“Paul never quoted Jesus!” (Galatians)

Today, we look at the places where Paul told to the saints in Galatia of the things taught by our Lord Jesus Christ.

Galatians 1:1Paul, an apostle (not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead).

  • Acts 22:15-18“So I said, ‘Who are You, Lord?’ And He said, ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. But rise and stand on your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to make you a minister and a witness both of the things which you have seen and of the things which I will yet reveal to you. I will deliver you from the Jewish people, as well as from the Gentiles, to whom I now send you, to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.’

Galatians 1:3-4Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father.

  • Matthew 20:27-28“And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave-just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”
  • John 16:33“These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.”

Galatians 1:15-16But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood…

  • Acts 22:9-10“And those who were with me indeed saw the light and were afraid, but they did not hear the voice of Him who spoke to me. So I said, ‘What shall I do, Lord?’ And the Lord said to me, ‘Arise and go into Damascus, and there you will be told all things which are appointed for you to do.’

Continue reading

What exactly DOES Hebrews 6:4-6 mean, anyway?

**I’ve said this before, but this time it will be enforced. Any and all further comments that do not deal DIRECTLY with the text of this post WILL BE DELETED. I will not give any thought to how long the comment is or how long it took to type it. And don’t try to post some long comment, with Hebrews 6:4-6 tacked on peripherally. This is final**

When dialoging with Arminians and others who teach that a person can be “lost” after they have been truly born again, one of their pet passages is Hebrews 6:4-64 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.

Now, at face value, it does sound like the writer of Hebrews (hereafter referred to as “The Writer”) is saying that a person can be saved and then fall away to the point that they cannot be saved again. But is that really what Writer is saying? No, it isn’t, and we will see why.

The first thing we must do in order to study this passage properly is to get rid of the chapter and verse divisions and any paragraph formatting. While these tools help us to find where certain passages are located, they were not in the original manuscripts and can, more often than not, interfere with our understanding of Scripture. What happens, many times, is our mind sees the numbers, separates Scripture from Scripture, and we put up mental walls around the texts and chop them up into separate thoughts, rather then seeing the constant, continuous flow of thought the writer intended. We also tend to chop paragraphs apart from each other, instead of seeing that the author was writing one long paragraph (for example, Ephesians chapter 1 is actually one long paragraph, rather than a bunch of smaller ones).

That said, in order to understand what The Writer is saying in Hebrews 6:4-6, we actually need to go back and start at chapter 5, verse 12 and read through chapter 6, verse 8. So, here is Hebrews 5:12-6:8, with no breaks–

For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food. For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. Therefore, leaving the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. And this we will do if God permits. For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame. For the earth which drinks in the rain that often comes upon it, and bears herbs useful for those by whom it is cultivated, receives blessing from God; but if it bears thorns and briers, it is rejected and near to being cursed, whose end is to be burned.

Continue reading

The roots Mormonism shares with Rome (Part 3)

Finishing up our look at how Mormonism and Roman Catholicism are, basically, theological cousins. Maybe not first cousins, more like third cousins twice removed. But they both spring from the same tree, and they both have the same father (small-‘f’).

They both teach that the blood of Christ is not the only way to pay for our sins

–Catholicism teaches that the person must pay for some sins themselves in Purgatory.

Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), paragraphs 1030-10311030 All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven. 1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent…we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.”

–Mormonism teaches forgiveness beyond the grave

Gospel Principles (GP), 1997 ed., chapter 45, p. 292-293“In the spirit prison are the spirits of those who have not yet received the gospel of Jesus Christ. These spirits have agency and may be enticed by both good and evil. If they accept the gospel and the ordinances performed for them in the temples, they may prepare themselves to leave the spirit prison and dwell in paradise. Also in the spirit prison are those who rejected the gospel after it was preached to them on earth or in the spirit prison…After suffering in full for their sins, they will be allowed to inherit the lowest degree of glory, which is the telestial kingdom.”

Continue reading

“Paul never quoted Jesus!” (2nd Corinthians)

Part four of our series, enlightening the one who draws near to Jesus with their lips, while their hearts are far from Him.

2nd Corinthians 1:3-5Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our tribulation, that we may be able to comfort those who are in any trouble, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God.

  • John 14:15-18 (KJV)“If ye love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.”

2nd Corinthians 1:17-19Therefore, when I was planning this, did I do it lightly? Or the things I plan, do I plan according to the flesh, that with me there should be Yes, Yes, and No, No? But as God is faithful, our word to you was not Yes and No. For the Son of God, Jesus Christ…was not Yes and No, but in Him was Yes.

  • Matthew 5:37“But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.”

2nd Corinthians 3:5-6Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

  • John 6:61-63When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, “Does this offend you? What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.”

2nd Corinthians 3:14-16But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ. But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart. Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.

  • Luke 10:21-22In that hour Jesus rejoiced in the Spirit and said, “I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight. All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and who the Father is except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.”
  • Matthew 13:13“Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.”

Continue reading

The roots Mormonism shares with Rome (part 2)

While we here at DefCon stand in opposition to what the Romish church teaches, I find it rather ironic that the early leaders in the LDS church were even more venomous in their attacks on the Vatican than Rome could ever accuse Luther or Spurgeon of being. That said, Salt Lake City shares more with Rome than Brigham or Joey Junior would ever want to admit. Here is part 2 in the series laying Mormonism alongside Romanism and comparing the two.

Besides what they have written in their official declarations, Mormonism and Papism share one other thing in common–they both know how to play the “It’s not official doctrine” card. What I mean is this:  whether it’s the Catholic Pope or the Mormon Prophet/President, the authoritative voice of the respective religion (and the teaching arm thereof) will teach something over and over and over and over again, year after year after year, decade after decade after decade, century after century–but they will never publish it in any of their “Scriptures” (the Romish Catechism; the Mormon BOM/PGP/D&C).  Therefore, since it is not “officially canonized”, whenever we bring this teaching to the attention of a Catholic/Mormon, they can reach into their wallet and pull out their trusty “They may have said that, but it was never an official teaching of the church card, stick out their tongue, and say…

So, let’s look at some more of the parallels between Mormonism and Catholicism.

They both teach that salvation is a result of the combined effort of God’s grace and our own vile, human works.

–The Roman Catholic Church teaches “grace plus works/merit”:

Council of Trent, Sixth Session, Canons Concerning Justification, Canons 11-12If anyone says that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ or by the sole remission of sins, excluding grace and charity which is poured into their hearts by the Holy Spirit and inheres in them, or also that the grace which justifies us is only the favour of God, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA. If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA.”

Council of Trent, Sixth Session, Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 24“If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works, but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of its increase, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA.”

Council of Trent, Sixth Session, Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 32“If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ…does not truly merit an increase of grace, and eternal life, provided that one dies in the state of grace, the attainment of this eternal life, as well as an increase in glory, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA.”

Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), paragraph 2027“No one can merit the initial grace which is at the origin of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods.”

