Reflections on Church Discipline (2 Cor. 2.5-11)

By Sam Storms @ www.enjoyinggodministries.com

I know this may be a stretch for many of you, but I’d like to ask that you meditate with me today on the subject of church discipline. That’s right, church discipline. The fact that your immediate and instinctive response is probably somewhat (or considerably) negative reflects how far removed we are today from the spirit of the New Testament. As we’ll see, a commitment to discipline in the local church is indicative not only of one’s love for holiness, as well as those lingering in sin, but most of all for the Lord Jesus who “gave himself up for her [i.e., the Church], that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish” (Eph. 5:25-27). With this in mind, let’s read Paul’s words of counsel:

“Now if anyone has caused pain, he has caused it not to me, but in some measure - not to put it too severely - to all of you. For such a one, this punishment by the majority is enough, so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him. For this is why I wrote, that I might test you and know whether you are obedient in everything. Anyone whom you forgive, I also forgive. What I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ, so that we would not be outwitted by Satan; for we are not ignorant of his designs” (2 Cor. 2:5-11).

There is considerable debate among commentators as to the identity of this individual. The older commentaries (especially Philip Hughes) insist that this is the incestuous man of 1 Corinthians 5. More recent commentators argue that this is the person who opposed Paul and worked to undermine his apostolic authority. This man "may have been connected with the sexual aberrations in Corinth that involved a number of people and that appear to have necessitated Paul's recent unscheduled visit (12:21-13:2). It is quite possible that the man also supported the practice of ongoing attendance at temples in the city (6:14-7:1), despite Paul's warnings in the First Letter (1 Cor. 10:14-22). . . . Perhaps this man resisted Paul's admonitions to the Corinthians during his second visit and was himself the major reason that visit was so painful for Paul" (Barnett, 124).

In any case, the church had imposed discipline upon him, most likely by prohibiting his presence at the Lord’s Table and withdrawing routine fellowship. The good news is that it worked! “For such a one,” says Paul, “this punishment by the majority is enough.” He had evidently repented and Paul now calls for a reaffirmation of love for him and his restoration into the life of the church.

Paul is concerned lest immoderate severity destroy this man. Thus he encourages the Corinthians “to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow.” The tendency of human nature is to hold the offender at arm's length, to forgive but not forget, to say "I receive you back" but to treat the person like a leper. Philip Hughes reminds us that "discipline which is so inflexible as to leave no place for repentance and reconciliation has ceased to be truly Christian; for it is no less a scandal to cut off the penitent sinner from all hope of re-entry into the comfort and security of the fellowship of the redeemed community than it is to permit flagrant wickedness to continue unpunished in the Body of Christ" (66-67).

Perhaps the best way to approach this topic, if only briefly, is to ask and answer a series of five questions.

First, why is church discipline so neglected, if not ignored altogether, in our day? Among the many reasons that could be cited, here are a few. Perhaps the principal cause is a pervasive ignorance of biblical teaching on the subject (many believe that it is infrequently mentioned in Scripture and therefore unimportant; others are ignorant of the purpose of discipline and see it only as destroying the person).

Another factor is calloused, insensitivity toward sin; a failure to take seriously the offense of sin and a tendency toward unsanctified mercy in our treatment of the unrepentant. Undoubtedly the spirit of individualism also plays a role. We have lost the sense of community and mutual responsibility one for another. How often has it been said, as a way of justifying our passivity toward sin, “Well, it’s not really any of my business, is it?” Discipline is costly because my brother's/sister's business now becomes mine.

A misapplication of our Lord’s words in Matthew 7:1 ("Judge not, that you be not judged") has certainly put hesitancy in the hearts of many in regard to dealing with sin in the local church. The fear of rejection also comes into play (i.e., the fear of being told by the offending party: "Mind your own business. You have no authority to tell me what I can and can't do").

I strongly suspect that fear of legal reprisal in the form of lawsuits has paralyzed many. Many people (even church leaders) simply dislike confrontation. Talking directly about personal sin with an offender is difficult; it makes us feel uneasy and uncomfortable; so why rock the boat? Many think that if we simply ignore the problem, in time it will go away. “Time heals all,” or so they contend.

I’ve known instances where discipline stalled from fear of driving the person away, especially if the offender is a major financial contributor to the church! Related to this is the fear of dividing and ultimately even splitting the church over whether and how and to what extent discipline should be applied (invariably many think the discipline was too severe, while others are convinced it was too lenient).

Many struggle with a false concept of discipline because of observed abuses. In their minds discipline is associated with heresy hunts, intolerance, oppression, harshness, mean-spiritedness, self-righteousness, legalism, etc. Related to this is the fear of being labeled a cult if we insist on too strict a code of conduct for our members.

Others resist taking disciplinary steps because it entails change. In other words, the power of tradition is hard to overcome: "We've never done it before and we've done o.k. Why risk messing things up now?"

So, secondly, why is discipline necessary? To be brief, there are several reasons: (1) to maintain (as far as possible) the purity of the church (1 Cor. 3:17; Eph. 5:25-27); (2) because Scripture requires it (Mt. 18:15-20; 1 Cor. 5; etc.); (3) in order to maintain a proper witness to the world; the church corporately, as with the elder individually, is to have a good reputation with “outsiders” (1 Tim. 3:7); (4) to facilitate growth and to preserve unity in the body (Eph. 4:1-16); (5) to expose unbelievers (1 John 2:19); (6) to restore the erring brother/sister to obedience and fellowship (1 Cor. 5:5; 2 Cor. 2:6,7,10; Gal. 6:1; 2 Thess. 3:14-15); (7) to deter others (1 Tim. 5:20); (8) to avert corporate discipline (Rev. 2:14-25); (9) because sin is rarely if ever an individual issue: it almost always has corporate ramifications (2 Cor. 2:5); the whole of the body (or at least a large segment of it) is adver sely affected by the misdeeds of one member; and (10) evidently Paul believed that the willingness to embrace the task of discipline was a mark of maturity in a church's corporate life (2 Cor. 2:9).

Third, in what instances or for what sins should it be exercised? Unrepentant moral evil, as in the case of the incestuous man of 1 Corinthians 5, would certainly qualify. Divisiveness and serious doctrinal error are also mentioned in the NT (Rom. 16:17-18; Titus 3:9-10). Paul speaks of more general, unspecified transgressions in Galatians 6:1 as calling for disciplinary intervention (see also 2 Thess. 3:6-15).

Fourth, how is discipline to be done? What are the procedural steps to be pursued? Matthew 18:15-17 recommends the following steps:

First, private rebuke (Mt. 18:15) - Do it gently, in love, out of compassion, seeking to encourage; the purpose for private rebuke is to resolve the problem without fueling unnecessary gossip.

Second, if private rebuke is unsuccessful, plural rebuke (Mt. 18:16; see also Deut. 17:6; 19:15; Num. 35:30) - Who are these “others”? Church leaders? People who know the person? People who know of the sin?

