Last Week's Highlights

I am starting a new post that I will attempt to do every Monday, time permitting. I will highlight some of the blog posts that have caught my eye the previous week ranging from the previous Monday to Sunday.

 

So here goes:

 

Highlights

 

• Phil Johnson from PyroManiac showed us last week that he is actually a sensitive person when his heart almost bursting out of his chest with pride for his son.
• Steve at Triablogue gave an excellent second review on the Revenge of the Sith, the sixth movie made by George Lucas in the Star Wars double trilogy.
• Al Mohler highlighted for us what a person (former US president Jimmy Carter) claiming to be a Christian looks like when his worldview is not based on Biblical principles.
• James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries continued his review on The Da Vinci Code.
• Jonathan Moorhead of From the Head of the Moor gave an interesting quote that reminds us that it is bad manners and bad method to ignore what the church fathers have said on the Bible.
• At Answers in Genesis we met the facilities manager of the AIG museum.
• Fred Butler from Hip and Thigh tackled the famous (or infamous) David Cloud of KJV Only fame who is also a committed Calvinism hater.
• It seems that Kevin Jones, The Reluctant Puritan, is concerned with mega-churches that are becoming multi-sight or multi-venue churches.
• Tim Challies posted an excellent guide for personal worship.
• Dave Ulrick, The (In)Scrutable Observer also got on the bandwagon of the spiritual gifts for today (or not!).
• Marco Gonzalez from Reformation Theology started a series on the Gospel of Prosperity. I'd like to see how this unfolds.
• Daniel Phillips of Biblical Christianity gave an interesting review of John Piper's book, God is the Gospel.

Enjoy your blogging or bleading (new word coined by me: blog reading, hence bleading or to blead). So, now you must all start using this so we can get it into some dictionary, Ok!

 

Just thinking...

Be Filled with the Spirit

In the whole debate on cessationism that is currently keeping bloggers busy in the existence of blogdom I thought that I'd point you to a sermon that John Piper preached on Eph 5:18.

 

The apostle Paul commands in Ephesians 5:18 that we be filled with the Spirit. Therefore, I want to try to answer two questions today. What does it mean to be filled with the Spirit? And, How can we be filled with the Spirit? I think it might help you follow me if I tell you at the outset where I am going. So I'll start with my conclusions and then give the Biblical support. I think being filled with the Spirit means basically having great joy in God. And since the Bible teaches that "the joy of the Lord is our strength" (Nehemiah 8:10), it also means there will be power in this joy for overcoming besetting sins and for boldness in witness. But basically it means radiant joy because the Spirit who fills us is the Spirit of joy that flows between God the Father and God the Son because of the delight they have in each other. Therefore, to be filled with the Spirit means to be caught into the joy that flows among the Holy Trinity and to love God the Father and God the Son with the very love with which they love each other. And then, in answer to the second question, the way to be filled with the Spirit is by trusting that the God of hope really reigns—that not a sparrow falls to the ground apart from His will (Matthew 10:29)—and that He runs the world for you and for all who trust His word. In believing that, you will be filled with the Holy Spirit and with joy.

 

With the spread of Pentecostalism in this country and in the third world there has been a lot of discussion about the New Testament phrases "filled with the Spirit" and "baptized with the Spirit." I feel some obligation therefore today not merely to interpret Ephesians 5:18 in its immediate context but also to orient what I say in the wider New Testament teaching.

 

Continue reading Piper's sermon called Be Filled with the Spirit.

 

Just thinking...

 

South Africa is burning!

It amazes me that when people in this country do not get their way, they have to resort to violence and riots!

 

Over a period of 2 months, train commuters have caused 100s of millions of South African Rands ($1 = R6.67) worth of damage to train coaches.

 

Just two days ago commuters, who were upset about trains running late, torched 28 coaches (R200 million worth of damage) fuelled on by their barbarism. I am sorry, but when a train is running late, you deal with it like a civilized adult, not like the spoilt brat of a barbarian from some pre-historic age. There was a lot of burning of anything that moved before the first "democratic" elections in 1994 in what was known as the "apartheid" era. Here is a newsflash! NOTHING has changed!

 

Selwyn Duke at NewsWithViews wrote an article called SHOOT RIOTERS ON SIGHT. I am starting to think that it is a good answer to rioting here in South Africa. It just seems to me that our government is incapable of handling situations like this. On the other hand, without sounding conspiratorial, I don't think our government wants to do anything against it since 99% of these people make up their voters base.

