Colossians 3:12-17, (ESV) Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, 13 bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. 14 And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony. 15 And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body. And be thankful. 16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God. 17 And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.

http://otrmin.wordpress.com/2009/08/11/why-getting-married-early-will-not-stop-sexual-sin/

“We need to rethink all of theology in missionary terms because every situation is a missionary situation. We need a missional approach to doctrine, to biblical studies, to church history, to ethics, to pastoral care, and so on.”

Also, on page 158:

“the text is only properly understood when believers are gathered together to discover what the word has to say to them, with each person contributing his or her own perspective and experiences.”

I found a bit of trouble with this statement because it sounds like a community interpretive hermeneutic brings much light to someone’s own perspective and experience. In other words, it seems like this approach would fall prey to the “what does this text mean to you?” method.

It seems that this community spirituality concept requires a certain level of intentionality and relationship.

How should we reorient our lives to where we are with other believers daily and not just 2-3 times per week?

What are some ideas in which we can live ordinary life with gospel intentionality?

I have definitely seen this become a reality in my experience.

Also, what are your thoughts on monologues verses actual sermons in the house church/small environment setting?

I have definitely struggled with this concept lately and would love to hear thoughts.

Also, when it comes to the concept of “house churches” in chapter 5, what do things like “church discipline, church membership, and the church offices of elders and deacons work?”

Finally, do you think a house church takes away from being visible in your city? For instance, if a church has a building wouldn’t it be more visible to its city?

Glad to hear…I’ll remember to lift ya up.

How can we move our churches toward this reality?

Do you think evangelism is best down out of the context of a gospel community? If so, how does this balance with evangelism outside of a relational/gospel community (i.e., personal witnessing, evangelistic messages, evangelistic events, etc.)?

And finally, the authors state on page 66 that rethinking evangelism as relationships rather than events radically changes our approach. Do you agree with this or not? Should relationships precede evangelism or is the relationship a part of evangelism itself?

I know this concept has been weighing heavily on me as of late.

Chapter two and three bring this concept to light.

I also think that there is a gap along denominational lines. Certain denominations, struggle with different sides of this issues.

The reason we struggle with getting out of balance is a question of value. Whatever we value will be become our God and will through us off balance.

What do you think about the statement that mission is central to us wherever we are? 
Does your church place an emphasis on the teaching of God’s word? What about in your own life, is there an emphasis on reading and studying God’s word and if so how has it changed the way you live?

Does your church “do community” well? Better yet, do you find yourself “doing community” well?

What would it mean for our church (i.e., your local church) to grow by planting new congregations rather than acquiring bigger premises?

That is the last thing I want… I desire for TVN to be a think-tank, of sorts, to explore the church and the culture around us. I want us to talk through these things together as we are thinking through them, as well.

In my forthcoming book, Reformational Manhood, I have an entire chapter devoted to marriage and I do discuss the concept of early marriage as we are intentional with preparing ourselves at an early age… and not a later age. In saying that, I don’t want this to come across as a suffocating hedge as much as I do a grace-filled and purposeful hedge. I do think I’m in good company, though, when I view “one of the many purposes of marriage” as an outlet for passion and sexual temptation. Maybe it’s not for everyone, but I would say it is for most.

1 Corinthians 7:8-10
“To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”

And I also continue to go back to Paul, again, for the concept of manhood when he says, “When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways (1 Cor 13:11).”

In our culture today, we now go from child to teenager (or adolescent) to young adult, to adult. Paul goes from child to man. Not from child to teen to young adult to man. He put childish ways behind him. Today, we create children who can shave, children who can drive cars, children who act like men when it comes to sex and sexual temptation but far from a man in being a leader, provider, protector. My position here relies heavily on my Pauline theology of manhood and marriage.

Again, thanks for your comment Jennifer. I hope you’ve been able to “breath” a little bit the past few months (wink).

I know of some churches that hold the view of a man working so highly that being a “stay at home dad” would be a case for church discipline.

Although maybe a little extreme (maybe not though), don’t you think our roles in the home, if at all possible, should be characterized by the roles God has given specifically and uniquely to men and women? Although equal in dignity, value, and worthy, different in role and function. Women tend to be more nurturing, care-giving, etc., while men tend to be quite opposite. God, the Father, has defined masculinity and femininity intrinsically and uniquely.

I think we are treading shallow water here trying to define “stay at home dad” as it is defined in the the roles of leading, providing, protecting. For instance, can he still accomplish those roles while being a stay at home dad? Although I’m not going legalistic on this one, it’s hard to for me to say “yes” with a ton of confidence to that question.

Just want to pick your brain a bit…

I am looking forward to learning from and with you all!

Thanks Brian

Due to school, homework, etc. I have limited time, but i will try my best to keep up with you guys. I am excited about expanding my knowledge of the church, missions, and the Gospel with all of you.

I suspect some Christians might reply to you, saying that JW is a ‘cult’ because that is how it’s viewed by mainstream Christianity. But, your experience with JW isn’t so different from what many people experience when they leave other Christian denominations as well. I know a young woman who was treated very similarly, though not quite as extreme, when she left her family’s evangelical church. She was basically ostracized just for choosing a different spiritual path! I agree – that’s NOT love!

And we all know the stories of people who were cut off from their families because they were gay.

I’m glad to hear that you have found happiness and a spiritual path that makes more sense to you. I too never understood the whole ‘sacrifice’ thing – how can inflicting violence on innocent creatures prove our love for God? It smacks of black magick – wherein the ‘god’ must be appeased through blood sacrifice. Sorry, but that’s just plain creepy!

Animal sacrifice, and even human sacrifice, were common amongst many various tribes, at that time. So it’s not surprising that such abominations found their way into the writings of the old testament.

But to justify such atrocities because ‘God’ commanded them to do it, is a perversion. If people read those early books of the old testament, in which the Israelites were commanded by some being to slaughter innocent animals, and invade other tribes and take their land from them and slaughter all their children…if people didn’t know that those stories were supposedly from ‘God’ and just read them and evaluated them on their own merit, they would be horrified and likely conclude the book was written by a satanist!

I know this sounds radical, because we’ve been taught to never question the Bible, but seriously, those old testament books have some foul stuff in them!

What if, just WHAT IF, the REAL test from God is for us to read the Bible and DISCERN which parts are good and which are bad??

(Just an idea to consider!)

I too am a vegetarian. Billions of innocent animals are tortured and brutally murdered every day, just to satisfy a lust for meat. This is an atrocity! I want no part of it.

I follow the teachings of JESUS, who was the Prince of Peace, who taught LOVE, forgiveness, and compassion. It’s NOT compassion if we close our hearts to the suffering of animals who cry out in pain and agony. It’s simply not necessary to eat animals. Research shows that humans are healthier when they don’t eat meat. Check out The China Study.

Anyway, I’m sorry to hear of your traumatic experiences, Natasha. I hope that you have found healing! I know it’s difficult when your family has alienated you. But you are doing the right thing to forgive them. They probably have a lot of fear. The religion is based on fear, and they are afraid that if they break their religion’s rules, they will jeopardize their own ‘salvation.’

I have a friend who belongs to a different religion, but with the same rules. Her son got cast out. She agonizes for him and meets him secretly, so as to not risk the same fate. She suffers greatly.

It may be that your own family still loves you deep down, but lack the courage of my friend. It may be that they wish they could see you, but are afraid to speak up.

It might help in forgiving them, to realize that they are weak, rather than thinking they just don’t care about you. Just an idea to consider!

I agree with your eclectic approach. Karma explains so much. It provides some missing pieces to these otherwise inexplicable relationship dynamics.

Many blessings to you, Natasha!

I had these books on the rotation to read for the summer anyway then Greg told me about this reader and I thought, “Hey that’s a lot better of an idea than reading them alone!”

So I joined up and here I am! Excited to see the fruit this will bear!

-Gabe

I’m Ryan Rindels. I am from Grass Valley, CA and attend Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary where I’m working on my Master of Divinity. I plan on pastoring and/or doing missions. I have a passion for evangelism. I enjoy writing and clearly, participating in the spring reader is evidence that I love reading. I look forward to meeting every one of you and gaining knowledge and insight for my ministry.

This is the “old man” checking in with you. My congrtulations to Greg and all the Staff at The Veritas Network for doing such a good job–with all of the projects. Unfortunately, I do not have time with three book projects of my own plus all I have to do with BorderStone Press to join in the reading here for this time.

What I do want to do is have you good people pique my interest with your insights concerning these well picked volumes. I will watch and wait and try to ask questions and glean insights into the works that are reviewed. IThis may prompt me to read some of the works or at least by them and put them on my “reader’s table” for future use. Thanks for allowing me to work with you and to get to know you all better. I look forward to the education you will provide me.
sdg
rd

My wife and I live in Maryville, TN, about 10 minutes south of the city of Knoxville. We love it here. I am also a pastor at Foothills Church in Maryville, and I wear several different hats as it relates to my responsibilities and oversight.

We have one daughter. Her name is Cora, and she just turned 8 months old a couple of days ago. I absolutely love being a dad!

As far as what I hope to get out of this Reader: My biggest hope is to begin to network with you all and begin some cool relationships with fellow believers in Christ. What’s more, I hope that this is beneficial. I hope it serves in your growth in Christ, knowledge of Scripture, love for the local church, and engagement in mission. And most importantly, I hope and pray that our conversations, discussions, and interactions are edifying to us and glorifying to King Jesus.

AND FYI, I will probably be posting a few things here and there on my personal blog as it relates to this Reader, as well. Just in case you wanted to follow along there — http://ggblog.me.

I am still on my own spiritual journey to finding a place of peace in my heart but I wanted to share my story and my thoughts. Thankyou for having this blog, it is very interesting!

I was bought up a Jehovahs Witness, I was raped by my boss at 18 (he was 42) and my family and the Elders in the congregation knew but never did anything. I was disfellowshipped when I was 18 for having a worldy boyfriend (i.e non Jehovahs Witness). I was cut off from my family and all my friends that I had grown up with and was allowed to ‘repent for my sin’ that would entail going to church for at least 6 months three times a week and sit at the back where no one can talk to men(that is not loving or christian – Jesus did not teach us that – we are supposed to love our brother.

Up until the age of 18 I went to church three times a week, having scripture after scripture read to me. My father had plenty of extra marital affairs my mother kept ‘forgiving him’ – I thought she was just weak. The Jehovahs Witness Church never gave us any guidance or help and I have been in therapy for 3 and a half years trying to cope after having a nervous breakdown. Religion to me is mans way of controlling man.

I eventually did ‘repent’ three and a half years ago and went through that process, and by doing so enlightened me to how much Jehovahs Witness religion is so full of hypocrisy instead of always feeling like such a ‘sinner’. I no longer attend the church
(or Kingdom Hall as they call it) I am the only one in my family that does not go to the church, it is such a controlling religion (even though they say it is not a religion)

I am nearly 37 years old now and have a wonderful husband (a Catholic) a happy home and a dog, my family is still all Jehovah’s Witnesses but no one speaks freely about their spiritual thoughts. If they knew I had these following opinions they would not talk to me.

I believe that God wants us to have a relationship with him.
I love God=I believe in Jesus, the Heavenly Father (Yahweh) and The Holy Spirit. I also practice Yoga and believe in the Chakras and Karma. I believe God loves me the way I am, he sees I have been traumatised by a religion he knows I still love my family and will always be there for them, I believe God loves us all, he knows our heart he can read our minds, we are ‘more precious than sparrows’ and he can ‘number the hairs on our head’.
Does this make me a bad person by mixing spiritual elements in my life? I don’t think so, I feel closer to my spiritual self than I ever have, I am now a vegetarian and pray more than I ever have, I believe God will judge evil-doers but I am not going to worry or try to wonder how he is going to do that – that is for him to do – that’s his job, its none of our business. God wants us to get on with our lives, make the most of our lives; learn, create, share, love and promote peace. ‘The meek will inherit the earth’. Whether that means this earth we know now, or another earth who knows? no-one, we dont need to know, we need to get on with living and lead honest and moral lives, helping others and showing love. We are not to judge others- God is the judge – he clearly defines his role in the Bible, I think we need to let go of what God is going to ‘do’ and just concentrate on ‘being’ – ie living.

This is all my personal point of view of course, every one is free to make a choice – that is if they listen to their heart -ie their inner conscience – which I believe is Gods inner guidance system – that is within in us all ‘a slice of God within’. Unfortunately it is often ignored and not given a chance to be heard.

As for the bible, like Monica also said earlier, I could never understand as a child when I was growing up learning about all the stories why animals had to keep being sacrificed to let God know that they loved him, why Abraham had to almost kill his son to get Gods favour – never made sense to me. Surely all they had to say was ‘we love you’ even back in those times, I am sure man had the ‘look at me’ syndrome to sacrifice the animal/look I’ll tie up my son to prove how much i love you…. strange!

Jesus is the shepherd we are the lambs, he sacrificed his life to save mankind, but he did that just to show how to love and to remind us that he knows how hard it is to be human. God loves us, God is love and I love him, and even though I dont know you, I love you too.

I know I’m not as eloquent in writing as some of you guys on here, but I hope you get the picture from my words. Peace be with any who read this, God loves you and wants you to get to know him through Jesus, through prayer and through meditation,its simple – he/she’ll be there ….and if that means he puts the thought into our heart to put a bumper sticker on a car, at least it got us talking about God – maybe thats his intention, that we get talking and get a deeper appreciation for our fellow human and get to show love through upbeat non confrontational and a loving exchange of words and thoughts, now thats love.

With love and peace.

Perhaps how one says, “Take pride in keeping your room clean.” Or, “take pride in working hard.” Maybe “Valor” would suffice in place of Pride in the title.

Christians make up about two out of seven billion people. The other almost five billion people either don’t believe or believe something else. They too are children of God. God is bigger than Christianity. God is everything. God is Love.

for the sake of the gospel,
Raphael

Really . . .

 “For the Unbelievers are open enemies to you” (surah 4:101).
 “Kill the disbelievers wherever we find them” (surah 2:191).
 “Seize them and kill them wherever you find them” (surah 4:89).
 “O Prophet! urge the believers to war” (surah 8:65).
 “The infidels are your sworn enemies” (surah 4:101).
 “Prophet, make war on the infidels” (surah 66:9).
 “Make war on the infidels who dwell around you” (surah 9:123).
 “When you meet the infidel in the battle field, strike off their heads” (surah 47:4).
 “Mohammed is Allah’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the infidels” (surah 48:29).
 “Warfare is ordained for you” (surah 2:216).
 “Fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them” (surah 9:5).
 “Fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness” (Sura 9:123).
 “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day” (surah 9:29).
 “Fight whoever denies Allah” (Hadith Malik’s Muwatta, Book 21, No. 3, 11).
 “Fight in the cause of Allah” (surah 2:190).
 “Fighting is prescribed for you” (surah 2:216).
 “Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame” (surah 9:14).
 “Fight them until . . . the religion is Allah’s” (surah 2:193).
 “If you are called (by the Muslim ruler) for fighting, go forth immediately” (hadith 52.42).

I appreciate your checking out the site and thanks for the response.

Although I cannot verify if what you said is true of Christians in Egypt being persecuted for becoming Muslims, I’ll assume it’s true (at least in some cases). I would wholeheartedly agree that any forms of coercion should not be used in matters of conscience. This is what the Bible teaches. In the story of the Prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32) a rebellious son asks for his share of the inheritance while his father is still alive and leaves to pursue a life of self-indulgence and sin. He humbly returns to his father after his money is spent and repents and is welcomed back. This illustrates God’s incredible love for sinners. My point being that if Christians in Egypt are doing such things, they are not following scripture.

The reality about Christianity and Islam is that both have a goal of bringing the whole world into their respective faiths. Islam historically did this by the sword. You look at the life of Muhammad and his successors and you see effective military conquests that spread far and wide…..and nearly engulfed Europe until the battle of Tours in France during the 8th century A.D.

I’m not going to use Christian history to vindicate the faith because events like the crusades are regrettable. But again, that is not Christianity as Christ taught.

Compare the teachings and life of Jesus and that of Muhammad and you see profound differences. Moreover, Christ is not simply a moral example or a divine Prophet but God incarnate. We can stand before a Holy God justified because of his death for sinners. From my understanding of Islam: forgiveness of sins is never certain. Therefore, one’s eternal destiny is also uncertain. Living a moral life is never sufficient to be in right relationship with a Holy God but Christianity teaches absolute assurance of eternal life for those who believe in faith (I John 1:8-9).

Interesting enough, Christ’s forgiveness even extends to times in history where Christians have participate in evil and amplifies just how depraved we are and need Him.

“The fight against breast cancer is a noble one, but there are hundreds of other ways to do it that don’t involve supporting Planned Parenthood’s deceptive mission. Second, join the fight in providing women alternatives to abortion. That may include supporting your local crisis pregnancy center financially or with your time and expertise. It also includes teaching teens about the Bible’s plan for sex, and showering single mothers with love and support to show them that while choosing life may be more difficult, it is absolutely the right choice to make.”

Amen and amen!

Excellent post! Many have been entrusted with many gifts of grace (1 Peter 4:10). I pray that we, who are entrusted with much, will be wise stewards of these gifts of grace. Thanks, brother for your heart and friendship.

It would appear to me that the majority of people, even in the evangelical Church, think that young Christians doing degrees should focus on their studies, and that marriage can be put off until later. This attitude needs to be urgently challenged.

Sorry it’s taken so long to get back.
No I was really talking about external factors such as the opinion of other Christians that can discourage one from pursuing marriage young. But I’m just saying that that shouldn’t stop us grom doing whatever God wants us to do.

A common denominator in all biblical covenants, whether it be Gods covenant with Noah, Abraham etc up to Jesus was that there was always a shedding of blood involved. Perhaps marriage is made “official” on the wedding night when a virgin bride first has sex with her husband and her hyman is broken… Although I’m just speculating here, perhaps this is yet another reason behind God’s laws regarding fornication – in that it can take away the symbolism and holiness of the covenant making process.

Of course if one is a Christian, he/she is a new creation, so I believe a Christian can still experience this process (at least on a spiritual level) on their wedding night even if they have “slipped up” in their past and previously lost their virginity.

Nice article! A good one for every Christian (and non-Christian).

Personally, the closest description to my stance on evolution is the theistic evolutionist, even though I disagree that this view “weakens theology”.

The thing I don’t understand is why the weaknesses of the Mature earth view and the 24 hour day view were not developed. For instance, the Catastrophism is not consistent with what we observe in nature. Furthermore, not all our church thinkers (such as Origen, St. Augustine, Aquinas and John Wesley) adhered to a young earth.

When I was a scientist, I did not work under the assumption that God is uninvolved. In fact, I strongly believe I can do science because God was involved in everything.

Thanks for the post, I hope I was not offensive.

But, I must ask the question, this answers the 1 partner question, but what about waiting till marriage and when is marriage defined? I ask this because many of my friends are married and admitted to having sex before their wedding day with their current partner. It’s interesting to note that marriage varies from culture to culture (I add this because I’m an Australian currently living in Uganda and they have a very different measurement of marriage).

From further readings on Proverbs 22:6, my basic understanding is that the phrase, “in the way he should go” isn’t restricted to modeling righteousness but rather digs deeper with the implication of, “model righteousness according to the way of the child.” Righteousness is righteousness across the board (as can be examined in scripture) but when we take the way of the child (his personality, talents and demeanor), which has unlimited variation, we can cater our parenting around what works best for him (while still seeking the glory of Christ). Unfortunately (and I say that because it requires absolute unselfishness, dedication and commitment) This requires that our method of modeling righteousness (not as a whole but in part by how we love and discipline) be child-by-child dependent. I believe parents get stuck in a rut (and I’m sure it’ll be something I struggle with) when it comes to rearing. I think we (well they since I’m not yet a parent) expect what works for one child to work just as well for the rest of them because we fail to take the individual personality of the child into account. Basic observation (as well as scripture) tells us that we are created as unique beings and temperaments DO very among individuals. While sin results in the same punishment for all, how the Lord deals with us (in accordance with discipline) differs person by person. Because of this we are equipped to take the example of our father’s love for us to effectively parent the earthly children he so graciously blesses us with.

From further readings on Proverbs 22:6, my basic understanding is that the phrase, “in the way he should go” isn’t restricted to modeling righteousness but rather digs deeper with the implication of, “model righteousness according to the way of the child.” Righteousness is righteousness across the board (as can be examined in scripture) but when we take the way of the child (his personality, talents and demeanor), which has unlimited variation, we can cater our parenting around what works best for him (while still seeking the glory of Christ). Unfortunately (and I say that because it requires absolute unselfishness, dedication and commitment) This requires that our method of modeling righteousness (not as a whole but in part by how we love and discipline) be child-by-child dependent. I believe parents get stuck in a rut (and I’m sure it’ll be something I struggle with) when it comes to rearing. I think we (well they since I’m not yet a parent) expect what works for one child to work just as well for the rest of them because we fail to take the individual personality of the child into account. Basic observation (as well as scripture) tells us that we are created as unique beings and temperaments DO very among individuals. While sin results in the same punishment for all, how the Lord deals with us (in accordance with discipline) differs person by person. Because of this we are equipped to take the example of our father’s love for us to effectively parent the early children he’s so graciously blesses us with.

Just finished that book a few days ago. Great insight and biblical clarity

Proverbs 11:10

After reading this article, we were all talking about what keeps us from having sex. The reason we don’t have premarital sex is quite simple: because God tells us not to. Our relationship with God is more important than our fleeting desires. Following Jesus is why we get up in the morning; it’s why we go to our jobs day after day. It’s why some of us have given up all of our belongings to move across the globe.

I choose not to have sex because I know that sin separates me from God. I have truly seen God’s goodness and that is all that I want. Someday I will get married; I may be 29 or 30 or 40 before I find someone I want to spend the rest of my life with. Until then, I will wait. I will do it happily, because I know that God and eternity will outlast my fleeting relationships.

Instead of focusing on telling our teens and young adults to abstain from sex, we need to invite them and show them how following after Christ is better than anything on this earth can offer. Following after Christ is the most adventurous decision you will ever make. He will tell you to give up everything. He will tell you love people deeply, more than your own selfish desires. He will take you to crazy places. He will take you to the very end of yourself. You laugh harder and have more joy than you ever thought possible. Yeah, there are days when I entertained the idea of taking a relationship further physically than I should, but Christ reminds me that he wants more for me than an awkward morning after. He wants me to life and have it more abundantly.

—
The more deeply you walk with Christ, the hungrier you get for Christ; the more homesick you get for heaven; the more you want “all the fullness of God”; the more you want to be done with sin; the more you want the Bridegroom to come again; the more you want the Church revived and purified with the beauty of Jesus; the more you want a great awakening to God’s reality in the cities; the more you want to see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ penetrate the darkness of all the unreached peoples of the world; the more you want to see false worldviews yield to the force of Truth; the more you want to see pain relieved and tears wiped away and death destroyed; the more you long for every wrong to be made right and the justice and grace of God to fill the earth like the waters cover the sea.

If you don’t feel strong desires for the manifestation of the glory of God, it is not because you have drunk deeply and are satisfied. It is because you have nibbled so long at the table of the world. Your soul is stuffed with small things, and there is no room for the great. God did not create you for this. There is an appetite for God. And it can be awakened. I invite you to turn from the dulling effects of food and the dangers of idolatry, and to say with some simple fast: “This much, O God, I want you.”

-John Piper, Hunger for God

p.s. accidentally dropped computer and somehow put the (+666) for my name which was not at all what I meant to do sorry.

I do think there is some wisdom to your thoughts here. You do grow to become ready for marriage as you are in a relationship with that person. However, what I am advocating for is “complete intentionality” in a dating relationship. I think it is glorified divorce practice to date someone for a long time, act like you are already married both emotionally and/or sexually, and not begin to prepare yourself to be a husband or wife during the time. If you are not ready to be married (financially, maturity wise, leaving/cleaving wise, etc), then I don’t think it is “wise” to date at such a “committed level.” It mostly leads to hurt and sin.

The gospel, however, is something that is an even greater thing to pursue while one is not ready for marriage. May we be a generation committed to that instead!

The logic of Miss Drew is also extremely frightening. To bring it to its logical end bleeds complete relativism in almost everything. Where do we draw the line of what we “dream of being?”

Authenticity is grasped in truly understanding what we are created to be, not in what we “dream of being.” That sounds more like rebellion to me.

Also, I’d love to go out and get married as soon as my significant other are ready (now), but the whole “success” does play a factor. You can’t be married before having an established career and financial support base, which makes the case for early dating/marriage a much more difficult one to fathom.

I was given no instructions on courtship or dating and was terrified of stepping out to begin my first and only relationship because of all of the horror stories I’d been told and had witnessed.

Pursuing a romantic relationship with a fellow believer had been treated in my life like a drivers ed course with too many worst case scenario clip reels.

And the modern perspective on marriage, even within the church, is painted as a grim and overly sober subject. So much so, that my boyfriend and I spent much time discussing the views on marriage that we’d observed and been fed over the years, even though BOTH of our parents have excellent marriages… I had spent the majority of my life being discouraged almost entirely from even desiring marriage, and primarily being told of the exhaustive list of negatives that accompany it and the probability that I would wind up hating all of the very things I loved about the man and would most assuredly fall out of my honeymoon stage of love and loathe the man I was now almost eternally yoked to.

Thank you so much for providing material that shares the POSITIVE aspects of marriage and for showing me that I’m not crazy for wanting to be a loving wife and a mother someday.

I am eternally grateful. :)

I am 21 years old. I was homeschooled and raised in a VERY conservative Christian home. I came to really know Christ for myself at age 15 and have been diving head first into serving him ever since.

I have always been a very romantic, affectionate heart, but always received a message that relationships were nothing but trouble for believers. I felt extremely condemned within my own conscience for wanting to have a young Christian man to love me and to love in return because the message I received was that “good Christian girls shouldn’t think about things like that.”

I always dreamed of being married at a young age and being a loving wife and mother, but was frequently put down for it and told that I just needed to grow closer to Christ as if I was sinning against my Lord by wanting to be a wife. That having that desire meant I didn’t love Christ enough.

Despite the feedback I was given, I decided to do everything I possibly could to Biblically prepare myself for marriage by myself. I read every scripture I could find on the topic and read every appropriate book I could find on Christian marriage and what a young woman is supposed to be. It started after reading a fictional book about an Amish girl when I was 17, and I avidly continued. It intensified after a woman of God I deeply respected told me that the role of men and women was vastly distorted in our society, especially in the area of spiritual leadership in the home. I had never heard that before, and I began searching for what I WAS supposed to be as a Christian women in the home. I also began praying to become a Proverbs 31 woman and praying for the man God would have me marry someday.

In the fall of last year, I met a wonderful young man at my new church, and we instantly clicked as good friends while we helped in the same ministries at that church. We began dating in January of this year ( amidst quite a bit of resistance from my parents who claimed that 21 was still FAR too young to date in general, regardless of my suitor) and we are still together. His parents approve very much of me and have welcomed me with open arms.

He is, of course, my first boyfriend. I hope him to be my only boyfriend. It became VERY clear very early on that both of us were only interested in being in a relationship if it eventually led to marriage and that we both were all ready VERY interested in marrying each other.

We both dream of getting married as soon as possible, but have received a lot of negative feedback from others that 20 and 21 are FAR too young to be considering marriage, even that it is too young to be a serious couple because because “tied down” would prevent us both from reaching our “full potential”. We’ve both prayed about it and have peace about wanting to spend our lives with each other, but have only found one other mature Christian couple that thinks young marriage is a good idea. I want so much to honor my parents. I also love my boyfriend and the young man of character that he is. I have been extremely discouraged from the idea of being married young and urged to wait until at least the age of 25 or older. I love my parents very much, but I disagree with them. I believe it seems foolish to wait that long if I have all ready found a wonderful young man who loves God and loves me and wishes to marry me.

In seeking the wisdom of those older than me, He and I were beginning to become very discouraged. Your articles have helped me to realize that I’m not crazy or stupid or immature. That the idea of marrying the man I love is NOT crazy when I have have been diligently praying and pursuing God in this area since I was 17 years old. That wanting to marry him soon to help relieve some of the burden of being two very affectionate people who have promised not to be intimate before marriage is NOT a declaration of my non-self-controlled, lustful immaturity but rather an example of scriptural wisdom.

My family may not accept their baby girl being married anytime soon (since at 21 they still don’t want me dating), and I am willing to wait (within reason) to receive their approval and their blessing. However, I very much appreciate finding your articles and the wisdom in them about the benefits of young people who are devoted to Christ seeking to be married early. I want nothing more than to serve the God I love, be with the man I love and have a family that is proud of me. I pray that all of this will come together, but in the meantime,

Thank you for your encouragement. :)

It speaks volumes about our God’s character just knowing that His laws are full of love and are purposed for our good… “submission to God’s law leads to joy which God desires for his creatures. Yet we are prone to reject God’s law and, consequently, God’s best for us.” What a convicting—yet beautiful—yet encouraging reality for all of us.

Christine, thanks for your thoughts. It’s not that we should be hammering down their throats that they should marry young. It is grounded in the fact that we should be hammering down their throats “intentional preparation” and “intentionality.” There is no dogmatic formula for this concept. Everybody’s situation is different. However, we must encourage them to get busy with not delaying adolescence into their 20′s and 30′s.

What do you mean that we can only control our own actions? Are you pointing to each of us simply being accountable for the decisions we make? If so, I agree, but let us equip our young people with an arsenal full ways to make those wise decisions.

Today I had the chance to attend Shawn Achor’s presentation “Science of Positive Leadership”, a two hour session based on his book “The Happiness Advantage”. I have already been eagerly sharing some of the points with my coworkers,……

When working with young people, keep this advice targeted to the men. Men are the pursuers. A woman can want to get marry young, but may not be pursued for whatever reason. Constantly being told that they should marry young is NOT going to help them.

Secondly, this advice MUST be paired with the solid advice I’ve seen in other articles on this blog – advice that points young believers to look for a Christ focused spouse. Young believers should not rush to marry and neglect to consider WHO they are choosing to marry.

I rejoice with you, seeing the work of God’s grace in your life and saving you (as well as myself and everyone redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ). I would disagree that the power of witches in Suriname is simply imagined, but it’s of little consequence since be both agree witchcraft (whether possessing false or true powers) is evil and keeps people from following Christ.

People have been unjustly tortured, beaten and killed through the centuries for every reason under the sun. To imply that denying the belief in witchcraft would solve the problem is misguided. It’s wrong to harm people…but the problem is with the people inflicting it, not simply their reasons for doing so. Either witchcraft is evil or it’s good or completely indifferent –apart from a society’s reaction to it.

You must also consider how many are not only physically oppressed but spiritually damned for eternity by their continuing in witchcraft. While overseas, most Christians testified of demons who did severe bodily harm to them –until Christ gave them salvation and freedom.

Thanks for taking the time to read and respond!

I absolutely agree with you about Kids In Mind, I use them often to screen movies before watching them or when I’m doing preliminary film analysis.

Thanks again for your thoughtful reply.

- Josh

Your facetious remark about prayer shows your disbelief in witches is deeper than them alone. As for spells, I’d ask YOU to qualify that term. What is a spell? Making a person fall in love with another? Controlling wills? The witches (and many I presume out there) I am referring to didn’t practice those kinds of things. They poison people, they send evil spirits to oppress people, they do seances for protection from different kinds of harm etc. As for their effectiveness? Keep in mind the source of the power and His objection. Satan. The real, spiritual existent Satan. So you don’t believe in him? He’s fine with that. You would plausibly not believe in the historical Jesus: miracle worker, resurrected from the dead and one who explicitly mentions Satan countless times in the Gospels. It would make sense that “spells” are often false or ineffective since Satan only gives power to keep people worshipping him and staying out of the LIght (Christ). Moreover, Satan is only as powerful as God allows him to be. Many witches are phonies but some aren’t. Either way, people are deceived and remain in darkness.

I wholeheartedly agree. Materialism, rationalism, empiricism, worldviews that gained prominence with the enlightenment and continue to dominate the west to our present day deny the existence of the supernatural by their very definition. Keith Green wrote a song in late 70′s called “No one believes in me anymore” –a reference to Satan. Those in Suriname whom I met couldn’t believe there were actual people who didn’t believe in God or in evil spirits, it was incomprehensible for them. And this isn’t simply ignorance. I’ve seen men stand in fire while being possessed by demons and not be harmed. No one question’s the validity of the event or the source of it’s power. Keep in mind Satan’s objective: keep people from coming to salvation through Jesus Christ. There’s no reason to believe he would use different means for peoples with varying worldviews. A Shaman in Africa is in the same hell as David Hume. They both denied Christ, but for different reasons.

Real witches do not have supernatural powers. Curses from witches are empty – they will only affect you if you believe what they say. If you have faith in Christ and not in the empty words of witches you will never be harmed. Most witches do not curse or practice physical harmful things – witches only harm their own souls through not accepting Christ as savour and God as all-loving Father and Lord.

Having been a witch and learnt much about herbal medicine, living naturally and with respect for all life through walking that path I believe that the only forgiveness witches need to beg for is that they believe in false gods and deny the true Father. I have asked for forgiveness and received it, I received the Holy Spirit and go through each day singing the praises of the Lord for delivering me from the false life I was leading.

In any case, if you are a true follower of Christ’s way you will not be celebrating Hallowe’en. Hallowe’en is a festival based on the Celtic pagan feast day of Samhain, celebrating the end of the Celtic year and considered the one day of the year where the veil between this world and the next is thinnest and communication with ancestral spirits can take place. Many Christians feel that celebrating Hallowe’en with their children is harmless, but it actually draws attention, profits and loyalty to a pre-Christian feast day. Not only does it draw human attention to it, but spiritual too. Demons are quite happy to exploit this oversight.

Worshipping the dead and celebrating the macabre is taking glory and worship away from God and focusing it instead on the grisly things that the Prince of Lies loves most of all. Turn out your lights tonight, close your curtains. Hold your families close, pray together, eat together. Leave this once-a-year worship of boggarts, witches, demons and candy behind.

I would cordially request that you give a brief explanation for support of your position. I would challenge you to examine the existence of the dark spiritual world extant among hundreds of millions across the globe. I would challenge you to visit a place like Suriname discover for yourself if actual witches exist —or better yet, eradicate your caricatured image of broomsticks, warts and cauldrons. If witches are what I said they were: those who use supernatural power (derived from demons) for malignant purposes than scripture strongly supports this. Hence, sorcerers (as well as those who practice magic arts) are named as those to be thrown into hell in various passages.

You know what really touches my heart? A man able to accept my dominant heart, mind and soul- to embrace it, love it, and compliment it.

You contradict yourself. What if, what touches her heart, is a fully submissive man eager to become completely vulnerable to her and lay at her mercy?

Any how…
For a wife to be submissive Is not for her to be mindlessly obedient, to accept whatever her husband says without justification and reason.

If I was married, I might accept my husband saying “no, you cannot go do XYZ” but I am completely right to question it, to ask “why?” and if my husband does not give me a reason (‘because I say so’ is NOT a reason’) then I should not have to listen.

Some men are naturally submissive, or ‘weak’ as you claim. People telling them that they are not masculine because of their personality may lead to gender confusion and homosexuality. I think a lot of gay men are really just submissive men looking for a strong, sturdy partner- which they feel they cannot find in a woman.

I’m 16, and already smarter than you- you single-minded, incompetent, unintelligent fool. :)

Angela

Right on man. That was exactly what came to our mind. The church there has over 300+ in 3 service and nearly all are from our generation! it was real encouraging and affirmation that Jesus Christ is Lord and King. May his will be done on Earth just as it is in heaven.

Have you ever heard these sayings? — “We must reach this generation!” “The church is in decline!” “We are losing this generation!”

Since when did God, the Father, step down from his sovereign position as King of the universe? He is in control. Christ is still King. The Kingdom is still growing. Let us continue to participate in this Kingdom!