Third, if plural rebuke is unsuccessful, public rebuke (Mt. 18:17)

Fourth, if public rebuke is unsuccessful, "excommunication"e (Mt. 18:17; 1 Cor. 5:11; Titus 3:10; possibly 2 Thess. 3:14)

Fifth, if repentance occurs, restoration to fellowship and reaffirmation of love (2 Cor. 2:6-8; 2 Thess. 3:14-15; Gal. 6:1)

Sixth, Mt. 18:18-20 affirms that whatever decision is made in the matter, whether the offending person is "bound" or "loosed", reflects the will of God in heaven. When a church is united in its application of discipline it can rest confidently in God’s promise that he will provide wisdom and guidance for making the correct decision. Thus, the verdict of heaven, so to speak, is consonant with that of the church, before which the matter was adjudicated.

Fifth, by whom is discipline to be administered? Certainly the Elders of the church are to take the initiative and provide general oversight for the process (cf. Acts 20:28ff.; 1 Thess. 5:14; Heb. 13:17). But the congregation as a whole must also be involved (2 Cor. 2:6; this latter text raises the question of whether there may have been a minority in Corinth who dissented from the action taken).

In sum, the motivation for discipline is love (for the errant believer) and the goal of discipline is restoration. If Christ himself is so passionately committed to the purity of the church that he would sacrifice his life on her behalf, in order to present her “to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing” (Eph. 5:27), we can hardly afford to turn a blind eye to repeated and unrepentant sin in our midst. May God grant us the grace and wisdom so essential for this delicate and crucial task.

DR. D. JAMES KENNEDY DIES

Founder and Senior Pastor of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church Succumbs to Complications from Cardiac Arrest

FT. LAUDERDALE, Sept. 5 – Dr. D. James Kennedy, founder and senior pastor for 48 years of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church (CRPC) in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., passed away peacefully in his sleep at approximately 2:15 a.m. at his home with his wife and daughter by his bedside, following complications from a cardiac event last December. He was 76. Dates and times for a public viewing and funeral and private interment will be released when available.

“There are all kinds of wonderful things I could say about my dad,” said daughter Jennifer Kennedy Cassidy. “But one that stands out is his fine example. He ‘walked the walk’ and ‘practiced what he preached.’ His work for Christ is lasting – it will go on and on and make a difference for eternity.”

Dr. Kennedy, who is survived by Anne, his wife of 51 years, and his daughter Jennifer (Kennedy) Cassidy, preached his last sermon from the pulpit of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church on Christmas Eve Sunday 2006. He suffered a cardiac arrest four days later on Dec. 28, and has since been unable to return to the pulpit. The church announced his retirement on Aug. 26, beginning a process to choose his successor, and had planned a tribute worship service honoring the extensive ministry of Dr. Kennedy on Sept. 23.

“I would like to thank all of you for your prayers, cards, kindnesses and encouragement over the past nine months,” Mrs. Cassidy said during the retirement announcement. “Our family knows that we have come through this difficult time because of God’s grace and your faithful prayers, and it has brought joy to us to see God’s faithfulness in all of this.”

While hindered by persistent health problems that included asthma, as well as chronic and often severe physical pain from compressed vertebrae due to an injury suffered as a young man, Dr. Kennedy was indefatigable in his ministry work. He said on several occasions how much he looked forward to being free from pain in heaven. He was one of the nation’s leading Christian broadcasters and a vigorous and articulate advocate for Christian involvement in public life.

Dr. Kennedy began his pastorate at CRPC in 1959 and is also the founder and president of Coral Ridge Ministries and the founder of Evangelism Explosion, which equips people in every nation and territory to share their faith in Christ. He was also the founder of two leading educational institutions located in Fort Lauderdale: Westminster Academy, a nationally respected Pre-K to 12^th grade Christian school and Knox Theological Seminary, a graduate school preparing Christians for ministry as pastors, teachers, and missionaries.

Dr. Kennedy was born Nov. 3, 1930, but his Christian life did not begin until 1953. Sleeping late on a Sunday morning, his radio alarm went off and a preacher’s booming voice invaded his slumber. “Suppose you were to die today and stand before God and He were to ask you, ‘What right do you have to enter into My heaven?’—what would you say?”

Dr. Kennedy soon discovered that answer was to trust in Christ alone for eternal life, and shortly after he made that commitment was called into the Gospel ministry. Crediting this radio program for hearing the call to Christianity, he founded WAFG (90.3 FM) in 1974 as an outreach for Christ to the South Florida community.

He began his pastorate at CRPC on June 21, 1959, and from the outset had a vision for global impact. In 1960, he read the words of Jeremiah 33:3 to the handful of people that comprised his then-fledgling congregation, “Call unto Me and I will answer you and tell you great and unsearchable things you do not know.” He then told his small flock, “You know what? I believe we can change the world!”

That surprised many in his audience, but today, despite being a local pastor of one church for nearly five decades, Dr. Kennedy has had a worldwide ministry influence. In 1996, Evangelism Explosion--through which nearly 5 million people have made commitments to Christ in 2006 alone—became the first Christian ministry to be established in every nation on earth. Long after his passing, an extensive inventory of Dr. Kennedy’s messages will continue through “Truths that Transform,” a daily broadcast carried on nearly 750 radio stations across the U.S., and “The Coral Ridge Hour,” a weekly television broadcast that airs on more than 400 stations and to 165 nations on the Armed Forces Network.

Dr. Kennedy’s belief that God will continue to do “great and mighty things” through the obedient efforts of His people never faltered. His confidence in the future also extended to American culture. “America is in the throes of a cultural shift with enormous implications for the future,” Dr. Kennedy said in 2004, noting the growth in the number of evangelical Christians in America. “If that trend continues, and I believe it will, Evangelical Christians will be in the majority sometime in the next decade,” he added.

“We will miss Dr. Kennedy enormously,” said Frank Wright, president of the National Religious Broadcasters. “His moral leadership and his legacy of impacting the globe for Jesus Christ is unmatched by few in the history of the Church. It is our desire to honor him by sustaining and multiplying his impact through Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church and all the ministries founded by Dr. Kennedy in the years to come.”

Viewing and funeral arrangements will be announced shortly. A legacy Web site, www.DJamesKennedy.org, has been developed to pay tribute to the life and faith of Dr. Kennedy.

Hostages' Pastor: 'Remorse Is the Face of the Church'

Hostages' Pastor: 'Remorse Is the Face of the Church'
Interview with Park Eun-jo: 'I don't want this to be a stumbling block for missions.'
Sarah Pulliam

Prosperity Preaching: Deceitful and Deadly

by John Piper@ www.desiringGod.org

When I read about prosperity-preaching churches, my response is: "If I were not on the inside of Christianity, I wouldn't want in." In other words, if this is the message of Jesus, no thank you.

Luring people to Christ to get rich is both deceitful and deadly. It's deceitful because when Jesus himself called us, he said things like: "Any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:33). And it's deadly because the desire to be rich plunges "people into ruin and destruction" (1 Timothy 6:9). So here is my plea to preachers of the gospel.

1. Don't develop a philosophy of ministry that makes it harder for people to get into heaven.

Jesus said, "How difficult it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!" His disciples were astonished, as many in the "prosperity" movement should be. So Jesus went on to raise their astonishment even higher by saying, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God." They respond in disbelief: "Then who can be saved?" Jesus says, "With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God" (Mark 10:23-27).

My question for prosperity preachers is: Why would you want to develop a ministry focus that makes it harder for people to enter heaven?