–Mormonism teaches the we are saved by grace “after all the we can do”:

Book of Mormon, 2nd Nephi 25:23-24“For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do. And, notwithstanding we believe in Christ, we keep the law of Moses, and look forward with steadfastness unto Christ, until the law shall be fulfilled.”

Continue reading

“Paul never quoted Jesus!” (1st Corinthians)

Number three in the series, going through Paul’s epistles and showing the stiff-necked and ignorant that yes, Paul did quote Jesus, even if he didn’t do so word-for-word.

1st Corinthians 1:10Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

  • John 17:20-23“I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.”

1st Corinthians 1:20-21Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

  • Luke 10:21In that hour Jesus rejoiced in the Spirit and said, “I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight.”

Continue reading

“Paul never quoted Jesus!” (Romans part 2)

The second installment of this series showing the ignorant and scoffer the many times when Paul did, in fact, quote the things said by our Lord–albeit, perhaps, not word-for-word. We continue in Romans.

Romans 9:3-5For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.

  • Matthew 23:37-39“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! See! Your house is left to you desolate!

Romans 9:6-8But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.” That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.

  • John 8:37-41“I know that you are Abraham’s descendants, but you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you. I speak what I have seen with My Father, and you do what you have seen with your father.” They answered and said to Him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, If you were Abraham’s children, you would do the works of Abraham. But now you seek to kill Me, a Man who has told you the truth which I heard from God. Abraham did not do this. You do the deeds of your father.”

Continue reading

The roots Mormonism shares with Rome (Part 1)

When Satan wants to lead people away from God, he doesn’t necessarily put up a new building–he simply changes the name of the business and hangs a new sign out front.

“She is termed, in other places, by the same prophet, “The whore of all the earth,” making the nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication. Some three centuries ago there came out sortie excellent men, named Martin Luther, John Calvin and many others that might be mentioned, who protested against the wickedness and abominations of the Church wherein they had been educated, and of which they had been members. Because of their protestations against the mother Church they were called Protestants.”–Apostle Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses Vol. 14, p.346

Orson Pratt is, in the above quote, making an obvious reference to the Roman Catholic Church. And lest you think this is simply his opinion, this thought is recorded in Mormon “Scripture” in two places. Furthermore, you can find many other quotes from early Mormon leaders referring to the Vatican in like manner at this link.

Doctrines and Covenants (D&C) 88:94“And another angel shall sound his trump, saying: That great church, the mother of abominations, that made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, that persecuteth the saints of God, that shed their blood—she who sitteth upon many waters, and upon the islands of the sea—behold, she is the tares of the earth; she is bound in bundles; her bands are made strong, no man can loose them; therefore, she is ready to be burned. And he shall sound his trump both long and loud, and all nations shall hear it.”

1 Nephi 14:10-1110 And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth. 11 And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the whore of all the earth, and she sat upon many waters; and she had dominion over all the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people.

Granted, Mormonism did not spring forth from the Roman church–but they are, shall we say, born from the same root system, and they both have the same father. And whether they want to admit it or not, the LDS church has more in common with the Roman church than they do with true Christianity. It is as if Satan led Joseph Smith to simply take the structure and hierarchy of Romanism, throw in some Hinduism with it, plagiarize the King James Bible, and sprinkle in just enough Christian terminology (not to mention repeating the phrase “And it came to pass” ad nauseum) to fool countless numbers of folks.

The purpose of this post is not to defend the Vatican. Nor is it to begin a debate about Romanism. What I endeavor to do, though, is to show that as much as the early Mormon church railed about the Romish church being “The Whore of Babylon” and so forth, there are many beliefs and structures in Mormonism that show that the Mormon church is not that different from their Papal cousins.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

They both teach that after you die, someone else can come along and perform rituals that will help improve the state you are in.

–Catholicism has indulgences.

  • 2nd Maccabees 12:43And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachmas of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection.

–Mormonism has baptism for the dead.

  • D&C 128:18It is sufficient to know, in this case, that the earth will be smitten with a curse unless there is a welding link of some kind or other between the fathers and the children, upon some subject or other—and behold what is that subject? It is the baptism for the dead. For we without them cannot be made perfect; neither can they without us be made perfect. Neither can they nor we be made perfect without those who have died in the gospel also.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Continue reading

The Disrobing of Society and the Church

Swimwear not too long ago

In light of Pilgrim’s post on the quote from Jeremy Sonnier about swimwear I feel it a good time to add a post on this subject as it is something very near and dear to my heart.  It also is timely as a few weeks back I completed reading a booklet on Christian Modesty and swimwear.  I was hoping to do a formal study on this subject, but right now I have too many irons in the fire.  And so I will share some thoughts and then present the reader with this wonderful albeit challenging booklet.  Something I pray you will study on your own, prayerfully consider and then share far and wide with the Christian community who are in desperate need of such a teaching.  A teaching that few men who call themselves shepherds of God’s flock will touch with a ten foot pole.

Don't touch me, I'm sacred!

As I write, please know that in no way am I judging any individuals as I write to teach and not  to condemn as my sincere desire is the glory of Christ and the building up of his church.  Something that is easy when you preach on subjects that always result in a resounding amen, but rather difficult when dealing with a subject like the one before us today.  A subject one might rightfully classify as a sacred cow that is rarely touched by the church where there are even those who hold to the Reformed faith that remain woefully silent.  This is a travesty where men of God who claim to be shepherds of Christ’s flock need well to examine themselves to ascertain why they will preach on the evils of decadent society outside their four walls, but will quickly become mute in addressing it within their congregation.  Are we not told to get the plank out of our own eye first so that we might then clearly see to remove the speck from our brother’s eye?  Does not judgment begin first with the house of God?

I also recognize in writing this article and posting the booklet by Jeff Pollard that there will be some who will not take the time to study this matter out as good Bereans, but will instead rail against it as being legalistic bondage that seeks to place fetters on our liberty in Christ.  As if liberty in Christ means that we can do anything the world does, slap a Christian liberty label on it, and go our merry way as if we’ve done nothing wrong.  This sadly is the mantra heard in many a church and from many a Christian where all manner of immodest dress have become as citadels that will be defended tooth and nail.  So much so that in only a few generations we have gone from a secular society that use to promote and defend modesty (due to Christian values undergirding it), to one that mocks modesty and promotes nakedness.  And tragically backing up the purveyors of indecency we have ourselves, the church to thank.  Thank either due to our silence and apathy, or thank due to our approval and defense.

One last item of introduction is vitally important that I ask the reader, and especially the ladies, to keep in the forefront of your mind.  For if you miss this, you will miss the true meaning of Biblical modesty and what we can learn from studying it.  Both quotes come from two messages given by Jeff Pollard which sum up beautifully the issue of modesty as it relates to our dear Christian sisters.  We read,

Modesty is not first an issue of clothing.  It is primarily an issue of the heart [1a] … that expresses itself in outward behavior. … [For there are] “women who can cover themselves from the neck down to the floor and be sensual, and there are Christians who have a  heart towards the things of the living God that being taught nothing in our culture regarding these things often display sensuality that they do not intend.[1b]

Zzzzzz...

