canada. As recently as 1972, in a population of 6 and a half million, there were about 35 or 36 evangelical churches, none with more than forty people. Between ‘72 and ‘80, the churches grew from 35 to just under 500, many with hundreds. But my father was a church planter through all of those lean years when Baptist ministers alone spent eight years in jail for preaching the gospel. The charges were always inciting to riot or disturbing the peace, but that’s what it was. We kids would get beaten up in the fifties because we were “maudite protestant,” “damn protestants.” In all those years, my father saw virtually no fruit. I remember many times in tears for his people. In ’72, when the turn came, he was already 61 and the leadership passed off into different hands, and I know that in that period of growth, he felt that he had largely been put on the shelf. But when he died at the age of 81, even though he still felt that way, most of the church in Quebec viewed him as the grand old man, because he had been faithful in the lean years.

There are people that go to Korea in 1900 and see over a quarter of the population evangelical today. And there are people who go to Japan, who at the same time, and no place on God’s green earth sees the church growing slower than in Japan. What are you going to do, say all the ones who went to Korea are spiritual, particularly loved of God? The ones in Japan aren’t blessed of God? God works on an entirely different scale. He work on another scale.

I made a resolution when I was a young man, that I would never, so help me God, for the rest of my life, ever accept or reject any invitation whatsoever on the basis of either size or honorarium, and I have kept that promise. Otherwise, you will only wind up going to bigger and bigger and bigger things. There’s something dishonorable about that when Christ comes for the poor and the needy and starts with 12 and one turns out to be a traitor, another denies him, and the rest run. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Don’t let this crowd fool you. Learn the best things from it. Rejoice in the encouragement, rejoice with those who rejoice, and if you are less gifted, be faithful where you are, and be thankful.

Leaning on Jesus (apologetically)

by Dan Phillips

To overgeneralize grossly, there are two respectable approaches to apologetics.

(I say "respectable," because dodging, avoiding, feigning a stroke, pretending not to speak English, copping out, or simply trading insults or slogans don't really count.)

One approach is that of the Triablogue guys, God love 'em. These brothers apparently never met a pagan blurt, no matter how cut-'n'-pasted and hackneyed, that they didn't have the time, patience, energy and smarts to respond to -- line by line, syllable by syllable, punctuation-mark by punctuation-mark. There's a real need for that sort of approach. It's in the same continent as J. Gresham Machen's still-classic Virgin Birth of Christ and John Owen's... well, Owen's anything. ("What time is it? Well, sonny, first men mine ore from the mountains, then they smelt the ore, and from it they form tiny working parts by....")

Another approach is called for on other occasions, for which one might coin the phrase "leaning-on-Jesus" apologetics. It goes something like this.

Bob Unbeliever makes some billowy assertion. It could be any of a million. It's been heard and dealt with a thousand times before lunch last Tuesday. It's always announced with the air of a fresh word from Sinai.

• "I just can't believe that God would send anyone to Hell simply because he doesn't believe this or that dogma"
• "I have a very personal relationship with God, and don't need any books, churches, or saviors"
• "Genesis is a myth borrowed from Chaldean legends"
• "All religions are basically the same"
• "The Bible is a storybook"
• "Jesus was a good man, a moral teacher. No more"
• "You should worship God. Not Jesus"
• "It doesn't matter what anyone believes, so long as he's sincere"
• "The most important thing is how people treat people, not what their doctrine is"
• "There are many paths to God"
• "God speaks in every religion"

...and on and on. Doubtless you could multiply the list by a factor of ten.

Now, there's a real point to going Triablogue on these chestnuts. But the thing is, every one of them has been decisively Triablogued (or the equivalent) a hundred times already. More. And that's good. But sometimes, another approach might be more effective.

Here is my suggestion for that other approach. It can be put in eight words. Are you ready for them? Here they are:

"Why should I believe you instead of Jesus?"

(Alternate nine-word form: "How did you get so much smarter than Jesus?")

Why do I suggest this?