2. Do not develop a philosophy of ministry that kindles suicidal desires in people.

Paul said, "There is great gain in godliness with contentment, for we brought nothing into the world, and we cannot take anything out of the world. But if we have food and clothing, with these we will be content." But then he warned against the desire to be rich. And by implication, he warned against preachers who stir up the desire to be rich instead of helping people get rid of it. He warned, "Those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs" (1 Timothy 6:6-10).

So my question for prosperity preachers is: Why would you want to develop a ministry that encourages people to pierce themselves with many pangs and plunge themselves into ruin and destruction?

3. Do not develop a philosophy of ministry that encourages vulnerability to moth and rust.

Jesus warns against the effort to lay up treasures on earth. That is, he tells us to be givers, not keepers. "Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal" (Matthew 6:19).

Yes, we all keep something. But given the built-in tendency toward greed in all of us, why would we take the focus off Jesus and turn it upside down?

4. Don't develop a philosophy of ministry that makes hard work a means of amassing wealth.

Paul said we should not steal. The alternative was hard work with our own hands. But the main purpose was not merely to hoard or even to have. The purpose was "to have to give." "Let him labor, working with his hands, that he may have to give to him who is in need" (Ephesians 4:28). This is not a justification for being rich in order to give more. It is a call to make more and keep less so you can give more. There is no reason why a person who makes $200,000 should live any differently from the way a person who makes $80,000 lives. Find a wartime lifestyle; cap your expenditures; then give the rest away.

Why would you want to encourage people to think that they should possess wealth in order to be a lavish giver? Why not encourage them to keep their lives more simple and be an even more lavish giver? Would that not add to their generosity a strong testimony that Christ, and not possessions, is their treasure?

5. Don't develop a philosophy of ministry that promotes less faith in the promises of God to be for us what money can't be.

The reason the writer to the Hebrews tells us to be content with what we have is that the opposite implies less faith in the promises of God. He says, "Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have, for he has said, 'I will never leave you nor forsake you.' So we can confidently say, 'The Lord is my helper; I will not fear; what can man do to me?'" (Hebrews 13:5-6).

If the Bible tells us that being content with what we have honors the promise of God never to forsake us, why would we want to teach people to want to be rich?

6. Don't develop a philosophy of ministry that contributes to your people being choked to death.

Jesus warns that the word of God, which is meant to give us life, can be choked off from any effectiveness by riches. He says it is like a seed that grows up among thorns that choke it to death: "They are those who hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by the . . . riches . . . of life, and their fruit does not mature" (Luke 8:14).

Why would we want to encourage people to pursue the very thing that Jesus warns will choke us to death?

7. Don't develop a philosophy of ministry that takes the seasoning out of the salt and puts the light under a basket.

What is it about Christians that makes them the salt of the earth and the light of the world? It is not wealth. The desire for wealth and the pursuit of wealth tastes and looks just like the world. It does not offer the world anything different from what it already believes in. The great tragedy of prosperity-preaching is that a person does not have to be spiritually awakened in order to embrace it; one needs only to be greedy. Getting rich in the name of Jesus is not the salt of the earth or the light of the world. In this, the world simply sees a reflection of itself. And if it works, they will buy it.

The context of Jesus' saying shows us what the salt and light are. They are the joyful willingness to suffering for Christ. Here is what Jesus said, "Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you. You are the salt of the earth. . . . You are the light of the world" (Matthew 5:11-14).

What will make the world taste (the salt) and see (the light) of Christ in us is not that we love wealth the same way they do. Rather, it will be the willingness and the ability of Christians to love others through suffering, all the while rejoicing because their reward is in heaven with Jesus. This is inexplicable on human terms. This is supernatural. But to attract people with promises of prosperity is simply natural. It is not the message of Jesus. It is not what he died to achieve.

Global Warming Consensus?

From Ian Clarey Apocalyptic scientists and alarmist politicians (not to mention eco-friendly celebs) have been getting us reg'lar people "in the know" about global warming for a few years now. The line given is that there is a consensus in the scientific community about the earth's warming and man's influence upon said warming. Daily Tech has an article detailing a recent study (or re-study) done by Klaus-Martin Schulte that shows that there is no consensus and that the likelihood of a global catastrophe is slim. Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

Why We Need the Puritans Today

by William D @ http://reformingbaptist.blogspot.com

I was reading a message preached by Charles Spurgeon on how to read your Bible and he made some remarks that i thought were very important especially as they relate to the state of the church today. In the last year or so, I have been reading alot of writings by the Puritans and it has had a huge impact on me. I had never been exposed to these men when I was in college or in any IFB church. Today's fundamental Baptist doesn't want to learn under the light from someone that isn't exactly like them. This is a disservice. Here's what Spurgeon had to say:

"How little of Scripture there is in modern sermons compared with the sermons of those masters of theology, the Puritanic divines! Almost every sentence of theirs seems to cast side lights upon a text of Scripture; not only the one they are preaching about, but many others as well are set in a new light as the discourse proceeds. They introduce blended lights from other passages which are parallel or semi-parallel thereunto, and thus they educate their readers to compare spiritual things with spiritual." - Charles Spurgeon

These men knew their Bibles probably better than any fundamentalist alive today. We would do much good to read their books, and sermons. The theology is so rich and convicting and draws all attention to God's glory and away from man's felt needs. In the climate of shallow preaching that is predominant in evangelicalism and fundamentalism, we all would do well to read the Puritans and see the glorious vision of God that they did.

"Some, under the pretense of being taught of the Spirit of God refuse to be instructed by books or by living men. This is no honouring of the Spirit of God; it is a disrespect to him, for if he gives to some of his servants more light than to others—and it is clear he does—then they are bound to give that light to others, and to use it for the good of the church. But if the other part of the church refuse to receive that light, to what end did the Spirit of God give it? "

-Charles Spurgeon

Who do we think we are that we can't learn from these baby baptizing Church of England guys who wore funny clothing? It's arrogant to think that we do not need to learn from them as if we have better insight into the deep truths of scriptures than they did. So, we don't agree with their views on baptism....do Baptists have to only read from other Baptists? Theology to fundamentalism is like what integrity is to politics nowdays. We give lip service to loving the Word of God, but scarcely know how to interpret it or preach it:

"We must try to make out, as far as our finite mind can grasp it, what God means by this and what he means by that; otherwise we may kiss the book and have no love to its contents, we may reverence the letter and yet really have no devotion towards the Lord who speaks to us in these words. Beloved, you will never get comfort to your soul out of what you do not understand, nor find guidance for your life out of what you do not comprehend; nor can any practical bearing upon your character come out of that which is not understood by you." - Charles Spurgeon

Doesn't that last quote describe the majority of the KJV Only bunch? They kiss and worship the version without really understanding the doctrines that it contains. So, since there is little comfort, understanding, or guidance by the understanding of scripture, then legalism becomes the status quo yet it has no bearing on one's character since the Word is not properly understood.

John MacArthur - Doing The Will Of God

Part 5 of 5

Part 4 of 5

Part 3 of 5

Part 2 of 5

Part 1 of 5

"Pure Fashion"

by Kirk M. Wellum@ http://redeemingthetime.blogspot.com

"Fashion" was once defined by C.H.Spurgeon (who was certainly not known for it) as "the collective opinion of fools." And I am well aware that anyone who tries to comment on it runs the risk of offending someone somewhere. Yet, the other day I came across some information on an organization called "Pure Fashion" that I thought was worth mentioning in spite of the aforementioned risks!