I would build upon this and add that donning modest apparel does not in and of itself mean that a woman is righteous any more than wearing a bikini means a woman is wicked.  No, most assuredly not for we as Christians know that our righteousness that allows us to stand holy and pure before our God is not a matter of dress.  Rather, it is based on the imputed righteousness of another, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.  But, this reality does not negate the call in Scripture for us to be holy (cf. I Pet 1:16), nor does it nullify the command given unto woman to adorn themselves in modest apparel (cf. I Tim 2:9).  But one of the huge impediments to this it is that we live in an extremely immodest world where many of the ladies in the church have not been taught these things.  Thus, a large part of the blame lies at the feet of the men  in the church (fathers, husbands, elders) who are supposed to be teaching on these matters and are not.

Likewise, many of the women, just as is true for the men, are wearing the fashions they have been taught to wear by their parents, society and even the church. And just as the fish gaily swimming about in the sea is ignorant that he is wet, so too we who swim about in the waters of an immodest world, are often oblivious to our immodesty.  Today, I hope that some of this will change even in a small way.  With this said, let us move forward in looking at swimwear.

The study of swimwear and how it evolved from the conservative style you see at the top of the article, to the licentious bikini found towards the bottom is quite a fascinating study.  In conducting such a study, or simply reading a booklet like the one by Mr. Pollard, one thing you will find is that our fashions for modern swimwear did not pop up out of thin air.  No, most assuredly not.  Instead, they were created by haters of Christianity and designed for a purpose and that purpose had nothing in view regarding holiness, modesty or Christian values.  Rather, they were created and designed then even as they are today, whether implicitly or explicitly, to break the shackles of Christian restraint and to “free” men and women to bare their bodies in expressions of so-called sexual freedom with women as the primary target.

These facts stated above, and they are facts, are not glossed over nor denied by the swimwear designers.  No, actually the exact opposite is true as the swimwear fashion moguls are unashamed to declare both the intent of these fashions, as well as the end result on society.  Many quotes, quotes from their own mouths, bare this out.  A few I will share below where you will find many more in Mr. Pollard’s booklet, and even more if you do your own research.  I only wish the same honest handling of the facts would be true for those Christians who earnestly seek to deny these realities and gloss them over in a Pollyanna-like manner.

The twentieth century defined a new era for swim wear. The revolution was instigated by two things: a greater interest in recreational sports and the influence of daringly cut French swimsuits. The torturous corset was finally dispensed with and the task of eroticizing the body was taken over by exposing the skin itself since there was nothing to equalize or camouflage the shape of the body. What occurred during the evolution of the bathing suit during the 20th century was a merciless exposure of the flesh due to the rapidly shrinking suit. [2] (bold added)

…the swimsuit has traveled through several different styles and designs, meant to both conceal and display, to excite and mollify. … [T]hroughout history, the swimsuit has always maintained a somewhat exciting presence in its combined purposes of revealing and concealing. In many ways, the swimsuit is so titillating a piece of clothing because it is—and always has been—the most revealing, socially appropriate clothing worn by either men or women. [3]

Socially appropriate is key.  If society says a given style of swimwear is acceptable such as a bikini, people wear it (including many in the church).  If society frowns on it, then people do not.  An interesting point to note is that the determiner of what is right or wrong is not God and his word, but rather the lost world.  Something to think about for the Christian who blindly accepts the fashions of this world.  And it is for this very reason that this “standard” based on the shifting sands of unregenerate man’s views is always trending in a downward direction.  A downward direction that results in the removal of more and more fabric, and the revealing of more and more flesh.  We see this very thing with swimwear.  And we see also that what was to one generation a moral outrage, becomes a celebrated right to the next.  This transpiring as “[t]he public’s concern with nudity eroded as time passed.” [4]

Everything's okay here!

Do we not see a continuation of this downward spiral today as even the bikini is becoming passé?  Certainly we do where this declension can be likened unto the proverbial frog being slowly boiled in a pot of water as he is totally oblivious of his being moved from life unto death.  In like fashion the same is happening with our world as we are being slowly boiled in a pot of wickedness as we too are moved from life unto death as we quickly slide towards Gomorrah.  But most are totally unaware of this “boiling” as our hearts have largely grown cold due to the increase of wickedness in our generation.  In part due to growing up and partaking of the sinful things of the world before Christ and not having them completely purged (as none of us do); in part due to our partaking of the same after Christ, whether intentionally or unintentionally, and in part due to our not being taught these things from the word of God.

Returning to our societal slide into Gomorrah, we find this has happened with swimwear in large part based on a few “trend setters” in the fashion industry who, in a quest to make a name for themselves, push the envelope on what is socially acceptable (the same happens with entertainment, music, etc.).  Again, the history of the swimsuit bares this out where the iconic bikini, a symbol today of a woman’s “freedom”, was only 60 years ago viewed as “scandalous” [5] by most (unsaved!) woman where it was either banned by law, or heavily discouraged [6].  Even the Parisian models for the inventor of the modern bikini, Louis Réard, would not initially wear this suit as it was too shocking to them.  The same was true with consumers as woman gasped at the idea of wearing such a provocative garment [7] where I’m sure most in the church of Jesus Christ fully believed it would never be widely adopted by secular women, let alone those professing the name of Jesus Christ.   Boy were they wrong.

Colored underwear - the new standard

The next step after the upper limits are pushed is to settle a little lower and make a few compromises to quell discontent and to ensure acceptance of the new standard.  The key to note is that this new standard has moved past what the prior generation accepted (i.e. the moral standard has been lowered) where it now becomes the new foundation.  A foundation that the next generation of designers will build upon as their starting point as they seek to lower the standard even further.  This done as they follow in the footsteps of their forefathers and seek to push the envelope in their generation.  And so it has happened with swimwear; something easily proved by reading a basic history coupled with a timeline that illustrates how what was unacceptable to one generation became acceptable to the next.  All as society went in a few generations from being totally covered and modesty dressed at the beach to being almost totally naked and dressed more erotically than a prostitute on a street corner.

Again, this is all by design and it is the intent of modern swimwear where designers see how far can they can go in not only stripping society down to bare minimums, but also in cleverly covering the body in innovative ways with modern stretch fabrics so as to craft an erotic package than can excite and arouse more than complete nakedness.  The one-piece being especially adept at this where women who may not have the much coveted flat abs, or sculpted backside deemed essential for the bikini, can magically make their so-called imperfections disappear by donning the modern one-piece.  These suits, along with the bikini and other styles are designed to ostensibly cover but not really clothe as their intent is to reveal and not to conceal.  We read,

Bathing suits are very important in the history of fashion because they are a garment in which one is dressed but not really clothed.  One is wearing enough clothing to be seen in public but not something that would be socially acceptable in any other context but on the beach. So it really shows us the limits of what society is willing to tolerate in terms of exposure of the body. Cynthia Cooper – McCord Museum (bold added)

We must pause here and ask some honest questions of ourselves if we profess to be Christians.  The first being, is the direction of the fashion industry moving in a more Christ-centric direction, or in a more pagan-centric direction?  That is, are the designs of swimwear in particular helping women to adorn themselves in modest apparel (cf. I Tim 2:9), or are they leading women to walk naked where the world sees their shame? (cf. Rev 3:17, 16:15)  Two, are Christians, generally speaking, salt and light unto this generation regarding beach/pool attire, or are they simply adopting the exact same titillating swimwear as worn by the unregenerate?  Three, what work of God would one say transpires in the heart of an individual when they step foot on a beach, or go to a pool or lake and strip down to what amounts to their underwear?  What  Biblical principle are they walking in that causes them to pop out their hidden body parts neatly and fashionably arrayed in a most alluring and sensual packaged that scream out look and lust?  And how is it that this can be done without blushing or feeling even a modicum of shame?  Finally, why is this disrobing viewed as acceptable at Christian beach parties and other like events, but would be deemed wicked if done at a Bible study or at a Sunday morning gathering of the church?