First, it is true that sometimes a fool has to be given a long, complex, wise, devastating tour de force response (Proverbs 26:4). But other times he just has to be set back on his heels (Proverbs 26:5). And anyone who doesn't believe Jesus is some kind of fool (Proverbs 1:7; Romans 1:22; Titus 3:3).

Second, because we should never forget that Jesus is our real focus, and holding Him forth is our real burden. We want (or should want) to preach Christ to our unbelieving friends, relatives, acquaintances (1 Corinthians 1:23; 2 Corinthians 4:3; Colossians 1:27-28).

Our real primary goal isn't to convince everyone that evolution is folly, homosexuality is a sin, paganism is false, there is a god, abortion is murder, or even that the Bible is unique and inspired. There will be a lot of people in Hell who have right opinions on all those subjects. Nobody ever went to Heaven simply because he held a correct view about any or all of them. The correct answer to the question, "What can wash away my sin?" is not "Nothing but the accurate dating of the Pauline corpus."

The correct opinion about human origins, or world religions, or homosexuality, or private property, does not save. Jesus saves. Therefore, we want to preach Jesus.

So why not cut straight to Him? Why not make The issue the issue? After all, isn't it the truth that all these other errors are best addressed, once the matter of Jesus' Lordship is addressed?

Third, because Jesus can carry the weight. I'm convinced of that. You could say that I am a Christian because I am convinced of that fact; you could equally say that I am convinced of that fact because I am a Christian. It goes both ways.

My apologetic point is not that I'm smarter than Wellhausen or Winfrey, Hick or Hawking, Crossan or Campbell, Darwin or Donahue. My apologetic point is that Jesus is literally infinitely smarter than any of them -- or than I, for that matter. I don't primarily want to convince them that Chopra is wrong. I primarily want to convince them (God doing His miraculous work above, beyond, through, and in spite of me) that Jesus is right.

Now, I hasten to add two caveats:

First, though I've tried with my usual pathological obsessiveness to word myself carefully, I know someone is going to say I'm putting the thoroughgoing-type guys down. (Frank Turk: "Food fight! Phillips and Triablogue!") Or someone will suggest that I don't think the issues I've mentioned matter. Neither is even remotely the case. That approach to apologetics is needed, and those issues need to be dealt with. I am only saying that it is neither the only approach, nor always the most effective. And I'm saying, one thing at a time -- and at least sometimes let's start with the linch-pin issue.

Second, let me warn anyone away from thinking, "Oh, Cool! I love that! I just play the Jesus-card, and I'm done! Whew! I don't have to study or think or...." Wrong.

To do this right, you've got to know your Jesus, if I may put it that way. You had better be prepared to give a reasoned defense for the hope you have in Jesus (1 Peter 3;15). You had better be ready to explain what Jesus has to do with the subject at hand. You had better be ready to explain why you place unhesitating and absolutely confidence in Jesus.

In other words, you had better be ready to preach Jesus.

Above all, it will take a knowledge of Jesus as it is gained from Scripture alone. You'll need to know what He said, Himself, about Himself; and what the Holy Spirit said about Him through the prophets; and what He told the Holy Spirit to say about Him through the apostles. It's the word of Christ that brings saving faith (Romans 10:17). Above all, know that word.

But to some degree you should know at least some of the reasons why it is only rational to place confidence in the Gospels. Here's where a book like Reinventing Jesus can be very helpful.

The most important reasoned conviction an apologist/evangelist needs to have is that Jesus is the answer. The suggestion here is simply that it may often be wisest to cut straight to Him, rather than be drawn into a seventeen-movement ballet on the way there.

Because the trouble with these seventeen-movement verbal ballets is that they often break down on the first movement.

And what's the point of that?

AFTERWORD: my little Why I Am (Still) a Christian is one attempt to implement this approach at greater length, apologetically.

Why a Discussion on the Church?

By Mark Roberts

Part 2 of series: What is a Church? Biblical Basics for Christian Community

This is the second post in a series I'm calling: What is a Church? Biblical Basics for Christian Community. Yesterday I explained that I'm planning to answer this question from a biblical point of view, though without denying the value of church tradition and Christian experience. I believe that, in the end, however, Scripture is the most authoritative guide for matters of faith and practice, including questions of ecclesiology (the study of the church).

