9 Marks Ministries Addresses the Emerging Church Phenomenon

9 Marks Ministries has released its September 2006 newsletter and it is well worth reading.  They address issues dealing with the Emerging Church philosophy that is permeating evangelicalism.   Just click on the 9News banner above and look at the column entitled “The Latest from 9 Marks.”  Very, very helpful!

Cautious in Dubbing Converts Too Soon (George Whitefield)

There are so many stony ground hearers who receive the Word with joy that I have determined to suspend my judgment till I know the tree by its fruits …Do you think any farmer would have a crop of corn next year unless he plowed now? You may as well expect a crop of corn on unplowed ground as a crop of grace until the soul is convinced of its being undone without a Savior. That is the reason we have so many mushroom converts, so many persons that are always happy! happy! happy! and never were miserable. Why? Because their stony ground is not plowed up; they have not got a conviction of the law . . . they fall away . . . That makes me so cautious now, which I was not thirty years ago, of dubbing converts too soon. Now I wait a little, and see if people bring forth fruit; for there are so many blossoms which March winds blow away that I cannot believe they are converts till I see fruit brought forth.

The State of Preaching Today (Mohler)

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity. . .” With those famous words, Charles Dickens introduced his great novel A Tale of Two Cities. Of course, Dickens had the two cities of London and Paris in mind, and much of his story revealed that the tenor of the times depended upon where one lived.

In some sense, that remains true as we consider the state of preaching today. To a large degree, this depends upon where one chooses to look.

(To read the rest of the article by Dr. Mohler, click here.)

Mary and Roman Catholicism (Robert Reymond)

“No talk of Catholic [practice] can advance very far without coming upon the topic of the Virgin Mary. And there is no topic, not the papacy, not the Mass itself, that arouses greater consternation, not to say scandal, among non-Catholics.” So writes former Protestant evangelical and now Roman Catholic, Thomas Howard. [On Being Catholic, 179]

And, surely, that is so. Protestants have the greatest difficulty understanding or showing sympathy for the doctrines of Mary that Catholics teach (that she herself, and not only her son, was born and lived without sin ["The Immaculate Conception"]; that she remained a virgin all her life ["The Perpetual Virginity"]; and that, shortly after she died, Mary’s body was raised, reunited with her soul, and then she was taken bodily to heaven ["The Assumption of Mary"]. Where, we ask, is any of this taught in Holy Scripture? Where is there the barest suggestion of such teaching? Is not the simple, artless teaching of the Bible, and of Mary herself that she, like all the elect, was a sinner saved by grace in the same way that all sinners are and must be saved?

Still more, Protestants have the greatest difficulty understanding how Catholics can justify saying prayers to Mary, a mere human being. Why, Protestants point out, Mary is mentioned only a few times in the Gospels after the accounts of the Savior’s birth and is never mentioned again after Acts 1, where we read only that she was together with the Apostles in the Upper Room in Jerusalem after the Lord’s Resurrection. Paul never mentions her, Peter never mentions her. There is nothing, not one word in the Bible about any special place she occupies in the life of Christians. But Catholics have their reply.

First, they say, to pay this honor to Mary, to believe these special things about her, and to pray to her, was the universal teaching and practice of the ancient church, what Catholics often refer to as “the unanimous consent of the fathers.” Now, we have already dealt with the Roman Catholic doctrine of tradition as a source of Christian doctrine and practice alongside the Bible. Catholics are not troubled, as we are, by the fact that the Bible contains nothing of their doctrine of Mary, for they believe that doctrine was handed down to the church in another way: not in the Bible, but in the teaching of the Apostles handed down through the bishops of the church. I am reading a new biography, a magisterial study of the life of John Henry Newman, the 19th century’s most prominent example of a Protestant — he was a member of the Church of England — who left his Protestant church to become a Roman Catholic, indeed to become eventually a Cardinal in the Catholic Church. Newman said what “made me a Catholic [was] the visible fact that the modern Roman Catholic Communion was the heir and the image of the primitive Church.” [Ker, 611] That is, Newman felt that the Roman Catholic Church believed and worshiped as the early Christians did. That was, for him, the proof that Catholicism was right and true.

We have already said why we cannot accept this argument, or the Catholic doctrine of tradition, or its claim faithfully to represent the practice of earliest Christianity, and we have already said why we must rest our doctrine and our practice on the Bible alone. But Catholics, of course, think differently.

And we Protestants must admit that there is a great deal about Mary and her place in the Christian life in the materials of early Christianity, much more than there is in the Bible. Last week we pointed out that the practice of confession of sins to a priest, so much a part of the Catholic understanding of salvation, cannot be found in the teaching of the church fathers or of the church councils for a thousand years after the apostles. But the same cannot be said for the special place that Catholics assign to Mary.

By the later fourth century you find both exalted views of her and of her sinlessness, if not her immaculate conception, and the practice of prayers addressed to her and veneration, even worship, given to her. Gregory Nazianzen tells of one Justina who prayed to the Virgin Mary to protect her virginity because she had come under the spell of a youthful lover –who happened, interestingly, to be Cyprian before his conversion, the man who would later be the celebrated North African bishop–. You also begin to find the proliferation of titles by which Mary would be known: especially, “Mother of God” and “Queen of Heaven.” In the fifth century, when the worship of saints appeared in full bloom, Mary, by reason of her unique relation to the Lord, was placed at their head, the Queen of the heavenly host. Much later, Catholic theology would draw a distinction between latria, the worship due to God alone, dulia, the veneration which is due to all saints and angels, and hyperdulia, the highest degree of veneration below latria, which was reserved for Mary. In the centuries following, the place of Mary in belief and piety continued to develop. The practice of prayer to her often overshadowed prayer to God himself, she was believed to have performed miracles, and became almost coordinate with Christ as a joint or co-mediator invested with most of his attributes and powers. Like him she was conceived sinlessly, lived without sin, was raised from the dead, and ascended into heaven, though these beliefs became doctrines only very slowly and against much opposition. Indeed, the last of these Marian doctrines, her bodily assumption to heaven, did not become the official dogma of the Roman Catholic Church until 1950! The Greek church also followed this pattern and in some of its collects, that is, short formal prayers in the liturgy, substitutes the name of Mary for the name of Jesus.

But Protestant Christians, and Protestant theology have always been much less impressed by this historical argument. First, there were forces unquestionably at work in those early centuries that made virtually inevitable such a development as we see happening in the growing veneration given to Mary. For example, in the apocryphal gospels of the third and fourth centuries — writings that even the Catholic church regards as spurious — there are all manner of fantastic tales told of Mary. In other words, there was a great temptation in that age to extrapolate from the sober and reliable history of the Bible fables and legends that exalted the biblical characters far beyond the facts. What is more, in that culture at that time, there was a predisposition to believe in the mothers of gods, the heathenism of that time, which had worked itself profoundly into the culture, was well used to female deities, to a hierarchy of lesser deities leading up to the great God or gods, and was also accustomed to worshipping heros — as the Greeks and Romans did. It was inevitable that, in that culture, there would be a strong temptation to attribute to Mary the kind of place the mothers of gods occupied in the other faiths and, in that highly ascetic age, to begin to prefer to believe in her perpetual virginity. Christian history demonstrates a thousand times that the church’s thinking is always susceptible to influences from the philosophies and religions round about, is always succumbing to those influences, always having to be purified from them. [Schaff, III, 411, 413-414]

But, in addition to this, the entire development of the doctrine of Mary and the practice of veneration for her and prayer to her is much more complicated than is suggested by such a phrase as “the unanimous consent of the fathers.” There is, as a matter of fact, a slow development of this doctrine with a great deal of disagreement along the way. The Immaculate Conception of Mary, for example, was not brought forward as the formal teaching of the church until 1140 at Lyons and, when it was, it was opposed by no one less than Bernard of Clairvaux himself. From that time on, the doctrine of the immaculate conception was a matter of dispute between the Franciscans and the Dominicans until it was pronounced church dogma by a papal bull in 1854. Early fathers, such as Tertullian, did not hesitate to teach that Mary had other children by Joseph after the birth of Jesus, the brothers and sisters who are mentioned in the Gospels, or that she sinned, even that the Lord rebuked her on several occasions in the Gospels. Prayers to Mary do not appear in the evidence until late in the 4th century, and there is no mention of such prayers in the voluminous writings of Athanasius, Basil, Chrysostom, and Augustine 400 years after Pentecost. Some fathers specifically condemn the practice as blasphemous [Schaff, III, 423 n.].

Take another example. The famous Catholic prayer, the “Hail Mary” or “Ave Maria” is composed of three parts. The first part is the salutation of the angel which we read in our text, “Hail Mary, full of grace” — so read the Latin translation; the NIV has the meaning more accurately, “you who are highly favored” –. The second part is Elizabeth’s greeting in Luke 1:42: “Blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus.” The last part — “Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and in the hour of our death,” is the controversial part, obviously. It used to be claimed that this part of the prayer went back to the 5th century. It is now widely admitted that it originates in the 16th century and the closing words, “now and in the hour of our death,” are even later. Even the first two parts of the “Hail Mary,” did not come into general use as a prayer until the 13th century. In other words, the development of Marian devotion in the church happened as we might have expected it to happen in such a religious culture as the culture the early church found herself in, and, even then, it was a development in fits and stages that came only gradually and much later into the form in which it is now known.

