Bill the Reasoner

"the year that the king died"

2012-01-30T22:27:00.004-05:00

That is how Isaiah introduces his life-changing experience at the temple in his 6th chapter.

Question: Why did he not say "in the year Jotham took over as king?" According to Isaiah 1:1, that is exactly the same year, right? What is it about the "death" of a beloved king who reigned 52 years and pleased the Lord (says both Kings and Chronicles) that made Isaiah say, "I remember when I met God in the temple....it was when the great king Uzziah died?"

I suppose it is because to have an appreciation for the very next phrase of this same verse, Isaiah had to feel some sort of loss. Maybe it's the other way around. Maybe it was that Isaiah was feeling so much loss that only a vision of God would do.

How does it sound in your life to say..."When something new began, I saw the Lord on HIs throne?" That is not nearly as life-changing or emphatic or comforting as "In the year of the death of a man who was dearly loved, I saw the Lord on His throne, high and lifted up."

What a loss! Who can replace Uzziah on his throne? Who can fill in the gap he left behind? Oh..."I see"..."I see the Lord on His throne, high and lifted up."

"God speaks to man...yet man somehow still lives!"

2012-01-29T07:36:00.003-05:00

That is the sentiment of Moses' history in Deuteronomy 5:24. How is it possible that Eternal God would enter the realm of creation display a pico-helping of his glory (see same verse).

This is not the god of the Egyptians or the Babylonians or the....well, just fill in the blank. We do not have some sort of transcendant, un-interested, hard-to-get, untouchable god. No, the same God that visited Moses did not show up to you necessarily in a literal sense as he did to Moses...but what is a "literal visitation" when you know you have seen so little of His glory anyway? I don't know, but Moses saw this glory and we saw his glory and we still lived...somehow...we still lived!

Remember, God said, "I will visit you" when He promised a deliverance from Egypt (Genesis 50:24-25). What? Wait a minute, I don't remember that! Of course you don't Israelite! That happened 38 or so years ago and you want something sensational today.

Look at your life: The timing of things; the harmony of things; the peace in your soul in troubled times; the bills that get paid; the times when you should be (humanly speaking) falling a part.....but you don't...because you know God still visits--and He's visiting now...and you live.

Until the time of His literal visitation (1 Peter 2:12), we simply "gird up" and look forward (1 Peter 1:13) and live (John 17:3).

Does this bother you?

2012-01-23T14:54:00.003-05:00

Deuteronomy 2:34 speaks of Moses rehearsing God's direction and victory in demolishing whole cities--women, children, everything. Does that bother you?

It bothers me, of course. What is important, however, is for us to remember is that this is the same God Who took on flesh (John 1:14) in the form of His Son (John 1:18) and will return to the same "Holy War" idea in 2 Thessalonians 2:5-10 and Revelation 19:11-21.

Let's start there. Two Testaments--same God.

"He's alive and we're afraid!"

2012-01-23T07:23:00.003-05:00

Such strangeness to see that the Marys left the tomb with "joy" and "fear" in Matthew 28:9. Why? We had several good possibilities mentioned in Chapel Class yesterday:

1. They didn't think anybody would believe them because Jesus was dead and is now alive/because they were women saying Jesus was alive;
2. they were afraid of being captured by the Romans/Jewish leaders;
3. they were still in awe of the angel they saw which caused the soldiers to "become as dead men" (28:4);
4. they were afraid of what Jesus would say to them on account of their doubt.

In any case, it could be, as Berean Chapel class member David Hayter said, a sort of expectation of seeing Jesus: "He is alive! Wonderful! Can't wait to see Him!" mixed with "Oh, my....if He looks anything like this angel...He's not only alive, but....we're going to see Him!"

What a great thought. Brother David pointed out to me how that if a person were expecting Jesus to come back for us (John 14:2-3) in 10 minutes, we would be both joyous...and filled with healthy, purifying fear (1 John 3:3). What would this expectation do to us? No wonder there is a special "crown" awaiting those who "love His appearing" (2 Timothy 4:8).

Does Israel have a future?

2012-01-21T20:32:00.001-05:00

There is a future for Israel. My belief is based on Romans 11 and the question Paul poses: “Has God cast away His people?” Then Paul answers it in this chapter. First in 11:1, he says “Certainly not.” Even in his time there were some Jews that believed on Christ. He then goes on to say that the very thing from which they were broken will one day be theirs again into which they can be “grafted” (11:24). What is this “tree” from which they were broken? The “promise” of faith resulting in “son-ship” to Abraham (9:4-10:12). When they are restored to faith in the seed of Abraham (that is Christ, Romans 11:25-26), then they will be in a place where God can fulfill His land promise to Abraham which was spelled out in Genesis 15:18-21 and re-emphasized in Ezekiel 47:13 (and following).

Luke 22:30 speaks of a time when the “twelve tribes” will indeed be an entity with Jewish leadership. For what purpose will this be done? This will be done first to fulfill the promise of land to Abraham, but also to fulfill the promise of a kingdom to David in 2 Samuel 7:16 with re-emphasis in Ezekiel 34:23 and 37:25. Revelation 20:1-6 uses this same language where it describes a temporal kingdom and uses the term “Christ” in this and only this context within Revelation. In other words, this will be the kingdom of the Jewish Messiah headquartered in Jerusalem during the future Millennium.

He was first...

2012-01-18T12:43:00.003-05:00

1 Peter 1:2 describes believers as

Elect
a. according to the foreknowledge of God the Father
b. through sanctification of the spirit
c. unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus.

Ok, writing has never been my strongsuit. The truth is, I know this is with believers, but I just wanted you the reader to know that all of this was true first with Christ.

First, Christ is "elect." Notice 1 Peter 2:4-6. It calls Him "elect" twice.

Second, Christ is "elect according to the foreknowledge of God. Notice 1 Peter 1:20. This verse says that He was "foreknown before the foundation of the world." I love context.

Third, Christ is "elect according to the foreknownledge of God the Father through sanctification of the Spirit." Hebrews 9:14 says He was "offered through the eternal Spirit." I don't know the depth of that statement, but it seems that the Holy Spirit ushered Christ into the "holy place" (see two verses earlier).

Fourth, Christ is "elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father through sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience and the blood of sprinkling." Hebrews, again, is replete with references of Christ's obedience unto death (Hebrews 5:8) and His offering/"sprinkling" of His blood (Hebrews 9:14; 12:24) which resulted from this obedience.

Milk-Toast Believers Stay With The Basics

2012-01-13T15:28:00.003-05:00

First, notice the six-part foundation of Hebrews 6:1b-2.
All six things are Jewish in nature—if not Messianic Jewish in particular.

(A) “Repentance from dead works” is a “change of mind” regarding those works that are outside of Christ. 6:6 requires that this repentance be distinguished from a position sympathetic to Christ as those who “crucify” Him “cannot be renewed to repentance” (6:6). “Faith toward God” is an acceptance of His provision for forgiveness in Christ. If Christ is the “speaking of God” (1:2), then Christ is the “Word of God” spoken of in 4:12. For one to trust this God, there must be something upon which they can trust. How can one trust somebody if they have not heard a promise of some sort from them.

(B) “Baptism and laying on of the hands” seem best understood from the scope of Acts 8 where they are found as twin evidences of conversion. One was man’s acknowledgement of conversion while the other was God’s (as the Holy Ghost would come upon those whom received the “laying on of the hands.”)

(C) “Resurrection of the dead” and “eternal judgment” are of course the third couplet of “things to come.” John 5:28-29 shows that this is not an original thought with Hebrews’ author.

Second, acknowledge that all but the “laying on of the hands for the Holy Spirit” are timeless and should be taught today.

Third, realize that we build upon foundations, but we are building nonetheless.
The writer doesn’t generalize them as “unable to comprehend Biblical truth", nor does he say the basic doctrines are expendable. However, He says they are unable to adequately consume the “milk” and move on to “meat.” He equates “milk” as the “first principles of the oracles of God” (5:13) and the “principles of Christ” (6:1).

The “first principles” or “beginning principles” are that with which he meddled before 5:11 and that into which he would love to delve (5:11), but simply doesn’t feel like they are ready. This is evidenced by the fact that the next four chapters (through chapter 10) stays with the comparison between Christ and Aaron and does not "move on."

Fourth, know that "meat” is equated with more teaching of “perfecting” (6:1) doctrine regarding “Melchisedek” (5:10-11). Therefore, the “advanced truth” spoken of is more truth concerning this “order of Melchisedek.”

Fifth, pray for an enlightened mind. This principle of “moving on” is exercised through the brain muscle. It must be stretched and used to be able to know (“through the spirit of wisdom and revelation” Eph 1:17-18) Christ for one’s sustenance and enjoyment. Churches should not be allowed to minimize the depths of Christology. Rather, knowing Christ is life (John 17:3), we must develop our vocabulary to bridge the language and generation gap. However, we must not strip the depths of God’s richness from the message itself--else it is no longer the message.

February 17th?

2012-01-13T06:43:00.002-05:00

A question from a fellow Berean:

"In Genesis 7:11 it says: 'In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.' Did they measure time as we do today?...So do they not mean February 2nd, on the 17th? Where would I be able to find an answer to a statement like that in the future?"

Ok, here's a few things to keep in mind:

1. Moses wrote Genesis and Exodus.
2. He probably wrote them both during the early part of the 40 years of wilderness wanderings.
3. We are told how the Hebrew calendar was shifted at the Exodus, so that the time of the passover actually became the "first month" (Exodus 12:2) Now, the Jewish calendar is Lunar and so the first month begins somewhere between our March 15th and April 15th every year.
4. It is probable that Moses was taking their current calendar and orienting the reader to the time of the year when the flood waters began.

In other words, the Flood began around the time of the Passover.

Jesus in Genesis 29

2012-01-12T07:26:00.002-05:00

Last night, I had the opportunity to preach 1 Peter 1:2 in our mid-week service.

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=111121954378

The "election through sanctification of the Spirit" was interesting to me. I sort of felt like this was a "patient working" of the Spirit of God until a person "obeyed the truth" (1:2c cross-referenced with 1:22-23).

Compare it to Jacob. He had to work 7 years for his wife Rachel. Listen to what Genesis 29:20 says: "They seemed only a few days to him because of the love he had for her."

For a long time, God had his eyes on the one whom He "foreknew." He elected them unto obedience to the truth and the cleansing of the blood. His work, His sanctifying work, was that which kept Him engaged until the day of salvation for those whom He "foreknew." Those days seeemed to pass so quickly because of the love He had for His people.

They went on the ark 2 by 7?

2012-01-11T15:44:00.002-05:00

Here's a question from a fellow Berean:

I'm reading through Genesis, and came to verse 2 of chapter 7. I was thrown off a bit. It says that 'Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that [are] not clean by two, the male and his female.' This is my first time reading that they took the animals in by seven, I was always raised there was one of each species, a male and female."

Yes, Bible believer. It was 7 of each clean animal. Why? Probably for consumption and definitely for sacrifice (8:20).

The question continues: "I'm wondering though, what made the animal 'clean,' and 'unclean' at that time? So is it assumed that God spoke to Noah and told him which were clean, and which were unclean, because to my understanding up to this pt. there were still no 'standards' or laws to keep. Is that correct?"

You are right. There are no usages of "clean" before this verse in Genesis. How else would we know what was meant here? Of course Leviticus 11 is the famous chapter where Moses tells the people of Israel what foods are clean. Where they the same "clean" ones as those of which Noah was told?

Good question and I don't know. My best guess is that they are the same "clean animals" as the flow from one book of Moses to another with the same terminology would lead me to believe Moses meant no difference between the two passages.

Can't we all just get along?

2012-01-10T13:27:00.003-05:00

It seems that they actually were doing this in Genesis 11:6-8.

Here is a good question posed by a sister in Christ: "Why was it important for God to divide the people so they wouldn't be united? I understand the passage to read that because the people were united and working together they would be able to accomplish anything. Isn't this good?"

Indeed this is a good thing...if it's "God's thing." Think of Lot in Genesis 19. He was told to go to the mountains and he asked, "What about Zoar? Isn't God ok with Zoar? Surely God is ok with Zoar." Think about Jonah the prophet: "God, I don't need to go to Ninevah. There are lost people in Tarshish....or even here...why Ninevah?"

Mankind always seems to be offering God a consolation prize. In this story, we have the decendants of Noah who were, no doubt, told to "replenish the earth" just as their grandfather Noah was told (9:1). There is strong indication that they would have had at least a "hand-me-down" word from the Lord through Noah and his sons and their sons, etc...

The issue is not, "Why wouldn't God allow such a good thing to take place?" The issue is "Why did the people rebel?" They were in rebellion. Yes, even when they were doing "good." They were rebelling against God.

Why curse your grandson?

2012-01-09T13:49:00.005-05:00

So, we read Genesis 9 and we find that Noah, Mrs. Noah, their sons and their sons' wives come off of the ark after spending more than a year upon it. Some time has passed and they have had some time to have more children. In fact, we are reminded by the author that everybody on the globe came from this disfunctional family (9:19).

Noah planted a vineyard, got drunk, and lost his inhibitions and started laying around naked. (9:21) Drunk people still do crazy things. It's better not to start (save your hatemail).

Apparently, Ham did something to his dad while he was in a drunken sleep. It could be that Ham mocked his dad to his brothers (9:22), or that he did something worse (many have guessed). In any case, Noah awakens and curses Ham's boy Canaan.

Why Cannan and not Ham? Well, if the order of mention means anything, Ham is Noah's 2nd son (Genesis 5:32). I thought, "Maybe God cursed Canaan because Canaan is Ham's 2nd son," but that is not the case. Genesis 10 and 1 Chronicles 1 both list Canaan 4th in Ham's line.

So, maybe it is simply because the young lad had taken part in whatever it was that his daddy Ham was doing (mocking grandpa Noah, or whatever). I am not sure.

Consider the Song of Solomon

2012-01-03T06:28:00.001-05:00

I greatly enjoyed seeing the patterns developed in Song of Solomon.

Notice the repeated sections known as "refrains." These refrains help me to understand that this was indeed a song to be song. The “I charge you” refrains of 2:7, 3:5, 5:8, and 8:4 are now circled and connected in my Bible as are the “mutual” refrains of 2:16, 6:3, and 7:10. The “hurry up” refrains of 2:17 and 8:14 also are noteworthy in my understanding that we are dealing with a beautiful song and not merely a developing narrative.

The parallels also seen in 4:1 and 6:4 are good also as they help us understand a re-occurring theme or situation in their lives. I love parallels and patterns in Scripture so this invited me to study even more.

The Element of Sinful Humanity

2011-12-30T07:36:00.001-05:00

At a recent soccer tournament, I was reminded of how we will one day not be subject to referees who are tired. How about being subject to a pilot who is distracted by his poor marriage? What about being under the care of a surgeon who despises his paperwork? Won’t it be something to enjoy life without the judgment calls of sinful humanity? What about the judge who has an agenda? What about the English professor who has no subjectivity or affinity for a particular writing style? How about spouses who don’t decide what the other was saying without asking?

Of course, all of this is precluded by the fact that there are losers, a need to be somewhere else, cursed flesh and poor health; we view these realities through the reality of no disorder, and incomplete speech. One day.... one day.... the order will be restored (Revelation 21:1).

The Will of God: Done Here as Much as in Heaven

2011-12-29T16:11:00.000-05:00

Matthew 6 deals with Jesus coaching His disciples through the matter of prayer. He tells them to pray, “Thy kingdom come; Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven.” Think of it: What is done in Heaven at the behest of the Enthroned One? Is it not Heaven alone to be in the will of God? Is that not what makes Heaven so Heavenly? Everything God wills is done on earth. We know it is God’s will for us to be Holy (Ephesians 1:4-5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3).

We are in God’s kingdom (John 3:3-5). This means it is the will of God for everybody who makes up this kingdom to be holy. When the kingdom comes to earth (again, the Lord’s Prayer) visibly and physically, it will come when He comes (2 Timothy 4:1). This kingdom will spread throughout the whole earth (Daniel 2:44) and this means that the whole earth will have God’s will done (in answer to the Lord’s Prayer) which is “holiness for His people.” The whole earth will be a holy place (as says Zechariah 14). That is, the millennial reign will be known as a place where God’s will is done—where holiness is the way of the mainstream. People will do the will of God from the heart and love God—“from the least to the greatest” (Jeremiah 31; Hebrews 8:10-11). Imagine a place and time where people are willing to do what pleases God. Christians are commanded to live in this reality now—made possible by “presenting our bodies as lively sacrifices” (Romans 12:1-2), but how very out of reach it seems most of the time (Romans 7).

A trip to the Emergency Room

2011-12-28T16:40:00.001-05:00

The fact is we go through things each day which tell of a perfect world. One only need to sit in the middle of imperfection to see that there is much more out there. If Ecclesiastes 3:11 is correct and “eternity is set in the hearts of men,” then it takes very little imagination to see that we are yearning for “a country…a better country (Hebrews 11:13-16). Everywhere we look in these places that testify of imperfection, we see those who will be out of jobs when the kingdom comes. I realize that those who have redeemed bodies (Romans 8) will have no need for hospitals. Ambulances will have no home but the junkyard and the drivers will need to retrain to another trade. The security guards will need to go back to school and those who are brandishing firearms will need to find a new instrument to master. When the Great Miracle Worker rules and reigns on the throne of His father David (see 2 Samuel 7:16 and Hosea 3) with a “rod of iron” (Psalm 2:5-12; Revelation 2-3), there will be no need for buzzer-activated doors, security cameras, or metal detectors.

My wife, who has had eight surgeries on her abdomen (to include three "c-sections"), will know nothing of such things with her glorified body. Our bodies will be like His body (1 John 3:2)—fashioned like His glorious body (Philippians 3:20). I guess that means we will be spared co-pays for pharmaceuticals. They will have no claim on this body. Poor America—the people live longer…longer and more miserably than anywhere else on the globe for those longer years, it seems.

I walked to the vending room where I saw a soldier who was with his wife whom he fears is miscarrying a second time in two pregnancies. I think about how the 100-year old will be considered an infant when he dies (Isaiah 65:20) in the millennium.

"What is man....that you visit Him?"

2011-12-20T06:26:00.002-05:00

In Hebrews 2 the author quotes portions of Psalm 8.
To what man does Psalm 8 historically refer?

Based on Genesis 1:26-28, Psalm 8 must refer to Adam as the first man who was “crowned with glory and honor” and “given dominion.”

To whom does Psalm 8 refer prophetically?

Prophetically, Psalm 8 must refer to the last Adam when compared with Romans 5:13ff, 1 Corinthians 15:20ff and Hebrews 2:8. Bruce shows that Paul references this in Philippians 2:6-11 (Bruce 1990, 73)

Jesus affirms this in Matthew 21:16 as he applies the praise of the children in Psalm 8:2 to His welcome on “Palm Sunday.”

How does Hebrews’ author use this prophetically?

Hebrews applies this prophetically to Jesus’ exaltation already declared in 1:13 but delineated in 2:5 where he says it occurs in “the world to come.”

What does the author mean that not all things are presently subjected to Jesus?
It is the tension between 1:13 and 2:5. It occurred in 1:13, but is quite real in our perspective in 2:5: “the world to come.” This is, without a doubt, the issue eluded to in Matthew 6’s model prayer where the “will of the Father which is done in Heaven” is desired “on earth.” The now of “shadows” will soon be, in the mind of the Hebrews’ author, the “world to come” of “substance."

Even mentors find time to be alone with God.

2011-12-10T10:01:00.000-05:00

Jesus spent all day teaching (Mark 1:22), and He spent all evening healing (1:32), yet He arose before the sun, and found time to pray to His Father in a special, secret place (1:35). This has much to do with mentoring because His disciples found Him carrying out His duty of prayer (1:36). “Pictures are worth a thousand words” it is said. There are greater impacts in the lives of the followers when they see the teachings of the teacher in the life of the teacher. Did they receive teaching on prayer? Yes. As a matter of fact, the desire to receive a class on teaching came upon the heels of Jesus being found in prayer again (Luke 11:1-2). There is convicting power in finding someone who is busy doing that which they have been teaching.

Even in the hours before His redemptive work, He was found by His disciples praying (14:32). Jesus was the example of prayer. If God prayed to God, how much more should humanity pray to God?

A Spiritual Leader is “ready” regarding the law of God.

2011-12-09T19:29:00.001-05:00

The writer of Ezra doesn‟t introduce Ezra until his seventh chapter when he describes him as a “ready scribe” (7:6). He was ready to be an expert in the words of God as revealed in the Law of Moses. He had a ready heart as a seeker of the words of God as described in the Law of Moses (7:10). His mind and his heart were ready to find the Word of God, to copy the Word of God, to do the Word of God, and to teach the Word of God—even before it seemed like opportunity was upon him.

Shadowlands

2011-12-06T16:24:00.002-05:00

Ecclesiastes 3:11 “He has set always/eternity/the world/forever in their hearts.”
Have you ever wondered why it is that man is looking for new things to conquer and never finding the energy, it seems, to do it? “Maybe if I get time, I’ll take up piano lessons.” Before we know it, life is over and we are confronted with the reality that so little of what we have done was worthwhile. Yet, we feel so driven. We feel like there is plenty for which we should get up. If I had a few more lives I would find a cure for cancer or learn to be a brain surgeon or have 17 children or…or…just find some more mountains to climb. Earth is not what it was, and neither are we. This is not the believers' home anyway.

Genesis 1:26-27 “Let us make man in our image.”
And why shouldn’t we wish to dominate? The dominant, Creative One made us in His image. It only seems right that an eternal God Who knows no rival would make people who are creative, eternal, and relational. Relational? Yes, it was an “us”, after all, that made us. It was a creator who made us and so we are creative as we are in His image. What dominates our minds is that we are so hungry for success and so unable, it seems to find it. We are people hungry for clear minds and clean consciences and yet so much of that eludes us.

1 Corinthians 2:9-13 “Eyes haven’t seen; ears haven’t heard; neither has man’s heart understood the things which God’s Spirit has revealed to those who are spiritual men—comparing spiritual things with spiritual things.”
So what is it that God has revealed to me that my eyes are not ready to see; my mind not ready to understand? I have heard it said that we use only a fraction of our brain. Is it possible that impulses are blocked because of sin or because of shades of consequence from a sin-cursed world? How many things never occur to us because we are so earthly-minded? How much earthly-mindedness comes from being sinful from heredity and how much comes from personal choice I shall never know, but this I know…the curse has taken me away from being able to acknowledge His presence in some measure. Just what would I be able to know about my state in Christ; what would I know about the world to come; what would I know about what really is; what would my gifting of discernment be like if I could think clearly?