Secondly, I think the idea of only having the number of children that you can provide for changes drastically when you consider what they truly NEED to have provided for them rather than just what they want. It is not necessary for us to have the latest iPod touch, new wardrobes every season, expensive meals out, new designer clothing, etc. As Americans, we tend to buy into the lie that we need so many things that the developing world understands are wants/extravagances. Don’t misunderstand me – I’m all for financial responsibility – but it just seems to me that many times our culture expects that we need things that we really don’t.

Finally, if I read the study correctly, the problem is more in the case of a single mother raising kids on her own and that is an entirely different issue. Of course it would be harder for a single mom to raise and care for four kids than it would be for a married couple. To me, the question in that case is, “What am I doing and what is my church doing to support single moms and help them raise their kids in a Christ honoring fashion?”

I was just talking with my wife about getting a Roku box to stream Hulu and Netflix through. Right now we use our Wii but Hulu will not stream from the Wii currently.

What channels can you get from the Roku box? Also, what Internet sites do you use to stream other tv stations or shows?

Thanks for your comment… Very helpful!

The one caveat: you MUST have an excellent cable/dsl connection. Otherwise, you have shows that slip, try to load continuously, etc.

There are definitely some that would argue for biblical wisdom in being able to provide for your family while not having so many that it would bring you into poverty. I’m trying not to argue for either side right now, as I would like to hear some other thoughts on this…

What an interesting statement. Morality is always relative when someone doesn’t believe in absolutes. The questions for the relativist, then, are many, “Does this relative morality span the gap of humanity and the entirety of human history. How do we define morals pertaining to specific societies. What constants wrong? What constitutes good?”

That was a very interesting, and yes hard, article to read. Thanks for posting!

I wished that Dr Mohler referenced his article, so I can further investigate.

God bless you, and have a pleasant week!

I don’t think that the beauty that God has created is in any way bad. We’re made in the image of God, so I believe that all humans are beautiful in one way or another – it’s just not always in a way that is culturally defined as beautiful. No, that doesn’t mean that I think that we are always attracted to everyone, but rather it means that I believe that God places a beauty that can be appreciated in the slender twenty something and another type of beauty in the hunchbacked eighty year old.

The issue of lust set aside, I think the problem lies in how we approach ourselves more than anything. Women especially long to be seen as beautiful and I think the problem (the “exploitation”) is when we use our God given beauty in ways that draw attention to ourselves rather than to Him. I don’t think that this is always connected to what we classically refer to as immodest clothing because the issue is the heart of WHY you wear what you wear, WHY you put on makeup, etc. You can seek to draw attention to yourself in a turtleneck and long skirt (to show the world just how modest you are). You could wear a certain t-shirt because you want people to think that you’re “cool” by your association with a particular organization. Those clothes aren’t wrong in and of themselves and they’re unlikely to elicit lust in the opposite sex, but the desires behind them are still sinful. Women (and honestly, probably men too) exploit the gift of beauty that God has given them when they seek out the attention and approval of others by how they adorn themselves. The beauty that we’ve been given should bring Him glory and not us.

In the last few months, this is something that God has really been working on in my life. He’s caused me to question why I dress the way that I do or why I put on makeup (ex: do I just want to be a little more dressed up or am I trying to catch the attention of the cute guy at church?). I’ve come to a place where I’m really seeking to be beautiful in HIS eyes. I haven’t sworn off makeup or adopted a wardrobe of frumpy jumpers, but I have seriously questioned if I’m seeking to honor Him or to draw attention to myself. If my motive is to attract attention, then I need to shift gears. If my motive is to be appropriately attired for the occasion, then that’s a different story. It’s a daily battle, but I hope that one day I’ll be described as beautiful, not because of my outer adornment, but rather because of the way that He is reflected in the choices that I’ve made.

Again, sorry for the tangent…my brain just took me down a path of contemplation on the topic of beauty when I read your post. I appreciate both the original post and your comments. Thanks for your time. =)

I appreciate your comments. There’s a reason I posted this: it’s not an easy one to answer….or maybe, as you say Josh, the answer is simply one we don’t want to accept.

I understand the interpretation of ‘turning the other cheek” being an insult rather than an outright assault. I have a problem that Eldridge asserts that what a boy being bullied is defending against is his honor, his dignity, his pride. I know what I would instinctively tell a son of mine –the same thing Eldridge did. But I find his concession a slippery slope. An insult, slander can be as devastating as any physical wound. Why wouldn’t a boy have a right to physically (or verbally) defend themselves against that? We would be going back to the days of dueling.

I believe that those around who see someone oppressed and physically harassed have a biblical obligation to intervene and stop injustice –with force. This is love, this is right. I hope I would do that, I hope you would do that….but not for my own dignity or honor, but out of love.

The government moreover, and God-ordained authorities act to punish evildoers.

I don’t think it would be weakness to endure physical pain with the ability to retaliate….but actually greater courage. Jesus wasn’t weak because he chose not to retaliate and neither is anyone who heeds his words and does the same thing.

I can tell you one thing though, the words of Jesus are as radical today as they were two thousand years ago –we shouldn’t s simply give them a passing glance and use human reasoning to justify our Theology.

The only argument Eldridge can come up with is that it doesn’t make any sense to him to actually do what Jesus said to do. Please tell me I’m not the only one who thinks that…

It seems to me that the burden of proof lies on this pro-gay activist to show that homosexuality is not immoral and that it does not harm those involved or society as a whole. Society has long regulated the sexual behavior of its people. They have done this because of the obvious ill effects that failing to regulate sexual behavior has on society. See Albert Mohler’s article here: http://www.albertmohler.com/2004/01/15/the-case-against-homosexual-marriage/ . I would recommend that you read more of Mohler’s articles on homosexuality, as he has dealt with the subject for several years and from numerous angles. I would further ask this person if she would apply her “free love” perspective to bestiality. Is there any immoral sexual behavior within her perspective? Bestiality? Polygamy? Consensual pedophilia? etc.? If so, on what grounds?

From what I have read, sin is more about not following God’s plan than harming someone else (as secular morality advocates), right? In a recent dinner party I was invited too, I was introduced to a pro-gay activist, and she insisted that everyone should be free to love anybody else. (One of our mutual friends knew I was an evangelical Christian, and forced me into a debate with her.) Am I accurate to say that homosexuality is a Chrsitian sin but at the same time not immoral (in the secular sense)?

Thanks again! God bless!

I have written an article concerning much of what you say here: “Modest is Hottest: A Countercultural Approach to Womanly Apparel” (http://wp.me/pE5P5-Ho).

It seems to me that you are addressing an issue that is completely different than what I am addressing here in this article. You are speaking much about what I discuss in the above article, proper adornment and modest apparel. This is not what this current article is about. Here, I speak of physical beauty and physical attractiveness. These are two completely different things.

Both Peter (1 Pet 3:3-5) and Paul (1 Tim 2:9-10) speak about not dressing extravagantly but rather encourage practicing self-control. Both passages are addressing the matter of the more wealthy Christians in the church not dressing so as to flaunt their wealth over the overwhelming majority of poor Christians in the church. But, they also speak about the necessity to dress modestly. Thus, I do think that is appropriate that Christians dress in a godly way. But, neither passage speaks negatively of human beauty or physical attractiveness. Neither passage speaks about veiling one’s beauty from the world. Instead, they just speak of proper dress and adornment.

Beauty is something that God has created for our enjoyment. Look around. Nature is beautiful, and we can give God praise for its beauty. In the same way, I think that there is a way that we as Christians can enjoy human physical beauty without sinning. Is it not possible to enjoy the beauty of a human in the same way that we enjoy the beauty of a sunset? Further, we can present ourselves as beautiful without sinning or being the cause of someone else’s sin. Thus, I believe that human physical beauty can be enjoyed in a godly way outside of a marriage relationship.

Part of the purpose of this article has been to respond to the common tendency within our Christian subculture, which suggests that our spirituality is the only thing that is important. While I do agree that it is important, indeed most important, we must not forget that God created us as physical creatures. We are more than souls, and our bodies are not to be hated or denigrated. Granted, we live in a fallen world “between the times” and sexual sin is running rampant in our culture, but I do not think that this means that we must become nuns, monks, hide in a cave, or wear veils to cover our faces, lest we be exposed to the outside world. No, I think we should embrace human beauty as a gift from God, something that can be enjoyed to some degree by all, and something that should be guarded, preserved for, and enjoyed to the fullest in a marriage relationship. Men and woman should not veil their beauty from the world, but they should present it in a godly way.

You said, “It isn’t wrong for [a woman] to be beautiful, but it is wrong for her to exploit the gift that God has given her for the pleasure (even just visually) of other men.” I guess my question for you is, what do you mean by “exploit”? And, what is sinful about receiving pleasure from the physical beauty of other humans (assuming that it does not lead to lust)? Or, are you assuming that the enjoyment of human physical beauty inevitably leads to lust?

Thanks, Christine, for your post!

Yes, all homosexual behavior is sinful. Thus, all homosexual relationships, whether they exist between committed couples or between casual partners, are sinful. God created marriage as a blessing to be enjoyed between one man and one woman, as I have sought to explain above. Thus, any other kind of relationship–whether it be between one man and another man (homosexuality), between one woman and another woman (lesbianism), between one man and multiple women or one woman and multiple men (polygamy), between a man or a woman and an animal (bestiality), etc.–is against God’s will and is, thus, sin. God created marriage to be between one man and one woman. If someone is involved in any other sort of sexual relationship, then he or she is, as Paul says in Romans 1, worshipping the creation rather than the Creator (idolatry). You are correct to say that there can be ungodly heterosexual relationships; this is particularly true as it relates to fornication, having sexual relationships outside of the marriage covenant. This again is a particular kind of sexual relationship that God did not intend for us as humans. In the end, any kind of sexual relationship that exists that is not between one man and one woman within the covenant of marriage is sinful.

I sincerely hope this is helpful! Blessings!

Hopefully someone can get back to me on this! Thanks in advance!

Please enlighten me, I would really appreciate it.

Thanks in advance!

Hope that’s not too much of a tangent off of the topic of the article, but I couldn’t help but think that the beauty of the woman is intended for her husband. It isn’t wrong for her to be beautiful, but it is wrong for her to exploit the gift that God has given her for the pleasure (even just visually) of other men.

Blessings,

Evah.

Thanks for your message. I agree that the Muslim population is growing rapidly, but if the Bible is true (and I believe it is) then our God is still in control. What is it exactly about Christianity and Jesus that does not make sense to you?

Blessings,

Tyler

The presuppositions we are arguing from seem to be different. I am a modified cessationist. This means that I think that the ‘apostolic’ gifts have ceased, however, I still believe God could work in these ways for his glory and our good. Even further, this means that the gifts you have listed above (prophecy, tongues, and healings/miracles), I think, were specifically for the apostles.

Yes, the HS works in powerful ways, BUT NEVER APART FROM SCRIPTURE TODAY. We have mystified the HS into this one who gives us these thoughts and messages and decisions to make. In all honesty, this is absolutely not biblical.

To answer a few of your other questions:

- The gift of tongues, I believe, is ceased. And I think churches that practice the gift of tongues openly is just a show. Again, God could work in this way if he wanted to do so, however, not in the current “Christian Church” way. Spiritual gifts are for the building of the church (1 Cor 14). Again, we have Scripture so that God can speak directly to us. Any “word” apart from Scripture, I am going to stay away from, personally.

- If you preach through Scripture, you never have to develop a ‘topical/what subject should I preach today’ view of preaching and teaching. This is called expository preaching. You should always preach the meaning of the text, what the author is trying to convey, and how the text specifically applies to us. All of Scripture is profitable (1 Tim 3), so in saying that, we should teach the entire counsel of God — from Genesis to Revelation.

Again, I understand where you are coming from, but I would encourage you to be very careful in how you use the Holy Spirit as the ‘trump all’ card. Scripture, and only Scripture, should be our trump all card.

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE read Kevin DeYoung’s Book, “Just Do Something.” If you haven’t already than you are missing out on a great understanding of the roles and functions of the Holy Spirit and how we live our lives and make decisions under his leading, albeit never apart from Scripture.

I am just incredibly interested in what your scripture is in saying that God can no longer reveal Himself or His word to us personally. My understanding is that one of the Holy Spirit’s primary purposes is to be a relay between us and the Father. I am in no way talking about literally hearing the voice of God (not ruling it out though) but simply any personal communication from the Holy Spirit. My understanding of the gift of prophesy or tongues is exactly this, the Holy Spirit giving you a message in order to relay God’s word to the church. I know many people who walk in the Spirit and are constantly in communication with Him. I personally have received a word from Him on multiple occasions. Many of my friends can attest to the same. To address your question of what would the need for scripture be if He still communicated with us today, the same could be said about the gift of prophesy or tongues or even miracles and healings. What is the point of the Spirit showing us that kind of power if it is all told in scripture. My final question is how do you figure out what to teach and preach on? Simply think about hmmm what haven’t i taught in a while, or hmmm what would be good about this time of the year. Every time I have taught on anything where I had to create my own message, I prayed and waited for God to reveal the message He wished for me to speak on. I know many pastor’s who do the same. While I do consult scripture, i never want to trust my own judgment solely on something as important as instructing the church body.

“When feeling disappointed, follow your emotions to their roots. You will find unbelief that requires the herbicide of God’s promises for you.” — Great quote!

We must always look to the core of this issue and chisel away at what’s really laying at the foundation. God, the Holy Spirit, is our wonderful counselor. One that can begin to chisel away at that foundation.

Thanks again for this post.

Thanks for your feedback.

While I wish I could present Scripture to reinforce my views concerning online dating, I cannot cite specific Scriptures that deal with the issue explicitly. Yet, since the Bible is relevant to our day, the writers of the Bible speak to this issue indirectly. So, I would use those Scriptures which concern the characteristics of person (Prov 31, 1 Tim 3, and so forth) which we are to look for in a spouse, just like I would for so-called “normal dating.” Dating and online dating are both relatively new things (within the last 100 years for both). Nevertheless, the writers of the Bible still have something for us, along these lines.

As for your experience with online dating, I plan to address this issue in an upcoming post. Clearly, if we are acting like finding someone is entirely up to us, then something is wrong with our faith in God. Yet, we still have a role to play in the matter, whether using online dating or meeting someone in-person. The role of a man and the role of a woman should be different. Stay tuned for more on this matter 8^)

I am glad that Jason is aware of the errors of his song; thanks for sending me those links! You bring a good point that the song could have been written better. In fact, it should have been written better. Even though he meant to convey something different, the fact remains that what he wrote is poor theology. Hopefully in the future his songs, and those of others, will consider the theology in the song more carefully before publishing it.

“Temptations of a Single Girl” is a “parable” about Kelly, a single woman who has a history of unsatisfying, incomplete, and painful relationships with men. She meets Martha, a relationship “mentor” and guide, and begins a journal through the “temptations” in developing relationships with men. Kelly learns about herself and others as she grapples with the common relationship behaviors and attitudes we have all encountered on our own romantic journeys.

Ever wondered why a guy doesn’t call back (you don’t need to “remind him” you’re still there)? Or why getting sexual too soon (bad idea to get attached to someone you don’t really know) or settling for Mr. Close by instead of Mr. Right (if you aren’t attracted to him now, then in a year you probably won’t be either) doesn’t work? This book SHOWS you why it simply won’t go anywhere. It challenges you to be as honest with yourself as Kelly is with herself.

Before I read this book, I didn’t really understand what “emotional unavailability” meant or what it looked like. I just knew that I got involved with a lot of guys who seemed to be unable or unwilling to love me back. I was really struggling to identify different behaviors and attitudes that would lead me on the same old path towards frustration and pain, but after seeing all the different relationship challenges all lined up, one after another, and the behavior and attitudes that went them, I am learning to recognize these romantic pitfalls and how to start paying attention to what is actually happening, not what I hope will happen or I want to happen.

I highly recommend this book to any woman who is dating now or just getting back into the dating scene after a breakup or wondering if their relationship with Mr. I’m Not Sure is going to be worth their time. This book might change your life too.

http://www.rabbitroom.com/2011/04/more-like-falling-love-part-1-why-love-frightens-us/
http://www.rabbitroom.com/2011/04/more-like-falling-in-love-part-2-the-limit-of-words/
http://www.rabbitroom.com/2011/05/more-like-falling-in-love-part-3-lie-hide-or-love/
http://www.rabbitroom.com/2011/06/more-like-falling-in-love-part-4-who-does-what/

Most of my friends are early twenties and married or engaged – some Christian, some not. But at 21, I haven’t met the man I’m supposed to marry ( and if I have, it’s Gods’s secret) and I don’t feel called to marriage yet. I have solid career prospects and I would love to get married and be a mom someday, but not now. I would rather join a group of women at my church who have pursued mission work all over the country and the globe – women who are single, passionate and first and foremost in love with God far beyond their early 20s. I suppose I say all this to make this point – whether marriage be the end game or a life of Paul-like singleness, men and women should be pursuing the will of God in their lives no matter what it may be.

In terms of commenting on your post, I would like to ask if you have any Scripture to reinforce your views. It seems to me that, though I know of several godly couples who met online, the only evidence I have ever heard in favor of Christians using online dating is experiential and not Scriptural. I’d like your thought on the matter.

My experience with online dating is one I do not plan to repeat. For me, it became too much about me and not enough about trusting God with my love life. I found myself a Calvinist in theology, but an Arminian in regards to relationships. I trusted God to take care of my salvation in the whole, but I expected to have to go out and find a husband on my own. After further studying the Bible, I do not believe that the woman is to seek out a husband and so, I don’t feel that it’s wise for me to participate in online dating.

Christie, I think that you’re absolutely correct. It does seem a bit absurd to say that the Chief Shepherd (Jesus) would be disqualified from shepherding/pastoring a local church because of his singleness. Thanks for your thoughts!

Look forward to hearing from you.

I hope you are doing well and Grace and I are praying for you often! Keep in touch!

Would you stop relying on God’s word for answers to daily challenges?

This city is the hub of India. Only a small part of the population are truly from here. When this city gets it, then the people of this city will take the message to their villages and cities. I really do think that if you reach the cities, you can reach the small towns/villages. If you equip people in the big cities to go to their home places, then the gospel will multiply exponentially.

It was refreshing to read this post, even tho I’m a little behind!

But this blog post irritates the piss out of me.

I’m Agnostic. So, does this leave me out of having to use the Bible as a guide to living “the proper way”?

If so, then I shall date and fall in love as I please. And not consult a God whose existence I somewhat doubt.

I could explain what I believe, but you guys are probably already in a state of anger over my saying I’m Agnostic.

So, good night.

While your advice is good and something through which I have thought, limiting myself to the Cincinnati area is my only option right now. My finace, and future wife, wants to finish her masters here. So, while we are here, I must find a job. If I were able to look anywhere else, I know I could find a good job because I have contacts elsewhere. Yet, living in a new area, my contact list is rather short. Although, I have two interviews this week, both of which are second interviews following phone interviews. So, your prayers for these positions are appreciated 8-)

Thanks for your advice. While I worked as a substitute teacher in Louisville, I will be unable to do so in Cincinnati because their public schools system requires that their substitute teachers have a teaching degree. I have a couple of interviews this week so hopefully God will provide something soon. One of the biggest reasons I commented on this blog is because A LOT of mature Christian guys are actively seeking employment, and yet, due to the economy and the large number of people applying for jobs, jobs are very difficult to obtain, especially fulltime jobs.

In my opinion, 13 or 14 is absolutely too young to be dating. The idea here is preparation. Let’s prepare young people during this time, not let them ‘practice.’ Practicing leads to lots of repentance and foolishness. At the end of the day, it is up to the parent on how early they will allow their child to date. We can educate them all we want but it has to be up to them to set the standards.

One thing that comes to mind is cultivating more of a culture of service within singles and college groups. A lot of these groups excel at having lunch after church together or going on a camping trip together, but they unintentionally become so fellowship-focused that they don’t challenge members.

One way to deal with that is to put more service-related activities on the singles group calendar. Leaders can keep their eyes out for mission trips, church-wide ministry opportunities, etc. and bring them up to the group. Sometimes it’s just a breakdown in communication — a pastor may announce a ministry opportunities, but singles just don’t think it applies to them if their peers aren’t talking about it.

Singles also need encouragement (and prodding) to continue growing as leaders in the church. Mentorship is really important at this stage of life, but I’ve seen few singles/college groups that have a formal mentorship programs. Intentionally connecting group members with older church leaders could go a long way to getting singles more involved in ministry.

Those are my two cents … anyone else have ideas on how to get singles to take more responsibility in the church?

I’m sure Tyler will respond when he is able, but I found your comment curious, and so I wanted to respond myself.

What strikes me as strange about your response is its (unintentionally?) uncharitable nature. Tyler has written a concise yet cogent argument for the biblical validity of singleness in pastoral ministry. His reasoning is clearly exegetical and theological. Nevertheless, your chief response is to accuse him of scripture-twisting to support a supposed bias on his part?

I agree with the implicit assumption that we must question our own biases and those of others, but to state your question so baldly and without evidence to support your accusation, seems, well, not very nice.

Perhaps this sounds more like a rebuke than I intend, but I am simply stymied by the question. Would you question the validity of his argumentation and exegesis if he were a married laymen instead of (as you assume) a single pastor?

I guess, in short, what I am asking is: What in the article do you disagree with?

You present a great point about being creative in employment. I am definitely sympathetic to the difficult economy. In my own case, a full-time job would undoubtedly be more difficult to find than part-time. As for ideas, how about substitute teaching. In CA you can take a basic educational skills test after getting your bachelor’s and be allowed to sub. Here there are usually a decent amount of opportunities in that field. They’ll usually pay you anywhere from $100-150 a day. Of course, this is not full time but can be fairly consistent. That’s my best input. I’ll be doing that in the fall.

I have determined that true success for myself is being the greatest husband, father, and household leader I can possibly be. I see it as my primary task to lead a Christ honoring, God fearing family, so that is the standard of measuring my success. It is a success that will offer more meaning to life than any other I am capable of.

After determining success for myself, I worked backwards. I tried to differentiate between unimportant things, important things, and essential things. My education is important, affording me the opportunity to find a job which provides for but does not pull me away from my family. My job is essential, but lots of money is not. Watching hundreds upon hundreds of movies, traveling all over the world, dating whoever I wanted, and many other ways I wasted my singleness all fall under the category of unimportant. Those things have value, but they are unimportant with respect to my success in the future, therefore they should have been indulged sparingly.

After the first bit of advice (Determine Success), the others are just solid wisdom which every single Christian should consider regardless of what he or she determines to be success.

I hope that clarifies a little, but if not, please let me know. I am serious about what I said; I really want to help people avoid wasting their singleness like I did!

“Singleness allows a measure of freedom that can be used for great good. Singles have more flexibility to travel to the mission field, to chaperone the all-night youth lock-in, to put more in the offering because they’ve got more discretionary income.”

That will preach!

Michelle, how do you think this type of attitude can begin to take place in the local church and in the church at large?

I would love to hear from other people and get some discussion rolling on this important topic. Thanks again for this article!

If so, and I am assuming that you are, don’t you think you are approaching the Scriptures with somewhat of a bias toward this position? Do you think that you have taken Scripture and used texts to fit your preconceived notions toward this issue?

I fully agree that men are called to work. I also think that men should be creative in this economy. Yet, I’m currently experiencing the inability to find a full time job. I’ve applied for over 500 jobs in the last four months and still can’t find anything. Thankfully, I am a Pastor of Youth at a church, part time, but, even with a masters degree, I’ve been unable to find anything. Any ideas? I’ve applied for everything in the Cincinnati area and have only had a couple of interviews. This situation is highly discouraging because I’m used to working and now am unable to do so.

there’s no more seeing the ravages of people with leprosy or in iron lungs or getting to see the weekly hanging in the public square

compared to how people satisfied these feelings in the hold days, movies are downright quaint and innocent

For me, the biggest trial is the fact that I don’t feel that the church always has a place for me and that people seem to feel that it’s their job to find me a husband. I don’t see my singleness as a problem to be fixed. It’s a phase of my life. It may last for the duration of my life or it may end next year, but it’s a phase to be enjoyed for what it is, not a plague that I need to rush to rid myself of at all cost.

Would you be interested in having a Sola Fide debate against me? A Protestant fellow began one with me, but he got so busy he had to cancel. Here is a link to my opening Essay, if you’d like to start up a new debate. If not, that’s fine, but I’d like to point out that many things you mention here in this article I’ve addressed in my Essay so nobody should think Catholics made this up.

God Bless

Now, back to natural selection. Looking at the broad spectrum of genetics, if homosexuality were genetic through heredity, it would become significantly rarer with time, would it not? Second, if homosexuality were some type of mutagenic defect, why is there no threat to the person’s mortality like there are with other gene-based disorders?

Thanks for the article–we as believers need to talk about it more, and be more compassionate toward those who are practicing a homosexual lifestyle. I think one of the greatest misconceptions about a homosexual’s conversion is that he/she will become a well-functioning heterosexual. Even with discipleship, that may not be possible. Sanctification, sure. Abstention, sure. Wanting to jump in the sack with the opposite sex? Not necessarily.

HT: All the posts Tim Challies has regarding the topic. They’re all very enlightening, and helpful.

I hosted an event yesterday in which I was in regular contact with the parents of 4, 5, and 6th graders. When we showed up to the event we had 8 confirmed yes, 6 maybes, and about 20 no responses. When we got started, we had 34 in attendance.

It’s not just the kids! Even parents refuse to commit until they show up at the door!

Churches desperately need to stop shying away from these issues until our kids are 16 and already entangled in sexual sin. Abercrombie and Fitch just unvelied a new padded bra for girls, and their target customer for the bra is a six year old; kids know about sexuality long before the church ever tries to institute a Biblical worldview on the issue. That has to change.

It is time for the church to stand up and say ENOUGH. Enough orphaned children living on the streets. Enough orphaned children starving to death. Enough orphaned children becoming sex slaves and drug addicts. Enough orphaned children living and dying having never known the love of Christ.

When will this break our hearts? When will the church finally see? When will we all have enough?

Russ to Ryan Rindels: You, my friend, are the one teaching “faith-less” giving! You are the one who does not want to back away from a minimum you think the Law demanded of everybody when it never did! You are afraid to trust God and teach faith-giving instead of Law-giving.

Paul said in First Tim 5:8 “But if any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.”

You are teaching Christians to behave “worse than infidels” when you wrongly call tithes “firstfruits” and then demand them from everybody before any essential bills such as medicine are bought. Shame on you.

Ryan: It comes down to tithing as a model

Russ: No, it does not “come down to tithing as a model.” No, no , no. You have absolutely no biblical justification to teach that everybody under the Old Covenant Law was required to begin his/her level of giving at ten per cent. You manipulate God’s Word in order to make it appear to say only what you want it to say.

Ryan: “I am never hard-pressed if every other financial obligation takes precedence over giving to God FIRST.”

Russ: That is not what I said and it is not what Paul criticized in First Timothy 5:8. (1) Again, tithes are not the same as firstfruits and you seem to want to ignore that. And (2) I did not say “every other financial obligation.” I very clearly said “essentials” like medicine, food, heat — and a very scanty lifestyle. It is wrong to live so “high on the hog” that there is nothing for God’s work.

Ryan: “If I am always justified in dealing with everything else on my own…then giving whatever is leftover to God. And you say God would be pleased with that?”

Russ: If you cannot respond to a question or comment, you simply change the intention of the comment to something you can handle.

Ryan: “My parents tithed the last of their money and had no food left for groceries. What happened? Someone knocked on their door and left exactly what they needed after they prayed for it. Faith.”

Russ: What? They “tithed” and “had no money left for groceries”? Whatever happened to the “overflowing blessings” of Malachi 3:10??? You are giving me proof that the Old Covenant promise does not work today! Thanks for the illustration! Have you ever thought that God is now dealing with believers in terms of the New Covenant?

Ryan: “Your model would suggest God isn’t big enough to do something that miraculous.”

Russ: Your model suggests that God is no longer operating under what he only promised national Israel under the Old Covenant. You admitted that your own parents actually did NOT receive “overflowing blessings” after “tithing.” That proves my point.

Ryan: “Moreover, if there’s no minimum or model than why do you have to justify those who give less than 10% …

Russ: I did not “justify” them; the Apostle Paul did in First Timothy 5:8. The point is that YOU CRITICIZE THEM if they they do not give a minimum of ten per cent.

Ryan: “Why do you not justify people who refuse to give more than 10% because they’re following the Old Testament? Because that’s never a problem!”

Russ: What are you talking about? You are the one stuck on the Old Covenant mentality! You are the one looking at percentages. If done correctly, preaching and teaching on freewill sacrificial giving will out-perform setting a percentage.

Ryan: People start at a point and their faith to give more increases.

Russ: Do not tell them what that beginning point must be. God did not tell anybody where to start other than food producers who lived inside Israel. Jesus, Peter and Paul did not tithe.

Father/Son – Monday night Football….bring your own meat to throw on grill. Tailgate atmosphere

Anything Father/Daughter is huge!

Be careful not to commit ad hominem “make yourself seem smarter” fallacy. I see your scriptural references supporting faith-less giving with this statement of appeal:

“There are many who are too poor, too disabled and are giving sacrificially though less then ten per cent. Do not shun them”

It comes down to tithing as a model, but not an absolute. However, I am never streched, I am never hard-pressed if every other financial obligation takes precedence over giving to God FIRST. I am always justified in dealing with everything else on my own…then giving whatever is leftover to God. And you say God would be pleased with that? My parents tithed the last of their money and had no food left for groceries. What happened? Someone knocked on their door and left exactly what they needed after they prayed for it. Faith.

Your model would suggest God isn’t big enough to do something that miraculous. Moreover, if there’s no minimum or model than why do you have to justify those who give less than 10% and not people who refuse to give more than 10% because they’re following the Old Testament? Because that’s never a problem! People start at a point and their faith to give more increases.

I think there’s an extent to which it is no longer efficacious to debate our positions. I appreciate the responses and respect your opinion. I disagree fundamentally on the issue of faith in giving. And I wholheartedly agree that we SHOULD give expecting something back (John Piper, Desiring God). Seeking happiness from rewards is Biblical.

thanks. It always a blessing to see God prove faithful in that way.

Russ: This is true because it is taught by the Holy Spirit to the Church after Calary.

Ryan: It follows that we should go far beyond the mere 10%. I agree.

Russ: This is only true for those who are financially able to give above 10% sacrificially.

Ryan: With no measurement or minimum, giving becomes too subjective.

Russ: Now your argument comes from you opinion and not from God’s Word. Believe it or not, God’s Word has no minimum. The only only ones who were requred to tithe in the OT were food producers who lived inside God’s HOLY land of Israel. Tithes could not come from what man increased, from Gentiles or from outside Israel. Period. And you cannot disprove that.

Ryan: I concede that the New Testament does not prescribe the exact amount we ought to give.

Russ: I suppose you think that the Holy Spirit forgot to inspire this.

Ryan: I find, however, that this concession to give less is a slippery slope.

Russ: You are putting words into the mouths of others to make yourself seem smarter. We argue that many, but not all, should give more. Some are already giving sacrificially even though less. Why are you not willing to concede this?

Ryan: Those who do not set aside their “first fruits” never have much left to give God.

Russ: Now you wrap your false comment around a false doctrine of firstfruits. Firstfrutis and tithing are never the same thing. OT firstfruits were very small token offerings. In the NT the first should go to pay essential bills as in First Timothy 5:8.

Ryan: I believe that tithing is a relevant and salutary biblical principle for all Christians

Russ: You are wrong. If you really believe it, then you will contianue this comment section for a long time and look at all the arguments.

Ryan: training wheels

Russ: Again you argue from the false assumption that the Old Covenant required everybody to begin their level of giving at ten per cent.

Ryan: test; Mal 3:10

Russ: Another false way of teaching tithing. (1) The Old Covenant, including tithing, was only commanded to Israel. (2) The entire Law, including tithing, was a TEST: obey all to be blessed; break one to be cursed. One cannot expect to be blessed for tithing while violating other parts of the law. Be honest with the texts. (3) In Mal 3:10 the tithe was still only FOOD over 1000 years later.

Ryan: Matthew 23:23
If Jesus didn’t tithe, or didn’t believe in it, why would he have mentioned not neglecting the ‘lesser’ matters?

Russ: As a Jew living under the Law, Jesus must teach the Law or SIN. He was discussing “matters fo the Law” and was addressing “you scribes and Phariesses, hypocrites.” He was not addressing the Church. Jesus could not and did not command his disciples to tithe to himself. He also commanded only those Jews (not Gentiles) whom he healed to show themselves to the priests.

Ryan to Gary Arnold: You seem to be making an appeal to exemption for God’s requirements based on what the government demands of you.

Russ: Not all of what God required for Old Covenant Israel is required for the church. As a tithe-recipient in the OT you were required NOT to own or inherit property. Do you? David, Solomon and the kings taxed the people to pay for Levites whom they used as political serants in 1 Chronicles 23 to 26. Do you follow that suggestion?

Ryan: My intent and understanding is undoubtedly to give much more than a mere tenth.

Russ: Of course; you have a vested interest. That is your choice and not God’s command. There are many who are too poor, too disabled and are giving sacrificially though less then ten per cent. Do not shun them.

Ryan: Faith in giving is tossed out the window. For most Christians, it’s a struggle and sacrifice just to give 10%!

Russ: Law tosses out faith.

Ryan to Gary Arnold: Malachi 3
If the percentages in the Old Testament were so frivolous, why wouldn’t God have told the people that the amount was simply “between them and Him”?

Russ: You miss the point comletely. Malachi and Matthew 23 both define the tithe ONLY as FOOD from inside God’s HOLY land which God had increased. You refuse to deal with that fact. Although money was common in Genesis and essential for sanctuary worship, money is never a tithed item. The tithe was not “frivolous”; rahter it was commanded by cold hard law for food producers and only for food producers.

Ryan: Christians who don’t give God the “firstfruits” never have enough leftover.

Russ: You keep buiding the tithing lie on top of the firstfruits lie. They are not the same thing. Deu 26:1-4; Neh 10:35-38.

Great words!

That would eliminate numbers 1, 2, and 3.

I find it interesting to hear different parent’s perspectives on Facebook. I know some parents who will not allow their kids to have it until they are 16, for various reasons. While at the same time I know some 8 year old kids whose parents have created an account for them to roam freely. While the latter is definitely not something I would support, it seems to me that the Facebook world is simply an addition to the peer to peer youth culture that has been continually evolving outside of the adult world. Some kids live for peer to peer interaction and are completely and utterly influenced by their peers. Facebook seems to aid in this environment and almost bring the school social environment home to your living room.

What is more, I believe teenagers should have a time limit for their computer use. Go play outside, build something, play ball, goof off… just turn off the TV, the computer screen, etc. and get off the couch!

The development of FB has brought forth several challenging parenting questions for this generation.

Let’s look at Malachi 3. First, who is God speaking to – the priests or the people?
We need to study the entire Book of Malachi rather than take a few verses out of context.

By the time we get to verse 6 in chapter 1, we see it is the priests that are being addressed at that point.

In both chapters 1 and 2 of Malachi there is a conversation going on between God and the priests. Every time the word “you” is used, it is referring to the priests. Chapter 3 continues with this conversation. In verse 5 God says “And I will come near to you to judgment…..” In the Old Testament, during this period of time and generally speaking, only the priests could get near to God. It is only in the New Testament that born again believers, you and I, can get close to God. So up to chapter 3 verse 5, God is speaking to the priests. The word “you” is still referring to the priests. There is nothing in the scripture to indicate this changes when you get to verse 8. But that’s not all.

Read Numbers 18:29-30 and then read Malachi 1:14. Those verses explain robbing God of the offerings. The PRIESTS, not the people, robbed God of the offering by giving to God the worst instead of the best.

In Nehemiah 13 we are told that the priests stole the Levites portion of the tithe; therefore, they had no food to eat at the temple, and they went back to their own fields.