"Pure Fashion" in its own words is "a faith-based program that encourages teen girls to live, act, and dress in accordance with their dignity as children of God." It is a "celebration of style and virtue" that seeks to provide an alternative to clothing that deliberately sexualizes young girls and women. This latter kind of clothing is everywhere and young women (and older ones too) who want to appear attractive and contemporary are often duped into buying and wearing things that unnecessarily draw attention to their physical attributes as women more than anything else. All of which is most ironic in a day in which women are battling for recognition alongside men as persons of value and significance.

Dress codes are notoriously difficult to devise and enforce, and those who are determined to flaunt themselves will find provocative ways to dress no matter what guidelines are put in place. I do not believe in stifling creativity nor do I think that women have to wear clothing approved by the Taliban (or any other fundamentalistic regime) in order to be modest. I fully realize that some of the complaints that one hears about immodest dress say more about the hangups of the people making the complaints than it does about the women wearing the clothes. But somewhere there is a balance. Surely it is possible to look good and to be modest at the same time! To this end I applaud the efforts of "Pure Fashion" and I hope it is the beginning of Christians and others taking responsibility for what is available in the marketplace and giving women (and men for that matter) a realistic alternative to the sleaziness that characterizes so much of what is foisted upon them today.

God's Sovereignty Over Sin: The Author-Story Model

By John Piper @

This is part 4 of a 4-part series on how to talk about God's sovereignty over sin.

• Part 1, Does God Author Sin?
• Part 2, Does God Cause Sin?
  
• Part 3, Does God Permit Sin?
  

* * *

The following is from The Doctrine of God, Chapter 9, “The Problem of Evil,” by John Frame. The headings are added; the paragraphs are Dr. Frame’s.

The Author-Story Model

I should ... say something more about the nature of God’s agency in regard to evil. Recall from [chapter 8 in The Doctrine of God] the model of the author and his story: God’s relationship to free agents is like the relationship of an author to his characters. Let us consider to what extent God’s relationship to human sin is like that of Shakespeare to Macbeth, the murderer of Duncan.

Did Shakespeare Kill Duncan?

I borrowed the Shakespeare/Macbeth illustration from Wayne Grudem’s excellent Systematic Theology.¹ But I do disagree with Grudem on one point. He says that we could say that either Macbeth or Shakespeare “killed King Duncan.” I agree, of course, that both Macbeth and Shakespeare are responsible, at different levels of reality, for the death of Duncan. But as I analyze the language we typically use in such contexts, it seems clear to me that we would not normally say that Shakespeare killed Duncan. Shakespeare wrote the murder into his play. But the murder took place in the world of the play, not the real world of the author. Macbeth did it, not Shakespeare. We sense the rightness of the poetic justice brought against Macbeth for his crime. But we would certainly consider it very unjust if Shakespeare were tried and put to death for killing Duncan.² And no one suggests that there is any problem in reconciling Shakespeare’s benevolence with his omnipotence over the world of the drama. Indeed, there is reason for us to praise Shakespeare for raising up this character, Macbeth, to show us the consequences of sin.³

God Brings About Sin Without Himself Sinning

The difference between levels, then, may have moral significance as well as metaphysical.⁴ It may illumine why the biblical writers, who do not hesitate to say that God brings about sin and evil, are not tempted to accuse him of wrongdoing. The relation between God and ourselves, of course, is different in some respects from that between an author and his characters. Most significantly: we are real; Macbeth is not. But between God and ourselves there is a vast difference in the kind of reality and in relative status. God is the absolute controller and authority, the most present fact of nature and history. He is the lawgiver, we the law receivers. He is the head of the covenant; we are the servants. He has devised the creation for his own glory; we seek his glory, rather than our own. He makes us as the potter makes pots, for his own purposes. Do these differences not put God in a different moral category as well?

God Is Not Required to Defend Himself

The very transcendence of God plays a significant role in biblical responses to the problem of evil. Because God is who he is, the covenant Lord, he is not required to defend himself against charges of injustice. He is the judge, not we. Very often in Scripture, when something happens that calls God’s goodness in question, God pointedly refrains from explaining. Indeed, he often rebukes those human beings who question him. Job demanded an interview with God, so that he could ask God the reasons for his sufferings (23:1-7, 31:35-37). But when he met God, God asked the questions: “Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me” (38:3). The questions mostly revealed Job’s ignorance about God’s creation: if Job doesn’t understand the ways of the animals, how can he presume to call God’s motives in question? He doesn’t even understand earthly things; how can he presume to debate heavenly things? God is not subject to the ignorant evaluations of his creatures.⁵

The Potter and the Clay

It is significant that the potter/clay image appears in the one place in Scripture where the problem of evil is explicitly addressed.⁶ In Rom. 9:19-21, Paul appeals specifically to the difference in metaphysical level and status between the creator and the creature:

One of you will say to me, “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will? But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? ‘Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, “Why did you make me like this?”’ Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? (Rom. 9:19-21)

This answer to the problem of evil turns entirely on God’s sovereignty. It is as far as could be imagined from a free will defense. It brings to our attention the fact that his prerogatives are far greater than ours, as does the author/character model.

A Sense in Which God “Authors” Evil

One might object to this model that it makes God the “author” of evil. But that objection, I think, confuses two senses of “author.” As we have seen, the phrase “author of evil” connotes not only causality of evil, but also blame for it. To “author” evil is to do it. But in saying that God is related to the world as an author to a story, we actually provide a way of seeing that God is not to be blamed for the sin of his creatures.

Three Biblical Responses to the Problem of Evil

This is, of course, not the only biblical response to the problem of evil. Sometimes God does not respond by silencing us, as above, but by showing us in some measure what evil contributes to his plan, what I have called the “greater good defense.” The greater good defense refers particularly to God’s Lordship attribute of control, that he is sovereign over evil and uses it for good. The Rom. 9 response refers particularly to God’s Lordship attribute of authority. And his attribute of covenant presence addresses the emotional problem of evil, comforting us with the promises of God and the love of Jesus from which no evil can separate us (Rom. 8:35-39).

¹ Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994, 321-22.

² Think how many writers of TV programs would be taken from us if such a legal basis were valid. No further comment.

³ As my friend Steve Hays points out in correspondence, the dark aspects of Shakespeare’s dramas also add to his stature as an artist. Our admiration of Shakespeare is partly based on his understanding of the sin of the human soul and his ability to expose and deal with that sin, not trivially, but in ways that surprise us and deepen our understanding.

⁴ The metaphysical difference between the creator God and the world of which evil is a part may indicate the true connection between the ethical and metaphysical, as opposed to the false connection of the “chain of being” thinkers mentioned earlier in this chapter. It may also indicate a grain of truth in the privation theory: there is a metaphysical difference between good and evil, but it is not the difference between being and nonbeing, but rather the difference between uncreated being and created being.

⁵ To say this is not to adopt the view of Gordon H. Clark that God is ex lex, or outside of, not subject to, the moral law. See Clark’s Religion, Reason, and Revelation (Phila.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1961), where he argues that because God is above the moral law he is not subject to it. Certainly God has some prerogatives that he forbids to us, such as the freedom to take human life. But for the most part, the moral laws God imposes upon us are grounded in his own character. See Ex. 20:11, Lev. 11:44-45,Matt. 5:45, 1 Pet. 1:15-16. God will not violate his own character. What Scripture denies is that man has sufficient understanding of God’s character and his eternal plan (not to mention sufficient authority) to bring accusations against him.