2 Corinthians 3:18 “We are being changed from glory to glory seeing the glory of God clearer after each change.”
This makes Heaven seem more precious and home-going more desirable when I realize that, slowly but surely, my spirit is being renewed in the inner man and my mind is becoming clearer (Ephesians 1:18; 4:23; Colossians 3:10). As I am becoming more like Jesus, I am becoming more human than I have ever been from the perspective of a post-Adamic human being. Why is it that we are so driven to that which can never be attained? The answer is that we are so close to that realm in our creation and so far away in our fall. I do not know what it is to walk with God in the cool of the garden as Adam did, but I am being renewed to my original state, and one day, glorification will allow me to be what God has created me to be.

Even better than being in a state of Adam’s “able not to sin,” I am being renewed, in that “faith-victory that overcomes the world” (1 John 5:4) to a place of “not able to sin.” A shadow of that land is experienced by those who suffer for Jesus (1 Peter 4:1).

That is what we are in—shadow lands. These shadow lands are filled with imperfections of the fall. We look at the original garden to see to which we are heading. We look at the post Edenic world to see how things are cursed and awry and how they will one day be when the Second Adam returns to make everything right because of His work in the garden wherein lieth “the place of the skull” (John 19:41). It was there where, on a tree/cross (Acts 5:30), our Second Adam (says Paul in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15) regained paradise with God for those of Adam’s race.

It is the “heavens and the earth” which were created in Genesis 1 and are kicked out of the presence of God in Revelation 20:11. It is these same two words found as representing the new creation in Revelation 21:1. It is He which “makes all things new” (Revelation 21:5).

David the Leader out of 1 Samuel

2011-12-05T18:39:00.000-05:00

Growing Influence
However many might men he was in charge of previously, what is true now is that he has four hundred men that would gladly die for their leader. Why? He took them as they were: indebted, discontented, and disenchanted (22:2). David‟s relation to those who were “on the run” was one of endearment. He continually “went out and came in” among his people (18:16).

The Loyalty to Lead
David loved his king—the very king that sought to destroy him. David desired to do nothing more than to serve that very king in peace and solitude (22:14). Given the opportunity to usurp the kingdom, David wouldn‟t have taken it (24:10).

The Empathy to Lead
After the priest that was with David lost his entire family to the hand of Saul, it was David that said, “My goodness! Look what I have done, Abiathar! I have affected your entire family (22:22). Please stay with me, and if need be—we‟ll die together.” David‟s “coming in and going out” among his followers shows his incarnational ministry—loving enough to live among them; to die with them (Towns, 97).

The Resilience to Lead 13 Without question, the ability to bounce back makes a real leader. David‟s city was invaded, burned, and the residents were captured and taken away (30:3). His men were distraught (30:6) and David was horribly heart-broken as well (30:4). The amazing thing is that he had a clear enough mind to ask for direction from the Lord (30:7) and “strengthen himself in the Lord” (30:6).

The Grace to Lead
After recovering their things in a great slaughter of the Amalekites (30:17), the four hundred men who partook in that great campaign included some naysayers who thought the two hundred who stayed behind shouldn‟t have the spoils of this military effort (30:22). David made a policy that those on “Rear Detachment” would reap the same benefits as those who left the guardianship of the homeland to conquer the enemy (30:24).

What does it mean to "believe on His name?"

2011-11-04T12:22:00.002-05:00

After all, that is what is required to "receive Him" according to the whole of John 1:12.

Am I going to jump all over Scripture and write a "topical blog?" No, this Scripture is very clear in its context for John the Apostle is making a clear case:

1. It means to believe the witness of John the Baptist that Jesus is the pre-existent Word (See John 1:15,27, and 30).

2. It means to believe the witness of John the Baptist that Jesus is the "Lord" of the Old Testament (See John 1:23).

3. It means to believe the witness of John the Baptist that Jesus is the sacrificial "Lamb of God" (See John 1:29 and 36).

Is it any or all? It is indeed within the scope of John's writing here that Jesus is "believed upon/relied upon/trusted" as the Son of God Who died for the sins of the world.

To the Old Testament hearer, they would have taken special interest in Jesus' eternality as the "Word" of John 1:1-3 and that He was also "Jehovah" in the Old Testament. They indeed would have to believe this report.

Perhaps you are thinking "Of course I believe that!" But do you? Are you still hoping that Heaven is your home? Are you still thinking it may be your home? Are you praying often that Heaven is your home? Then you have not believed the Gospel and you are very probably not saved? Judgmental? Read 1 Corinthians 15:1-2 and see there are some who have "believed in vain."

To believe that Jesus the Lamb of God Who took away the sin of the world means that you believe there is nothing more for you to do.

You may also see 2 Corinthians 5:18; Ephesians 2:14, Colossians 1:20, and 1 Peter 3:18 to see that Christ's work is done and we are to rest in His Work! Rejoice!

Another John

2011-11-02T15:25:00.002-05:00

John 1:6-8 records the introduction of "a man sent from God whose name was John." This one was prophesied in Isaiah 40 and Malachi 3. This man was appointed by God to bear witness, not of himself or his program...but of the Light. This is that light which proceeds from "life" (John 1:4) which is in God and The Word (1:1-3) Who "became flesh" (1:14).

If Jesus is the "Light of men" (1:4; 1:8-9), then the Life is also the Word Who "became flesh" (1:14).

Why did John "bear witness of the Light?" Because this is the only thing that causes men to believe (1:7).

An amazing contrast: John 1:5 and 1 John 1:5

2011-10-25T19:34:00.002-05:00

John 1:4-5 says there is "Life" in the "Word," and this "life was the light of men." Furthermore, the "darkness did not comprehend (same word as 'receive' in the originals of John 1:12) it."

Jesus furthermore defines Himself as the "Light of the world" (John 8:12). Think about how this is pictured in Genesis 1:2-4 and how the physical world was without form and void and it took the light for men to see his way.

The dilemma of John 1:5 is not just that man is in darkness but also that darkness is in man. Man is, himself, darkness. What a sad contrast! To know the Creator "in Whom is no darkness at all" (1 John 1:5 oddly enough) created us to be His image bearers of light, and we to the contrary have opened the door for darkness to enter His creation.

John 1:5 speaks of the great attempts the "Word" has made to reach man and the seeming mundaneness man has returned in "comprehending/receiving" the light. Why? 2 Corinthians 4:4 says it is because man is blinded by the god of this world.

The sad reality is that even though the Word was not received by the "darkness" 1:4-5; 10-11, God sent a man to go before Him so that "all men through him might believe." John the Baptist was that man (1:6).

Who is in this?

2011-10-24T09:44:00.002-05:00

In dealing with this assignment, I wish to let Scripture interpret itself, and I would like to suggest some points with the “Bottom Line Up Front” Approach:
1. Judas Maccabeus is the one that “finishes the transgression” (9:24).

That is, in these 70 weeks, or 490 years, “finish the transgression” will be a reality. So, what is “the transgression”? We could either read all the commentaries man has written on the subject, or we could read the best commentary on Daniel: Daniel. We find reference to “the transgression” one chapter earlier where we are told that a “little horn” (Antiochus IV says Miller, 225) comes out of the “goat” (Greece says Miller, 225), and commits “the transgression” (8:12) of taking away the sacrifice.

Furthermore, we are told “the transgression” would continue for 2300 days. What happened in 2300 days? Judas Maccabeus “cleansed the temple” (8:14) or “finished the transgression” (Daniel 9:24).
Does it happen within the 490 years as promised in Daniel 9:24? Yes. Did Jesus the Messiah do it? No.

2. Antiochus IV made an “end of sin” or “ended the sin offering” (9:24).
The word “sin” in this same verse is used 294 times in the Hebrew (Enlishman’s Dictionary), and many of those times it is translated “sin offering” [as pointed out by Adam Clarke (Biblesoft.com)].

The question remains: “When was this ‘sin offering’ ‘sealed up’ or ‘stopped’? When Antiochus IV “ordered the cessation of temple sacrifice in 167 B.C” (Longman, 206-207), there was “an end to the sin offering”.
The immediate context just one chapter previous does not allow for such a flow past the immediacy of Antiochus IV.

So, again, was this done within 490 years? Yes. Did Jesus do it? Not in the context.
3. Judas Maccabeus “made reconciliation for iniquity” (9:24)
Again, it’s interesting to note that this word behind “reconciliation” is used 182 times in the Hebrew (Englishman’s Dictionary), and most of those times, in the KJV, it is translated “atonement”. Incidentally, this word is not used any other time in Daniel, so immediate context is not going to help us on the usage of this word alone.

However, the word behind “iniquity” is used only two other times in the book of Daniel, and they are both in this chapter (verses 13 and 16). What is the “iniquity” in the context? Whatever it is, it caused God to bring the enemies of Israel (in this case, Greece) against their Jerusalem (9:16). Does it not make sense, then, that this “making atonement for iniquity” is the exact opposite of “making an end of the sin offering” (point #3)?

In other words, though most English translations produce “making an end of the sin offering” and “making atonement for the iniquity” two different momentous waypoints in these 490 years by putting a comma and the word “and” in between them, I submit that these are to be seen as “action (Antiochus IV) and reaction (Judas Maccabeus)” without a comma as proven in the above two points.
In other words, Daniel 9:24 could be read as: “490 years are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, to stop sacrifices and start them again to atone for the reason for which they were removed in the first place…”.

Did this happen within the specified 490 years? Yes. Did Jesus do it? Not likely.
4. Judas Maccabeus “sealed up the vision” (9:24)
The phrase, “to seal up”, is the same Hebrew word as “to make an end” under point #2 above. Now, what is the “vision” and the “prophecy”?
Take note that the word “visions” is not used, in this sense, prior to Daniel 8. This word is then used 8 times before 9:24. Clearly, in the context, we are speaking of the vision that has points 2-4 wrapped up in it. Relook that “vision” if you have any doubts. Who “ended” or “sealed up” the 2300 days of no sanctuary and no sacrifice in the vision of Daniel 8? Judas Maccabeus.

5. God “sealed up the prophecy” (9:24)

Take note that the word “prophecy” is not used prior to Daniel 9. Then, it’s used three times prior to 9:24 (Englishman’s). Two of them generally refer to “the prophets”. 9:1 makes it clear that the context speaks of Jeremiah’s reference to 70 years of captivity to the Babylonians.
Does the captivity of 70 years end within the 490 years? Of course. Did God do it?
God takes credit for the captivity in the 1st place:
Jeremiah 25:9 Behold, I will send and take all the families of the north, saith the LORD, and Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, my servant , and will bring them against this land, and against the inhabitants thereof, and against all these nations round about, and will utterly destroy them, and make them an astonishment, and an hissing, and perpetual desolations.
God takes credit for bringing them back to their land as well: Isaiah 44:28-45:1.

6. Judas Maccabeus “anointed the most holy” (9:24)

This is 1 of 13 times “most holy” is found in the book of Daniel (Englishman’s Dictionary). 5 of those 13 times are found before this verse. What do they tell us about this expression “most holy”? Daniel 8:13,14 sheds great light, as the immediate context just one chapter earlier, on what the “most holy” really is. This passage has already been expounded upon under points 2-4, but just to emphasize, this “most holy” being “anointed” is a big deal to Daniel. He would have definitely understood 9:24 as the answer to 8:13,14.

Let's not make the mistake of stating that Christ does all 6 things in 9:24 thus, of course, making it future to us as well as to Daniel- which, of course, removes the historical significance away from the original reader (Daniel). It is rightly apply it to a sanctuary. Which sanctuary? The one restored by Judas Maccabeus.
Wait a minute? Was it common practice to “anoint the most holy place” or “sanctuary”? You be the judge:
Exodus 30:26 And thou shalt anoint the tabernacle of the congregation therewith, and the ark of the testimony,
Exodus 40:9 And thou shalt take the anointing oil, and anoint the tabernacle, and all that is therein, and shalt hallow it, and all the vessels thereof: and it shall be holy.
Leviticus 8:10; Numbers 7:1

Conclusion
Apparently, Israel gets engaged with some sort of Old Testament worship during the 1st half of this future 70th week of Daniel thus rejecting the work of Christ accomplished once for all, and, consequently, earning the “fearful looking for the judgment of God”.

70 weeks?

2011-10-24T09:42:00.004-05:00

The intention here is to describe the details pertaining to the accuracy of the prophecy of Daniel’s “70 weeks”, the starting time and event for the prophecy of the “70 weeks”, the division of the weeks within the prophecy, and the purpose of the prophecy.

The Duration of these Weeks
Genesis 29:27,28 speaks of Jacob “fulfilling the week of Rachel” when he worked seven years for Laban to have the right to marry Rachel. When Daniel speaks of “70 weeks” to accomplish the six events of Daniel 7:24, he is speaking of 490 years for the duration of the entire prophecy “from the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem” (9:25) until the “bringing in of everlasting righteousness” (9:24).

The Beginning of the 490 Years
Daniel 9:25 is clear that these 490 years begin when there is a command to “restore and build Jerusalem”. Daniel 9:1 speaks of this being the “first year of Darius who was made king over [this] realm”. Who made him king? It just so happens that this is the year that Cyrus, King of Persia, conquers Babylon, and thus, puts this Darius the Mede in charge of the realm wherein Daniel resides. Tenney tells us it is October 12, 539 B.C. Maclaren has the date of this conquest as 538 B.C. Halley has the date of this decree as 536 B.C. In any case, the reader has a window of approximately three years.
Ezra 1:2 shows this command to “restore and build Jerusalem” as says Daniel 9:25. Many have tried to make this a reference to rebuilding the temple only, but Isaiah 44:28 and 45:1 knock this notion in the head as Ezra was apparently only concerned with the temple and not so much with communicating to his readership the rebuilding of the city itself. We would expect this close proximity to the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus to be the case as Ezra 1 makes it clear that this decree took place in the first year of Cyrus’ reign. The bottom line is that this is the obvious decree spoken of as it makes wonderful sense contextually on two fronts: 1. It was the decree given the very same year of this vision. 2. The timing of this decree re-enforces the answer-to-prayer nature of this vision as Daniel was in deep, prayerful distress (9:3) over the captivity of his people. The vision is even said to have been an answer to Daniel’s urgent prayers in 9:20-23. How urgent is the answer if it doesn’t occur for another 100+ years?

No matter how these 490 years lay out on a timeline, the starting point is without dispute 539-536 B.C. when compared with Isaiah’s writings, and when considered within its context in Daniel 9.

The 1st 7 Weeks
If the reader is anything like me, the experience has been that of lumping the first seven and the middle 62 weeks together into one unit of 69 weeks. Two thoughts soon follow: 1. They were given as 2 units, and should remain as separate entities. 2. Dispensationalists often allow a 2,000 year gap between the 69th and 70th weeks which, in this author’s belief, is likely. Why can there not be the same between the 7th and the 8th? This would certainly allow for the prophecy to begin around 538 B.C.
Since Miller places the beginning of the 490 years in Nehemiah’s time, he offers no insight conducive to the assumption of a 538 B.C. start time. Others, like Longman give up on interpreting the first seven weeks.

So, what happened between 490 and 487 B.C. marking the end of the first seven weeks? This author is not entirely sure from his study. Ambiguities, like “what happened after the first 49 years” and “how long the interval lasts between the 7th and 8th week” are not troublesome enough to keep the start point of 538 B.C. mysterious.

One Year= 360 days
One would rightly assume that if, Daniel’s 70th week is described by seven 360-day years, the first 69 weeks would be likewise defined as such. With this idea of a 360-day year, the 490-487 B.C. closure of the first 49 years does not change more than a few months.

Conclusion
What has been clarified? The starting time of the 490 years at 539-536 B.C. ending the first “seven weeks” around 490-487 B.C. Also, it is true that the middle 62 weeks (434 years) were over before Jesus died on the cross (Daniel 9:26). Lastly, the 70th week is completed as “everlasting righteousness” is “brought in” (Daniel 9:24).

"The Word was with God."

2011-10-22T13:58:00.002-05:00

What a powerful phrase out of John 1:2. When taken with John 1:14 and 17:5, one can at least begin to understand what type of relationship God the Father and God the Word had before creation.

A word about types:
When we say "Jesus is the 'anti-type,' we aresayign that Jesus is the fulfillment of "types." It may be also said that Jesus is the ultimate fulfillment of every Messianic symbol and type. That is, the "symbol/type" is a sort of fore-telling of the Messiah/Christ--Jesus of Nazareth.

The Old Testament picture of John 17:5 is found in Proverbs 8:12-32 where "wisdom" is described in a similar manner. Paul then speaks of Jesus as being "the wisdom of God." This tells us that the Old Testament speaks primarily of Jesus the Christ.

Did that guy take that out of context?

2011-10-20T06:35:00.000-05:00

Some of us have felt uncomfortable with Hebrews 1:5. The end of the verse records the author’s quoting of a single phrase of 2 Samuel 7:14. Here’s how the question is phrased: “If we use one phrase in that verse or passage to prophesy of Christ, shouldn’t the rest of that passage also prophesy of Christ?” Even further, this leads to other questions: “If the rest of the passage prophesies of Christ, does this mean that Jesus could sin since the next phrase in 2 Samuel 7:14 introduces the possibility of sin?”

First, let’s rephrase the question: “Could the author feel free to pull one phrase out of the Old Testament and apply it to Christ and not actually be applying the rest of the context to Christ as well?”

Let’s rephrase it a 2nd time: “Could a God-inspired author of the New Testament take another God-inspired phrase in the Old Testament and apply it to Jesus without regard to that Old Testament’s phrase’s context?”

I believe the answer is “yes.” I want to prove that using another New Testament writer: Matthew. Moreover we will take only a few examples from the passion week. The first two are examples of what we are speaking about whereas the 3rd example is Matthew quoting from a purely Christ-centered Old Testament passage.

1. Matthew 26:30-32
And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad. But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee.

So here is Jesus pulling something out of context in Zechariah 13:7. Certainly, one can see Jesus in Zechariah 13:6-7, but what about 13:5? It doesn’t seem right for us to take verse 7 and not verse 5 does it? I think you’ll agree, though, that it is quite permissible for “the Word in the Flesh” (John 1:14) to pull things out of the Old Testament (even out of context) which apply to Him.

2. Matthew 27:5-10
And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value; And gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me.

So here is the author (guided by God the Holy Spirit) taking two Scriptures out of context. He is quoting both Jeremiah 32:6 and Zechariah 11:12-13. If you turn to both of these fine passages, you will find that the reader of the Old Testament would have no idea they were speaking of Christ from the context. Should we allow this apostle Matthew—this God-inspired author of the New Testament—to do such a thing? I think we should.

3. Matthew 27:35-36
And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots. And sitting down they watched him there;

Now you will look at Psalm 22—the place where this quotation is taken from—and you will find that this Psalm is entirely Messianic.

Conclusion:
Perhaps you can see how ill-advised it is for a person to say, “I am an apostle.” Do you see the privilege they are taking to themselves? Certainly the privilege of wresting Scriptures out of context as seen in the first two examples is permissible to God’s Son and God’s apostles, but this is not something we should see as normal or even righteous in God’s sight for today’s believer.

Will Jews be saved based on their works?

2011-09-07T05:35:00.003-05:00

In a recent Chapel Class session at Berean (http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=9511135379), I pointed out that the parables found in Matthew 24:45-51 and 25:14-30 speak of "salvation by works" if we try to make church-aged believers fit into them.

I would like to qualify that somewhat. Please see the following facts:

1. Nobody has ever been saved by works. Romans 4 shows a man before the law (Abraham) and a man during the law (David) and shows how neither of them were saved by works.

2. The promise of salvation to the tribulation believer is given to "him that endures" (Matthew 24:13). Endures what? Well a cross-reference with Revelation gives the idea that one must resist the dominion of the Anti-Christ in order to be saved.

Hang on! Do I have to be saved by resisting the anti-Christ or by believing on Christ? Please remember that if you are saved you need not worry with this. This we know...if you take the mark of the beast (Revelation 13-14), it is too late to be saved by faith in Christ. Therefore, it is not a stretch to say that these people set the conditions for their salvation by doing certain works but that ultimately they get saved by faith in Christ.

So what? If you grab these parables out of context and apply them to the church age, there is no "anti-Christ"/"Tribulation Period" context in which to see them and you are left with seeing salvation by works.

Why did God choose Israel? (Deuteronomy 7:6-8)

2011-08-11T12:06:00.005-05:00

"Did the Lord choose the nation of Israel to be his people because he knew that his son would be born of this nation?" This was a question submitted by a Berean. What are some other ways that we could ask this question:

1. Did God choose Abraham to be the first Hebrew because He knew Jesus would come from him?
2. Did God choose Jacob to be the first Israelite because He knew Jesus would come from him?
3. Did God choose Judah to be the first Jew because He knew Jesus would come from him?
4. Did God choose the line of David because He knew Jesus would come from Him?

Well, I suppose the best way to answer this question would be to first say that God could have sent His Son into any line of human beings (if it was within the line of His will).

So...then why did God choose Israel? We cannot be sure the motive of God for choosing Abraham or Isaac or Jacob or Judah or Phares, etc..., but we can be sure that God re-chose (so to speak) the nation of Israel in pulling them out of Egypt because

1. He loved them (Deuteronomy 7:8).
2. He promised the preservation of this people to their fathers, the Patriarchs (7:8).

Do ladies have to wear a head covering while praying?

2011-08-11T11:15:00.003-05:00

Are women to pray with their heads covered? If so, does this mean they are to wear a veil?

This was the question submitted by an attender at Berean. In 1 Corinthians 11:4-16, this discussion arises. After reading the passage, please notice the following points:

1. The physical head of a man or woman is being compared to their spiritual head/authority:
The man's physical head is being compared to his spiritual head/authority: Christ (11:3-4).
The woman's physical head is being compared to her spiritual head/authority: her husband (11:3,5). Moreover, the man is the glory of God and the woman is the glory of the man (11:7-8).