Therefore, taking the Levites portion of the tithe is the robbing God of the tithe. Or to put it another way, THE LEVITES WERE ROBBED. God said He was robbed because the tithe was not taken where God directed.

Next, in Malachi 3:10 God says to bring all the tithes to the storehouse. The people took the tithes to the Levites who lived in the Levitical cities, not to the temple. The Levites took the required tithe of the tithe to the temple. (See Nehemiah 10:37-38) Only those tithes ever made it to the temple. The priests then took those tithes to the storehouse. It only makes sense if God is speaking to the priests in this verse.

No one has said that the percentages used in the Old Testament were frivolous. The number ten symbolizes a whole item, and also completion.

From Christian Resources Today, “Ten : 10 – Biblical Meaning of Number: deals with completeness that happens in a divine order or completed during a course of time. There’s nothing that is left wanting within the complete cycle the number ten has just completed.”

That would be the reason for a tenth and not 2 tenths, etc. One tenth would symbolize completeness; a complete transaction.

I count just over 300 occurrences of the words ten or tenth in the KJV of the Holy Bible. 95% occur before Calvary. The number 10 has much significance in the Old Testament but virtually no significance in the New Testament. In fact, some of the few times those words appear after Calvary it is in reference to the Old Covenant.

At Calvary, the Old Covenant came to its completion. There is nothing after Calvary to suggest that the number ten represents completion.

In the New Testament, God wants 100% of us. Since we are now under grace, rather than use percentages or guidelines for giving, God will look at our heart. Many will have a false sense of security by following the Old Testament tithing law as a guideline when maybe God wants that person to give 50% or more. Using the Old Testament law as a guideline is opposite to using the Holy Spirit.

And finally, let’s not mix firstfruits with the tithe. In Nehemiah 10:37 we learn that the firstfruits were taken to the temple for the priests, and the tithes were taken to the Levites who lived in the Levitical cities. Firstfruits has nothing to do with the tithe.

OLD TESTAMENT – THE FIRST OF THE FRUITS SHOULD GO TO GOD
Proverbs 3:9 (KJV) “Honour the LORD with thy substance, and with the firstfruits of all thine increase:”

NEW TESTAMENT – THE WORKER SHOULD BE FIRST TO RECEIVE A SHARE OF THE FRUIT
2 Timothy 2:6 (KJV) “The husbandman that laboureth must be first partaker of the fruits.”

1 Timothy 5:8 (KJV) “But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.”

The New Testament makes it clear that we are to use the FIRST of our income to take care of ourselves and our family. We are talking about needs, here, not just anything we want. Then we should give generously from what is left.

Those who are good stewards will generally have much left for giving. I teach that Christians should pray and seek The Spirit before making any major purchases. Christians need to distinguish between their needs and their wants. I purposely live far below my means in order to have much left to help others. But I can’t tell anyone else that they should do as I do. Each much pray and seek The Spirit in their total stewardship, not just in their giving.

We must not treat God as a slot machine, hoping to hit the jackpot. We should give because we want to give. We should give with no expectation of getting something back. Once one experiences the joy of giving, giving becomes natural.

I find myself giving more than 10% and I’m glad you do too. Christians, especially those with greater incomes give way beyond 10%….and it would only make biblical sense tha God would expect more from those with more. Like you said, equal sacrifice.

In Malachi 3, we see God says to “test him in this” –why would he give them the challenge unless there was hesitation or incredulity that what was promised would be fulfilled? People are given to doubt and unbelief in their humanity. If the percentages in the Old Testament were so frivolous, why wouldn’t God have told the people that the amount was simply “between them and Him”? They would’ve assuredly short-changed him because of their lack of faith. So we come to today: Christians who don’t give God the “firstfruits” never have enough leftover. Those who look at their check book, see what doesn’t add-up, give a percentage and trust God never fail to have their needs provided. I’ve seen it countless times myself.

But if you make a concession that presumes there will be times when all the bills don’t “allow” me to give God (a realistically small amount) then you never take the leap of faith. You never discover miraculous provision. You underestimate the Lord’s power.

In Matthew 23:23 Jesus is speaking to those still under the Old Covenant; thus, tithing was required on all increase of the seed which could includes spices. Jesus believed in the tithe. Jesus just didn’t qualify as a tithe payer, unless he had crops and/or animals to tithe from. As a carpenter, he had no tithable items.

“Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” In other words, give to Caesar the coin with Caesar’s image on it to pay Caesar’s tax. Give to God OURSELVES, since WE were made in God’s image. It has nothing to do with money or tithing.

You can be led by the Old Covenant laws, OR you can be led by The Spirit of God. Being led by The Spirit, I find myself giving far, far more than a mere tenth of my income, but at the same time I have family and friends who could not possibly give a tenth of their income and have enough left to provide for their family.

Tithing ended when the Levitical priesthood ended. To be against tithing today is not an excuse, it is following God’s Word. Trying to tithe today is actually denying a part of what Jesus did on the cross. I say “trying” to tithe today because it is impossible to pay the Biblical tithe today as God commanded. Since God COMMANDED His tithe be taken to the Levites, taking His tithe to anyone other than a Levites would be robbing God.

I stick with the scriptures. History proves that NO Christian Church taught anyone to tithe on their income until 1870. It is a false doctrine made up by ignorant and/or dishonest church leaders. Pastors who teach tithing lack faith that God will provide for His Church. Those same pastors tell their congregation to put their faith in God but they are unable to put their faith in God when it comes to Church finances. Rather, they mislead, twist the scriptures, or try to make Christians believe they are still under the Old Covenant laws.

The Biblical tithe always came from God’s miraculous increase of FOOD from crops and animals and never from man’s income. The tithe had everything to do with God, not man. Church leaders have REPLACED GOD with man in the tithing equation. No man can earn a Holy tithe.

Good insight on the OT references. Maybe 20% tithing just be preached -I can guarantee God would do more with 80% than we could with our 100%.

In Matthew 23:23 Jesus says to the Pharisees, “Woe to you scribes and pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin and have neglected the weighter provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.”

If Jesus didn’t tithe, or didn’t believe in it, why would he have mentioned not neglecting the ‘lesser’ matters?

Also, your reference to mortgage payments, property taxes, sales taxes etc, “Pay to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s” -There’s always civic obligations with our money. You seem to be making an appeal to exemption for God’s requirements based on what the government demands of you. Jesus knew that and thus we see him reference that in scripture.

My intent and understanding is undoubtedly to give much more than a mere tenth. Many Christians do, and those with greater income are undoubtedly required by God to use that for the kingdom. However, EVERYONE has a legitimate excuse not to give to God (taxes, repairs, college tuition, medical bills…anything).

younger people (my intended recipients) could find an easy loophole with no reference point and a “give whatever you feel God wants you to give…and make sure your happy about it….and don’t worry, he understands all your extra costs so if you can’t, then don’t worry about it”

Faith in giving is tossed out the window. For most Christians, it’s a struggle and sacrifice just to give 10%!

God will do as He has promised and “pour out a blessing till it overflows”. It is an incredible thing to experience.

Leviticus 27:30-33, Numbers 18: The First Tithe – a tenth of crops and animals and commanded to take the tithe to the Levites.

Deuteronomy 14:22-27: The Second Tithe aka The Festival Tithe – a tenth of crops, plus add to that the firstborn animals, and take for the yearly feast.

Deuteronomy 14:28-29: The Third Tithe aka The Three-Year Tithe aka The Poor Tithe – a tenth of crops, kept at home, and invite the Levites, widows, orphans, stranger to eat.

When you average the Biblical tithing commands over a seven-year period (there was no tithe every seventh year), you get 20%. Therefore, if you believe you must give more than what the Israelite farmers were required to pay in tithes, you must give more than 20%.

The ONLY people in the Old Testament that were commanded to tithe were those who INHERITED THE PROMISED LAND WITH EVERYTHING ON IT. They got the land, house, animals, crops, etc. ALL FREE AND CLEAR. No mortgage payment or rent to pay. And THEY were commanded to tithe on the crops and animals and take it to the Levites who INHERITED the tithe INSTEAD OF the promised land with everything on it. No one else tithed. Wage earners did not tithe. Jesus didn’t tithe. Paul didn’t tithe. Peter didn’t tithe.

HOW CAN YOU COMPARE THAT WITH CHRISTIANS WHO HAVE TO PAY THEIR MORTGAGE PAYMENT OR RENT, INCOME TAXES, PROPERTY TAXES, SALES TAXES, ETC?

There is no way to justify making some “principle” out of the Biblical facts and then apply it to Christians today. It is just flat out wrong and makes no sense at all.

The New Testament teaches generous, sacrificial giving, from the heart, according to our means. For some, $1 might be a sacrifice, while for others, even giving 50% of their income might not induce a sacrifice. In the Old Testament, ONLY the farmers tithed, and it was equal percentage (a tenth). The New Testament teaches the principle of equal sacrifice instead of equal percentage. Equal sacrifice is much harder to achieve, if not impossible, than giving ten percent.

Giving is between the giver and God.

Consider making some “early” touches to the parents of the 5th graders (rising 6th) sometime during the 5th grade year. That 6th grade year is such a transition time so any and every bit of comfort they have with the student ministry will assist in that transition. Also, (you may have planned these already) have some events throughout the year that parents are invited to as well. Playing together as a family will also enhance your influence to communicate your vision.

Consistent communication throughout the year is so vital. The seminars and teaching times are great, but the constant encouragement and reminders to be the primary spiritual influencer should be primary.

great work daniel-son!!

I read an article from Albert Mohler’s blog about a Christian couple in England who would not give a homosexual couple a room together, citing religious conviction. The men sued and won their case and the couple had to shut down their business. The judge candidly said something to the liking of, “I understand that your religious convictions are opposed to homosexuality. 100 years ago, nearly everyone would be in agreement with you. However, most in England today believe the gay lifestyle to be acceptable and therefore, you have to get with the times.”

I’ve read and re-read this post, and I love it. This past year, I tried to develop a similar plan on paper, but I always had trouble getting developing a good balance between models. I think you’ve done it.
Great job!

Piper’s quote, “I wish the church would do this better” is perfect. That pretty much sums it up.

Thanks for your question. Speaking pragmatically, I am almost of the opinion that either approach is fine so long as it gets the job done; that is, you find your husband or wife. I see your point though, and I think that you’re right. Hiding behind a computer screen because you are cowardly is a very large problem; so, if the issue is fear, then fear needs to be dealt with.

I would say that if a guy knows a girl in his everyday life that meets his criteria for a potential wife, then he should start by pursuing her. The benefits for this approach outweigh online dating for sure. Most importantly, you get to observe them and live life together with them face to face. This cannot be done over the internet. But, what if there is no such person in your life? What if you do not know a girl who meets your criteria? Do you sit by idly, or do you use the resources that are made available to you through technology? What do you think, Josh?

I appreciate Piper’s position on this, as usual he seems pretty level-headed yet biblical, however I do have a question for you:

Do you think that online dating could be an easy excuse for a lot of guys who are too afraid to pursue the women in their everyday lives?
Do you think that would be a problem?

I pray that God uses this post to stir up more hearts towards the plight of the orphans.

Amen!

Its really a great article….Great Message….

I understand what you are saying. However, the point I was trying to make is that the what is masculine or feminine according to the world is constantly changing. Kilts are skirts for men worn in Scotland. Men in ancient China wore nail polish to signify their high social status. In Jesus’s time, men wore tunics, which are kinda like dresses. (Correct me if I am wrong about that. You are the Biblical scholar. Not me.)

If a picture of me (a girl) dressing in jeans and a button up shirt were to magically travel back in time to the Victorian era when it was socially unacceptable for women to wear pants, would it be unbiblical?

I guess what I am saying is if masculine and feminine styles of dressing are a construct of the world, why worry too much about them? I would think it is more important to raise a boy with a Biblical view of masculinity and not pay as much attention to changing fashion (which is a worldly construct). Not saying I would dress my hypothetical son in pink dresses or “pink panties” as you say. But if we were having a lazy Saturday and he asked to have his toenails painted, I would say why not? Let him be a child and play around. I would let a girl play with hot wheels or toy trucks, so why not allow a boy to have fun playing around?

Anyway, cousin, I respect your viewpoint. I am afraid this is just going to be one of those “Agree to disagree” moments.

Your favorite cuz,
Jessi

The Bible obviously gives zero guidelines on the colors that are appropriate for men and women. Nonetheless, we live in a culture where items are specifically classified as “feminine” or “masculine.” For instance, high heels, dresses, and toe nail polish have been labeled feminine, while wrangler jeans and boxer briefs are considered masculine. What is more, a woman can be a helicopter pilot in the Navy, shoot guns, and fight in the war, all while still caring herself in “feminine” ways, and a man can cook, clean, etc. while still being masculine. Gender roles is not the issue here… gender distinction is.

If we are going to paint our boys toenails pink then why not give them a pair of pink panties as well? Also, why don’t we just teach them that when they grow up they can pick whichever gender they want to be? This is a hue deal. We must model for our children, at an early age, what specifically makes a woman beautifully feminine, while also teaching the core of what manhood is… again, according to Scripture.

Let us not blur these lines.

In WWII, Nazis forced homosexual men to wear pink triangles on their clothing. This negative association lasted into modern times. So basically, we don’t think boys should wear pink now because of what Nazis did!

I just don’t get what the big deal is.

With so much gender confusion happening in our society, this kind of thing just makes matter worse. Kids are growing up today with so much gender confusion. It is disheartening and sick. May we model true biblical manhood and womanhood to our children.

Whether gender neutrality is the goal or not, When I see the J Crew add, there is no doubt in my mind a boy with painted pink toenails graces the add. I do not see a girl in boy’s clothes. The non-distinction made between genders glorifies feminity of men and masculinity of women -it’s unmanly, effeminate, unbiblical.

This sermon is sobering edification.

That was a great read by Driscoll. I’m gonna give that link to a lot of guys in my college group. It’s a must for Christian young men.

I’m a little surprised that you think of Reservoir Dogs as “common culture”. A culturally significant film, yes. But common? A movie can be impacting to the culture without being common. What about the 1932 film White Zombie? Being one of the first zombie films pretty much labels it culturally significant, but not necessarily common. Myself, being a 20-something that has lived and worked around non believers in a common culture, I had never heard of Reservoir Dogs. I’m not saying that automatically precludes it from being common, but it certainly doesn’t help the case. Therefore, it seems a little harsh to rebuke the author for renting a movie he hadn’t read a full detailed plot synopsis of. Isn’t that kind of the point of movies anyway?

After having read the article, I’d hardly call this author “insulated”. That seems like a bit of a leap. Besides, there are so many excellent preachers and ministers of the word that have a far more limited view on movies than this guy.

Do any of you have any suggestions for further questions to consider while evaluating a film’s content?

This article is important for several reasons. One of these reasons is that often people neglect to consider whether or not watching a certain type of movie is pleasing to God. Many times they just state, “Well, it is the same as ____.” But, as you mentioned, we need to evaluate what we are watching AND why we are watching it!

Awesome article man! Just posted it on facebook -I know the issue is super relevant to contemporary Christians -especially college-aged and youth. You addressed some aspects that are difficult and complex and gave some great guidance.

Liked the article, very informative and insightful. This should help many Christians really think about the movies that they allow themselves to watch. Christian liberty is a good thing, but in these cases it can sometimes be abused or looked over just because someone likes the actor or actress. Keep up the good work!!!!

Excellent article. Such experiences could easily bring on adject disillusionment apart from a Christ-based worldview. People in power have been (generally) wicked -even in the history of the Church you find such cases. I just finished reading the Screwtape Letters in December -that particluar passage is especially powerful. ‘Real life’ is more than what your planning on eating for lunch today. It’s a battle for the souls of men in a fallen world where satan is crowning prince.

As always, your article was thoughtful, thought-provoking, and a pleasure to read. To look at this world as it is, with eyes wide open, yet never to be jaded — this is the duty of the Christian. But it is no easy task. Oh to grace how great a debtor daily I’m constrained to be, as I so readily forget our hope and joy in the face of a hard-bitten world. And yet, praise be to God, for his grace is ever present, ever ready, ever helping. I count your words of encouragement an avenue of grace, which so often comes by way of our brothers and sisters.

Sincerely,

_jonathan

I think Rob Bell has been bearing incredibly great fruit for a while now, though. Isn’t that some kind of sign of who is from God or would it be one of those adversaries masquerading as an angel of light?

Maybe he’s wrong, but I do think the nature of Hell is a difficult subject. I don’t think we should water it down or create a new ‘Gospel’, but I can see how something that is describe primarily with allusions and metaphor can be a hard teaching.

C.S. Lewis tries to work through some similar questions in THE GREAT DIVORCE and THE LAST BATTLE (not that that theology is the primary point of those works by any means). Also, clearly George MacDonald has those kinds of questions. There are others too…

Is Hell a torture chamber? Is it blase Hades/Sheol-like existence? Is it annihilationsim? Is it something else?

Who is the heretic in the Armenian vs. Calvinist questions?
Who is the heretic in eschatological debates?
Who is the heretic between Catholics and Protestants?

Who will be with God eternally? How much can we know that?

What is the essential doctrine? Where do we draw the line?

Bell still says Jesus is Lord. Bell still affirms Jesus’ importance in all areas of life and death. After death, as Bell says, is pretty speculative.

22Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. 23 No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also. (1 John 2)

That denial seems to be the big thing when it comes to false teachers: Is Jesus Lord? You might say though that Bell isn’t espousing the True Jesus, I suppose. I don’t know. I don’t know that I am. I don’t know that you are. I know that I know Jesus, but I don’t know him perfectly. Someday I will (1 Cor 13).

I guess I’m up for a Romans 1-ish Generous Orthodoxy. Maybe a lot of people who have been told about Jesus haven’t been told about the REAL Jesus. What does God do in that case?

Maybe I’m too soft.

But let us all strain towards the goal of taking up Jesus’ life and death and whatever might be wrong, hard, or difficult, may we pray and exhort and love, and hope that someday God will reveal it to us.

Maybe his intentions are to pervert the Gospel and lead people astray. However, the Rob Bell I’ve learned from so many times, never seemed to be doing that. He seemed to bring me closer to Jesus…
Its nice to see someone attempt to engage some of those intense charges coming toward the Church these days. Let us at least be in conversation, like this, about them.

I’m young and probably wrong. Thank God there is sanctification and forgiveness.

I would disagree with you concerning the thoughtfulness of Bashir’s questions. If you need more context behind the motivation of his questions, you should listen to his post-interview discussion as I have posted above.

Bashir continually asked Bell if one had to trust in Jesus during this lifetime in order to go to heaven and whether that was important. Why did he have to repeat himself so many times? Because Bell–as one might expect–tried his best to avoid the issue. Bashir wouldn’t let him. This is an example of a journalist who is concerned about getting to the bottom of the truth. When Bell persisted in his “dancing” around the questions, Bashir cut Bell to the bone and revealed Bell’s errors. What does Bell have to say for himself? Oh, that he’s just a pastor who apparently isn’t responsible for speaking the truth to his people. Sad.

The question concerning Japan was absolutely relevant to this discussion and revealed Bell’s lack of theological acuity. When you focus so much on immanent, caring, tear-shedding aspects of God’s love to the exclusion of God’s transcendence, omniscience, wisdom, and sovereignty (as Rob Bell does), then you end up with a powerless and impotent deity… like the one Bell seems to believe in. Bashir brilliantly begins his disassembling of Bell by first exposing the fallacious side effects of a theological system that focuses exclusively on the attribute of God’s “love” without understanding the other attributes of God’s character.

Again, I disagree with you. Bell’s response about just being a “pastor” was nothing more than an excuse and one that would help aid him in his dancing. It was an excuse, and a terrible one–one that was nothing more than an evasion of Bashir’s question. Bell’s “excuse” dug him into a deeper hole, incriminating him with being an irresponsible and deceptive pastor. If you will listen to the interview carefully, you will notice that Bashir charges Bell’s work with being historically inaccurate. He also deems his use of Scripture indefensible. To prove his point, Bashir brings to light the fact that Bell depends on the heretical work of the early writer Origen and chooses not use the heretical work of Arius. Why choose one heretical work and not the other? Bashir is essentially pointing out Bell’s historical inconsistency. Bashir asks the question, “Why do you select one [Origen] and not select the other [Arius]?” Bashir is asking him, “Why is your work inconsistent and inaccurate?” Bell then “excuses” himself or avoids the question altogether by saying, “First and foremost, because I’m a pastor.” Do you not see the problem here, Todd? Sure, pastors deal with real people, with real problems, BUT they offer them REAL ANSWERS–TRUTH. Rob Bell is in essence saying, “In order for me to help my people with real problems, I must come up with a palatable message that they can accept and have warm fuzzies over.” Bashir brings the hammer down when he points this out saying, “You’re amending the gospel so that it’s palatable to contemporary people who find, for example the idea of hell and heaven very difficult to stomach. So here comes Rob Bell; he’s made a Christian gospel for you and it’s perfectly palatable; it’s easy to swallow.”

Do you really think that teaching heresy is a good way to comfort people? Do you think that teaching lies to one’s congregation is a good thing to do as a pastor? Why don’t we stick to God’s truth and let it do its intended work instead of coming up with our own message?

Do you really think this is a difficult subject? What is so hard to understand about Jesus’ words to the unbelieving: “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire” (Matt 25:41)? It sure sounds like unbelievers are cast into an eternity fire to me.

And why should we give Bell “the benefit of the doubt” if he is teaching universalism? The church has called this a heresy from the beginning. And Christians ESPECIALLY should not give false teachers the “benefit of the doubt”! The Scripture is replete with warnings against false teachers: (Matt 24:11; 2 Cor 11:13; 1 Tim 1:3-7; 6:3-4; 2 Tim 2:14-26; 2 Tim 3:12-16; 2 Pet 2:1-3; Jude 3, 9; 1 John 1:6, 8, 10; 2:18-25; 2 John 7-8; 9-11; Rev 2:2, 14-15, 20). I understand that Bell denies being a universalist. He thinks that hell exists and that men can even choose hell postmortem. But, Bell also thinks that God’ s love will eventually win them over. In the end, hell is empty… universalism… heresy.

I read Relevant Magazine’s interview. It was decent, but I think Bashir was clearly more concerned about getting to the bottom of the issue–the truth. RM simply points to what others are saying. Bashir does his own homework and points to specific errors in Bell’s writing and his thinking. Granted, Bashir was more forceful, but heresy is nothing to bat your eyes at. If you want to take the time to listen to a more thorough treatment of Bell’s work, listen here to the panel discussion between Al Mohler, Justin Taylor, Denny Burk, and Russell Moore: http://www.sbts.edu/resources/event/love-wins-a-conversation-on-rob-bells-new-book/

Even with the interpretation by the blogger. “Bell excuses himself by admitting that he is just a pastor.” He was trying to explain that he is a Pastor deal with real people, with real questions, and trying to communicate that these questions aren’t new, but have been wrestled with for a very long time. That was not an excuse.

I’d like to see some people giving the benefit of the doubt, especially Christians. And also especially on such a difficult topic.

The Relevant Magazine interview is much better.

Maybe he is a heretic, maybe he isn’t, but that doesn’t mean we write him off.

Jeremiah 14:14 — 14 Then the LORD said to me, “The prophets are prophesying lies in my name. I have not sent them or appointed them or spoken to them. They are prophesying to you false visions, divinations, idolatries and the delusions of their own minds.” Matt 7:5 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 20 Thus by their fruits you will recognize them.

Blessings,

Greg Gibson

God understands suffering and pain. The excrucitating suffering Jesus experienced being separated from the father during his death is hardly comprehensible for us. It was the most horrible reality possible. Jesus was familiar with sorrows. He comforts us in times of disaster. When we experiences hardship and death, having Christ as our hope makes the trials in life bearable.

I also should have mentioned the most important truth: the good news of eternal life. Jesus has conquered death and by placing our faith in him we have hope even in the midst of tragedy and lives lost.

Great work here – writing, research, etc. Perhaps you could explain the significance of these matters for our readers? We probably both know how crucial getting these matters right is but we both have seminary educations ;-)!

I’ve got some questions for you: How would you counsel a young girl in high school or in college, who desires marriage and motherhood, to approach obtaining an education? And what should a young girl aspire to in terms of a career?

Thanks again for such a helpful article.

If I point you to my works then I am selfish and exalting myself instead of Jesus. The Catholic Church has done many great things but also some very bad things. We won’t mention the Crusades or….Never mind, I won’t go there.

You continue to put me with Luther and I have yet to quote a single thing from him. I am with CHRIST JESUS and Him alone.

Once again you miss the point. Read and think about my earlier posts. Psalm 119:11 which is above for you says that David hid the word of God in his heart. WHY? So that he might not sin against the Lord. We do act upon the words of Scripture; we just don’t want the attention on us rather on the God of the Bible who alone is mighty to save. I am acting on the words of Jesus in Matthew 28 right now. However, you clearly misread nearly everything I post. Your doctrine is far too man-centered. We should feed the poor, fight for the rights of the unborn but if we merely feed people and do charitable things, we might very well be making them more comfortable on their way to hell.

If we fail to share the Good News of Jesus Christ with fallen man, whether he is poor or rich, we miss it. You cannot share the Good news if you do not know what the Good News is. You cannot know what the Good News is if you do not know the Bible.

This discussion is over. You can accuse me of whatever you like but until you actually engage what I post, this is pointless. Works are great but if and only if they are a result of a life changed by the grace of Jesus. Otherwise they will be burned up with the rest of the wood, hay and stubble.

The point of this life is NOT to make much of ourselves, or our works. It is to make much of Jesus. You spend far too much time talking about works. Would you have people be attracted to your works or to Jesus? Your works cannot save yourself let alone someone else.
“Yes the Bible is the revelation of God, the written revelation of God,”

Your words, right here my friend. If indeed the Bible is the written revelation of God then do you think it should shape your faith and practice? If it should shape your faith and practice then why do you have so many things that are completely extra-biblical?

The gift of the Holy Spirit will NEVER contradict what the “written revelation of God” (your words).

The church is NOT the authority dude! Neither my church nor yours! Scripture, “the written revelation of God” (your words) is the authority and the Holy Spirit is given only to those who have trusted Christ for salvation because it is the seal or guarantee for the believer is the One who enables a Christian to interpret the Bible.

I don’t know why I bother to interact with what you say because you fail to engage my posts but oh well, I will anyway.
“The Catholic people understands very well that only the Church Magisterium has been given the task to bring the word of God with uniform interpretation and teaching, we do not allow plurality of interpretations that will cause disunity for that is not the reason of our existence”

How convenient. The church tells people what to believe. The point of Scripture is to know what God means not what it means to a church or to people. One of the roles of the Holy Spirit is to enable those to whom it has been given to interpret/apply the words of “the written revelation” (your words) of God.
Perhaps what you miss Roque is the fact that the Holy Spirit does not dwell within everyone. It does not matter what church a person belongs to, the Holy Spirit does not come with church membership, confirmation or doctrinal affirmation. The Holy Spirit is set on the hearts of those who have trusted and believed in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The reason: to guide them, comfort them and to help them understand the “written revelation of God.”
He also enables persons who have trusted Christ to know when an intended dialogue becomes foolish babble. That would be now.

If you would like to engage the actual things I have said in all these posts, we will continue. If not, then I am finished.

I do not seek to destroy the Catholic Church. I seek to point people to Jesus Christ because He alone is able to save to the uttermost. I will address false doctrine to a degree but I cannot save you Roque. Jesus can.

When you truly understand the Gospel, you understand that it does not matter what you have done. You will never earn the favor of God. Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law in every way and He is the Righteous One who has the complete favor of the Father. He died as a perfect, substitutionary sacrifice to pay the penalty for sin. He drank the full wrath of God against sin. See Roque, God created everything and everyone and so He by definition, gets to make the rules. His rules are that even your greatest work is like a filthy puss soaked rag to Him. Why? God is completely holy.

His Law (because He is Creator) says that there is not one human being righteous in His sight. Why were Adam and Eve kicked out of the garden? They sinned by trying to become like God. Sin is more than just messing up. It is more than just breaking a relationship. Sin is a gross offense against the Creator King. If you believe the Bible to be the “written revelation from God” then you should see the language that the Bible uses to describe this fact.

Jesus Christ, the begotten not made, came as 100% God (so that He could bear the full wrath of God) and 100% man so He could represent mankind. God is not mean to make ridiculous rules that nobody can keep. Jesus Christ, as God came and kept the rules that man could not keep. You will never be good enough nor do enough good to measure up….and you do not have to. The standard is not what the church sets or even what Roque sets. The standard is God. He is perfect and holy and even you know that you are not God.

Jesus Christ met that standard my friend. He alone was able to keep the Law in every way and yet without sin. If you will believe in your heart that He really kept the Law perfectly and without sin and that He died the death that you really deserve for the sin you personally have committed against God and that 3 days later God raised Him from the dead and then if you will confess that with your mouth then you can be saved and you will avert the wrath of God that is coming on your head.

Listen man, if I were posting on here about how great the Protestant church is or how great my particular church is or even how great I am then I would understand why you would be upset. I am not doing any of that. I do not even want to point out faults in the Catholic Church. My church has plenty as well.

I want to point you to Jesus Christ who is the One worthy of worship. He is indeed the One all history points to. I quote the Bible and memorize the Bible, as I said before not so I can sound smart but because it helps me avoid sin and it teaches me about Jesus.

God has done a great work in me and will carry it out to completion. He has caused me to do many great works friend but I do not want to point to what I have done. I want to point to what Jesus has done and what He is able to do. My works will never save anyone, including myself. Jesus saves and I choose to tell people about Him. How do I know that?

For the Bible tells me so.
JT

JT

What is wrong with you, you are the perfect resemblance of Martin Luther, make the Bible his Life in order to destroy the Roman Catholic Church, did he succeed?

If that is the case may be, those people born before the bible was made, all of them performed things wrongly because they have no basis, and they should not be doing something without consulting first the Bible.

Don not too much focus yourself on the Bible, your knowledge of the Bible, life was not meant to be that alone.

If you are the man of faith and with great knowledge of the Bible, then you must have done wonderful works as fruits of your knowledge and love for the word of God.

You cited verses and chapters to display you good knowledge of the scripture, now let us try to display our works as fruits of our studies of the scripture.

The reason why the Bible, the word of God is given to us not only to be studied, it should be acted upon. The text that you have taken from the New testament on the temptation of Jesus does mean that we are commanded to memorize the Bible. Even I myself I became familiar with some biblical texts and can relate them to my daily experience and contacts, the same way with the Lord.

Mr. Jesus you spent so much time studying the words of God but failed to perform what is essential, the knowledge is no good if it is not translated to action.

It would be nice to listen to you if you will mention some inspiring works of mercy rather presenting to me your personal understanding and interpretation of the BIBLE.

Protestant people are good at that, because may be the thought that is the whole of life. I am sorry to tell you Mr. Jason, the catholic Church never dealt only with mastering the verses and the chapters of the bible but the Church is doing and acting what Jesus was doing during His earthly life.

We are called to be good in scripture with personal interpretation, we are called to be obedient and faithful to God and to our human commitments. We are called to share God’s love specially to the poorest of the poor.

Mow tell me do the poor can understand fully the Scripture as you do, can the people have all the time to read and study the Bible. If people will focus on the Scripture what will happen to us, it will add more divisions because every person might think that he/she has the right interpretation and then put up his own church and community like Martin Luther did.

The Catholic people understands very well that only the Church Magisterium has been given the task to bring the word of God with uniform interpretation and teaching, we do not allow plurality of interpretations that will cause disunity for that is not the reason of our existence. We exist to love God and to love our neighbor and in doing we will perfect the divine will of God for us and thus enter heaven.

What you are doing now is exactly missing the point of true discipleship. Scribes and Pharisees are good at that.

Often times in our Christian culture we never even teach the important truths of marriage to young people. For whatever reason we think that they can’t handle it yet or are simply to immature. The fact of the matter, however, is that “if we had been training and equipping” young people for this early marriage mandate sooner in their life rather than later then it would not be a matter of which lens we are viewing the world. It would simply be a matter of learning to be a biblical man as a teenager who works hard, learns to provide, gains responsibility, learns what a spiritual leader is, etc.

Like my brother below stated, I know many young men who have risen to the challenge of being leaders, providers, and protectors as men and, as Paul states, put their childish ways behind them (1 Cor 11).

Again, thank you so much for your kind words Tom. This is something we should continue talking about and thinking through for sure!

There is concept that exists in the counter-adolescence movement. Getting married will force imature twenty-somethings to realize their full potnetial and grow-up. Sadly this, as Tom has pointed out, is not always the case. What most “young men” hear is: “I should get married so that I will have a biblical outlet for my sexual urges.” While correct, they rarely spend the required time to discern the quality of their own maturity or that of the “young lady” they are considering. What ends up happening is two people who get married for the wrong reasons, but they do not realize their mistakes until they are under covenant with God.

The verse that was pounded into my head since I was a child was that “Husbands ought to love their wives even as Christ loved the Church. Dying to her daily.”

It is not a hard concept, then again if young men are preparing for marriage by playing halo ten hours a day they are not setting themselves up for the realities of marriage that the Bible proposes in Proverbs 31. They are not ready for the financial earning that is required of them. Far more terifying is that they are not ready for the strong women that is proposed in those verses.

It is certainly a complexe issue that will certainly not be resolved in the near future. May God be glorified as this is ironed out with our limited knowledge.

REALITY CHECK! How can you know about God without the Bible? From personal experience? What is your measuring stick to know whether your experience is actually from God and not from a demon? How do you know? Jim Jones thought God told him to go to South Africa and kill a bunch of people.

You say Jesus never said to memorize Scripture? I don’t expect you to know this but He said
[4:1] Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. [2 ] And after fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. [3 ] And the tempter came and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.”
[4 ] But he answered, “It is written,
“‘Man shall not live by bread alone,
But by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”
(Matthew 4:1-3; Matthew 4:4 ESV)

Did you catch that? The Holy Spirit led Jesus into the wilderness. Why? To tempt Him to sin. How did Jesus avoid sin? He quotes SCRIPTURE. He is quoting Deuteronomy 32:6 and the same idea that David had when he penned Psalm 119:11

11 ] I have stored up your word in my heart,
That I might not sin against you.
(Psalm 119:11 ESV)

You have no clue what God is like or who He is without the Scriptures. It is the Scriptures that make one wise for salvation. Can God come to someone in a dream? Yes. But the reality is pal; faith comes from hearing and hearing from the word of Christ. It is Scripture that teaches us about Christ!
All you have is a man’s opinion. I go to the word of God. If my opinions/theology/doctrine do not line up w/ the word of God then guess what gets discarded? My opinions/ theology / doctrine. What do you have to measure by? Your thoughts, personal experience or what a pope says?

Senselessness pal is trying to tell people things about God that do not line up with His word.

The BIBLE WAS WRITTEN BY EYEWITNESSES or those in direct contact with eyewitnesses. Do you believe the history books you read in school? Your very Rock Peter said that Scripture was not made up or some man’s interpretation but men spoke as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:20-21)

What I find funny is that if Peter is the Rock on which the Catholic Church is built, then why do you fail to know his words? I don’t see you quoting the very person on whom your church was supposedly founded.

You do not even understand the human heart, much less are qualified to speak on it. We do not quote Scripture to sound smart or prove points. The Scriptures reveal God and His Christ. God does not speak audibly anymore dude and in case you haven’t noticed this world is full of corruption. You could take a man’s word for it but understand there are many wolves in sheep’s clothing and the Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.

The sad, sad part is that you would not know if you were being misled because all your knowledge is based on tradition and someone else’s opinion. You reject the very words of Christ.

Bottom line: In Jesus High Priestly prayer, He prayed for the Father to guide His disciples. What did He pray?
17 ] Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.
(John 17:17 ESV)

A quick Greek word lesson for you. The way Jesus constructs this sentence is to say that not only is the Word of God truth but:
IT IS ACTUALLY THE VERY STANDARD OF TRUTH TO WHICH EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE WORLD IS TO BE COMPARED TO.