One additional point of clarification might be helpful here. Notice that I'm asking "What is a church?" rather than "What is the church?" I'm more concerned in this series about the nature of a particular Christian community than the whole configuration of Christians throughout the world and/or throughout the cosmos. Of course these issues of local church/global church are interrelated. But my primary focus is on an individual Christian community, a church, if you will, rather than the church.

Why This Series?

I'm taking on this series at this time for a variety of reasons. Mostly it is an outgrowth of my ministry as pastor of Irvine Presbyterian Church. In fact, I plan to use this series as a resource within my own church, especially as I teach our new members classes and as I work with my leaders. I'm finding that folks often have differing visions of what a church should be, and that these differences can be either enriching of our corporate life or debilitating, or both. If, for example, people join our church with a particular image of what a church should be, but it turns out that we are not what they had imagined, then it's likely they will become disillusioned and start looking for another church that offers what they want. Nobody wins when this happens. If, on the other hand, members of my church have a clear, common vision of what a church is, then their experience will be more positive. If our leaders share this vision together, then our church will be healthy and growing in the right direction.

As I write this series, there are lots of competing visions of the church in the marketplace of religious ideas. Rick Warren's The Purpose-Driven Church has had a major impact on Christian thinking about the church, not to mention the practice of individual churches. This book has helped thousands of churches clarify their mission and focus more intentionally upon it. Younger Christians (and a few not so younger ones) tend to be influenced more by an amorphous configuration of ideas and practices known as "the emergent church" or "emerging movement" or something like this (see, for example, The Emerging Church by Dan Kimball or Scot McKnight's excellent collection of blog entries on The Emerging Movement). Of course there are dozens of other visions of the church floating around in the Christian atmosphere, ranging from home-based Pentecostal communities to more traditional churches that emphasize Reformed theology and the regular administration of the sacraments. Moreover, many evangelical Christians continue to be drawn to more liturgical churches of the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic variety. Talk about a wide range of perspectives on the church!

Then you can throw into the mix the crises in which many of the well-established American denominations find themselves, including my own, the Presbyterian Church USA. Though our potentially-schismatic squabbles don't have to do primarily with the nature of the local church, they have touched upon this issue, especially with respect to who actually owns the property of a particular church. Many Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Lutherans, and others have been asking what it means for a local church to be connected to a larger body of believers. Is this essential? Or optional? Should such connections ever be broken? And if so, when? Though I don't intend to address these questions much in this series, they do loom over this investigation to some extent.

I determined to do an extended series on the question "What is a church?" a couple of weeks ago. Since we at Irvine Presbyterian Church need to focus again on the biblical basics of Christian community, I figured this might be true of other Christians and churches also. This hunch was confirmed today by an article on the Christianity Today website . The title of this article reads, "What's Next: Local Church." The subtitle explains: "We asked 114 leaders form 11 ministry spheres about evangelical priorities for the next 50 years. First up: Fresh basics for the local church." There you have it: fresh basics for the local church! So it appears that a series on biblical basics for the local church might in fact be helpful to others outside of my own church.

I'm particularly eager to help well-meaning Christians overcome some of the confusion they feel about what the church should be. Even in one particular church, even among leaders who share a common heart for Christ and a common commitment to Scripture, you'll find a wide range of visions of a church. Some of these visions are derived from Scripture and to that extent are helpful. Others come from a wide variety of other sources. In my next post I want to consider where people get their ideas of what a church should be.

On Doing Justice

By Wayne Shih

Mark Dever asks the question:

Is the church's mission to save souls or to bring about progress in the world? Both are good. But are both good for the church as the church to do? Both are good, and Christians should and must be involved in both. But is one paramount and the other secondary for the church? Are these purposes of equal importance for the church? Is there any way that the church is NOT supposed to help the city, the state, the wider culture? What is the vision of the New Testament for the church?

I think Tim Keller would say yes. I think he would say we are to do evangelism and justice. At least that's what I hear in his message on Doing Justice.