2. If a woman's head is shameful, she brings disrespect to her spiritual head/authority: her husband (11:5). Moreover, she steals his glory (11:7-9).

3. A woman's head is to be sheared/shaven or covered. They are given a choice based on a custom of the day (11:6).

4. A woman needs to allow the authority over her to rest on her head: the husband (11:10). Furthermore, this submission or show of humility somehow provides spiritual protection (11:10). The implication is that this submission to her authority is shown if she covers her head or shears/shaves it (See #3 above).

5. After a few verses of discussion, all of a sudden this whole man/woman and long/short hair discussion comes upon us. Why? All of the sudden, Paul tells us that is is right for a woman to have long hair. He says it is "a glory" to her (11:15). When we compare this with 11:7-9, we realize that this long hair is really the glory that is given to her husband on her behalf.

6. After all of this, we see the connection between a "covering" and "long hair": What is it? See verse 15: "Her hair..." which kind of hair in context? Same verse? "long hair." "Her [long] hair is given her for a covering."

Conclusion: Verse 15 tells us that a woman is to cover hear head as she worships. What is this covering? Her long hair. In this age of merging the genders and feminizing men and masculizing women, we should remember that God is glorified as we fit our roles.

The greatest argument for this is the Trinity: God the Son is equal to God the Father...yet He submits to the Father in every area of eternity (John 9:4).

The second greatest argument for this is the Gospel: God the Son is equal to the Father...yet He submits to Him in the death of the cross (Philippians 2:8).

Teaching and Teachable in the Church

2011-08-11T10:52:00.003-05:00

When you arrive at Titus' 2nd chapter you find that believers are to be both teaching and teachable. Verse 1 shows this.

Verse 2 implies that older men are to be teaching younger men. This taken with verse 6 makes it pretty obvious when you consider the instruction of older women to teach younger women in verses 3-5.

Please notice that women are to teach younger women in both formal and informal settings. What are they teaching? Things like how to be reserved, to be devoted to their families, to be selective in what they say, to be pure in every area, to work primarily in the home to provide a haven for their families and to be obedient to their heads (the husband). These practical matters are not only the proper instruction between ladies in the church (says these verses), but they are in line with "sound doctrine" (verse 1) and their neglect has the potential of allowing the world to blaspheme this same doctrine (verse 5).

A History Of Water Baptism (Revised Aug 4)

2011-08-04T14:44:00.000-05:00

Historical Point #1: "Covering" or "submersion" or "baptism" is seen as a corporate occurrence where God's people were covered/submersed/baptized in the Red Sea and cloud as they left Egypt (1 Corinthians 10:1-2). This was a sign of their national belief as seen in Exodus 14:31 (Thank you, John Gill, for the connection).

Application of Historical Point #1: We are a peculiar nation (says 1 Peter 2) and have a corporate faith (says Ephesians 4:3-4). Therefore, we have a common sign of our faith: baptism.

Historical Point #2: “Washing” or “baptism” in water was a custom in Israel as a means of preparation for priestly service as they offered sacrifices to God in His tabernacle (Exodus 40:12-13).

Application of Historical Point #2: Believers are a “priesthood” who offer “spiritual sacrifices” to God in a “spiritual house” (1 Peter 2:5; Revelation 1:5). There is a need to receive such a “washing” prior to serving God’s people. The intent, then, of being a part of God’s assembly (the church) is to serve! Baptism (or washing) saves the believer from a bad conscience which results from not identifying oneself with Christ (1 Peter 3:16; 3:21).

Historical Point #3: Because this was a very Jewish practice (as seen above), it was carried forth by John the Baptist (Matthew 3:1)—who was not only a Jew, but was also the last of the Old Testament prophets (who were all Jews; Matthew 11:13). John the Baptist’s baptism was one which allowed those who had “repented” to demonstrate by a changed life that they had repented of their sins (see Matthew 3:6).

Historical Point #4: Because the early church was led by Jews primarily, being baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ” was the first sign that they had “repented” concerning Christ (Acts 2:37-38).

Historical Point #5: Because the early church was largely Jewish at its “grand opening”, a “baptism of repentance” only seemed natural to them, and they gladly did so to show they had trusted Christ (Acts 2:41).

Historical Point #6: Even after the first Gentiles were saved by their Lord Jesus (Whose human lineage is Jewish), they were instructed by a Jewish apostle to be baptized (Acts 10:48).

Application of Historical Point #6: Gentile and Jewish believers alike continued to be baptized after faith in Christ (Acts 16:30-33). It is very important to remember that the agent of salvation from the penalty of sin is the blood of Christ, and not the waters of baptism (Romans 3:25).

Historical Point #7: When people who were previously baptized became believers in Christ, they were “re-baptized” (Acts 19:5). Baptism is a picture of what has already occurred on the inside of the believer (Acts 1:5; 10:47). If one hasn’t been inwardly washed, baptism is meaningless—like a wedding ring to an unmarried person. At the moment of salvation, the Lord Jesus Christ moves each believer into His body (the church) through a washing (‘baptism”) of His Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:13; Titus 3:5). Therefore, when one is baptized in water, they are saying, “I have already been baptized by the Holy Spirit, and I am now a part of Christ’s body on earth (the church)”.

Application of Historical Point #7: • Good students of the Bible remember that these two baptisms are spoken about very often in the New Testament, and they are very careful not to confuse passages that speak of “spirit baptism” with those that speak of “water baptism” (such as Romans 6:3-5; Galatians 3:27; Ephesians 4:3-5; Colossians 2:12).

Second Application of Historical Point #7: The believer has inwardly experienced what Romans 6:6 describes as the crucifixion of the old man; the believer has also inwardly experienced what Romans 6:5 describes as the resurrection of a new man.

CONCLUSION
The church has “ordinances” which are to be carried out until the return of Christ. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are these very special, symbolic acts where we celebrate the reality of a twice-risen Christ Who has both risen from the dead (Romans 1:4), and forty days later, rose to the right hand of God in the Heavens (Mark 16:19; Acts 3:21). These do not have saving merit, as salvation is found only in the faith one places in Christ (Ephesians 2:8). So, let one “examine themselves” whether they are truly born again before they partake of these most Holy ordinances (1 Corinthians 11:28; 2 Corinthians 13:5).

Did the Old Testament Saint have faith in Christ?

2011-08-04T13:59:00.003-05:00

You be the judge.

They had the promise of the sacrificial one (seed of the woman whose heel would be bruised by Satan) who would "crush the serpent's head" (Genesis 3:15).

1. The Israelites under Moses were drinking Christ as they drunk from the rock (1 Corinthians 10:4).

2. The Israelites under Moses were confronted with an opportunity to tempt Christ (1 Corinthians 10:9).

3. Abraham believed the Gospel (Galatians 3:8). Context tells us that this is the Gospel of Christ (Galatians 1:8-9 compared with 3:8-14).

4. The Israelites under Moses who did not make it into Canaan did not believe the Gospel (Hebrews 4:2). This is the Gospel of Christ according to Hebrews 3:14.

5. Moses chose to embrace the "reproach of Christ" (the condition of being cast away with Christ) when He sided with the Israelites (Hebrews 11:26).

6. Those who died in Noah's flood rejected the preaching of the Gospel of Christ (1 Peter 3:18-4:6).

"So can women even talk in church?"

2011-08-04T11:29:00.002-05:00

This is a good question and one almost doesn't want to hear an answer because of the face value of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. Let's take a look.

First, please notice that all of chapters 11-14 is speaking of exercising God's gifts in the church?

Second, please notice that this requirement to "keep silent" is found three times in the passage: verses 28, 30, and 34 (not just 34). So, what do we see in these three verses? Context is king!

Verse 28: The one who "speaks a tongue" without an intepreter is to "be silent."
Verse 30: A prophet who has given his prophecy is to "be silent" while another comments on his prophecy.
Verse 34: Women were to keep silent in the churches.

What is evident about the ladies whereof Paul speaks is:
1. Ladies were in the body of Christ which is made up of both genders. The context is clear that males are in view up to this point. Just read the pronouns.
2. Ladies are to be of the body of the the "teachable" rather than the "teachers" when in mixed company ("under obedience" in verse 34).
3. They have husbands which are expected to be their primary clarifiers of what is "learned" in the church (verse 35).

Men, there is no room here for negligence. If you are a believer, you are responsible to rise to the position of spiritual leader in your home (ladies, be prayerfully patient). Hear Matthew Henry:

"As it is the woman's duty to learn in subjection, it is the man's duty to keep up his superiority, by being able to instruct her; if it be her duty to ask her husband at home, it is his concern and duty to endeavour at least to be able to answer her enquiries; if it be a shame for her to speak in the church, where she should be silent, it is a shame for him to be silent when he should speak, and not be able to give an answer, when she asks him at home."

Conclusion
The "keep silence" in verse 34 and the "not permitted for them to speak" in verse 35 are converse (or "flip side") of the 3 points above in that there were ladies in the Corinthian church who were: 1. glad they were now allowed into the worshiping body of Christ just like men, 2. were also regularly circumventing their husbands in public worship, 3. were speaking out and often taking leadership during the public teaching times of the church.

Paul was trying to curb some of this newfound enthusiasm of freedom with some guidelines in which things could still be done "decently and in order" (verse 40). Two ditches, right? In this case one is the law and supression of women and the other is complete merging of gender roles in the church.

So, can women testify of God's work in their lives in front of men? Yes. Are there other ways for them to teach the Scriptures in the church? Yes. Stay tuned.

How can I know that I am in the will of God?

2011-08-04T10:17:00.004-05:00

My very favorite passage on this thought is found in the letter to the Ephesian believers.

This phrase "will of God" is used approximately 6 times. The 5th and 6th times are found in Ephesians 5:17 and Ephesians 6:6 which stress the need for us to know the "will of God" and to commit every action within the "will of God."

Now, that doesn't help answer the question, does it? That just re-enforces the need to get an answer.

Well, I am pleased to tell you that the first four times this idea of the "will of God" is found in Ephesians 1:1-11

The first time its mentioned is in verse 1 where Paul tells us he is in the "will of God." That doesn't help us answer the question, though, does it?

The other three times are mentioned in verses 5, 9, and 11. We find that the will of God is simply this: "being holy and without blame before Him in love." Look at verse 4: This is why we were "chosen." In the very next verse he says we were "predestined" for this purpose. He has wanted a people who would walk "holy, without blame before Him in love." This is why we were "chosen" (v 4), "predestined" (v. 5), "adopted" (v. 5), "redeemed" (v. 7), "forgiven" (v. 7), "wise" (v. 9), "prudent" (v. 9), "gathered" (v. 10): To be "holy and without blame before him."

I just don't want to complicate things, my friends. The will of God is to be "holy and without blame before Him in love."

Past this, He opens doors, closes doors, gives wisdom, and even sometimes gives very, very clear leading. When it doesn't seem like any of this is happening, default to"being still" (Psalm 46:10) and do the will of God: "Walk holy and without blame before Him in love."

How do we measure faith?

2011-07-28T14:33:00.004-05:00

That is a question one of our brothers from Berean asked me: "How do we measure one's faith?" Well, let's see how Jesus did it:

Little: Matthew 6:30 records Jesus saying those Jews who observe the Father's providing in nature and doubt God's provision for life's essentials are of "little faith."

Great: Matthew 8:10 records Jesus as saying a Roman centurion who knew only of Christ's authoritative Word and had faith that Jesus could heal his servant by simply speaking the Word to his servant who was far away had "great faith." In fact, the "greatest faith in all Israel."

Little: Matthew 8:26 records Jesus' rebuke of the disciples who saw many of His mighty miracles. They were afraid that they would drown in a boat where Jesus was sleeping. He asked them why they had such "little faith?"

Little: Matthew 14:31 speaks of Peter, who after walking on the water, feared the storm. Jesus said he had "little faith."

Great: Matthew 15:28 records a Gentile woman who was seeking healing for her daughter. This was the only time that I am aware that He goes through her region. She continually seeks for healing in the face of Jesus' seeming apathy (only seeming--read it). He calls her faith "great."

Little: Matthew 16:8 records Jesus telling His disciples who wondered about how they were going to eat that they had just seen Him feed 9,000 people over two occasions and that they had "little faith."

Conclusion:
Those who have experienced much at the hand of God and yet doubt in the smaller things are said to be of "little faith." Those who have little reason to hope; those who are new to the Mighty hand of God and yet believe...are said to have "great faith."

"Women can't teach?"

2011-07-28T11:45:00.003-05:00

That is the question that usually arises when one reads 1 Timothy 2:9-12. How do we handle such an idea in light of verses like Philippians 4:2-3?

We must consider the issue in 1 Timothy 2 was to teach the Word as the authoritive teacher. "To be in silence" has a very oppressive idea attached to it today, but we must remember that both men and women are to be reserved in their speech. Proverbs, for instance says, "In the multitude of words there [lacks] not sin." In other words, the more we talk, the more we are prone to sin.

So understand that nobody has a license to be unbridled in their speech--including men (James 1:26).

The reasons why Paul required this can be described elsewhere, but the point that must be stressed that this is not some sort of cultural thing only for that time. Being "showy" in your apparel or your hair is just as immodest now as it was then (see 2:9-10). So in the context there is no need to see a time element introduced for whether sisters can teach the Bible to brothers in Christ when the church meets (see 2:11-12).

After all, if the wife is the helper "meet" for the husband (as Genesis 2 states), then a sister in Christ should be concerned primarily with helping her husband with his ministry--not establishing her own ministry.

Now, consider Philippians 4:2-3 and compare it with Luke 8:1-2. Here is an example of certain sisters in Christ who labor in the Gospel with Paul (just as those in Luke did with Jesus). There is no need to believe they were leading churches and teaching doctrine to mixed crowds. By themselves, these Scriptures "could" teach that they did, but these Scriptures are not "by themselves," right?

Remember, Jesus is submissive to the Father in every way. Yet...He is equal with the Father.

The "Spirit of the Lord" departed from Saul?

2011-07-28T09:03:00.002-05:00

How is this possible? 1 Samuel 16:14-15 speaks of God's Spirit leaving Saul and an evil spirit being sent from God to "trouble him."

This is the question from one of our folks at Berean. It seems like we have two questions here:

1. How did Saul lose the Holy Spirit?

2. Is this "evil spirit" sent from God an angel or a sort of mood?

Regarding the first question, we must remember that the abiding, permanent presence of the Holy Spirit is something that we believers enjoy today without much thought. For one thing, we are sealed by the Holy Spirit ("marked for pick-up" in the context of Ephesians 1:12-13) until the coming of Christ (Ephesians 4:30). For another thing, we are told that the Holy Spirit lives in us (1 Corinthians 6:19-20). This is a benefit that was not apparently available to King Saul. Apparently it was not available to King David either. See that the Holy Spirit came upon David in 1 Samuel 16:13 upon his anointing to be king. See also his fear of losing this sweet presence in Psalm 51:11.

Regarding the second question, we must remember that "evil" in many senses is from God (Isaiah 45:7) so we need not confine this "evil spirit" to "good" or "fallen" angels. We just need to know that "angels" are "spirits" (Hebrews 1:7, 14) and that even "evil ones" can be sent from God. See the story in 1 Kings 22:19 and following for further light on this subject.

Worship= Adoration + Action

2011-07-26T22:25:00.003-05:00

“How can the directives of Hebrews 13:15, 16 be practically applied in a worship service?” In this case, when we worship, we are ascribing worth to the God of Heaven.

Some notes of observation from Hebrews 13:15-16:1. This “praise” must be sacrificial (v. 15). That is, if it does not cost something to praise, it is not a sacrifice; be it pride or self-respect, there must be a sacrifice.
2. The “sacrifice of praise” must be offered continually. (v. 15). That is to say that the lifestyle should be characterized by laying “sacrificial praise” down at the Master’s feet. If one is continually praising, it is hard to imagine cross words proceeding from the same mouth.
3. The “praise” is to be vocal (v. 15). It is impossible to have “fruit of the lips” that is unheard or inaudible.
4. “Praise” includes giving of thanks (v. 15). That is to say that unless there is some form of gratitude, it is not praise. It is not simply enough to rename attributes to God.
5. “Praise” is not the only “sacrifice.” There are also “good works” and “sharing” that can be done which can be costly (sacrificial).

Some points of application for a worship service:
1. The liturgy (program of the worship service) should leave room for audible, sacrificial praise. That is to say that there should be time for corporate, audible response to truth that has been presented. This response could be in the form of individual prayer according to one’s uniqueness. This response could be in planned, musical form. This response could be a spontaneous outburst on the corporate level as well.
2. The atmosphere which is set should be that of gratuitous service. That is to say, a pastor and his help could make it the popular notion that “after we sit at Jesus’ feet” (as Mary did), we arise and serve Him (as Martha did). It is one thing to bow at His throne and adore Him. It is another thing to move with haste from His throne and represent Him.

Hate my parents?

2011-07-25T05:49:00.003-05:00

Last night, one of our missionaries re-affirmed that God loves sinners.

I had a good question following the service in light of another message that previously mentioned Romans 9:13: "Does God love each individual?"

How do we handle verses that say "God hated Esau?"

How is it possible that the One who said to even "love your enemy" (Luke 6:27) then turned around and said "hate your family" (Luke 14:26)?

The key to verses like Romans 9:13 and Luke 14:26 is to see that there are comparisons taking place. There appears to be this kind of idea:

Romans 9:13 "In comparison to the love God had for Jacob, his attitude towards Esau was hatred."

Luke 14:26 "In comparison to the devotion one needs to have for Jesus, their affection towards their natural family would almost be hatred."

Conclusion: I don't think Paul and Jesus are contradicting Jesus' words. There appears to be this amazing chasm between devotion towards God and affection towards family. Just as there was an amazing distance between the "love" God had for Jacob, the "vessel of mercy" and the attitude He had for Esau, "the vessel of wrath fitted for destruction."

This is my best answer. Did God love Esau? Sure. Are we expected to love family? Sure. Of course. But in comparison to the right person, this love may seem negligable.

Abiding fruit comes from Christ’s abiding words in the believer.

2011-07-09T15:59:00.003-05:00

For a discussion of what it means to "abide in Christ", it would be fitting to highlight the places where this word “abide” is found in the context. The word, according to e-sword.net, is found 41 times in the Gospel of John—ten of which are found in the context of John 15. These observations follow:

Joh 15:4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
Joh 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
Joh 15:6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.
Joh 15:7 If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.

1. There is no fruit for the one who abides outside of Christ. (15:4)
2. The one who abides in Christ also has Christ abiding in Him. (15:5)
3. Those who abide outside of Christ, and therefore bear no fruit, are discarded. (15:6)
4. When Christ abides in the one who abides in Him, Christ’s words also abide in him. (15:7)
5. The one who abides in Christ and Christ’s words abide in Him can pray for whatever he desires. (15:7)

Joh 15:9 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.
Joh 15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.
Joh 15:11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.

1. The one who abides in Christ is to also continually abide in His love. (15:9)
2. It appears that this transition from “abiding in Christ” to “abiding in Christ’s love” is essentially defining one by using the other. That is, one can “abide in Christ” by “abiding in His love.” (15:7-9)
3. Continually abiding in His love is done by keeping His commandments. (15:10)
4. We are joyful as we keep His commandments. (15:11)

Joh 15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

As we abide in Christ, we have fruit that continually abides.

Summary:
One can expect to bear “abiding fruit” as they abide in Christ (15:4) by abiding in His love (15:9) by keeping His commandments (15:10). All this is made possible because Christ abides in him (15:4) through His abiding words (15:7). Or, abiding fruit comes from Christ’s abiding words in the fruit-bearer.

"Why am I out here?" or "What are you doing here?"

2011-07-04T20:48:00.003-05:00

After talking to some dear friends and feeling no answers come to the surface, I felt horribly about not knowing "Why God would lead a person somewhere simply to give them seemingly 'empty hands'?"

I spoke with my sweet wife about why I couldn't think of a Scripture as an anecdote to this problem. Then...it hit me:

Matthew 4:1 "Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil."

Wow! Do you think we have a "High priest who can be touched with the feeling of our infirmity" or what? (Heb 4:14)

Don't hear what I didn't say: I didn't say "God led them to that place or those circumstances for the devil to mess with them," but if God led Jesus to the wilderness for temptation from the devil, then it is not out of the question for God to lead His children to the wilderness to be tempted and tried, is it?

I find great comfort in knowing that Jehovah God is interested in my strengthening and in my development to the point wher He "leads me into the wilderness to be tempted." Why doesn't He just leave me where I am? Isn't temptation easy to find around Fayetteville?

Can't God develop me here with these circumstances? Certainly. Why doesn't he make temptation convenient? I don't know. What I know is that, yes, sometimes believers are led to the wilderness--away from Jerusalem; away from Bethlehem; away from Nazareth--to be tempted. If one is tempted in the wilderness, then surely they can handle the pressure back home where the grass is green, and the trees are thick, and the praises from the temple can be heard!

Jesus, why are you out here where the abuse of power is easy (temptation of the bread), carelessness is expected (temple pinnacle), and short-cuts are desirable (kingdom now!)? Why are you out here where the water is scarce and it doesn't seem like God is anywhere around?......(wait for answer)....oh, because God led you here.

This is as much for me as for my friends.

The Gospel from start to finish

2011-05-19T20:54:00.003-05:00

Genesis 12:1-3 deals with the trail’s head of the Gospel. The amazing thing is that Genesis 12:3 was quoted by Paul in Galatians 3:8 and is called “the Gospel.” The Gospel was what Jesus commanded His disciples to preach in Mark 16:15.

Moreover, we realize that Abraham’s fulfillment is really in Christ. Galatians 3:16 speaks of one “seed” to whom the promise of 3:8 was made. David agrees. Psalm 2:8 seems to be a confirmation of this as it takes the promise of Abraham and speaks of the Begotten Son (Ps 2:7) as being the inheritor of all those that dwell on the earth. It furthermore appears that Revelation 5:9 attributes the fulfillment of this promise to Jesus as actually fulfilled by Jesus. What a paradox. He is both the recipient of the promise and the one who delivers. This, of course, is not the only time we see this. Hebrews 5-10 drives home the point that Jesus is the ultimate High Priest and the Sacrifice which is offered.