⁶ The problem is raised, of course, in the Book of Job and many other places in Scripture. But to my knowledge, Rom. 9 is the only passage in which a biblical writer gives an explicit answer to it. Job, of course, never learns why he has suffered.

How to Kill Sin in Your Life (Part 3)

By John MacArthur @ http://www.sfpulpit.com

This article concludes our series on How to Kill Sin in Your Life. Points 1-4 in this series were discussed last Wednesday and Thursday. Today we will conclude by considering a fifth and final step.

5. Cultivate Obedience.

Fifth, a life that puts the flesh to death must set itself on a course of obedience. Paul said, “I haven’t attained,” I love this, “but,” he said, “I press towards the mark” (cf. Php. 3:14). He had not yet reached the goal but he was on the path. What path was he on? The path of obedience.

Likewise, Peter said that our lives should be characterized by obedience to the truth (1 Pet. 1:22). We must walk a path of obedience. If we want to engage in a real battle with sin, we must set our course, day-by-day, moment-by-moment, one step at a time, on a path of obedience.

At first it seems hard and the progress seems slow, but stay with it and eventually you will become habitually obedient. If you stay on the path that God has laid out in His Word, that path will lead you to grow in grace, to renew the inward man day-by-day, and you’ll train yourself towards godliness.

In the meantime, how can we evaluate our progress? What inventory can we take to examine our lives, to see if these things are true of us? Just ask yourself some simple questions.

How’s my zeal toward God? Is my heart cold towards God? Has sin made me indifferent to times of communion with Him? Do I have little or no interest in His presence? In the glory of His name? Do I earnestly contend for the faith? Do I live to uphold truth? To live it? To proclaim it? What level is my zeal at?

Do I love His Word? Do I find myself drawn to the Word? Do I find myself indulging in the deep things of the Word? Do you love the time of prayer? Do you love the place of confession? Do you eagerly rush into the place where you can confess your sin and ask God to do the self-examining process by the light of the Holy Spirit, so that every dirty thing can be brought to light? Do you seek that? Do you delight in worship? Is it precious to you to spend the Lord’s Day in the church? Is it your soul’s highest delight to sing His praise and know Him better, that you might offer Him honor?” Or do you say with the Jews of Malachi’s day, “What a weariness worship is!”

Ask yourself this, “Are you sensitive to sin in the church? Are you sensitive to sin in the world? Does it tear your heart up when you see sin around you any where? In your own life?”

You see those are just the basic principles I gave you earlier, simply turned into self-examining questions. Spiritual victory is there if you recognize that you are not under any obligation to sin. If you recognize that the Spirit of God has already bent you towards life, and so He’s already killing sin in your life, and the power to kill all of it is there.

I don’t know about you but I want to have a life of virtue. I want to have a life of joy. I want to have a life of peace, and I want to have a life of usefulness to God, and this is the path to that life. May God give you the strength to walk it; and through your walk, may God bring glory to His own name. After all, that’s the purpose of everything.

Roads That Lead to Christian Burnout, Part 3

Wrong Road #3—Malnourishment

Read Part 1 and Part 2.

by Debi Pryde @

The third road to burnout is one without restaurants, without warmly furnished kitchens and dining rooms, and without refreshing drinking fountains available to its travelers. The traveler finds only fast-food restaurants, leftovers, and prepackaged food available on this route. Such food can keep one alive but never impart health or cause a weary traveler to thrive with energy. A steady diet of it quickly eroded one’s health and lead to all kinds of weakness and limitation. Christian workers commit a grave error if they believe they can stay spiritually alive and enthusiastic by feasting on books, sermons, seminars, and radio broadcasts while neglecting personal Bible study. Reading Our Daily Bread has never been a substitute for coming to the Bread of Life for daily spiritual nourishment.

Jesus defeated Satan’s temptations only by countering them with truth from the Word. He tells us repeatedly that we cannot survive on physical food alone but “by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4). Job learned this lesson and declared that he “esteemed the . . . [Word of God] more than my necessary food” (Job 23:12). Jeremiah tells us, “Thy [God’s] words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O Lord God of hosts” (Jer. 15:16). Find a true servant of God who successfully withstood trials and hardship, and you will find a servant of God who gave the highest priority to personal study of the Word. Though these saints sometimes experienced discouragement, they always came to the Word for renewal and strength—and always found it. The Psalms are literally filled with testimonies of God’s faithfulness in giving needed strength and comfort when the psalmist sought the Lord and depended on the promises in His Word.

A Christian worker has nothing to give those in need unless he first goes to the Father and asks for bread so he can give it to others. The reason many Christian workers come to the place where they feel spiritually depleted and exhausted with giving is because they try to give from what they have rather than from what they receive from God day by day. In Luke 11, Christ told a story about a man whose friend came at midnight to stay with him. Having nothing to feed his visitor, the man went to another friend and asked him for loaves of bread. The friend gave what he had. Jesus concluded the story by comparing physical bread to our need for spiritual bread in order to have bread for others. He asked, “If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?” (Luke 11:3-11-13)

Burnout is an expression we associate with a sense of weariness, a lack of available strength or energy. It is interesting that Jesus reminds us that it is His Spirit who energizes us and provides the inertia we need to do His work. He enables us, sustains us, and motivates us to do His will. Many wonder what means He uses to do this. We are told in John 6:63 that God’s Word is that energizing force, and our human efforts are of no value. “It is the spirit that quickeneth [energizes]; the flesh [human efforts alone] profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” When Christian workers are weakened through neglect of the Word, their faith wavers, and they become prime targets for an all-out attack by Satan. Our faith shields us from the enemy, and our source of faith is the Word of God. “Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked” (Eph. 6:16). “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10:17)

When the storms of life come—and they will come—the Christian who withstands them is the Christian whose life’s foundation is the Lord Jesus Christ. In everyday applicable language, this concept refers to one who builds his life on the rock of Christ by hearing and doing those things that are written in God’s Word. We see this truth in the familiar story of the wise and foolish man, one who built his house, his life, on the sand and one who built on the rock. Jesus tells us, “Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock” (Matt. 7:24-25).

Debi Pryde has taught ladies’ Bible classes and spoken at retreats and seminars for the past 30 years. A certified biblical counselor, she is particularly burdened for women and for the problems they face in today’s world. She has published a variety of Bible studies and books, including Secrets of a Happy Heart, Happily Married, and Precept Upon Precept. She and her husband, Tom, are active members at Lighthouse Baptist Church (La Verne, CA). You can read more about Debi, about her ministry, and about her rose garden by visiting her website.

Are Paedobaptists Just Mixed Up?