I jotted down a few points from the message. First, his plea to churches:

It's very rare to see a church that is as good at theologically rich and deep preaching of the gospel and evangelistically effective preaching of the gospel , and at the same time is just so absolutely, deeply involved in justice issues and work with the poor in their community. It's very rare to see that together and I'm begging you to try.

Keller goes on to do a study of justice from Proverbs :

• What is justice?
• What is doing justice?
• Who should do justice?
• How you can be one of the people who does justice?

First, he goes to Proverbs 29:7 to show the importance of doing justice. Then he answers each of the above questions:

What is justice? Proverbs 3:17-20

Justice is when those of us who have power - we have money, we have influence, we have status, we have connection - when we are interweaving that in the community, when we are pushing it out instead of holding on to it, when we're threading it all over the place … there is an inter-wovenness. See, people are all being held up by the fabric.

What is doing justice? Proverbs 3:27-28

Who should do justice? Proverbs 11:10

The righteous are those who are willing to disadvantage themselves for the advantage of the community.

How should we do justice? Proverbs 19:17

No Such Thing as Pro-choice

By Gary Shavey

Being that today, October 2^nd 2006, is the national day for Pro-lifers in this country to take their stand on the issues of abortion I write this little blog. I owe much to the following line of thought to a seminary class that I took from David Horner from Talbot Seminary and to the readings of a Jewish Atheist, liberal, left-wing, pro-lifer Nat Hentoff (Jewish Atheist is a special division in Hentoff’s own words).

The issues over abortion are very tricky and thick but it is safe to say that the majority of the arguments are over emotions, selfishness, inconvenience, “rights” and ultimately the truth. It seems at times, that truth is overlooked because pro-choicers do not want to face the logical outworking of their decisions on abortion. Pro-lifers on the other hand tend to deal with truth and fight for what they see as true from both the biblical position and flat out logical position. Believe it or not there are people like Nat Hentoff that are not Bible believers but have logically worked out a pro-life view, yet with some differences to the typical conservative pro-life position (i.e., views on contraceptives and the death penalty). From my perspective, I would say that Mr. Hentoff’s view comes from the fact that he was created in God’s image and still has the law written on his heart so there is this “moral argument” in which God can be proved through the Imago Dei. To say this in another way that is more blunt, there are some folks that have seen through the crap and will not take it anymore, there are people on death row that have at least limited rights but pre-born infants have no rights. Basically being pro-choice only protects the rights of the woman but an infant in the womb has no rights until the last 3 months in the womb. What?

True Success in Christian Leadership

By John MacArthur

If we judged success by worldly standards, some might be inclined to assess Paul’s leadership career as an abject failure and a bitter disappointment.

In the closing days of his life, when Paul wrote 2 Timothy, Luke was virtually his only contact with the outside world (4:11). Paul was confined in a Roman dungeon, dreading the savage cold of coming winter (vv. 13, 21), and without any hope of deliverance from the death sentence that had been imposed on him. He suffered because of the sadistic contempt of his enemies. He was even abandoned or disavowed by some of his closest friends. He wrote, “This you know, that all those in Asia have turned away from me” (2 Timothy 1:15). “Asia” refers to Asia Minor, where Paul had focused his missionary work. Ephesus, where Timothy pastored, was the capital of that region. So Paul wasn’t telling Timothy anything Timothy didn’t already know firsthand. In that time of fierce persecution, association with Paul had become so costly that all but a few of the apostle’s own spiritual children had in effect disowned and abandoned him.

That’s why people who see things superficially might think the end of Paul’s life was tragic. At first glance, it might even seem as if his enemies had finally defeated him.

A failure? Actually, the apostle Paul was not a failure as a leader by any measure. His influence continues worldwide even today. By contrast, Nero, the corrupt but powerful Roman emperor who ordered Paul’s death, is one of history’s most despised figures. This is yet another reminder that influence is the true test of a person’s leadership, not power or position per se. In fact, a careful look at how Paul’s life and ministry came to an end can teach us a lot about how to gauge the success or failure of a leader.