This transition is obvious when you compare the “Go Not” Commission of Matthew 10:5 with the re-enforcement from Jesus in 15:26 and then the transition to the “Go Commission” of Matthew 28:19-20

Hebrews 2:1-4

2011-05-18T06:02:00.000-05:00

Please see the following phrases:
1:3 “…hath in these last days spoken to us by His Son”
1:3 “…upholding all things by the Word of His power…”
1:5 [by implication] “He said to the Son, ‘You are my Son. I have begotten you.”
1:5 [by implication] “He said, ‘I will be a Father to You, and You will be a Son to Me.”
1:6 [by implication] “He said, ‘Let all the angels of God worship You.”
1:8 “He said, ‘Thy throne, God…”
1:13 [by implication] “He said, Sit at my right hand…”

These seven quotations from the preceding argument emphasize how God the Father spoke to us—utilizing His Son. It only makes sense that we hear His Word. Therefore, the following phrase makes a lot of sense:

2:1 “We ought to give more earnest heed to the things we’ve heard lest we let them slip.”

Since we are to “hear” what was “spoken” about His deity, it seems appropriate to give the “or else” consequence if we don’t “hear” it. The major connection between the “or else” statements of 2:1-4 and the “humanity argument” of 2:5-18 seems to be the reigning Jesus of 2:5-18 who will carry out the “or else” of 2:1-4 for those who don’t hear the words of God spelled out in chapter 1.

So....there I was

2011-05-10T22:43:00.003-05:00

I got off my plane in Seattle this past Sunday afternoon and I was thinking "where do I go to get my rental car" while I was staring at the baggage claim and talking to my wife on the phone. Finally, I realized that I was probably "in over my head" (being male and all) trying to do too many things at once. So, I told my wife I would call her when I got on the road (to Fort Lewis for my Chaplain Annual Sustainment Training).

I looked over and there was a older woman who obviously worked at the airport. She had her hands on the handles of a wheelchair and she was awaiting some baggage (or else she was waiting on somebody who was waiting for baggage). I didn't pay much attention. There was a guy in the wheel chair with his leg in a bandage. I found out later that he injured it playing sports with some other soldiers (yes, he was in the army). Then I noticed a girl standing by him (whom I later found to be his girlfriend).

She had one arm completely gone and the other arm was gone from above the elbow. Again, I glanced for my baggage and didn't think about it again. I glanced at the back of her shirt and saw the letters "EOD" which stands for "Explosive Ordinance Disposal." I know the job well. My friend Jim from church used to do this and I know the training his horribly rigorous and that it takes very bright people to pass the myriad of tests to pass that course and enter that elite corps of "bomb disposal" personnel.

I thought, "Come on! Really? This young lady with 1/2 of one arm was diffusing bombs? Here I am--I have completed two combat tours and I didn't exactly diffuse bombs. Maintain 11,000 volt electical infrastructure, but not diffuse bombs. I then noticed her bend over to pick up a bag and struggle with it with her 1/2 arm. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. I am ashamed that I waited as long as I did, but I finally realized that I was supposed to be getting her stuff instead of watching her struggle (I hope it was only a second).

After retrieving both of their huge, heavy bags from the conveyor I figured I could come back for mine and I told them I was carrying them out to their ride by the pick-up point. I asked her if she was in EOD. She said she was. I then asked if that was how she lost her arms. She said it happened in 2006. Now, listen...I don't care if you think I'm sick, or inappropriate or stupid or what....I looked into her scarred-up face; I reached out to shake her hand and I intended on saying "thank you." In a very brief moment I realized she had no hands to shake (I said she had no hands to shake) and I simply gave her a little hug and said, "you are such a hero. Thank you." I also thanked her boyfriend for his service and introduced myself as a Pastor and Chaplain in the USAR.

So, I have been thinking about this question. How did this girl in her very, very early 20's end up on a foreign soil diffusing bombs? How did we become a society that was "ok" with a blurring of the gender distinction and gender role lines? How would I feel if that was my sister diffusing bombs and losing her arms? How would I feel if that was my young wife diffusing bombs? How would I feel if that were, God forbid a thousand times, my daughters--losing their arms while diffusing bombs?

I cannot say it any better than Doug Phillips and the good folks at Vision Forum ministries has done.

http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/women_in_the_military/

Something is wrong.

Jesus the RaceRunner

2011-04-28T20:35:00.001-05:00

Psalm 84:9-12--God, You are my shield.

2011-04-07T07:57:00.004-05:00

Twice in this Psalm, we find God being called a "shield." The last verse in this Psalm says a person is "blessed" when they trust this "Shield."

As I think of the loneliest times in my life, I have found them at the end of trails I have forged. Allow me to be transparent.

1. In 1994, I was competing at the American Association of Christian Schools convention at Bob Jones University. I was representing the Wisconsin Association of Christian Schools as the top place finisher. I was competing in preaching. I remember staying in the dormitories there on campus and feeling quite alone. At the risk of sounding rediculous, I was in the position of "alone" because I was dying to be around certain people with whom I was just sure I was going to be able to visit. I remember "making the trip happen." I made the arrangments. I said "no" to alternative means of transportation. I grew discontented with obvious provisions for both the trip and companionship on the trip. I became the chief provider in this voyage. I spent a day or two of that trip feeling very, very lonely.

Did God fail me? The fact is, I ceased to trust in my Shield (from loneliness), and I made my own way.

2. In 1997, I took a trip to Colorado. I was frustrated with where I was. I was discontented with my job. So, I accepted a position in Colorado to work around a familiar face. I was tired when I made the decision, and it too was a very, very lonely time in my life. I spent five weeks in Colorado and I felt "cut off" from the favor of God. I tried my best to fake happiness, and I couldn't make it happen.

Did God fail me? I made a move, and then I asked God to bless it. Did God fail me? No, I ran and expected my shield to follow.

3. In 2001, I was in AIT with my family at Fort Gordon, GA. I understood that I was not going to be able to get my contracted MOS (job) because of a security clearance issue. I was tired of waiting for the system to work. I assumed I would not be able to get a clearance. I gave up my satellite communications job because I was impatient. I left Fort Gordon, GA and went to Fort Jackson, SC to become a job that I just wanted to "make work." I ended up dreading my job and for the next three years, sought a different job. I was miserable.

By the way, I found out that my clearance went through THE EXACT DAY that I left Fort Gordon.

Did God fail me? Did He cease to shield me? I grew impatient, and ran through any 'ol door I could and asked God to bless it. Does God guarantee to "bless" the man who runs from his shield? No, "trusting the shield," according to this Psalm, brings "blessing."

I guess what I am trying to say is that I find people who want to talk every week about problems. I praise God for that. I am a pastor. But what many of these dear folks need to see is that many (not all; not most; don't hear what I'm not saying) issues in their lives and in their marriage and in their workplace are absolutely self-wrought.

We attend church once a week and never attend a Bible study and never meet with a small group and never respond to a pastoral contact and wonder, "Why does God seem so far from me?" Well, could it be that He is trying to shield you and you are not interested?

"We have to meet as soon as possible!" Really? Did your marriage just start deteriorating?

"When will he change?" Well, I suppose he'll change at about the same rate that he got into the hole from which you want him to climb!

"Why is God not blessing our finances?" Well, maybe because you go out to dinner every time He gives you an extra $20.

"Why does she always hang out with those friends?" Maybe because you took her "club'n" before you deployed.

"Why won't he lead me to a church?" Possibly because you resisted him the last time he tried to lead and he is still recovering.

"Why won't God give me a better job?" Maybe because you are a horrible employee at the one you have?

"Why won't God save my mother?" Maybe because you don't open your mouth to witness to her and you dishonor her with your neglect?

You see, we try to blame everything on God. He is the "Shield." He is the "Lord" (boss). We should ask God for direction. Our attitude should not be one of "God, please bless what I'm about to do."

To Whom Does "God's Elect" Refer?

2011-03-29T06:48:00.002-05:00

Romans 8:32 says "Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect?" To whom does that refer?

Context is king. Romans 8:29 says "For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son."

Who are God's elect? Those whom He "predistined?" He set them aside as His precious ones (1 Peter 2) to be like Jesus.

Why did He do this? He knew them. See John 17:3 or 2 Timothy 2:19 for what this kind of "knowledge" refers.

Context is king.

Psalm 2 and Psalm 110

2011-03-08T13:16:00.000-05:00

These 2 Great Psalms speak of Christ.

Psalm 2
The kings of the earth are against "the anointed" of God (verse 2)

This "King" is set by God--and is "begotten" also (verse 6, 12). Even though Van Gemeren make it clear in his treatment of Psalm 45 that this is typical jargon for the king to be known as the "son of God," this is not typical for everyone. The Old Testament often speaks of Israel as a nation as God's son (Exodus 3; Hosea 14), but does not typically double this language to also have an applicaton for the king.

There is a promise to give "the uttermost parts of the earth" to this king (verse 8). This is clearly Millennial in its scope and was never offered to David.

This King is seen as being able to punished by the wrath of this "set king" (verse 12). Once again, this is apocalyptic in its nature and speaks little of David. Apocalyptic language may be normal for kings of secular nations but there is no reason to force the practice of heathen nations upon the people of God.

Psalm 110
Only Jesus has been actually offered the "right hand" of God (verse 1).

Only Jesus could be labeled "holy" in his Kingship (verse 3).

Only the One Who was before Abraham could be a "priest after the order of Melchezedek" (verse 5).

Only Jesus could have such an exhaustive, dreadful reign over the kings of nations (verse 6).

How are they used in the NT?
Psalm 2 is elluded to in Acts 1:8 It dawned on me that this phrase is found in another place, which really gives us the execution whereby we achieve the desired endstate: Acts 1:8 "ye shall be witnesses utno me...unto the uttermost part of the earth." So it actually speaks of Christ and His commission. Is this achieved? Hebrews 8, at least, seems to say it will be: "for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest".

This Psalm is also used by Peter in His prayer to God before the church in Acts 4. He is clear that it is speaking of Jesus.

Paul quotes this same Psalm when recognizing the resurrection of Christ in Antioch of Pisidia (Acts 13).

Psalm 110 is used by Christ to prove that this Psalm did not actually speak of David at all. He stumped the Pharisees by showing them this was speaking of the Messiah (Matthew 22:42; Luke 22:42). Moreover, Jesus is said to be sitting at God's right hand many times in the New Testament (Mark 16:19; Romans 8:34; Eph 1:20; Heb 1:3; 1:13; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1 Pet 3:22).

This same Psalm is also used by the author of Hebrews (5-8) regarding Christ alone when he speaks of the priesthood of Melchezedek.

This same Psalm is elluded to in how Jesus deals with His enemies with His "sharp sword"--"strking through the kings" (compare verse 5 with 2 Thes 2; Revelation 19).

This same Psalm is elluded to in the judgment scenes Jesus paints for Himself (compare verse 6 with Matthew 25:31-44).

Verse 6 also finds a home in Revelation 19:19-21 when describing the dead bodies following Christ's coming to "strike through" the kings ("kings of the earth" spoken of in Psalm 2:2).

Shall I argue with God?

2011-02-19T22:54:00.002-05:00

When you read Psalm 35, you get the idea (as you would with many of the Psalms) that God hears His servants better when they argue with Him--or at least they think He does.

This has influenced my worship and prayer life by showing me that it is permissible to be bold, but that this boldness needs to be tempered with reverance. I see that the Psalmist of Psalm 35 had a difficult time getting away from lament and petition and quite humanly spent less time on "confession of trust" and "vows to praise." It is almost as if the only time I can vow to praise is when I am trusting. It seems like getting to that point is most troublesome. That is to say, we, like this Psalmist, have a difficult time getting away from the lament and petition cycle long enough to sit back and trust. God is not hard of hearing. If this bold display of a "laundry list" is simply pouring out a sad heart, then perhaps the real question is "what do I need to do to see God as the 'King Who reigns'?"

When I see the command to "rejoice always" (Phil 4:4) and "give thanks in everything" (1 Thes 5:18), I am calmed with the reality that I can find inner joy as a rule and suffer periods of lament throughout periods of time in my life where I am learning to adjust. Perhaps Paul would've said it this way: "The only reason I know how to 'rejoice always' is because I have "learned to be content in every state" (Phil 4:11).

If I am to weigh whether it is even valid to pour out my heart to God in the aforementioned "laundry list" ranting, then perhaps it is for me. Does God need to be convinced? Is it the same God who answered to a short prayer of Elijah on Mt Carmel? Is today's God the same God who answered the short prayer of Jesus in John 11 before raising Lazarus from the dead? God does not need a long prayer? As Hezekiah in Isaiah 38:3 whether God hears long prayers better than short ones? It could be that for us to "pray in the Holy Ghost" (Jude 20), we need to struggle a bit in ascertaining what the will of God is. Paul prayed thrice for a certain thing until God revealed to Him that He was not praying within the will of God (2 Cor 12:9). If he were, his prayer would've been heard and the "thorn in the flesh removed" (1 John 5:14-15). The struggle with God in "arguing" is sometimes for our benefit. We could call it therapy. At any rate, God is longsuffering and will listen to us as we listen to ourselves and as we seek to make our prayers clearer to best reflect what our heart feels. Even then, there is intercessory help (Romans 8:26).

The Law

2011-02-18T17:57:00.003-05:00

In reading of Romans 7:1-3, we find out God intends marriage to last until death. It says that one is "bound by the law" to their spouse until that spouse dies.

The question is, "Does this mean that only Jews are required to keep their spouses until death because this may speak of the ceremonial law of Moses, and we are not required to keep such a law?"

The word behind "law" here in these verses is used 51 times in the book of Romans. Consider this:

The first time it is used in Romans is in Romans 2:14-16 where one speaks of the Gentiles who live according to a law that is "written in their hearts." If we consider this alone, one can then ascertain that this "law" of Romans 7:1-3 is this natural, creation-wide law that requires the compliance of all men everywhere. Wouldn't it make sense that, if we don't see a definite shift from "moral law" to "Mosaic law," we should see this as a law to which we are subject?

Divorce and Remarriage in Matthew 5 and Matthew 19

2011-02-18T14:23:00.003-05:00

Compare these two verses:

Matthew 5:31-32
It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Matthew 19:8-9
He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

What do we know--based on these two references?
1. Divorce and Remarriage was a big topic to Matthew's audience. He speaks of it twice. Mark and Luke do not mention both occurrences as Matthew does.
2. There is one allowance for the divorce certificate: fornication. This is illicit sex of any kind.
3. Remarriage is allowed only for this same purpose. Notice the additional phrase "causeth her to commit adultery" in the first reference. This gives the idea that "unless she fornicated," she is being pushed to be an adulteress in finding a new husband to provide for her. Why is this adultery? Because she is still married to the first husband. Why? Nobody committed fornication which would result in dissolving the first union.

Clarification on Matthew 19: Is this verse teaching that, even if a lady is a fornicator and given certificate of divorce, she and another man who may eventually get married are then committing adultery? No

The fact is, being divorced is permissible if fornication occurs. Being remarried is, as a rule, adultery. The exception of those divorced by fornication is simply not restated in the clause about remarriage because it is just that--an exception.

The plight of the "deeper life."

2011-02-15T21:32:00.003-05:00

There is much to say about those who love the Word and, yet, cannot seem to get victory over sin. You've seen them. They flock to Bible seminars, Bible studies, Bible bookstores, Bible discussions, Bible blogs, Bible churches, etc..., These are they who get the latest study Bibles and cannot, after years and in some cases decades, find victory over their sin. Why? They love the culture of religion. They are romantics. They love belonging to churches where they "feel loved and accepted"; where the messages are "relevant"; where "everybody knows your name."

Psalm 50 speaks in some light of this in verse 16 when a group comes into view who "declare statutes" and "claim covenants" yet (as seen in verses 18-20) they are quite obviously haters of the Words of God. Now, how is this possible in light of the context?

Collins calls this audience that which savors the idea of having a loving Father Who regularly speaks with them (verse 16), yet they despise His discipline (verse 17). In other words, they want all the benefits and none of the responsibility. This brought discord rather than the corporate unity they so desperately sought (999; biblio entry in previous post).

What becomes apparent is that those who are addressed in verse 16 are also those who are addressed in verse 7. These are they who also become great givers in the temple. However, these are also they who cannot keep their promises to God (verse 14). These are also they who withold the thank offerings as seen in verse 14 and their praise in verse 23. Indeed, these are they who offer to God that which costs them nothing in the way of personal holiness.

"Give me the open street of public religion, and I will drive 'fastly and furiously'. Give me the back alley of personal holiness which shuns laicentious freedom and stupid, self indulgence, and I will call for a taxi to circumvent such an avenue." VanGemeren speaks of these as those who "parrot the law yet abandon it instantly at the opportunity to promote their self interests" (432; biblio entry in previous post).

God help us to be those who are more than culturally religious.

A God of love Who brings justice?

2011-02-12T21:11:00.003-05:00

I would speak “Theologically” versus “Biblically.” That is, I would speak philosophically about God as John Day does in his note on page 168—showing that God’s sense of justice is invariably linked to His lovingkindness. That is, the fact that “God is love” (1 John 4:8) means that He cares deeply for truth, righteousness, and order.

That is, in order for His love for Holiness to be exemplified, there would need to be a certain strong hand of justice. There would need to be a moral code, and One Who would hold code-breakers (or “lawbreakers”) at a certain day of reckoning in which those who break such a law—intended to bring order to the Creation of a sinless, orderly Creator—are called to account for their carelessness.

Again, if God is love (as agreed), then He must first love Himself—the Ultimate Singularity and the Ultimate Fullfillment. This means He must love His character first and this is revealed in His sense (“sense” being used at the risk of sounding of irreverent) of order and justice.

Day shows (p. 175) that God is more than willing to show His sense of justice on His Own Son. There is nobody who would argue against God’s love for His Son, yet because of His love for His own character of justice, He poured out His wrath on His Son. One cannot be upset about God’s justice upon the sons of men and at the same time become selectively delighted that Jesus Christ received the judicial penalty of God for the sins of those same sons of men.

Day, John N. Bibliotheca Sacra 159 (April-June 2002): The Imprecatory Psalms and Christian Ethics. ________:______,______.

Accuse God?

2011-02-05T19:55:00.000-05:00

Lament often contains accusatory language toward God (see Psalm 44:12–15). Should a Christian use this type of language in prayer today?

This is a tough question to answer. I would say that no Christian should speak in such language to God. I will elaborate in three points:
(1). In the way Jesus instructed His disciples to pray, there is little language such as this. The believer’s focus is to be on “deliverance from temptation” and acknowledging “the kingdom and power and glory” of the Father.
(2). When Job made such amazing accusations, God rebuked Him for rebuking God (Job 40:2). Job knew this was a mistake and later acknowledged his real problem was speaking about things he didn’t understand (Job 42:3).
(3). Even David rebuked this behavior in Psalm 4 when He acknowledged his ever-present enemies; acknowledged his dependency on God; and then instructed his listeners to “be quiet and stand in awe before God.”

Psalm 88 and the usage of "grave" (sheol).

2011-02-05T19:25:00.002-05:00

Psalm 88: Death and Sheol
With such a breadth of material in the Psalms regarding sheol, it seems important enough to focus on this word in light of the common understanding in our circles of evangelicalism. Acts 2 records Peter’s message at Pentecost where he quotes David (Psalm 16) and applies David’s prophecy recorded there to Jesus. Peter says that David was saying that Jesus was not left in hades. The interesting thing about this is that Peter’s words are written in Greek by Luke. However, Peter was quoting David’s words which were written in the Old Testament (Psalm 16) where we find the word sheol (This is the same word in Psalm 88:3). This is why we know that both sheol and hades (Hebrew and Greek counterparts) refer to the same place—the realm of the dead. If these words meant “a place of burning,” then one must concede that Jesus was in the flames of Hell during the three days of His death.

If one believes that, then there is a different issue altogether that requires more than this time will allow.

What does the psalmist mean when he says: "I am set apart with the dead like the slain who lie in the grave, whom you remember no more, who are cut off from your care."
It is important to see that downplaying life after death is not the focus of David, but rather the celebration of life is his focus. That is, David is making much of a point here that his praise to God and God’s salvation out of his crises is before him right now—in this life! “God, I can’t praise you in the realm of the dead (verse 11) and your saving me from my enemies (verse 1) is a moot point if I die. Yet, it seems I am as good as dead” (verse 4).

The temporary opportunity for God to be praised for the deliverance of His people is gone once the saint is dead at the hands of his enemies (6:5).

How do statements like this here and elsewhere in the Psalms fit into an overall understanding of the biblical teaching on what lies beyond the grave?
First, it should be noticed that the King James translators translated Psalm 88:3’s usage of sheol into “grave.” Thus, they too thought of sheol and hades as a general term for “the realm of the dead”—and not necessarily just the place where people go to suffer.

Secondly, Luke’s record of the “Rich Man and Lazarus” in Luke 16 records the rich man going to “Hell” (hades) and being in torments (16:23-24). However, he also records Lazarus being there in “comfort” (16:26).

Conclusion: There is no reason to believe that David is speaking of sheol as a place where people’s bodies go and rot—leaving people with a soul-less existence bearing no “afterlife.” Nor is it a given that when people go to sheol they go there to burn in flames.

Psalm 91: A Psalm of Trust

2011-01-29T22:00:00.003-05:00

I can recognize this as a "Psalm of trust" because He is saying quite a bit about how safe he feels in the care of the Lord in verse 1 and how anybody can experience the same (verse 9). He speaks of being safe "under His shadow." He reiterates this confidence both as a statement of volition in verse 2 ("Him I will trust") and with an promise to his reader in verse 4 ("under his wings shalt thou trust"). He says "you will find One Whom you can trust after you spend time under His wings just as I have done." Just as this writer speaks from experience, a Psalm of trust is that which heralds a stedfast confidence in One Who has already proven able.

This Psalm is that which express faith rather than shouts of victory. One who knows the heart of Job mutter "if you kill me, I'll still trust you" (13:15) knows that David is saying "I have nobody else."

Verses 9-10

Is it realistic to say "no evil shall befall thee?" Realize that the writer is saying "nothing happens to the believer" is a very meaningful statement. That is, the believer is not passive. Can the writer say, "Don't worry about it! Nothing is going to happen. Your baby is going to be fine. Society is going to love you. You will have a raise at the job on Monday." Can he promise this? Is he promising this? A thousand times no. He is saying "You are not passively enduring. You are protected. You are cared for. You are monitored, and you are accounted for." Just as Satan said to God, "Your hedge is around Job," so the believer can rest assured that there are those whom Satan desires to sift and whom God protects with His mighty hand.