Here is the deal. You use many words to say nothing. You speak of events that have happened in history but if you were not there and you reject the Bible as the sole source for faith and practice then tell me Mr. Roque: How do you know these things transpired? You reject testimonies that of those who were actually there so how do you know what Jesus said and did and what God has done throughout history?

JT

I love that you have written this article. This is not something that is talked about much in the church. It’s the big elephant in the room for many youth pastors. And in principle, I totally agree with you. However, because of our culture, advocating young marriage may not be the fix.

Allow me to explain. For one thing, in Biblical times up until about 70 years ago, world cultural was different. People could marry at a young age be because a hard working young man could actually support a family. Many young men could run a farm or start a business at 13-15 years old because they have doing it alongside their fathers since adolescence. This is where many young men were discipled and equipped for life and Godliness by their fathers. Likewise, young women generally were discipled in taking care of children and keeping a house. Roles were more clearly defined. 5-8 years of college were not required to support a healthy, spiritually growing family.

Today, we have young men sitting around playing Nintendo all day long in their parents basements. The real nightmare is that not much changes throughout the course of a young man’s development and then we find ourselves at 25 years old, struggling through college, maybe still living with our parents, and still playing Nintendo. Generally speaking, the young men in our culure are no where near capable of supporting a family spiritually or financially.

This is why I agree in principle only with your stance on young marriage. In our current cultural environment, however, young marriage would be disastrous. In no way are young American men ready or even capable of supporting a marriage. As the church we must seek to minister where our young people are in their life.

Thank you for your article! Let’s keep talking about this! I believe the church is the only hope in restoring our culture of “man-boys” to actual men. Bless you!!

I apologize for any mistakes, typing from my phone is difficult…ha!

Now tell was there in any instance that God boasted us that He could save us even without our participation.

From the God created heaven and earth and the rest of the creatures, He never said let there be Bible and there was. The cultures, the practices, the beliefs, the faith experience of the people of God, the rice and fall of Israel, the fidelity and the unfaithfulness of Israel, the Faithfulness of God, the promise of the Messiah prophesied by the prophets, these are the things written not on the day when God created Heaven and Earth and Us but written in the later years, many had passed before was written.

Now tell me, did Jesus say that the Bible should be studied, should be studied, should be memorized verse by verse and chapter by chapter and we must be very knowledgeable of the Bible as a pre requisite to obtain eternal salvation.

There are two fundamental laws of God as guide in our daily life and the easiest way to fulfill God’s will: Love God above all, then Love your neighbor as you love yourself.

Very frustrating to know that while the minds fully equipped with knowledge but it is a big frustration to know that people have hearts but are empty, senseless.

I’ve already answered your first question, but I suppose I’ll do it again. Just because a New Testament author references a form of literature that is not Scripture itself does not mean that the literature that is being referenced is inspired. Don’t get me wrong; everything that the New Testament authors wrote IS inspired. But, just because they quote something using an external source does not mean that the external source itself is inspired. Let me give you an example. Paul, in his address at the Areopagus in Acts 17:22-34, quotes the works of pagans, including Epimenedes of Crete and Aratus’s poem “Phainomena” (see Acts 17:28). Does this mean that Epimenedes and Aratus were inspired by the Holy Spirit when they wrote their works? Of course not. But, Paul’s writings are inspired. In the same way, New Testament writers can quote deuterocanonical books or whatever other kind of literature that they deem necessary to communicate what they need to communicate. This does not mean that the outside literature is inspired. Only the writings of the New Testament writers (and the Old Testament writers) are inspired.

I’ve already articulated at length the Protestant doctrine for how Scripture is to be canonized. I would rather not do it again. Our doctrine does not require the New Testament to include a list of canonized books. Nevertheless, Scripture itself does attest to its own inspiration. All Scripture was given by the inspiration of God (2 Tim 3:16). The adjective-noun order in the grammatical structure of this passage indicates the rendering of all Scripture as inspired or God-breathed. It should be noted, however, that the Greek word for scripture (graphe) in this passage is used fifty-one times in the New Testament, and all cases refer to the Old Testament text. But, there are occasions where the New Testament affirms its own writings as Scripture. Peter speaks of Paul’s writings as being classified with “the other Scriptures” (2 Pet 3:16). Paul quotes the words of Jesus found in Luke 10:7 and refers to them as Scripture (1 Tim 5:18). Also, Paul exhorts his hearers to obey what he has written since what he is writing is a “command of the Lord” (1 Cor 14:37). So, then, all Scripture is inspired by God and should be treated as such. But, again, our doctrine does not require the New Testament to include a list of canonized books. Our responsibility is not to determine the canon but simply to recognize and affirm the canon of Scripture as God has determined through His providence and through His Spirit.

Josephus and other historical figures help us in our work, but they are not authoritative. So, Josephus’ word alone—though very telling—is probably not enough to settle the issue. That’s why I offered you 20 other reasons for why the Apocrypha is not inspired.

You just “shot yourself in the foot” by quoting Matthew 11:13. By no means does this verse refer to NEW prophets who spoke during the 400 years of intertestamental silence. The verse is talking about what the Jews used (the Law and all the Prophets) in the absence of a prophetic voice until the coming of the typified Elijah (Malachi 4:4-6)—John the Baptist. That is, they used the books of the Old Testament, which is comprised of the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings.

We are charged in the New Testament to obey and believe all the words of the Old Testament prophets, since they wrote the inspired word of God: “And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself” (Luke 24:25-27). The prophets are spoken of as the proper authority for Israel (Acts 13:27). Peter tells us that prophecy is no matter of the prophet’s/author’s interpretation (2 Pet 1:19-21). It is seen in the Old Testament that God speaks His own perfect words through chosen prophets, rendering the words as inspired (Deut 18:18; 1 Kings 14:18; 2 Kings 9:36; Jer 37:2; Zech 7:7). To rebel against the words of the prophets, then, was to rebel against the very words of God (Deut 18:19; 1 Sam 18:13-14). Prophets speaking falsely were to receive a terrible punishment for their actions. The consequences for communicating a counterfeit message on behalf of God led to the castigation of both the guilty party and his or her descendents (Jer 29:31-32). Scripture also warns that death would be the penalty for false prophets (Deut 18:20). Thus, when a prophet spoke in God’s name, every word spoken must have been the inspiration of God, or else the false prophet would be put to death. At the very least, there seems to be an emphasis placed on God speaking to His people through prophets.

You’re right. I did say, “In the end, Augustine won the day and the Vulgate was translated using the LXX.” But, I did not say, “The Vulgate was translated using the LXX only.” The fact of the matter is that the Vulgate was translated using the LXX as I have already demonstrated. Though this matter is certainly important, the larger issue is that the Vulgate is a TRANSLATION and is not the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Thus, it is no more authoritative than any other translation, and besides that, it is filled with translation errors. Ad fontes!

My point was that neither Calvin nor the LXX is inspired. Using Calvin probably wasn’t the best analogy. See my first paragraph in this post for a better analogy and an example from the actual New Testament text: i.e., Epimenedes of Crete and Aratus’s poem “Phainomena” (Acts 17:28). Again, the point is that just because New Testament writers quote external literature doesn’t render the literature inspired. Furthermore, we don’t believe that the ESV translation is inspired. Neither should we believe that the New Testament writers understood the LXX translation to be inspired since it was not the original.

I’m not surprised at all that Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus includes other literature in their collections. In fact, I was fully aware of this as I typed it. You missed my my point. I simply wanted to introduce you to the work of David Trobisch.

I have already articulated the Protestant doctrine of the canon for you. The Scripture is self-authenticating as both the Holy Spirit and the Scripture attest to the canon. The Church doesn’t determine the canon; it doesn’t have that ability or that right. The Church, as it has done from its inception, only recognizes and affirms the canon of Scripture as God has determined through His providence and through His Spirit. In the end, the burden of proof lies on your shoulders to show that the infallible Magisterium has not erred in its decrees throughout the entire history of the Church. The fact of the matter is that you cannot do this. Popes have erred and councils have reneged on previous teachings. Face it; the church is led by fallible men like you and me. Christ, who is the head of the Church, is the only one to whom we must humbly submit, and we have His word available to us in the Scripture. Men are fallible. Fortunately, we have the inspired, sufficient, infallible, and inerrant Word of God that stands as our perfect authority.

I am not in the community of Martin Luther friend. I am in the community of Jesus Christ. No one will be saved without faith in Jesus Christ. For what does man need saved of? The wrath of God against ungodliness and sin. That is why Jesus came. He lived a perfect life and died a gruesome death to pay the sin penalty for those who would trust and believe that His death was their death to sin.
My theology & doctrines would indeed be selfish (exaltation of self) if I were talking about myself or even exalting the human effort. However, my doctrine and theology exalts Christ who alone is worthy of praise, honor and glory. I can be accused of many things friend but that is not one. Your issue is not with me but with Jesus Christ Himself.
You fail to see the chief difference. If anyone is trying to placate God it would be you. You are saying God somehow needs mankind to accomplish His work. I have said that God is omnipotent and needs nothing from no man.

“Christ’s suffering, death and resurrection bear fruit with our response in faith, hope and love.”
Christ’s suffering, death & resurrection bears fruit in that the wrath of God was satisfied for sinners. We bear fruit in our lives when that atonement is applied to us and His righteousness imputed when we trust Christ for salvation. The works we perform such as charity to the poor, loving neighbors etc are byproducts of the work Christ does in the heart of a believer. We have to receive a new nature. We must be born again for this to transpire.
Quite simply my friend, I will take the high road here as this talk is just the sort Paul spoke of to young Timothy.

23 ] Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. [24 ] And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, [25 ] correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, [26 ] and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.
(2 Timothy 2:23-26 ESV)

I have prayed and will continue to pray for the Lord to open the eyes of your heart that you may see Him. It is difficult to truly engage someone via blog but I have tried. If you understand truly the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus then you will see your need for faith in Him alone. I do not place faith in Scripture and have never said that. The Scripture points me to the Christ in whom I place my faith.

Jesus + nothing = Eternal Life. Everything

Jesus +works + sacraments + relics + man’s efforts + Mary = False Gospel.

Thank you,
JT

I appreciated you well for taking enough time to react on my piece which you considered unsound and unacceptable to the protestant point of view.

The fact that your group was named protestant because there was something that Luther was protesting against the Catholic practices and doctrines specially in view of faith and scripture.

Before going further, I would first react on some matters you discussed. First, I would disagree on your assertion that human participation is not necessary nor essential in the work of redemption for God could perform such work even without our involvement. Your reason is that God is the all powerful God. He can do anything He wants, and he can save us without us, with our efforts, without our labor. What I have understood in this statement is that a doctor can cure the sick patient even without his cooperation or obedience to the doctor’s instruction. In short, there is no need for the sick person to do his part because he can get cured without obeying what the doctor has told him. In this case, the doctor’s act alone can save the patient. This case is terrible and impossible to happen. I would really disagree on this kind of assertion. Can God afford to discredit the heartfelt and loving participation of man and woman in the economy of salvation.

I felt very sad because what you had presented to me about Mary’s role in Jesus’ life is exactly a total devastation of the original plan of God. Though I am not well equipped with the verses and chapters from the Bible, I can somehow understand the fundamental truths revealed by God in Jesus. Mary was not used but she was chosen. She is the exact opposite of the fallen Eve. She is the New Eve whom through her the Word was made flesh. Don’t react on this statement that you can be born not necessarily through you mother. Or God can make you live through another woman’s womb or through a woman goat, But it did not happen that way. Try to go deeper and deeper on your search for truth with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The Bible was very clear of its declaration on Mary by the Angel Gabriel and the greetings of Elizabeth. God is not that brutal as you have thought of him. God is not a user as man does. He never used Mary, He chose Mary among all women and her Immaculate heart and Her purity is what makes God chose her. God calls man and woman to participation in His mission. Christ’s suffering, death and resurrection bear fruit with our response in faith, hope and love.

Where did you get that premise that God can save us without us. God can save us in any way. did he do that? Of course He would not do that because He chose is the best, the best way to save man. I know you are really trying not to limit the capacity and the power of God, all the sensibilities that you have in mind can be true to God. I am sorry to tell you Mr. Jason, you are not God and you cannot really push and push to what God must be according to human intelligence. If sola scriptura is what matters for the protestants, you must not doubt then what God revealed to us about Mary and about the divine authority.

Stop thinking of the things that did not happen, only consider the things that really happened in Jesus time.

Your assertion that faith alone can save us. You, the protestants profess your faith your faith in Jesus, so therefore salvation is yours. The non protestant like Muslims etc., have not faith in Christ, so they will not be saved. How selfish your theology and doctrines.

I w

We cannot really meet at the middle. Always the doctrinal disagreement between the Catholic Church and the community of Martin Luther.

All the things that you mentioned on your reaction is absolutely the total twist of the Church doctrines and traditions.

I am very sad you view the History of salvation and the truths of the Bible.

If the canon of Old Testament was fixed in Christ time as you wrote then why we have quotation in New Testament from outside both 39 books Protestant and 46 books of Catholic Old Testament? There is no single verse in New Testament stating that the Old Testament known to Christ and the apostles was the 39 books of your Old Testament. The Bible is supposed to be your only and highest authority but you rely on Josephus statement to define its canon – isn’t that irony? According to Christ the Law and prophets prophesied until John the Baptist (Matthew 11:13), which one you trust: Christ statement or that of Josephus? The Bible nowhere says that God’s words can be channeled ONLY through prophets.

You did write “In the end, Augustine won the day and the Vulgate was translated using the LXX.” – you didn’t write “the Vulgate was translated from BOTH Hebrew and the Greek LXX” in your first response.

You statement “why we should exclude any document that was not originally written under inspiration” lead to the question how to determine canonicity: how do you know that the document is inspired? It is silly to compare New Testament quotation from LXX with your quotation from Calvin or the Bible. What you wrote is obviously not inspired, neither was that of Calvin.

You will be surprised to know that Codex Sinaiticus includes Letter of Barnabas and Shepherd of Hermas in its New Testament. The end of Codex of Vaticanus was lost, i.e. its New Testament stops at Hebrews 9:14. Codex Alexandrinus has 1 Clement and 2 Clement as New Testament books. The Christians in the first four centuries did not have fixed canon of both Old and New Testament – their list of both OT and NT varies from person to person.

You wrote “you’ll need to explain why this “perfectly inerrant” entity has disagreed over and has erred on so many things throughout its history (including the canon) and continues to do so today.” Since we are talking about canon of Scripture, let me examine you statement that the Catholic Church has disagreed and erred on canon. Is it because it includes books you disagree? Then it comes back to the first question I raised: how do you know that the Bible, in this case Protestant Bible, has 39 books of Old Testament and 27 books of New Testament? Remember you must show it from Scripture because you claim it is the ONLY and FINAL authority in everything (and that should include its canon, isn’t it?) –otherwise sola scriptura is just empty meaningless slogan.

I do not deny that my parents had a part in my being here. However, they were chosen, not based on anything other than the sovereignty of God. God chose Mary to bring the Savior into the world. Yes, she was pure in her chastity but not without sin. She was one who feared God and that is to be commended. However, God did not need Mary to bring the Savior into the world anymore than he needed Esther to plead for the Jews to be delivered, David to slay Goliath or a host of other events I could mention. God does not need anything from human beings. Period. He had all the fellowship He needed within the Trinity before history began. We are called to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ with the nations to be sure but God does not need any single person or group of persons to accomplish His work. Fact is, if I do not share Christ, He will use someone else and I miss the blessing. He needs nothing from me. Human beings were created for one reason: To bring God glory. That is why we exist and humans cannot be placed anywhere near the reverence that is due to God alone. To imply that God is dependent on any mortal human being to accomplish anything He desires to do simply will not stand up. By definition, He is God which means He needs nothing.

I am sorry to say that the biggest issue here is the lack of attention due the Scriptures. If you fail to see that God sovereignly inspired human authors to write down His dealings with mankind for all history (to include the future) then you end up with man-centered doctrine. You will end up elevating tradition over Scripture. Do Protestants have it all right? Absolutely NOT. However, when we see error within the Church, we are able to go to Scripture and use it as the plum line. We can exercise church discipline based on what we see in Scripture. We can formulate doctrine based on the revealed Word of God. If Scripture is your authority, you have an unbiased, inhuman guide which simply states truths and not opinions. If your authority comes from a pope, bishop or any other human being, then you have far too much room for error. How do we know he is speaking on behalf of the Lord? Now, you might say ‘Well how do you know your pastor is speaking on behalf of the Lord’? To that, I would reply that we should be like the Berean church who “searched the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.” The Berean church did not take the Apostle Paul’s word for it and he wrote 13 books of Scripture!

Neither should we Protestants take any word from any human being for absolute truth until it is researched in Scripture.

You are right to say nothing Is impossible w/ God but somehow you have slipped from under the weight of that statement. Dear friend, God does not need any human for anything. Humans are clay in the Potter’s hands. Do we have worth? Yes. Do we have value? Absolutely. Why? Because we are something special? NO. Because we are created in the image of God. God Himself, is what gives human beings their intrinsic value. His thoughts are not our thoughts. His ways are not our ways. We do not make God in our image. God made mankind in His image. Friend, May was not sinless. Not even close. Jesus Christ, as the God-man is the ONLY sinless One to ever grace this earth with His presence. Why was Jesus sinless? He had to be. As the second Adam, the representative for mankind, He had to live a sinless life in order to be the perfect sacrifice and bear the full wrath of God against sin.

If Mary was sinless my friend, then would Jesus need to have been conceived by the Holy Spirit?

The reason Jesus was conceived by the Hoy Spirit and not natural means was so that He did not inherit the sin nature. Mary was used by God to conceive the Savior by the Holy Spirit. She did not need to be sinless to accomplish that. If she were sinless then why the need for God to become man? Why not send Mary to the cross? You cannot believe any human being could ever or will ever live this life free from sin. If you do, then why the need for a Savior?

Sola Scriptura cried the Reformers because they rightly understood the need for the very God-breathed word to be the sole guide for shaping all matters of faith and practice. It is convenient for anyone who discredits Scripture to add in their own traditions/opinions and say that Scripture is not the ultimate source. I understand the sentiment but if you understand that Scripture are the very words God breathed out to those authors He inspired and understand the intention of God breathing these words so that man might be able to know Him and ultimately know His Son you will see why we take this task seriously. It is no little task to be sure. You must have a source outside of humans to shape your faith and practice. Otherwise, it is human opinion and left for corruption. Without Scripture, we know only what we feel about God. God does not speak audibly anymore. He speaks through the 66 book love letter He breathed out.

Mary was a vessel that God chose. I am a vessel God chose and my friends at Veritas are vessels God chose. Dear friend, man is completely incapable of coming to God on his own without the Spirit of God doing a work in his heart. We are all God haters from the womb. We have a sinful nature to contend with and it takes a supernatural work of God to bring someone to repentance and faith. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of Christ.

I am not denying that God uses people to accomplish His work. Indeed we are used. However, if we fail to acknowledge that God can accomplish anything He desires with no help at all, we fail to acknowledge His sovereignty and omnipotence. By the very definition of the term “God”, He needs no help from anyone. People are chosen based on God being sovereign and choosing people. Our righteousness are like filthy rags as Isaiah said. Rags that were used to clean the puss out of a leper’s wounds. We bring nothing to God except our sin. When we trust Christ’s finished work on the cross, we are imputed (transferred) His righteousness because we understand that His death was our death. His death was a substitution for those who would trust in Him. His punishment was the punishment due our sin. He bore the full wrath of God because He was able as the God-man and because He was sinless and the only one to ever be sinless, He was a perfect sacrifice which is indeed what the Law requires.

I do not believe any veneration is due to any human being. I believe when people are exalted to that level it is called idolatry my friend. Understand this: God will share His glory with NO ONE or NOTHING. It is the SON with whom God is well pleased. Evangelism, missions and charity efforts are commands and we must obey them insofar as they exalt Jesus and not us. Human beings can save nobody. We might be fishers of men and tell people the Good News but God does not need us nor anyone else to play a part in salvation. His message will indeed reach the elect. Every single one of them and not one more nor one less. We must preach Christ and Him crucified and His blood is enough to make the vilest sinner clean. His blood availed for me my friend and this I am sure of. I will continue to shout that from the rooftops.

Tranfiguration? Really, Roque? What did the Jews know about the Messiah? They knew that before the Messiah came, Moses and Elijah would appear. Bam. There they were. And what were the words from heaven? “THIS IS MY BELOVED SON IN WHOM I AM WELL PLEASED.” The disciples still didn’t get it. Peter denied Him 3 times! When did they get it? When Jesus stepped out of the grave and demonstrated His power of sin and death. We are justified because of His resurrection!

Your passion is commended my friend and I am sad to say it is misplaced. Listen, men do respond to the call of God. But they cannot respond unless God performs a work in their heart. It is called regeneration. See, man in his natural state is dead in his trespasses and sins. Dead men cannot respond to God. They respond to nothing. However, when the Holy Spirit regenerates a man, He is able to heed that Gospel call and respond. I am in no way saying that people are not used by God. But, He does not need people. Period. He is God and in need of nothing. Not even your worship. You, I and every other human being were created to bring Him glory and on Judgment Day, every knee and I mean every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Why? To the glory of God the Father.

I believe idolatry to be the root of all sin. I believe mankind is constantly trying to be God and usurp His authority. I believe that is exactly what Adam and Eve were trying to do in the garden. I believe that is precisely why the Ten Commandments are bookended with statements about idolatry. When God said to Moses “You shall have no other gods before me”, He was not saying you shall not put any other god in front of me. He was saying you will elevate nothing to god-like status in my presence. According to the psalmist, there is no place we can go to escape the presence of the Lord. Anytime you elevate anyone or anything to even the same plane God is on, it is idolatry my friend.

The reason we love Scripture is because it puts God in His rightful place. This is what C.S. Lewis had such trouble with prior to his conversion. He could not understand this God who was so consumed with His own glory. This is why Brad Pitt walked away from the church. He thought God was too selfish to demand worship from creation and was too concerned for His own glory. The Scriptures thunder out on every page from Genesis to Maps the story of redemption. It is all about Jesus Christ. Everything in history either looks forward or looks back on Christ and Him crucified and there is no other place where you can learn who God is, what God is like and what He is not like than on the pages of holy writ where God breathed His words into those human authors.

Salvation is found through faith alone in Christ alone and that is what the Scriptures point to. We don’t worship the Bible. We worship the God of the Bible who alone is to be glorified.

Thank you for your time,
JT

You should perhaps read my comments more carefully before making assertions as you have concerning my supposed historical errors. I did not say that first century Christians “fixed” the canon. However, the Old Testament WAS fixed before the church came to be, though the issue with the New Testament is more complicated for us. From the beginning of the church, the Hebrew Bible—the Old Testament—was considered to be the Word of God. While it was once thought that the Council of Jamnia in AD 90 met to decide the OT canon, more recent scholarship indicates that they were simply discussing inspiration and not the canon and that the OT canon has been set for quite some time prior to Jamnia. According to Josephus, the canon of the Old Testament came to a close at the time of the writing of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, since the divine inspiration and voice of the prophets had ceased (Also, see 1 Macc 4:46; 9:27: 14:41). Thus, the apocryphal writings were not considered to be written through a prophetic witness and were thus not considered to be inspired. I don’t have the time or the desire to list all the reasons as to why the Apocrypha is not inspired; it should be obvious. This guy gives ya about 21 reasons why the Apocrypha is not inspired (http://www.bible.ca/catholic-apocrypha.htm).

Next, you said, “Contrary to what you stated the Old Testament of Vulgate was not translated from LXX but from Hebrews text.” Vivator, I think you should probably investigate the history of the canon of Scripture a bit more yourself. I realize that Jerome translated most of the Vulgate from the Hebrew. As I stated, the Vulgate was translated from BOTH Hebrew and the Greek LXX. I said, “Jerome sought to translate from the original language.” But, Augustine convinced Jerome to translate also from the LXX. Jerome used the Hexaplar Septuagint to translate his version of Psalms, which would be called the Gallican version of the Psalms. Scholarship shows that he probably used the Hexaplar LXX to translate other books as well. While he would later translate Psalms from the Hebrew, his Gallican version of Psalms based on the LXX would be what was most commonly included in the Vulgate (See F.F. Bruce, “Transmission and Translation of the Bible” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol 1, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979), 43.).

I’m not against the LXX anymore than I’m against the ESV, NASB, NIV or any other TRANSLATION. That’s the problem. The LXX, ESV, NASB, NIV, etc, are not inspired as the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek are. Just because the New Testament quotes the LXX or any other literature outside the original manuscripts does not mean that the LXX or the other literature is inspired. That would be about like me quoting John Calvin and calling him inspired or me quoting the ESV and saying that it was inspired. Calvin’s writings might be helpful to prove my point, but Calvin’s Institutes are not inspired. So, just because reference is made to the LXX, some deuterocanonical literature, or whatever, doesn’t mean that that literature is inspired. We must consult the original languages. This comes down to a question of inspiration, not canon. Of course, canon is based on inspiration, and so that’s why we should exclude any document that was not originally written under inspiration.

I am definitely against Rome’s “infallible” decree at the Council of Trent in 1546, which pronounced an “anathema” on anyone who did use the Latin Vulgate with all its contents as the authoritative Scripture. Besides the fact that the Apocrypha is clearly not inspired, the Latin Vulgate itself is riddled with translation errors! Yikes! Call me “anathema” but I’m sticking to the inspired Scripture as my authority.

Differences in the New Testament canon have existed all the way from the Muratorian Cannon (AD 170) to Origen’s Canon (Mid-200’s) to Eusebius’s Canon (early 300’s). It is interesting that Athanasius’ Thirty-Ninth Easter Letter of AD 367 ended up being what has constituted the New Testament canon with no later revisions since. I would recommend to you the work of David Trobisch who argues that the extant manuscripts contain indications that they were part of an early unified and circulated publication. Furthermore, these manuscripts were circulated in codex form as complete packages, much like Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. So, just because we have the first complete list in 367 does not change the fact that all the 27 books of the New Testament were in full circulation since AD 100—the majority before AD 70. If you want to trust the Church as your authoritative word on the matter, then you’ll need to explain why this “perfectly inerrant” entity has disagreed over and has erred on so many things throughout its history (including the canon) and continues to do so today. It seems more reasonable to understand that Scripture is self-authenticating as both the Holy Spirit and the Scripture attest to the canon. The Church doesn’t determine the canon; it doesn’t have that ability or that right. The Church, as it has done from its inception, only recognizes and affirms the canon of Scripture as God has determined through His providence and through His Spirit.

I’m glad you read the article and appreciate your thoughts.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that a man has an obligation to provide for his family and be a godly leader who can support his wife and children (how many or how few). I honestly believe a man shouldn’t be married if he does not have sufficent financial means. I am not married yet and have never had children. However, I have no illusions about the difficulties of women birthing children and the strain of raising larger families. It is tough and always has been.

I do disagree with the concept of “God helps those who help themselves”. That belief puts too much emphasis on human effort and consequently breeds pride. Jesus said in Matt 5:3 “blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven”. We do everything with all our heart but it’s never simply “help yourself first, then God will help you”. It’s an unbiblical principle.

Faith, I believe is the underlying issue here. Jesus said for us to pray that he would give us each day our daily bread –not our 401K. Raising a large family takes an enormous amount of faith! The kind God is undoubtedly pleased with. I know countless “larger” families who are able to keep food on the table, provide sufficiently, and somehow get their kids through college. The reasoning goes as follows: God has given me these children as a blessing therefore, he’s going to give me what is necessary to provide for them.
I think there a few thing to be considered regarding smaller families.

1) As I mentioned in the article, biologically, a culture cannot maintain itself if less than 2.1 kids are born per family. That’s more than two kids as a minimum. If it’s right that every family limit themselves to only two children, then why will the culture begin to decline and eventually die. If two kids was God’s intent from the beginning for everyone -then why would he allow a woman to naturally have so many? Why do the European countries keep encouraging families to have more children? They’re economies cannot sustain a disproportionate population. This alone is in my opinion, sufficient evidence to reconsider the Christian consensus on birth control and small families.

2.) Why does the Bible consider more children a blessing and less children a curse? Is that truth not still valid for today?

3.) How did every generation from creation until the advent of contraception survive and have fulfilling lives?

4.) The Muslim population is proliferating at a rate that will overtake Europe in less than a century.

As you implied, the financial reasons are the primary motivation for having a limited number of children. The West has become accustomed to an extravagant and unprecedented materialistic lifestyle. People with one or two kids complain about how expensive it is to support them! Ridiculous. Either God didn’t want you to have a big family because you couldn’t provide or you are accustomed to a lifestyle that cannot exist with a large family. Since birth control is artificial –we must lean with the latter.

As for Biblical manhood. Being a good parent and a solid provider and having many children are mutually exclusive. A man must be a provider and leader because that’s what he should be regardless. Because he isn’t that simply means he needs to change. Rather than construct a situation more conducive to his lack of” manness” (for lack of a better word), we need to address the critical over the peripheral.

I believe that the world’s changing demographics are going to be a huge wake-up call to this generation. I have no doubt in my mind, that later generations will judge our own as being in error for our perspectives on the family.

Thanks for the input guys. The power of the gospel is in the Word. When sharing with people who acknowledge Jesus only as a prophet it’s best to show them what scripture says about Jesus; what Jesus says about himself. If they diregard what the Word says, where do they find this “prophet” Jesus? -clearly not in the Bible. It only follows that they’ve construed a Jesus of their own creation. And this Jesus is not the one worth following.

My parents are God-fearing & spiritfilled people who made a decision based on their experiences while growing up – they love their siblings & while they would never wish any of them were never born, they recognised that parents of large families cannot devote equal time to nurturing their children individually & the result is that sometimes support could not be given when it was needed because their siblings also needed support. This is not about missing out on treats like DisneyLand, this is about the love & support parents must give unconditionally to their children being difficult to deliver the more children there are to support.

As head of the family, my father did not want to burden his wife with numerous pregnancies (pregnancy can be difficult for many women & my mother almost died giving birth to my brother) & children that she would have to care for alone during the day while he worked to support the family & my mother was committed to staying at home with myself & my brother while we were small so that we would have a strong family bond with her rather than send us to daycare or have a nanny.

God does provide, we praise his grace & glory every day, but God also helps those who help themselves! Many people are unsuited to caring for large numbers of children, either because they cannot afford it financially, or physically & emotionally it is damaging to the person to try & spread themselves too thinly among many dependants.

Only God can see a person’s true heart & motivation. A man must be strong & able to support his wife & their children, he should also be masculine enough before the Lord & his wife to admit that there is a limit to the number in his household that he can afford to support & it is important for potential husbands & wives to know this limit before they are joined as one flesh before the Lord, as disparate beliefs over the number of children to have can cause terrible heartache & pain to couples who discover they have different views after their joining.

See, I think the problem is that most people are just regurgitating what they’ve heard others say about Jesus being “a good Man” with some wise sayings but have NO clue as to what He actually said, which is why they’re such ignorant statements to make. I mean, who cares enough nowadays to investigate the claims and spiritual truths that He ACTUALLY made? When you’ve got “American Idol” and pop stars like Justin Bieber taking over the airwaves and people like Oprah and Bill Maher indoctrinating people with their dangerous philosophies in entertaining ways, why would you want to take the time to dig further?

“It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, but the glory of kings is to search out a matter.” -Prov. 25:2 (NKJV)

and don’t forget,

“Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.” -Matt. 7:6 (NKJV)

Revelation 5:10 tells us that the people of God are kings and priests and after all, you can’t really be either without investigating, believing and practicing the faith.

Of course, we want to say that Scripture is not the property of the church and therefore stands over above the church, but that’s probably not the same as having it as the direct revelation of God – I would place probably a higher role on the importance of tradition, for example.

One final thing on Jesus – the way I read Jesus always comes through the lens of the Resurrection, a public act of God in history, and then look backwards from this to the historical Christ.

I may not understand the question, “Should Christians Cohabitate?”

Perhaps you are meaning by the simple word “cohabit” or “cohabitate” “to cohabit illicitly?”

“Co” + “habit” = “with” + “abide,” “have.”

To abide together, usually inferring as husband and wife.

Paying tax on one’s wedding ceremony does not make a marriage valid. Neither does obtaining permission from one’s temporal master. Some states are selling permission for sex perverts to intermarry with sex perverts. Soon it will be bestials who are asking permission to marry beasts.

Not paying tax on one’s wedding ceremony does not invalidate an otherwise valid marriage. Neither does not obtaining permission from one’s temporal master.

Marriage statutes are merely directory, not mandatory. The US Supreme Court has acknowledged this in Meister v. Moore, 96 US 76 (1877).

Directory – A provision in a statute, rule of procedure, or the like, which is a mere direction or instruction of no obligatory force, and involving no invalidating consequence for its disregard, as opposed to an imperative or mandatory provision, which must be followed. Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.

The statutes to which the Court was referring were statutes in Massachusetts and Michigan that purported to render invalid marriages not entered into under the term of written [statutory] state law.

While the various state courts have prattled on for almost 200 years about what the laws of their states do and do not allow concerning marriage, the US Supreme Court cut straight to the heart of the issue in declaring that statutes controlling marriage can only be directory because marriage is a common right, which is not subject to interference or regulation by government. Or phrased another way, the God-given right to marry existed prior to the creation of the states or the national government, and therefore it is beyond their purview to alter, modify, abolish, or interfere with, such a right.

In its decision in Meister, the Court refused to even examine the numerous state court decisions prior to making its own decision. While this was assailed by legal commentators of the day as an egregious choice, we can only agree with the Court in its choice because a state court opinion has no authority to affect a fundamental right that existed antecedent to the formation of the state.

It should be noted that Meister has never been reversed and is still controlling case law concerning the fundamental right to marry without state interference.

Marriage is fundamental because it was instituted within hours, perhaps minutes, of the creation of the woman. Marriage long preceded the first state (governmental system). The state did not create marriage any more than the state created man and woman.

Buying a marriage license grants the state jurisdiction over your marriage. It is a request for permission to marry. This is appropriate for slaves, soldiers and prisoners. However, it is not appropriate for a free man under God. The state(s) want you to think it is mandatory for you to buy a marriage license to have a valid marriage. But the US Supreme Court has acknowledged that this is not true.

Not every law passed by a legislature is binding on Christians. The best example in the Scripture is composed of two incidents:

“The midwives, however, feared God and did not do what the king of Egypt had told them to do; they let the boys live.” Exodus 1:17. The king of Egypt was himself the legislature, the court and the chief enforcer. The law came from his mouth. In most matters the Israelites were to obey his laws. But not when his law demanded they murder their own people.

“Then they said to the king, “Daniel, who is one of the exiles from Judah, pays no attention to you, O king, or to the decree you put in writing. He still prays three times a day.” Daniel 6:13. This was a command to worship none but the king. As with the pharaoh, the emperor of Assyria was the supreme law of the land.

“Peter and John replied, ‘Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God.’ ” Acts 4:19. Here the apostles were forbidden to preach the gospel.

“Peter and the other apostles replied: ‘We must obey God rather than men!’ ” Acts 5:29. And again the apostles were forbidden to preach the gospel.

Anyone who is not disposed to obey God needs to choose this day whom he shall serve. By refusing to obey God, he binds himself to the devil, the god of this world. By not choosing the LORD, he defaults to satan as his god.

Satan has only slaves, not citizens. One who is a slave to sin is a slave to the devil.

The Lord, through His messenger Paul, commands: “Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: ‘I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people. Therefore, come out from among unbelievers, and separate yourselves from them, says the LORD. Don’t touch their filthy things, and I will welcome you.’ ” I Corinthians 6:14-17. Commonly this is taken to refer to marriage. Surely the principle applies to marriage. However, marriage of humans is nowhere mentioned here or in the entire letter.

When one purchases a marriage license from the state, and exercises the privilege, one has entered into a three way contract or agreement: man, woman and state. The state is the superior party. The state dictates the terms of the basic contract. The parties may add other provisions, so long as those provisions do not conflict with the state’s provisions, but may not subtract or alter in any way the state’s marriage contract.