Paul’s first long imprisonment and trial before Nero apparently ended in the apostle’s release sometime before AD 64, because he wrote the epistles of 1 Timothy and Titus as a free man (1 Timothy 3:14-15; 4:13; Titus 3:12). But that liberty was short-lived. In July of the year 64, seven of Rome’s fourteen districts burned. When the original fire was nearly extinguished, another fire, fanned by fierce winds, broke out in another district. Rumors circulated that Nero himself had ordered the burning of the city to make room for some ambitious building projects, including a golden palace for himself.

Trying desperately to deflect suspicion, Nero blamed Christians for starting the fires. That began the first of several major, aggressive campaigns by the Roman government to destroy the church. Christians in Rome were rounded up and executed in unspeakably cruel ways. Some were sewn into animal skins and ripped to death by dogs. Others were impaled on stakes, covered with pitch, and burned as human torches to light Nero’s garden parties. Many were beheaded, fed to lions, or otherwise disposed of at Nero’s command in equally ruthless ways.

During that persecution, Paul was again taken prisoner by the Roman authorities, brought to Rome, subjected to persecution and torment (2 Timothy 4:17), and finally executed as a traitor because of his relentless devotion to the lordship of Christ.

Throughout his first imprisonment at Rome, Paul had been kept under house arrest (Acts 28:16, 30). He was allowed freedom to preach and teach those who visited him (v. 23). He was under the constant guard of a Roman soldier but was treated with respect. The influence of his ministry had therefore reached right into the household of Caesar (Philippians 4:22).

Paul’s second imprisonment, however, was markedly different. He was virtually cut off from all outside contact and kept chained in a dungeon (2 Timothy 1:16). He was probably held underground in the Mamertine Prison, adjacent to the Roman forum, in a small, dark, bare stone dungeon whose only entrance was a hole in the ceiling scarcely large enough for one person to pass through. The dungeon itself is not large; about half the size of a small one-car garage. Yet it was sometimes used to hold as many as forty prisoners. The discomfort, the dark, the stench, and the misery were almost unbearable.

That dungeon still exists, and I have been in it. The stifling, claustrophobic confines of that dark hole are eerie and depressing even today. It was there (or in a dungeon just like it) that Paul spent the final days of his life.

There is no reliable record of Paul’s execution, but he obviously knew the end of his life was imminent when he wrote his second epistle to Timothy. Evidently he had already been tried, convicted, and condemned for preaching Christ, and perhaps the day of his execution was already scheduled. He wrote to Timothy, “I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure is at hand” (2 Timothy 4:6).

Naturally, there are notes of profound sadness in Paul’s final epistle. But its dominant theme is triumph, not defeat. Paul wrote that last letter to Timothy to encourage the young pastor to be bold and courageous and to continue following the example he had learned from his apostolic mentor. Far from writing a concession of failure, Paul sounds a clarion note of victory: “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Finally, there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will give to me on that Day, and not to me only but also to all who have loved His appearing” (2 Timothy 4:7-8).

Facing his own imminent martyrdom, Paul had no fear, no despondency, and no desire to stay in this world. He longed to be with Christ and eagerly anticipated the reward He would receive in the next world. Therefore, as he reviewed the course of his life, he expressed no regret, no sense of unfulfillment, and no feeling of incompleteness. There was not the smallest duty left undone. He had finished the work the Lord gave him to do, just as in Acts 20:24 he had hoped and prayed he would do: “so that I may finish my race with joy.”

Paul measured his own success as a leader, as an apostle, and as a Christian by a single criterion: He had “kept the faith”—meaning both that he had remained faithful to Christ and that he had kept the message of Christ’s gospel intact, just as he had received it. He had proclaimed the Word of God faithfully and fearlessly. And now he was passing the baton to Timothy and to others, who would be “able to teach others also” (2 Timothy 2:2).

Therefore, Paul faced his own death with a triumphant spirit and with a deep sense of joy. He had seen the grace of God accomplish all that God designed in him and through him, and now he was ready to meet Christ face-to-face.