Nothing "happens" to the believer.

Verses 11-13

Does the angel keep me from any pain? Did the angel which ministered grace to Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane deliver Him from the hour of the cup? Then rest assured the same angel which stepped out of the ranks of one of those 12 legions to bring him strength also withheld himself in perfect submission to the will of the Godhead when He allowed this same Jesus to go on and sweat drops of blood, endure the beatings of the all-night trials and morning-long displays of corruptions prior to Himself being "obedient to death--even the death of the cross" (Phil 2).

Do we tread upon the adder? There are times when serpents bruise the heal of the believer just as the serpent bruised the heal of our Savior, but we have been promised that there will be a season in which we shall "shortly crush Satan's head" (Romans 16) just as our Savior did (Genesis 3:15). Is it unreasonable, then, to say "I cannot be bruised?" Oh yes. It has been given to us not only to believe on HIm, but also "to suffer for His sake" (Phil 1).

The Psalmist of 16 does admit that He went to Hell, but he also expresses faith that He will not stay there. The Psalmist of Psalm 27 cries out in faith "The Lord is my Salvation"--after he says, "my enemies came upon me to eat up my flesh." There is a tension between "I am totally protected" and the end of the statement which says "even in my calamity."

Musings about Sunday School

2011-01-11T14:17:00.000-05:00

When I was a child, there were a few things about Sunday School that I looked forward to: The prize box, birthday recognition, Christmas program practice, snacks, seeing my friends, etc… The fact that Bible lessons or any kind of systematic catechism do not make the list is simply because all that I remember was a woman who read her script as she was teaching, usually relying on her flannel-graph and continually scolding me for appearing disinterested.

The Sunday School does indeed have the ability to be the “great outreaching arm” of the church (Criswell 1980, 176). As age group-specific classes obtain contacts from the visitation program, “common ground” which would be a major attraction if people from a particular class would go out to bring others into their smaller band of class.

One more “good thing” about the Sunday School is that it can be a “rise or fall” ministry based on the annual certification of teachers. This is very good for the pastor. The pastor can place a goal which he feels is both necessary and flexible before the Sunday School teachers such as an annual training giving the teachers a refresher in a good philosophy of teaching. This can culminate in a consecration service on a Sunday night or something (Ibid, 178).

One of the most frustrating things to observe in many churches is the way that teachers are allowed to “cut their [teaching] teeth” in the primary department. Why in the world would a pastor or his staff allow a beginning teacher to try his or her gifting out on some little guys and gals who are just becoming acquainted with the matters of the faith? That teacher is in many cases the only representation of the truths of the Bible that the little student will get.

Our children, who hear the truths at home, are still very much impressed (positively or negatively) at the teachers they interact with in Sunday School. My children are the most important people in my life after my wife, so I am not comfortable with the idea that we put “2nd stringers” in the children’s Sunday School first. Let new teachers stand before their supportive peers first.

The ability for real intimacy between a teacher and a group of pupils is significant if the opportunity for “weekly contacts” are seized and the young folks or even the old folks are both welcomed and encouraged to attend and share their prayer needs (Ibid). Much can be said about a teacher who visits his or her students in the hospitals, in their homes, or at church functions. Today, this can be accentuated by text messaging, message boards, emails, or postcards.

Although Sunday School can be an incredible tool to pull folks “out of their shells” and to make them more comfortable speaking to others, the discussion time can be monopolized by the talkative ones in the group, and this can intimidate the timid speaker more than it can facilitate open discussion (Ibid, 179).

Oversized or poorly attended groups can also be harmful to the confidence of the participants or to their motivation. If Sunday School is important enough to grow, it is important enough to grow with growing leadership (Ibid).

References
Criswell, W.A. 1980. Criswell’s guidebook for pastors. Nashville, TN: Broadman.

Should a Chaplain in the Armed Forces Pray in Jesus' Name?

2011-01-11T14:16:00.001-05:00

In order for this question to be answered, the reader must understand that a chaplain has this thing called an "endorsement." The "endorsement" is the "nod of approval" a religious body gives to a man or woman to say "this is our guy/gal to provide religious support within the Department of Defense (DOD)." Without this endorsement, the chaplain would have about 30 days before He is removed from Service.

The Chaplain represents his convictions which are also his endorser’s. If he is “on loan” from this religious body to the Department of Defense, then they must recognize that he has two allegiances: To the DOD (by conveyance, the Constitution) and to the endorser.

Again, the Christian Chaplain represents the government as their designated spiritual point of contact or subject matter expert in matters relating to religion and morals. When he does something in his sector of influence, it is seen as “that which our government approves.”

If Liberty Baptist Fellowship, for example, hasn’t expressed a stance on “praying in Jesus’ name,” then this author has nothing but his preference and has no conflicting allegiances—for the only demand is that of his role as the guardian of the 1st Amendment. At an official function where the Chaplain represents the government and is seen as their “subject matter expert” and “embodiment of a guarantee that not only can I worship how I see fit, but that government also will not give its preferred religion,” that chaplain must also lay down his preference for the integrity of his role as a guardian of the Bill of Rights--his only existing allegiance.

Prooftext from Scripture or not, if the Chaplain has agreed to accession into the armed services and his endorser has no "official stand" on this issue, then he must do what is best in his billet as the guardian of the first amendment--and that is to be sure that he does not lead "soldier x" to believe that the government (or his unit) is presenting "the ideal faith."

"God turned the curse into a blessing unto you"

2011-01-11T06:47:00.000-05:00

So says Deuteronomy 23:5 (later quoted in Nehemiah 13:2). The fact is, we desperately need to know somebody is on our team. I have watched those who "sorrow as though there is no hope" (1 Thessalonains 4:13), and I must tell you that I am glad to be one of His.

Gainsayers and critics abound. "Has beens" and "would've beens" are not content to forsake their past apathies and move on...they must also believe that you will not be blessed. They may even whisper words of cheer when they watch you fall. Those of your own household; those of another; they may all watch with anticipation to see if their doubts and "curses" of you will come true.

"What shall we then say to these things?" Shall we despair? Shall we think for even a nanosecond that our God has turned His back upon those that are His? Nay! For my Substitute has already faced this curse. There is not a reason for His back to be towards me. Should we expect His hand of blessing to turn into a hand of chastisement. Again, the penitent man or woman finds no reason for a grudging Father.

O you have stumbled upon this blog--may you find an ever merciful God Who is not willing that any of His should be lost (John 17; 2 Peter 3:9)! Will you seek to be one of His? Will you not trust the once-bleeding hands of the Savior which were nailed to an altar for your sins?

Believer, will you not realize afresh and anew that all of the promises of God are "Yes" and "Amen" in Christ (2 Corinthians 1:20)? Will we not rest in His work, His promise, His presence?

There is no better time to bow the knee.

"Everyone dies only once."

2011-01-03T06:35:00.003-05:00

This is the sentiment of a dear sister who was most frustrated with a friend of hers who said that he had died and was "brought back" by the doctors. She said, "Now doesn't the Bible say 'it is appointed unto man to die once?'"

Now, of course I assured her that Hebrews 9:27 is still in the Bible. I also re-assured her that the Biblical definition of death is still valid--regardless of "clinical death" as seen in James 2:26.

I would like to point out to all who read this that "authorial intent" is the most important thing--once again--in this discussion. The question is not "Can we find a verse that tells us...?" That is the wrong question. The question is "Does Scripture teach that...?"

Think of Hebrews 9:27: "As it is appointed unto man once to die..." Was it the author's intent to tell us that all men only die once? Or.... Or was it his intent to tell us that everybody can expect to die? After all, if this friend did die (James 2:26) and was "brought back," does this mean that Hebrews 9:27 is not valid as a rule? I don't believe so.

Consider these two very salient points:
1. Lazarus (John 11) and those like him were undeniably raised from the dead. Yet, we have to assume they died "twice" (unless you think they are still alive on planet earth or else they were assumed into Heaven to preserve the rigid interpretation of Hebrews 9:27). I think you would agree that Hebrews 9:27 is still valid and that the author's intent was to say "Everybody dies at least once."

2. Less than two chapters later, the writer of Hebrews says that Enoch (the "7th from Adam"; Jude 14) didn't die. Didn't the author of Hebrews remember what he had just said in 9:27? Now, regardless of the "left field" interpretation of Enoch coming back in Revelation 11 so that he can die, we can assume that Enoch didn't die and will not die. In light of the author's completed letter to the "Hebrews," we can assume that the author's intent was "Everybody can expect to die once."

3. What about those of us "who will not sleep?" 1 Corinthians 15:51 is clear that there are some within the group of those who are "once appointed unto death" that are exempted. It's as simple as that. So, it is generally true that all mankind dies, but there are exceptions.

Conclusion
Was the author's intent to say: "Everybody dies only one time all the time?" No.

Bereans go "Publically and House-to-House"

2010-12-10T05:01:00.000-05:00

We understand that personal contact is the best contact. We know that there is no more effective way to evangelize than for people to speak to people. We are committed to reaching, first and foremost, our Montclaire subdivision.

Rationale: Acts 5:42 tells of the early church both preaching publically, and engaging people where they live. This may not be as "culture friendly" as certain means today, yet we are more interested in making connections with people for eternity's sake than we are with being "sensitive to continual changes". Acts 1:8 commands the believer to be a witness. This can be done with the language of "lifestyle", but that is only implicit. Explicitly, believers are commanded to open their mouths and "preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15). We take seriously the words of the Apostle Paul who said, "Awake to righteousness and sin not, for some have not the knowledge of God. I speak this to your shame" (1 Corinthians 15:34).

In this world of radio, internet, television, podcasts, cellphones, blimps, billboards, newspapers, etc..., there is no substitute for personal ministry. God uses people to reach people. There is little value in "virtual ministry."

If you don't believe that, let us know and then don't expect a visit from a pastor when you're in the hospital--expect a text message.

There is no substitute for going; not giving, not glaring, not guessing, not gabbing, not glowing...nothing. You must open your mouth and "preach Jesus" as Phillip did (Acts 8).

Book Review on "Hope-Focused Marriage Counseling"

2010-11-30T05:00:00.000-05:00

Hope-Focused Marriage Counseling
by Everett L. Worthington Jr.

In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Course

Pre-Marital Counseling (PACO 610)
February 18, 2010

Summary
Worthington has an approach that is dependent largely on the empathizing of the counselor rather than the willingness of the involved (xiii). The essentials of this approach are the couples’ willingness to be expressive in their affection only while continually being reserved in reactions to provocations. Apparently, there is a chemical reaction which cascades more negativity (xxv), and the positivity to negativity ratio needs lots of boosting (47).

The importance of the marriage relationship is that it is the only picture of Christ and His people that exists on earth. If this institution can be defamed, then it distorts the picture of Christ and His bride (17). Despite this, many cannot fathom the hundreds of dollars that it would take to potentially save their marriage even after thousands of dollars are spent on a wedding and tens of thousands of dollars would be spent on a divorce (22).

There are differences between good counselors and bad ones—theoretically (29). However, let there be no mistaking that the counselor is an external influence in this process and he or she will not fix all of the problems right away or apart from the couple (42). Moreover, the success of these counseling times is dependent upon the couple’s ability to visualize what resolution they desire (56) with one issue at a time (59).

This particular approach focuses on instilling willpower, waitpower and waypower (30). Willpower speaks of motivation for the couple to make things work; waitpower to be patient while their efforts are bringing fruit; waypower gives the couple resources to make it work.

Willpower is affected greatly when people understand that marriage is an organism that requires energy. Marriage, like everything else, tends to entropy if energy is not instilled (35). The motivation to love somebody through faith is also a form of willpower (51). Perhaps another motivator is for them to see that their marriage is not a contract, it is a covenant. That is, it is a license to do as one should do regardless of how the other person lives up to their expectations (70). One cannot fix the other, and as long as one partner concentrates on bettering themselves for marriage, they stay busy (82). When realizes this, they see that the marriage covenant is one of extreme delicacy yet rugged endurance. The theological “allowance” for divorce would be moot in most cases if the marriage was seen as a “covenant” (243).

Many think about that ideal marriage where almost no sinner lives. The problem is, we all qualify as sinning partners (137). Reframing will help the couple determine their motivation behind their speech (187). If there is an unrealistic expectation behind something a person is doing or saying, he or she will say things that they will wish they could take back. This is seen in generalities or “I wish…” statements. Moreover, reframing helps the spouse identify the fact that agreement and affirmation is the goal—not winning an argument (197). Reframing also helps one’s assumptions. That is, the presuppositions of one partner can treat the battlefield before there is even a conflict (207). This can be very unhealthy.

Waypower is greatly affected by whether the counselor affectively assigns homework and motivates the couple to do it within a set timeframe (40-41). These counseling sessions are “waypower” within themselves. The session strategy begins with an extensive introductory assessment in the first session (88) followed by a written review (96) which allows the couple to see how things really were (97). One can see their common values as assets that each partner holds. That is, they are not starting with empty hands (129).

Positive change is brought about chiefly through direct request or verbal expectation (160). So much of dialogue is idiomatic, hyperbole, sarcastic, critical, or manipulative. “Say what you want” needs to be a constant piece of communication coaching from any counselor. Positive feedback is very important. This is not saying that you agree with what is being said, but rather that you understand what is being said and that the speaker knows that you understand (182). If a couple is busy making deposits in the positivity bank of their spouse, an occasional blunderous withdrawal will not feel as devastating (220).

Waitpower is essentially remembering that while you’re fixing these problems, they didn’t peak overnight, and they won’t leave that quickly either (56). Furthermore, if the couple knew they could have an enjoyable marriage within two years, that “wait” seems like a rather minimal investment in the grand scheme of the life of a marriage (110). The process of healing cannot be hurried. It takes deliberate steps of patience and betterment. There are certain actions that will have predictable results (133). The couple must consider their behavior and see how it drives certain emotions, thoughts, and feelings in their spouse (134).

Reflection
As if the counseling relationship is already not impersonal enough, we are to greet folks with a videotape and pamphlet to orient them to the type of counseling they are going to receive and the intended result of these sessions together (75). I think this reeks of silly and borders on insulting. Thankfully, the video can be placed on a counseling office’s website so that they can watch it at home, but then how would you know that they viewed it at home? Would you have an assessment testing their retention of the material? If so, would you give them the assessment at home or at the office? If it was at the office, how would you get around the fact that they are there and they fail the assessment? Would you tell them to “go back to work” until they can “pass the assessment?”

If they did pass it, how are we to know they didn’t compare answers and help each other with the answers? If we don’t care if they got the answers from each other, then why don’t we just forget about the video and give them a document to read? Ah, enter the “pamphlet” (75). So if they will be given a pamphlet, why deal with the video tape? If they are different subjects, then why not give them a pamphlet which covers both subjects? Along with a greater part of the “interventions”, I perceive this idea of viewing a video to be a waste of people’s time in general.

Application
Fortunately, I have had the opportunity to apply many of these counseling thoughts (for lack of a better term) in my counseling ministry. Good questions like, “What were you hoping to accomplish by saying that?” became very prevalent as I could tell that I had been reading this book. What a joy to find these introspective questions becoming a part of me!

The crux of this counseling approach is providing “willpower, waypower, and waitpower.” I will continue to use “self-interest” in the “willpower” idea. This is one of the tracks in “solution-focused pastoral counseling” as well—although “Hope-Focused…” did provide more intervention ideas which I will incorporate in times to come.

Regarding “waypower,” I find this, as “exploring the resources.” In a way, the counselor is saying, “Well, ok, let’s see what you have at your disposal.” I will continue to ask questions until the correct solution shows itself. This does not mean there are no risks with the “best solution”, but we must be willing to explore these options and allow the care-seeker to determine the best one with God’s help.

Lastly, “Waitpower” can be summed up in Psalm 27:13-14. The Lord is active here, in the “land of the living.” Help is on the way. I will continue to provide reason to these married couples—via cost analysis—why it is in their best interest spiritually, emotionally, financially, and socially to stay with who they have long enough for God to get overtly involved.

References
Everett Worthington Jr, 1991. Hope - focused marriage counseling Downers Grove, Il. Intervarsity Press.

Book Review of "Strengthening Marital Intimacy"

2010-11-25T20:19:00.001-05:00

A Paper In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Course
Pre-Marital Counseling
PACO 610

CH (1LT) William J. Sturm

February 4, 2010

Summary
This review covers Ronald Hawkins’ “Strengthening Marital Intimacy” (1991). Hawkins focuses on maintaining individuality while purporting interdependence between partners (9). There is constant reason to believe that while interdependent couples do find some of their pre-marital individuality disappearing, neither of the partners should find their personality (12) or differing giftedness (80) gradually vanishing.

This choosing of roles resulted from the different reactions to temptation within the garden. Male leadership is a matter of Divine Prerogative and shows nothing of any favoritism towards a particular gender. Therefore, there is no room for feelings of superiority or domination within the marriage (14). Moreover, the complementing roles of “leader” versus “support” were placed properly by the Creator (15).

Intimacy must be developed in the whole person (24). There must be a commitment of “spirit”, “soul”, and “body” of one to be fully engaged in this work of intimacy. Special care must be given to guarding one’s thoughts so that they can recover from potentially difficult things to include hurtful words of past times (84). There must also be deliberate care for the intellectual health of their mates’ thoughts. The spouse may need mental 1st aide at a given time in their life and sensitivity is an essential in recognition of these special needs (88).

Communication that is poor in quality and ungodly grieves God (111). The major reason why it grieves God is because He went and still goes to such great lengths to communicate with mankind.

Whereas it appears that man is lacking in his understanding of this need for intellectual intimacy, females need to be educated on the necessity of physical intimacy for that vacuum within the human partner as well (26). This facet of the marriage, by the way, cannot always be initiated by the male or he will, by necessity, grow disenfranchised towards the idea of sex to save the affections of his wife by refraining from boring her (103).

One must not skim over “spiritual intimacy” entirely—even if it seems obvious. There will be times of trial and grief, and these times must be seen as Masterful adjustments in the roughness of partners’ lives both corporately as a marriage and individually toward each other, toward others, and towards the Lord (62). The basic need of man or woman within his or her spirituality is forgiveness. There is no intimacy between mankind and the Being Whom he has trespassed so long as hostility remains (65). There must be surrender and trust in the finished work of Christ on the cross. This new faith can be revealed in a general concern for the edification of one’s spouse (134).

Marriage must be “life’s answer” to finding intimacy. Many have their crutches for “spiritual”, “soulish”, and “physical” intimacy before their weddings and this spells disaster (33). These “old ways” must be disposed of if intimacy will be found within the marriage (36). The spouse must be the paramount focus of leisure enjoyment and social interaction (135) and intimate fantasy (101).

God is the source of all wisdom (46), and life—to include marriage—is pointless without “the wisdom from above” (James 3:17). Forgiveness is a wise practice within the intimate marriage. This carries the reality of “reckoned” perfection on the part of one spouse to another—as if the spouse who did sin is no longer able to do so (40). The afore-mentioned wisdom allows the party who has forgiven to draw boundaries for future times because this forgiveness, while not withholding favor, exercises the wisdom to know where the realm of this forgiveness abides (53).

Reflection
On page 34, Hawkins says the marriage contract “is a function of the social culture in which the couple lives. It receives its particular form from that culture.

Obeying the form is a dimension of rendering unto ‘Caesar’ (the state) the things that belong to him.” My question is “When did marriage get handed to Caesar?” I am not sure we can be so flippant in giving things that were granted by God to the state for censure. God gave woman to man. Each man and woman who is “joined together” is married if one believes Genesis 2:24. He goes on to describe the “benefits” of this marriage certificate as “protection” and he makes the matter an issue of civil obedience. There is a great deal of a conundrum if one believes marriage was given to the state to manage. Perhaps we are so used to giving Divine Rights away such as marrying a spouse, methodology of raising or educating children, owning protection, and managing property, that we are now creating a circumstantial, humanistic institution instead of accepting this most God-given, charitable, and sacrificial act of undying devotion and rite of passage into true maturity.

Marriage is not signing a certificate. Marriage is the willful leaving of a former life and joining one other in a conglomerate life of interdependence which involves two people who are so unique in their personalities, temperaments, and gifting, and yet so willing to give of the best of those qualities to their spouse.

Application
I was greatly challenged by the author’s recognition that he had been forcing his wife to share his uniqueness. This was easily applicable to my marriage. She does not have my gifting, my talents, my temperament, or my personality. It’s true that she was effectively called to our family mission when she answered my call to marriage, but this doesn’t mean that she must meld her individuality with mine.

References
Hawkins, Ronald E. 1991. Strengthening marital intimacy. Kearney, NE: Baker Book House Company.

What Have YOU Overcome?

2010-11-20T05:56:00.000-05:00

Muse on 1 John 5:4 and ask yourself: "Have I overcome the world?"

Revelation 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

The overcomer will have the Tree of Life restored to him.

Revelation 2:11 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.

So we see that those who overcome will not be cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:14).

Revelation 2:17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

1. He that overcomes will be nourished from Heaven much like the Israelites were with bread from Heaven. "Hidden" refers to the secrecy wherewith the overcomer is strengthened.
2. The "white stone" was a sign of aquittal given to those who have been aquitted by a jury. Therefore, overcomers have aquittal for crimes previously charged. In other words, the overcomer is justified.

Revelation 2:26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:

We see here the overcomer will rule as a king.

Revelation 3:5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

1. The overcomer will have a robe of righteousness (or purity).
2. The overcomer's name will remain in the book of life and he will be claimed by Jesus in the presence of God and the angels. (Matthew 10:33; 2 Timothy 2:12)

Revelation 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

The overcomer will be forever housing the glory of God in the New Jerusalem.

Revelation 21: "And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it."

The overcomer will have the name of the Lord on Him, the name of his city and the name of the Lamb on Him.

Revelation 21:7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

The overcomer is heir of everything and will have a never-ending relationship with God. (Titus 3:7)

An overcomer is simply someone who has been born of God (Compare 1 John 5:4 with John 3:3, Titus 3:5 and 1 Peter 1:3,23).

What about spanking?