 

When a people cannot rule themselves from within, they will have to be ruled from without. What is the other alternative?... Anarchy! When a people cannot rule themselves from within, they open themselves to the rule of tyrants. More than once in the history of the world, the only way to deal with anarchy was to rule with the iron fist of a tyrant.

 

When a nation turns its back on Christianity, which is so well suited for being ruled from the inside by an ever present God, then the people will no longer be able to base their choices in life on what is objectively right and wrong. When what is wrong today becomes the right of tomorrow, the people will become rule-less in themselves and their choices will abundantly portray that in their actions.

 

Will the people choose the iron fist of a tyrant or will they rather live under the hand of God? It seems to me that this people do not know, since there categories of right and wrong are baseless in this postmodern era of shifting moral sands!

 

Just thinking...

 

Should we shoot rioters on sight?

Before I read the article I am pointing you to today, I thought that shooting rioters on sight would not be the democratic way of the west. After I read the article I now agree with its premise.

 

---

As riots spread throughout France like wildfires left unattended by those afraid to use water, a sane person has to be struck by the impotence of modern Western governments. Whether it's Moslem enclaves in France, New Orleans in the wake of Katrina, or South Central Los Angeles after the Rodney King verdict, it seems that the new paradigm involves letting wicked flames burn themselves out, only doused at times by the innocent blood of victims who, in a most shameful abdication of governmental duty, are left to twist in the wind by the Neros who masquerade as statesmen.

 

As to the unrest in France, I have read headlines stating that the authorities "can't" stop the violence. "Can't" is an interesting choice of a word. A better one would be "won't." Because, I assure you, I could have stopped the riots on the first day.

 

The solution: shoot rioters on sight. [Continue reading SHOOT RIOTERS ON SIGHT.]

---

 

What do you think?

 

Just thinking...

 

God is the gospel

Daniel Phillips wrote a review on John Piper's book and said a lot of stuff. Are these comments valid, or are they simply opinion?  Ok, all reviews are simply opinion! Yet, can Piper learn something from this review?

 

I haven't read the book, so I would like to know from others what they thought of the book.

 

Any takers?

 

Just thinking...

 

Personal Prophecies: A means by which we can fight the good fight?

This post comes as a kind of follow up of the post called Hearing God and Moving in the Prophetic: A critique. It seems that the issue of cessationism vs. non-cessationism is a hot topic these days in blogdom. Discussions on this issue can be found at PyroManiac, The (In)Scrutable Observer and at Biblical Christianity.

 

Text: "18 This command I entrust to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them you fight the good fight, 19 keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith. 20 Among these are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan, so that they will be taught not to blaspheme." 1 Tim 1:18-20 (NASB)

 

The statement was made in a sermon a short while ago that prophecy is a weapon of spiritual warfare, using 1 Tim 1:18-20. Adding 1 Tim 6:12, "12 Fight the good fight of faith; take hold of the eternal life to which you were called, and you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses (NASB)," it was said that "we are enforcing the victory of the cross." Further, based on Rom 10:17, "17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ (NASB)," we were told that the "prophetic word brings about faith." What a misinterpretation of the verse!

 

Are we to get prophecies or words from God and fight our fight of faith by relying on them? Are we in trouble if we do not "fight the good fight" through the "prophecies" we have been given? Do we keep our faith and conscience by depending on these "prophecies?" If we do not, will we also suffer shipwreck with regard to our faith? Is this really what Paul meant when he wrote these words to Timothy?

 

No doubt, 1 Tim 4:14, "Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through a prophetic message when the body of elders laid their hands on you (NIV)," refers to the same event as 1 Tim 1:18. Wuest quotes Vincent, "The sense of the whole passage is: 'I commit this charge unto thee in accordance with prophetic intimations which I formerly received concerning thee.' According to I Timothy 4:14, prophecy has previously designated Timothy as the recipient of a special spiritual gift; and the prophecies in our passage are the single expressions or detailed contents of the prophecy mentioned here." [1]

 

These "prophecies," when seen in the light of 1 Tim 4:14, "must be understood in the sense of predictions in some way granted to Paul concerning Timothy before his call to the ministry. It may be parallel to those given to the Antiochene church regarding the missionary vocation of Paul and Barnabas." [2] These prophecies "seem to have been prophetic utterances that pointed Timothy's way into the ministry." [3]

 

If we want to know what the prophecies concerning Timothy were (1 Tim 1:18; 1 Tim 4:14) and what the gift was that was given to him (1 Tim 4:14), then we need to understand who Timothy was and how he fit in the church where Paul left him.