Truth: Not Reasoned But Revealed

By Darren Brooker

This week’s excerpt from Horatius Bonar is taken from a little known work entitled Man: His Religion and His World written in 1851. In it, Bonar makes the clear distinction between the two types of religion in the world: the one true faith that comes from the revelation of God Himself in the person of Jesus Christ and His word, and all the false religions that derive themselves from the opinions of sinful man. Apart from revelation, man is incapable of discovering anything about God. Apart from revelation all men everywhere would be condemned and die in their sin. But God, in His mercy and love, chose to reveal Himself to some. It his His grace alone that saves, and the vanity and pride of men that condemns.

In truth, the formation of a religion has been generally looked upon as a sort of art; and a body of men, accordingly, have been always set apart for the purpose of constructing one. Man’s desire has always been to have a hand in the construction of his religion, to prescribe to himself how he ought to worship God, and to dictate to God how He ought to be worshipped. What religion is, and how it ought to be carried on, are points which man has undertaken to settle by his own wisdom, and to regulate by his own devices. But it is very evident that, both as to what God is, and how He is to be approached, or whether He will permit Himself to be approached at all, man can know nothing, and determine nothing. God only can make known these things. Man’s opinions upon them are mere vanity, and the offspring of pride. They are certain to be wrong; for the points are so far above man’s vision, and so inaccessible, that he must miserably misconceive them. He knows little of himself, and nothing of God; so that it is not even within the limits of possibility that he can be right.

Yet there is nothing almost of which man is so tenacious, as his right of thinking for himself (as he calls it) in matters of religion. In so far as this means merely that his fellow-men have no right to think for him, or to prescribe a religion for him, he is right. But in so far as he is claiming for himself a right of forming opinions independent of God, he is wrong—awfully wrong. Man has no right to think for himself apart from God, or independent of the Revelation of God. God’s declarations are to be received in unquestioning simplicity. What we are to believe, what we are to do, how we are to worship, are not matters of opinion or speculation: they are truths—truths not reasoned out or demonstrated by man, but dictated by God, and coming to us, therefore, with a certainty which man cannot add to or improve, and which no strength of mathematical demonstration can surpass.

This thinking for one’s self independently of God and His Revelation, is not merely an evil, but a sin. Nay, it is a sin of more than common darkness—it is so audacious, so contemptuous towards God. It places man on a level with God, or at least sets Divine truth and human opinion on the same footing. It strips the former of all innate authority, while it gives to the latter an authority to which it has no claim.

It makes man the teacher, not the listener or the learner. If it does not call good evil, and evil good; if it does not put light for darkness, and darkness for light, it at least claims the right of saying what is evil and what is good—what is light and what is darkness. It is another development of the old temptation, “Ye shall he as gods, knowing good and evil.” …There can be no authority save that which is infallible and Divine, that is, God speaking to us directly in His Word.

-Taken from Man: His Religion and His World, 1851, Part I, Chapter 1, The Life and Works of Horatius Bonar.

That Was Then . . . This is Now? A Nazi Nightmare

By Albert Mohler

A horrible discovery was made last week near the German town of Menden. The lack of media attention about this in the United States should serve as an alarm in itself.

As Deutsche Welle reports, the skeletons of twenty children and five adults were found as a cemetery site was being excavated. It appears that these skeletons represent victims of the Third Reich's policy of euthanizing persons with handicaps or other problems.

As the paper reports, the site is very near to the location of a World War II hospital run by Adolf Hitler's personal physician, Dr. Karl Brandt.

From the paper's report:

The children, aged from one to seven years, were found alongside the bodies of five adults, Hans-Bernd Besa-von Werden, a spokesman for the district administration said.

Investigations of two of the children's skulls indicated the victims might have been handicapped.

More:

-Some 70,000 people with physical or intellectual disabilities perished in the euthanasia program, which the Nazis believed was necessary to cleanse the German people of racially unsound elements.

-Those who were deemed "unworthy to live" by showing symptoms of mental retardation or physical handicap were sent to the so-called killing facilities, where they were murdered by lethal injections or exposure to carbon monoxide gas.

-The Nazi euthanasia program, which became an open secret in the Third Reich, was officially terminated in 1941 in the wake of protests from members of the German clergy.