Posted by Jason E. Robertson @ http://fide-o.blogspot.com

"It is illegitimate to identify and equate the Abrahamic covenant with the New covenant without noting the diverse aspects within it (national/physical, typological, spiritual) and the discontinuity that results as we move from Abraham to Christ. For example, to identify and equate the natural/special seed (Israel) with the spiritual seed (church) as well as to equate to covenant signs of circumcision and baptism is a mistake often made by paedobaptists. It not only fails to do justice to diverse aspects of the Abrahamic covenant, but also to the way that covenant is ultimately fulfilled in Christ." (Schreiner and Wright, Believer's Baptism, Sign of the New Covenant in Christ, pg. 136)

Paeodobaptists rightly argue that the Old Covenant was a mixed covenant, mixed with believers and non-believes, and they wrongly argue that the New Covenant is also a mixed covenant. Paedobaptist rightly argue that circumcision was administered to infants of whom many were to become men of faith and many more were not. But Paedobaptist wrongly argue that baptism replaces circumcision and should therefore be administered to infants just like circumcision was administered to the Jewish children. Of course they argue that infant girls should be baptized too, even though that is a departure from their argument for continuity. But I will not deal with that issue in this post.

And speaking of problems for the paedobaptist theology: the Bible no where teaches that baptism replaces circumcision. But before we deal with that big problem , first lets refresh ourselves as to what the purpose was for Old Covenant circumcision.

In the OT, circumcision had multiple meanings such as:
1. First it marked out those who had the faith of Abraham
2. Secondly it marked out the genealogical seed of the Messiah which was the male line of descent from Abraham to David to Christ,
3. Thirdly it marked out the nation of Israel and was thus incorporated into the Mosaic covenant.

Baptism only has continuity with circumcision when it comes to the first purpose, namely that it marks out those who have the faith of Abraham. Since purposes two and three are have not continuity in baptism then it is wrong to use baptism in a genealogical sense such as baptizing the infants of believers.

BLOOD KIN

In the Old Covenant, circumcision identified one with a physical family and a nation, and it typified one's relationship to the spiritual family of God. But not all who were Israel were truly of the spiritual Israel of God. In the New Covenant, however, Christ only has His spiritual family, no physical nation or physical family. Neither the visible nor invisible church of the New covenant is a family by physical descent. It is a family by spiritual birth. Membership in the church should be only for those who are of the spiritual seed of Abraham. Thus baptism should only be administered to those who are in the New covenant by God's grace through regeneration and saving faith.

COVENANT KEEPERS

Furthermore, Jeremiah 31 teaches that New covenant members are not covenant-breakers, so to teach that the warning passages in the NT teach that New covenant members are covenant-breakers, as paedobaptists do, signifies an error hermeneutically. Jeremiah 31 cannot teach the opposite of the rest of Scripture. Paedobaptist Richard Pratt, Jr. says of Jeremiah 31:34, "In this sense, 'knowing the Lord' means 'properly acknowledging and recognizing him.' This is why Jeremiah 31:34 concludes, 'For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.' In a word, to know god as Jeremiah spoke of it would be to receive eternal salvation. In the covenant of which Jeremiah spoke, salvation would come to each participant. There would be no exceptions." (Pratt, Infant Baptism and the New Covenant, pp. 159-60.)

So, Pratt properly notes that Jeremiah's prophecy of the New Covenant describes a church that is not mixed but regenerate. But Pratt goes on the argue that this is not fully fulfilled yet in the New Covenant and will not be fully realized until the 2nd Coming of Christ. But even though it is true that the New covenant is not fully consummated, it is still here. Baptism should signify the New Covenants arrival not just its future consummation. There is no "remnant" in the New Covenant. There is only those who are in it and those who try to illegitimately join it and are to be excommunicated from it. In fact, such people who received baptism on false pretenses were never one with us -- EVER! (1 John 2:19)

BY FAITH ALONE

Besides, which came first Abraham's faith or Abraham's circumcision? Abraham's faith came first. That is really the end of the discussion. In fact, that is Paul's argument in Romans 4:9-12. Paul says, "[Abraham] received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith that he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe..." both Jew and Gentile (Romans 4:11).

BELIEVERS ONLY

"In fact, one cannot find in Israel the idea that circumcision was only for "believers and their children" since many unbelieving Jews circumcised their infant boys and were still considered part of the covenant nation. The paedobaptist understanding already reads into circumcision a meaning that is not there." (Schreiner, 156) And, on top of that, no where in the New Testament will you find that circumcision has been replaced by baptism. Check out all the passages that teach that circumcision is no longer required for believers (Acts 15:1-35; Galatians 1:6-9; Galatians 2:11-16; Galatians 6:15; 1 Corinthians 7:18-19). No where will you find the teaching of Paedobaptist that baptism is the replacement for circumcision, nor will you find a passage that teaches that baptism is a sign of physical descent, nor will you find a passage that teaches that baptism is just a sign that promises something that is not already a current reality in the recipient of baptism.

THE NEW COVENANT

Jesus was truly the last one that should have received circumcision as a covenantal sign. He is the true "seed" of Abraham, He is true "Israel", and He is our faith. Then Jesus was baptized and started His public ministry revealing Himself as King of kings. Circumcision was placed upon a mass of men pointing towards the coming of kingdom, but baptism is only for those who are living in that kingdom.

Here is the New Covenant promise to remember: Acts 2:38-39 says,"Repent and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call."

Notice that the promise is not to all who heard Peter and to their children, nor was it for all who were afar off. It was for all you were called, who believed and repented. That did not include all who heard Peter or their children or people who were afar off. Even the next verse proves that only those who received Peter's words were baptized, not all hearers, not all children, and not everybody afar off.

To understand the scope of the promise one must remember that to the OT language of "you and your children" are added the distinctions of faith, repentance, the Holy Spirit's indwelling and the effectual call of God."

NEW REVELATION BRINGS NEW RESPONSIBILITY

Credobapist respect the progression of revelation in Scripture as the covenants within the Covenant of Grace each add to clearer understanding of Redemption and the nature of God's church. And with further revelation comes further responsibility. With the manifestation of the Spirit in the New Covenant we now have a responsibility to limit the scope of the visible church to those who bear fruit of the Spirit.

It is only with a credobaptist view of baptism that one can say as Paul in Galatians 3:26-27, "You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have been clothed with Christ." And only credobaptist say with Paul to the Romans that all who are baptized are dead to sin and alive to God (Romans 6:1-4) and to the Colossians that all who are baptized into the death of Jesus are currently living the realities of new life in Christ (Colossians 2:11-13).

Investing in Eternity

By John MacArthur@ http://www.sfpulpit.com

J. H. Jowett once said, “The real measure of our wealth is how much we would be worth if we lost all our money.” He was right. Earthly riches or the lack of them has nothing to do with real wealth. The only treasure that matters is the treasure you lay up in heaven.

Jesus taught, “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal; for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also” (Matt. 6:19-21). That is a mandate, not a recommendation. Invest in eternity!

What an appropriate message for a culture like ours. People in our society are wealthier than any civilization in the history of man. Sadly, they rapidly squander their blessings on things that cannot last. If our treasure reveals the condition of our hearts (v. 21), this generation is in serious spiritual trouble. Our buying habits show little concern for anything of eternal value.

Americans are spending a significant portion of their incomes on luxury items and recreation—and they are spending it fast. Why wait until you can afford something, if you can charge it and have it instantly? Outstanding consumer debt in this country has skyrocketed, leaving many in financial shambles. They pursue the “good life,” the so-called “American dream.”

But there is no “good life” you can buy no matter how much money you have. The “American dream” is nothing but an illusion and chasing the dream can become destructive. Statistics indicate the more money you have the more likely you are to commit suicide; life expectancy decreases as income increases. Money adds to stress, and that in turn takes years off your life. One study shows that wealth also intensifies moral decline and family disintegration. Marital infidelity and divorce rates rise with income levels. Obviously, money cannot buy happiness.