The two human parties to the agreement are yoked, bound, to the state. The state is an infidel, an unbeliever. As an artificial person, a legal fiction, the state cannot believe anything. It may be depended on that the officers and bureaucrats are likewise unbelievers; infidels. Any way you look at it, the parties to a marriage license and subsequent registration have bound themselves not only to one another but to infidels. Christians should not do so.

Marriage licensing originated when the Catholic Church gained sufficient power as to control the state. Formerly, marriage was pursuant to an agreement among a man, a woman, and her father (or other male head of her household – elder brother, uncle, grandfather). The Church began insisting that marriages be solemnized by a priest in the church building.

Marriage licenses as we know them, permission to marry required of all in order for one’s marriage to be recognized by the state, began to be introduced in the 18th century.

I agree that reality can never be rightly interpreted apart from Jesus Christ. The difference between us, however, is that Jesus Christ is rightly perceived only through Holy Scripture.

Good Day to you!

You seemed to deny the fact that you don’t exist in this life without your parents. You should know what I mean. The eternal Word was made flesh through Mary. God chose human being in the work of redemption. Don’t deny the fact also that you are trying to do your own part to help people specially the sinners to know God and accept Christ as the savior in your human way.

See the whole point of view on the plan of salvation. God can save us without our participation. Am I right? Nothing is impossible with God! But the birth of the Messiah is the truth of fact and evidence that God through Mary became man. Don’t you see the greatest mystery behind that nativity of the Lord. How could this happen to one who is so most pure, so most sinless, so most perfect, so most powerful God dwell in Mary’s womb? God is not subject to any degree but i would just like to demonstrate in an human way who God is. Mary as the Catholic teaches was/is born without any stain of sin, therefore Mary is considered the worthiest human being in the world, the only one possessed with that kind of virtues and privileges as a daughter of God. Do not just take it slightly the role of Mary in the plan of redemption, the same as true in your own little task of trying to make people believe and understand that the Bible is the sole source of faith, and the bible alone is the only thing that matters before God.

You promptly discredit Mary’s participation in the work of salvation. I am sorry to say that you have failed to see in the eyes of faith behind God’s plan. If that is your belief and knowledge attained in your contemplation and study of the Bible, I cannot do anything more than I could because you have already closed the other side of the coin.

But as a Christian I cannot afford not to take this opportunity to bring you to enlightenment. God can bring you to heaven as he wills in any way he can because He is God and because He is also our life’s origin. But it did happen that way. Instead, he was calling men and women to work with him. God did not do it alone by himself. Take note this word: There is only savior, Jesus Christ. The thing that we are doing will render no salvation to anyone but it can really help people appreciate, love, work, live and accept the salvation offered by Christ through our efforts and initiative aided by the God’s grace as fellow workers of Christ in His work of redemption. Remember, the apostles were called to be fishers of men> They were sent to announce the good news. They were sent to forgive and baptize men and women in the name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit by Lord Jesus Christ. Now, in this sense, tell me if every thing that the Lord was doing for redemption while he was still on earth was only a work by Himself. Did he not live with His disciples, did he not call the Seventy Two and sent hem to proclaim the good news.

The Catholic Church gave Mary that highest form of veneration precisely because Mary was given the highest role in the work of redemption and she graciously performed her mission perfectly acceptable to God with her Humility, Innocence, Virtues and Obedience to God. Where in the world that a person who has taken from a huge number of people and was set a part for the greatest mission and position was not given great honor and high respect. It is very basic and natural inclination of every person to recognize, appreciate, honor, respect and venerate someone who was chosen for a special role, and succeeded victoriously in her role.

During the transfiguration at Mt. Tabor. Jesus was transfigured with two others: Moses and Elijah. Correct me if I am wrong with the names. Why these persons where there when Jesus was transfigured? What does it mean?

If you think God does not need people for us to be saved, if you think that the Church of Christ is One, the Roman Catholic Church, built by Christ is established to mediate between man and God in this world, then I would suggest you have to stop doing anything witch you think participated in the work of redemption. They are useless for everything is already done and don’t need to do what God commands us to do in the Bible for everything has already been done. What we will do is just to wait for the second coming of the Lord in the physical death and in the last judgment.

Why God should have to become like us and why Mary should be called to be Christ’s Mother. Why did Christ capitalize the power and authority that He gave to Peter and why did he give a few an extra ordinary wisdom and knowledge with the guidance of the Holy Spirit or the inspiration of the Holy if all these things were not of great importance for our redemption.

Why there are people who lived their lives fully for God and the Church? And why you keep on insisting that the Bible is the only importance in our redemption and faith also alone is enough for the attainment of salvation, and why you discredit the response of men, and the participation of man so that our fellowmen will also be saved. What is this all about? Is that the plan of God that we will just wait and see since the only savior is the Lord Jesus, and our endeavors, our good works, our sacrifices would meant nothing because we are already saved. Is it not the evidence that once we we live no longer of our own but for Christ we are already proclaiming in the world the Kingdom of God and everything we do for God is an anticipation of the Lord that awaits us in eternal life. Isn’t is that while we are waiting for the coming of the Lord we are serving one another, loving each other, so that when time comes we are very much prepared to welcome and approach the Lord.

Hope we will see even just a glimpse of truth as workers of Christ’s vineyard and somehow understand even a little the truth of heaven in the Church. The Church is there as the presence of God, and as we journey with the Mystical body of Christ (RCC) on earth in faith and love we will be able to reach that spiritual body of Christ and see at the back of our minds aided with the gift of wisdom and enlightenment, the truth presented before us in the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Martin Luther sad to say is just like some other priests and bishops and monks or religious men who fell short in their s faith and obedience to the Catholic Church, and out of anger, hatred and vengeance chose to disconnect himself to the mother church and did his own way. But it is not your fault Mr. Jason.

Very sad but that’s one reality in our life.

Thank you for the sharing, your apology is very much accepted, accept too my apology the way I presented my presentation.

God bless Mr. Jason.

For myself, I’d say I have no particular problem with grace extending as far as Hitler: I think there is no person so far that they are theoretically outside the possibility of redemption.

I think some of the problem (and some of the reason I have a hard time getting excited about the theology behind this debate) is that it is all very individual focused – and I’m not so sure that this bears much resemblance to the scope of the Bible, which is looking at the whole world being renewed and God’s judgement as being the means by which evil is dealt with and the world is set to rights when God comes to dwell on earth.

Sure, God’s judgement is a word, but his last word in the Biblical witness is “behold I make all things new” – I think judgement plays into the means by which he does this rather than being that which determines the venue that we spend afterlife in.

Which comes back to my earlier point of how what we say about the doctrine of hell has so much to do with what we choose to say about creation, sin and the nature of God. What seems to be a narrow issue actually depends entirely on how we see these things.

Peace,
David

I think there’s not enough been said yet to decide whether or not Bell is advocating Universalism (especially when you consider that the arbitrary natures of typographies is such that exclusivism vs inclusivism vs pluralism vs universalism at some level becomes something of an academic distinction, and an imprecise one at that!)

I think if you look at some of the recent discussions – eg D’Costa’s ideas, Karl Rahner’s “Anonymous Christian”, Barth’s idea of Christ being the rejected one which allows all to be elected (which makes up most of Church Dogmatics 2.II, a masterpiece of theology if ever there was one – that’s me nailing my colours to the mast!), then you are going to end up with something that, to the eyes of many at least, will end up looking like Universalism.

Yet, although there are various problems with all of those, not least the fact that those who fulfil the criteria of Rahner’s theology end up looking like those who are quite nice people anyway (which does make one question what role grace plays) – however, such theologies are still radically Christocentric and rooted in a belief that is based solely on the self-revelation of God, making them a far cry from what you I think you are wanting to argue against with Universalism (which I think more precisely would be a kind of pluralism, in which case I would agree with you).

For what it’s worth, I doubt that Rob Bell is going to attempt anything nearly as inclusive as the theologians mentioned above and instead is just going to go along the lines argued by N.T. Wright or C.S Lewis – and I have no particular interest in either defending or attacking that point of view: it’s not one I subscribe to (I find it places too much emphasis upon free will and not enough on the objective work of God), yet it’s one that has a lot of merits too.

So probably in the final count I would be the more ‘inclusivist’ of the two, yet I am arguing for inclusivism based firmly around a reading of the life, death and Resurrection of the risen Jesus.

Thanks again :)

Lastly, one of my greatest desires is to see a church more unified under the Lordship of Christ. Unfortunately, we do have to some understanding of what is and is not part of the church. Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, and many other major world religions are not Christianity, which means they cannot be a part of the universal church. (I wrote another article about the unity of the church last week; check it out and let me know if you hate it! I don’t mind if you do.) Rob Bell’s leading questions make it seem like he believes that Ghandi, someone who denied Christ as the Son of God and Lord of all, is part of Christ’s church. That does not make sense when analyzed against the teachings of Jesus.

Thank you for taking the time and energy to dialogue with us.

Thanks for reading and commenting on our blog.

What is your definition of a Christian? I am unwilling to call Rob Bell a Christian in light of his theological views.

Ultimately, though, both ways fall within the broad spectrum of Christian tradition and both have the truth though are not sole guardians of the truth (for, after all, the Truth is a living person and cannot be caged in any systematics). So I think rhetoric about preferring “belief to the truth” is very unhelpful in this situation (or for doing theology in general).

My main concern is that if Christ died for the Church (those elected for salvation), and He did, and if Christ left His Word to shape the practice of the Church, then we should read it, meditate on it, and allow it to shape our faith and practice.
There are many things, as I stated in my previous post to Rocque, that Catholics and Protestants can agree and work together on. Things such as the defense of the unborn and charitied to the poor. I think the Catholic Church has done a fantastic job in these venues.
However, we will never agree on the place of Mary, veneration of saints, how one is justified before God, use of priests, communion, baptism…etc. Frankly, these issues will not be settled in the blogosphere.

The bottom line is that we believe Jesus Christ is who He said He was. We were who the Bible says we were and He alone can grant us the gift of repentance and faith to trust in His finished work on Calvary. Salvation is found in no other name.

God bless you,
JT

God bless you and may the Light of Jesus Christ shine on you,

JT

Thanks for participating in this discussion. As you most certainly know, the doctrine of the canon of Scripture has a long history. At the very least, I think that it’s important to remember that the early church never set out to determine the canon as such, but they sought to recognize and affirm those writings that God intended for inclusion into the canon. This is an important distinction to make. We don’t determine the canon; we only recognize and affirm the canon of Scripture as God has determined.

You are probably familiar with Jerome’s and Augustine’s disagreement over what should be the basis for Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. Jerome sought to translate from the original languages (which excluded the apocryphal writings), while Augustine thought that Jerome should translate from the Septuagint. In the end, Augustine won the day and the Vulgate was translated using the LXX.

Then, during the late Middle Ages with the rise of humanism came the motto “ad fontes,” or “back to the sources.” Erasmus, among others, brought attention to the notion that we should be using the original languages–the Hebrew Bible and the Greek New Testament–as our sources rather than the Latin Vulgate with its apocryphal writings. As this movement proceeded, comparisons were made between the Vulgate and the original languages, and numerous translation errors were found in the Vulgate, which just served to elevate the problem with the Vulgate and pointed to the need to return to the original languages.

This brings us to the Reformation when Martin Luther and John Calvin helped us to understand the idea that the early church sought to employ. Calvin rejected the notion that the church was the one who had determined the canon of Scripture. He argued from Scripture, claiming that the church “is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets” (Eph 2:20). Because this is true, Scripture precedes the church. So, the Scripture cannot owe its existence to the authority of the church. Martin Luther argued in the same vein, saying “Scripture is the womb from which arises divine truth and the church.” So, again, the Scripture precedes the church. The church’s duty, then, was to “recognize” and “affirm” the divinely inspired writings that God had determined to be Scripture. Again, it was not the church’s duty or ability to “create” or “determine” the canon. Calvin furthered his argument by explaining how the church is able to “recognize” and “affirm” the canonical Scripture. He referred to “the secret testimony of the Spirit” and the Scripture’s very own “clear evidence of its own truth.”

To quote Calvin directly, he said, “Let this point therefore stand: that those whom the Holy Spirit has inwardly taught truly rest upon Scripture, and that Scripture indeed is self-authenticated… And the certainty it deserves with us, it attains by the testimony of the Spirit… Therefore, illumined by his power, we believe neither by our own nor by anyone else’s judgment that Scripture is from God; but above human judgment we affirm with utter certainty (just as if we were gazing upon the majesty of God himself) that it has flowed to us from the very mouth of God by the ministry of men” (Calvin, Institutes, 1.7.5, LCC, 1:80).

Therefore, we understand that Scripture is self-authenticating as both the Holy Spirit and the Scripture attest to the canon of Scripture. As a result, the original Scriptures–including the Greek New Testament and the Hebrew Bible, which excluded the Apocrypha and were not based on the LXX–were considered the basis for Scripture and thus what regulated the canon. Therefore, the Apocrypha was to be excluded from the canon.

You are probably well aware of Rome’s decree at the Council of Trent. At its fourth session in 1546, the Council of Trent pronounced an “anathema” on anyone who did use the Latin Vulgate, with all its contents, as the authoritative Scripture. Thus, Protestants were said to be damned for their rejection of the Vulgate and the Apocrypha. Despite the anathemas, Protestants continued using the original Scriptures as their authority. Thus, we as Protestants believe strongly in God’s Word as it is found in the original languages, and we find them to be inspired, authoritative, inerrant, clear, sufficient, and necessary for us. Thus, the Protestant motto, “Sola Scriptura.” Of course, Catholics argue for a three-fold authority Structure including Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium. As you well-know, we as Protestants reject Tradition and the Magisterium as inerrant and ultimately authoritative. So, though our doctrine might be influenced by history, it is ultimately rooted in Scripture. Thus, the Protestant expression “reformata semper reformanda,” or “reformed and always reforming.” In the end, if we are going to have a conversation about the doctrine of justification, it should be assumed that we as Protestants will be using Scripture as our sole basis for authority.

Thanks again, Vivator, for joining the conversation. I also appreciate your helpful link you provided above.

Also, we could take your logic on the difference of truth and apply it universally, which is what Rob Bell seems to do. As fallen, albeit redeemed Christians, we can only understand God as much as we attempt to be consistent with Scripture, his direct revelation to us.

For one to say certain things about the cross and hell, we need to say certain other things about sin, creation and the nature of God: that’s not to say they are necessarily wrong, but they are still theological decisions we make and they are not necessarily clear cut decisions or even the only decisions we make.

I come from a line of Reformed thought that has been hugely influenced by Barth (who in turn was influenced by a lot in Calvin) and we would look at the Scripture and say different things about creation, sin and God than you guys would. We would look at the Revelation of God being in the Incarnation of Christ. So we look and we see the cross as being the culmination of God coming into the world, elevating the world by becoming flesh, offering the baptism of repentance and then dying for all in our place and on our behalf. We would therefore want to talk very little about things like expiation.

Where does this leave us? It leaves us needing grace. See, coming from my system, I really struggle to come to you guys as Reformed evangelicals and understand where you are coming from. I especially struggle to understand how the type of theology you hold fits into the Biblical witness of God – for me, it would be ‘unbiblical’. And I believe theology matters – I personally think evangelical theology is often very bad theology that leads to some conclusions that bear little resemblance to the Christian tradition.

But I know my God is bigger than my systematics.

I know my God is bigger than my theology.

I know that you guys are as much part of the church of Christ as I am and that were you to be removed, or were I to call you heretics, I would be the poorer for it because in losing you I would be losing something of myself.

So let’s not try and claim a monopoly on truth, either of us, and let’s instead focus on the mission of God to bless all nations through us, his church – and let’s learn to talk to each other with grace, to learn from each other, to disagree without dehumanising or name calling and to focus around Christ who is bigger than all our truths, because he is the crucified and risen God and Saviour.

In peace,
David

Mar. Jason Thomas, you seemed to jump into conclusion that what I had written in my post was copied from the computer. I am sorry to tell you Mr. Jason I never copied anything from other sources.

Mr. Jason, the Church, the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church, the Roman Catholic is the Church established by Christ on Peter. The Catholic has a universal and uniform doctrines and dogma in the entire Roman Catholic Church in the universe for it is the desire of God that His Church will be United and One.

The birth of the Roman Catholic Church is the gift to each one of us because through her we are guided and led to the right direction specially when it comes to dealing with spiritual matters and the Word of God in the Bible.

We Catholics do not need to recite or memorize the Bible chapter by chapter and verse by verse because that is not what the Lord tells us to do. The Lord tells us to preach the good news of salvation, the divine plan of God that all may be one, and the mission to make every single individual becomes his disciple. The good news: the suffering, death and resurrection of the Lord – our salvation is what the Church preaches.

The reason why the Lord has formulated two greatest commandments: To love God above all; to love our neighbor as we love ourselves, because God Himself sees in the hearts of the scribes and pharisees who are very much well-verse in the laws and in religion’s doctrines but they are like whited sepulcher, very beautiful and fascinating at the facade but in the inside part it is already being rotten.

Mr. Jason, our following of the Lord Jesus does not require us that we should become fully equipped with the chapters and verses of the Bible. Our following of the Lord Jesus is definitely through loving God with all our hearts, with all our strength, with our minds and with all our souls and our neighbor. What are you believing and doing now is a display of pride and the lack of spiritual growth and relationship with God and inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

According to the text of the New Testament that says “show me your faith and I will show you my action, but the Roman Catholic Church are showing both Faith and Action. We have lots of people gifted with love for service. In the Catholic you will see a lot of Charitable Institutions which take care of the poorest of the poor. There are so many people in the Church dedicating their lives in the corporal works of mercy for the sake of God and the promise of eternal life. What you are doing right now as I see, you are too busy convincing people that you have the right doctrine and that you are the only bearer of truths. That is not the kind of discipleship that Christ desired for you. You go to the Church, in the Roman Catholic and be part of the mission in bringing the love of God in our Lord Jesus to all corners of the world in faith and action.

Mr. Jason, open your mind, ask the Holy Spirit to give you the gift of understanding. You are not alone in this world who is reading the Bible. There are so many people like you searching for truth but in the meanwhile after going through, they have stood with boastful minds and had claimed that they had the truth, the right interpretation. If the Catholic Church has the same mentality that you have, we can never attain or achieve the truth if it keeps on listening other people’s opinion.

Mr. Jason God himself selected a few number of people to write the Bible, the same true with the task of discerning and interpreting the bible,He has chosen only a few interpreters who were guided by the Holy Spirit, the Roman Catholic Church. That truth discovered by the Catholic Church is considered definitive, final and executory so to speak.

With uniformity, the Catholic Church preaches the same doctrines to the whole humanity, she (the RCC) goes to farthest ends of the world to preach the truth of our faith in Jesus.

Mr. Jason, as I said, God will not ask you to give him a written report on your trying hard to compare and making parallelism and doing some kind of critiques, but most probably God will examine your heart and will ask you the proof of your being a disciple of Christ in words and deeds. Love God in the poor, in the victims of injustices, love God in prayer, show your faith in this way. It will be fruitful and meritorious, not the way what you are doing right now.

God bless and may the blessed Mother Mary bring you to the Catholic Faith.

Mar. Jason Thomas, you seemed jumped into conclusion that what I have written in my post was copied from the computer. I am sorry to tell you Mr. Jason I never copied anything from other sources.

Mr. Jason, the Church, the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church, the Roman Catholic is the Church established by Christ on Peter. The Catholic has a universal and uniform m doctrines and dogmas in the entire Roman Catholic Church in the universe for it is the desire of God that His Church will be United and One.

The birth of the Roman Catholic Church is the gift to the each of us because through her we are guided and led to the right direction specially when it comes to dealing with spiritual matters and the Word of God in the Bible.

We Catholics do not need to recite or memorize the Bible chapter by chapter and verse by verse because that is not what the Lord told us to do. The Lord tells us to preach the good news of salvation, the divine plan of God that all may be one, and the mission to make every single individual becomes his disciple.

The reason why the Lord has made formulated two greatest commandments: To love God above all; to love our neighbor as we love ourselves, because god Himself sees in the heard of the scribes and pharisees who were very well verse in the laws and in religion’s doctrines but they are like whited sepulcher, very beautiful at the facade but in the inside part it is already rotten.

Mr. Jason, our following of the Lord Jesus does not require us to become fully equipped with the chapters and verses of the Bible. Our following of the Lord Jesus is definitely through loving God with all our hearts, with all our strength, with our minds and with all our souls. What are believing now and doing now is a displace of pride and lack of spiritual growth and relationship with God and the Holy Spirit.

According to the text of the New Testament that says “show me your faith and I will show you my action, but the Roman Catholic Church are showing both Faith and Action. We have lots of people gifted with love for service. In the Catholic you will see a lot of Charitable Institutions which take of the poorest of the poor. There are so many people in the Church dedicating their lives in the corporal works of mercy for the sake of God and the promise of eternal life. What you are doing right now as I see you are too busy convincing people that you have the right doctrine and that you are the only bearer of truths. That is not the kind of discipleship that Christ desired for you. You go to the Church, in the Roman Catholic and be part of the mission in bringing the love of god i our Lord Jesus to all corners of the world.

Mr. Jason, open your mind, ask the Holy Spirit to give the gift of understanding. You are not alone in this world who is reading the Bible, there are so many people like you searching for truth but in the meanwhile after going through, they have stood with boastful mind and claimed that they have the truth, the right interpretation. If the Catholic Church has the same mentality that you have, we can never attain or achieve the truth if keep on listening other people’s opinion.

Mr. Jason God himself selected a few number f people to write the Bible, the same true with the task of discerning and interpreting the bible he choose only a few interpreter who were guided by the Holy Spirit, the Roman Catholic Church. That truth discovered by the Catholic Church is considered definitive, final and executory so to speak.

With uniformity, the Catholic Church preaches the same doctrines to the whole humanity, she (the RCC) goes to farthest ends of the world to preach that truth of our faith in Jesus.

Mr. Jason, as I said, God will not ask you to give him a written reports of trying to compare and making parallelism and doing some kind of critiques, but most probably God will examine your heart and will ask you the proof of your being a disciple of Christ in words and deeds. Love God in the poor, in the victims of injustices, love God in prayer, show your faith in this way. It will be fruitful and meritorious, not that what you are doing right now.

God bless and may the blessed Mother Mary bring you to the Catholic Faith.

It is crucial that we sing songs with a high christology and not a high anthropology. If we can replace our girlfriend or wife’s name with God and it sound like a song that we wrote for them then we probably should not sing that song in corporate worship. We should teach young men the foundation of what good worship is all about. We should teach them that good emotional responses to Christ-centered and transcendent worship are in fact manly. On the other hand, emotional responses from manufactured and manipulative worship environments are in turn helping create “wimpy men.”

In response to the “hyper-emotional atmosphere” statement, what are your views on music; worship styles in youth and/or college groups? Do you think certain aspects of contemporary christian music or music styles should change? If so, where should it be going?

Jesus is speaking here to some very “religous” people who are posing rather sarcastis questions about the resurrection of the dead. However out of context the verse may be for the current discussion, I feel His words are relevant. Consult Scripture for your doctrine of the “One Holy Church” and defend from the words of the inspired Word of God and not from within your own doctrine. Scripture must formulate doctrine.

” Christ never left his word to a single individual but to the many people and by the power of the Holy Spirit the Roman Catholic Church came up with the New Testament”

What? Are you telling me that the Roman Catholic Church came up with the New Testament?

Wow.

With which premise do you disagree?

My main point in discussing the structure of the text is to show how Paul views the singing of hymns and songs in a church setting. That is, he writes that it is to help the word about Christ dwell in us, as a congregation, more as we sing to God but also as that singing has an exhortational element to others. Thus, while we are singing we are singing to worship God but it is also, in a sense, singing to exhort and help others have the word of Christ dwell in them as part of the congregation. I fully agree that we are holistic beings. Yet, Paul seems to have something say about how we use our bodies during times of worship. I am not alone on my position either.

Douglas Moo also notes the relationship between singing and letting the word about Christ dwell among believers.

Additionally, in “The Deliberate Church” Mark Dever makes a case for leaving our eyes open during worship. He claims that it helps believers be a church, deliberately – hence the title.

Clearly, the issue of whether or not we open or close our eyes is not explicitly in Scripture, anywhere. Yet, since we believe the Word of God has relevance for our day and our issues, we must seek to discern the implications of our Scriptures for our issues. This blog is an effort in that direction.

Good day,

It really makes me very sad to hear from somebody commenting on the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church accusing the Holy Mother Church built by Christ on the day of Pentecost and Peter appointed by the Lord Jesus to lead the One true Church to dispense the grace of salvation and to preach Gospel of glad tidings.

Our obedience to the Roman Catholic Church is obedience to God. If we want to obey God we must obey to someone whom Christ anointed given the full authority to lead his flocks, the Roman Catholic Church to eternal life through the sacraments, through the culture and doctrines of the Church, through obedience to the Pope, through the corporal works of mercy. We will never be saved if what we are doing right here is to prove ourselves that we are right in our interpretation and other are preaching false Gospel.

God’s judgment on us does not base on our personal interpretation of the Bible not respecting the Church Magisterium as the teacher of faith, morals and doctrines of Christ. Christ never left his word to a single individual but to the many people and by the power of the Holy Spirit the Roman Catholic Church came up with the New Testament. Later the written revealed truth, the Bible, was studied, reflected and defined by Catholic Church.

When it was reflected and defined by the Catholic Church, the Church achieved the fullness of its interpretation and definition because it is under the direction pf the Holy Spirit. The treasury of the truth lies in the Mystical Body of Christ, the Roman Catholic and her presence in the world is essential for salvation of the souls. Our entry point to the Kingdom of God is our membership in the Roman Catholic which took place when we were baptized.

Our humble acceptance to the will of God for us who are on the journey towards the promise of eternal under the guidance, the leading, the preaching and the teaching of the Roman Catholic, is the sure and definite assurance of our meeting with God in eternal life.

Hope we will really study, reflect, discern well and humbly accept that there is only one bearer of truth “who” has received the mission to make every individual a disciple of Christ through Baptism and through preaching the Good News in every corner of the world by the first Twelve, the first Christian community which is perpetuated by the Roman Catholic Church under the leadership of the successors of Peter, the first Pope to lead the Physical Church and take note there was not New Testament yet when they preached the Good News.

Please consider the one only truth that Christ left his authority on the Catholic Church to lead the people to heaven our final goal and the fullness of God’s plan for us all.

When we face God after our earthly life, definitely, he will not ask us to write or to recite before him the chapters and verses of the Bible but for sure we will give account on our good deeds to the lowly ones. Faith doesn’t mean to prove that you are right in your personal interpretation of the Bible. Faith means is your self offering to God for the sake of the Gospel, the Gospel of Love and forgiveness, the Gospel of Mercy and Compassion.

May the Holy Spirit touch your minds to be able to comprehend the truth right before you.
God bless and seek the truth accordingly.

JT

Maybe I’m misreading you, but are you implying that contemplating the Gospel is not beneficial to one’s soul? I’m convinced that knowing and then preaching the Gospel to the lost is part of our great purpose as human beings. We should learn from Paul who said, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes” (Rom 1:16). Do you believe this? If so, then I think it is imperative that we seek to think about the Gospel, understand it, believe it, not be ashamed of it, and then preach it to the ends of the earth.

Paul also makes it quite clear to us that there is such a thing as a false gospel, one that will not save, one that will in fact separate us from God for eternity. If we believe a contrary gospel, then we are accursed and damned. If that’s true, then I think that it’s kind of important that we devote ourselves to understanding the one true Gospel. Take a look at Paul’s words here to the Galatians: “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed” (Gal 1:6-9).

Do you think that Paul was intellectually prideful by suggesting that his Gospel was the true Gospel and that the gospel that others preached was a false and distorted gospel, one that one damn them to Hell? I hope that you see that Christians have the responsibility to articulate, understand, believe, and defend the one true Gospel. You may call it prideful if you like, but frankly I think that standing under the authority of Scripture is the most humble place that I can stand. If I argued anything in addition to or contrary to God’s Word, then I would certainly be a prideful chap wouldn’t I?

We are holistic beings and should respond to worship holistically. We should raise our hands, close our eyes, and even clap if we so desire to the worship of God through song. The gospel/theology should always drive us to doxology. Doxology should be practiced with our entire being and emotion, as it should point us in that direction.

If the preaching of God’s Word moves me to tears or an emotional moment of closing my eyes, that is simply my holistic response to the gospel. Ditto for corporate worship through song. This type of response should not be hindered.

At Foothills Church, where I serve as a pastor, we encourage our people to go to the altar during worship if God so moves them to do so. At the altar, they pray, the worship, they repent, etc. It is one of many ways that we encourage our people to respond, again, holistically, to worship, as well as during a time of response to the preaching of Scripture.

Again, I understand your implications, but I don’t think you can make a blanket statement like this for ‘corporate church gathered’ from something that doesn’t even appear to be in the text.

JT

This really is a tough question. When one compares the ‘mode’ in which we are saved (grace through faith alone), the vehicles of that between RC and P are very different. Nonetheless, I don’t want to speak from personal experience alone and say that I have known many RCs that love Jesus and want others to know him, though I have.

I guess the question is, is a P understanding of salvation, grace through faith alone, the only sufficient mode of ‘true salvation” for the Christian? In other words, can a RC believe in Jesus and still believe in the efficacy of the sacraments and consider himself regenerate? Also, how does this bleed into other ‘understandings of justification/salvation’ (i.e., baptismal regeneration [Campbellite tradition] or spirit baptism [Pentecostal tradition])? Do we have to ‘have’ it right or ‘hear’ it right in order to be saved?

http://vivacatholic.wordpress.com/223-2/

Let me know if I present your position wrongly.

I’ll give you an example. I could preach a solid biblical message and offer to ordinances to any random group of Christians I come across, whether I find them on the side of the road or wherever. But, just because these two things are present does not mean that we have a church. Those people that I preached to and offered the ordinances to could have very well been a member at any local church.

Should we call Campus Crusade for Christ or Baptist Campus Ministries a church, so long as they preach the truth and practice the ordinances? No, I think more is required.

I think first that the local church must consist of regenerated believers, who have been indwelt, empowered, gifted, and united by the Holy Spirit. If I preach and offer the ordinances to lost people, then I don’t have a church.

Next, I think a church must set apart the proper leadership in order for it to be called a church. In other words, any random Bible teacher can’t just go around preaching and call what he’s leading a local church. No, the congregation must appoint biblically qualified men to be pastors and qualified Christians to be deacons. If these offices are not filled, then I don’t think you can call it a church. When a church has lost its pastor, this is an unnatural and temporary state. Again, just because some random guy off the street preaches and offers the ordinances doesn’t qualify what he’s doing to be a local church. He must have been set apart and ordained by a local church and appointed to the role of pastor, and the church must also appoint deacons.

The church must also gather together. I don’t think LifeChurch.tv is a real church because their members sit at home and watch the services over the internet. Churches require their members to not forsake assembling together. There is something to be said about church members living life in community, knowing each other, and breaking bread with one another. If you’re not around each other ever, then you’re not an ekklesia (assembly).

You’re right about the ordinances for sure. If you don’t baptize, then you’re directly disobeying Christ. I would argue then that because Presbyterian “churches” do not baptize their people, then they are not true churches. They are still believers, but their church is not a true church. They’re still members of the Church universal, but their local expression of the church is faulty.

Likewise, the Lord’s Supper is necessary for a local church. It is directly connected with baptism, church covenants, church confessions, church discipline, church membership, and gathering as an assembly. All of these things have to be in place before a church can properly observe the Lord’s Supper. Because these things must be in place in order to practice the Lord’s Supper, then they are integral to what constitutes a true local church.

I see what you’re saying about certain things that are evidences of being a local church, such as taking part in the Great Commission. But, I think that the missional attribute of the church is part of its ontology. The God of Mission has churches. Churches don’t just decide to go on mission. Thus, in order for a local church to properly be a true local church, it must recognize who it is, a living organism that has been commissioned into doing the work of the Great Commission. Again, part of being a local church is being filled with believers. Believers are empowered and gifted to do the work of the ministry. It is who we are as Christians and who we are as churches on mission. In the same way that you should question someone’s salvation for not evidencing the fruit of regeneration, one should question the validity of a local church that is not on mission.

I still feel like I am not adequately expressing myself, so allow me a parallel. To be justified we must be regenerated. Once regenerated and justified, our good works and righteousness are evidences of our justification, but they do not impact whether we are justified. They are just inevitable consequences.

So I agree that they will be evidence of a true, vibrant local church, but I do not think their absence (with exception given to right preaching and sacrements) mitigates the body of believer’s title as a church. Do you think I am placing too much emphasis upon two marks at the expense of other very excellent evidences of a local church?

1 Tim 3:15 might also be used to point toward a universal church.

I have argued for a much more narrow definition of what constitutes a true local church: http://wp.me/pE5P5-tt . Do you think my definition is too limiting?

One other possible objection to the term has to do with being affiliated with some larger organizational structure, such as the Roman Catholic Church–with the Magisterium at its head and all the other hierarchical structures flowing beneath him. But, this is just a misunderstanding of the term.

I would affirm that the church is local (Rom 16:5; 1 Cor 1:1-2), universal (Eph 5:25), and heavenly (Heb 12:23), and that the entire church will one day gather together in the eschaton.

I would be interested to hear more about what you’re saying here. It seems as though you might be arguing from a Presbyterian or Covenant Theology perspective in terms of the strong continuity of the covenants between the Testaments. Furthermore, because of this strong continuity, Covenant Theology does not make a strong distinction between Israel and the Church. Both comprise the one people of God throughout time. According to Covenant Theology, the Church does not replace Israel. Instead, the Church is Israel and Israel is the Church. Thus, they see a strong continuity between the Testaments.

Arguing, then, from this perspective one can say—as you seem to be suggesting—that the Church has always existed throughout both the Old and the New Testament and is thus “not bound by time” in the past. I would not argue for a complete discontinuity (as would a dispensationalist), but I wouldn’t argue for a complete continuity either. I think that it is clear that some aspects of the Old Covenant continue into the New, while there are some aspects of the New and are just that, new. In this New Covenant, God’s law would be written on the hearts of men, and they would experience a personal and intimate relationship with their God in a way that they had not previously (Jer 31:31-34). Besides that, New Covenant believers would be indwelt by the Holy Spirit (Ezek 36:24-27; Joel 2:28-29), which was not the case in the Old Covenant. All of this points forward to the inauguration of the Church on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2) when the Spirit of God would be poured out on men in power; Christians, from this point on, are indwelt and gifted by the Spirit. I believe Pentecost to be the point in history when the Church was first inaugurated. Though there had been believers of old, they were not the Church. They were Israel, and they were still under the Mosaic covenant. The Church had not existed before the inauguration of the New Covenant at Pentecost, and only with the New Covenant do we see the inclusion of the Gentiles into the covenant people. The Church is a New Covenant structure, not an Old Covenant structure. So, while I would say that there have been believers throughout both Testaments, I do not think the Church existed prior to Pentecost. Again, those who ascribe wholly to Covenant Theology would disagree.

I love your reference to the “already but not yet” nature of the Church. It is certainly true that the Church is currently experiencing some of the blessings of the inaugurated Kingdom of Christ. We have received salvation through Christ and have been delivered from our sin; we have a knowledge of God; we experience the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit; the Church experiences some level of purity and unity, etc. While we have received these things now, they do not compare with what is to come for the Church in the “not yet.” While each of these things are now experienced in part, they will one day be experienced in the full. The body of Christ will be presented to Christ “in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing…holy and without blemish” (Eph. 5:27). Until then, the Church lives between the times, an alien in this world, living in it and for it, but not of it. In one sense, “the assembly [or the church] of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven” (Heb. 12:23) already experience the blessedness of this eschatological consummation. However, their experience is incomplete, as their souls await a reunion with their bodies, which will only come at the resurrection of the dead. The fullness of this “not yet” will only occur once this present age has been transformed into the one that is to come—the New Heavens and the New Earth.