2010-11-11T10:46:00.000-05:00

Proverbs 10:13
"In the lips of him that hath understanding wisdom is found: but a rod is for the back of him that is void of understanding."

Is this a reference for spanking? Do you really take a rod to the back of your child for correction? Actually, when taken with Exodus 21:20, you can see this was a common practice of discipline within the Theocracy of Moses. Now, while it's true that this is an admirable practice:), it should be noted that this is not a proof text for "whipping" your kids. See Proverbs 26:3 for a similar feel.

Proverbs 13:24
"He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes."

Does this mean that to prove my love for my children, I need to strike him/her with the rod early ("betimes") in life or early in relation to his developing rebellion?

Proverbs 22:15
"Foolishness is bound in the heart 0f a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him."

Proverbs 23:13,14
"Withold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod", and shall deliver his soul from hell".

I will admit that I have heard this applied as, "You can beat your son/daugther, and get them right so they won't grow up to be God-denying heathens-thus finding themselves in an eternal Hell".

Sounds good as a rule-- but not as a universal truth. One only needs to read Deuteronomy 21:18-21 to see that it doesn't always work.

Others have pointed out that "Hell" can be simply "the place for departed spirits"...you can save your children from pre-mature death.

Proverbs 29:15
"The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother shame".

You know this is true. Don't discipline your children, and you can see what happens at Wal-Mart or the Commissary in any aisle.

Conclusion: Using the rod is not the same as threatening to do so. "I'm gonna whip you!" "I'm gonna make you respect me!" blah, blah, blah. Shut up and do it! Keep one in your car...whatever...just don't be a nag. Do it, for crying out loud!

Aim right. Don't lose your temper. The issue is correction...not venting.

One last note: The word "back" includes the "backside" and is what is in view within these passages no doubt. You can seriously injure the little one if you don't use that brain God gave you to focus on the "cushion."

I don't get it.

2010-10-30T13:31:00.005-05:00

I have been reading through the autobiography of the late Dr. Jerry Falwell. Now bear in mind, I have a couple of pieces of paper upon my wall that represents 7 years of learning at Liberty University so I don't take this book lightly. SO even though I enjoy reading about the lives of people, it is especially so with this particular book.

I was struck by a pattern that persists within and throughout the book. Dr. Falwell refers to the "Sinner's Prayer," and "praying to receive Christ," and "bowing heads to ask God to save." Once again, the canker of "salvation by prayer" is evident in almost any strand of Christianity today. We love to have something to do with our salvation. It is simply not enough for people to "believe on Christ" (John 3:16; Acts 16:31; 1 John 5:13).

Dr. Falwell spoke of his getting saved in this manner, his father getting saved upon his deathbed in this manner, his building a Sunday school class in Missouri in this manner, and building the Thomas Road Baptist Church with this same practice of "salvation by prayer."

I guess I just want it known that although we are to be well-read folks, we are not to continue to surround ourselves with half-truths in the name of "not judging another man's servant" (Romans 14:4). Did this man and many like him influence people for Godliness? Doubtlessly He did. Did he preach the Word? Mostly Did he have build a great work, humanly speaking, for God? It seems like it. But did he, by his own admission, give another way of salvation than the apostle Paul? 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 seems to say so.

Why is this kind of post imporant? Because we need to come to grips with the fact that these high-visibility personalities within Evangelical Christendom were certainly fallable, and even fatal in some of their mistakes that deal with salvation.

I can only assume that Paul saw days like this when he spoke of "Angels from Heaven" who "preached Gospels" that were much alike, but intricately different than the "one which [he] preached" (Galatians 1:6-9). God help us!

My Conscience Keeps Me From Being "Protestant"

2010-10-30T13:16:00.000-05:00

Galatians 3:1-3 asks some soul-searching questions:

1. Who has bewitched you? (verse 1)

2. Did you receive the Spirit by faith or by works? (verse 2)

3. Can you begin in the Spirit and continue in the flesh? (verse 3)

How is it possible for anyone who is saved by faith in the work of Christ find themselves down the road trusting sacraments as means of grace? How is it that those who are justified by faith are now sanctified by works?

Yea, a brother may say, "Well, if the Lord's Supper builds your faith, and faith is a gift by the grace of God, then the Lord's Supper is a means whereby God gives His grace".

To which I answer, "If a man says keeping the Old Testament ceremonial law builds his faith (which is a gift of God's grace), then can it not be said that 'the works of the law bring the grace of God'?"

Romans 11:6 answers this idea of mixing grace and works. They don't mix.

Where do we get this calm version of "transubstantiation"? Where do those who protested Rome find a prooftext for this idea that Christ is "with" the bread and wine?

Where do we find the "Lord's Supper" "nourishing our souls" in Scripture? Why do we say the church ordinances have any power to change one's soul? Where is this?

Where have you heard it, Bill Sturm? I have heard it in virtually every Protestant church service that I have been to. I am not saying "Protestant" in the Army sense--for they see Baptists and Pentecostals as "Protestants".

And I?.... I am a Baptist on purpose; not a Protestant.

On Killing

2010-10-29T22:07:00.001-05:00

“On Killing”
CH (1LT) William J. Sturm
Written one year ago for Chaplain's Basic Officer Course

Introduction
Every soldier who claims to have a conscience has at least thought about the morality of taking a life. Each soldier has weighed the idea of his being immoral in the duty of killing—even if their conscience lies unclean.

How I Understand Morality and the Theology of Killing
Does God bless weapons? Can one say that earthly battles are “spiritual” affairs? Is there anything “Warrior-like” about God? If I am told to do something, must I do it? Is God honored when I don’t do it? I cannot accept that morality is in the eyes of the doer. There must be a sort of outside standard.

This brings us to the point of Theology: God is the Great Judge of morals. Neither the state with its nation’s beliefs nor the single man with his own plan is exempt. Whether we live in the “land of the free”, or on a desert island, morality is...moral. Morals are not chips with which we may bargain with God.

Solving morality is more than repelling military service. After all, “modern warfare is total warfare”. That is, “the farmer fights the battles [with his taxes].” It may be moral to kill to defend one’s nation as Churchill points out, but when did our nation’s land move so far East? What would happen if we called to mind that every walking, talking person was also made in God’s image? What if there were no moral or social gaps that needed to be maintained in order to kill with little thought or with a clear conscience?

When I read the book of Matthew, it confronts me with two amazing themes—Caesar’s empire (Matthew 22:15-22) and the Christians’ model of Christ (Matthew 16:24-28). How must I balance being both a dweller of “Rome” (Acts 22:25) and a dweller of Heaven (Philippians 3:20)? Matthew’s 22nd chapter tells me two things about God:

1. God uses war to punish people as He did with the Jews in 70 A.D. (22:7), and
2. God supports “Caesar” upon this earth who “bears the sword to punish evil people” (22:16-22, cf. Romans 13:4).

Do Christians have a right to exercise Caesars’ will in “just war”? Can I, Bill Sturm, take the life of another on behalf of Caesar? Or, “Can I, Bill Sturm, take the life of another on the behalf of God under Caesar?” I believe Romans 13 tells us that the “powers that be” bare the sword. I understand that this applies directly to those under Caesar, but it seems to apply at times to those against Caesar (given the absence of Scriptural commands). Can Christians take part in God’s “ordained powers” spoken of in Matthew and Romans? As much as others can serve under pastors, and heads of households, I can engage in the profession of arms under another God-ordained institution called “government” for the purpose of “just war”.

How I Will Help Soldiers with Their Issues of Killing
I will understand, first of all, the soldier’s conscience [within which God revealed Himself (Romans 1:19)] must convince himself that he is in a just war, and that he is on the good team while shooting at the “bad guys”. When reality confronts a Christian that he has killed another life, he will soon research the “justness” of the war. In this day of bonus money and free leave, one sees that he is little more than a hireling—unless he is willing to weigh the rightness of his actions within such a war. The common man on the other side (the “bad guys”) further muddies “the moral ideal” as he tries to represent his homeland in his “just war”.

I will also understand that Soldiers who join with other soldiers bear their own load of freedom or guilt. The burden of relief is not on the “group”. Each person must see themselves as needful of enough answer for their actions (Romans 14:12).

I will instruct the Soldier that if he is still not settled in his conscience about this conflict (Romans 14:23), that he needs to pray for wisdom and courage to endure the rest of his time with us, and then seek another means to serve his nation with a clear conscience.

Conclusion
Let there be no mistake about it, killing is a trade—a skill. Those who practice many hours to know the proper doctrine and technique know all too well that a clear mind and a calm heart produce a steady finger. May clarity be given to those involved with such a just war as overtakes our nation. Grossman is right: “Killing [your] nation’s enemies is an honorable thing to do. We need to embrace it.”

Book Review on "7 Deadly Sins..."

2010-10-28T16:25:00.001-05:00

The Seven Deadly Sins of Small Group Ministry
by Bill Donahue and Russ Robinson

By
William J. Sturm
30 November, 2009

Abstract
This book is to be the ultimate troubleshooting guide to Small Group Ministry. Donahue and Robinsons write a very comprehensive guide to fixing what’s wrong with a church’s small group division. Many times, these “fixes” can occur before the machine fails. This would be preventative maintenance. They believe they have nailed most of the problems down to these issues. Perhaps the biggest, most notable “sin” of this book is the failure to be strategic in the development of leaders. It is very clear that the cost of not shepherding people properly (as seen in those who leave the church, and those who are not disciplined in the avenue of service and giving) far outweighs any amount of fiscal resource that may be paid for leadership development programs.

The reason many ministries are poor in their leadership development is merely because they are afraid of leaders, whom they may develop, causing a ministry to suffer through failure. This is possible. Ownership, though, is seen through things like “vested interest” which means that if one cannot fail, they really have no balancing success motive. One must be willing to give ministry away if he desires to gain assistance in ministration.

They do a good job of clarifying that not every church is going to be a church of small groups. Small groups are considered to be a part of churches in some cases, and in other cases the church is a small group (house churches, perhaps). The authors are, however, very clear that a church must eventually commit to a model.

If a church is to have small groups, then they must admit (mostly at the leadership level) that some would prefer a bigger class with less attention brought to themselves. In any case, these commitments to models must be fairly static. This is necessary because people within any given congregation will remember failures that are not all too recent, and they may be quite hesitant at supporting another program or structure.

Commitment shows itself in a cultural acceptance of the model. That is, it must become a norm for a particular church’s culture for its members to be part of a small group. This being said, Commitment to a model does not constitute success. Unfortunately, people do not translate principles, or “main tasks”, or even “ideals” into steps which must be taken to end up at the goal. They must have a process described and demonstrated. Philosophizing and theorizing about what small group ministry is can become exceedingly “sinful” in the eyes of these writers.

Perhaps repetition was intended in this book, but many of the ideas throughout the book are merely restatements of the early chapters. This can be good, but successive readings can reveal a scant amount of material. Perhaps they were merely practicing what they preach. They were trying to make sure that each church has a “Small Groups Champion”. So perhaps, they are practicing this at the motivational level.

Concrete Response
The “tyranny of the urgent” is something with which I am quite familiar. At 19, I was sure I was supposed to preach the Gospel to the whole world, and that the whole world would go to Hell before my graduation. The fact is, I was terrified that the rapture would occur before my graduation and that my ministry would’ve left no mark on the world.

I left college in Virginia, and moved to Kentucky where my future father-in-law was a Pastor. I became the assistant pastor and eventually married Nikki. Three years later, I was jobless, degree-less, ministry-less, homeless, and seemingly friendless (and I was losing the confidence of my family). I was overweight, and I knew if I didn’t do something quickly, I was going to lose my opportunity to gain control of my life. I joined the Army.

At 33, I have a B.S. in Religion, and a M.R.E. of 72 hours. I am an assistant pastor of a large church, and I am fully qualified to be a Chaplain in the Army Reserve. Whatever my hurry was 13 years ago, it was not founded. God was not in a hurry. There are no shortcuts to ministry preparation. There are no shortcuts to any leadership development.

Bottom Line: Let your program work (or "work it") before you "can" it.

Reflection
I was somewhat offended by the idea that the group should not be intimidating to newcomers. Although I do not think it should be intimidating either, what concerns me is the description of well-worn Bibles—which represent years of devoted, Christian lifestyle—being a sign of intimidation “rather than intrigue”. The notion that church people need to walk on eggshells around visitors because we don’t want them uncomfortable irritates me.

Of course, nobody wants to feel like they must force their way into a family, but Ephesians 4 reminds us that “the work of the ministry”, “the edification of the body” and “ the equipping of the saints” are the main thrust of the assembly. People should feel like those with whom they are joining have a significant amount of expertise and friendship to offer.

If I went to a baseball card convention because I was intrigued about the sign outside the convention center, I would expect to find baseball card fanatics inside. I would expect them to have the latest brands, the oldest antiquities, the most up-to-date ways of preservation—all of those things which lets one know they are in the middle of something big. If a visitor comes to small group, and people open their brand new, out-of-the-box, gold-trimmed Bibles, they would probably think, “These folks read their Bibles at church”. I am not for adjusting church culture so that the “un-churched” feel comfortable. If a church is to change their culture, let them do so without sacrificing their signs of devotion.

WORKS CITED
Donahue, Bill & Russ Robinson. The Seven Deadly Sins of Small Group Ministry. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 2002.

Does God want me to declare vows? Moses even says "Yes".

2010-10-28T06:57:00.002-05:00

Some, including me, think this is also covered under "swearing".

Who are some people in the Bible that think you should make vows?

a. Moses seemed to think it was good. The children of Israel were commanded to "swear by His name" (Deuteronomy 6:13).
b. Asaph seems to think it's ok: Psalm 76:11 "Vow, and pay unto the LORD your God:"

1. I don't know why others make them, but I know why I have made them. I make them because I feel like it is a good way of convincing myself that I am "really serious this time". Sometimes it's because I am sure God will think I am serious also. The issue is not, however, whether I can go looking for certain things to promise, the issue is, will I keep my promises when I am confronted with the opportunity to do so?

The same could be said for "putting out fleeces". Why not just obey?

2. New Testament Scripture, however, tells us that it is foolish to make these oaths, swearings, or vows:

Matthew 5:33,34 [Jesus said] "...ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time...thou shalt perform unto the LORD thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all... But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil".

James 5:12 says, "Swear not, neither...by any other oath, but let your yea be yea, and your nay be nay, lest you fall into condemnation".

3. Scripture does make it clear that if you do make the unfortunate oath instead of a simple "yes" or "no" answer, you had better follow through.

Psalm 15:1,4 (David)
"LORD, who shall abide in thy tabernacle?...He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not".

Psalm 50:14
"...pay thy vows unto the most High:"

Psalm 116:14 and 18 both say,
"I will pay my vows unto the LORD"...

Psalm 119:106
"I have sworn, and I will perform it, that I will keep thy righteous judgments"

Ecclesiastes 5:1-6 (Solomon)
"Be more ready to hear, than to give the sacrifice of fools...Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter any thing before God: for God is in heaven, adn thou upon earth: therfore, let they words be few...and a fool's voice si known by multitude of words....When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou has vowed Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay. Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin;"

4. There are times when you must decide, "Should I 'take my chances' in not paying my vow, or paying my vow and breaking another point of God's law?" (James 2:10)

If Jesus was not "virgin-born/conceived", He was not God!

2010-10-28T05:58:00.000-05:00

Let us begin with defining the word “incarnation”, distinguishing it from the idea of a “virgin birth”. It comes from two words which mean to "take on meat" and the concept is found in John 1:14.

The eternal “Sonship” of Jesus is established in such Scriptures as Galatians 4:4 and Isaiah 9:6.

While it is true to say, “If Jesus was not virgin-born, He was not God in the flesh”, it could also be said, “If Jesus was not virgin-conceived, He was not God in the flesh”. Divinity begets divinity; humanity begets humanity (John 3:6). He is the Son of Man, and the Son of God.

The question of "Why did God become a man?" can be answered in one statement: “God took on flesh to die in order to redeem His creation.”

Slippery Slope?

2010-10-28T00:11:00.000-05:00

Revelation 20: When it comes to the opening verse of our six-verse section, one must determine the nature of the “binder”. The reader finds that it is an angel.

It is more than possible that “angel” is symbolic here. That is, the “angel” represents somebody else.

Why is this possible? Because we are told Lucifer is “an angel of light” (2 Corinthians 11), but he is called a dragon here. So it is possible that he doesn’t appear to be a dragon here, yet that is what he is called.

This does not mean that the binding, the chain, the key, and the pit are symbolic necessarily. It could be that “angel” and “dragon” are symbols, but what is realized is that Satan is “bound” for "1,000 years".

If this angel, prior to the "1,000-year reign" is metaphorical, then it stands to reason that the angel in the 5th trumpet (9:1), the angel with 7 thunders (10:1), and the angel as the announcer of Babylon's judgment (18:1) could also be metaphors.

A "shadow?"

2010-10-21T05:54:00.003-05:00

This is what I am. Psalm 144:4 says "my days are like a shadow." Does this mean that there is no substance to them? Does it mean they are worthless? Does it mean they are meaningless?

No. It simply means that as quickly as a shadow can fleet away, so our lives are gone in a flash. How sobering! Just that quickly I can take my last breath and I am gone.

However, I think we can go further and say that our lives just seem to fly by with no ability to slow them down. We go from "I sure am bored" to "I need more time." God, help me to fill my days with meaningful things so that I have no regrets when I stand before you.

It's not going to slow down.

"'Cause I need to hear your voice." Psalm 143:8

2010-10-19T05:19:00.004-05:00

Why does a Christian arise before his or her day begins? So they can spend time "finding out the way in which he or she should walk." I read this in Psalm 143:8. I need this time. I must have Him speak peacefully to my soul and give me direction. I have to continually commit my way to Him for me to have established thoughts (Prov 16:3), but I must have a good start. Furthermore, I am desperate to "hear His lovingkindness in the morning."

Why do we get up earlier than required (by the world) so that we can hear from God? Because we are desperate to be on His page. It's not about "opening the phone lines with Heaven," as some say. No. He's everywhere. He doesn't need a commo check. We don't do it so that we can pray for "Aunt Hilda's pet hamster's sore back" on some sort of man-made prayer list. No. We get up to hear from God so that we can "lift our souls to Him" as an offering and to "know the way wherein we should walk."

"I pray for those who love me enough to correct me."

2010-10-16T06:27:00.003-05:00

This is the attitude of David in Psalm 141. He said in verse 5 that those "righteous ones" who "reproved" me were like those who bathed me in "excellent oil."

Is that a fact? Did David really count those who were courageous enough to love him as their king, their friend, their brother as "righteous men with excellent oil?" Consider Nathan reproving--and even more than that--rebuking David when he was identifying David's sin with another man's wife. David's heart was "reprovable." That is, it was "correctible." And so, God used righteous men to melt his hard heart.

What about me? Am I gun-shy? Do I consider myself "beyond correction?" Do I know what it means to be correctable? Am I concerned with whether my heart is right enough to let somebody look into my life and evaluate?

If I desire to be like Jesus (and I do); if I think I need the power of the Holy Ghost to be like Jesus (and I do); if I think King David was a good example of walking in the power of the Holy Ghost (and I do); then, I need to take this admonishment from the life of David and yield myself to the cleansing influence of other "righteous men."

Book Review of Stan Toler's "Practical Guide to Pastoral Ministry"

2010-10-14T05:39:00.000-05:00

In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Course
Pastor Duties PLED 635

March 3, 2010

Summary

Stan Toler’s Practical Guide for Pastoral Ministry is a book containing 75 chapters dealing with a myriad of subjects beginning with “Characteristics of Great Pastors” and ending with “Staying on the Cutting Edge.”

Toler continually emphasizes the spiritual dimension of the pastor’s work which far supersedes his skills as a “professional minister” (Toler 2007, 16). Each second is precious. Even driving time is time to catch up on prayer times not to catch up on the latest tunes and musical interests (Ibid, 36). Listening to God is a major part of walking with Him and loving Him in ministry (Ibid, 57). Again, communing time with God must be vehemently guarded and jealously looked after if the man of God is to be mature (Ibid, 238). It is, no doubt, impossible to lead God’s people without following God. The minister is, after all, only an under-shepherd. Sometimes, hearing God is inconvenient from a human perspective (Ibid, 208), and meetings must be interrupted. Being “filled with the Spirit” is still the prerequisite for leadership selection anyways (Ibid, 248).

The pastor is a man of the Word. He is to have answers for inquiring minds regarding the flock (Ibid, 109). He is to know the mind of God as revealed in the Word of God.

The pastor is more than a sermonizer and student of the Word. He “goes in and out among God’s people” as David did (1 Samuel 17) and Solomon desired to do (1 Kings 1). He needs to be found around people—His people (Ibid, 64). He needs to often prioritize people ahead of tasks, befriend them, value them, inspire them (Ibid, 164), and celebrate them (Ibid, 166).

There is much to be said for delegation through this volume beginning with his desire to be able to stay in his areas of strength and delegating the rest (Ibid, 21). There are reasons the preacher has been gifted in different areas, and it is undeniable that nobody is gifted in every area. Endeavoring to fulfill every function will do nothing but wear the preacher out and bring an early demise to his otherwise profitable ministry (Ibid, 30). This delegation can be exercised on a corporate level as well: certain things can be voted upon—and should be voted upon (Ibid, 180). Whatever cannot be delegated can at least be prioritized. Maybe “everything must be done”, but not everything must be done today (Ibid, 227).

There is a great parallel in the minister’s spirit of sacrificial love that spawns in God’s love for him (John 3:16) and spills over at his home (Ephesians 5:25). A preacher’s home must be a bastion of love and respect (Ibid, 24). Time with family will not be found on accident. It is of utmost importance that the preacher jealously guards his time with family. The parishioners are always going to have needs, but they will rarely ask you if you’re rested (Ibid, 65). One should just let the technologies of today maintain a sort of cushion or barrier between the complainers, the naggers, the demanders, etc (Ibid, 71). Children are not going to remember all of dad’s “amazing sermons” anyway. They will remember dad’s time—dad’s sacrifice (Ibid, 69). Even more, they will remember whether dad enjoyed the ministry and loved God’s people (Ibid, 71). Children are also vast sources of wisdom and ought to be heeded—at least on a menial basis (Ibid, 96).