 

Timothy, a native of Lystra, had a Greek father and a Jewish Christian mother (Ac 16:1). Paul invited Timothy to join him on his second missionary journey. Timothy also  participated in the evangelisation of Macedonia and Achaia (Ac 17:14-15; 18:5) and was with Paul during his long stay in Ephesus (Ac 19:22). From there he travelled with Paul through Macedonia to Corinth and back to Macedonia and then to Asia Minor (Ac 20:1-6). He may even have gone as far as Jerusalem and was with Paul during his first imprisonment (Phil 1:1; Col 1:1; Philem 1). After Paul's release (Ac 28), Timothy travelled with Paul but finally stayed at Ephesus to deal with problems there. Paul had a high regard for Timothy since he mentioned Timothy as co-correspondent of six of his letters (2 Corinthians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, Philemon).

 

It was during his fourth missionary journey that Paul wrote his first letter to Timothy while Timothy was at Ephesus. It was in this letter (1:3) that Paul instructed Timothy to stay on at Ephesus to take care of the church at Ephesus. Timothy was not an apostle, and neither was he an overseer ("elder" or "pastor") since he was given instructions concerning overseers (3:1-7) and how to choose them. It may be safe to say that Timothy was an apostolic representative--in this case Paul's--entrusted to carry out distinctive work. Timothy basically had to perform two major tasks: refute false teaching (1:3, 10; 4:6; 6:3, 20-21) and organise the church in Ephesus (church worship--2:1-15; appointing qualified leaders in the church--3:1-13; 5:17-25; prohibitions on women in ministry--2:9-15).

 

Now, returning to "the prophecies previously made concerning" Timothy (1 Tim 1:18), in the context of who Timothy was and his place in the church we can conclude that these "prophecies" very likely concerned his ministry in the church, especially in Ephesus. Also, considering 1 Tim 4:14, writing of "the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed on you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery (NASB)," it would seem that these "prophecies" and the subsequent gift bestowed on Timothy were related specifically to his ministry. The fact that the presbytery laid hands on him seems to point towards his ordination into the ministry. We see this same type of ordination when Paul and Barnabas were sent off by the church onto their missionary journeys in Ac 13:3, "3Then, when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. (NASB)"

 

Why would Paul remind Timothy of the prophecies concerning him and that he must remain mindful of them to strengthen him in his ministry? Timothy was not the confident person many of us today would claim to be! Paul had to remind and encourage Timothy not to let anyone look down on his youthfulness (1 Tim 4:12). Further, in 1 Cor 16:10-11 Paul writes to the Corinthians that if "Timothy comes, see to it that he has nothing to fear while he is with you, for he is carrying on the work of the Lord, just as I am. 11 No one, then, should refuse to accept him. Send him on his way in peace so that he may return to me. (NIV)" Paul also characterised Timothy as timid (2 Tim 1:7). Paul furthermore had to encourage Timothy not to neglect the spiritual gift he had received (1 Tim 4:14), and not to be ashamed of the gospel but to speak out for the sake of the gospel (2 Tim 1:8). Timothy was specially ordained by Paul and the presbytery for the ministry described in 1 and 2 Timothy, and for the reason of his timidity, Paul had to encourage Timothy by reminding him of his ordination by the laying on of hands and the prophecies spoken concerning his ministry.

 

The question now remains, do we in the church today need to hear prophecies and to fight the good fight by using these prophecies? If we are prophesied over and do not fight the good fight by them, will we suffer shipwreck? We have to remember, that just because Paul told Timothy to do so, especially in light of the special circumstances, does not mean that we need prophecies to fight the good fight! The only other times that Paul used the language of fighting the good fight (admittedly, in 1 Tim 1:18 it literally means "war the good warfare"), Paul expressly meant for Timothy to fight the good fight of the gospel (1 Tim 6:12; 2 Tim 4:7). In both cases when Paul used this language, he meant that he remained true to the gospel.