Underwear or swimwear?

I need to add that although woman’s fashion is by nature more sensual due to their bodies, men are not immune from these trends.  The Speedo is a perfect example of such an invention.  Nothing more than dyed underwear it has become perfectly acceptable in society due to the fact that it is approved swimwear for competitive swimming, water polo and other like sports.  Most men, Christian and otherwise, do not don these suits (unless they are competitive swimmers) as they prefer board shorts, but even so, they still bare mention as to how a perceived need (i.e. less drag in swimming to get a fast score), outweighs Biblical modesty.  The end result is clothing that would never be worn to work, school or with the body of Christ, now becomes socially acceptable by a verdict from our lost culture.  A verdict that most Christians give a hearty amen to.

The same holds true for men baring their naked upper bodies where history reveals, regardless of what your view is, that not too long ago this was totally unacceptable both by social mores and existing laws.  Laws again that were based on Christian values.  But sadly much of the church today is not only ignorant of history, but largely unconcerned with what it teaches as we are the “me” generation where all that matters is what we believe and how we feel.

Regarding male fashion, we read,

Modesty was an issue well into the 1920’s. Under the “Bathing Suit Regulations” published in May 17, 1917, men’s suits had to be worn with a skirt or have at least a skirt effect. The skirt had to be worn outside of the trunks. The other alternative was to wear a flannel knee pants with a vest and a fly front. During this time, the knitting mills were rapidly churning out many styles of suits, including the “speed suit,” an one piece suit with deeply slashed armholes and closed leg trunks. [8]

But, men were not satisfied as they too wanted disrobe like their female counterparts.  And all too ready to help these men out, the fashion industry gladly responded with a helping hand.

Though men were getting the opportunity to look better, there was still the little matter of baring the chest. Quite simply, it was frowned upon. However, men continued to fight for their right to expose their chest and by the early 1933, the result was a convertible-style suit that allowed the top to be removed. The introduction of the “Men’s Topper” introduced a new thrill in men’s swim wear. This unprecedented belted, two-tone wool suit gave the wearer the option to go bare (or not to go bare…). [9]

I ask where will this end?  What limits are being pushed today and what will be acceptable in tomorrow’s generation and defended by the church as Christian liberty?  Personally, I shudder to think as one need not conduct an extensive study (and I do NOT recommend it) to see that there is no shortage of rotten fruit pouring forth from the wicked imaginations of the fashion industry’s elite.  Thongs, tangas and other forms of “extreme” swimwear are widely gaining acceptance and popularity at a beach near you.  Wickedness that takes the bikini as its foundation and shaves off as much fabric as possible so that only the smallest patches and treads remain.  All of it being nothing more than pornography.

Another trend I need to mention is the taking of swimwear and like clothing from the beach out into the public square.  Red Carter, a famous swimwear designer, hopes to take the swimwear business into new categories such as sportswear and resort wear [10].  And no surprise as this is already happening where most Christians hardly blink an eye as it is being accomplished so surreptitiously and easily passes under the radar of the slumbering church.  For just one example, consider the mini, mini skirts that female tennis pros wear, coupled with the skin tight and low cut tops.  Now we are privy to viewing both their underwear and heaving breasts without having to set foot on the beach.  Anna Kournikova and Ana Ivanovic, two example out of many that could be cited, are poster girls for this immodesty.  Is it any wonder men love woman’s tennis?

I must close here but before I do, I want to reiterate that I write in love and not condemnation.  For if I were to condemn you, I would have to first condemn myself.  This as the one who pens this article is not some monk living high in the Himalayas who has gained mastery of his flesh and looks down with disdain on the mere mortals who struggle with these issues.  No, most assuredly not as I am a man not unlike any other.  Here, I have wrestled much with these areas and have been rebuked by the Spirit for the pride in my heart that has tempted me to disrobe so as to gain an approving look from any passing females.  And it need not be said, but say it I will, that I have struggled with lust due to the bombardment of so much nakedness before my eyes.

Bombardment an appropriate word as I from infancy have spent countless hours at the beach as my family owns a house that is only a few hundred feet or so from the surf.  As such, I grew up surrounded by copious amounts of nakedness and young nubile vixens who had no shame in strutting their wares up and down my street and in strategically planting themselves on the beach so as be front and center for all to admire.

But I have come to see things much differently than I did growing up, and even as I did for many years as a Christian.  Being part of a beach community, surfing, and attending churches that saw nothing wrong with these things made matters that much more difficult.  It was not until I moved a few thousand miles away from the beach that I began to hear that still small voice speaking to me on this subject.  At first I kicked hard against the pricks, but in time I saw clearly I was wrong as my heart and the issue at hand were laid bare before me.

My prayer for the reader is the same where I welcome you write to me if you want to discuss this matter further.  My plea is that you do not reject these things outright in knee-jerk fashion just because it is novel or because you don’t hear your pastor or favorite Christian personality speaking on these subjects.  Or, you reject it simply because it goes against what you “feel” in your heart.  Instead, please take the time to read Mr. Pollard’s book and especially listen to the multi-part audio presentation, study the Scriptures, pray for wisdom and even study history.  Be willing to go against the flow of society and even modern Christianity regardless if it means that you are labeled a legalist, fundamentalist, or all other manner of ignominious titles.  For such is the calling for all those who seek to truly follow Christ Jesus and to mortify (i.e. crucify) the deeds of the flesh.

To read the booklet by Jeff Pollard titled, Christian Modesty – The Public Undressing of America, please click here.

For a highly recommended audio presentation from Jeff Pollard, which is a follow-up to the booklet noted above, please listen here.

“Paul never quoted Jesus” (Romans part 1)

What is the refrain we always hear from the theological liberal or the Emerging guru, or Purpose-Driven™ Pied Piper who is sooooo much smarter than us knuckle-dragging fundamentalists? The same, tired, lame old, “Paul preached a different gospel than Jesus” or “Paul was setting up a religion to compete with Christianity” or–as the title of this post bears witness–“Paul never quoted Jesus!!”

Well, it just so happens that all of these arguments are wrong. Especially the last one. Now, it is true, that save for one passage (1st Corinthians 11:23-26), Paul never quote our Lord word-for-word.