Does that sound like an argument anyone has heard before?

1. The violence attributed to God. The idea that the Creator of this vast Universe would actually favor a ‘chosen people’ and then command them to commit acts of genocide, is preposterous to me. The acts of violence attributed to ‘God’ would be viewed as heinous by today’s standards of human decency. Any time a ruthless dictator invades other lands and slaughters the children there, we consider him the epitome of evil! But when ‘God’ did the same thing, even commanding his ‘elite, chosen’ people to slaughter even the children, it is someone ‘ok’ because GOD did it? Sorry, but that just doesn’t work for me.

2. The concept of blood sacrifice. If someone read the old testament for the first time, without knowing it was supposedly from God, he would likely conclude that parts of it are beautiful and other parts of it are excerpts of a satanic black magick ritual. Blood sacrifice…violence… these reek of black magick. Mike, you gave the example of the voodoo in Haiti. And yet, child sacrifice was evidently practiced by the ancient people in the old testament…notice that Abraham didn’t seem to think it was unusual to kill his son. And even animal sacrifice is heinous enough…a hallmark of satanism. Yet I am expected to believe that God accepted and even required such bloody, violent, cruel acts? The ONLY way to make sense of it, is to meld it to your premise of Jesus being the ‘ultimate sacrifice’ but that is just using one far-fetched belief to justify another. I find the entire concept of sacrifice to be rooted in evil and I think Christians have been deceived into thinking this was the purpose of Jesus’ life and mission.

3. A written book cannot be used to ‘prove’ the events in another written book. Anyone can write whatever they want, and claim it really happened. The authors of the new testament already were familiar with the books of the old testament.

4. The concepts in the bible, as a whole, are found in many various myths in various cultures throughout the world. Each culture has their own version of Creation, etc. The Bible isn’t unique.

5. The violence attributed to God conflicts with the message of Jesus to love your neighbor and forgive your enemies.

6. The idea that all non-Christians go to hell would mean that hell is a LOT bigger than heaven…and that Jesus failed in his mission to ‘save’ humanity. I refuse to believe that God would create a system by which MOST souls are doomed to eternal torture. That is simply NOT just at all.

7. I think that if Christians focused on the core of Jesus’ teachings – to LOVE and FORGIVE everyone including one’s enemies, to go out and heal the sick, and to follow his EXAMPLE instead of waiting for him to come down from heaven and rescue them, and to focus just on loving others instead of judging them and deciding who is ‘saved’ and who isn’t, then the world would be a better place.

Overall, I think Christianity has been a dismal failure, because of Christians’ insistence on the Bible being accepted as inerrant, and their insistence that others convert to their way of believing, even to the point of using violence to force them to, and their insistence that others much believe Jesus saved them in order to be saved. I think if they scrapped the old testament, quit judging the beliefs of others, and just focused on following Jesus’ instructions, then they would be out there MOVING MOUNTAINS instead of debating ancient books with the likes of me. ;)

Thank you for allowing me to voice my opinions. I was more than willing to leave this discussion long ago and am impressed that you keep responding to my comments, thus inviting further comments.

Of course not. Key word being ‘in peace.’ They aren’t practicing their religion IN PEACE! They are harming others! Therefore they have crossed the line!

You should absolutely do what you can to save that child! Just as you should do what you can to save any victim of violence!

But people are violent, both within and outside of religion.

What about the wars that our country is currently engaged in? The fundamentalist Christian community is overwhelmingly in favor of those wars. And there has been plenty of violence committed in the name of Christianity.

A person committing atrocious acts of violence in the name of religion shouldn’t be left to practice his religion because he isn’t doing it ‘in peace.’

That is not the same as someone who is peaceful. Those whose beliefs are different from yours, but who is not harming anyone, should be respected.

The distinction is made when they impose their beliefs, or their violence, on others against their will. That is crossing a line and should never be tolerated.

“Jesus was crucified in A.D. 32-33″

A.D. means ‘after death’ so he was actually crucified in the year zero AD.

40 AD would be 40 years after his death.

I don’t even remember the exact words of conversations I had last week, much less a year ago, even less 40 years ago.

Even if I’m mistaken about what AD means, that would still be at least 7-8 years in which they are expected to remember exact words.

I have no doubt that they remembered the big events. But not the exact words. That I don’t believe. To think they did, would be putting a lot of trust in those MEN.

Agreed. And sometimes people don’t make that decision until they’re hit over the head with a 2×4. But God is infinitely patient and infinitely merciful.

“You are simply mistaken that Christianity is an exclusive club where the outsiders who were not invited to the party”

According to mainstream fundamentalist Christianity, non-Christians aren’t allowed in ‘heaven.’ That sounds pretty exclusive to me!

Let’s face it: By this criteria, the vast majority of the population won’t make it to the party. Some Christians even think the Catholics will be excluded because “they aren’t really Christian”!! Not to mention the Gnostic Christians, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, etc. all of whom consider themselves Christian but don’t measure up to the fundamentalist dogma.

And of course all those peaceful Buddhists and Pagans, who think they’re worshiping God, will be cast out into eternal hellfire.

Yup. That sounds really exclusive to me!

It doesn’t help to say, “well they were invited but declined the invitation.”

Let’s say you were having a big party on Christmas Day and sent your beloved son, as well as your close friends, invitations. But, it turns out, your son also got invited to another party at his wife’s family’s home. And, you friends received invitations from their own families.

Since they couldn’t be in 2 places at once, some of the people you invited chose to go elsewhere on Christmas.

This is analogous to some people choosing to worship God in a different way, after being exposed to various religions. Each religion is analogous to a different invitation.

Each invitation looks equally valid and good, just as each religion seems to have its merits, when viewed objectively.

But wait! Some of the people you invited, were just friends to you, and they chose to attend the party at the home of their family, since family meant more to them than mere friendship.

This is analogous to some people, who were brought up in a certain religion, let’s say Hinduism, will naturally be biased towards that religion, ie. that invitation. In other words, the Hindu invitation will be favored by them because that is like family to them, it is part of their culture, just as Christianity is favored by you.

Now, when some of your friends decline your invitation because of a legitimate reason (such as attending a different party on the same day at their family’s home) would you now terminate your friendship with them, forEVER?

Yeah it has been awhile. But that’s ok. We’re all busy.

“God is also a God of justice and righteousness.”

I agree. Which is exactly why I cannot accept the biblical depiction of God. You gave the example of the murderers, rapists etc. Those are heinous acts indeed. But did you know that most violent criminals were abused as children? This doesn’t excuse their actions, but it does explain why a person might harden their hearts to others, or might make the mistake of a crime of passion in a moment of rage.

These tortured souls need HEALING, not punishment.

God is eternal and has all of eternity to rehabilitate those souls. Reincarnation offers a reasonable, just way of doing just that. Sentencing a violent criminal to be tortured for a while might be fair, so he can experience what it feels like, but sentencing him to be tortured forEVER isn’t fair at all! It’s obscene.

What if the soul repents after, say, a few thousand years of torture? What then? Why wouldn’t God accept his repentance?

But according to your view, God would turn his back on a soul who desires reconciliation, just because it happened in hell instead of on Earth.

And this is just the violent souls. What about all the basically good people, such as the peaceful Buddhist who spends his life helping others and meditating for world peace? Who rejected Christianity because he was already content in his own spirituality? How could it be even remotely just to send him to the same place as the mass murderer?

I mean, think about it. What kind of father would sentence his child to be tortured forEVER just because he made what he considered a good decision?

That makes no sense at all.

“I think it is curious that atheists such as Jim Merritt and Ferrell Till spend so much of their time trying to disprove the existence of God. If, according to Nietzsche “God is dead”, then why waste any time at all trying to prove that He is dead. If this life is all that there is, and there is no objective meaning and purpose to it, then these guys are incredibly stupid for spending one second trying to convince people of anything. If life has no objective purpose, then spending your meaningless life trying to convince other meaningless people that their meaningless beliefs are meaningless is itself a meaningless endeavor.”

I totally agree with you here. I believe that, deep down, all atheists know that there is a God. They just don’t know it consciously. Or, in many cases, they are actually agnostic – open to the possibility that there is a God – but just reject organized religion because it doesn’t make sense to them. So what they are really fighting isn’t belief in God per se, but the belief in God as depicted by religions.

One can believe in God and have a strong faith, without religion. I suspect many of these atheists wouldn’t have any issues at all with personal faith. It’s the dogma they rail against, and for good reason.

“the reason they spend their lives bashing Christianity is because they have a deep hatred for God”

Respectfully, I find this statement offensive. I’ve been accused of hating God myself, even though I’m not an atheist but just have different beliefs about God. I find it offensive to accuse someone of ‘hating’ God just because they seek God differently and have different conclusions about God.

The Buddhists, Pagans, Mormons, Hindus, etc. and even atheists, are all just seeking God in a different way than you are. Even many atheists are finding a sense of wonder in Creation and eventually open their minds to the spirit realm. Who are we to judge their process of unfolding?

“Scripture and the natural law written on our hearts clearly reveals this about Him.”

Scripture doesn’t always agree with the ‘natural law written on our hearts.’ I trust that natural law, and the Holy Spirit, much more than words written by men thousands of years ago, especially words advocating tyranny, genocide, and other atrocities.

“If he were not just and holy, he would be a weak and tame “god” that would allow evil to triumph over good and turn a blind eye when the powerful trample the weak. ”

If we look at this physical world only, it sure does appear that God turns a blind eye and allows the strong to trample the weak. Even Christians don’t always get their prayers answered. It’s convenient to give the glory to God when someone is healed, but when they aren’t healed, or suffer some catastrophe, chalk it up to “Oh it must be God’s will” yet when the same thing happens to a non-Christian, it’s because they lacked faith. That is contradictory.

The reality is that we ALL suffer, we ALL experience both pain and triumph. But justice doesn’t prevail on Earth. Too many criminals get away with their crimes.

The only reasonable explanation for actual justice is if we continue to reap what we’ve sown, past our last breath. Aside from the fact that I remember glimpses of past lifetimes, reincarnation offers a mechanism by which God enforces true justice. The violent criminal continues to sow what he has reaped until he opens his heart to God, and then he exits the wheel of karma. This is just. Sentencing him to be tortured forEVER isn’t just.

“Because he is also Holy, we cannot have a relationship with Him in our sinful state, which is why we need a Savior to take our punishment as a substitute.”

Where is the logic in that? How does Jesus suffering physically for 1 day remove our responsibility for our own actions?

That is something I cannot accept, because it makes no sense to me. Jesus KNEW he was eternal and would be with God shortly. His suffering was horrendous, but no worse than what MANY humans have endured throughout history. And those humans didn’t even have the benefit of knowing that they would continue to live after death, or that God would welcome them with open arms. Nor did they even know that their suffering would ever end. Many suffered just as horribly, for a much longer period of time.

Please note that I am NOT demeaning Jesus’ suffering in any way! I am just making the point that, I don’t see how his suffering would ‘save’ anyone.

It hasn’t. The world is still just as messed up as it ever was! People still have to learn their own lessons, thru experience. They still have to find their way to God.

In my opinion, the significance of Jesus’ mission has been lost, due to focusing on this ‘sacrifice’ idea. His true mission, imo, was to demonstrate PERFECT LOVE AND FORGIVENESS because THAT is what we were supposed to learn!

But Christians have missed the point, and instead focus on what THEY will get out of it (a ticket to heaven) instead of learning how they can emulate Jesus’ example and actually change the world.

Christians aren’t following Jesus’ instructions any more than anyone else. They aren’t necessarily any more forgiving or charitable than anyone else. Very few of them are out there healing the sick like Jesus said to do, although there are alot who are feeding the hungry, to their credit. Sure they do a lot of good, but usually there is an ulterior motive: to convert others to their way of belief.

“If, however, we spend our entire lives rejecting God’s love and mercy then upon death he (in his grace mind you) does not force us into His presence, but allows us to choose to be eternally separated from Him in the place the Bible calls Hell.”

What makes you think that non-Christians are rejecting God’s love and mercy?

Just because they don’t believe as you do, doesn’t mean they are rejecting God’s love and mercy!!! I invite you to step aside for just a moment from your presupposition, that belief in the Bible = faith in God.

They aren’t synonymous.

Additionally, the man who believes that “God hates fags” is a lunatic named Fred Phelps who calls himself a Christian pastor. And I agree with you that his message is purely based in hatred. I supposed he could call himself anything he wants, Christian or otherwise, but by his actions he seems to know nothing about the God I am talking about here.

Ok, on to your recent posts. You claim that the evidence I presented on biblical prophecy does not hold up. You mentioned that the New Testament was written 40-100 years after the life of Jesus. Actually, if Jesus was crucified in A.D. 32-33 and the entire New Testament was written between 40-100 A.D., then the New Testament would have been written within Jesus’ generation. There is also ample evidence to believe that all 4 Gospels were written before the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. (considering that this unprecedented event is not mentioned historically in any of the gospels). Which would mean, that we have testimony of Jesus’ ministry, life, death, and resurrection by his contemporaries and eyewitnesses within a few years of his crucifixion. In fact, those same contemporaries and eyewitnesses were willing to die brutal deaths for the sake of their message even though they would have been in the best position of anyone in human history (and would have had plenty of motivation to escape prison, barbaric torture and death) to claim that the resurrection of Christ as a fraud. None of them denied it, because they had seen the risen Christ with their own eyes. Their testimony in life and in death helped grow the Christian faith from a few believers to the world’s largest religion (if you want to call it a religion; I believe God does not desire to be in religion with us but to be in a relationship with us) with over 2 billion followers. Furthermore, archeology (secular and Christian) has confirmed that the Old Testament prophecies predate the life of Christ by several hundred years. As I already mentioned, Christ fulfilled over 300 prophecies. The chances of one man fulfilling even 48 of the prophecies during his lifetime is 1 times 10 to the 157th power. Also, the New Testament manuscripts are the most well preserved and accurate documents of any historical documents of antiquity from this time period.

The evidence for the validity of God’s redemptive story in biblical prophecy, in history, in the eyewitness accounts of the disciples, in our own human experience of the world around us, and in archeology is astounding. Yet we far too often reject his free gifts of forgiveness, grace, purpose in this life, and hope in the life to come. We incorrectly assume that God is somehow against us or that he wants to make our lives less fulfilling by making us follow a bunch of rules, when he is crazy about us and wants to have a personal relationship with us. Christianity is the only explanation for this life that comports with reality. People are free to hold any worldview of their choice. However, there is not another worldview (Mormon, atheistic, secular, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, New Age, etc) that requires less faith than Christianity. I have heard people say that God should have just written all of this in plain language for everyone to see so that it’s not so hard to know Him. He has.

Psalm 19:1-4 (I would encourage you to read all of Psalm 19)
“The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard. Their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.”

Romans 1:19-20
“For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.”

Romans 10:12-13
“For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

For the Kingdom,
Mike

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/merrit01.html; http://litteralchristianlibrary.wetpaint.com/page/Answers+to+the+so-called+%22Bible+contradictions%22 ; http://www.usminc.org/images/136BC.pdf.

I think it is curious that atheists such as Jim Merritt and Ferrell Till spend so much of their time trying to disprove the existence of God. If, according to Nietzsche “God is dead”, then why waste any time at all trying to prove that He is dead. If this life is all that there is, and there is no objective meaning and purpose to it, then these guys are incredibly stupid for spending one second trying to convince people of anything. If life has no objective purpose, then spending your meaningless life trying to convince other meaningless people that their meaningless beliefs are meaningless is itself a meaningless endeavor. However, the reason they spend their lives bashing Christianity is because they have a deep hatred for God (which is their choice as discussed in the point above). If they truly believed that God did not exist, they would madly and selfishly pursue power, pleasure, and possessions at all cost until their clock runs out.

…[Continued below]

I meant to respond to your most recent blogs a long time ago, but I have not had the opportunity to do so until now. Before I respond to them I want to go back and address a couple of issues in an earlier blog of yours.

First, I think there is a tendency today to only look at God’s attributes of love, grace, mercy, and forgiveness. Without God showing me the aforementioned character traits, I am certain that I would be a worthless man constantly pursuing my own selfish desires as opposed to looking out for the interests of others (though I often fail at that). We like that side of God, but God is also a God of justice and righteousness. Scripture and the natural law written on our hearts clearly reveals this about Him. If he were not just and holy, he would be a weak and tame “god” that would allow evil to triumph over good and turn a blind eye when the powerful trample the weak. He would simply be like a crooked county judge who sentences the murderer and rapists to community service regardless of the overwhelming evidence against them. However, a good judge and a righteous judge will punish evil accordingly. If he were not a God of righteousness, then the cowardly suicide bomber who takes his own life and the lives of every bystander on a city block, would escape justice- forever (and for that matter the murderer who is never caught, the rapist who is never found, and the child molester who goes unnoticed). But God is righteous and he is just (But the LORD sits enthroned forever; he has established his throne for justice, and he judges the world with righteousness; he judges the peoples with uprightness. – Psalm 9:7-8). Because he is also Holy, we cannot have a relationship with Him in our sinful state, which is why we need a Savior to take our punishment as a substitute. If, however, we spend our entire lives rejecting God’s love and mercy then upon death he (in his grace mind you) does not force us into His presence, but allows us to choose to be eternally separated from Him in the place the Bible calls Hell. One could argue that someone who cannot stand to be in the presence of God during this life would in fact be living in their own Hell if they were forced to live eternally with God in heaven. So, we choose to push Him away. And in love, he allows us to do so. He does not force us to love Him (nor did He create us without the capacity to choose, which would be coercion in itself). He gives us the free choice to make that decision on our own. You are simply mistaken that Christianity is an exclusive club where the outsiders who were not invited to the party are stuck looking in the window at all of the fun. In Ezekiel 18:32 God states, “For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord GOD; so turn, and live.” It is our choice. And everyone has the choice. No one is excluded. But God does not force our hand. He simply invites us into His presence with grace through the sacrifice of his Son.

…[continued below]

There are many prominent theologians who argue against this doctrine. Why is this the case? And where is this teaching/doctrine located in Scripture?

I would benefit from such a discussion as well!

(Great article Whit)

I would say that there is one slight difference worth noting. Jesus went to the Gentiles. In our world, the Muslims are coming to us. I think this is probably an indictment on the overall state of the Church—as a whole, we’re not all that concerned. Honestly, Christians who are not encountering lost people on a regular basis are employing something of a bomb shelter lifestyle and are erecting functional “Towers of Babel” as they refuse to spread out and advance the glory of God over the face of the earth. We have failed to go to the Muslims. So, they are coming to us.

“He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”

Hope for gentiles, means hope for every Muslim.

Gungor
Derrick Webb
Red Mountain Church
Shane & Shane (unbelievable musicians)
Keith & Krysten Getty
Sojourn Music
Brooks Ritter
Jamie Barns

You are right in the fact that most Christian music is shallow and lacks substance. The main reason I’m excited about these guys is that their lyrics are solid and grounded in Scripture. The first time I heard Lecrae, he was rapping about secular humanism. I was immediately sold!

I’d also love to see a list of hip-hop artists outside the CCM world who don’t bring trash. I’ll offer a couple nominations:

Common
Lupe Fiasco
The Roots (not for those bothered by some language, but the content is fair)

Ken, what you wrote is very true!

Peter, I agree with the comments of both Whitney and Greg. I think they have sufficiently answered your questions. But, if you would like me to respond to something specifically feel free to let me know. Thanks!

Also, by rejecting the sufficiency of Scripture, you have already engaged in the debate. You just haven’t provided any substance for why you reject the sufficiency of Scripture.

Just Print the Flyer from here (click or copy into your browser):
http://careerforchristians.s3.amazonaws.com/6month.pdf
display on the board (better yet hand it to them)
for the members… –Your part is done.

Regards,
Idalino da Silva.
860.479.2009
i@careerforchristians.com
http://www.CareerForChristians.com

The author, Achor, did not expound on why those words were removed or on his perception on the influence and intention of those words. Furthermore, I am uncertain why he included this bit of information about Harvard altogether – it did not even fit into the chapter well!

Did the author expound on why ecclesiae and christo were removed? What was his perception on the influence and intention of those words?

Also, you should add in this article how the actor who does the voice of Ryder Strong in Tangled thinks you’re the most beautiful woman ever. Or maybe because you’re too modest to ever mention it, I should just dream on… ;)

THE WORK OF THE LORD AND SAVIOR FOR WHAT YOU NEED FOR THE SOULS WITHOUT DIRECTION WILL THE WAY I met other WHAT IS THE LORD JESUS: JOHN 14:6-7. WE NEED YOUR HELP TO MINISTER THE WORD OF GOD IN PRISON AND THE WORLD OF Barsil!

God changes the lives of prisoners and Family in Guarulhos and São Paulo / SP / BRAZIL

For many years we have seen, and follow through newspapers and media communications, many riots, deaths in the ‘Public Chain “in São Paulo and other Brazilian states. The Church of God, through his ministers, has been doing work for change this situation, educating and helping reentregrar society, improving people’s lives Caceros throughout Brazil, giving religious assistance in prisons in Greater Sao Paulo Guarulhos, Near Department of Corrections, responsible for system cacerário SP. Much has been done, but has not yet reached our goal of making the change completely in those lives, hence they need the Lord Jesus! We need to help the public and private initiative, to change the situation of prisoners and their families, as stated in Article 8 of Resolution SAP-69/2010. The Evangelical Pentecostal Church Brazil in Christ Ministry, which has its headquarters at Rua, Francisco Antonio Meira, No. 204 – Jd São Miguel Maia Pta. São Paulo / Sp. Phone: (011) 2586 – 3059/6618-5630. has accompanied the change of many who left the life they led and changed with the Lord Jesus, inside prison and after his final exit. This is our greatest pleasure, to help our neighbor as The Word says of God in the book of “Hebrews” Chapter 13, V. 3 “Remember those in bonds, as bound with them, and those who are mistreated as being yourselves also in the body.”

Pastor Everaldo

Contact: deusvive2009@hotmail.com / brasilemcristo@hotmail.com

I also forgot to say: thank you for your concern. It is rightly placed. I think we were both just emphasixing different things in our discussion here. I really appreciate your desire to see the truth brought to light in the right way. TVN is all about truth, because God is too. Thank you for being equally concerned, even if we don’t land on the same page every time!

I think we are on the same page in one respect. I definitely do not want people reading this blog to think that we are against reassessing your beliefs. That is a great thing to do from time to time. Otherwise you become a strange Christian who believes what they were told when they were a child. My point is that when this happens, you should not allow your reason for reassessment to become the hinge that your interpretation swings on. Belizekian makes it sound like this is the case in his writing. He started with a need to reinterpret. Then he did just that. Reassessing your views in light of experience can be good, unless you reassess scripture in order to explain your experience.

Gilbert Belizekian is not a liberal. He is a conservative who I greatly respect. I think he is wrong on this issue, and I think the way he arrived at his perspective was indicative of what happens when someone begins a slide to liberalism. They let their thoughts, feelings, and experiences dictate their interpretation. Looking back at my article, I did not make that clear; I did not mean to call him a liberal based upon his thoughts on egalitarianism. I meant to point at what influenced his decision to alter his view. I would say his experience is one step away from a conservative Christian declaring active homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle after meeting and befriending some in the homosexual community. It starts with caring more for those around you than you do for truth. Care is a good thing, unless it becomes disproportionate.

Otherwise, I could say that God “told me” to do “anything.”

I would recommend to you Kevin DeYoung’s book mentioned above by Tyler Smith. A great resource for how to make decisions under the umbrella of God’s sovereignty.

You say, “The focus is on the need to avoid theological liberalism on the basis of a bleeding heart for those around us.”

That seems clear enough to me. However, my point was that citing Mr. Belizekian’s situation as an example of that is, from the information you put in your post, misguided. You just don’t provide the support needed to establish your claim that the factors which prompted him to reassess what Scripture said about egalitarianism actually negatively influenced his interpretation of Scripture. It would be different if he just came out and said, “I just can’t accept that women aren’t equal to men in way (x). So, Scripture can’t possibly mean what I thought it meant.” But as it is you provide no reason for thinking that he did say (or think) something like that. For all we know, in his new interpretation of Scripture was negatively influenced by some different hermeneutical principle he bought into for reasons other than those that prompted his reassessment in the first place.

I don’t mean to be picky here. But it seems dangerous to imply (especially to all the young people who read this blog) that because someone was prompted to reassess what Scripture says by something other than Scripture then it necessarily follows that one’s intention in so doing is corrupt and leads to theological liberalism. My grip (and maybe this is all that it is) is that you should have been more clear about this point.

Again, overall, this is a good post.

Best,
MLN

An informed bias is one that recognizes its own preconceptions and analyzes them against other historically validated interpretations of the text in question. A healthy method of interpretation is one that recognizes the authority of the inspired writer in determining meaning; my thoughts, feelings, and experiences have no bearing on the meaning that Paul intended when writing to the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, etc. We are not the arbiters of meaning.

Now, if we agree there, the next part should not be too difficult. Gilbert Belizekian is not the focus of this article. The focus is on the need to avoid theological liberalism on the basis of a bleeding heart for those around us. Books have been written in response to Belizekian’s method of interpretation in Genesis 1-3 and various parts of the New Testament, so I would need more space than our blog provides in order to fully address his situation. Even if I could fit it into a blog post, most people could not care less about hermeneutics in relation to modern Biblical interpretation. I do think that his interpretation of scripture was biased by the women in his life, which is a bad thing if it leads him to interpret wrongly on the basis of his prior intent.

Lastly, to address your scenario of Mr. B. Looking at [P], I never intended to imply that [P] is always right. And you certainly cannot be saying that [P] is always wrong. Look at the other example listed in my article. John Hick did this exact thing, and it led him to universalism. That was wrong.

The purpose of my article was to encourage people to analyze their prior intent and approach the text with as little preconcieved bias as is possible. My comments on Belizekian are based upon study of his book, “Beyond Sex Roles”. I did not give you a full rundown of his thoughts, but you can find numerous books which address his position, and they will do a far better job than I could in the first place.

I appreciate much of what you’ve said here. However, when you say, “It seems almost as if this man has indeed found the true meaning of scriptures which have been wrongly interpreted for the last two thousand years. Well, you may think that unless you read the introduction Belizekian wrote in that book. In the introduction he explains that after seeing the impressive personal giftings of the women in his life (especially including his wife) he began to wonder if it is really possible that they were excluded from the role of an elder based upon their sex. Therefore, he went back to reevaluate the scripture passages, and would you believe it, the Bible was not really saying what the oppressive men in the 2,000 year history of the church had believed it to say! The situation is obvious, he loved and valued those around him to a fault. His intent came prior to his reading of the content”, you seem to propose something like the following principle.

[P]: If something other than Scripture prompts you to reassess what Scripture says about some topic (x) then your intention in reassessing what Scripture says about (x) is necessarily corrupt.

I disagree with [P]. Imagine the following case:

…Mr. B grows up in a church which teaches him (presumably from Scripture) that the earth is flat. Until the time he leaves his church for college he believes—based on the testimony of those in his church and his understanding of Scripture—that the earth is flat. However, in college he is presented with significant evidence which suggests that the earth is round and not flat. Now Mr. B sees the alleged conflict between what his college science books tell him and what his understanding of Scripture tells him. He trusts that God’s revelation is true and right but also thinks that science can even stumble upon truth in God’s world. So, he asks himself, “Do those passages which suggest the earth is flat REALLY suggest the earth is flat?” He then says, “If the Scriptures are right and true then maybe I have misunderstood them. Maybe they don’t really suggest that the earth is flat.” So, he takes to studying. And wouldn’t you know!, he discovers that he was reading certain passages in a literal fashion when there was an entirely legitimate way of reading them that wasn’t literal. This new way of reading those passages doesn’t provide any conflict between what Scripture actually says and what his science books teach him about the earth being round. Satisfied he relinquishes his belief that the earth is flat and starts to believe that the earth is round. All is well in the (round) world.

The case of Mr. B seems to be a plausible counterexample to [P]. That is, there is nothing in the case of Mr. B which suggests a corrupt intention on his part. We might even explain his questioning and reassessment of what Scripture says as something virtuous. Maybe he was motivated to discover more truth about God’s world.

It seems to me that it would be highly counterintuitive if we discouraged Mr. B from reassessing certain portions of Scripture (which he originally took to be evidence of a flat earth) simply because he didn’t get the notion that the earth was round from Scripture. Remember, he first had the idea that the earth was round when reading his science books and not when reading Scripture. Further, it seems odd to accuse him of loving science above God’s Word simply because he didn’t first get the idea that the earth was round from reading Scripture. How would you explain our intuition about the case of Mr. B if [P] is true?

My point: You accuse Mr. Belizekian of already having his mind made up about what Scripture really says regarding egalitarianism simply because watching his wife and other women prompted him to reassess what Scripture says about egalitarianism. However, you haven’t provided reason to do so. As the case of Mr. B illustrates, it seems reasonable, at least in some cases, for one to question and reassess what Scripture says when not being prompted first by Scripture. I think Mr. Belizekian’s case looks a lot like the case of Mr. B. You need to provide some reason for thinking that Mr. Belizekian’s situation is sufficiently different from Mr. B’s situation. If you can’t, you’ve concluded too much about Mr. Belizekian.

Lastly, all of us have an intent (or, better, theological lenses) “prior to the content” of what we read. I’m not sure how we’re supposed to get around this fact. Maybe we shouldn’t…? After all, not all intentions are bad.

Best,
MLN

For you first question, we have several students within our youth group who have amazing, Spirit-filled parents. These parents are extremely active in their childrens’ lives and I get the sweet opportunity to come along them and help them out in their role as spiritual leaders. This is one of the greatest joys of my life and calling.

Just last week one of our underage students was pressured into a strip club by his older cousins. I disciple this 17 year old personally so naturally he confessed to me first. He had planned on not confessing to his parents because hey, it’s sexual sin…thats awkward. After our discipleship time (i personally disciple 6 guys, four highschool and two college guys that are leaders in the youth ministry), I told him that either he could tell them or I would. Either way they were going to find out. So anyway, we go over to his house and spend the next 3 hours with his parents. It was amazing. The confession brought hard words, judgment, then love and forgiveness. These parents showed their son Jesus like I have never seen in a home. The dad and son even opened communication lines between the two that had never been done. Everyone was crying, the Spirit was at work.

So yes, our role as youth pastors should be to come along parents in their biblical duty to raise their children.

Now, the rest of the story…

My example above is a living example of your call to youth pastors to be more family oriented, Tyler. And in principle, I agree because its definitely biblical. However, we have over 70 students in the youth ministry and less than 5% come from families like the one I described above. The rest come from a wide variety of drunken, unbelieving, broken, immature, and abusive homes (a.k.a parents). Out of my six discipleship men, only 2 are being disicpled at home by their parents. Only 3 have believing parents. 25% of our youth group are African refugees who escaped the Muslim onslaughts in Lyberia and Sudan. Some of these students’ last memories of their parents were watching them cry as they were being stripped away and put on a plane to come here because the child was drawn to come to America but the parents weren’t. Now they live with distant cousins and uncles (maybe, it’s really a guess anyway) who don’t give a rip.

I’m saying this to say that yes, the Bible does say that parents are responsible for their children. However, we have to be Extremely careful how we throw that out as the only way ministry to students should be done. It doesn’t take long in the trenches of youth ministry to realize that many, if not most students come from these types of backgrounds.

I love your heart Tyler, and I agree! Be careful, however, how you throw around Biblical “models” of parenting and regulations. The context of Paul’s teachings about this were to believing parents. Keep in mind that the big vision is to make disciples of all the world. That’s the primary Biblical “regulation.”. So yes, I come along any parent who wants help raising their children in the Lord because that is the best way. But to say that it’s the only way of doing youth ministry is dangerous because you leave out the fatherless, the broken, and the abused.

I love that God has raised up a generation that is concerned about our cultures family life!!!

Another great resource on this topic is the product Decision Making and the Will of God from STR.org. It’s an .mp3 download with a study guide that really helped me think through this issue when I was a young person…

And you have hit upon something I did not have the room to explore, the differences in the ways that men react to the end of a relationship compared to the ways women react. Men typically respond more harshly in the moment, but women must guard themselves against carrying a burden of overstated loss or unnecessary animosity. Generalizations, yes, so I wonder if I am incorect in that assessment? Are there any people who would disagree? Or anyone who could offer an explanation of why this seems to be somewhat consistent?

There are also ways in which I believe “red flags” can found out, if necessary. Pointed conversation about doctrine, theology, family, manhood, husbandry expectations, etc. are always good places to start. Do they practice what they say? Do they work extremely hard? Are they serving in their local church? Those in the church will always be able to make solid observations about them if they are.

In reality, even if everything seems perfect and everybody says great things then we always enter marriage with some sorts of unknowns. Sin is often magnified during this time, but sanctification also is inevitable if Christ is attempted to placed at the center. Dave Harvey has a great quote in the book, “When Sinners Say I Do…” He says, “Until sin be bitter, marriage will not be sweet.”

First off, what did Descartes lead up to once he came to his conclusion that man is a thinking creature? He went from there to build propositional statements which led him to the existence of God. He found the wall of limitation to skepticism: Man cannot doubt his ability to doubt without falling into absurdity. Now, becasue this is a blog, not a scholarly position paper, I did not walk our readers through the propositions which led to Descartes’ acceptance of the Bible. His foundation of his ability to reason led him to the moral law, which inexorably leads to the existence of an external reality. From there, he recognized the need for something which started the chain of causality which is our universe. The explanation the Bible provides for the existence of man, the laws of our universe, the need for an “unmoved mover”, and many other of the great questions of life create a more plausible, consistent, coherent, and pragmatic worldview than any other rival, including skepticism.

Your two paragraph lesson on faith is playground atheism. I should expect more than a lexical trap from someone who is a philosophy major. This is about the same as me responding “you should not even care to engage in this debate because your parenthetical statement about Huxely’s skepticism shows a strong bias towards a belief in relative truth. Therefore you have to say that I am right.” I would feel like a fool making that argument, for it would be like a five year playing gotcha on the playground.

Addressing your defense of Huxely: my point is that he began his argument with incorrect premises. Namely, his foundational satement about the world is the non-existence of God. One of the inviolable aspects of a sound argument is the truth of its premises. For instance, if there was in fact a god, and this god explained to us, his creatures, how it is that we come to attain knowledge (through him) and that some people would never attain true knowledge (becasue they refuse him) then it would appear that I have a much better explanation for why two people, both intent on living reasonably, would come to such different conclusions about life, the universe, and everything. The Bible says that you must be enlightened by the Holy Spirit in order to fully understand. I would suggest reading Alvin Plantinga’s book Warranted Belief if you would like a full introduction into Christian epistemolgy as it intersects with the practice in general.

As a side note, I have finished my major in the discipline of philosophy, so now that we have equal footing in the “accolades therefore authority” department, let us speak plainly. I will personally send you a check of one hundred dollars if you can show me the place where Jesus says that “man cannot know things with certainty.” It is not there, because Jesus was the ultimate revelation of truth to man. Truth is revealed in order to be understood.

I think you hit the nail on the head in your comment though. If you don’t foresee yourself getting married sooner rather than later then I believe you should slow down the process of dating all together, and this might mean stop dating or not dating all together. I realize this is easier said than done but the reality at stake here is the concept of “priority.” When a young person says these kinds of things then they push getting a college degree above the position of marriage. I believe they should be “both/and” and not “either/or.”

As far as family goes then I would suggest you following your parents wishes on this one. If it were me then I would pull out all stops for my parents to come on board with my decision to man up and get married. I would have them talk with a pastor who holds this position, read literature about this, pray about it, make a budget for our family, get a job, work hard, prove my work ethic, etc. Again, if this were the case and parents were not on board then I would simply see that as a time where I am not supposed to be dating, as dating should be intentional with marriage in mind.