The apostle Paul was on target when he wrote, “Those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a snare and many foolish and harmful desires which plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith, and pierced themselves with many a pang” (1 Tim. 6:9-10).

While obsession with money incites crime, destroys families, and wrecks lives, the ultimate price for loving temporal things is eternal damnation. Jesus hinted at this when He asked, “What does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul?” (Mark 8:36).

Perhaps the saddest observation of all is that the spending habits of people in the church differ little from those of the world. The lifestyles of most professing Christians are not substantially different from anyone else’s. Too many in the church have adopted the world’s indulgent attitude toward money. Almost every form of materialistic extravagance and excess has found its way into the fellowship of believers. It is as if the church has forgotten Jesus’ mandate to invest in eternity.

When money-lovers creep into the pulpit to steal from the treasury, it’s an obvious scandal. But isn’t the money-lover in the pew — the person who refuses to give at all — just as disgraceful?

One study of several denominations revealed a gradual decline in giving over seventeen years, though average income increased sharply in that time period. Material riches are proving to be a spiritual liability. Christians now have more money at their disposal than at any time in human history, but they proportionately invest far less in the kingdom. The same study further revealed that almost half of all charitable giving in the United States comes from households with annual incomes under $30,000. James 2:5 comes to mind: “Has God not chosen the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?”

Hosea 13:6 sums up this tragic disparity: “Being satisfied, their heart became proud; therefore, they forgot Me.” When we become prosperous, we become proud. Then we forget God. Frankly, for most peple persecution is easier to endure than prosperity. In other words, there is a clear connection between your attitude toward money and your spiritual health. Where you invest your treasure reveals where you have set your trust and affections. That is why the Lord had so much to say about money.

Do you want to take your spiritual temperature? Look at your checkbook. Where are you investing your treasure? That’s where your heart really is.

God does not give you riches to hoard, but to use for His glory. True enjoyment of wealth comes not from possessing it, but from investing it as God intended—in things that count for eternity.

Sermon Outline: 1 Peter 4:12-19 Trial by Fire

1) Expect Suffering 1 Peter 4:12

John 15:18

2 Timothy 3:12

1 John 3:13

1 Peter 1:7

Romans 5:3

2) Exult in Suffering1 Peter 4:13-14

Luke 6:22-23

Acts 4:12

3) Evaluate Suffering 1 Peter 4:15-18

1 Thessalonians 4:11

2 Thessalonians 3:11-12

1 Corinthians 11:32

Hebrews 12:7-8

2 Thessalonians 1:5-9

4) Entrust Suffering to God 1 Peter 4:19

Psalm 31

Chris Tomlin - Amazing Grace

How To Listen to a Sermon

Excerpted from one of George Whitefield’s sermons.

In this sermon he exposited Luke 8:18 where Jesus said, “Therefore consider carefully how you listen.” These pearls of wisdom will help you listen to sermons in a way that will bring great blessing to your soul. Or as Whitefield said, “Here are some cautions and directions, in order to help you hear sermons with profit and advantage.”

1. Come to hear them, not out of curiosity, but from a sincere desire to know and do your duty. To enter His house merely to have our ears entertained, and not our hearts reformed, must certainly be highly displeasing to the Most High God, as well as unprofitable to ourselves.

2. Give diligent heed to the things that are spoken from the Word of God. If an earthly king were to issue a royal proclamation, and the life or death of his subjects entirely depended on performing or not performing its conditions, how eager would they be to hear what those conditions were! And shall we not pay the same respect to the King of kings, and Lord of lords, and lend an attentive ear to His ministers, when they are declaring, in His name, how our pardon, peace, and happiness may be secured?

3. Do not entertain even the least prejudice against the minister. That was the reason Jesus Christ Himself could not do many mighty works, nor preach to any great effect among those of His own country; for they were offended at Him. Take heed therefore, and beware of entertaining any dislike against those whom the Holy Ghost has made overseers over you.

Consider that the clergy are men of like passions with yourselves. And though we should even hear a person teaching others to do what he has not learned himself, yet that is no reason for rejecting his doctrine. For ministers speak not in their own, but in Christ’s name. And we know who commanded the people to do whatever the scribes and Pharisees should say unto them, even though they did not do themselves what they said (see Matt. 23:1-3).

4. Be careful not to depend too much on a preacher, or think more highly of him than you ought to think. Preferring one teacher over another has often been of ill consequence to the church of God. It was a fault which the great Apostle of the Gentiles condemned in the Corinthians: ‘For whereas one said, I am of Paul; another, I am of Apollos: are you not carnal, says he? For who is Paul, and who is Apollos, but instruments in God’s hands by whom you believed?’ (1 Cor. 1:12; 2:3-5).

Are not all ministers sent forth to be ministering ambassadors to those who shall be heirs of salvation? And are they not all therefore greatly to be esteemed for their work’s sake?

5. Make particular application to your own hearts of everything that is delivered. When our Savior was discoursing at the last supper with His beloved disciples and foretold that one of them should betray Him, each of them immediately applied it to his own heart and said, ‘Lord, is it I?’ (Matt. 26:22).

Oh, that persons, in like manner, when preachers are dissuading from any sin or persuading to any duty, instead of crying, ‘This was intended for such and such a one!’ instead would turn their thoughts inwardly, and say, ‘Lord, is it I?’ How far more beneficial should we find discourses to be than now they generally are!

6. Pray to the Lord, before, during, and after every sermon, to endue the minister with power to speak, and to grant you a will and ability to put into practice what he shall show from the Book of God to be your duty.

No doubt it was this consideration that made St. Paul so earnestly entreat his beloved Ephesians to intercede with God for him: ‘Praying always, with all manner of prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and for me also, that I may open my mouth with boldness, to make known the mysteries of the gospel’ (Eph. 6:19-20). And if so great an apostle as St. Paul needed the prayers of his people, much more do those ministers who have only the ordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit.

If only all who hear me this day would seriously apply their hearts to practice what has now been told them! How ministers would see Satan, like lightning, fall from heaven, and people find the Word preached sharper than a two-edged sword and mighty, through God, to the pulling down of the devil’s strongholds!

Is Repetition a Help or a Hindrance?

From Bob Kauflin @ http://www.worshipmatters.com

Will sent me this question:

Is there an objective standard by which to gauge the effectiveness of repetition in contemporary worship hymnody?…What are some helpful ideas to bear in mind for incorporating effectively repetitive worship songs while not neglecting great hymns and songs that are not so characterized, and when do we as…worship leaders cross the line in leading the congregation in ineffective or mindless praise (apart from their own distractions and heart idols brought into worship) via repetition?

When someone has a problem with repeating lyrics, I’m reminded of my daughter’s response when I suggested she read a certain book of the Bible. “I’ve already read that,” she replied confidently. I had to help her see that reading something once doesn’t mean we’ve fully grasped all God has for us in it. Besides, we’re dull. Our minds aren’t always engaged with the words we’re reading. We need to hear them again.

Likewise, there’s benefit in singing the same words again. I can think of at least three ways to repeat songs. Some songs already contain repetition, like “I Could Sing of Your Love Forever,” or “It is Well.” A second kind is what a leader does in a meeting when he repeats a phrase, verse, or entire song. A third way songs can be repeated is from week to week. I’m not aware of any “objective standard” to measure whether repetition is effective or not, but here are some of principles I use to help determine what’s appropriate.