Beyond this, the spouse is perhaps not trained as the minister is, but she is nonetheless along for the journey of soul care, and must be treated as a partner in the ministry (Ibid, 86).

One’s private life is sacred. The pastor must be the same in both public and private. There must be a consistency and an integrity which will salve every bit of insecurity one might feel in being “found out” (Ibid, 60). This private life needs nurturing through retreat and get-away. These are essentials to keeping one’s bearings (Ibid, 205). Private time is desirable for things like betterment in study and clarity of the mind.

Personal skills are a major part of the developing preacher’s interpersonal skills. One of these skills is the ability to forgive and forebear others’ shortcomings with drawn out reconciliation (Ibid, 38). After all, there is no time to be bitter (Ibid, 39). Many deposits need to be made into peoples’ lives so that occasional imperfections and shortcomings are not ministry killers for the preacher (Ibid, 189). Moreover, getting people to overlook non-essentials in each others’ lives is a primary responsibility of a ministry leader. He does not lead alone and cannot afford to have strife among his staff—paid or volunteer (Ibid, 198). Conflict makes up a greater part of the trouble in any church—in the congregation or among the staff (Ibid, 209). Take care of the peace-taker, and you solve almost every type of trouble.

Other personal factors to consider when formulating first impressions are things like personal appearances. One need not be the king of fashion, but they should care exceedingly about representing their King (Ibid, 47). This representation can be is exercised through giving the King’s message with the King’s spirit at the King’s proper timing (Ibid, 149). This means the preacher is not always making himself the hero. He is willing to allow the other person to talk about themselves (Ibid, 104). This will allow the listener (the preacher) to have something wherewith he can bolster the confidence of the other person (Ibid, 105).

The first impression of the church’s properties and grounds are also significant as they cannot be divorced from the preacher’s own first impression from others’ perspective (Ibid, 123). First impressions are also invested in greeters and ushers. Training these valuable assets cannot be overestimated (Ibid, 128).

Critique

Toler speaks of not thinking about oneself, but rather always thinking about the other person’s benefit (Ibid, 20). This can certainly be appreciated in light of Philippians 2:4, but there is a balancing factor with 1 Corinthians 6:19-20. One cannot continue to give if they are never considering their own rest. Furthermore, there are reasons to believe that taking care of one’s family and future in a financial sense is worthy of the Proverbs’ comparison. While Toler does a good job of giving a good bit of admonishment in many of these considerations, he also makes some very general statements that can be bombastic if taken by themselves.

As a matter of fact, Toler goes into rest and relaxation for the minister to the extent that he says one should “ignore the flashing light on the answering machine” (Ibid, 65). Perhaps this would work in a movie, but if people cannot have some kind of feeling that they have ministerial watch-care within a reasonable time, then they will take it out of the offering later. There is nothing wrong with letting the answering machine screen the calls, but what about answering them after an hour or two? If you will be out of town for a few days, what about putting out the information for an assistant pastor or a deacon in case there is a need? No doubt, Toler would concede on these considerations, but why not be explicit about it here?

Then, there is this strange contrast between the ease of preaching and the relative tedium of rebuke (Ibid, 156). If the author of this paper understands 2 Timothy 4:2 correctly, rebuke is one of the components of good preaching. There is nothing, in light of this, easy about preaching. Preaching is taxing on a body without any regard to whether it is “exhortation” or “rebuke.”

There are a few examples of Toler’s belief that his experience speaks for the masses. For instance, he says people don’t learn by talking, but rather they learn by “listening, watching, or reading” (Ibid, 214). The pitiful thing is that one can be an extrovert and do most of their learning through talking. Some may call it banter, but some folks need to externalize their thoughts. They don’t hear anybody saying what they’re thinking and they want to know if what they’re thinking passes the test of common sense. Many of the times, when they hear themselves talk, they know immediately something will never work.

Having read this book through once and perusing it through an additional three times, the recommendation for this book as a reference work given its fantastic table of contents makes it a great option for aspiring ministers who are not exactly sure where to start. There are many assertions, few sources, and fewer allowances for varying opinions in the eyes of the reader. In any case, Toler has done his share of ministry and no doubt has a powerful walk with the Lord which comes out in his leadership philosophy and attitude regarding his family. It is refreshing to see someone who places a premium on loving his wife and children and performing ministry with them.

Application

I am grateful for more the challenge of partitioning my life. Each morning, I am confronted with saving parts of my existence for getting up/ready at 6:00 am, getting prayed/read up at 6:30 am, and getting my correspondence done at 7:00 am. At 6:50 am, my children are up and I am assisting them with getting ready (along with my dear wife who is usually making breakfast and lunches). I must also be faithful to keep my 8:00-9:00 pm time partitioned to my wife alone and 9:00-10:00 pm separated for college. If I allow any of these to be removed or changed, my life appears so partial. I will continue to exercise the discipline that I need in order to be a man of Godly discipline.

I will continue to apply myself in study each day. I want to be the man God has called me to be in the Word. I may not have everything figured out, but I want to go forth by the grace of God in my doctrine and practical theology. I will partition off 8:00-9:00 for hospital visitation and 9:00-12:00 for studying. I am a regular contributor to the writing of our “contemporary issues page” on our website and Toler’s admonition to write has me busy writing homework for our new member’s class and writing regularly for my blog. I desire to be a counselor and shepherd, yes. However, I desire to be a scholar and an expert in my field (for lack of a better term). How dare we stand to operate on men’s souls without clear contribution within the walls of solitude and study? May God be glorified in my life as I seek to submit to His leadership in this area!

The Gospel of John and the word "believe"

2010-10-12T09:09:00.001-05:00

I am reposting this to aid in learning with my Evan 101 class on "closing the deal" tonight at Berean (7:30pm in the Chapel).

Start Line (beginning of the road): John 1:12, at the beginning of the Gospel, says one is given power to become God's child by "believing on His name".

There are, then, examples of those who take Jesus' offer, and became "living children of God".

1. Nathanial: John 1:48-50

2. Nicodemus: John 3:1-15

Way Side (Get gas, get a meal): John 3:18

3. The woman at the well: She left her pot on the well and immediately witnessed to her townsfolk" (John 4:28-41)

4. The "Noble man": John 4:53

Way Side (the place where you use the bathroom and the place where you get snacks): John 6:47

5. Peter: 6:68--He tries to speak for everyone else, but we know he spoke for him. Was he saved here? He said that he fulfilled the conditions spelled out in 20:31.

6. Nocansee ("The blind guy" for you people that don't like "pidgeon"): John 9:35-39

Way Side: John 10:26-29 (only "sheep" are believers!)

7. Bethabara: 1:28; 10:42 Those who were with Jesus where John "first baptized"

8. Neighbors of Lazarus: John 11:45

9. Jewish leaders: John 12:42

Way Side: John 17:20

10. John (the author of this book): John 2:22; 20:8

11. Thomas (the doubter who eventually believed): John 20:27-29

Finish Line: John 20:31, near the end of the Gospel, says one has life through His name by "believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God".

A Review of MacArthur's "How to Shepherd Biblically".

2010-09-30T05:39:00.001-05:00

Summary

Pastoral Ministry: How to Shepherd Biblically is a book containing 22 chapters dealing with a myriad of subjects beginning with “Rediscovering Pastoral Ministry” and ending with “Frequently Asked Questions.” 12 amazingly apt teachers and scholars from Master’s Seminary have contributed to this comprehensive work.

MacArthur finds a way to make sure the most intrusive issues of everyday ministry find their way into this book. The fact that church is heavily commercialized makes it especially pragmatic in America. Since the manner of the flock determines the character of their shepherd (Ibid, 9), it behooves the shepherd to be pre-emptive in the way he guides his sheep. Now, this shepherding will be greatly hindered if the pastor dwells in his ivory tower seeking to be more scholar than shepherd (Ibid, 15). That is, if he does not “go in and out among the people” as David did (1 Samuel 18:17), he will end up being relatively discreditable. The greatest way to stay rich in time is to be content with simple ministry (Ibid, 41). This being said, there must be an understood distance between the people and their pastor so that he has time to give them God’s Word in relevant ways. If he is expected to attend every baby shower, birthday, and piano recital, he will have very little time to visit Heaven for his people (Ibid, 172).

When a pastor does spend time around his people, he must remember there is never a time when he is “off duty”, and the slightest misspoken word can ruin his ministry (Ibid, 20). The voice of the shepherd must be a sort of two-toned voice—one to warn sheep, and one to scare off the wolves (Ibid, 40). This is the only time there should be any “double tongue.”

There must be clear identification of the mission of the New Testament church in the mind of the people through the vision of their pastor (Ibid, 52). That is, they must know that their pastor knows they are “New Testament Christians” who desire relevance for their day.

Where can this relevance be seen? This relevance can be seen in the preacher’s home (Ibid, 70)—a place which can be a haven for a “supportive wife” (ibid, 302). If the pastor cannot make this life-changing truth evident in his home, then that preacher has given his sermonizing little more than novelty value. In other words, it “questions the integrity of his message” (Ibid, 71). This relevant truth which the pastor declares is also seen in his business dealings—both with those in the church and those without. The leadership of God’s people should vary from the leadership one finds in corporate America (Ibid, 74), and should mirror the Holy Ghost—the One who gifts certain of God’s people with such a calling and ability (Ibid, 229). This calling is an amazing testament of grace to lead through service (Ibid, 233).

Many of the frustrations of servant leadership is it is virtually impossible apart from a stalwart prayer life. It is like trying to sell vacuum cleaners when you as the salesmen have no carpets at home. The pastor needs Christ’s Spirit to portray Christ (Ibid, 131). Moreover, declaring the Word of God without having His Spirit mightily working within is a vast waste of time and energy (Ibid, 143). Prayer should never be the last resort anyway (Ibid, 146). This lack of good prioritizing only reflects an underestimating of the foe before us and the stakes above us (Ibid, 147). Commitment to prayer and the Word should be somewhat equal (Ibid, 148). Unfortunately, it is natural to overemphasize our strengths and pray they suffice for our weaknesses as well. Sometimes, being with God in prayer will reveal that we don’t have all of the answers to the passages with which we normally feel quite comfortable (Ibid, 170).

The good news is that this heightened responsibility comes with increased grace to meet the demand (Ibid, 73). Man should never take this responsibility unto himself. This is something which is confirmed by others, capable in the gifts, compelled from within, and characterized in the preacher’s life (Ibid, 81). And if all of these fail, one may necessarily pursue the ministry if he feels called from above (Ibid, 83). If one can possibly please himself pursuing any other calling, then he should avoid the pastorate at all costs (Ibid, 90).

Considerable time is spent speaking of “acceptable worship” (Ibid, 198), and the pastor’s role in worship leading. This is not something which should be handed off to the “assistant”. No, the flavor of each portion of the ministry belongs to the vision caster. Humiliation before Almighty God is the key to real worship leadership (Ibid, 202), and the pastor must resist the temptation to exalt himself before his people. He should concern himself with finding the right ladders for his organization to climb—mostly from His knees (Ibid, 241).

One should understand that words without example are hypocrisy (Ibid, 223). A pastor must live the Godly example for his people to follow. They must see the theory become practice. This practice is begun, first and foremost, with “self-mastery” (Ibid, 235). Many times, this is why people do not stay long within a particular church (Ibid, 238). Credibility takes much time to build and very little time to break down.

Perhaps one should point out that general ladders must be climbed such as “the work of an evangelist” (Ibid, 253), the prayerful selection of a leadership team (Ibid, 265), the care of people (Ibid, 267), the acknowledgement of God’s design in His work (Ibid, 272), and the protection of God’s flock (Ibid, 275).

Critique

Certainly, due diligence is given throughout this book to give gravity to those who weigh the issues of ministry, but one must wonder whether there is a “call” to this ministry? (Ibid, 21) I can certainly appreciate the idea of a man being led of God to the pastorate—especially in light of the seeming nitwits that today’s professional ministry has produced. However, one must wonder why there is such a lack of “called preachers” who will stay at their post. I wish MacArthur and his fellow writers would have explored this a little more. Why does the average stay of a pastor in a church seem to rise and fall over whether or not “God seems to be working here anymore?” Many times, pastors even seem to be using a smaller church to reach a bigger one with a little better “potential.” In other words, small churches are stepping stones.

A lot of stress was placed around “theological framework” in regards to one’s “training.” It was actually placed among the three “essentials” (Ibid, 92). One must be greatly cautioned against placing God in a “framework” or grid as revealed in the Scripture. Any paradoxes are to be seen in light of humility and consistent study to avoid being among those who “oppose themselves.” (2 Timothy 2:25). Perhaps this is why we read and study like the world is on fire. Still, when one feels like they can describe God in such a fashion, they become “reformed” or “Arminian.” What happened to becoming like Christ and being called, out of contempt…a “Christian?” This is almost silly in light of the labels we give ourselves with “pre”, “post”, “mid”, “a-“. The whole while, we sound like a bunch of seminarians…and the world is on fire.

Yet, another problem one might find throughout is the idea that “whatever is not expressly commanded in Scripture is forbidden when it comes to worship.” (Ibid, 195) One might wonder why the editor didn’t catch this blunder of a statement until they realize the editor wrote this particular chapter. Really? “Whatever is not expressly commanded?” Are we sure we desire to go down that road? The fact is, we have all kinds of things in our “worship” that are not “expressly commanded.” Name an instrument in the modern age. Name a mode of travel. Throw Power Point up there. How about microphones? Let’s be really careful about our “sola Scriptura” hyper-application. “If the KJV was good enough for the Apostle Paul…” may work in Appalachia, but it won’t wash with the average civilization. The Church of Christ go to seed by saying, "no instruments" in worship. God help us to be clear on this notion! MacArthur is too right for me on this one.

The fact that such expertise wrote their thoughts down with such a concerted effort brings the value of a critique from a student like myself to mere ramblings. I am fully aware of my lack of credentialing, but for the sake of a critique, I thought I needed to spot a few trouble spots in my reading. This book is an wonderful reference for any pastor and should be re-read and re-referenced. Even one who is sold out on the “free-will” idea could find solace in practical pastorship inside of this Calvinistic framework.

Application

I was challenged again and again to re-examine my calling to the ministry. Although this is not a normal issue or vehicle of doubt in my life, I am consistently fortified in my stance to always choose the way of the Master in my endeavors and priorities. The reason this book is such a great piece of work in many regards is because it causes the pastor to “pick sides” and be counted on the flippant pastorship or the business-attired side of the careerist. Wait a minute? Must one pick one of two extremes? Is it wingtips or flip-flops and nothing in between? Of course, most people feel like they personify “balance,” but that should not deter the individual’s objective of being both dignified and relevant.

The second greatest application which will find its way into my life this week is the insatiable desire to know the original languages. These are tremendously important in areas of ministry from teaching to life application to writing to counseling to preaching to Bible translation, and so on. This is not to say that, for instance, counseling and teaching are not life application. In many cases these areas overlap.

Lastly, I want to be motivated by love for my Master. If there is anything that appears to be clear from reading this book, it is the reality that its contributing authors love the Lord God. I am picturing a group of “stuffed shirts” wearing Wall Street’s finest garb sitting behind mahogany desks issuing royal edicts about what is right and about what ought to be shunned. The truth is—once I take a breath—I know these men have life-long experience in the ministry because they love Jesus. This carries over to their love for their family. Reciprocated, experienced love from Jesus and their family makes them life-long participants in feeding the Lord’s sheep. May God help me in these last times to be faithful as these men are proving faithful.

Eli and a glimpse of His Savior

2010-09-30T05:19:00.000-05:00

I cannot argue that Eli was a lowsy enforcer of the standard of God. God told Eli that his sons were a disgrace and a stumbling block for the ministry (1 Samuel 2:24). God told Eli that people didn't even like coming to church in all Israel because of his sons' unbridled debauchery (2:17). God told Eli that the reason it was so was because Eli loved his sons more than God (2:29). In other words, Eli failed in the ministry because he failed as a father.

Or to say it plainer, Eli was an unfaithful high priest because he was an unfaithful father. That is why Titus says a bishop should have children that are under control. A man whose children know no correcting hand of their father are children who will mock the correcting hand of God.

God promised Eli that there would be a "faithful priest" that would serve in His temple "forever" (2:35). My mind journeys to the book of Hebrews, 2:17 and 3:1-2 to be specific, and I find a "faithful High Priest" Who "lives forever to intercede" (Hebrews 7:25), and I praise the Lord that there is one who is greater than Eli. This Jesus does not fail in His fathering nurture in that He "brings many sons unto glory" and did so "through suffering" (Hebrews 2:10).

"Bless the Lord, ye His saints!"

Importance, Value, Emphasis in Marriage

2010-09-28T13:56:00.002-05:00

The importance of placing Christ central to a marriage

All believers are told to "put on Christ" so there will "be no provision for the flesh to fulfill its lust" (Romans 13:14). Wouldn't it be something if believers took the time to become Christ-minded? There would be less selfishness and strife (Philippians 2:3-5). That which would not be in this marriage is covered much by the idea of being Christ-centered.

The value of shared Christian service

We are encouraged time and again to become people who invest wisely. We are told to invest in Heavenly things. Nowhere are we told to act as though there are no investments to be made at all! We are simply told to re-appropriate our resources to the land of Heaven (Matthew 6:19-21). We need not act as though there are no prizes to be won. Simply, we are to remember our time on earth is but a fleeting shadow and we must use it wisely (Psalm 90:12).

Genesis 2 speaks of the woman being the help God has provided for the man and his work. Long before the fall, man was given work to do in the garden and the woman was given to him for companionship within his work. Her dependent reaction to this leadership, not the place of following itself, was a result of the fall. Therefore, serving the Lord together becomes a great ease when one realizes the family has one vision, one mission, and one goal. There is very little room for two heads on one body. Let the man lead as God has ordained in the service of the Lord, and let the lady be filled with the Spirit, and they will be a smooth-running unit.

Scriptural Emphasis

It is quite important to rest the counsel given to anybody upon Scripture. The man or woman of God only becomes thoroughly furnished by it (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Most counseling, by and large, magnifies selfishness and minimizes the sinfulness of man which is what leads to strife (James 4:1-3). If the counseling is not Scripturally-based, the couple will have a very difficult time synthesizing their experiences with all of the curriculum one has provided.

Marriage and Reliance Upon God's Word

2010-09-27T13:56:00.001-05:00

Ok. I am a “legalist” in the purest sense of the word. I will obey the law of God since it will help my marriage. God being my Helper, I will abide by my instructions. Therefore, the commands of Scripture are my minimum boundary in much of my Christian life. If I am not feeling very “holy”, I watch Scripture to see if I’m ok. This might seem shallow, but if anything it should show that I do believe the Bible is God’s Word.

There are some guidelines that I have endeavored to exercise when I am in conflict.

1. No day ends in conflict. Ephesians 4:26 tells me that my wife and I need resolution before we go to sleep. There will be those out there who don’t like the plainness of that interpretation and I’m open to others, but knowing you cannot get any rest until you and your wife have found resolution is mutual motivation for finding it.

2. If I am angry, I am probably not right. James 1:19-20 says that if I am quickly angered, I am probably not doing the will of God, and no “righteousness” can come of it. If I can stay calm, I am stronger than “one who takes a city” (Proverbs 16:32). Keeping oneself calm will keep him from running off from his property or running off with his mouth.

3. If I love my wife, I will cover (Pass-over) her sin. This is the essence of Proverbs 10:12. Now, I am fully aware that there is room for restoration. I am even more aware that this restoration should be expected. Furthermore, I am aware that confession and repentance are parts of the restoration process. There are, however, some things that can be overlooked. Circumstances will determine what these things are. Psalm 130:3 speaks plainly that we would never cease to confess sin if God counted everything we did which deserved a penalty. My Christ-like love and care should include “passing over” or “not marking” sin.

Summary I have found God's Word in my life to be a marriage-saver, an evening saver, a blood pressure saver.

Call when you don't think you need to call.

2010-09-26T20:33:00.000-05:00

Jeremiah 33:1-3 tells us of a man who was in prison. Jeremiah the prophet was told to ask God for a special insight.

"God ahead, Jeremy. Just say the word, and I'm going to show you something about this country's future". 1 Chronicles 12:32 describes a group of men who "understood the times to know what Israel should do". The truth is, sometimes we can't handle the truth...for if we were told the future in many instances, it would cause our ears to "tingle" (1 Samuel 3:11). May we have understanding of the times, made possible by a continual calling towards God....yes, even if we sit in prison..."Where men should praise the Lord for His goodness, and His wonderful works unto the children of men" (Psalm 107:8-10).

The Divine Design of the marriage relationship.

2010-09-25T13:53:00.000-05:00

1. God’s design for the marriage relationship is, first of all, one of man and woman (Genesis 2:22). This identifies their different labels which they have because they are in fact different. This leads me to believe they think differently and will act differently because they think differently (Proverbs 23:7).

2. The male/female relationship is a worker and helper relationship (Genesis 2:18). This identifies their different concentrations. Whereas man is to heed the calling or direction of God on his life, the woman is to support Him in this quest. There is one vision for a home. In Adam’s case, it was to dress the garden (Genesis 2:15). The idea of help “meet” does not paint the picture of oppression and suppression, but rather of pushup and pull-up. The wife is constantly pushing up her husband (Proverbs 31:23), and he is pulling her up to share in his level of prominence.

3. The male/female relationship is a leader and follower relationship (1 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Peter 3:1, 5). The “head” is a term which refers to “leader”. This does not mean that the wife doesn’t have an opinion. What it does mean is that the husband has a very serious leadership accountability with God, and the wife need not shoulder this burden.

4. The male/female relationship is a protector and admirer relationship (1 Peter 3:7). That is, the fragility and preciousness of the wife is that which ought to be absolutely captivating to the husband to the point where he gladly lays his life down (Ephesians 5:25). This means she is not trying to dominate him, and that there is no need for him to dominate her.

That being said...

The fall has, without a doubt, corrupted all of the aspects of this relationship.

1. The man and woman differences have been skewed in that men are sometimes confused about being male (1 Corinthians 6:9) and some women that are afraid of being female (1 Corinthians 11:13-15).

2. There is a propensity to rebel against being told what to do (Genesis 3:16). Of course, rebellion is prevalent in every arena, but especially in the one and only institution which pictures Christ as His church (Ephesians 5:25). This is in the best interest of the wicked one who seeks to take the glory from Christ (Ephesians 3:20-21).