 

These were special circumstances, in that Paul was an apostle and most likely was the one that prophesied over Timothy. This makes our own situation different from that of Timothy. The main differentiating point is that there are no apostles that can prophesy over us today. This makes Timothy's situation unique and points to the fact that we cannot claim like Timothy that we have similar prophecies to fight the good fight.

 

Thus, prophecy is not a weapon in spiritual warfare. Neither is prophecy some "skip start and collect $200" type of fast track in our spiritual walk with God. The only trusted weapon in spiritual warfare is the Word of God, the Bible, and the faithful preaching of the gospel.

End Notes

 

[1] Wuest, Kenneth S., Wuest’s Word Studies From the Greek New Testament for the English Reader, Volume Two, The Pastoral Epistles, Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI, Reprinted, January 1979, p37.

 

[2] Guthrie, Donald, The Pastoral Epistles, Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester, England, Reprinted 1979, p67.

 

[3] Gaebelein, Frank E., General Editor, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 1 Timothy by Ralph Earle, Regency Reference Library, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1978, p356.

 

Just thinking...

 

Countries of Particular Concern

The US State Department has just released a report in which they have named their Countries of Particular Concern (CPCs).

 

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in Washington Tuesday, said, "These are countries where governments have engaged in or tolerated particularly severe violations of religious freedom over the past year. We are committed to seeking improvements in each of these countries."

 

These CPCs are Burma, China, North Korea, Eritrea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Vietnam.

 

Under 1998 legislation, this designation of religious freedom violators provides the US government with punitive steps against CPCs. Apparently, most of these countries are already targeted by pre-existing US sanctions.

 

What bothers me the most about all this is that although Saudi Arabia is on this list, measures against them were waived for 6 months about 2 months ago. I would really like to know why? Then there is China, who became a preferred trading partner under the infamous Clinton.

 

I would really like to know how they are going to handle this? It is easy for the US to take "punitive" steps against the smaller countries that have next to no impact on American economics, but what will they do with the bigger countries. Will they do something against countries that stand no chance against the American juggernaut and leave the big countries alone to carry on with their human rights violations, or will they do what is right instead of what is convenient?

 

Look, I love the US and I lived there for two years (1999-2000)--loving evry minute of it! So, what I am saying is not to dig at someone I despise. I am concerned that the American government will lose their moral compass in favour of economic expediency.

 

I know that here in South Africa our government has lost their moral compass. They no longer know the difference between right and wrong. In fact, I do not know if they know what is right at all! China is definitely one of South Africa's preferred trading partners and in fact will do nothing about that since the communistic Chinese government gave the ANC a lot of help in their struggle for freedom and "democracy." The ANC's stance is that they will not turn their back against their former partners in the struggle. No matter that these "partners" are also involved in gross human rights violations.

 

Will the US government, and indeed my own government here in South Africa have the moral "guts" to do anything at all with regard to these violations against humanity? I think not!

 

Will governments stand for justice or will injustice prevail?

 

I agree with John Owen who said that God will not bless nations whose leaders do not live lives of personal holiness! He said that "the people of Israel were at the height of their fortunes when their leaders were godly."

 

Just thinking...

 

My visitors

Over at Centuri0n's blog I saw that he posted a visual snapshot of where his visitors come from all over the world. I just had to know for myself where my visitor's came from.

So, here it is. I'm famous. I get people from all over the world. The next step... world domination! For those too serious to get it, that was a joke!



Just checking...

"Cultured" riots

The French, long seen as a very cultured lot now has to deal with a very uncultured bunch of "youths"--the politically correct term being used in the media for a bunch of Muslim thugs. There, I said it! These "youths" are not youths as we understand the term when spoken of within the context of a specific country! When I speak of youths in my country, I understand the term to mean young genuine South Africans.

When the media speak of the rioting "youths" in France and elsewhere in Europe, they do not mean "European youths!" They do not mean Pierre, Jacques or Klaus! They are using the term as a euphemism for Muslim thugs! This way they hide the truth from the world by making the world think that these are simply angry "youths" who cannot find jobs. However, this is not the truth! The fact of the matter is that these are people with an ideology that says the infidel must die while these "youths" are attempting a revolution!

Al Mohler has written a very insightful piece on this matter called Civilization Under Siege--The Riots in Paris. It is definitely worth reading it.

Just thinking...