1. Have a reason for repeating.
Don’t just repeat a verse or a line because “that’s what you’re supposed to do.” That line of thought leads people to sing mindlessly and pursue emotionalism. There are good reasons to repeat lyrics when we sing. You might want to give the church time to meditate on an significant truth. That’s why I’ll sometimes repeat a phrase or the last line of a song. I’ll often go back to a verse of a song that proclaims the Gospel, like verse 2 of How Great Thou Art. Repetition from week to week can help people remember songs. Repetition can also enable people to sing the same words from different perspectives. It’s what we experience when we sing the same song before and after a message. Once we’re heard God’s Word preached, our hearts are full and every word we sing seems to jump off the screen (or page, as the case may be).

2. Be careful about repeating repetition.
A number of choruses to modern worship songs already contain the same line three or four times. Do we really need to sing them 9, 12, or 15 times? That’s not necessarily wrong or unhelpful. I just want to be sure that people are singing in faith and not out of rote.

3. Choruses aren’t the only part of a song we can repeat.
It’s natural to sing a chorus twice in a row, but often the choruses are the more subjective part of a song. Our aim isn’t simply to sing over and over about what we want to do for God, but what he’s done for us. Verses often, though not always, contain the rich doctrinal truths that inspire our heartfelt response.

4. Be aware of the difference between repeating objective truth and subjective response.
It can be very moving to sing “Fire, fall down” for two minutes, but that tends to produce an experience in the moment rather than sowing the word of Christ into our hearts ( Col. 3:16Colossians 3:16 [16]Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God. (ESV)

This text is from the ESV Bible. Visit www.esv.org to learn about the ESV.

). If I’m going to repeat a phrase for any length of time, I want it to be eternal truth that builds people’s faith, not simply an expression of our needs and desires.

5. Don’t end every song by singing the last line three times.
The first time you do this in a meeting it’s moving. The second time it might sound predictable. The third time, it’s distracting, and doubtful that anyone is singing with faith. We should only repeat the last line of the chorus when we still have more to say. Also, we can repeat lines other than the last line. In “How Deep the Father’s Love,” I’ll sometimes repeat the next to the last line, “But this I know with all my heart,” to emphasize that we really know, “His wounds have paid my ransom.”

6. Repetition can include musical variety.
When we repeat a verse we can affect how people hear it by changing the accompaniment. Use just a guitar or piano, just percussion, or sing a cappella. When repeating a line at the end the musicians can vary what they play, maybe leaving one instrument to accompany the last line.

7. Repetition is helped by explanation.
If you’re in a church where people would faint if you sang anything more than once, it might help to tell your church ways repetition can help us (see point #1). I’ll sometimes say something like, “Let’s sing verse 3 of ‘In Christ Alone’ again reminding ourselves that EVERY sin has lost its grip on our lives.”

Repetition isn’t wrong in itself. Like most practices, it can be used or abused. I pray these few thoughts are a help towards using it to serve people more effectively for the Savior’s glory.

Does God Permit Sin?

From www.desiringgod.org

This is part 3 of a 4-part series on how to talk about God's sovereignty over sin.

• Part 1, Does God Author Sin?
• Part 2, Does God Cause Sin?
  

* * *

The following is from The Doctrine of God, Chapter 9, “The Problem of Evil,” by John Frame. The headings are added; the paragraphs are Dr. Frame’s.

3) Does God Permit Sin?

Consider now the term permits. This is the preferred term in Arminian theology, in which it amounts to a denial that God causes sin. For the Arminian, God does not cause sin; he only permits it. Reformed theologians, however, have also used the term, referring to God’s relation to sin. The Reformed, however, insist contrary to the Arminians that God’s “permission” of sin is no less efficacious than his ordination of good. Calvin denies that there is any “mere permission” in God:

From this it is easy to conclude how foolish and frail is the support of divine justice afforded by the suggestion that evils come to be not by [God’s] will, but merely by his permission. Of course, so far as they are evils, which men perpetrate with their evil mind, as I shall show in greater detail shortly, I admit that they are not pleasing to God. But it is a quite frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely [= idly] permits them, when Scripture shows Him not only willing but the author of them.¹

God’s “permission” is an efficacious permission. . . .

Yes, God Permits Sin—But Not “Mere Permission”

If God’s permission is efficacious, how does it differ from other exercises of his will? Evidently, the Reformed use permits mainly as a more delicate term than causes, and to indicate that God brings about sin with a kind of reluctance born of his holy hatred of evil.

This usage does reflect a biblical pattern: When Satan acts, he acts, in an obvious sense, by God’s permission.² God allows him to take Job’s family, wealth, and health. But God will not allow Satan to take Job’s life (Job 2:6). So Satan is on a short leash, acting only within limits assigned by God. And in this respect all sinful acts are similar. The sinner can only go so far, before he meets the judgment of God.

What God Permits to Happen Will Happen

It is right, therefore, to use permission to apply to God’s ordination of sin. But we should not assume, as Arminians do, that divine permission is anything less than sovereign ordination. What God permits or allows to happen will happen. God could easily have prevented Satan’s attack on Job if he had intended to. That he did not prevent that attack implies that he intended it to happen. Permission, then, is a form of ordination, a form of causation.³ That it is sometimes taken otherwise is a good argument against using the term, but perhaps not a decisive argument.

I shall not discuss other terms on my list (except wills, which [is discussed in chapter 23 of The Doctrine of God]). The above should be sufficient to indicate the need of caution in our choice of vocabulary, and also the need to think carefully before condemning the vocabulary of others. It is not easy to find adequate terms to describe God’s ordination of evil. Our language must not compromise either God’s full sovereignty or his holiness and goodness.

None of these formulations solves the problem of evil. It is not a solution to say that God ordains evil, but doesn’t author or cause it (if we choose to say that). This language is not a solution to the problem, but only a way of raising it. For the problem of evil asks how God can ordain evil without authoring it. And, as Calvin pointed out, the distinction between remote and proximate cause is also inadequate to answer the questions before us, however useful it may be in stating who is to blame for evil. Nor is it a solution to say that God permits, rather than ordains, evil. As we have seen, God’s permission is as efficacious as his ordination. The difference between the terms brings nothing to light that will solve the problem.

¹ Calvin, Eternal Predestination, 176. The term author raises questions. I take it, in Calvin’s usual line of thinking, to mean that God authors the evil happenings without authoring their evil character. But the use of author here indicates something of the flexibility of language in his formulations, in contrast with its relative rigidity in his successors.

² In this use, and in the Reformed theological use, “permission” has no connotation of moral approval, as it sometimes has in contemporary use of the term.

³ Traditional Arminians agree that God is omnipotent and can prevent sinful actions. So we wonder how they can object to this argument. If God could prevent sin, but chose not to, must we not say that he has ordained it to happen? Some more recent Arminians claim that God created the world without even knowing that evil would come to pass. But doesn’t this representation make God, in the words of one of my correspondents, like a kind of “mad scientist,” who “throws together a potentially dangerous combination of chemicals, not knowing if it will result in a hazardous and uncontrollable reaction?” Does this view not make God guilty of reckless endangerment?