But in the second place, the Catholics argue that their practices in regard to Mary are really but an extension of principles of great importance taught in Holy Scripture. This was the particular emphasis of the teaching on Mary that I have studied over these past weeks, that is, the teaching about Mary given by former Protestants who are now Catholics, such as Thomas Howard and Scott Hahn. They want us to hear them say with great emphasis, for example, that they are not praying “to” Mary, as if they believe that she can, in her own strength and by her own virtue, hear and answer prayer. They are asking her to pray with us and for us as she is there is the very presence of her Son our Lord. And so with prayers to other saints. Thomas Howard is quite willing to admit, indeed, that this point is often missed in Catholic practice and that many “an ill-instructed peasant supposes that Mary somehow is more approachable than her Son” [191] Those are his words. Or, he says, “multitudes of poorly instructed Catholic faithful have not altogether grasped the distinction between what they are doing at this image of St. Anthony or St. Lucy [or, we might add, this image of Mary] and what they do when they kneel in the Lord’s presence” [161]. That is, of course, true. I saw an interview with Catholics about Mary and one woman was happy to say that she felt that, as a woman, Mary understood her better and was more approachable than the Lord Christ himself.

But, he goes on. We Christians ask one another to pray for us all the time. Why would we not ask those brothers and sisters, and the chief among them especially, who are now gone on from us and are among the spirits made perfect, to pray for us? We do not cast any aspersion on the power of Jesus’ intercession for us when we ask others to pray for us, do we? Of course not. So, why should it be thought some kind of diminishment of Christ to ask Mary for her prayers? And, then, he appeals to the tradition of the church and the practice of such prayers for prayers already in early church history. The problem is that the fine distinctions that these modern writers wish to maintain are not so easily demonstrated in the tradition. Mary is prayed to; she is asked herself for blessings. It is not the case that only her prayers to Christ himself are sought. She is given a role that is not only utterly absent from the teaching of the Bible, but which is utterly foreign to the teaching and practice of the Bible, where, from Genesis to Revelation, the saints call upon God himself and directly!

A grand illustration of the problem was furnished for us some years ago when Pope John Paul II, the present Pope, was shot in St. Peter’s square. This Pope is known for his Marian devotion. After he was shot he was placed still conscious in an ambulance and rushed to a hospital. From the time he was wounded to the time he lapsed into drug induced unconsciousness on the operating table he is reported to have uttered but one word, and that word over and over again: “Madonna.” Not, “Lord,” not “God,” not “Christ,” not “Savior” or “Redeemer,” but “Madonna.” When his life was in the balance, he lifted up his heart not to the Prince of Life but to the Lord’s mother. Are we not right to think that something fundamentally unbiblical is at work here? Not simply extrabiblical, but unbiblical. Something has been placed between the soul and the Savior himself that is never placed between by the Bible itself. In the Bible people do not pray so. For the thousands of years covered in Holy Scripture no one prayed so. It was the glory of their faith that they were given immediate access to God who was willing to hear their prayers and answer them.

But, finally, the Catholics respond, when we venerate Mary we are entering into that spirit of faith and humility that she demonstrated so magnificently in the way in which she undertook the astonishing service that was granted her to perform. And by looking to her we are seeking to put ourselves in her place and to respond to the Lord with the same faith, the same submission, the same devotion, his grace working in and through us as it did in her. Thomas Howard and Scott Hahn particularly have some beautiful and moving things to say of Mary’s example as a perfect example of all that Christians aspire to be. And that, surely, is true. Absolutely true. Listen to these words.

“As mother of the Savior of the world, the Virgin Mary unquestionably holds forever a peculiar position among all women, and in the history of redemption. Even in heaven she must stand peculiarly near to Him whom on earth she bore nine months under her bosom, and whom she followed with true motherly care to the cross. It is perfectly natural, nay, essential, to sound religious feeling, to associate with Mary the fairest traits of maidenly and maternal character, and to revere her as the highest model of female purity, love, and piety. From her example issues a silent blessing upon all generations, and her name and memory are, and ever will be, inseparable from the holiest mysteries and benefits of faith. For this reason her name is even wrought into the Apostles’ Creed, in the simple and chaste words, ‘Conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary.’” [Schaff, III, 410]

Those words were written by a Protestant, a Reformed Christian. And surely we can give our assent to them with all our hearts. Let no Roman Catholic take our crown in the reverence in which we hold the mother of our Lord. It is in saying more than this that we face the problem. Here Thomas Howard and Scott Hahn fail to persuade us. Faithful she was, wonderfully! Humble and submissive to God, she was, as we must be! But the Bible, and the Lord himself, seem to treat her as other Christians, seem to place her with the rest of us, who must live by faith, die in faith, and await the resurrection of the dead.

Indeed, in a most interesting passage, perhaps a text that has always bothered us a little, the Lord Jesus seems to be even a bit dismissive of his mother (as many have also thought, at first glance, he was at the wedding at Cana in John 2). He was not dismissive of her in either case, of course. But, he does not take the opportunity provided in Matthew 12:46-50, to exalt his mother above the others who trust in him and walk with him. This has always stuck in my memory. My father was reading this text at family worship one evening when I was a boy. And he wondered aloud why the Lord spoke as he did. Why he spoke in such a way as might be taken by some as not properly respectful of his mother. You remember: the Lord was teaching the crowds and his mother and brothers appeared on the outskirts wanting a chance to speak with him. Someone told the Lord that they were there wanting to see him and he replied, “Who is my mother and who are my brothers?” And, then, pointing to his disciples around him he said, “here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” To Protestant ears, that sounds almost as if the Lord was anticipating mistakes that would be made about Mary in ages to come! I should say, as an aside, the Lord’s reference to his brothers, again, would naturally be understood, as the other references to them in the Gospels, as a reference to his younger siblings, the other children of Joseph and Mary [remember he is described as her firstborn son, and the Scripture says that she had no relations with Joseph until she gave birth to a son (Matthew 1:25).], which, of course, would contradict the claim that she remained a virgin all her life — an idea that is completely without support in the Bible, or good reason in the Bible, but would have been increasingly attractive a few centuries later as the church took from the surrounding world the notion that a sexless life, an ascetic life was a superior and more holy life.

Why does the Bible say nothing of her in those ways in which Catholics think of her and pray to her? When it describes the life of faith, when Jesus taught that life and Paul and Peter, for whom Catholics have a special reverence, why do they say nothing about Mary or seeking her prayers. Why do they describe a life and a piety without mentioning any of this? Thomas Howard can only say that the Bible’s silence may be “the veil shrouding a mystery worth guarding from profane eyes” [185]. But who is to say? Why should we believe any of this system of prayer to Mary or the practice of devotion to her and, all the more, given its slow, fitful, and controversial development even within the Roman Catholic tradition?

You see, I do not doubt that Scott Hahn and Thomas Howard believe that God alone can answer prayers and that the purpose of Mary in the Catholic system is really simply to confirm gospel principles that are taught in Holy Scripture. But, what the Catholic system of theology and piety has done in extrapolating from the biblical account of Mary this entire set of beliefs and practices that are utterly unknown in the Bible, utterly foreign to the teaching of the apostles themselves, is to place something between the soul and the Savior. There is our fundamental objection. I do not doubt that some Catholics are not fundamentally confused by this interposition of Mary and the other saints between themselves and the Lord. Thomas Howard admits that multitudes of Catholics have been so confused and misled. But the question is: are we to believe that the place given to Mary in this system is faithful to the truth as it is taught in Holy Scripture.

And here I answer as I have answered in regard to other such questions in our examination of Roman Catholic belief and practice. The way they extrapolate from the Bible and build an entire edifice of practice that cannot itself be found in the Bible, is precisely what the Jews did in the days of Jesus Christ, and before and after. They too were intensely interested in the faith and serious about their practice of it. They too developed traditions, both of doctrine and of the practice of piety, that they felt would help them be more faithful. Some of those traditions were very much like Roman Catholic practices, such as the rosary. I can very easily imagine a devout Jew arguing for the worth and value of their practices in virtually identical language to that used by Thomas Howard or Scott Hahn as they argue for Catholic devotion to Mary and the like.

But those traditions, Jesus himself said, actually got in the way. The stress they placed upon those traditional ideas and practices drove a wedge between the soul and God himself and created a sense of dependence upon the believer’s works, even pious works, for his salvation instead of concentrating all attention upon the faith that a believer is to place directly in the Lord and his mercy. And that was a crucial, a fatal error, and led eventually to such a different conception of salvation, that it was loyal members of the church of God who crucified the Savior of the world when he came among them. Their traditions and traditional practices had hidden the Savior himself from their eyes.

No, what is at stake here is finally something terribly immense. What Christianity offers is the very knowledge of God. You, yourself, you pipsqueak, you inconsequential and sinful human being, you can know God, can know God personally in his love and tender mercy, in his fatherly interest and provision, in his kingly protection. You, your very own self, can speak to him with the knowledge that the Almighty will hear and answer, can love him and be loved in return. Christ came among us in part to prove this to us: that the Creator of heaven and earth and the King of Kings would really stoop to know and be known by us.