-The practice, however, clandestinely continued until the end of World War II with an ever wider range of victims, which included geriatric patients, bombing victims and forced laborers.

-Karl Brandt, who was in charge of the program, was executed for war crimes in 1948.

The German practice of euthanizing those considered unworthy of life did not begin with the Third Reich. German doctors began the practice under the liberal Weimar Republic, with doctors defining those considered inferior as Lebensunwerten Lebens -- life unworthy of life.

Those identified as Lebensunwerten Lebens were simply killed -- sometimes after being subjected to inhumane medical experiments.

How is this definitively different from the current practice of selecting out "inferior" embryos or of aborting "defective" babies in the womb? These, too, are assaults on human dignity. How long will it be before some later generation excavates our own moral landscape?

The truly frightening aspect of all this is the fact that the German people allowed it to happen. The logic of euthanasia is so seductive and the concept of Lebensunwerten Lebens is so convenient. Simply define those difficult to care for as unworthy of life. Select one racial profile to be considered superior to all others. Sacrifice human dignity for the promise of a perfect race -- free from all those we would rather not see.

We can't say that it can't happen. Consider this -- why are so few babies with Down syndrome born today? Imagine what Dr. Brandt could have done with today's prenatal genetic tests.

Clearly, a good many modern Americans have bought into Dr. Brandt's logic to some degree. The past haunts us because it is not safely put away. The past threatens to erupt into the present in the form of modern euthanasia. This is a Nazi nightmare taking a new and seductive form.

[The photo is of Dr. Karl Brandt at his trial for crimes against humanity.]

What is a Church? Introduction

By Mark D. Roberts

Part 1 of series: What is a Church? Biblical Basics for Christian Community

"What is a church?" Now that seems like a easy question, the sort of question one might answer in an simple sentence or two. "A church is a building in which Christians meet for worship," is one obvious possibility. "A church is a group of Christians who gather for religious purposes" is another. These sentences aren't bad for quick answers, but they don't take us very far if we want to understand truly what a church ought to be.

You'll notice that I moved from the descriptive – what a church is – to the evaluative – what a church ought to be. This wasn't accidental on my part. In this series on the church I'm not so much interested in what churches actually are, or in what people think churches are, as I am in what churches should be. When I ask "What is a church?" I'm wondering about the ideal rather than actual.

My subtitle reveals the perspective from which I intend to address this question. I plan to discuss the nature of the church from a biblical perspective. That's the sort of thing that evangelical Protestants like me tend to do, so I expect this is no surprise. I believe that Bible is God's inspired Word, and therefore is to be our chief guide both for faith and life. In my opinion, nothing in this world tells us more authoritatively what the church ought to be than Christian Scripture.

Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox believers would agree with me up to a point. They affirm the authority of Scripture as God's Word. But they add the parallel authority of tradition, especially as embodied in the creeds and historic teachings of the church, and in the bishops who guard and pass on this tradition. I believe that Christian tradition ought to be taken very seriously. We Christians have much to learn from our brothers and sisters who have gone before us and who have sought to understand and to be the church. But, ultimately, I'm convinced we should weigh their convictions and practices in light of biblical teaching. For me as for millions of Protestants across the globe, Scripture trumps church tradition though without denying the value of tradition.

I also think it's important to pay close attention to how Christians throughout the world interpret Scripture when it comes to the nature of the church. We all tend to read the Bible in light of our own cultures. We all project our meanings and values into the text. Careful interpretation of Scripture can help us see what is really there and not be tricked into thinking our projections are God's revealed Word. But even then we can't escape completely from our own worldviews and biases. Listening to what Christians from other cultures hear the Bible saying (and not saying) can help us interpret Scripture more accurately. But, even then, I believe Scripture stands authoritatively above the experience of all Christians. It's always possible to say, "I see how you understand this text, but I believe your reading isn't quite right." Of course someone who disagrees with my experience might very well say the same thing.