BUT!!

That is not to say that Paul never reiterated the same principles as Christ. This concept dawned on me as I was preparing a lesson on Philippians 3:14I can do all things through Christ, which strengthens me. I realized that Paul was simply giving us the flip-side of what Jesus said in John 15:5“For without Me, you can do nothing.” Without Christ we can do “nothing”–with Christ we can do “all things.” It’s two sides of the same coin.

Here is part 1 in what I hope to be a series going through Paul’s letters and showing where he does indeed repeat many of the same principles that Jesus laid down. We begin with Paul’s letter to the saints in Rome.

Romans 1:16For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes.

  • Luke 9:26“For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, of him the Son of Man will be ashamed when He comes in His own glory, and in His Father’s, and of the holy angels.”

Romans 1:28-32And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality…who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

  • John 3:19“And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.”

Continue reading

Quotes (754)

For so hath God contrived and constituted things, in his dispensations towards his own people, that when their love decays, and the exercises of it fail, or become weak, fear should arise; for then they need it to restrain them from sin, and to excite them to care for the good of their souls, and so to stir them up to watchfulness and diligence in religion: but God hath so ordered, that when love rises, and is in vigorous exercise, then fear should vanish, and be driven away ; for then they need it not, having a higher and more excellent principle in exercise, to restrain them from sin, and stir them up to their duty. There are no other principles, which human nature is under the influence of, that will ever make men conscientious, but one of these two: fear or love; and therefore, if one of these should not prevail as the other decays, God’s people, when fallen into dead and carnal frames, when love is asleep, would be lamentably exposed indeed.

And therefore God has wisely ordained, that these two opposite principles of love and fear should rise and fall, like the two opposite scales of a balance; when one rises the other sinks. As light and darkness necessarily and unavoidably succeed each other; if light prevails, so much does darkness cease, and no more; and if light decays, so much does darkness prevail; so it is in the heart of a child of God: if divine love decays and falls asleep, and lust prevails, the light and joy of hope go out, and dark fear and doubting arises; and if, on the contrary, divine love prevails and comes into lively exercise, this brings in the brightness of hope, and drives away black lust, and fear with it.

Jonathan Edwards
1703–1758

BUT…Christ IS risen from the dead… (1st Corinthians 15:1-58)

Over the last few decades, in America, the gospel has been twisted and distorted by all kinds of false teaching. Most of these false gospels have to do with our self-esteem or our comfort. There is the false gospel of Robert Schuller:

“What does it mean to be saved? It means to be permanently lifted from sin (psychological self-abuse) and shame to self-esteem and its God glorifying human need-meeting, constructive, and creative consequences…To be born again means that we must be changed from a negative to a positive self-image—from inferiority to self-esteem, from fear to love, from doubt to trust.” (Schuller, R. Self-Esteem: The New Reformation, p. 99).

Then there is the Joel Osteen gospel:

“He said, ‘Because I live, you shall live also.’ He wasn’t just talking about breathing. He was talking about living an abundant life. Not a barely-getting-by life. Not a life filled with lack and mediocrity. No, because of the price He paid, we have a right to live in total victory. Not partial victory where we have a good family and good health—but we constantly struggle in our finances. That’s not total victory…He has paid the price so that we may be totally free…Free from poverty and lack. Free from low self-esteem…” (Osteen, j. Sermon entitled, Living in Total Victory)

Then there is the prosperity gospel which promises health and wealth if you believe—and if you don’t have health and wealth, then your faith just isn’t strong enough. More recently we have been exposed to the Purpose-Driven gospel, which is nothing more than a gospel of “good works.” That meeting physical needs is the number one goal of the church, and is more important than the gospel.

Thing is, the apostle Paul said some harsh words about those who preach false gospels. Galatians 1:8 (John Darby Translation)But if even we or an angel out of heaven announce as glad tidings to you anything besides what we have announced as glad tidings to you, let him be accursed. So what is the “true gospel?” The true gospel is this, 1st Corinthians 15:1-5Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. That is the gospel. That is the “good news.” That even though we are born sinners, that we were cut off from God because of our sins, Christ died to pay for those sins, so that anyone who believes—and keeps on believing—will have eternal life. He didn’t die to rescue our self-esteem, He didn’t die to open up some Heavenly ATM. He died because we were wretched sinners headed for Hell. Period. Paragraph.

Continue reading

Jonah: The Father’s sovereignty and the Son’s deity.

I was recently reading Jonah when I discovered something throughout the book: The thread of the Father’s sovereignty which leads to the Son’s deity.

You can see God’s sovereignty throughout Jonah in the following verses where He displays His majestic control over His creation.

God is sovereign over . . .

1:7 – The lots. (You didn’t really think it was coincidence it revealed Jonah, did you? See Proverbs 16:33.)

1:14, 1:15, 4:8 – The storms and the wind.

1:17, 2:10 – The fish of the sea. (Even the really, really big ones. Who did you think directed the animals onto Noah’s Ark, and who did you think directed the ravens to bring Elijah food in 1 Kings 17:6?)

2:6 – Jonah’s very life.

3:5 – The salvation of an entire city of over 120,000. (This is also known as election.)

3:9, 4:2 – His own anger.

3:10, 4:2 – Calamity. (Yes, even in places like Haiti.)

4:6 – The plants.

4:7 – The insects. (Remember that little plague of insects the Egyptians had to endure prior to the Exodus?)

In the midst of all this, two things stand out to me in these verses that should not be missed.

1). Only God can forgive sins (Psalm 79:9, Isaiah 55:7).

2). Man can’t even control the wind (Ecclesiastes 8:8) but God controls the storms (Psalm 65:7, 89:9, 107:29, 135:7).

When one compares these truths of God the Father with that of His Son we plainly see that the only person to walk this earth that not only controlled storms (Matthew 8:26-27 and Luke 8:24-25) but could forgive sins (Matthew 9:2, Mark 2:5-6, and Luke 5:20-21) was none other than the glorious Mediator between man and God, the perfect spotless Lamb of God, the eternal Son, Emmanuel, Yeshua Ha’Mashiach, God in the flesh, the Lord Jesus Christ.


What exactly DOES John 1:1 say, anyway?

Disclaimer 1: I do not claim to be a Greek scholar. But I do know how to pay attention to men who are. For this post, I have been very careful to only speak on matters that I have properly researched, investigated, and which I properly understand. Any technical aspects of biblical Greek included in this post are taken from reputable, (small ‘o’) orthodox  sources who have spent years studying biblical Greek.

Disclaimer 2: Any comments not limited to discussion of this particular passage of Scripture will be deleted. If you want to compare the Greek of John 1:1 to another passage, you may do so. But any and all rabbit trails that have nothing to do with the text in question will be swiftly done away with.

—————————————-

Of all the biblical passages that get debated by orthodox and heretic, John 1:1 ranks within the top 3–if not holding the #1 spot. It is one of the clearest declarations of the Deity of Christ, written by one who received revelations from God concerning the end of all things–many of which could not be expressed in the vocabulary of the day. He was the apostle that Jesus loved (John 13:23, John 19:26, John 20:2, John 21:7, John 21:20). He wrote more about the heart of Jesus than any of the other gospel writers.