Are "leaders" more desirable than "managers"?

2010-09-23T19:53:00.000-05:00

The issue is not which is more desirable, we must remember both are necessary. Some grow through the stage of "management" into "leadership". Some are created for "management", however, and they find perfect peaceful fulfillment in "management". It is a terrible mistake to take a "Philip" and seek to make a "Peter" out of him.

If you are a "big picture-type of visionary", you will be quite glad that you have detail-oriented "managers" below you. They are your "reality checkers". They are your "duration experts" when you have deadlines. They are your human resource facilitators when you have personnel expectations. They know what kind of trees are in the forest you are trying to clear off of the "field". The leader says, "I know that field needs to move". The manager says, "Yes, sir/maam. These are 'hickory' wood which will require x-number of chain saws with x-type of blades and x-number of trucks, skidders, and axmen. They will be able to clear this type of forest in x-number of days/weeks".

The leader then decides between several possible courses of action: 1. Clear the forest under discussion because we must absolutely have that field. 2. Find another field to clear. 3. Do nothing, and table the matter.

It is possible, you understand, that this leader was a good manager in this trade at one time or another, but this may not be so. A person who is a leader provides vision with direction (that is usually nothing more than left and right boundaries).

For your edification

Be optimistic about your marriage!

2010-09-18T01:50:00.001-05:00

Here are three basic assumptions that will keep you optimistic:

1. God wants your marriage to prosper more than you do. Jeremiah 29:11 says that God has good plans for us. It is inferred that He has better plans for us than we could have for ourselves.

2. God is working within both of your hearts the ability to change. Philippians 2:13 says "It is God Who works in you, both to will and to do His good pleasure."

3. God has created within both people a desire to "work things out" by creating within them a fear of failure. There is an element of fear that is appropriate when it comes to our Lord. Hebrews 10:31 says it is a "fearful thing to fall into the hands of the Living God." If you fear God, you will be especially aware of any betterment which you could bring to the situation.

What this really means is that God was thinking about your marriage a long time before you were. He is interested in the earthly picture of the marriage of His Son to the church to be a spotless picture.

Here are three disciplines for you to incorporate these assumptions:

1. Think about the right things (Philippians 4:6-8).

2. Concentrate on selfless love (1 Corinthians 13:1-8).

3. As you are aware of your faults, confess them to your spouse (James 5:16).

Number 1 will enable numbers 2 and 3. Number 2 will also better enable 3. Number 3 will keep one's life more transparent and there will be nothing to hide as Adam did in the garden. The fact that he covered himself with leaves demonstrated his understanding of assumption number 2.

How would I conduct this funeral?

2010-09-16T19:45:00.001-05:00

Which funeral? A fictional one. Tom (a fictional character), a young man who died in a drunken stupor while driving on the interstate and his family would like me to preach his funeral. Bear in mind that his family (fictional) only attends our church (fictional) once a month.

1. I think this question is a little premature for the real issue is “Would I conduct the funeral?” The first thing this lady would need to know is that I do not see any proof that Tom is in Heaven so there should be no expectation of my making assurances or promises to the congregation that this man who died a drunkard is there.

2. I would offer grief counseling to the mother who is no doubt struggling to make sense of all these things. She is probably doubting whether I will give her the time she has not earned as a part-time attender at our church. The fact is, she probably doesn’t tithe, but she is a part of the general populace that believes the preacher does funerals simply because “he’s the preacher, and sometimes I go to his church.” In either case, the dear lady needs to know she is not alone.

3. I would conduct the funeral by leading the family into the auditorium and taking a seat on the platform until it was time to begin. I would prefer to have the funeral at the funeral home and not at the church—simply because the man was not a part of God’s flock (at least publically), and I do not want the passing world to think that our church places our stamp of approval on a lifestyle that will keep a man out of church, in the gutter, in divorce court, and then somehow lands him on the streets of gold as we all sing “In the Sweet By and By.”

4. I would begin the funeral by standing and greeting the attenders. I would read the eulogy and introduce one of my favorite singers—my wife—who would sing a Gospel song and get people’s minds on spiritual things.

5. I would speak highly of his mother who “occasionally worships with us” and who “feels a great loss in the departure of her dear son.” I would then give a 15 minute Gospel message on the importance of making sure you are saved. I would give a 5 minute “after sermon” about leaving doubt in the minds of your loved ones that you were a person of faith. I would stress that being “a person of faith” means being a believer in Christ (Romans 5:1), and that this faith produces works (James 2:14-26).

6. I would have my wife sing another song and then we would begin the procession to the cemetery.

Socrates said it...

2010-09-07T20:06:00.001-05:00

"What you cannot enforce, do not command."

Now, I don't know if he was the only one who did, but I have often thought about this quote since the first time I heard it back in Prime Power School during 2004/2005 at Fort Belvoir, VA.

I often think about how this principle is lived out in things like:

1. General orders that General Officers never intend on enforcing. We had a "no hats on backwards" rule at the Post Exchange in Schofield Barracks, HI. Amazingly, I never saw a General officer correct this infraction. I never saw an MP enforce this rule either.

2. Homework: If you're not going to follow up on it, quit giving people a reason to mock authority! Stop giving it!

3. "Bobby, one more time, and I'm gonna whip you!" One more time, two more times, three more times.... Bobby finds a reason to question whether authority means anything.

4. "Everyone who works here will be at the _________ meeting". Someone blows off the leader's guidance. That someone is considered far too important to upset and push away from the organization so they are not held accountable. As a not-so-wise instructor once told me, "You get what you inspect, not what you expect".

5. A Madison, WI cop tells me that they will not stop anyone on the Beltway unless they are going 14 or more over the speed limit. Then, why have a speed limit? Why not have a 79 m.p.h. speed limit that you will enforce instead of a 65 m.p.h. limit that you will not enforce? Have you not been mocked lately?

Bottom line: We should see these silly excuses for guidance (legislation) as bumps on the road leading away from the "Amazing Vacuum of Retardation" to a land of better days that find us with 10 rules to govern our moral decisions and a minimal government that preserves our "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

People who "went out from the presence of the Lord"

2010-09-07T10:40:00.000-05:00

When one considers Psalm 91:1, being away from His presence is most frightening.

"Then Cain went out from the presence of the LORD" (Genesis 4:16)

"So Satan went out from the presence of the LORD" (Job 2:7)

"But Jonah arose to flee from Tarshish from the presence of the LORD" (Jonah 1:3)

"Come out from among them, and be ye salty"

2010-09-07T07:17:00.000-05:00

I was troubled with the 2 Corinthians 6:17 thought of "being separate" mingled with the Matthew 5:13 thought of being "salt of the earth".

Certainly salt does not have its worth from being in the shaker. So how can we be effective "salt" (kinda redundant) if we are separated from that which we are to savor?

Context, context, context, and context: Adam Clarke reminds us to check the context when he speaks of these Corinthians wanting to worship two Gods... the God Whom we serve and His Christ or "Belial". Bottom line: This verse is teaching to hate idolatry.

So, be very careful how you apply 2 Corinthians 6:17. If you're uncomfortable about something...fine. Say so. Make it plain that you are staying away from this or that until you have peace that it is ok (Romans 14:33), but don't make your conviction a litmus test for Godliness by assigning a verse to it that means nothing more than staying separate from idolatry.

A person asked me about their "Director of Discipleship..."

2010-08-31T19:17:00.000-05:00

If he comes clean after an illicit relationship, should be retained?

1. First of all, if a Discipleship director is engaged in immoral relationships, he should be fired on the spot. There should be no opportunity to maintain his job. It would be very difficult to say that this man, as an overseer (“elder”) is still “blameless” in accords with Titus 1:5-6. If one says, “He is not an overseer, he is a director,” then this person should answer the question of whether one must “fill an officially paid position of ‘elder’ or ‘pastor’ or ‘bishop’ as so designated within the constitution” for him to be held to those standards. Surely, the function is as significant as the title in some regards—paid or unpaid—official “elder” by name or not.

2. This being the case, one should follow the Biblical mandate on approaching and accusing an “elder” with extreme caution in accordance with 1 Timothy 5:19. After he is accused, and seen to be found guilty by an in-church inquiry in accordance with 1 Corinthians 6:4, then he must certainly be removed from his position.

3. Assuming the “director”—being an “elder” is a man in accordance with 1 Timothy 2:12—is guilty of said allegations, he should find adequate room to be restored as a brother in Christ and man of the church in accordance with Galatians 6:1-2. Should he repent, and make things right with the church, he should be immediately forgiven by the church body in accordance with 2 Corinthians 2:7-8.

4. This, of course, does not mean that this man is all of the sudden qualified to be an elder once again. A man that is forgiven is not deemed “consistent” or “blameless” in his walk. Especially in the case of immorality, the man should be given very loving and forthright admonition to nurture the wife God has given him (1 Thessalonians 4:4-7). He needs to spend his time in some avenue of providing for his family other than through the ministry of leading God’s flock.

5. If the man is unrepentant, not only should he be removed from his position, but he should also be removed as a member of the church in accordance with Matthew 18:17, and he should be treated as though he were an unsaved man. The purpose of such treatment is so that the man may make sure of his salvation (1 Corinthians 5:5). How would the man feel the need to “make his calling and election sure?” (2 Peter 1:10) He would do so by recognizing God’s judgment in his life (1 Corinthians 5:13), and experiencing a foretaste of what existence would be like outside of the community of Light (Colossians 1:12-13). This experience would hopefully shake him into an awesome reality of what eternity would be like outside of the city of God (Revelation 21:27).

Primary Pastoral Duty

2010-08-28T16:23:00.000-05:00

Preaching is the primary task of the preacher.

We find that Paul said “preaching” was what revealed the Word of God (Titus 1:3), yet we find that “teacher” is the co-noun of the word “pastor” in Ephesians 4:12. Therefore, if we are talking about “declarative teaching”, then I can say that it is “the primary task of the preacher.”

What is the pastor to be teaching in the midst of his declaration? Acts 20:20 says the Apostle preached those things which were profitable to his congregation. What were these things? These things were “the whole counsel of God” (20:27). Where does one find this counsel of God? The counsel of God is to be found in the “Word of the Lord” (19:10). For two years the apostle Paul preached the Word of the Lord—the “whole” “Word of the Lord” (20:27). Let us not think for even a moment that our task is to do anything but pray for enlightenment, and then preach with power (Acts 6:4) the “unsearchable judgments” (Romans 11:33) and “unsearchable riches” (Ephesians 3:8) of Christ.

Even Spurgeon, on page 28, understood what it was to identify with Jeremiah’s “bones of fire” which kept prodding him to preach the Words of God (Jeremiah 20:9).

Spurgeon, Charles. 1954. Lectures to my students. Grand Rapids, Mi: Zondervan.

The Wedding Ceremony

2010-08-23T19:18:00.000-05:00

When one considers the amazingly symbolic nature of the wedding ceremony, it should come as no surprise that it is both elating and demanding to be a part of such an amazing showcase of God’s goodness in the lives of two people (Criswell 1980, 283).

Process (Planning) of the Ceremony

Counseling

If the marriage ceremony is to be a “sneak-peek” of what the marriage is to look like, then the pastor better spend some time speaking with the group more than just before the wedding (Criswell 1980, 283). Criswell has left quite a legacy for Jesus Christ, but there does appear to be quite a difference of approach to marriage counseling. Even more troubling than marrying someone 24 hours after you counsel them is the idea that you marry everyone so long as you get a chance to witness to them. Little was said about turning anyone away who wished to be married. That said, Criswell did a good job of giving the reader five habits to instill in the soon married couple (Criswell 1980, 284).

Emphasis

Everything in the ceremony ought to be Christian in nature (Criswell 1980, 284). After all, only Christians should have a marriage ceremony (in a perfect world where all are cognizant of the purpose of marriage). If Christians are having ungodly music or strange, irrelevant practices going on, the distinctiveness of their ceremony is lost altogether.

Format of the Ceremony

The ceremony begins with lighting the candles and seating the mothers (Criswell 1980, 284). Then, the wedding march begins with the pastor taking his place and the groomsmen following close behind; after which the bridesmaids and then the bride (Criswell 1980, 285).

The Significance of Love

At this point the father gives his daughter away to the groom and joins their hands together while the pastor makes some introductory remarks about the significance of love (Criswell 1980, 285). After this, the pastor makes a transition from the significance of love.

The Significance of the Meeting

There are some words said about “Why are we here?” (Criswell 1980, 286) Here the pastor calls the congregation to witness the giving of the vows. He speaks of the significance of ‘white” and the significance of the wedding party and the ceremony.

The Significance of Marriage

The pastor now says some words from the view of the first wedding officiator: God (Criswell 1980, 287). The “eternality of God” should be contrasted with the temporalness of human institutions ordained by the eternal God. Stress should be placed here that the marriage partner is to the usher his/her spouse into the presence of God.

The Exchange of the Vows

At this point, the pastor makes a smooth transition into the vows (Criswell 1980, 289). These vows should be creative and as spiritually significant as possible—mirroring the eternality of Christ’s love for His church. These vows are accompanied with rings (Criswell 1980, 290).

Benediction and Pronouncement

The pastor then acknowledges the vows of the couple, prays over them pronouncing blessing on them as they follow the Lord together in their respective roles pronouncing them as “Mr. and Mrs. _______.”

Conclusion

After seeing both the thrilling value of the ceremony and the gravity of what is really taking place, the reader should feel now more than before the weighty responsibility of doing things “decently and in order.”

References
Criswell, W.A. 1980. Criswell’s guidebook for pastors. Nashville, TN: Broadman Press.

How much should a pastor study?

2010-08-19T04:23:00.000-05:00

"How many hours should a pastor spend per week on sermon preparation? Why?"< /b>

1. The Solemnity of the Call: I don't know how many, but it should be more time than we spend doing anything else (with the exception, perhaps, of sleeping). How can we be involved with such holy work, and not fit ourselves for our most solemn duties (Spurgeon 1954, 18)? We are a worthless craftsman if we cannot first discover the material out of which we should craft the message of the hour. If this is such a Heavenly work, then a man should give his life to it weekly. That is, if he could, he would give his life afresh to the work each week-for this work is not fit for the faint-hearted (Ibid, 22). That gravity alone should move one to devote himself intently as if his life consisted of knowing the God of the Bible and making Him known. The preacher should not feel pushed to such a thing more than he should feel driven from within-as if lit a fire from God's altar (Ibid, 26).

2. The Need for Answers: With Paul's direction to Timothy to be "diligent to be approved workmen of the Word" (2 Timothy 2:15), one can understand why the flock would come to the shepherd for answers to their questions such as "What Does the Bible Say…[about pretty much anything]?" (Toler 2007, 109) Ours is not a trade that affords the workmen the luxury of saying, "I don't know". Haphazard ignorance, mixed with a lack of urgency, is the vice of the workman. If for no other reason, pretense seems permissible. The study is a monument to the preacher's faith in God's Word (Ibid, 179). How much? Long enough to get answers.

So, how does a pastor guard his study time to make sure the sheep get fed?

I have recently had to draw boundaries in every area of life to include allowing texting and voicemail to screen my calls during certain times. If it is an emergency, there will be a text or a message left. Time has to be set aside for personal devotions in the morning (just like every other church member/attender) and correspondence with people within the church pertaining to matters of both spiritual and administrative significance must also occur at a guarded time. Family time must also be guarded (like it is for every other church member/attender).

But there must be a time when the "workman of the Word" can stay in his study, pour through resources, and prayerfully seek the mind of God.

References

Spurgeon, Charles. 1954. Lectures to my students. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Toller, Stan. 2007. Stan Toler's practical guide to pastoral ministry. Indianapolis, IN: Wesleyan Publishing House.

"Leave them alone" versus "rebuke them sharply"

2010-08-17T21:08:00.005-05:00

In Chapel Class, we learned that Christ said to leave the "wicked tares" alone within the Kingdom of Heaven until the harvest (Matthew 13). A question comes about: "What gives us the right, then, to tell someone at Berean Baptist Church that they are no longer welcomed in our fellowship if the counsel of Christ is to leave the phonies alone?"

Good question, but the wrong question. Let us remember, first of all, that there is an apparently other side and it is spelled out in Romans 16 as "mark them who teach other doctrines and avoid them" and Titus 1::13 and 3:10 (just to name a few).

Let us also remember the what the Kingdom of Heaven (or Kingdom of God) is: It is the entity that is made up of all born-again believers (John 3:3; Colossians 1:13) headquartered in Heaven (Ephesians 2:6) and coming to earth in it's full substance one day (Matthew 6:9 and 2 Timothy 4:1).

Thirdly, let us be mindful that the guidance of church discipline in the Scriptures already given (as well as Matthew 18; 1 Corinthians 5) is just that...a local body, led by it's under-shepherd(s), keeping herself pure from wickedness, division, and heretical teaching.

So, on a governmental level, it is not yet time to "weed out" the "tares." At a church level, keep the body pure.

John Calvin's commentary on Matthew 13's "wheat and tares" parable speaks poorly of our Anabaptist forefathers (those of us who rightly believe in "believers' baptism"). His contention was that the church should still have the power of the "sword" spoken of in Romans 13 whereas Baptistic groups have always strongly held to a separation of the institutions of church and state in regards to their governing. He was wrong on this. I suppose everybody's wrong some of the time (I speak from experience. I tend to be wrong with regularity). By the way, he did exercise this "sword" on the anabaptists.

So, quit trying to get rid of all the fakes, phonies, and "evil doers" as if your "kingdom" is down here right now. Jesus was very clear, His kingdom was not of this age (John 18). So leave the tares alone until the end. That's what Jesus the King says.

However, Jesus the Head of the Church says, "Keep my body pure, and cast the leaven out" (1 Corinthians 5).

What do "Noah's Commission" and the Great Commission have in common?

2010-08-16T09:03:00.000-05:00

Genesis 9:1 commands Noah and his descendants (of which you are one) to fill the earth.

Acts 1:8 commands the disciples and their spiritual descendants (of which you saved folks are some) to reach each of these descendants of Noah.

Remember

It took a tower of Babel to confuse the people and scatter them (Genesis 11:1-8).

It took persecution to get the believers of Jerusalem to scatter to the "regions beyond" (Acts 8:1-8).

What did Paul do about discipling?

2010-08-15T00:35:00.000-05:00

“Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you.” (Philippians 4:9)

What is apparent about Brother Paul is that he is terribly consistent and that his preaching is inseparable from his lifestyle. He didn’t know what it was to have a “walking” message, and then to have a “talking” message.

The book of Philippians was written approximately 10 years after the founding the church in Acts 16, and Paul was obviously involved with teaching as is obvious with his reminding them of their “learning and receiving.”

Let it also be said, however, that there was some observation of the lifestyle of Paul to pair up with his speaking and teaching. The first two verbs refer to “Paul’s own teaching; the second two his personal example”. 2 Timothy 2:2 is clear with Timothy’s observation—hearing “of Paul among many witnesses” could mean either that he heard from Paul personally “among many witnesses” or that he heard from Paul, 2nd hand, “through many witnesses”. It really depends on how one takes the little word “of”. What is not up for debate is that Paul had a reputation “among many witnesses”.

So it was among the Philippians “heard” and “saw” things concerning Paul either first hand or second hand as 3rd person disciples watching the work get done. This idea of having traveling “understudies” was not abnormal as seen in Acts 17:10 and 20:4. Paul used these men, in part, to pastor the churches he labored to plant as is the case with Timothy and Titus (1 Timothy 1:3; Titus 1:5).

Much can be said about the practice of ministry today-beginning with the setting out of disciples in two’s beginning in Matthew 10 and continuing through Acts. If, however, people follow the example of Jesus, His expectation was for His disciples to be preachers as well (Mark 16:15). Therefore, if we are to take discipling as seriously as Paul, then the expectation for all believers should be to become zealous disciples discipling others.

Maxie D. Dunnam, The Communicator’s Commentary: Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon (Waco: Word Books Publisher, 1982), 316.

Archibald M. Hunter, The Layman’s Bible Commentary: Volume 22 (Richmond: John Knox Press, 1968), 107.

The Pastor's Prayer Life

2010-08-13T16:22:00.000-05:00

Although Spurgeon says we ought to guard against “praying as ministers” (Spurgeon's "Lectures to My Students" 1954, 15), I am not sure that is a valid expectation. It is the gravity of the office that causes me to pray the way I do. If I am to “faint not” in this “ministry” (2 Corinthians 4:1), then I must “pray as a minister.” Perhaps I misunderstand the venerated preacher. Would I pray this way if I wasn’t placed into such a capacity? Probably not, then again, I would that “all God’s people were prophets” (Numbers 11:29).

I spend excess amounts of time going through my “Facebook” friends, cellphone contacts, and email contacts just in case God spurs prayers in my mind (Jude 20). I want to be very careful to be sensitive to the One Who will enable me to “always pray” (Luke 18:1). I do not have this “down”; I am just trying to be creative in how to live a lifestyle of prayer so that the “uppermost [in my] heart [will be] uppermost in my supplication” (Ibid, 67)

I do agree, though, with Spurgeon that people in the pew will be lax in their prayer lives if the one in the pulpit is lax in his personal devotions (Ibid, 43). Let there be no doubt that “mist in the pulpit is fog in the pew”. This doesn’t just apply to the content of the sermons. It also applies to the sense of purpose being portrayed by the pastor in the area of Christian disciplines. Moreover, “prevailing with God for men” is of utmost importance for any “minister of reconciliation” who seeks to preach in “Christ’s stead be reconciled to God” (2 Corinthians 5:17-20).

Do I have this conviction…this discipline?

Who picks the Pastor?

2010-08-11T16:11:00.001-05:00

In Scripture, there are no clear cut procedures for ordaining ministers of the Gospel to the ministry.

What is clear is that deacons are to be chosen by the people from among the people (Acts 6:3).

Pastors on the other hand, appear to be chosen by the minister from among the people (1 Timothy 3:1; Titus 1:5). In other words, some of these standards appear to be inadequately judged from subjective perspectives. In other words, there should be a measure of recognition of such gifts in the eyes of others (1 Timothy 4:14).

I could say I met the qualifications in 1 Timothy 3, but this is pointless without the confirmation of those who must accept me as their shepherd.