At this point I won't go on and on talking about the interpretation of Scripture. I mostly want to clarify "where I'm coming from" in this series, as we'd say in California. My main starting points are these:

1. Though I take seriously both Christian tradition and the experience of contemporary Christians throughout the world, I believe Scripture has the final word when it comes to matters of faith and practice, including the question of what a church should be. Therefore, the best way to discover what a church should be is by a careful study of Scripture.

2. One way we can get to the true meaning of the biblical text is by reading it in light of its own cultural setting. If we want to understand the writings of the Apostle Paul, for example, we would do well to see them in light of his Greco-Roman-Jewish world. Doing this will help us avoid projecting our meanings and biases into the text.

If you've done some reading in theology, you'll recognize that I'm going to address questions of ecclesiology (from the Greek words ekklesia, meaning "assembly, church" and logos meaning "thought, word, principle"). I'm not planning to engage in a technical conversation, however, one suitable only for theologians. Rather, I want to write for the ordinary reader, especially the average Christian who wonders "What is a church, really?"

Note: If you're looking for a more theologically-oriented approach to the church than I will offer here, but one that is suitable for well-educated lay readers, I highly recommend It Takes a Church to Raise a Christian: How the Community of God Transforms Lives, by Tod Bolsinger. This award-winning book explains the nature of the church in light of the triune character of God, with lots of compelling illustrations and practical implications.

Before we launch our investigation into biblical texts that reveal the nature of the church, I want to explain why I'm doing this series at this time. I'll take this on in tomorrow's post.

Commentary on Desiring God’s National Conference

By Bob Hayton

I feel somewhat foolish not being at Desiring God’s 2006 National Conference when I live right here in St. Paul and attend Bethlehem Baptist Church. Actually I would have loved to go, but the $100 was too much for us. And also I normally work nights on the weekends, and so I would need time off from work to boot.

But I hear the conference messages will be posted for free online at Desiring God’s exciting new website. So I can download the audio or video of the sessions and listen to them just a little bit late.

I am blessed in that we Bethlehem members will be treated to a sermon from David Wells this Sunday. He is the author around whose book the conference is named. He wrote Above All Earthly Powers and the conference is named “Above All Earthly Powers: The Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World”.

For info on all the conference speakers along with clips of interviews and more, be sure to check this link out. I’ll be sure to link to the conference messages when they get posted. But for now, you might enjoy some commentary on the conference like I did.

Tim Challies of challies.com is liveblogging the conference. He gives a synopsis/precis of the message from each session.

• Introduction post
• Session 1: David Wells “The Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World”
• Session 2: Voddie Baucham “The Supremacy of Christ and Truth in a Postmodern World”
• Session 3: Tim Keller “The Supremacy of Christ and the Gospel in a Postmodern World”
• Session 4: Mark Driscoll “The Supremacy of Christ and the Church in a Postmodern World”
• Stay tuned for more

There are a whole bunch of other great posts out there on the sessions or different aspects of the conference in general. Adrian Warnock’s blog gives the best rundown on all the various posts out there. Just go to his blog and you’ll be able to navigate around easy enough to find all the info I’m talking about. I will, however, list a few of the highlights below as well as point out a few Adrian missed.

• Tim Challie’s pastor (Paul Martin) posts the best summary of the first Q & A session with Driscoll, Piper, and Keller that I have seen.
• Josh Harris posted some great reflections from all of the Q & A sessions so far. Especially interesting is his description (and application to his own self) of a pastoral correction that John Piper gave to Mark Driscoll publically after his message. (Adrian posts an excerpt dealing with just that part of Josh’s post.)
• SB of Exhibiting the Value of Knowing God gives a great “cornucopia” post with a hodgepodge of pictures, video clips, and links.
• That post is what clued me in on some great liveblogging that is going on at Samshua. That blog has the first three sessions blogged, but also has several videoclips taken live during the conference, and lots of photographs. Just go to the blog and scroll through the various posts. (I think that Adrian missed the resources on this blog!)
• Lastly, the New Attitude blog is the only one I found that has all five sessions summarized for us. This is the fifth post on DA Carson’s presentation (Challies’ post on this is not available yet). (Adrian didn’t link to this one either, but I’m not sure what time it is over there in England. He’s probably in church right now.)

---