And to begin his reckoning of the person of Christ, he begins in, of all places, the beginning. He shows us that not only was Jesus there; he shows us that Jesus was with God–and he shows us that Jesus was, indeed, God. However, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (hereafter referred to as ‘WTBTS’) decided some time back to mistranslate this verse in accordance with their theology, and render it quite wrongly. And so, whenever you get a knock on the door, and the person tells you they are with the Jehovah’s Witnesses (hereafter referred to as JW or JW’s), they will very confidently whip out their little pamphlet entitled “Should You Believe in the Trinity?” and they will tell you why they think that you believe in a pagan God. Therefore, the aim of this post is to give you a biblical basis, founded upon the Greek, for believing in the deity of Christ.

So, what exactly does this verse say? How should it read? Let’s find out. Following is the Greek of this verse:

εν αρχη ην ό λóγος και ό λóγος ην πρoς τoν θεoν και θεος ην ό λóγος
en archē ēn o logos kai o logos ēn pros ton theon kai theos ēn o logos

Let’s take this one phrase at a time and understand what the Holy Spirit is saying to us through the apostle. And before we begin, I would like to make this statement: do not try to take the rules of English grammar and apply them to biblical Greek (hereafter referred to simply as “Greek”). It won’t work. There are some rules that the two have in common, but there were many rules, grammatical structures, verb tenses, noun cases, and other technical aspects of Greek that do not translate exactly into modern (or any other type of) English. We will see this shortly. Continue reading

Homosexuals and Hypocrites

Jeremiah, a man who claims to be a homosexual Christian, left a comment on my blog making his case for why homosexuality is not a sin. I’ve recently learned quite a bit from reading Same Sex Controversy by James White and Jeffrey D. Niell. Without a doubt, the Bible calls homosexuality a bona fide sin.

Jeremiah had two main points:

  • The Bible is vague in regard to homosexuality. Jeremiah reviewed six passages that discuss homosexuality in the NIV. I like the NIV, but it was translated by humans, leaving room for error. There are some odd word choices in a couple verses. For example, most translations use the word “homosexual” in 1 Timothy 1:8­–10, but the NIV uses the word “perverts.” In 1 Corinthians 6:9–10, the same Greek word as in 1 Timothy 1:8–10 is used, but the NIV translates it as “homosexual offender.”Using the NIV, Jeremiah ignored 1 Timothy 1:8–10 (since it doesn’t contain the word “homosexual”), and made the argument that 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 is referring to the older men who pay young, pagan, male prostitutes for sex. His point was that the Bible isn’t clear enough on this point to call a loving monogamous homosexual relationship sin.

    However, a look at the original biblical lanaguage gives us a different interpretation. The Greek word “arsenokoites” is the word in question in both 1 Timothy 1:8–10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9–10. Paul is the first person to use this word in writing. It is possible that Paul coined this term. We can know exactly what it means and where it came from by examining the text. Paul used the Greek Old Testament (aka the LXX or Septuagint), as he was the apostle to the gentiles, and Greek was the language of the day.

    In the LXX, Leviticus 20:13 reads: hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gunaikos.

    In English, Leviticus 20:13 says, “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

    There is no ambiguity in Leviticus 20:13. It calls homosexuality a sin regardless of whether it is in a monogamous, loving relationship or not.

    The word “arsenokoites” is simply a contraction of “arsenos” and “koiten.” “Arsenos” means man, and “koiten” means intercourse or to lie with sexually. When Paul uses the word “arsenokoites,” he is referring to men who lie together sexually, or homosexuals. He is referencing the passages in Leviticus that clearly condemn homosexuality.

    That is especially clear in 1 Timothy 1:8–10 as it is a discussion of the proper use of the law. What law could Paul be referring to other than the Old Testament law? The proper use of the law was to convict homosexuals of their sin in the hope that they would be humbled and prepared to hear the gospel.

    Jeremiah’s principal tactic is to obscure the plain teaching of these verses just enough to cause us to doubt our interpretation, and therefore, render us unable to boldly call homosexuality a sin. But these verses simply aren’t vague. They are crystal clear in calling homosexuality a sin.

  • Christians are willing to ignore many verses rather than change their lifestyles. We shouldn’t be so eager to enforce the letter of the law against homosexuals, Jeremiah says, when we’re willing to compromise for our pet sins. He used divorce as an example. Jesus was very much against divorce, yet Jeremiah knows of Christians who are willing to overlook that sin.I think we can all take Jeremiah’s observation as an encouragement to examine ourselves and make sure that our words and deeds line up with even the most difficult teachings of Jesus.

    However, I think he completely misses the point. All our sins are ultimately between each of us individually and God, who is perfectly just. The homosexual cannot point to the hypocrisy of others as justification for his own sin. Neither can the thief, the liar, the heterosexual adulterer, the murderer or anyone else. True Christians are marked by humble repentance. Only a proud unbeliever could go on living in unrepentant rebellion after being confronted with sin.

    It is clear that Jeremiah is unwilling to repent of his homosexuality. He doesn’t like it when people claim to be Christians but make excuses for being disobedient to the Bible, but that is exactly what he’s doing with his sexual sin. To me, it seems as though he’s offering to wink and nod at the sin of others if they’re willing to wink and nod at his.

    I would remind him that Jesus said that if our eye causes us to sin, we should pluck it out. If our hand causes us to sin, we should cut it off. It is better to go to heaven maimed than to go to hell intact. I would advise Jeremiah to pay whatever price is necessary to leave his homosexuality behind. There is forgiveness in Jesus Christ.

You can check out Jeremiah’s comment on my blog.  (He copied and pasted it from his blog, which I wouldn’t recommend as there are some inappropriate pictures.)

The Biblical Qualifications for Teaching Offices in the Church

From Extreme Theology comes a post that ought to be read by every Perry Noble wannabe out there, who doesn’t want to actually teach the Bible, but rather uses it as a coaster for his beer as he watches the latest U2 video and calls it “Bible study.” The article is short, but the guys get right to the point–that being a pastor isn’t about stroking people’s delicate egos; it’s not to make people feel comfortable about their sins; and it sure ain’t about telling people that salvation is “so easy a caveman can do it!” Because if that’s all it means to be a pastor, then–well, a caveman could do it.

The reason they wrote this post is to show the deficiencies that are inherent in the touchy-feely, ooey-gooey, watered-down, candy-coated methods of the typical Seeker-Driven™, Purpose-Driven™, No-Talking-About-The-Cross-Allowed™ megachurches that are more interested in numbers than they are in teaching truth. So, how do the people learn at these places? Well, the “elders” (who are not often worthy of such a title) leave that up to the “small-group, in-home” Bible study groups. And the problem with that is…

This leads to a very important question, “who then is responsible for doing the hard and necessary work of “deep” Bible teaching in a seeker-driven mega church”? Answer: Home Study Group Leaders

This leads to an even more important question, “What training and qualification are these Home Group Leaders getting? The reason I ask this question is because public teachers in the church are subject to the qualifications laid down in the scriptures.