Again, great questions Ryan… thank you for thinking through this ever so important issue with me.

Furthermore we’re not supposed to know that God exists. If we knew he existed then we wouldn’t have need of faith. We’re all supposed to be agnostic; we’re not supposed to know that God exists. We’re supposed to believe he exist on faith. Knowledge doesn’t enter the picture. We wouldn’t need faith if we knew he existed. It should be obvious to any one with faith that you cannot know that God exists. Knowledge destroys faith. If we knew God existed what would be the point?

The Christian response to the question should be the same as everyone’s response to the question. “oooh we could be living in the matrix. Cool. Next question.” We don’t know if God exist or that anything else exist. So what we have this little thing called Faith… heard of it?

Another point you make is that Huxley’s flaw is not that he “starts with himself” (and when you’re being a skeptic where else could you start?) That’s not his flaw. Actually his argument is flawless. It’s sound. We can’t know anything from our senses. (Of course when I use know I’m talking with absolute certainty). It’s a denial of logic to assert that we can know things from our senses. David Hume pointed out the flaw in using inductive reasoning to prove inductive reasoning.

Your article sucks. Take a philosophy class and get a clue. One can agree with the skeptical claim without it impacting one’s life at all. Faith and Belief are untouched by acknowledgment of skepticism. We should all be skeptics and believers. One would have to deny logic in order to arrive at your conclusion. I’m a philosophy major and we definitely never learned that “There is no truth.” We learned that we cannot know certain things about reality. Kant said this, Hume said this, Plato said this; c’mon who didn’t say this. Jesus said it for his own sake!

I agree with you and affirm that couples should not date around for so long and should get married sooner, especially at the man’s initiation and leadership. However, it’s hard to make this a blanket expectation because of varying circumstances. What if, due to financial reasons such as scholarships or receiving money from being dependent on parents, a couple must wait 2 years to get married after they graduate? Would you say this is ok, but should they should just slow down the process? Or what if her/your family wants you to wait until graduating college? I ask these not in a skeptical manner, but because they are situations that I’ve seen realistically with some friends of mine. All signs point to marriage, but they must wait for the time waiting. This series of posts though has been great and very helpful because of the truth and good application you grant. Thanks.

I completely agree with you in terms of parental approval. Not only is it biblical, but I can say from personal experience that my mother’s lack of approval has saved me a great deal of heartache (hindsight really is 20/20). Similarly, my grandfather’s disapproval of his child’s spouse has made life difficult for our entire family.

I would also place a huge importance on the approval/acceptance of the parentals. For young people, especially those who are still financially supported by their parents, mom and dad are still their authorities. There is a common misconception that when one turns 18 years old then they are no longer under their parents authority. In a legal since this is true, but in the confines of Scripture I believe this to be fallacious. Moms and Dads should always be in authority over their children (even if they are so-called adults) UNTIL the ‘leaving and cleaving’ process (Gen 2).

Also, I think it varies from family to family whether these two steps should occur prior to the dating relationship or engagement. We always have cases of young guys and gals not having believing parents. In this case, maybe the ladder should occur. But in every case, I believe parental approval is a must. If one goes against their parents wishes, especially in this reality, then it is absolutely sinful.

I hope this helps. Do you agree, disagree, have anymore thoughts that I may have missed? Thanks for commenting!

I ask these questions not to disagree with what you’ve written, but rather to figure out how they fit into the overall picture of what you’re saying. I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said (and wonder if you’ve addressed these issues in past blogs that I’ve not read).

I cannot speak for your friends, but I can speak (and I have spoken) for the Roman Catholic Church. I do not know what your buddies believe about Mary, but if they believe something different from what is presented above then they are in disagreement with their own church. As a Protestant, I hope that your friends disagree with the Catholic Church when it comes to Mariology. But, if they disagree with Catholic teaching, then if I were you, I’d be interested to know why they remain a Catholic. If they don’t agree with Catholic teaching, then they shouldn’t in good conscience remain a Catholic. The same goes for you; if you don’t believe the teachings of the Protestant Church, then you should leave it.

Personally, I think the Catholic Church’s claims concerning Mary are outrageous, devoid of scriptural support, and in some cases lacking in historical support. However, I have sought to be fair to their position. As a writer and a researcher, I am free to disagree with their teachings so long as I am able to support what I am saying through sound reason and reproducible evidence. Your job as a reader of my article is to weigh what I have said and determine whether or not my reasons for saying what I have said can be supported by evidence. What is it exactly about what I have said that is untrue about the Catholic Church’s teachings? I have cited many of their teachers verbatim. You say that you do not believe my “portrayal of Catholics in general (ie. their view of Mary Mother of Jesus) to be accurate.” How have I misrepresented the teachings of the Catholic Church? Please demonstrate this by pointing to credible Roman Catholic documents and reference materials such as conciliar documents and confessions of faith—i.e., the Council of Trent, Vatican I, Vatican II, and/or the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

If you would like to insult me, that is fine. I stand with the Apostle Paul on this issue. I wonder if you would also find the words of the Apostle Paul “quite sad, disappointing, and small minded” when he said these words to the Galatians: “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:6-9).

Peggy, it matters what we believe. If you don’t believe me, just ask Paul. He says that if you believe the wrong gospel, you are accursed. That is, you are cut off from God; you are cursed; you are damned. Which gospel do you believe? Whose is the correct gospel—the one of the Protestant Church or the one of the Roman Catholic Church? They’re not the same gospel! The Reformers—including Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, and many others—protested against Rome’s gospel, since they considered it to be a gospel contrary to the one of the Scriptures. They believed that if one believed Rome’s gospel, he was accursed. Your inclusivistic claims that everyone is just fine and dandy— so long as they have “faith in God”—do not jive with the Bible, history, or Christianity as a whole. It matters what we believe. After all, what is faith? Who do we have faith in? What do we have faith in? What accomplishment of Christ’s are we trusting in? It matters what we believe about God Himself. Your version of God apparently doesn’t judge people for believing wrong doctrine. The God of the Bible does.

I’m glad you’re reading John MacArthur. Keep reading him. In fact, read his article on Roman Catholicism. I think you’ll find it enlightening. Read it here: http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sf-rcc-b.htm .

How does Roman Catholicism’s gospel err according to MacArthur (and evangelical Protestants)?: “It nullifies the grace of God, for if meritorious righteousness can be earned through the sacraments, ‘then Christ died needlessly’ (Gal. 2:21). Any system that mingles works with grace, then, is ‘a different gospel’ (Gal. 1:6), a distorted message that is anathematized (Gal. 1:9), not by a council of medieval bishops, but by the very Word of God that cannot be broken. In fact, it does not overstate the case to say that the Roman Catholic view on justification sets it apart as a wholly different religion than the true Christian faith, for it is antithetical to the simple gospel of grace.”

I hope you will take this as an opportunity to reevaluate what you believe to be the gospel? Ask yourself this question: “What is the gospel?” Is yours a biblical gospel of grace as is the one of the Bible and historical Protestantism? Or, is it the works- and merit-based gospel of Roman Catholicism? Or, even worse: Is it a carefree, inclusivistic, emotionalistic gospel of Liberalism, whose God saves everyone no matter what they believe? Is your faith a biblical one? I hope you will take what I’m saying seriously for your own sake, for the sake of your Roman Catholic friends, and even for the sake of those who sit under your teaching at church. I hope you take your role as a teacher seriously (James 3:1).

I also hope that you take these words with the love that they are intended. One must be extraordinarily careful when he speaks concerning matters of salvation and damnation. All we can do is stand under the authority of the Word of God, and I hope that both of us will seek to make that our goal as we seek to be faithful to it, to God, and to those we seek to share the gospel of grace with.

If Catholics were “Christians” according to the Bible alone then what was the need for the Protestant Reformation? I guess Martin Luther, John Calvin, and other Protestant Reformers were just as “closed minded” as you make Tyler out to be.

Granted, I do think some Catholics are saved because of their faith in Jesus… but let us remember that it is “only” by the blood of Jesus we are saved… not any other work we might do.

Also, Catholicism stands alone as its own religion. Much like Protestantism stands alone. We must be careful not to confuse Catholicism as a “denomination.”

Yeah, covering everything would be a prodigious post. However, a few things that I feel really changed/affected me in my becoming/striving to be a more giving and generous person. The Aukaan people were very hospitable and would give you whatever they had to eat or drink even if it was the only thing they had. I had never seen this kind of hospitality and open generosity, notably among the Christians. There also was a matter of faith involved because giving was much more of a sacrifice for them. They saw fully God’s hand when he compensated them. It made me think of how God asks more of me than I had given him. “To whom much is given much will be required” has been more meaningful and challenging than would have been without the experience.

Secondly,

A more dynamic prayer life. I saw the believers pray with great fervence and consistency despite their limited ability to read. I witnessed prayers of faith asking God for the miraculous and seeing them answered.

I am glad you brought up the question you did Greg. At first I was going to answer the question by completely and solely going down the road you are pointed me. But I decided not to in fear that it may get to “weird” and metaphysical for your purposes here. The context in Titus is a more unrelated from my understanding, but 1 Peter is exactly what I would have pointed out had I gone that route. I was taught (correct me if I am wrong) that the Greek word used here is sōphronein, which translates more to mean “prudent, discreet, and in mastery of one’s self”. So you are certainly right on with regards to alcohol (and perhaps other narcotics and painkillers)…when you are drunk you certainly don’t make prudent decisions, and are obviously not a master of yourself, at least from a self-control standpoint. Having been drunk before, I can certainly attest to that. Having never been high on weed before, I cannot say whether the same is true. But if it is, you are certainly right.

The weird / metaphysical side of it that I would have brought up, that is related yet different from the references in these texts, is the potential damage done on the front of spiritual warfare in our lives by such [potentially] mind-altering substance. In highschool, we were given some words of wisdom from our apologetics teacher our Senior year (Greg, you may know him). He was at one time, before he followed Christ, the #1 drug dealer in Knox county and the most wanted man in the area by the FBI…..so I figured he knew what he was talking about in the arena of drugs. He warned us, ABOVE ALL the other detrimental effects of such drugs (like health, poor decision making, DUIs, premarital sex, etc.), about the lowering of the spiritual defenses, the armor of Christ, that Christians subject their minds too when the use such substances. It was his claim, and I’m not well-versed enough to know if it is scripturally founded, that these substances open one’s mind (as their users even claim they do) up….and such opening can allow demonic beings and forces to take hold where they would have been able to otherwise.

Now granted, many people thought he was a weird guy, and perhaps rightfully so with all the stories of demon possesion he claimed to have witnessed. But with where he came from, the things he had seen, and having believed very much in such spiritual warfare existing on a very real basis myself, I had, and still have, no reason to doubt him. He claims that most, if not all, the “possessed” people he had run across had began showing such symptoms at a time that can be traced directly to heavy mind-altering drug use. Granted, much of this was probably accounted to heavier hallaucigens and narcotics, but in my mind, the principle still applied.

So, without intending to sound crazy or freak anyone out, that is the primary reason I would say that I personally choose not to partake in recreational drug use. Again, I understand and accept the idea of being “in the world but not of it”. But I do believe believe that a group of Christians could fellowship together while drink wine in moderation, (or, dare I say it, smoking weed?) without creating a false witness for the kingdom of Christ or sinning against the nature of God. I think we have to believe such a thing if we read the scripture for what it says. In the same way, I don’t think smoking weed, with your wife say, in the privacy of your own home, would violate your witness to the world, at least not immediately. So in my eyes, you are safe on that front. But if what we’ve talked about above is true, is it worth the risk? If you have to think real hard about it, do a bunch of research on it, pray through it, talk to your peers, etc…just to calm your spirit on whether or not you are “safe” in doing something – wouldn’t it just be easier to not do it and quit worrying about it?

If you have exhausted all these efforts, and still want to go out in your yard with your wife, get on your belly, and lick a wild mushroom because the effects might be “fun”, go ahead. But you look ridiculous and I would want to make fun of you….and I think God is probably laughing at you as well.

Fiction is important for at least two reasons: 1) It’s wonderfully entertaining and, depending on what you read, intellectually edifying. Not to mention, to quote some Oompa Loompas, no commercials!
2) Fiction allows you to read an author to discover their worldview which is great practice for talking to people in evangelistic and apologetic encounters. For instance, Douglas Adams’ The Hitchhiker’s Guide to Galaxy reflects abject nihilism while most of Stephen King’s novels include some sort of deistic supernaturalism. A lot to interact with!

Good discussion. I enjoyed reading the preceeding comments for helping me to formulate my own view on the issue.

Will, insightful perspective, especially your correlation between accepted over-the-counter drugs and canabis.

Landon, living a life set apart is vital for our witness to a lost world and being accountable ultimately to God should cause us to seriously consider what we put in our bodies.

I have a conservative viewpoint myself on the issue based primarily on the overall negative effects Marijuana has: namely the abuses it’s given to. But then again, alocohol fits in the same category – with the responsibility ultimately lying with the individual. Some people drink in moderation, and a lot don’t – especially younger people. In cannabis, I see the harmful long-term effects in regard to cardiovascular and cognitive health. Furthermore, the fact that cannibis has been linked to lowered motivation and overall apathy among frequent users warrants serious consideration if American children should have access to it.

As for Biblical support, I don’t see any absolute, black-and-white scripture reference to support or reject cannibis usage. I don’t think it should be legal however, for this very reason, I would not be hasty to judge someone who uses it or supports it’s legalization. Like alcohol, marijuana can be given to abuses and the Bible heeds us warning. It ultimately becomes an issue of: Is God glorified in it? Does it hinder or edify your brother? Does it help or hurt your relationship with Christ?

It seems to me that too much alcohol would lead to the same thing that weed and/or pain killers do to the mind. I look forward to your thoughts on this…

Interesting perspective on shyness. I don’t think I can recall ever hearing commentary on the source behind what is often designated “shyness”, that is fear. I believe the error of talking presumptuously and frequently has more notoriety but there is undoubtedly a time to be bold and fearless with words, especially as it regards the gospel. I can think of no better example than Stephen in Acts.

First, regarding Cannibus (CB hereon) itself and the spiritual implications, I think answering this question will lead to answers to many of the other questions you posted above: is smoking / partaking in CB a sin? If the answer is a resounding yes, then certainly answers to questions 2, 5, and 6 fall logically into place. But is the answer yes?

I’m not really sure. The Bible, in any specific form, is silent on the issue. Practically speaking, I’m not sure of CB was discovered as a depressant during the time the scriptures were written. Alcohol certainly was, however, and we all understand that partaking in it, in moderation, is not in itself sinful.

What I do know, however, is that one of the most basic definitions of sin is anything that is apart, seperated, or contridictory to perfect and true nature of God. Therefore, anything “of God” (which we could also call “Godly”), is not sin, but quite the opposite. Anything a–God (or “unGodly”) would therefore be sin. Therefore, it follows that filling any void in your body, spirit, or mind with anything other than God (ie CB) would be sinful.

So, I suppose my conclusion, to be frank and blunt, is that smoking CB to get “high” because you desperately “need” a false-sense of happiness, or JOY, would obviously be sinful – and should therefore be preached as so just as one would alcohol, or gambling, or pornography, or any other a-God mechanism we pitiful sinners interject to replace Jesus, the only real Joy.

Now, what about using it for other reasons – i.e. for medical purposes, socially with other believers (like alcohol), to celebrate with, etc…? Here I’m not so sure. I’ve never smoked CB (I tend to choose much more obvious and blatent sins), so it is not an issue I’ve really struggled over, or prayed about. With that being said, my gut feeling (or my opinion) would be that CB can be used while still staying within the Will of God. Again, I say this very carefully, I certainly would not want to put words in God’s mouth. In my field, for instance, I see and work with a lot of cancer patients. Many of which, Born-again children of Christ’s, have told me that the pain is so bad and the mental torment so severe, that CB was the only “drug” they encountered that gave them any relief. I believe them – and why shouldn’t I? We perscribe and take pain-killers without second thought, and so on a chemical and purely biological level, CB is really no different. I don’t for one second think God seperates chemical structures to determine if one “natural substance” (like CB) is sinful when compared to a synthetic substance (like Oxycontin). That would simply be ridiculous.

My guess is that the Lord is probably laughing at us for quibbling over this as much as we do. He isn’t in the business of micromanaging our world and dicating which chemical structures are “sinful” and which are not. We know when we are doing something wrong – it isn’t that hard. That’s what the Holy Spirit’s job is – to convict us, and then to fill us up! God just want to love us, and for us to accept that love and then to love Him, worship Him, and glorify Him in return!

Finally, on a more practical level, I will say that think CB should be legalized (but that is more of my liberatarian side coming out). The fact is, CB accounts for the largest UNTAXED black-market trade in the world. The fact that it is illegal isn’t stopping ANYONE from doing it. So the law itself doesn’t work. In in turn, my opinion is that make it legal won’t cause anyone who currently doesn’t do it to start. I don’t smoke CB because I don’t want to. It doesn’t appeal to me. The effects don’t seem that cool or fun to me. If I chose a drug to use, I’d probably choose Ecstasy….seems a lot more fun…..but still. Why don’t you smoke it? Because it is illegal? I doubt it…If they legalized heroin, or meth, I don’t think I would get excited and run out and start using it either, nor would you.

So legalize it I say – so we can at least make some tax money off all these idiots who use it daily. Perhaps then at least our schools will be better funded to better educate all the kids who don’t waste their time and fry their brains smoking CB all the time and actually want to have a bright future and expand God’s Kingdom! Only kidding…..

As for protesting it in the public square….sure….go for it. People should always feel free expressing their opinions in the public forum. But please don’t do so under the Christian flag. We must be very careful to seperate our “views” from Absolute Truth (God’s views). I think we can all agree that the Bible isn’t clear enough on CB to claim it Absolutely Wrong. The Jews, as far as a know, had no laws forbidding it, or tobacco, or any other natural “smoked” substance….and they had their laws set up from God Himself!! So if Greg the Christian, wants to publically protest CB, that’s awesome! But I would caution against Greg [representing] Christianity do so.

In the end, if you follow Jesus with all your heart, and do your best to live for His Kingdom, I think you’ll be just fine whether you have smoked CB, preached again’ it, or sold. God always seems to have a funny way of forgiving and loving you nevertheless.

Will

Thanks for reading and responding to my article. I, however, am unsure of how to respond to your question. Are you asking if I think these words are biblically correct or incorrect? I disagree with you that these words contain the gospel. The gospel is the message about who Jesus Christ is and what he has accomplished for sinners which necessarily calls for a response from all sinners. With these words Gray reveals that he was a sinner. Nevertheless, that is not the gospel.

Josh,

Thanks once again for reading and responding to my articles. Good points. Much more consideration needs to take place with regards to which Christian music is played, especially in the context of a local church.

With your experience in youth ministry, I would like to ask you a couple of questions:

1.) How have the parents of your youth ministry been involved in the discipleship process?

2.) Do you think that the Bible should regulate how we do ministry to youth?

When I read Scripture, it seems to present a very clear picture of the overall responsibility of parents in making disciples of their children. It seems wrong, therefore, to approve of a youth ministry that does not seek to incorporate parents in the discipleship process of their children. Most parents drop their kids off at church without ever taking time at home to teach their children from the Bible, thus forsaking their Christian parental duty to their children. As a leader and as a pastor in your church, you are failing these parents if you do not call them to be live as responsible parents and disciplers of their children. I’m all for personal discipleship, and I commend you for seeking to disciple your students, but don’t you think that your students would benefit more from seeing Christlikeness being modeled at home from their parents–day in and day out? You, as their youth pastor, only have limited exposure and influence over their lives. Generally speaking, they only see you a few times during the week for a couple of hours, but they see their parents every day for several hours.

What I’m calling for is an integrated approach to doing ministry to youth (an honestly to the whole church). I’m not calling for this because it is the latest and greatest “model” that is being offered in the popular church scene. I’m suggesting that we should do this because it is biblical. To answer the questions that I asked you, I do think that parents should be involved in the discipleship process of their children, and I believe this to be true because I do think that the Bible regulates how we are to go about doing our ministries.

To press the issue further, I do not think that the church is being faithful to its members if it does not allow them the opportunity to live life together with other church members of different age, gender, race, ethnicity, socio-economical standing, upbringing…etc. This idea again is a biblical one… cooperate together, learn together, be on mission together, and live life together as the diverse body of Christ.

But my question is, what do you believe about the part that says, “‘Cause all religion ever made of me/ Was just a sinner with a stone tied to my feet/ It never set me free?” That part seems to paint a pretty good picture of the gospel, if you ask me. Religion either leads to pride or despair, and it will never set you free – only the gospel can do that.

I try to exercise and read fairly regularly. I consider these wholesome use of my spare time – the latter more than the former. However, the point which hit home for me was prioritizing. Neglecting the more important matters: evangelism, study of scripture, service, fellowship etc and putting in their place ANYTHING else: gaming, fitness, TV, fruitless chatter is where we find ourselves in error.

How in the world can Christians expect non-Christians to accept an account about a person, when it was written 40-100 years after that person died? In an age without tape recorders?

That sure is putting a LOT of trust in MEN!

Humor me for a minute and just think about that. The apostles who wrote the gospels…they claim to remember EXACTLY what Jesus said, verbatim? 40-100 years AFTER he said those words? With no tape recorder.

You are trusting those MEN to have remembered exactly what Jesus said DECADES after the fact, and you are trusting that they heard correctly, understood correctly, and recorded correctly.

So much so, that you are willing to establish doctrine set in stone, and willing to alienate family and friends who don’t believe as you do, and decide who goes to ‘heaven’ and who doesn’t…all based on your trust in a few MEN.

I know, you will now say that you are trusting God, not men. But MEN wrote those books. You are just choosing to believe that God was behind it. That’s fine. That is your choice. I am just trying to explain why others don’t make the same choice.

I do agree with you that many have had their lives changed when they become Christians. But that too isn’t anything conclusive, because countless others have had spiritual experiences when they joined other religions, or even upon leaving organized religions in favor of less dogmatic spirituality. Their experiences are every bit as valid.

Non-Christians, Pagans, New Agers, Buddhists, etc. all have wonderful stories of marriages being healed, illnesses being healed, addictions being kicked, happiness restored, etc. Christians don’t have a monopoly on healing or spirituality.

I have no doubt that Jesus really lived. But whether he was ‘the Messiah’ and born to a virgin, etc. are all subject to interpretation. Anyone can write anything. That doesn’t necessarily make it true.

Right now, I could write a book claiming that some person was ‘the 2nd coming of Jesus’ and that he appeared in the clouds, or whatever, and then 2000 years from now people could read my book and use it as ‘proof’ that the prediction about the 2nd coming of Jesus was fulfilled by my book, and therefore is true.

It’s easy to write something and attach it to an earlier prediction.

Your examples of scientific credibility in the Bible is counteracted by myriad examples of Biblical accounts that fly in the face of not only science but reason as well.

There are also numerous contradictions in the Bible.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#good_to_all

This is just one site that popped up. There are many others, that list many contradictions.

The only way around those contradictions is to accept a presupposition that connects all the dots. The entire premise of the Bible makes no sense and we must jump thru hoops to make sense of it.

For example, it makes no sense that an eternal Being would create billions of souls (assuming Earth is the only planet among billions upon billions of planets, that is), create a system in which all those souls are doomed, then take on a physical form, suffer horribly for a few hours while knowing that he wasn’t really dying because he is actually an eternal Being, then expect the souls to believe their only way out of the damnation is to blindly ‘accept’ one myth over many others as factual, and doom all the rest.

It’s not even remotely logical or reasonable. The only way to make it so is by ‘proving’ miracles in an ancient book, but that doesn’t work either, because the ‘miraculous prophecies’ aren’t provable at all.

Sorry, but that’s how I see it.

Sorry it has taken me so long to reply to your post. I have been busy with work, family, life…sorry. I want to respond to your specific points and perhaps I will have time to do that in the next week or so. But I wanted to address what I believe is your main concern with Christianity-that the Bible is mythological book simply written by men. Below is an essay that I have been working on for quite some time. Your comments on this site helped motivate me to complete it and share it with my friends, family, etc. I hope that you find it encouraging this Christmas season.

THE BIBLE IS A MYTH?
- Michael Smith

The Bible is the most unique book ever written. It has no equal. All other religious texts pale in comparison to the Bible’s historical accuracy and truth.

The bible is composed of sixty six books written by over forty authors from kings to fisherman, from doctors to common folks, from shepherds to soldiers, from intellectuals to the uneducated, from rich to poor, men and women, in three languages on three continents over the course of about 1600 years. Amazingly, none of the writings contradict themselves and they form a complete unified message- that man’s sinfulness separates him (or her) from a Holy God and that the perfect sacrifice of Jesus is the only path to restoring man’s broken relationship with his Creator. Furthermore, it is the best-selling book of all time with over 6 Billion copies sold.
Is the Bible just a mythological religious book written by men, or is it the inspired Word of the Living God written to reveal God’s redemptive story to his creation? I believe that the evidence speaks for itself.

Scientific Evidence:

The bible is not necessarily a science textbook. However, as with all other subjects mentioned in the Bible, whenever the Bible speaks on scientific topics it speaks with truth and astonishing accuracy. For example:

1 Corinthians 15:41 (English Standard Version; the version I used throughout) says, “ There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.” The book of 1 Corinthians was written by the apostle Paul nearly 2000 years ago. Yet Paul is claiming that each star in the universe is unique, even though all stars would have looked virtually the same to the naked eye of people living in the first century. With the use of modern telescopes we are now able to see that each star is unique in color (due to its temperature), brightness, and size. This revelation is clearly inspired by an all knowing God who spoke the stars of the cosmos into existence.

The book of Job, which many scholars believe is the oldest book in the Bible, describes the suspension of Earth in space. Something that man did not discover until several thousand years later. Job 26:7- “He stretches out the north over the void and hangs the earth on nothing.”

Leviticus 17:11, written between the 15th and 13th century B.C. states that blood sustains life (“For the life of the flesh is in the blood”). As we now know, blood carries nourishment to our cells and it carries oxygen from the lungs throughout the body.William Harvey, an English physician, discovered in 1628 that the movement of blood through the body in a circuit was the key process which sustained human and animal life. His discovery confirmed God’s revelation in Leviticus 3,000 years earlier. Interestingly, referring to his studies, Harvey said “…I found the task so truly arduous… that I was almost tempted to think… that the movement of the heart was only to be comprehended by God.”

When speaking to Moses, God gave a commandment for the people of Israel to circumcise every male child on the eight day after their birth. Leviticus 12:3 says, “And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.” Why the 8th day? Because the God who created life knew what we have now discovered with through modern medicine, that the two main blood clotting factors, Vitamin K and Prothrombim, reach their highest level in life, about 110% of normal, on the 8th day after birth. These blood clotting agents facilitate rapid healing and greatly reduce the chance of infection. Which is why God gave the command to perform this surgical procedure on day eight.

The movement of water over the face of the earth and the water cycle are both described in the Bible. Ecclesiastes 1:7- “All streams run to the sea, but the sea is not full; to the place where the streams flow, there they flow again.” Job 36:27-29 – “For he draws up the drops of water; they distill his mist in rain, which the skies pour down and drop on mankind abundantly.”

The book of Isaiah, written between 740 and 681 B.C., described the earth as a sphere. Isaiah 40:22- “It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers;who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in.” In 1492, Italian explorer Christopher Columbus based his entire expedition to the American continents upon this truth. The scientific minds of his day believed that the world was flat, and that any western exploration would lead to the ship and her crew falling off the face of the earth to their death. However, Columbus did not put his faith in the popular views of his day. In his personal journal, Columbus explains,

“It was the Lord who put it into my mind, I could feel His hand upon me, the fact that it would be possible to sail from here to the Indies. All who heard of my project rejected it with laughter, ridiculing me. There is no question that the inspiration was from the Holy Spirit, because He comforted me with rays of marvelous inspiration from the Holy Scriptures. I am a most noteworthy sinner, but I have cried out to the Lord for grace and mercy, and they have covered me completely. I have found the sweetest consolation since I made it my whole purpose to enjoy His marvelous Presence. For the execution of the voyage to the Indies, I did not make use of intelligence, mathematics or maps. It is simply the fulfillment of what Isaiah had prophesied……No one should fear to undertake any task in the name of our Savior, if it is just and if the intention is purely for His holy service. The working out of all things has been assigned to each person by our Lord, but it all happens according to His sovereign will, even though He gives advice. Oh, what a gracious Lord, who desires that people should perform for Him those things for which He holds Himself responsible! Day and night, moment by moment, everyone should express their most devoted gratitude to Him.”

In contrast to the Bible, other major religious texts contain various scientific fallacies. For example, the Book of Mormon claims that leprosy occurred in the Americas in A.D. 34 (3 Nephi 17:7), but leprosy was not present in the New World until European colonization. In fact, the first case of leprosy in the Americas did not occur until 1758 in the area that is now Florida. Additionally, 1 Nephi 2:6-9 speaks of an Arabian river named Laman that flows continually into the Red Sea. There are no rivers in Arabia (nor have there been in history) that flow into the Red Sea. Furthermore, and contrary to 1 Nephi 18:25, North America did not have cows, oxen, asses, horses or goats between 600 B.C. and the time European colonists brought them. The Book of Mormon also erroneously claims that baldness is caused by sin (2 Nephi 13:24). The Koran claims that semen comes from the back or the kidney area (The Women 4:23, Al-Nisa; The Heights 7:172, Al-Araf) while science confirms that semen comes from the testicles. Moreover, nursing passes on genetic traits (The Women 4:23, Al-Nisa), to which modern medicine disagrees. Also, the Koran claims that the sun sets in murky water – “Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water” (Quran 18:86).

Interestingly, King David writes in Psalm 19:1-4, “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard. Their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.”

Prophecy:

Prophecy, or the predicting of the future, can be found throughout the Bible. There are about 2500 prophecies in the Bible and about 2000 of them have already been fulfilled with 100% accuracy (pretty good track record and no other religious text can make such a claim). The other 500 are predictions for future events. Additionally, there are over 300 Messianic Prophecies which were all fulfilled in the life of Jesus Christ. A comprehensive study of study of biblical prophecy is outside the scope of this paper, not to mention such study has been the life’s work of many scholars. However, I do want to mention two major prophecies in scripture, the prophecy regarding the nation of Israel and the Messianic Prophecies.

Prophecy and the Nation of Israel:

It is clear that God has sustained the Jewish people and their culture throughout history in extraordinary fashion. The Nation of Israel began with God’s promise to a nomad named Abraham. Then after 400 years of slavery in Egypt they conquered the surrounding nations in what is now modern day Israel, were exiled to Assyria (722 B.C.) and Babylon (586 B.C.), returned to the promised land under Persian, Greek, and Roman rule (respectively) and were eventually banned from their land in 70 A.D. after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple. For the next 1900 years the Jewish people were scattered among the nations. Ezekiel 12:15 states, “And they shall know that I am the LORD, when I disperse them among the nations and scatter them among the countries.” Mark Twain visited Israel in 1867 and described it as follows:

“…A desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds… a silent mournful expanse…. a desolation…. we never saw a human being on the whole route…. hardly a tree or shrub anywhere. Even the olive tree and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country.”

Twains description is not surprising considering that the Bible prophesied that Israel would become a wasteland where nothing would grow (Deuteronomy 29:23).
However, the Lord’s restoration of Israel was prophesied in Jeremiah 16:14-15-”Therefore, behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when it shall no longer be said, ‘As the LORD lives who brought up the people of Israel out of the land of Egypt,’ but ‘As the LORD lives who brought up the people of Israel out of the north country and out of all the countries where he had driven them.’ For I will bring them back to their own land that I gave to their fathers.” The beginning of this prophecy started in 1948 when Israel became a nation again after 1900 years of not being in existence. Israel is now home to over 6 million Jews. Also, Zechariah 8:12 declares “The vine shall give its fruit, and the ground shall give its produce, and the heavens shall give their dew. And I will cause the remnant of this people to possess all these things.” Today, Israel is a major exporter of fresh produce and a world leader in agricultural technologies despite the fact that their geography is not naturally conducive to agriculture (I wonder how that could be?) They also produce 95% of their own food requirements. It is undeniable that there is a supernatural evil (Satan) that has opposed the Jewish people (God’s chosen people) throughout their history and during modern times (i.e., Muslim opposition; the killing of 6 million Jews during the Holocaust). However, an even more powerful supernatural force of good (God) has sustained His people despite its often tragic history.

Prophecy and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ:

There are over 300 Messianic Prophecies in scripture which were fulfilled by Jesus Christ. Below are a few examples. In parentheses are the Old Testament prophecy (hundreds of years prior to the fulfillment), followed by the reference to the fulfilled prophecy in the New Testament. Archeological finds such as the Dead Sea Scrolls (which are dated in the 2nd century B.C.) provide further evidence to the pre-Messianic nature of the prophecies.

The Messiah would be a descendant of King David (2 Sam.7:12; Luke 1:32-33)

The Messiah would be born to a virgin (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:18-23)

The Messiah would be born in the small town of Bethlehem (Micah 5:2-5; Luke 2: 4-7, Matthew 2: 1-6)

The Messiah will be visited by great kings (Psalm 72:10,11; Matthew 2-11)

The Messiah would be silent before His accusers and would not retaliate (Isaiah 53:7; Matthew 27: 12-19)

The Messiah would be crucified (Psalm 22; Matthew 27:34-50)

The Messiah would be pierced in His side (Zechariah 2:10; John 19:34-37)

The Messiah would be betrayed for thirty pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12; Matthew 26:14-15)

The Messiah would rise from the dead (Psalm 16:10; Mark 16:6)

Statistically speaking, if one person in history were to have fulfilled only 8 of these prophecies during their lifetime, the odds would be 1 in 1017 (see Peter Stoner, Scientific Proof of the Accuracy of Prophecy in the Bible). For example, that would be like covering the state of Texas 2 feet deep with silver dollars, marking one of the silver dollars, stirring them all over the state, and then having a blindfolded person travel around the state, stopping only one time and selecting the marked silver dollar. When we increase the number of prophecies to 48, the odds increase to 1 in 10157. Remember, Jesus fulfilled over 300 such prophecies. Stoner concludes, “The fulfillment of these 8 prophecies alone proves that God inspired the writing of those prophecies to a definiteness which lacks only one chance in ten to the seventeenth power of being absolute.”

Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus:

William Lane Craig states, “Against the dark background of modern man’s despair, the Christian proclamation of the resurrection is a bright light of hope…If Jesus rose from the dead, then his claims are vindicated and our Christian hope is sure; if Jesus did not rise, our faith is futile and we fall back into despair”. Or as the Apostle Paul puts it, “And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep (i.e., died) in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied” (1 Corinthians 15:17-19). The bodily physical Resurrection of Jesus Christ is the lynchpin of Christianity. If it is not true, objectively that is, then Christianity is just a cruel hoax and its followers are simply naive fools.

What are Jesus’ claims? He claimed to be God (John 10:30- “I and the Father are one”; John 8:58- “Before Abraham was, I AM”- which is a reference to God calling himself “I AM” when speaking to Moses in the burning bush in Exodus 3). And He claimed to be the only way to reconcile man’s broken relationship with God the Father (John 14:6- “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me”). The Resurrection of Jesus is the miraculous confirmation of Jesus’ radical claims to be God and the hope for all of humanity. Consider the following evidence to support the truthfulness of the Resurrection:

The disciples walked with Jesus every day during his ministry, yet scattered when Jesus was betrayed and crucified. Peter, as we know, denied knowing Christ three times. Additionally, after Jesus’ death, the scriptures tell us that the disciples briefly went back to their old lives (ex: In John 21 seven of them went fishing). However, something radically changed them, and the preaching ministry of these men became the foundation for the Christian faith. In fact, they were willing to die to proclaim the risen Christ that they had witnessed themselves. Some people say that dying for religion has happened for centuries (i.e., terrorists willing to kill themselves by running airplanes into skyscrapers). True, many people throughout history have been willing to die for something that is not true under the banner of religious devotion. However, the disciples would have had firsthand knowledge that the Resurrection story was some type of clever hoax that they all devised together. Though they were in the best position of any persons in human history to expose and squelch a Resurrection myth, they lived the remainder of their lives in total devotion to sharing the Gospel or “Good News” of Jesus throughout the world. Undoubtedly, most if not all of them would have renounced their claims of seeing the Resurrected Christ when faced with the possibility of bodily harm or death. However, most of them died heinous deaths for their beliefs and not one of them renounced the Resurrection. For example: Simon Peter (who denied Christ) was crucified upside down, Andrew was crucified, James was beheaded, Phillip was crucified, and doubting Thomas was speared to death. Their lives and deaths bear witness to the living Jesus.