Political idolatry

I just heard from a reliable source that someone in our church who used to be an ANC activist here in South Africa who came to know the Lord Jesus Christ some years back, has decided to stand once again for the ANC in the coming local elections.

 

Now this strikes me as really odd!

 

The ANC stands for things like pornography, abortion, the legalizing of homosexual marriage and other heinous and evil ideologies. How in the world does one reconcile these criminal activities with the Christian worldview? Here is a party, based on its communistic stance, that opposes God directly!

 

This kind of thing happens when a church does not teach proper doctrine or proper Biblical worldview from the pulpit. It is fine to say that there are courses that can handle these things when people are simply too busy living their lives to add all kinds of other courses to their already busy schedules. These things should be preached from the pulpit!

 

To answer my first question, there is no way that a Christian can reconcile himself with standing for a party that aligns itself with the depraved activities of evil! We are told to come out from among them, yet this person is doing exactly the opposite! How about that Godly obedience?!

 

In fact, Paul is very clear on the subject of evil. He told us not to take "part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them." (Eph 5:11) This guy would rather join them than expose them! There is enough to expose in the ideologies of the ANC.

 

What bothers me is that there is one larger Christian party called the ACDP and also a smaller new one called the CDP (this used to be their website address but for some reason it is unavailable right now). That this man could not rather join a Christian party standing for real Christian principles is completely beyond me. Maybe I am just not sharp enough to see that we should rather be standing in elections for godless parties than for Christian parties! During "floor-crossing" even some ACDP party members left the ACDP and joined other parties such as the ANC.

 

When a person's worldview is so distanced from that of the Bible, that he can stand in an election for a godless party, I am inclined to call that person's salvation into question based on the evidence I see. Naturally, only God can make the final call. On the other hand, Jesus did say that we will know them by their fruit!

 

How can we as Christians stand for such political idolatry? In the early church, during the persecutions of that time, if a Christian denied Christ, some Christian leaders would not easily allow them back in the church. I don't think that we should go that far (or maybe we should?), but what I would suggest is that the church must call these people in and require an explanation from them, at the least! When a Christian gives the appearance of denying the faith, the church has a responsibility to stand beside such a person to guide him back to the truth! If the church does not do that, it is failing miserably. It fails the church and its mission to make disciples of all nations. The church is then simply grandstanding; however, with no eternal effect!

 

Just thinking...

 

Hearing God and Moving in the Prophetic: A critique

Since Phil Johnson has started a series of blog posts on "evangelical soothsayers" and "rubber prophecies," I thought that I would also say something about the concept of hearing God and the "prophetic."

 

Some time ago, a message, entitled Hearing God’s Voice, was preached at our church by one of our own pastors. He cited Is 50:4-5, "[4] The Sovereign LORD has given me an instructed tongue, to know the word that sustains the weary. He wakens me morning by morning, wakens my ear to listen like one being taught. [5] The Sovereign LORD has opened my ears, and I have not been rebellious; I have not drawn back." (NIV) All verses read by him were read from the NIV.

 

His first point was that we should hear God for ourselves before we can hear God for others. This he got from Is 50:4-5.

 

I am not against prophecy, if it is from the Lord Himself. It must not be some concocted idea from our own minds. Hearing from God is a sovereign act by God. Amongst the prophets, the majority (if not all) heard God when He sovereignly spoke. It was not a case of waiting to hear what God had to say, but rather God intervened when He wanted to speak. In this verse, if it is read without the usual charismatic preponderance to the dramatic, it is made clear that it was the "Sovereign LORD" that gave Isaiah an instructed tongue; it was the "Sovereign LORD" that woke his ears to listen. A sovereign act of God Himself!

 

To corroborate this idea of hearing from God for ourselves first, from the New Testament, this pastor quoted 2 Cor 1:3-4, "[3] Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort, [4] who comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves have received from God."

 

I have to be honest, how he got these two different passages to say the same thing is beyond me! The only way these two passages could corroborate each other is by preconceived ideas inducted into these passages by eisegesis, instead of proper Biblical exegesis!

 

Next, the preacher wanted to drive home that we have God’s prophetic Word in our heart and in our mouth. What Scripture passage did he use? Rom 10:6-8, "[6] But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?' " (that is, to bring Christ down) [7] "or 'Who will descend into the deep?' " (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). [8] But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming."