Let’s look at some of the qualification thresholds the Holy Spirit put in place for the teaching office in the church.

1Tim. 3:1 The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife,sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.

Titus 1:5 appoint elders in every town as I directed you— 6 if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. 7 For an overseer,as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, 8 but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. 9 He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.

Titus 1:10 For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision party. 11 They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach.

Have you noticed the problem yet?

Judgment and Discipline – Part 4

Part 1 of series here.
Part 2 of series here.
Part 3 of series here.

In light of certain ministers signing The Manhattan Declaration, there are several questions that arise. Is discipline necessary in such a case? How does discipline play a vital part in the integrity of the local church? How do we maintain our roles as pastors in a world that accepts just about everything simply because the name evangelical has been slapped on as a label? How do we instruct our people in the matter of discipline while recognizing that such discipline is for the purpose of restoration? And finally, does discipline really matter when the majority of evangelical believers will either deliberately ignore the matter of discipline or they will fall for the lies of the evil one who was the first to question, “Has God REALLY said such and such?”

It is not my intention to rehash the first three parts of this series, but I want to reiterate one point. The bottom line is this in regards to judgment – NO JUDGMENT = NO HOLINESS. NO HOLINESS = NO PURITY. NO PURITY = NO CHURCH. NO CHURCH = NO LIFE. NO LIFE = NO CHRIST!

When it comes to discipline in the local church, we must remember that the Bible teaches that each local assembly is to be autonomous. They are to govern themselves. There is no Scriptural mandates for a denominational hierarchy that is to set the standards for the church and then ensure those are obeyed otherwise discipline against the pastor and church will be enacted. Simply put, I do not believe there is any Scriptural command that permits one local church to discipline a member of another local church. Therefore, for those who believe that ministers like Al Mohler and Ligon Duncan should be disciplined, I would urge caution because this would be a matter for his own local church to enact against their pastor if they believe that he has crossed the line of doctrinal integrity.

However, I am convinced that the Bible not only teaches independence and self-governance, I am as strongly convinced that the New Testament makes it clear that the early churches were inter-dependent. They made their own decisions, but did not have the liberty to enact decisions which would reflect on a sister church or the testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ. With that in mind, how does one local church respond to a sister church that is descending a slippery slope into heresy, false teaching, or even going down the road towards an all-embracing gospel? How do 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15 and 2 Corinthians 6:14-17 play a part in the way we deal with others?

We who are true believers are required to follow the commands of Scripture such as found in 2 Cor. 6:14-17, “Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will dwell in them And walk among them. I will be their God, And they shall be My people. Therefore, come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, And I will receive you.”

The admonition is clear. We are not, cannot, must not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. In the matter of TMD, regardless of what Mohler, Duncan and others say, this was drafted to be a theological document. Thus, in signing their names to this, they have broken the commands to be unequally yoked with unbelievers. We are called to be separate in every aspect of our lives. We are in the world, but not to be of it. Thus, the remaining problem is how do we respond when evangelicals we respect choose to break the commands of Scripture.

2 Thess. 3:14-15, “And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

This post is not intended to question whether Mohler or Duncan are true believers. The issue is how to respond in a biblical fashion to those who are brothers, yet failing to follow the “word in this epistle.” The Scriptures are clear that we cannot be yoked with those who are of the world, and it is just as clear that we have a responsibility not to keep company with those brethren who would act and teach contrary to the commands of God’s Word.

Therefore, in the matter of church discipline which is local church specific, the commands in 2 Thessalonians 3 show that we still have a responsibility to perform. It is with the purpose in mind of restoration at all times, not with ostracizing a brother or trying to throw him under the bus. My prayer is that Mohler, Duncan and others will repent of their desire to link up with the enemy and repent of such. My prayer is that they will seek forgiveness from those they are leading astray as men called to shepherd their flocks. If they do not and continue on their current path, then other evangelical leaders/pastors/believers have a responsibility to disassociate with them until they do.

The problem with evangelicalism is that we do not take biblical separation seriously. We will condemn those who cross certain lines, but it is only verbal. Rarely is further action involved. Evangelicals talk a good talk, but that is where it seems to stop. They will continue to endorse one another’s books, invite each other to conferences, share pulpits, and do everything that was done before the offending brother crossed the line. If we are going to be serious about our positions, we are going to have to show to the world that refusing to keep company with a brother is vital to the integrity of each local church. If we are going to seek purity in our churches, we cannot continue to endorse IN ANY WAY those who fail to heed the commands of Scripture. Pastors are called to a high office and to be servants of the Most High God. It is for the sake of the gospel that we stand firm, no matter what the cost to us or our ministry for in the end we will give account before God, NOT to each other.

I challenge my fellow pastors that if we are going to verbally call into question men like Driscoll for his vulgarity, like Piper for his saying that Wilson and Wright do not preach a false gospel, like Mohler and Duncan for signing The Manhattan Declaration, etc., then we must back up what we say publicly. We must refuse to endorse their materials, must admonish our people when they blindly follow these men, must stop inviting them to conferences and sharing pulpits with them, and MUST ABOVE ALL continue to seek full restoration with each other as part of the Body of Christ for whom Christ died. If we do not, then we are being hypocrites. If they are wrong, then they are wrong and pacifying the masses may be good for future book sales or endorsements, but it does not bode well for the future of true evangelical Christianity.

What we underhandedly endorse today will only become the new standards for tomorrow, and the false teachings and ecumenicalism of tomorrow will become the stepping stones towards a greater liberalism than we see today! May God give us strength to stand firm in the face of ALL opposition. May He grant us mercy and keep our feet strong so that we do not waver from the faith once delivered to the saints!

For the sake of the Gospel,

The Desert Pastor

Piper – The Slope to Heresy?!

Galatians 1:6-9, “I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.”

It is a tragedy when those who claim the name of Christ are being duped by the myriads of false teachers who have no desire for truth. An even greater tragedy occurs when false professors and/or their false teachings begin to be endorsed by well-respected ministers of the gospel. However, the greatest tragedy is when well-respected ministers of the gospel not only endorse false teaching and heresy but then allow it to be preached as truth in the midst of those sheep whom they have been supposedly called upon to protect. The man in question is none other than John Piper, pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minnesota.
john-piper

Before we continue, I want to make it very clear that this is not a private issue, but one that is well out in the open. The false teaching and endorsing of such teachings and heresies is well-documented. This is an open matter and is being addressed accordingly based on the commands we find in Scripture.

I am under no delusions that this will NOT be a popular post with some. However, Defending Contending believes we can no longer be honoring to Christ and His Word if we merely overlook what is happening within the ranks of evangelicalism simply because of who the pastor might or might not be, or how popular he appears to be.

With that in mind, let’s continue by looking briefly at two heresies taking over at an alarming rate. Both of these doctrines are pushing the ranks of the uninformed back towards the open, welcoming arms of Rome again. Sadly, these doctrines are even being embraced or unknowingly being endorsed by even very conservative Baptist churches.