But in our sinful rebellion, and in our craven fear of a holy God on account of our sins, we are always wanting to put a greater distance between ourselves and God, to put something in between, to manage, to make safe and predictable, this otherwise so personal and so intimate relationship with the living God himself. After all, whenever, in the Bible, someone comes face to face with God, it is no casual affair; it is devastating, terrifying, at least at first. So we are always tempted to domesticate this Christian faith, to make it more predictable and to place it once again under our control. It isn’t just Roman Catholics that do this. Oh no. Don’t anyone take that away from this message. What concerns us in their practice of Marian devotion should concern us as well in our own Protestant, Presbyterian, Reformed practices and our own approach to our life of faith. We too are always tending to make our relationship with God more comfortable for ourselves by placing something between ourselves and him, by giving ourselves a little distance as it were. We place our works, our pious acts of worship, or intermediaries like Mary and the saints, between ourselves and God. We turn our faith into a lifestyle, or an ethic, or a set of practices until, before we know it and without our realizing it, it is no longer a personal relationship with God, a walking with God through this world. Now we are dealing with a distant God, a more remote deity according to a set of rules or procedures. We are more comfortable with that.

But, in that we lose the glory and splendor and power of the gospel, which brings us directly to God and gives us to know him and be loved and ruled by him. It is not always easy to have your life open entirely to God and to have to deal with Him directly regarding your days and your nights, your choices, your sorrows, your disappointments, your failures, and your sins. But that is what God requires.

And what he promises is that if you come to Him, directly, lay your soul, your life at his feet, as Mary did, look to him for your salvation, not only in the world to come but day to day, and live your life in active dependence upon his living presence with you, as Mary did, He will give you rest, the forgiveness of your sins, the promise of eternal life, his love shed abroad in your heart, his Spirit to support, comfort, and encourage you, his law to guide you, his hand to direct your steps, and he will give you the longings, the delights of your heart, as you trust in him. Nothing can come between you and Him. That is the secret of all life and all truth: God himself may be known by us as our Father in heaven, Christ as our Savior, the Holy Spirit as our Comforter. But sinful little creature that you are, you will struggle all your life to believe that and to act upon that truth. Whether it frightens you, the prospect of facing God, or whether you believe it too good to be true, you will struggle to accept. But you must for, as the Lord Jesus himself said, “he who comes to me, I will never drive away!”

(Robert L. Reymond is Professor of Systematic Theology at Knox Theological Seminary in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. He holds B.A., M.A., and Ph. D. degrees from Bob Jones University and has done doctoral and post-doctoral studies in other Seminaries and Universities. He is an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church in America, who has lectured in various countries in Europe and the East. Prior to taking the chair of Systematic Theology at Knox Theological Seminary he taught at Covenant Theological Seminary for more than twenty years. Then too, he has authored numerous articles in theological journals and various reference works, and has written some ten books.)

How Should We Give Our Money?

A certain Christian once said to a friend, “Our church costs too much. They are always asking for money.” [Her friend replied in this fashion]: “Sometime ago a little boy was born in our home. He cost [us] a lot of money from the very beginning: he had a big appetite; he needed clothes, medicine, toys, and even a puppy. Then he went to school, and that cost a lot more; later he went to college; then he began dating, and that cost a small fortune! But in his senior year at college he died, and since the funeral he hasn’t cost [us] a penny. Now which situation do you think we would rather have?”

After a significant pause, the friend continued, “As long as this church lives it will cost. When it dies for want of support it won’t cost us anything. A living church has the most vital message in all the world today; therefore I am going to give and pray with everything I have to keep our church alive” (Alan Redpath, The Royal Route to Heaven. Westwood, NJ: Revell, 1960, p. 27).

Some people believe it is unspiritual to talk about money. Some say not to worry about money but just let God provide. We should not worry about anything because God will provide, but as we’ve mentioned at various times, we must be good stewards with what God has given us in using the brains God has given us to do the work God has commissioned us to do.

And the fact of the matter is that the way to continue these operations from keeping our electricity and our phones to funding various ministries is monetarily. But we will see that if we realize all that God has given to us in Christ, then it will be no problem for us to give to God’s work. So how are we to give?

(To read the rest of this sermon, click here.  This was preached on Sunday, August 29, 2004, at the Boone’s Creek Baptist Church, Lexington, KY.)

More ESV Journaling Bible Reviews (ESV Blog)

Click here to read!

ESV Children’s Bible — a Review

Last Sunday, two children from our congregation stepped forward in believer’s baptism to testify of what Christ accomplished in their hearts. As is our custom here at Boone’s Creek, we give all those who are baptized a new Bible.

I had a choice. Find a nice Bible for little kids that they would outgrow as they matured a couple years — or get them a real Bible that they could use indefinitely.

I chose the latter. So I went to my local Lifeway Christian Stores outlet and purchased on our church account two ESV Children’s Bibles.

Here are some of the specs:

• 11-point type
• Size: 5.5″ x 8.5″
• No center-column cross-reference system
• Words of Christ in red
• No CD-ROM request card included
• Concordance
• Maps and illustrations
• Not thumb-indexed
• The inside is based on the large-print editions
• Over 200 full-color illustrations
• See sample 1 or sample 2 of the inside.

The ESV is written on a 10th grade level, yet it has a translation philosophy known as Essentially Literal. That is what I want my little girl to have in her hands — a Bible that stays true to the original manuscripts.

An objection would be, “But Matt, she’s too young to understand it.” Well, this Bible has over 200 age-appropriate color illustrations to help them know that great stories and doctrines of the faith. And when she reads along with us, we can stop and I can explain what these words mean. It allows me as her father (and pastor, for that matter) to give her a good grounding of the faith from a wonderful literal translation.

Have any of you seen the ESV Children’s Bible? What think ye?

ESV Children’s Bible — a Review

Last Sunday, two children from our congregation stepped forward in believer’s baptism to testify of what Christ accomplished in their hearts. As is our custom here at Boone’s Creek, we give all those who are baptized a new Bible.

I had a choice. Find a nice Bible for little kids that they would outgrow as they matured a couple years — or get them a real Bible that they could use indefinitely.

I chose the latter. So I went to my local Lifeway Christian Stores outlet and purchased on our church account two ESV Children’s Bibles.

Here are some of the specs:

• 11-point type
• Size: 5.5″ x 8.5″
• No center-column cross-reference system
• Words of Christ in red
• No CD-ROM request card included
• Concordance
• Maps and illustrations
• Not thumb-indexed
• The inside is based on the large-print editions
• Over 200 full-color illustrations
• See sample 1 or sample 2 of the inside.

The ESV is written on a 10th grade level, yet it has a translation philosophy known as Essentially Literal. That is what I want my little girl to have in her hands — a Bible that stays true to the original manuscripts.

An objection would be, “But Matt, she’s too young to understand it.” Well, this Bible has over 200 age-appropriate color illustrations to help them know that great stories and doctrines of the faith. And when she reads along with us, we can stop and I can explain what these words mean. It allows me as her father (and pastor, for that matter) to give her a good grounding of the faith from a wonderful literal translation.

Have any of you seen the ESV Children’s Bible? What think ye?

A Recipe For Revival (Seven Ingredients from Psalm 85)

Recipes and I do not get along too well. The extent of my cooking knowledge is praying that the box says, “Microwaveable” … then I proceed. But when it comes to recipes for revival, that’s a different story. It’s exciting to read how God moved in various awakenings throughout history. The most amazing one is found in Acts when 3000 people came to Christ in one day as Peter preached in Jerusalem. From that, many more revivals and awakenings came to pass as Peter, Stephen, Philip and the Apostle Paul traveled and preached throughout the entire Roman Empire, turning that powerful empire upside down. Though allegiance to Caesar was required (under penalty of death), many turned their allegiance to Christ (and faced the penalty of death).

Revivals have come throughout church history as well. The Great Awakening of the 1730s -40s in colonial America, eventually spreading to Europe, under the ministry of Jonathan Edwards in America and George Whitefield in England, brought awakened many to the Spirit’s work — among whom are John and Charles Wesley.

What exactly is “revival”? Stephen Olford says, “Revival is an invasion from heaven that brings a conscious awareness of God.” Vance Havner once said that, “Revival is the church falling in love with Jesus all over again.”

Some say we are past the era of revivals and see little use for them. One lady asked the great evangelist Billy Sunday, “Why do you keep having revivals?” Billy Sunday asked her a question right back, “Why do you keep taking baths?” The message is clear — individual Christians and churches need to set aside time to simply focus on our life in Jesus Christ. That’s the plan for this coming Sunday through Tuesday.

Getting back to our recipes — is there a recipe for revival? Is there something that one can do to conjure it up? We are going to find out that the answer is ‘no.’ We are not the ones who initiate revivals. But Psalm 85 will show us how to prepare ourselves and be ready for when revival comes.

(To read the rest of this sermon click here.  Preached on April 24, 2005 at the Boone’s Creek Baptist Church, Lexington, KY)

The 100 Things I Have Learned As a Senior Pastor (Michael Foster)

This list is quite good. Michael Foster runs The Gaslight Gospel blog. Any thoughts?

(HT:  Mark Combs)

The Protestant Protest (MacArthur)

The Reformation doctrine of justification by faith is, and has always been, the number one target of the enemy’s attack. It provides the foundation of the bridge that reconciles God and man-without that key doctrine, Christianity falls. But the doctrine the Reformers so painstakingly clarified, even spilled blood over, has become so muddled today that many Protestants barely recognize it.

Sadly, there are some who react against a clear presentation of justification, calling it nothing more than useless hair-splitting. Some evangelical reactions to Protestant doctrine are even more severe. Recently, popular talk-show host, Marty Minto, was fired by evangelical station management for discussions he was having on his daily radio program. His crime? In response to callers, he was applying a traditional Protestant perspective to the teachings of John Paul II and the Roman Catholic Church.