 

A little simple exegesis would have made clear just what the word was that Paul meant here. Again, preconceived ideas made the preacher see things in the passage that did not exist in the passage. What word did Paul mean here? Well, the passage at hand tells us! It tells us that the word that is in our hearts and in our mouth is "the word of faith we are proclaiming." What is "the word of faith we are proclaiming?" The gospel! This is spelled out clearly in verses 9 and 10. "[9] that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; [10] for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation."

 

Does God reveal mysteries? Naturally. He did to Daniel. The next verse the preacher used was Dan 2:8, "[8] but there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries." Daniel had just revealed to king Nebuchadnezzar the dream he had and the meaning of the dream. To back up the mystery revealing God from the New Testament, he used Lk 10:21, "At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure."

 

What is this verse telling us? Is this saying that God reveals prophetic type mysteries to children and not to others? No, it tells us that God’s kingdom is not revealed to those who seek it by pure logic, but that God is the revealer of His kingdom. In our own wisdom, we cannot reach God’s kingdom. Only by God’s revelation of His kingdom, can we know about His kingdom. This revelation of God’s kingdom is clearly set out in the Scriptures, the Bible!

 

Later in the sermon, the preacher referred to Mt 11:25-26, "[25] At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. [26] Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure. [27] "All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. [28] "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. [29] Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. [30] For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.""

 

Again, what has this passage got to do with anything prophetic? Nothing! This passage has nothing to do with spiritual revelation or the prophetic!

 

The next statement the preacher made he based on Mt 4:4, "[4] Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'"" The word used for word in this passage, is the Greek word rhēma (rhma). The preacher made the usual charismatic comment about this word, that it means the spoken word as opposed to the written word which they say is logos (logoV).

 

This difference in the meanings of these two words are totally unfounded. If we bother to study the various instances of the uses of rhēma and logos, we will discover that there is no reason for us to speak of rhēma as the spoken word of God, and of logos as the written word of God. Both have the potential to be used in either way. For a more complete study of this issue the paper at http://teachingtruth.cjb.net/studies/rhemaandlogos.html may be studied.

 

The next point made by the preacher is that our imagination and our spiritual eyes reside in the same place. How did he get to this? Hab 2:1, "[1] I will stand at my watch and station myself on the ramparts; I will look to see what he will say to me, and what answer I am to give to this complaint."

 

The claim here is that we must look into the spiritual realm with our spiritual eyes to see what the Lord wants to tell us. The NASB puts it this way, "[1] I WILL stand on my guard post And station myself on the rampart; And I will keep watch to see what He will speak to me, And how I may reply when I am reproved." Is the point of this verse really to exercise looking into the spiritual realm with our spiritual eyes to see what the Lord wants to say? Or, is the point of this verse rather to be on our guard to hear when God speaks? What was Habakkuk waiting to hear from God? The first two chapters of Habakkuk are about Habakkuk’s argument with God over God’s unfathomable ways, which even seemed unjust to Habakkuk. Does this mean that Habakkuk said that we should now practice hearing God’s voice by looking into the spiritual realm? Not in the least! It simply recounts Habakkuk’s struggles with what seemed to be an unjust God.

 

Before the preacher gave over to the head pastor of our church, he told how he would hear from God in his practice sessions. He tried to make the point that God mostly spoke through visions. What he would do is to imagine he was back on the farm where he grew up. Then he would imagine that Jesus would be sitting next to him. At this point he would just sit and watch Jesus. Then, Jesus would start talking to him about things. The final few minutes were handled by the head pastor of our church. In this time he made a big deal about the fact that God uses our imagination to speak with us through visions. He then made use of what the previous preacher taught about how he uses his imagination to start seeing visions. At church we have two huge overhead screens. He had four scenes beamed onto the screens. We were told to watch these scenes--each of which were left on the screens for a few seconds--and then to see what the Lord will tell us about those scenes.

 

This is a clear case of trying to induce visions! This is definitely more the art of suggestion than hearing God’s voice or seeing visions! Were these actions Biblical? I do not believe so!

 

Does God speak to us today? Yes! Can we induce it? Undoubtedly not! Whenever God spoke to the prophets--Old Testament or New--He spoke sovereignly. They never tried to make God speak with them. Whether it was the prophet Isaiah or the apostle Paul, God spoke to them when He needed to say something important.