    First – Federal Vision in a nutshell believes that when a person unites with the visible local church that the individual becomes one with Christ. Federalists also teach that when an unbeliever partakes of communion (the Lord’s Table) that they are actually feeding upon Christ. Further, they teach that being baptized is the means whereby a person becomes one with Christ. For further information, I would highly recommend this article at The Banner of Truth Trust. FV has been rejected outright by many mainline Reformed denominations.
    Second – The New Perspective on Paul (or NPP) believes that Judaism was actually a religion of grace. They teach that salvation is possible by the keeping of the law. They also teach that the righteousness of God is actually referring to His faithfulness and that it has nothing to do with the truth that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to the new believer. N.T. Wright is abundantly clear about what he means and what he stands for when he declares that justification is about the mark of what a person already is, and is not about the means whereby one is justified with God. A quote from N.T. Wright, “In theology, therefore, justification is not the means whereby it becomes possible to declare someone in the right. It is simply that declaration itself. It is not how someone becomes a Christian, but simply the declaration that someone is a Christian. It is not the exercise of mercy, but the just declaration concerning one who has already received mercy. This is a crucial distinction, without which it is impossible to understand the biblical material.” For further reading go to this article at Theopedia

Let’s makes this very clear! Federal Vision and the New Perspective on Paul are both heresies that lead back to Rome! Those who teach these are leading people deliberately astray and must be classified as heretics at worst and in need of repentance at best for their false teachings. Both of these teachings are nothing more than a rehash of Roman Catholic doctrine which has damned millions to hell.

Now that the reader understands a little more of the heresies defined above, we move back to John Piper’s progressive downhill slide which looks like this –

1) Mixing oxymorons for many years such as “Christian hedonism”
2) Openly endorsing Mark Driscoll (the vulgar, sewer-mouthed talker) with no known retractions
3) Blasphemously claiming the Lord of Glory was damned upon the cross
4) Openly endorsing the Federal Vision heresy as proclaimed by men like Douglas Wilson, and clearly indicating that Douglas Wilson is NOT preaching another or false gospel
5) Openly endorsing the New Perspective on Paul heresy as proclaimed by men like N.T. Wright, and clearly stating that N.T. Wright is also NOT preaching another or false gospel, but that the NPP is merely a “confusing gospel!

** Edit Note ** Points 4 & 5 have numerous proofs, but here is a video clip from The Resurgence.

“No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds.” (2 Cor. 11:14-15)

John Piper is leading many astray by his open endorsements of these men as mentioned above. His own theology comes into question when he publishes questionable material on his site about the doctrine of justification which you can still find on his site at Desiring God – I am firmly convinced that John Piper has slid this view under the noses of evangelicals who have missed the error of a justification that is NOT by faith alone. For more information on this issue and the problems with a recent work entitled Future Grace, you can visit Trinity Foundation.

While we at DefCon have respected John Piper as a man of God in the past, we believe we can no longer endorse any teachings by Piper. Our prayer is that God will bring Piper to a point where he will see the error of his teaching before it is too late and repent. We pray that God will also open the eyes of all those who blindly follow a man who is openly endorsing heresies as being merely a “confusing” gospel. “Confusing” gospels are no true gospels of the Lord Jesus Christ. They damn the souls of men to a Christ-less eternity in hell forever.

The Scriptures exhort us to openly exhort and rebuke those who cause divisions within the faith once delivered to the saints. John Piper is and continues to do this by his strange brand of heterodoxy which has sucked in the unlearned and learned alike. May we ever be alert to the apostasy that the apostle Paul warned will appear in the latter days. It will come from within the midst of what seems to be truth, but it will be mixed with poison. Pastors and their people will swallow it, and before they realize it is too late will be overcome.

Grieving over further apostasy,

The Desert Pastor

Judgment and Discipline – Part 3

You can read Part 1 of this series here.
You can read Part 2 of this series here.

Again, let’s sum up the first post. While the ultimate judgment comes from God, the Lord Jesus makes it clear that judging another is not only permissible, but is commanded to be fulfilled. However, this judgment is only to be based on issues of the heart. It is not to be done with harshness, but in a way that shows humility as well as a true desire to follow the dictates of Scripture. If Scripture is NOT the basis for judging another, then it is wrong.

And to summarize the second post. Judgment was expected both from the church corporately as well as by individuals who noted another who chose to remain in their sin…It is our responsibility to judge one who remains in their sin. When a person rejects the admonitions of a caring, loving, and humble believer who desires their restoration, that person is to be shunned and treated as an unbeliever. We are not to invite them into our home for fellowship all the while hoping that things will change in their lives. In other words, we do NOT continue to treat them as we would a brother or sister who is striving for a life of holiness.

The bottom line is this in regards to judgment – NO JUDGMENT = NO HOLINESS. NO HOLINESS = NO PURITY. NO PURITY = NO CHURCH. NO CHURCH = NO LIFE. NO LIFE = NO CHRIST!

Now that we have established the responsibility of the church in regards to judgment, how does discipline play its part in a New Testament church? There are not just problems with churches refusing to exercise judgment within local church settings, but very few actually practice any form of discipline. This is probably due to three main reasons. 1) Pastors have failed to teach the entire counsel of God which includes the necessity of discipline. 2) Churches prefer to be nice cozy social clubs where the world can come and look like everybody else who has already preceded them into the building. 3) If the church demands a life of discipline, they understand that their numbers will not necessarily be large and the offerings will get smaller.

The Scriptures teach us there are five (5) steps of discipline. However, before we cover these, it is important to understand what discipline is NOT. Discipline is NOT the means whereby we get rid of those we don’t like in the church! Discipline is NOT a catch-all for those situations where we are too cowardly to provide effective, biblical counsel to those in our congregations. While we will break down the necessary steps for each level of discipline, it is vital that we remember our churches do not belong to us. We are not seeking to establish our little kingdoms. Because the church is that which Christ paid for, we must abide by His commands and seek to establish purity no matter what the cost.

So, what is discipline? It is for the sole purpose of RESTORATION!

Galatians 6:1, “Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual RESTORE such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted.” The word RESTORE means, “to complete thoroughly (i.e. repair literally or figuratively), mend, make perfect, join together, prepare, restore. No person in their right mind would desire to cut off their arm or foot. No more have we any right to simply cut off those who have sinned. If they are a true believer and respond to discipline, we have restored a brother.

2 Tim. 2:25-26, “In humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will.” Again, we are commanded to provide correction or discipline to those who are in opposition to the teaching of the Scriptures.

James 5:19-20, “Brethren, if anyone among you wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins.” The truth spoken about is the Word of God. When a person is turned from their error, we as believers have helped them to be turned from sin which might entrap them further. If discipline is not practiced though, it is an easier path for the sinner to tread when he or she is not held accountable.

Lord willing, in our next section, we will cover the five (5) steps of discipline and see how each apply to the life of the believer as well as the integrity and purity of the local church.

(…to be continued…)