Many evangelicals, ignorant and unconcerned of their Protestant roots, are blithely embracing Roman Catholics as brothers and sisters in Christ. They’ve become more concerned about offending and alienating Roman Catholics than they have in clearly articulating the truth. What’s so important about that? Jesus said, “You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free” (John 8:32).

The issue, may I remind you, is justification by faith alone. Those who do not adhere to that fundamental biblical doctrine are not going to heaven.

Back to the Beginning

In the 1500s a fastidious monk, who by his own testimony “hated God,” was studying Paul’s epistle to the Romans. He couldn’t get past the first half of Romans 1:17: “[In the gospel] is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith” (KJV).

One simple, biblical truth changed that monk’s life-and ignited the Protestant Reformation. It was the realization that God’s righteousness could become the sinner’s righteousness-and that could happen through the means of faith alone. Martin Luther found the truth in the same verse he had stumbled over, Romans 1:17: “Therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, the just shall live by faith” (KJV, emphasis added).

Luther had always seen “the righteousness of God” as an attribute of the sovereign Lord by which He judged sinners-not an attribute sinners could ever possess. He described the breakthrough that put an end to the theological dark ages:

I saw the connection between the justice of God and the statement that “the just shall live by his faith.” Then I grasped that the justice of God is that righteousness by which through grace and sheer mercy God justifies us through faith. Thereupon I felt myself to be reborn and to have gone through open doors into paradise. The whole of Scripture took on a new meaning, and whereas before the “justice of God” had filled me with hate, now it became to me inexpressibly sweet in greater love. This passage of Paul became to me a gate to heaven.

Justification by faith was the great truth that dawned on Luther and dramatically altered the church. Because Christians are justified by faith alone, their standing before God is not in any way related to personal merit. Good works and practical holiness do not provide the grounds for acceptance with God. God receives as righteous those who believe, not because of any good thing He sees in them-not even because of His own sanctifying work in their lives-but solely on the basis of Christ’s righteousness, which is reckoned to their account. “To the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness” (Romans 4:5). That is justification.

Declared Righteous: What Actually Changes?

In its theological sense, justification is a forensic, or purely legal, term. It describes what God declares about the believer, not what He does to changethe believer. In fact, justification effects no actual change whatsoever in the sinner’s nature or character. Justification is a divine judicial edict. It changes our status only, but it carries ramifications that guarantee other changes will follow. Forensic decrees like this are fairly common in everyday life.

When I was married, for example, Patricia and I stood before the minister (my father) and recited our vows. Near the end of the ceremony, my father declared, “By the authority vested in me by the state of California, I now pronounce you man and wife.” Instantly we were legally husband and wife. Whereas seconds before we had been an engaged couple, now we were married. Nothing inside us actually changed when those words were spoken. But our status changed before God, the law, and our family and friends. The implications of that simple declaration have been lifelong and life-changing (for which I am grateful). But when my father spoke those words, it was a legal declaration only.

Similarly, when a jury foreman reads the verdict, the defendant is no longer “the accused.” Legally and officially he instantly becomes either guilty or innocent-depending on the verdict. Nothing in his actual nature changes, but if he is found not guilty he will walk out of court a free person in the eyes of the law, fully justified.

In biblical terms, justification is a divine verdict of “not guilty-fully righteous.” It is the reversal of God’s attitude toward the sinner. Whereas He formerly condemned, He now vindicates. Although the sinner once lived under God’s wrath, as a believer he or she is now under God’s blessing.

Justification is more than simple pardon; pardon alone would still leave the sinner without merit before God. So when God justifies He imputes divine righteousness to the sinner (Romans 4:22-25). Christ’s own infinite merit thus becomes the ground on which the believer stands before God (Romans 5:19; 1 Corinthians 1:30; Philippians 3:9). So justification elevates the believer to a realm of full acceptance and divine privilege in Jesus Christ.

Therefore, because of justification, believers not only are perfectly free from any charge of guilt (Romans 8:33) but also have the full merit of Christ reckoned to their personal account (Romans 5:17). Here are the forensic realities that flow out of justification:

We are adopted as sons and daughters (Romans 8:15)

We become fellow-heirs with Christ (v. 17)

We are united with Christ so that we become one with Him (1 Corinthians 6:17)

We are henceforth “in Christ” (Galatians 3:27) and He in us (Colossians 1:27)

How Justification and Sanctification Differ

Justification is distinct from sanctification because in justification God does not make the sinner righteous; He declares that person righteous (Romans 3:28; Galatians 2:16). Notice how justification and sanctification are distinct from one another:

Justification imputes Christ’s righteousness to the sinner’s account (Romans 4:11b); sanctification imparts righteousness to the sinner personally and practically (Romans 6:1-7; 8:11-14).

Justification takes place outside sinners and changes their standing (Romans 5:1-2, sanctification is internal and changes the believer’s state (Romans 6:19).

Justification is an event, sanctification a process.

Those two must be distinguished but can never be separated. God does not justify whom He does not sanctify, and He does not sanctify whom He does not justify. Both are essential elements of salvation.

Why differentiate between them at all? If justification and sanctification are so closely related that you can’t have one without the other, why bother to define them differently? That question was the central issue between Rome and the Reformers in the sixteenth century, and it remains the main front in renewed attacks against justification.

Justification in Roman Catholic Doctrine

Roman Catholicism blends its doctrines of sanctification and justification. Catholic theology views justification as an infusion of grace that makes the sinner righteous. In Catholic theology, then, the ground of justification is something made good within the sinner-not the imputed righteousness of Christ.

The Council of Trent, Rome’s response to the Reformation, pronounced anathema on anyone who says “that the [sinner] is justified by faith alone-if this means that nothing else is required by way of cooperation in the acquisition of the grace of justification.” The Catholic council ruled “Justification … is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just.” So Catholic theology confuses the concepts of justification and sanctification and substitutes the righteousness of the believer for the righteousness of Christ.

What’s the Big Deal?

The difference between Rome and the Reformers is no example of theological hair-splitting. The corruption of the doctrine of justification results in several other grievous theological errors.

If sanctification is included in justification, the justification is a process, not an event. That makes justification progressive, not complete. Our standing before God is then based on subjective experience, not secured by an objective declaration. Justification can therefore be experienced and then lost. Assurance of salvation in this life becomes practically impossible because security can’t be guaranteed. The ground of justification ultimately is the sinner’s own continuing present virtue, not Christ’s perfect righteousness and His atoning work.

What’s so important about the doctrine of justification by faith alone? It is the doctrine upon which the confessing church stands or falls. Without it there is no salvation, no sanctification, no glorification-nothing. You wouldn’t know it to look at the state of Christianity today, but it really is that important.

Adapted from The Gospel According to the Apostles, © 1993 and 2000 by John MacArthur. All rights reserved.  Used with permission.

The Doctrine of Sin — Why Bother?

One of the great challenges of spreading the Good News of Christ is also spreading the understanding that all of us are sinners. We know the verses from Vacation Bible School days such as Romans 3:23 (“For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”) and Romans 6:23 (“For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”) but has familiarity breeded contempt or is it apathy to the truths of these verses? I fear it is a bit of both. As for contempt, in communicating the biblical doctrine of sin to a culture that rejects any authority over their lives but their own, this doctrine is especially heinous and offensive! But this mindset here in the U.S. dates all the way back to a key influence in the crafters of the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution — that influence is John Locke, the deistic philosopher who promoted the idea that humans are born with a blank slate and a propensity to do good rather than evil.

But the Scriptures tell us in Romans 5 that we are all born under sin inherited from Adam (Romans 5:12) and we need to be redeemed by another, the Second Adam, who never sinned nor had any sin nature. Thus, when we trust in Christ, we now have a new nature untarnished and unaffected by sin. We become sons of God and co-heirs with Christ (Romans 8:12-17), and thus inherited not death but life in Christ for all eternity!

We also may deal with apathy dealing with the doctrine of sin! Sin leads to death! Not just physical death, but spiritual as well! We are cut off from the fellowship and the blessings and the salvation of our God because we are by nature objects of wrath (Ephesians 2:1-3, see also Romans 1:18). Psalm 66:18 says,

If I had cherished iniquity in my heart,
the Lord would not have listened.

And this is the epitome of the unsaved soul — we cherish and treasure our self and our world’s system over the righteousness found in Jesus Christ. The connection of the Holy Spirit is not there. Christ has not redeemed you, and thus you are cut off from His interceding work! You have cherished sin over the Savior!

John Owen said, “Be killing sin, or sin will be killing you.” Drastic times call for drastic measures! Mark 9:43-50 calls for engaging in active warfare against the sin that influences the members of your body! Romans 7:21-25 shows how when good is near, evil is also nearby in our hearts.

Learn about Satan’s schemes! Learn about the effects of sin! Once you embrace this doctrine, you will see your need for a Savior and see His power all-through in being greater than sin. “Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more” (Romans 5:19, ESV).

Are Our Prayer Meetings Filled With Prayer?

For many, the answer is a resounding “No!”  But Rob and Jenny Gerard send out each week a newsletter called “The Prayer Starter.”  This week’s topic is on Spurgeon and his weekly prayer meetings at the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London.  I hope you’ll take time to read this — it is a blessing and quite convicting!

MRP

P.S.  If you would like to subscribe to these Prayer Starters, send a blank e-mail to theprayerstarter-subscribe@freegroups.net.