 

What is God’s primary method of speaking to us today? I believe it would be the Scriptures. Does God speak in any other way? Yes, he does. However, the method God uses is up to Him, not us! He chooses how to speak and when to speak. When God speaks, we will not be in doubt that God spoke.

 

Do we have to hear from God everyday? Definitely! We need to read the Bible and study it everyday to know what God’s Word says to us. It is as we get to know God’s Word that we will know how to conduct ourselves in this world and what God expects of us in different situations. There is no bypassing the Scriptures! Try to bypass the Scriptures and you will simply land into all kinds of deceptive ideas like trying to induce visions or God’s voice.

 

Let us rather get back to the reading and studying of God’s Word, the Scriptures!

 

Just thinking...

Sulu is gay

For all those Star Trek fans, Sulu (George Takei) has revealed that he is gay.

 

This is quite a shock, but I suppose that amongst "stars" gay is in!

 

With me, it is definitely out!

 

Just thinking...

Is the modern church grandstanding?

Let me ask one question. Depending on the answer to that question we will know if the church is grandstanding or not. Remember, the answer to the question needs to be brutally honest. If its not, we are lying to ourselves and the church!

 

How well will the church do if all electricity and electronic gadgets were removed from churches for the next two months?

 

I know of a few churches where I live that I think might just lose 50% or more of their people. In fact, let me be bold, perhaps upwards of 75% of their people will leave those churches.

 

It is a sad day when we attract people through all kinds of programs designed to titillate the senses instead of through the gospel. When a "prominent" preacher delivers a sermon that sounds more like a motivational speech that could have been delivered by any Dale Carnegie graduate, than a Biblical message and he subsequently gives an invitation for salvation, it makes me wonder what these people respond to! It certainly cannot be a response to the clear preaching of the gospel! It was never preached! If the gospel is not preached, how can the church claim that those people are really saved?

 

This is what is going on in our churches today. People are getting saved from mundane lives to exciting lives. That is what these motivational speeches are geared towards. Not salvation! People are no longer being saved from the clutches of hell into the glorious arms of Jesus Christ.

 

The aim of many churches is to get people excited about church. New programs are forever designed to make sure that people feel good when they come to church. There are all kinds of things going on at the back of the stage with PowerPoint presentations going all the time and flashy colours making it look cool. You see, the church feels that if we don't look like the world and do things the way they do it, we will not look attractive to the world! Walking out of a church service, people should be able to say, "Wow! What a service!" People are kept happy with entertainment, not the truth!

 

One no longer hears sermons on the great doctrines of the faith like Justification by Faith Alone, The Attributes of God, The Trinity, Propitiation, God's Justice, Creation, The Fall of Man, God's Sovereignty, God's Providence, The Person of Christ, The Atonement and many others. People are treated like idiots in these churches it seems, for the most common reasons given for not teaching these great and wonderful doctrines of the gospel are that these doctrines are too difficult for people to understand or they are too controversial, and many other moronic reasons for not teaching them.

 

Churches, especially the mega-churches, are no longer havens for Christians to come to in order to be shepherded since the shepherds have been morphed into managers of the flock. These pastors have become like the shepherds that Ezekiel wrote about:

 

Eze 34:1-10 ESV The word of the LORD came to me: (2) "Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel; prophesy, and say to them, even to the shepherds, Thus says the Lord GOD: Ah, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding yourselves! Should not shepherds feed the sheep? (3) You eat the fat, you clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fat ones, but you do not feed the sheep. (4) The weak you have not strengthened, the sick you have not healed, the injured you have not bound up, the strayed you have not brought back, the lost you have not sought, and with force and harshness you have ruled them. (5) So they were scattered, because there was no shepherd, and they became food for all the wild beasts. (6) My sheep were scattered; they wandered over all the mountains and on every high hill. My sheep were scattered over all the face of the earth, with none to search or seek for them. (7) "Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the LORD: (8) As I live, declares the Lord GOD, surely because my sheep have become a prey, and my sheep have become food for all the wild beasts, since there was no shepherd, and because my shepherds have not searched for my sheep, but the shepherds have fed themselves, and have not fed my sheep, (9) therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the LORD: (10) Thus says the Lord GOD, Behold, I am against the shepherds, and I will require my sheep at their hand and put a stop to their feeding the sheep. No longer shall the shepherds feed themselves. I will rescue my sheep from their mouths, that they may not be food for them.