Postmortem Appearances: 1 Corinthians 15: 3-9 explains that the risen Christ appeared to Peter, the 12 disciples, and over 500 followers at one time. Paul, the author, points out that of the 500, most are still alive. In other words, his letter written between 53-55 A.D. makes it clear that the eyewitnesses are there for questioning.

Non Biblical historical records also serve to verify the truth of the Resurrection event. Josephus, a first century Jewish historian wrote, “At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was a doer of amazing deeds, a teacher of persons who receive truth with pleasure. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when Pilate condemned him to the cross, the leading men among us having accused him, those who loved him from the first did not cease to do so. For he appeared to them the third day alive again, the divine prophets having spoken these things and a myriad of other marvels concerning him. And to the present the tribe of Christians, named after this person, has not disappeared.”

As Friedrich Schleiermacher aptly put it, “We do not believe in Christ because we believe in the Bible; we believe in the Bible because we believe in Christ.”

[Extensive information regarding the Resurrection can be found in Lee Strobel’s book The Case for Christ and Josh McDowell’s book More Than a Carpenter]

Evidence from Archeology:

The scientific discipline of archeology has produced a growing body of evidence which helps to confirm the truthfulness of the Bible. An extensive study of archeology is beyond the scope of this text, however, the following are just a few examples of archeological finds which support the Biblical record:

The Dead Sea Scrolls: were discovered in 11 caves along the northern shore of the Dead Sea (east of Jerusalem) from 1947-1956. 15,000 fragments from over 500 manuscripts were found. Manuscript fragments from every book of the Old Testament (except for the book of Esther) predating the birth of Christ were discovered, including 19 copies of the book of Isaiah and 30 copies of Psalm (2 of the books mentioned above which contain extensive prophesies regarding the coming Messiah). The Isaiah scroll was over 1000 years older than the oldest previously known copy of the book and was dated over 100 years before Christ.

The Pilate Stone: is a limestone block dated from 26-37 A.D. which contains the inscription of the name Pontius Pilate, the Roman Governor who ordered Jesus to be crucified. The block was a building dedication for the Caesarea Maritima, an ancient theatre built by Herod the Great. During the early 20th century, many scholars questioned the existence of Pilate. However, Dr. Antonio Frova’s discovery of the stone in 1961 provides further evidence for the reliability of the Gospels.

The Pool of Bethesda: is mentioned in the Gospel of John, chapter 5, in verses 2-9. “Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool in Aramaic called Bethesda, which has five roofed colonnades”(v. 2). John then proceeds to tell the story of Jesus healing a man beside the pool who had been an invalid for 38 years. Until the 19th century there was no evidence outside of John’s Gospel account which verified the existence of this pool. However, in 1964, archeologists found the remains of the pool exactly as John had described it.

According to Dr. Nelson Glueck, a Jewish Rabbi and one of the world’s foremost archeologists of the 20th century, “It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries.”

In contrast, there is no archeological evidence which supports the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon presents a story of the inhabitants of the Americas from about 600 B.C. to about 421 A.D. The book of Mormon describes ancient cities, large scale battles, and the use iron (2 Nephi 5:15), steel (1 Nephi 4:9) and vehicles with wheels (Alma 18:9-10). In 1997, the Smithsonian Institution issued a standard reply to requests for their opinion regarding the Book of Mormon as an archaeological or scientific guide. The Smithsonian Institution replied, “Iron, steel, glass, and silk were not used in the New World before 1492 (except for occasional use of unsmelted meteoric iron). Native copper was worked in various locations in pre-Columbian times, but true metallurgy was limited to southern Mexico and the Andean region, where its occurrence in late prehistoric times involved gold, silver, copper, and their alloys, but not iron.” In conclusion, the Smithsonian Institution emphatically stated, “The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archeologists see no direct connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book.” To my knowledge, the lack of evidence for the Book of Mormon is of little consequence to the LDS church because the historical authenticity of the book for its believers is a matter of faith (or a “burning in the bosom”), albeit blind faith.

New Testament Manuscript Evidence:

There are over 24,000 manuscript copies of the New Testament text, easily making the New Testament the most reliable book of antiquity in the world. The second most reliable book of antiquity is Homer’s Iliad with its 643 manuscript copies. The Iliad was written in 900 B.C. and the earliest copy in existence today dates from 400 B.C., or 500 years after it was written. By comparison, the New Testament was written between 40-100 A.D. and the earliest manuscript in existence dates to 125 A.D., or about 25-65 years after it was written. According to Dr. Norman Geisler, “There are earlier and more manuscripts of the New Testament than for any other book from the ancient world”. Amazingly, according to Princeton Theological Professor Dr. Bruce Metzger’s research, the 24,000 New Testament manuscripts agree in 99.5% of the text with most of the discrepancies involving spelling or word order and none of the discrepancies containing any doctrinal significance.

Conclusion:

Christianity takes faith, but it is not blind faith. It is a reasonable faith. In fact, I would argue that a Biblical Worldview requires less “blind” faith than any other worldview held by men.

Furthermore, perhaps some of the most compelling evidence for the truthfulness of the Bible comes from the changed lives that are a result of genuine faith in Jesus Christ. The hopeless find hope, broken marriages find restoration, drug users find a new fix that continually satisfies, criminals begin to pursue righteousness, the selfish learn to serve others, lovers of wealth become generous, and sinners find forgiveness and freedom in this life and the next.

2000 years ago the “King of Ages” invaded this sinful and broken world as an infant born in a manger. He grew up to be a man. Then he willfully hung on a cross like a common criminal to liberate us from the sin that separates us from a Holy God. 1 Timothy 2: 4-5 reminds us that God, “desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all.”

That is the miracle of Christmas and the best gift humankind has ever been given.

My pastor, who I consider a mentor and a friend, shared this video with our congregation over a year ago. The musician is Joshua Bell, one of the best violinists in the world. He has filled concert halls around the world and has played in front of thousands. At 7:51 am on January 12, 2007, Bell played his violin in the L’Enfant D.C. metro station. 1,097 people rushed by him. 7 stopped to listen. A few threw their spare change at his feet. But one woman recognized him and stood in awe.

Just like the video, Jesus reveals himself to us over and over again, yet far too often we walk right past him or perhaps we give him our left over change. Amidst the chaos of the Christmas season, I pray that you (and I) are able to hear the Savior’s symphony.

Test everything. Hold on to the good. (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

For the Kingdom,
Michael Smith

Christmas 2010

1.) There is something right about being horrified and sickened at the sight of death and even blood. There is something very wrong when we become desensitized to the sight of these things. When we lose this sense of horror towards death and blood, then we are inevitably affected in other areas of life, especially as it pertains to our motivation to counteract the effects of the Fall: death. I would say, however, that art–if done well–can depict death and blood in a way that would evoke the proper response: heartache, sadness, pain. With that said, I think we need to be discerning in what kinds media we expose ourselves to. I am not aware of one video game that deals with death and blood properly. Shoot-em-up games most definitely make light of life and death and serve to desensitize us.

2.)I agree that video games are generally a huge waste of time and have very little redeeming qualities to them! What good comes from them? Maybe some good hand-eye coordination…? But, you can get that from baseball, and you also get exercise out of the deal instead of sitting in one spot all day long wasting away. Maybe some good can come out of the fellowship that might take place over a game. But if this is the only way we can find fellowship as we focus our attention on a video screen, then we are in trouble. Genuine life change needs to be taking place in and through our relationships. I don’t know if this is happening while shooting each other up in a war game.

I think entertainment, in general, must be one of our last priorities. The fact of the matter is that we have not received a direct command from God to entertain ourselves, while we have received a direct command from God to make disciples of all nations. But, evangelism is not usually a very high priority on our list and usually doesn’t make it on our list at all. When entertainment, be it video games or whatever, keeps us from being faithful to our non-negotiable responsibilties, then we are in sin. I think that those things you listed (reasearching, looking at blogs, doing Veritas stuff) all have redemptive qualities to them. They contribute to your sanctification and the betterment of others and the furthering of the Kingdom, as you mentioned.

Again, I think we need to evaluate how we are using our time. Are the things we are doing wise things, are we being faithful in our non-negotiable responsibilties, and are there any redemptive qualities that come from these things we are doing? As I mentioned in my article, we need to keep in the front of our minds the words of the Psalmist, “Teach us to number our days that we may gain a heart of wisdom” (Ps 90:12).

I’m not saying that we aren’t to have supplementary and secondary ministries to special groups like the one you mentioned. I do think that they are just that though: supplementary and secondary and not foundational and basic. The hope is that discipleship will have its intended effect on the Christian, and these men will be incorporated into the rest of the church’s foundational and integrated discipleship process. I am all for these special segregated ministries to groups, so long as they are not an end in themselves.

Haha… I like your “Leave it to Beaver” comment. I think though that the “Leave it to Beaver” problem is not necessarily connected to family ministry, integrated discipleship models. This middle class snobbery is a problem throughout the whole church, no matter what kind of discipleship model a church uses. I think Sojourn Community Church’s discipleship model is very integrated, and it is a far cry from a “Leave it to Beaver” culture. They integrate ex-druggies, ex-homosexuals, and ex-cons with “clean-cut” nuclear families in their community groups, and it seems to go over well. There is something beautiful and right about having a body full of different kinds of people cooperating together, learning together, being on mission together, and living life together as the body of Christ: people of different age, gender, race, ethnicity, socio-economical standing, upbringing…etc.

I’m not totally sure what you’re saying when you say that we can’t fix everything by fixing parents. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it sounds like you are saying that the problem that needs fixing is discipleship rather than parents. If we fix discipleship, then maybe the problem with immature parents would be fixed, and parents would begin to lead their children in such a way that they will not depart from the faith when they are old(Prov 22:6)… and on and on we go from one generation to the next.

1) As you stated, most videos games have very little redeeming qualities about them. Because of the fall, we now have taken something that sin causes (i.e., death) and have transmitted it into video games. We play shoot-em-up video games like Call of Duty where we just go around killing people without any thought to the fact that games like this would not exist in a pre-fall world. I am some-what of a hypocrite on this though because I love watching war movies like Braveheart and Gladiator… what do you think about this concept? Is it too legalistic and black and white?

2) It’s a waste of time. I still have friends who just sit around all day and spend hours of their day playing video games. However, this also could be seen as hypocritical because I spend a lot of time on the internet researching, looking at blogs, doing Veritas stuff, etc. I have tried to focus this time redemptively though in making sure that my time on the internet is intentional and well spent for the Kingdom.

I enjoy the discussions we have on TVN because I am edified, equipped, and sometimes rebuked by brothers and sisters in Christ.

I also enjoy the fellowship that video games can bring… hope I didn’t come across as a stickler.

Second, I would say that integration is primary to the concept of discipleship. Parent must be the primary disciple-makers of their children. The problem is, as Whitney stated below, the church is weak all around in discipleship. Many adults don’t even understand the concept of discipleship enough to do so. I believe this has been where the church has failed generationally… we have put more emphasis on programs, numbers, and salvations then family discipleship, community, and relational evangelism.

Nonetheless, the church needs both family integrated philosophies and age-graded teaching at times. There is a youth culture in our world today. The family unit exists outside of this youth culture. Making disciples in relational environments is the best way for the church to reach young people, I believe, within this growing youth culture, and then PARTNERING with parents as they are the primary disciple-makers… we, as pastors, just come alongside of them.

I often think of my role as student pastor as the third or fourth spiritual influencer in a young person’s life. 1) the parent 2) the lead pastor/preacher of the church 3) the young person’s small group leader 4) me, as their student pastor.

Therefore, I am seeing my role more in the development of small group leaders and “coach/encourager” of families. My pastor is the primary equipper of families… I am also secondary in that role.

Would you say that integregation or segregation is more foundational to the process of discipleship? Or, are they equally basic?

I haven’t read Brandon’s chapter on family ministry yet (though I’ve heard good things), but the best approach I have seen by churches who are implementing this sort of integrated discipleship comes in churches that have geographically located and focused community groups. Church members meet in their own communities rather than in the church building. People of all ages, genders, and life-circumstances come together in one home to study the Bible, live life together, and to be on mission together in the community.

I know that I have learned far more about Christ honoring love from watching an 84 year old man slowly say goodbye to his wife of 60 years as he loses her bit by bit to Alzheimer’s and from a woman whose husband openly cheated on her, yet she graciously continues to care for him as he battles cancer. Being outside my demographic, I’ve learned that my musical preferences are not as important as church unity and my opinion on the carpet color is of no consequence in terms of the Gospel. Had I spent my time only with the single twenty and thirty somethings at my church, I would have missed so much!!

Finding ways to merge the church forces all demographics to move beyond their preferences, ideas and views to cooperate together for the common purpose of the Gospel. I don’t suggest that there is never a time or a place to segregate the body, but rather that we have much to learn together across the divides.

Thanks for your corrective in Titus 2. There certainly are times when gender-segregation (and maybe age-segregation) would be appropriate. I would say, though, that this sort of discipleship should not disallow young girls (and guys) from fellowshipping and learning from the body of Christ as a whole. Thanks again for your very helpful thoughts!

I have no problem with entertainment–and video games–in general. In fact, entertainment has the potential to be a great thing, as long as it does not consume one’s life. The problem is that it HAS consumed most people’s lives, and it HAS caused people to neglect their most important responsibilities (one’s relationship with Christ, spouse, children, and church).

I played video games when I was in high school and eventually found them too time-consuming when I went to college. I still think they’re sort of fun, but the payoff that comes from devoting as much time as they require seems negligible. I mean, there is very little redeeming qualities that come from playing them, and I almost always feel like I’ve just wasted hours of my life that I will never get back (unless I am playing the games with my brother or a friend, in which case I enjoy the fellowship).

In short, I think the desegregated family ministry works in a “Leave it to Beaver” community of upper-class, whole, nuclear families. In other contexts other means are perfectly acceptable.

As the video was geared specifically towards youth, I will say one thing about that. I think the problem is not with the format of Sunday corporate gathering followed by segregated ministry at some point. Just because Paul took for granted that youth would be hearing his letters it does not make it necessary that all church gatherings have all ages represented. The problem is that the discipleship in every area is just weak. We can’t fix everything by fixing one thing (parents).

Also, I would love to hear other responses about entertainment, video games, etc.?

I’m not calling for separation of church and students; this is always disastrous. However, young people do need times that teaching and application is specific to the youth culture in which they live, BUT we must also focus attentions on equipping the family as a whole.

My vision for our student ministry is making disciples in relational environments by partnering with parents and other adults to do so.

In my personal experience, I believe that churches rely on programs because that’s what they’ve always done, most church members aren’t equipped to teach exegetically so they rely heavily on prescribed programs and most church members don’t see a need for change. But, I say this as the renegade who refuses to use certain materials provided for a class I teach at my church because the materials take the Word of God out of context and don’t work through it in a manner that makes sense (it’s too topical for my tastes).

I believe that we need to exercise caution in segregating the church as a general rule. The Church is so beautifully described as a body and as such, I believe that Her members must be encouraged to learn from each other and grow together. How can young girls learn what it means to be modest without godly women in their lives? How can young men learn what it means to love a wife if they don’t see that love lived out in the lives of the older men in the church? How much can older/younger believers learn as they give up their desires for certain types of worship music in order to cooperate with the younger/older believers?

As to your question about gender segregation, I do believe that Titus 2 provides reasoning for gender segregation for the purposes of teaching the younger believers those things required of them so that God’s Word would not be slandered. However, that being said, I think that the objection you raised about women looking to their Bible study leaders rather than their husbands is valid. To me, it seems that the best way to address both Titus 2 and your concern would be to focus gender specific discipleship around what biblical manhood and womanhood are and other issues of that nature.

I am not suggesting that churches quit age-segregated and progromatic ministries cold-turkey or even that they are inherently unuseful all the time. I am saying that churches that segregate age and sex groups (without providing them them oppurtunity to integrate) are refusing their members the opportunity to live and learn in community. The body of Christ is to be a communal people who live life together, and when we refuse our people this privelege we are doing harm to them.

If I am interpretting your comment correctly, it sounds as if you are not calling for an “either/or” approach but rather a “both/and” approach. Is this accurate? In other words, are you saying that we NEED BOTH communal discipleship groups AND age- and sex-segregated discipleship groups? If this is what you are saying then I would have to disagree, since I would suggest that age- and sex-segregated discipleship groups should be reserved for special purposes but are not necessarily foundational to the dicispleship process. It seems rather that age- and sex-INTEGRATED discipleship better represents how the body of Christ is supposed to live and learn together. If segrated groups are to be had then they are not to replace the integrated groups, but should only supplement them. In the end, I doubt that they provide anything that integrated groups do not, and if this is true, then they would seem unnecessary altogether and at the very least not something that is a necessity.

I would agree that any change of this proportion in a church would take time and strong pastoral leadership to accomplish.

Programs aren’t necessarily that bad. If done correctly they can produce much fruit and continue for many years. The bad thing about programs though is two-fold: 1) They are generational. Every program that is implemented mostly has a nutrition rate of about 3-5 years. After that, they need to be dismantled and never used again. One of the biggest problems in the church today is that we are still trying to use programs that worked in 90s. I agree with Christie that this has been detrimental and extremely harmful for our churches and youth today. 2) Most of the time, they can exclude any type of discipleship and family involvement. Every program that I try to implement in our student ministry at Grace Church of the Foothills must fall under 1 of 5 purposes… encouraging and strengthening the family, evangelism and discipleship, leadership development, leadership reproduction, and relational environments.

This allows me the flexibility of working with nuclear families to single parent homes. We have a Wednesday Night Bible Study where I am currently teaching through the book of James, small groups led by mature believers in Christ, and leadership programs where our students and families come together for service to our city.

I am much more optimistic then this video above portrays about youth who are involved in healthy churches and healthy student ministries. As student pastors, we must work together with the family YES… BUT it is definitely a process to get families on board with this. Remember, we live in a post-fall world. Ministry is much more than just teaching and telling… we must walk with our people and show them… and often times this takes years and years and years.

Thanks for your insight here. You have apparently dealt with the side effects of a very poor model for discipleship. I can relate to everything you’ve written in this post. What do you think motivates a church to persist in such an unproductive discipleship model? Do you think it’s apathy, comfort, ignorance, selfish ambition, or what? I’m thankful to hear that your pastor is endeavoring to change things in your church! The Church needs more men like him and more women like you who are concerned about the growth and health of Her people and the propagation of Her Gospel.

I think you nailed it when you asked how the youth can learn what it means to walk with Christ when they have no person in their lives who is modeling it for them. This modeling needs to begin in the home, and it needs to be present by other members of the church. I think that it is essential that younger folks be exposed to the elderly in the church. Youth can learn so much from them, and the older folks might even learn something from a younger person from time to time.

Do you have any thoughts concerning sex-segregation in churches? Is it harmful to separate husbands from wives in discipleship groups? I’ll tip my hand here I guess, but it seems that this same principle applies to some degree. Furthermore, when wives are encouraged to pursue their spiritual nourishment from a source (i.e., Bible study teacher or class) that does not allow for the presense of her husband (a women’s only Bible study), it would seem to promote spiritual disunity in the marriage as the woman ultimately leans on someone besides her husband for the brunt of her discipleship. Whereas, if they married couple were allowed to take part in discipleship together, it would provide them with the opportunity to learn together and to discuss things together as a couple.

I’m too long winded. Sorry. Thanks again, Christie, for your very helpful comment.

I’d love to see something using the storyline you suggested at the end. Sadly, that storyline isn’t used (even in Christian fiction) as it could be.

This is a great reflection of the Garden of Eden before the fall. A noble woman and a brave man having dominion over God’s Kingdom. So good!

Thank you for this Michelle!

The question that I’m trying to get at in this overall post is “Why is it that youth are leaving the church upon graduation from high school with a greater frequency than ever before?” It seems that there is a direct connection between this stat and the declining health of society and especially the nuclear family. In response to this diagnosis, we must ask, “How are churches and families failing to reach their children with the Gospel?” The answer I propose is that parents are failing to daily teach their children in their homes from the time of birth (Deut 6:5-9). Children do not see Christlikness being expemplified from their parents, so they are turned off to spiritual things. Furthermore, churches are failing to ensure that parents are being faithful to this calling. Moreover, churches are adding to the problem by segregating their people by age (and by sex). To echo what Christie says below, “How can the youth learn what it means to walk with Christ if they do not see the evidence of it in the lives of their parents and the other adults of the church? How can they see the evidence of it if they only spend time with other youth and their youth minister?” The church needs to be allowed to be the church. The hand (the youth) cannot survive if it is cut off from the rest of the body (the rest of the church).

Does this make sense? Do you agree or disagree?

This article is superb. Hopefully many will read and digest it! Excellent work!

We have also concluded that the aforementioned principals from Ben are good to strive for, but the grace of Jesus Christ and his work of sanctification are even better.

Thanks Ben for your hard work in thinking though this article and for boldly and intelligently defending your positions.

Blessings,

Greg Gibson

Thanks for your comments.

Legalism is still the wrong term because it is a soteriological term, unless your suggesting that I am claiming that trying to date someone like the aforementioned to merit salvation. At that point this term would begin being used correctly in our dialogue. As of yet, however, it has been misused.

I’m claiming that Dave is wrong and that other scholars would disagree with him. I disagree with Augustine and I can since he is not my authority, though he appears to be yours. Augustine also claimed, in that same book which he wrote the comment you cited, that even if people have divergent interpretations that it is fine if both persons love God more because of their interpretation. That’s nonsense. God’s Word is meant to be understood, such that right and wrong interpretations exist. Thus, we should seek for our interpretations to be correct.

As I said in the blog, more could be listed.

Ben Montoya

I don’t know you, but forgive me for proffering two thoughts:

I’m siding with whomever said this list is a bit legalisitic. Legalism doesn’t just mean “keeping the law for salvation.” It certainly can mean that, but its base meaning is one of being servile to the law rather than the law being a servant/tool of that which it protects. Solzhenitsyn was masterfully clear on this point. In your case, this list is a bit too much of a master whereas it should be a tutor.

And in regards to Dave’s supposed misreading of Proverbs and his scandalous failure to cite commentaries (of all things!), we should remind ourselves here of the purpose of interpretation. Augustine persuasively argued that it was to build up love of God and love of neighbor. What it absolutely cannot be is about who is “right.” I believe Dave’s interpretation has more ‘charitas’ in it, which is why I would argue for its superiority – regardless of the pantheon of commentaries one may or may not be able to muster. You are perhaps more interested in the ‘via’ or the route of interpretation, but having failed to achieve ‘charitas,’ you have yet to travel far enough with the text. Once again, I defer to Augustine.

Finally, if there’s one MUST you left off your list, it’s this: She MUST be a human.

Love covers over a multitude of sins, brother. And a woman who loves Christ, and yet lacks some of these “musts,” will develop many of the qualities you desire to see if she has a man leading her and serving her like Christ loves the church.

No one disputes that the qualities you list are good. They only dispute the spirit with which they are listed.

Respectfully,
Tyler

The problem that I have with your list is that I’m not sure that anyone is going to embody all of those characteristics EVERY day (particularly things such as dignity, not prone to complaining, uplifting words, etc.). By saying MUST, the list seems to be nearly impossible to live out every day due to the sinful nature that still exists.

Possibly, the biggest problem for me in this post is the tone felt harsh to me, as if there was no room for failure. Your most recent comment softened that tone, so I don’t believe that you intended the original post to sound as harsh as it did, but I do think that there would be some wisdom in considering the tone of a post of this nature in the future.

Dave,

I supported my interpretation of Prov 31 with commentaries and you did not. Perhaps more research is needed here. Proverbs are obviously general truths. Nevertheless, they are still binding. Furthermore, as was stated in the post, my list of MUSTs is what I believe Prov 31 looks like today. If you disagree with that then that’s fine.

The quote you cited was taken out of context. It was directed towards men. It was not my intention for this to sound harsh to women. It was my intention, however, to indicate that Christian women should be quality, bearing the aforementioned attributes.

Finally, unless your daughter fit these non-negotiables I listed then I wouldn’t ask to date her. I am kind of surprised by the entire last paragraph because it seems to be directed more towards me as a person rather than the content of this blog. Please direct future comments to the content rather than at the author of the post. Thanks.

Christie,

I meant the MUST to connote non-negotiables. But, these are also presented as general truths about this woman. That is, generally speaking, she must read her Bible regularly. Thus, if she has a week where she is too busy for whatever reason, I will still date her. But, if she never reads it, then that is when I would not date her.

I also think this list, as high as it is, is realistic for believers. Perhaps you can explain why you think it is too high?

Josh,

Please read the comments to others as well. These MUSTs were never meant to be so rigidly applied.

I am not sure what you mean by “they must at least be present in embryonic form.” Perhaps you could explain further?

Also, a very small percentage of readers actually respond. In fact, some have responded to me through other means, even affirming my list. Nevertheless, I have been considering the responses I have received.

Joel,

Peter was talking about current wives, not future mates. So I do not think your comment is correct. Furthermore, Prov 31 seems to indicate that women should be a certain way and that King Lemuel is to look for in a woman, as prescribed by his mother. Perhaps this passage has implications for men looking for future mates.

I think you are abusing the third MUST. Nevertheless, I do not know of any woman, who is post-college, who does not have a job and/or is not looking for one. So yeah, I probably wouldn’t date her if she did not have one or was not looking for one.

This is ridiculous and unbelievable all at the same time.

All of that said, I don’t believe that the kind of discipleship needed can happen without at least some de-segregation of age groups. How can the youth learn what it means to walk with Christ if they do not see the evidence of it in the lives of their parents and the other adults of the church? How can they see the evidence of it if they only spend time with other youth and their youth minister? I’m not sure that I would say that there is never a time in which it is appropriate to segregate by ages, but I do believe that churches need to be far more intentional about merging age groups together for the benefit of all involved.

First off, thanks for reading our blog and taking the time to post. Secondly, thanks for taking the initiative to bring your children to church with you. That is certainly more than most parents are willing to do, and I imagine that only having temporary custody of your children makes impacting their lives much more difficult. I know that it must burden your heart not to get to spend more time with your children.

Let me respond to some of the things you said in your post.

You said, “Age segregation may not be biblical, but it’s natural.” I would agree with that statement, but I would also say that most everything that the Bible demands from us does not come naturally to us. In fact, our nature is contrary to the things of God. Galatians 5:17 says, “For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other.” To put this in perspective, it is clearly God’s will that we love our neighbor, but we are prone to loving ourselves more than our neighbor. It is God’s will that we not lie, lust, covet, gossip, envy, deceive, hate, slander, boast, etc., but by nature, we all tend to fail and sin in these areas. The point is that if we obey our sinful natures, we will act contrary to what is biblical. BUT, don’t miss this: The very heart of the Gospel of Christ Jesus is to redeem and give people NEW NATURES such that new creatures in Christ Jesus DESIRE to do the things of God.

What you have noticed concerning the rebellion of those between the ages of 12 and 20 is—I think—indicative of most teenagers of this generation. Should it be this way? No. Who is to blame? Certainly every individual is ultimately responsible for his own sin, but I think much of the blame lies in the hands of the parents and their failure to raise their children in the “discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Eph 6:4). This seems to be what is being suggested by the above video. I happen to agree. Parents have an integral part in the raising of their children. Generally speaking, if a parent will “Train up a child in the way he should go, even when he is old he will not depart from it” (Prov 22:6). Again, this is a general truth.

Furthermore, you as a parent, and especially as the father and spiritual leader of your home (Eph 5:22-6:4), have been commanded to lead your home in spiritual matters. Scripture again says, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates” (Deut 6:5-9). It is ultimately your responsibility to teach your children God’s word, not the church’s. Parents are failing their children by not raising them from their birth, immersing them in God’s word. Parents instead rely on their ministers at church to do all the teaching. Again, it is ultimately your responsibility to teach God’s word to your children, not the church’s. Churches are failing families by not discipling them in this manner. They are not teaching and holding parents accountable to this responsibility. The thrust of this video is that it is questioning whether churches are doing ministry to the youth biblically (and by virtue of this, correctly), and their conclusion is that churches are not incorporating parents into the discipleship of their own children. The youth that come to church have not been discipled at home by their parents; they have not been taught to respect authority; they don’t respect the authority of their parents, and they don’t respect the authority of their churches, their pastors, and most importantly the God of the Bible. Discipleship must begin at home.

Why are youth leaving the church after they get out of high school? Because they do not have a relationship with Christ Jesus. Why do they not have a relationship with Christ Jesus? Ultimately because they reject Jesus, but partially because their parents and churches have failed them as teachers, disciplers, and evangelists.

Humility should be characteristic of every Christian and Christian parent. But, humility does not exclude boldness and discipline. Christian parents should be able to teach their children; they should be wiser than them; they should have already been discipled and made ready to teach their own children before getting married and having children. In many cases, this simply hasn’t happened. So, churches need to come alongside parents, disciple them, and help them lead their children.

True, we won’t always see eye-to-eye with our children, but it is our task as parents to lovingly point our children to the truth that is found in the Scripture. We must continually make it our goal to point our children to Christ Jesus through the Gospel. Parenthood is a high calling, a noble calling, and weighty and serious calling of utmost importance. I pray that you and I would, by God’s grace, step into our task as parents and seek to make devoted disciples of Christ out of our children.

Thanks again, Tim, for your comment. Blessings to you.

Overall, I believe it’s important to communicate the concept of unconditional love to our kids. We won’t always see eye-to-eye regarding the things that are important to them. Hasn’t that always been the breakdown between parents and teens? It’s important for teens to know that regardless of the gaps that exist between our ideology and our theirs, unconditional love is always capable of bridging those gaps no matter how close or far apart we may seem right now. But there is always hope in that we are ALL works in progress. We can’t necessarily assume we are closer to truth simply by virtue of our age. Humility is the great equalizer when it comes to adults touching the minds and hearts of our youth.

Thanks for responding to my comment. I do agree that we should not jump to conclusions as to what any biblical author means when it is not explicit in the text itself. However, the fact that we do not know what Peter meant when he said women are weaker vessels followed by a list of virtues only proves further that Christian men should not be so strict in their expectations on future mates.

In defense of my critique of your third MUST, I realize this circumstance may not apply to everyone, which is why neither yours nor mine can be an imperative (a MUST). I am merely pointing out that if you were in my situation, you could not date such a girl, given your current criteria, because she doesn’t have a job.

This is why I have trouble fully-affirming your list: it seems unrealistically high (that was the idealism I referred to, but you knew that) and uncharitable.

This was probably the trouble that both Grace and Christie were referring to when they suggested that you replace some of your musts with “Actively Pursuing.” And I suspect, or at least hope, that you could affirm that. Because if you could look at a young woman and say, “Yes, she meets 1, 2, 10, and 14, and is actively pursuing the rest, but hasn’t attained; therefore I cannot date her,” then you are cruelly rigid.

One of the blessings of godly relationships is that at the end of it (if it doesn’t consummate in marriage), then both of you love Jesus better for having been involved together. Therefore, if the girl I was interested in dating struggled with #15, resolving conflict, it wasn’t grounds for giving up on a relationship, but instead I saw it as an opportunity for helping her grow in grace. This sort of shepherding will continue throughout a lifetime of marriage together.

Therefore, when I was dating, my then-girlfriend, I asked if she met only a handful of non-negotiable standards 1) Does she have a tangible love for Jesus Christ? 2) Does she show a tangible love for the Church? 3) Can we have intelligent, meaningful conversations together? 4) Is she teachable? 5) Do we laugh together? Everything else on your list above, I would have affirmed but said that they must at least be present in embryonic form not as MUSTs.

I would also caution you, Ben, to give thoughtful pause to the response you’ve been receiving. Given where you are posting and the kind of people who are inclined to comment on the Veritas Network, maybe it should say something to you that the overwhelming response you’ve received as been critical instead of affirmative. But again, I say that this probably as more to do with the *way* your list was articulated instead of the actual content.

Again, I always enjoy our conversations together, Ben, as you live out a life insistent upon a thoroughly biblical worldview.

My comment was that I believe you should have said “actively pursuing” rather than MUST. To say that a woman MUST be all of those things implies that she cannot fail in any of those areas and seems to be a bar set higher than any human can obtain.

I do not disagree that these are all biblical requirements for BOTH men and women. However, I do feel that no man or woman can ever live up to them at all times while still on earth – especially the MUSTs on optimism, dignity, etc. – hence why I agree with Grace that “actively pursuing” is a far more appropriate statement. To say that one is actively pursuing optimism allows grace for moments of pessimism interspersed in a life seeking to be optimistic. To say that one MUST be optimistic does not.

I am quite surprised at how much negative response this post has received. These MUSTs seem realistic. In fact, nearly none of the responses to this blog have actually addressed the list specifically. Future comments ought to address the actual content of this blog. To claim merely that this list is lacking in something like grace is really writing nothing at all because I admitted in the blog that “Clearly, more could be written on this list.” In fact, I invited more characteristics to be mentioned – which could very well include grace. Still yet, this list was never meant to be exhaustive. I wrote nothing of the connection which rightly needs to be present between both Christians, a connection to which even the Bible speaks (Proverbs 30:19). Also, many of the marriage related comments are, as Jonathan mentioned, out of the discussion at hand. So, I will avoid addressing those.

Now, I have specific comments to individuals who commented. I also intend all the individuals who have commented to read all the comments to everyone else since some of what they wrote will be answered in response to others.

Greg, this list is intended to define precisely what it means for a woman to love Jesus. Without speaking of tangible manifestations of what loving Jesus looks like that phrase can become quite meaningless.

Dave, you have misinterpreted Proverbs 31. This list is in fact given from the mother of King Lemuel to him so that he would learn how to pick a wife (Pro 31:1). In addition, the way it is written helps with this – it is an acrostic with each line beginning with a new letter in the Hebrew alphabet. Thus, this list was intended for memorization for young men to recall when they see a woman in whom they might be interested. For further explanation, see the commentaries by Garrett, Longman, Kidner, and Waltke. Thus, and this comment is also directed to the others, if this section of Scripture is written for this purpose then it is also authoritative for Christian men and women today. Paul explains that all Scripture is God-breathed and thus is authoritative and is thus to be taught as such (2 Tim 3:16). If any of you disagree with this attribute of Scripture, then that is your prerogative. Nevertheless, at TVN we hold to this attribute and thus seek to see how it applies in our everyday lives.

Meghan, I am actually dating someone with whom you went to college and even served with on a ministry team who actually thinks this list is pretty normal and, as she said, “common sense.” In addition, perhaps legalism should still not be used because now it is taking on an entirely different meaning. Also, I would ask you to consider Greg’s comments about standards. Scripture presents these to us. We must give them due thought and application.

Joel, thanks for commenting on the actual list. But, I think you have misinterpreted 1 Pet 3:7 by assuming that Peter is discussing emotional strength. Perhaps he is discussing something other than what you mentioned. His main point in mentioning this is to preface what he is about to write in 3:8-9: “8 To sum up, all of you be harmonious, sympathetic, brotherly, kindhearted, and humble in spirit;
9 not returning evil for evil or insult for insult, but giving a blessing instead; for you were called for the very purpose that you might inherit a blessing.” Peter does not explain exactly what he meant by referring to women as “weaker.” Thus, as interpreters we must have more exegetical humility than claiming we know precisely to what he was referring.