————–

The Testimony of C.H. Spurgeon

Charles Haddon Spurgeon has been acclaimed to be the greatest preacher since the Apostle Paul. He would not agree with that, he would say George Whitefield or someone else. The fact remains that what God did with him at and through the Metropolitan Tabernacle in, London, England is recognized by many in all different evangelical groups as to be greatest work ever in a local church. He began preaching at that church in 1854 and died in 1892 and his ministry has continued until this moment, and obviously will continue until the Lord comes. The New Park Street Pulpit and The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit—the collected sermons of Spurgeon during his ministry with that congregation—fill 63 volumes. The sermons’ 20-25 million words are equivalent to the 27 volumes of the ninth edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. The series stands as the largest set of books by a single author in the history of Christianity.

When Spurgeon arrived at The New Park Street Church, in 1854, the congregation had 232 members. By the end of his pastorate, 38 years later, that number had increased to 5,311. Altogether, 14,460 people were added to the church during Spurgeon’s tenure.) The church was the largest independent congregation in the world. Spurgeon began a pastors’ college that trained nearly 900 students during his lifetime-and it continues today. In 1865, Spurgeon’s sermons sold 25,000 copies every week. They were translated into more than 20 languages. At least 3 of Spurgeon’s works (including the multi-volume Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit series) have sold more than 1,000,000 copies.

Occasionally Spurgeon asked members of his congregation not to attend the next Sunday’s service, so that newcomers might find a seat. During one 1879 service, the regular congregation left so that newcomers waiting outside might get in; the building immediately filled again.

Mr. Spurgeon once wrote in “The Sword and the Trowel”:–“A Wesleyan minister lately said that he was never more surprised in his life than when he dropped into the Tabernacle, and found the ground-floor and part of the gallery filled at a Prayer-meeting. He believed that such a thing was almost without a parallel in London, and that it accounted for the success of the ministry. We concur in his impartial judgment. Will not all the churches try the power of prayer?” (Only a Prayer Meeting, C. H. Spurgeon, introduction, page v.)

“How are the prayer-meetings almost universally neglected?” says Spurgeon. “ Our own church stands out like an almost solitary green islet in the midst of a dark, dark, sea; one bright pearl in the depths of an ocean of discord and confusion. Look at the neighboring churches. Step into the vestry, and see a smaller band of people than you would like to think of, assembled around the pastor, whose heart is dull and heavy. Hear one brother after another pour out the dull, monotonous prayer that he has said by heart these fifty years; and then go away and say: ‘Where is the spirit of prayer, where the life of devotion?’ Is it not almost extinct? Are not our churches ‘fallen, fallen, fallen from their high estate?’ God wake them up, and send them more earnest and praying men!” (The Prayer-Meeting, Lewis O. Thompson, 1874, page 190)

Note that Spurgeon agrees with the Wesleyan brother that the “Prayer-meeting” was that which “accounted for the success of the ministry.” Maybe Spurgeon could give us some advice about conducting the prayer-meeting.

“Our brethren will excuse our offering them advice, and must take it only for what it is worth; but having to superintend a large church and to conduct a prayer-meeting which scarcely numbers less than from a thousand to twelve hundred attendants, we will simply give our own notions as to the most efficient method of promoting and sustaining these holy gatherings.

1. Let the minister himself set a very high value upon this means of grace. A warm-hearted address of ten minutes, with a few lively words interposed between the prayers, will do much, with God’s blessing, to foster a love for the prayer-meeting….

2. Let the brethren labour after brevity. If each person will offer the petition most laid upon his heart by the Holy Spirit, and then make room for another, the evening will be far more profitable, and the prayers incomparably more fervent than if each brother ran round the whole circle of petition without dwelling upon any one point. As a general rule, meetings in which no prayer exceeds ten minutes, and the most are under five, will exhibit the most fervour and life…. When we have had ten prayers in the hour, varied with the singing of single verses, we have far oftener been in the Spirit, than when only four persons have engaged in supplication….

3. Persuade all the brethren to pray aloud. If the younger and less-instructed members shrink from the privilege, tell them they are not to speak to man, but to God. If a child may not talk at all till it can speak fluent English, will it ever learn to speak well?…

4. Encourage the attendants to send in special request for prayer as often as they feel constrained to do so. These little scraps of paper, in themselves most truly prayers, may be used as kindling to the fire in the whole assemble….

5. Suffer neither hymn, nor chapter, nor address, to supplant prayer. Remember that we meet for prayer, and let it be prayer; and, oh, that it may be that genuine, familiar converse with God which shall drive out the formality and pomposity which so much mar our public supplications!…

6. It is not at all amiss to let two or even three competent brethren succeed each other without a pause, but this must be done judiciously; and if one of the three should become prolix (gabby or long-winded), let the pause come in as soon as he has finished. Sing only one verse, or at the most two, between the prayers, and let those be such as shall not distract the mind from the subject….

Of course, we ought to have said all manner of good things about the necessity of the Holy Spirit; but upon that matter we are all agreed, knowing right well that all must be in vain without His presence. Our object has rather been to gather out the stones from the way than to speak of the Divine life which alone can enable us to run therein.” (Only a Prayer Meeting, p 26-30)

“How could we look for a Pentecost if we never met with one accord, in one place, to wait upon the Lord? Brethren, we shall never see much change for the better in our churches in general til the prayer-meeting occupies a higher place in the esteem of Christians.” (Only a Prayer-Meeting, p 11)

Alive 2005 by The Josh Martin Band — a CD Review

The Josh Martin Band:  Alive 2005.  Recorded at the Pleasureville Baptist Church, Pleasureville, KY.  Band members:  Josh Martin (lead vocals and rhythm guitar), Bert Lace (rhythm guitar), Doug Dearinger (lead guitar), Kelly Briscoe (piano and vocals), Derek Hughes (bass guitar and vocals), Andrew Dodson (drums and percussion).  Contact at http://www.thejoshmartinband.com .

I will be honest:  I am not a big fan of the normal fare of praise and worship music.  To me, most of it is neither biblically nor musically stimulating.  Much of it, I feel, tries to get me into some sort of pseudo-spiritual state rather than feeding my mind and soul with substantial nourishment.

Enter The Josh Martin Band’s Alive 2005.  I’ve known Josh since I served as his minister of music at Pleasureville Baptist Church from 1995-1998.  His passion for solid, biblical lyrics with a dynamite talent and a desire to lead a band that was not just committed to music but to the Word of God really spoke volumes to me.  During one of his concerts here at Boone’s Creek, he noted that “when selecting band members, I wanted men playing on Sunday whom I didn’t have to worry about where they were on Saturday night.”  This is a man after God’s own heart!

The Alive 2005 CD demonstrates a humility on Josh’s part as well as wonderful musicality and blend on the part of the band members.  Live performances often expose the weaknesses of the band as a whole and, to a degree, the weaknesses of the individual members.  This live performance exposes their strengths — and they are many.  Silky smooth vocals, tight harmonies, and well-grounded bass and a terrific timekeeper — add all that together, and you will have a wonderful worship experience in the Lord.  Quality music that does not hinder but actually enhances the lyrics.

In this CD, you will have popular quality praise choruses coupled with some of Josh’s original songs.  The styles range from Southern Gospel and Rockabilly to Classic Rock style.

As I mentioned earlier, I do not normally listen to CDs of the P&W genre — but I listen to this CD almost daily (no exaggeration).  Not only because I am fed spiritually and musically — but also because I know the man who fronts this band.

Log on to his website for more information about Josh and the band.

New section to this blog — and a call for suggestions from you expert bloggers out there!

I have added a new section called “Articles and Sermons.”  Right now, I’ve only linked to about 10-15 but there will be more coming soon.

I am also considering the purchase of a domain name now that the readership is increasing.  I would like to have a concise name so people can remember it and refer to it more easily.  So be in prayer.  Any suggestions you might offer would certainly be welcomed.  Since I am the namesake of the former Friends star, I am considering using that name for some leverage in exposing others to Christ who may be looking for info about the Matthew Perry .

All of you who could help in this situation — what would you recommend?

Are We Losing Our Liberties in the Name of Security?

Michael Graham in the latest edition of the Patriot Post posited his frustration:

An acquaintance of mine…from Britain posted the following item right after the London terror plot was uncovered: ‘I’ve been away for a week in Jamaica and so encountered the new air travel rules on the trip back. At Atlanta, the TSA confiscated my 2-year-old’s diaper rash ointment… Another victory for liberty!’ I know exactly how he feels. Watching televised images of American travelers, lumbering like docile cows through rope lines, obediently tossing their Skin-So-Soft and soda cans into government-approved containers, I felt…ashamed. Yes, I know about the plot to blow planes out of the sky using peroxide-based explosives and the flash from disposable cameras. Perhaps our abandoned tubes of Crest and travel bottles of Pert Plus are the price we must pay for our security, but in my gut I know it’s wrong. We aren’t the problem, we vast majority of Americans lugging our suntan lotion and ChapStick through airports. Treating us all like potential terrorists is annoying. It’s inconvenient. But worst of all, it makes us look just plain dumb.

I’d love to hear from you on this.

(1)  Have any of you travelled in the last two weeks?  What’s the security system like that’s in place in our airports?  Are Graham’s comments overboard?

(2)  Do you feel that we are losing our liberties in the name of security, or do you feel that these measures are appropriate given that we are in a time of war?