 

Today, there are managers over the flock. These managers almost never visit the flock anymore. These days they sit in multiple meetings a week to discuss issues over how to make the church more effective with the next great programme coming from some guru like Rick Warren.

 

Managers are like what Jesus spoke about:

 

Joh 10:12 ESV He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them.

 

There are so many self-help gurus around who teach leadership principles in the name of Christ and then get invited to speak in pulpits where the gospel of Christ should be preached! For what? Making leaders?! We don't want leaders! We want disciples, who can make disciples, who can make disciples, who . . . ! We already have enough leaders around! People calling themselves apostles and prophets and bishops! There are churches around with 24 pastors on staff, but for what? Being managers of the flock?! When last has your pastor visited you at your home? Oh yes! Managers do not visit the people. They must make appointments to see the managers!

 

The church is grandstanding! Trying to put up a big show to attract people! Great, the church is attracting people to itself. Yet, how many of these people coming to church will still end up in hell because the church was all too willing to entertain the flock to death!

 

1Pe 5:1-4 ESV So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: (2) shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; (3) not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. (4) And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.

 

How many pastors today can say that they shepherded the flock the way God wanted them to do it, and as a result "will receive the unfading crown of glory?"

 

Susan Arnold has written a poignant blog article on this issue and it is well worth the time it will take to read. In it she asks the question: "If the electricity goes out in Mega-church's neighborhood on Sunday, does it make a sound?" It is a very thought provoking article.

 

Just thinking...

The Story of Calvinism

For Calvinists and non-Calvinists Phil Johnson, the PyroManiac, gave a sermon on a brief history of Calvinism.

 

This is perhaps the best short history of Calvinism I have heard. In this sermon, Phil shows how Calvinism is no new novel idea started by John Calvin himself. In fact, if Calvin thought that his theology was new, he probably would have dropped it. The point is, Calvinism, or the doctrines of Calvinism actually existed all the way from the beginning of church history, and other theological systems such as Pelagianism, semi-Pelagianism, Arminianism and today's Open Theism have always been fringe theologies. These fringe theologies are the ones who have continually drifted away from the orthodox view of the church.

 

Even if you are against Calvinism, you would only do yourself a favour by downloading this sermon and listening to it!

 

Just thinking...

Experts on old or dead Christians

Jonathan Moorhead (From the Head of the Moor) in a recent post commented that every "Christian should be an expert on at least one Christian from church history."

 

First, there are those (hyper-spirituals) that say that we should not become experts on other Christians but rather be experts on Christ. This comment shows how deep they have walked with Christ that they have not realized yet--from Biblical examples--that we are to learn from those that have gone before us! Paul makes it clear that it is commendable to follow the examples of others.

 

2Th 3:7-9 ESV For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, because we were not idle when we were with you, (8) nor did we eat anyone's bread without paying for it, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you. (9) It was not because we do not have that right, but to give you in ourselves an example to imitate.

The writer to the Hebrews says it very similarly:

 

Heb 13:7 ESV Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith.

Paul makes it even more clear when he writes to the Corinthians in 1 Cor 1:1: "Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ."

 

Further, I believe the reason for the inclusion of the "Heroes of the Faith" in Hebrews 11 is to give us examples of how to run the race of life giving us real examples. Based on all these examples of Hebrews 11, chapter 12:1 exhorts us to "lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us" since "we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses" as given in chapter 11.

 

When we do follow the examples of others who have run the race before us, it should encourage us to look "to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God." (Heb 12:2)

 

Second, since we have such a great cloud of witnesses, who would one choose? There are literally thousands to choose from! From the earliest times, there are men like Athanasius, Augustine and then Luther, Zwingly, Knox, Owen, the Puritans, Edwards, Spurgeon, Lloyd-Jones, Stott, Lewis, Schaeffer to name but just a few. The task would be absolutely enormous and time consuming to attempt to become an expert on a spiritual giant of the past.

 

On the other hand, Paul did not write of running the race for nothing. Running a race is not easy, even for an experienced runner! It is always just a difference in pace. When our walk with Christ is "as easy as pie" and we do not find it difficult at times, then I am wondering which walk we are walking.

 

When we become experts on the lives of "dead saints" then it will help us in the dark days when we realize that we are not alone and that others have come out of those dark days quite successfully.

 

Who will I choose to study? I don't know yet, but I will start searching for just such a person!

 

Just thinking...