The Setting of our Security (Romans 8:26-30)

Back in late 1997, I felt compelled to purchase a piece of jewelry. No, not for me. This was a piece of jewelry that I hoped one day to slip onto the left hand of the love of my life. As a seminary student worked a couple of part time jobs along with church, I had to scrape. As I went into the store (clueless I might add), the rep there helped me find a ring that wouldn’t financially destroy me. She began talking about the diamond and the carats and the cut — and she also mentioned something about a setting. What is a setting? Well, it is the part of the ring itself where the diamond is nestled and is held in place. In fact, in many ways the setting helps accentuate the diamond’s beauty and helps it stand out.

This morning, we will be looking at Romans 8:26-30. As we read this, you will see a verse or two that may have ministered to you greatly over the years. One verse that is like a diamond that shines so brightly is Romans 8:28, which gives such security and hope for the follower of Christ in that God works all things for our good! Yet, the two verses before it and the two verses after it are much like that setting that holds a diamond in place — it gives it balance and stability and brings out its beauty!

Let’s read:

Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. [27] And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. [28] And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. [29] For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. [30] And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

This passage tells us some things that we know and some things that we don’t know — and even some things that only God knows. But we do not have to understand everything there is in Scripture in order to be secure in the author of those Scriptures. And what we do not know, he helps us with! What we can know can truly heal us. And what God only knows can most certainly hold us!

(To listen to the rest of this sermon, you can download it here. This sermon was preached on Sunday, August 20, 2006 by Pastor Matthew R. Perry, Boone’s Creek Baptist Church, Lexington, KY).

Top Five Books on the Book of Books (Robert Alter)

Robert Alter submitted an article to the Opinion Journal about the top five books on the Bible. I have not read any of these books (and I would be curious to hear the opinions of those who have read these), but one thing I did notice right off the bat: the oldest of them is from 1953. I am curious as if Mr. Alter meant that these were the greatest recent books written on the Bible, or if these are the greatest books ever written on this subject?

Any of you have any knowledge of these books? What are your thoughts?

Well, for what it’s worth, here’s my top five that influenced me deeply:

(1) The Message of the Old/New Testament by Mark Dever (2004, 2006);

(2) The Authority and Inspiration of the Scriptures by B.B. Warfield (1889);

(3) Introduction to Biblical Interpretation by Klein, Bloomberg, and Hubbard (1993)

(4) God, Revelation, and Authority by Carl F.H. Henry (1976-1983).

(5) The Journey from Texts to Translations by Paul Wegner (latest edition, 2004)

What are yours?

Are You Groaning for Glory? (A sermon on Romans 8:18-25)

As a music student at Palm Beach Atlantic University, I recall what the long time music professor Ray Robinson said during one of our Oratorio Chorus practices. He said, “Everything about music is about tension waiting to be resolved. Make sure you sing with that understanding — bring out the tension but really stress the resolving of that tension.” Sometimes, putting a matter in that type of frame really helps you understand the entire picture.

 

We understand that as well. Suppose I sat at the piano and began playing, “Holy, Holy, Holy.” You would begin humming the tune or even singing the words, “Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord G —.” Now, if I stopped, there is that tension that works inside your spirit waiting for that resolution, waiting for it to be resolved. If I finished it out, “—od Almighty.”

 

Or suppose I began a joke by saying, “A duck walks into a drug store and tells the man behind the counter … .” You are sitting there waiting for a tension to be resolved. So the way I resolve it is by finishing it up: “… and he says, ‘I’d like some chapstick — and put it on my bill.”

 

Right now, we are living in a world of tension waiting for a resolution. In Ecclesiastes 3:11, King Solomon writes that God “has put eternity into man’s heart.” Our lives here on this earth, if we are honest with ourselves, are spent with an intense longing for something more, something greater, something lasting.

 

As we read Romans 8:18-25, we see a longing and an expectation on two fronts: the created order and followers of Christ. In fact, you will notice that this particular longing is described as a “groaning”! Take a look:

For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. [19] For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. [20] For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope [21] that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. [22] For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. [23] And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. [24] For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? [25] But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.

The word ‘groan’ (stenazw) refers to the expression of “a person who is caught in a dreadful situation and has no immediate prospect of deliverance.” There’s that tension we spoke of earlier — and amidst the tension of this world in our longing for the next, we await for the resolution to glory!

(To listen to the rest of this sermon, click here . This sermon was preached by Pastor Matthew R. Perry at Boone’s Creek Baptist Church, Lexington, KY on Sunday, August 13, 2006.)

A sad time in a little corner of Lexington as the Athens School closes down

As we start the school year, our little village of Athens just outside of Lexington, Kentucky, saw the doors of Athens School close after 80 years of operation.  The students moved to a more technologically advanced and modern facility in an area subdivision.  Their school is called Athens-Chilesburg Elementary School and is already packed to the rafters with kiddos.

Many of our older folks in our church graduated from this school.  You can read about it by clicking on the article from the Lexington Herald-Leader.   It’ll only be up for a short time.

Any of you out there ever gone through seeing an old beloved church or school shut its doors?  Feel free to share your experiences.  It may help others going through the same issue!

Interview with SBC President Frank Page

This interview with Frank Page is certainly an important read for all Southern Baptists.

The Saddleback staff standards on moral integrity (Rick Warren — good stuff!)

No matter how many times I hear it, it still shocks me: A pastor announces his resignation because of adultery. Often it’s with someone within his church, sometimes even someone actively involved in ministry, such as a choir member or Sunday school teacher. 

It’s such an incredible waste of God’s resources that it not only grieves me – it angers me. I have told my staff that if any of them even flirt with temptation, I will come after them with a baseball bat, and I’ve told them to do the same with me. 

As Christian leaders, we need to be above reproach. Paul wrote, “Don’t be so naive and self-confident. You’re not exempt. You could fall flat on your face as easily as anyone else. Forget about self-confidence; it’s useless. Cultivate God-confidence.” (1 Cor. 10:12 MSG) 

That’s why I established these Saddleback staff standards for maintaining moral integrity:

 

(To read the rest of this article, click here.)

Not a Profit-ic Ministry to Say the Least (Go John Piper! Go DG!)

Like many of you, I received a letter from Desiring God, the ministry that is led by Dr. John Piper, Pastor of the Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota. In the letter, I was blown away about how his amazing ministry has kicked it up a notch.

One of the really exciting new things is that all 25+ years of John Piper’s sermons — in print, audo and video (if available) formats — will be accessible to you and others around the world at no cost. … The audio versions you will be able to stream, download, copy, and give to others — for free. We don’t just permit you to do it. We ENCOURAGE you to do it!”

This is the epitome of a servant ministry. Some have a prophetic ministry — some have a profit-ic ministry. How refreshing to see Dr. Piper’s heart in action!

Is Church Membership Really Necessary?

At our Southern Baptist Convention in Greensboro, the issue of regenerate church membership arose. This is also an issue that has come up amongst our leadership here at Boone’s Creek. What does it mean to be a member of a church? Here are some takes on this.

Southern Baptist Mistake by Mark Dever (HT: Mark Combs)

Where Is Membership in the Bible? by Mark Dever

Is Church Membership Optional? by Stephen Pribble

Sadly, the United Methodist Church seems to be very misguided about biblical membership, as referenced in this article.

What think ye? Do we make too much of a deal about church membership? No, church membership does not save, but is it an essential component for our Christian lives? Or can one be a good spiritual follower of Christ without being involved in any organized Christian assembly?

Are You For Terrorist Profiling?

This was sent to me by the Patriot Post, and given the events that happened in Great Britain with our terrorist enemies, I really believe we need to consider some things as we protect our country. The article is entitled, “Anyone for Terrorist Profiling?“

========
To ensure we Americans never offend anyone — particularly fanatics intent on killing us — law enforcement and security screeners are not allowed to “profile” people in public places or security checkpoints. However, they will continue to perform random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, Secret Service agents who are members of the President’s security detail, 85-year-old congressmen with metal hips and even Medal of Honor recipients. But targeting Middle Eastern male Islamists between the ages 17 and 40 constitutes “ethnic profiling.”

Let’s pause a moment and review….

In 1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by:

(a) A salesman from Utah

(b) An construction worker

(c) A college student on Spring Break

(d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 1972, 11 Israeli athletes were killed at the Munich Olympics by:

(a) Your grandmother

(b) A Midwest auto-parts dealer

(c) A mom and her 6-year-old son visiting from Indiana

(d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 1979, the U.S. embassy in Iran was taken over by:

(a) A bluegrass band

(b) Dallas Cowboy fans

(c) A tour group of 80-year-old women

(d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

During the 1980’s numerous Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:

(a) A family on their way to Disney World

(b) Jesse Ventura

(c) A Boy Scout Troop

(d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

 

In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:

(a) A pizza delivery boy

(b) The UPS guy

(c) Geraldo Rivera making up for a slow news day

(d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked, and a 70-year-old disabled American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard by:

(a) A girls’ choir

(b) A hardware store owner

(c) A secretary

(d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a U.S. Navy diver was murdered by:

(a) A Marine officer with two weeks leave

(b) A plumber going to visit his mom

(c) A Catholic nun

(d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:

(a) A college-bound freshman

(b) A cardiac surgeon on his way to Houston

(c) A waitress

(d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed by:

(a) A starving actress

(b) A mom with a newborn

(c) Twin six-year-old boys

(d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 1995, a plot to blow up U.S.-bound international flights over the Pacific was attempted by

(a) Hawaiian school kids

(b) An decorated Vietnam Veteran

(c) Twin sisters on their way to Paducah

(d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 1998, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:

(a) A local TV weatherman

(b) A dad and his two sons on a ski trip

(c) A widower going to visit his grandchildren

(d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 2000, 17 sailors died in an attack on the USS Cole (DDG 67) in Yemen by:

(a) A child in a stroller

(b) A high school class on their way to visit Washington, DC

(c) Newlyweds on their way to Miami

(d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked — two flown into the World Trade Centers, one into the Pentagon and one into the ground in rural Pennsylvania. They were hijacked by:

(a) A retired police officer on a mission trip to Haiti

(b) A firefighter going to Maryland for training

(c) An paramedic on his way to vacation in Hawaii

(d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 2002 the United States liberated Afghanistan from:

(a) USAID relief workers

(b) Jewish Pilgrims

(c) Christian missionaries

(d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl and other Westerners were kidnapped and beheaded by:

(a) The Peace Corp

(b) Scottish clansmen

(c) Cuban refugees

(d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 2002, more than 330 hostages in Beslan and 130 hostages in Moscow were murdered in sieges by:

(a) Russian exchange students

(b) The Red Guard

(c) Church planters

(d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 2003 the United States liberated Iraq from “The Butcher of Baghdad,” but most American military personnel were killed by:

(a) Iraqi school-girls

(b) Street vegetable venders

(c) Women without burkas

(d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 2004, more than 200 Spanish civilians were murdered on trains by bombs in Madrid, detonated by:

(a) Morning commuters

(b) A three-year-old Chinese girl

(c) Flamenco dancers

(d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 2005 more than 50 UK citizens were killed by bombs on trains in London, detonated by:

(a) Rail workers

(b) Those unable to hail taxis

(c) Wheelchair-bound grandmothers

(d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 2005, there were hundreds of casualties, men, women and children, killed by bombs in Jerusalem, Riyadh and Amman. These innocent civilians were murdered by:

(a) Construction workers

(b) Farmers

(c) Christian missionaries

(d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 2005, the city of Paris, and other European cities experienced an extended period of riots and destruction. The unrest was led by:

(a) “Youth”

(b) Soccer fans

(c) Catholic nuns

(d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

Since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, more than 2,500 Americans have been murdered by terrorists. 35,000 Iraqi men, women and children have also been murdered by terrorists. Most of the combat and civilians casualties were the result of bombs detonated in civilian population centers by:

(a) Fruit vendors in Baghdad

(b) Disgruntled transit union workers

(c) Iraqi schoolteachers

(d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 2006, hundreds of Israeli civilians have been killed by rockets launched by:

(a) the Salvation Army

(b) remnants of the ‘Jackson Five’

(c) the cast of ‘Friends’

(d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

In 2006, a plot to blow up 10 U.S.-bound planes from the U.K. was attempted by

(a) members of the royal family

(b) Japanese tourists

(c) groupies of the band ‘Cream’

(d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

Since 2001, the FBI reports that there are major terrorist cells still in U.S. urban centers. Several of these cells have been uncovered and cell members arrested. In every case, theterrorists cell members were:

(a) Southern Baptists Conventioneers

(b) Lutheran Youth Groups

(c) Presbyterian Elders

(d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.

President George Bush said this week, “America is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation.” The Council on American-Islamic Relations issued an immediate objection to the President’s reference to “Islamic fascists”. Nihad Awad, executive director of CAIR protested, “We have to isolate these individuals because there is nothing in the Koran or the Islamic faith that encourages people to be cruel or to be vicious or to be criminal. Muslims world wide know that for sure.” In light of this objection, we are left to ponder why every Islamic leader in the U.S., and the world, does not publicly condemn every terror action being undertaken in the name of the god of Islam. Their silence is deafening…

Between 1970 and present, there were more than 60 other notable examples of terrorism perpetrated by Middle Eastern male Islamists between the ages 17 and 40, but we think you get the point. Singling out “Middle Eastern male Islamists between the ages 17 and 40″ is not “ethnic profiling,” it’s “terrorist profiling” — acting on prolific evidence.

Anyone for Terrorist Profiling?

Semper Vigilo, Paratus, et Fidelis! Mark Alexander Publisher, The Patriot

(Circulation of this e-mail is sponsored by The Patriot Post — the most widely read conservative e-journal on the Internet. If you have not already joined the ranks of American Patriots receiving this highly acclaimed conservative digest of news,

policy and opinion, link to: http://PatriotPost.US/subscribe/atp and The Patriot will be delivered FREE by e-mail to your inbox each week. If you don’t have Web access, send a blank e-mail to: subscribe@PatriotPost.US and you will be subscribed automatically.)

“Anyone for Terrorist Profiling?” is posted on the Internet at http://PatriotPost.US/alexander/edition.asp?id=341

Are CBF Seminaries Educational Failures?

The Baptist Press’ recent article, “SBC, CBF Seminaries Differ in Educational Approach,” (click the title to read the entire article — well worth your time!) shows the necessity of accountability. Russell Moore, dean of the school of theology at Southern Seminary points out:

Unlike SBC seminaries, which are held accountable by the congregations of the Southern Baptist Convention, the CBF seminaries and divinity schools are accountable only to a donor base of nostalgic Baptist liberals. The schools have become a haunt for every liberal fad imaginable: pluralism, inclusivism, feminism, process theology, liberation theologies and so forth.”

What is more, it seems that though there are twice as many CBF institutions, SBC institutions graduate more than five times as many — and the SBC seminaries have over 11,000 students which numbers more than 9,000 of those in CBF seminaries.

Seminaries, Baptist studies programs and divinity schools supported by the CBF include:

–- Baptist House of Studies at Duke University Divinity School in Durham, N.C. (Methodist).

-– Baptist Seminary of Kentucky in Lexington.

-– Baptist Studies Program of Brite Divinity School at Texas Christian University in Fort Worth (Christian Church).

-– Baptist Studies Program of the Candler School of Theology at Emory University in Atlanta (Methodist).

-– Baptist Theological Seminary in Richmond, Va.

-– Baptist University of the Americas in San Antonio, Texas.

–- Campbell University Divinity School in Buies Creek, N.C.

–- Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Kansas City, Kan. (American Baptist Churches USA).

-– George W. Truett Theological Seminary at Baylor University in Waco, Texas.

-– International Baptist Theological Seminary of the European Baptist Federation in Prague, Czech Republic.

-– Logsdon School of Theology at Hardin-Simmons University in Abilene, Texas.

-– McAfee School of Theology at Mercer University in Atlanta.

–- M. Christopher White Divinity School at Gardner-Webb University in Boiling Springs, N.C.

–- Wake Forest University Divinity School in Winston-Salem, N.C.

The Saddest Bumper Sticker I’ve Ever Seen

This bumper sticker from See Sharp Press, and many like it, you will see pasted on the back of many a secular humanists vehicle. All that matters is life right now. In fact, secular humanists believe that most, if not all, of the ills of society are laid at the feet of the Christian church.

As for me, God has continually proven his steadfast love and faithfulness to me in so many ways. Let’s consider, though, what his Word has to say.

Luke 24:1-5But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they went to the tomb, taking the spices they had prepared. [2] And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, [3] but when they went in they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. [4] While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel. [5] And as they were frightened and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, “Why do you seek the living among the dead?

1 Cor. 15:12-19

Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? [13] But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. [14] And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. [15] We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. [16] For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. [17] And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. [18] Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. [19] If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

Sorry, fellas. I believe in Christ and have seen what Christ has done in history and whathe has done in my life. I cannot deny him.

The Saddest Bumper Sticker I’ve Ever Seen

This bumper sticker from See Sharp Press, and many like it, you will see pasted on the back of many a secular humanists vehicle. All that matters is life right now. In fact, secular humanists believe that most, if not all, of the ills of society are laid at the feet of the Christian church.

As for me, God has continually proven his steadfast love and faithfulness to me in so many ways. Let’s consider, though, what his Word has to say.

Luke 24:1-5But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they went to the tomb, taking the spices they had prepared. [2] And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, [3] but when they went in they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. [4] While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel. [5] And as they were frightened and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, “Why do you seek the living among the dead?

1 Cor. 15:12-19

Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? [13] But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. [14] And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. [15] We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. [16] For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. [17] And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. [18] Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. [19] If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

Sorry, fellas. I believe in Christ and have seen what Christ has done in history and whathe has done in my life. I cannot deny him.

A Disturbing Turn in the War on Terror (Yes! We Are At War, Folks!)

Two days after hearing about the plot of Islamic terrorists in Great Britain makes it all the more clear that:(1) These terrorists, as abhorrent as their behavior is, do their homework. After watching Primetime last night on ABC, these terrorists devised a shrewd and, yes, brilliant way to get past security checkpoints through the use of liquid or haircare products (read below). It’s a new day on the war front.
(2) Our far too complacent country led by our far too complacent government is still at war with an enemy that hates all things Israeli and all things Western — and that this enemy will not go away anytime soon.

Pertaining to the terror plot, Robert Barr (AP) reports:

British police have arrested 24 people suspected of involvement in the plot. Investigators, describing a plan on the scale of the Sept. 11 attacks, said the attackers planned to use common electronic devices to detonate liquid explosives to bring down as many as 10 planes.The bombs were to be assembled on the aircraft, apparently with peroxide-based solution and everyday carry-on items such as a disposable camera or a music player, two American law enforcement officials told The Associated Press. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because Britain asked that no information be released. (To read the entire article, click here.)

As a result, more security measures are now in place. No haircare products (sprays, gels, etc.) nor any liquids at all may come on board.

Let us pray that proper action would take place to help maintain the security of our country.

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. [2] Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. [3] For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, [4] for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. [5] Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. [6] For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing (Romans 13:1-6, ESV)

.

Slightly new look to Bro. Matt’s Blog

I am so glad I switched from Blogger to WordPress.  They make blogging so much easier.  I have switched to a slightly different template with a different picture up top that will likely change just for variety’s sake.

The picture in the header of this blog is a panoramic picture of Port of Spain, the capital of Trinidad and Tobago.   This picture is taken from the Lookout in POS in what has to be one of the most beautiful views in all the world.

Keep checking back!  I’ll be putting other pictures up there as time permits.

Slightly new look to Bro. Matt’s Blog

I am so glad I switched from Blogger to WordPress.  They make blogging so much easier.  I have switched to a slightly different template with a different picture up top that will likely change just for variety’s sake.

The picture in the header of this blog is a panoramic picture of Port of Spain, the capital of Trinidad and Tobago.   This picture is taken from the Lookout in POS in what has to be one of the most beautiful views in all the world.

Keep checking back!  I’ll be putting other pictures up there as time permits.

Billy Graham’s Comments in Newsweek: Billy! We Thought We Knew Ye!

I don’t know about you, but I have seen a number of Christian men and women who, when they grow into their twilight years, tend to lose their edge and fight in defending the faith. I could speculate on why this is, but that’s for another time. What saddens me is that so many in the world, Christian or non-Christian, look up to Billy Graham so much that it saddens me to see this aging, influential — and very ill — Christian man and preacher say so many things so disturbing.

In Newsweek’s most recent issue (August 14, 2006), Billy Graham is featured (“Pilgrim’s Progress”, p. 37) in an exclusive article by Jon Meacham that’s subtitled, “In the twilight, Billy Graham shares what he’s learned in reflecting on politics, Scripture, old age and death, mysteries and moderation.”

Here are a few quotes from this article:

“I’m not a literalist [about the Bible] in that every jot and tittle is from the Lord. This is a little difference in my thinking through the years” (p. 41).

When asked whether those who are not Christians and are of other religions will be in heaven, he responds:

“Those decisions only the Lord will make. It would be foolish for me to speculate on who will be [in heaven] and who won’t…. I don’t want to speculate about all that. I believe the love of God is absolute. He said he gave his son for the whole world, and I think he loves everybody regardless of what label they have” (p. 43)

“I have a certainty about eternity that is a wonderful thing, and I thank God for giving me that certainty. I do not fear death. I may fear a little bit about the process, but not death itself, because I think the moment that my spirit leaves this body, I will be in the presence of the Lord” (p. 43)

That last quote is a treasure and a blessing to me, but I do grow concerned about his comments here — which are nothing new considering his previous comments to Dr. Robert Schuller in a 1978 article in McCall’s magazine as well as a 1997 interview where his views on salvation I believe strayed from the exclusive claims of the Scriptures.

I appreciate Dr. Graham’s ministry, but does anyone else out there find concern with his comments?

Other Articles

Billy Graham: What Means This? by Chip Thorton (HT: Josh Buice)

The Billy Graham School of Ecumenism? by Timmy Brister

When a Hero Falls by Josh Buice

To read the entire article by Jon Meacham, click here.

Billy Graham’s Comments in Newsweek: Billy! We Thought We Knew Ye!

I don’t know about you, but I have seen a number of Christian men and women who, when they grow into their twilight years, tend to lose their edge and fight in defending the faith. I could speculate on why this is, but that’s for another time. What saddens me is that so many in the world, Christian or non-Christian, look up to Billy Graham so much that it saddens me to see this aging, influential — and very ill — Christian man and preacher say so many things so disturbing.

In Newsweek’s most recent issue (August 14, 2006), Billy Graham is featured (“Pilgrim’s Progress”, p. 37) in an exclusive article by Jon Meacham that’s subtitled, “In the twilight, Billy Graham shares what he’s learned in reflecting on politics, Scripture, old age and death, mysteries and moderation.”

Here are a few quotes from this article:

“I’m not a literalist [about the Bible] in that every jot and tittle is from the Lord. This is a little difference in my thinking through the years” (p. 41).

When asked whether those who are not Christians and are of other religions will be in heaven, he responds:

“Those decisions only the Lord will make. It would be foolish for me to speculate on who will be [in heaven] and who won’t…. I don’t want to speculate about all that. I believe the love of God is absolute. He said he gave his son for the whole world, and I think he loves everybody regardless of what label they have” (p. 43)

“I have a certainty about eternity that is a wonderful thing, and I thank God for giving me that certainty. I do not fear death. I may fear a little bit about the process, but not death itself, because I think the moment that my spirit leaves this body, I will be in the presence of the Lord” (p. 43)

That last quote is a treasure and a blessing to me, but I do grow concerned about his comments here — which are nothing new considering his previous comments to Dr. Robert Schuller in a 1978 article in McCall’s magazine as well as a 1997 interview where his views on salvation I believe strayed from the exclusive claims of the Scriptures.

I appreciate Dr. Graham’s ministry, but does anyone else out there find concern with his comments?

Other Articles

Billy Graham: What Means This? by Chip Thorton (HT: Josh Buice)

The Billy Graham School of Ecumenism? by Timmy Brister

When a Hero Falls by Josh Buice

To read the entire article by Jon Meacham, click here.

ESV Bible Sales Quadruple in Two Years (Michele Bennett)

Fueled by growing acceptance in the U.S. and throughout the English-speaking world, sales and distribution of the ESV Bible (English Standard Version) have increased more than four-fold over the past two years.

“My sense is that there is a rapidly growing desire for a ‘word-for-word’ Bible version like the ESV—one that retains the beauty and majesty of the Bible, that captures the depth of meaning in the original languages, and that is highly accessible for contemporary readers,” noted Dr. Lane T. Dennis, President of Crossway Bibles.

The ESV is consistently among the top ten English Bible translations on the Christian retail industry’s bestseller lists. With more than 100 creative editions and formats in print, the ESV has also experienced more than 100% annual growth in the Christian retail market for three years in a row.

(Click here to read the rest of the article. Contact Michele Bennett: 630-868-6043 or media@gnpcb.org.)

Another paragraph from the ESV Blog:

Dr. J. I. Packer, General Editor of the ESV Bible, was the headline speaker for the event. Reflecting on the tremendous impact of the ESV Bible, Packer said, “I find myself suspecting very strongly that this was the most important thing that I have done for the Kingdom and that the product of our labors is perhaps the biggest milestone in Bible translation in the past fifty years or more.”

Has Mel Gibson Lost His Mind? Or …

. . . is this the start of something wonderful in his life?

You do not need me to recall all the issues of last week’s tirade. Driving under the influence of alcohol, doing 87 mph in a 45 mph zone, he resisted arrest and them began unleashing a plethora of profanity and anti-semitic remarks. Given his recent stigma from the Hollywood community due to his blockbuster success of The Passion of the Christ (2004), Gibson’s remarks seem to have caused not concern or compassion, but delight among the Hollywood elite and the media.

Chuck Baldwin, a pastor in Florida and former vice presidential candidate in 2004 of the Constitution Party, noted something quite interesting:

I don’t remember anyone in Hollywood or in the national media saying it was “all over” for Jesse Jackson when back in 1984 he called Jews “Hymies” and referred to New York City as “Hymietown.” I don’t remember people saying it was “all over” for Michael Moore when he was quoted as placing Israel in his own personal “axis of evil.” Why, then, are the Hollywood elite saying it’s “all over” for Mel Gibson?

Gibson’s enemies even overlook the fact that instead of sending his publicist to handle the media (as most Hollywood stars would do), he personally took responsibility for his actions and comments. In fact, his humility and contriteness in the matter have been quite remarkable!

In addition, Gibson has admitted to a long- standing problem with alcohol addiction, and he has apologized profusely for his anti-Jewish words spoken in a drunken stupor. He has even said he was willing to meet with Jewish leaders in order to facilitate a healing. What more can the man do?

How did he “personally” take responsibility? Look at Gibson’s remarks soon after the incident.

“I want to apologize specifically to everyone in the Jewish community for the vitriolic and harmful words,” Gibson said in a statement issued by his publicist Tuesday. “Please know from my heart that I am not an anti-Semite. I am not a bigot. Hatred of any kind goes against my faith.

“There will be many in that (Jewish) community who will want nothing to do with me, and that would be understandable,” he added. “But I pray that that door is not forever closed.”

He went on to note that he needed to look in his heart to see where that type of vitriole would come from.

Friends, he “manned up.” Were his comments inexcusable? Absolutely! But his reaction was not to simply do as Floyd Landis did, which was to deny it ever happened. Gibson said what he did was stupid and he will go to the offended parties to try and remedy and reconcile that situation. He’s making the effort.

Clearly, Gibson is not concerned about his career first and foremost, else he never would have touched the subject matter dealt with in Passion. Clearly, Gibson is exploring more deeply the matters of his faith.

Now, it seems that God may want Gibson to explore more deeply what is in his heart.

Matthew 12:34:  “Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks.”

Col. 2:6-8: Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him, [7] rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving. [8] See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

Jeremiah 17:9: “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?”

So to answer the question, “Has Mel Gibson completely lost his mind? Or is this the start of something wonderful in his life?” Given the importance of spiritual self-examination, I’d say the second.”