A Puritan's Perspective

REVELATIONAL REUNIONISM

2006-12-04T10:32:00.000-08:00

REVELATIONAL REUNIONISM:
A BIBLICAL AND PHILISOPHICAL PARADIGM FOR
THE DOING OF NATURAL SCIENCE

"A Calvinist who seeks God, does not for a moment think of limiting himself to theology and contemplation, leaving the other sciences, as of a lower character, in the hands of unbelievers; but on the contrary, looking upon it as his task to know God in all His works, he is conscious of having been called to fathom with all the energy of his intellect, things terrestrial as well as things celestial . . ." These words, spoken by Abraham Kuyper in his fourth Stone Lecture at Princeton Theological Seminary in 1898, represent the heart of what is meant by the term Revelational Reunionism. It is a distinctly Christian paradigm due to its claim that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the quintessential "missing link" within the discipline of natural science today. Simply stated, Revelational Reunionism is the proposition that an unnatural dichotomy has been introduced into the human condition by the fall, causing us to wrongly separate the witness of nature (i.e. natural revelation) from the witness of Scripture (i.e. supra-natural revelation); and humanity’s greatest need, in order to avoid error and vain speculation in the discipline of natural science, is simply the reunion of these two sources of revelation. The burden of this paper will be to defend this thesis, first, by laying out the basic paradigm; second, by exploring the value of natural revelation; third, by exploring the value of supra-natural revelation; fourth, by demonstrating the necessity of reunion; and fifth, by demonstrating how the glorious reunion of these two sources of revelation is to be accomplished.
The Basic Paradigm
A thorough knowledge of the world in which we live is absolutely essential to human existence. Unfortunately, when one steps out into the realm of nature, one does not find the road-map to deeper knowledge carved into the trunks of trees or spelled out in the leaves, or verbalized upon the lips of animals. Such a system (or paradigm) is simply not supplied by nature alone. Discernible orders and patterns of behavior in nature may seem to suggest particular paradigms; but in the end, the fact that such systems are derived from human observation, renders them subjective, and therefore susceptible to error. What is needed, therefore, is a model, which is not based upon subjective human observation, but rather, revealed by an infallible source.

It has already been stated that Revelational Reunionism regards Scripture as the missing link within the discipline of natural science. Scripture is understood in this context to be the inspired, infallible, and inerrant Word of God. Turning to Scripture, then, in search of an authoritative paradigm for the doing of natural science, becomes a mark of highest prudence. Upon investigation, it turns out that Scripture does reveal a paradigm, implicitly throughout, and explicitly in certain places. The paradigm, simply stated, is the proposition that the witness of nature (i.e. natural revelation) and the witness of Scripture (i.e. supra-natural revelation) have been bound together by God with an essential, organic unity, out of which they are meant to speak to us with complete unity of voice. The separation of the two is unnatural and can only lead to error.

In the very first chapter of the book of Genesis, we find God’s revealed paradigm implicitly taught by the eight-fold repetition of the formula: "Then God said . . . and it was so." This formula demonstrates in no uncertain terms, the existence of an essential, organic unity between the Word of God and the physical universe in which we live. Without the Word of God, our world simply would not exist. The same paradigm is implicitly taught in the first chapter of the Gospel of John. Through John, Christ reveals Himself to us as "the Word;" and the Scripture states that, "All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." Once again, the essential, organic unity between the world and the Word of God is clearly implied. Furthermore, according to the first chapter of the book of Hebrews, He "upholds all things by the Word of His power." If this is the case, it was not simply the creation of the world, which was dependent upon the power of God’s Word; but it is the actual abiding presence of that Word which maintains its very existence even now. The organic unity of natural and supra-natural revelation is so essential, that without it the very universe itself would plummet back into the abyss of nothingness and simply cease to exist.
If the implicit teaching of this paradigm is found to be compelling, the explicit teaching of it ought to obliterate all doubt. Psalm 19 does exactly that. It is divided into three parts. The first part, verses 1-6, demonstrate the witness of natural revelation, with its highest expression contained in verse 1: "The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands." The second part, verses 7-11, demonstrate the witness of supra-natural revelation, with its highest expression contained in verses 7 and 8: "The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes." The third part, verses 12-14, demonstrate the final results which may be achieved when both natural and supra-natural revelation are allowed to speak to us with complete unity of voice; verse 14 says: "Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in Your sight, O Lord, my rock and my Redeemer." The entire Psalm is dedicated to the demonstration of this paradigm. The Works and the Word of God are meant to speak to us with complete unity of voice. When they are allowed to speak together as they were intended by God, humanity is enabled to think wise and enlightened thoughts about the physical universe, and recognize all of it for what it truly is, the work of God’s hands.

The Value of Natural Revelation
"The heavens are telling of the glory of God; and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands." This passage testifies to the great value of natural revelation; and it is a testimony, which ought to encourage the Christian in the discipline of natural science. Unfortunately, just the opposite is true. Ever since the enlightenment, Christians seem to have retreated from the field of scientific investigation in mass, believing it only to produce conclusions, which are antithetical to the testimony of Scripture. This retreat from science is, of course, a reaction against enlightenment philosophy and Darwinian theory. But to take such a position is to dishonor God who created the natural realm for His own glory and for the benefit of mankind. Ironically, in shying away from what is thought to be antithetical to Scripture, retreating Christians have adopted a response which itself, is antithetical to Scripture. It is, after all, Scripture that has given us the mandate in Genesis 1:28 to "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it. . ." But in order to subdue the earth, we must possess a knowledge of the earth; which mandates the discipline of natural science. The fact that secular science uses the raw data of natural revelation to support non-Christian conclusions is not a call to retreat, but a call to battle. It should motivate Christians to exercise with relentless tenacity their God-given mandate to subdue the earth in order that they might take back the territory, which the secularists have high-jacked and once again claim it for the glory of God. Anything less than this constitutes a departure from historic Christianity.

It was the Protestant Reformation that called Christendom out of the ignorance of the dark ages into the light of scientific investigation. Abraham Kuyper speaks to this very fact, saying: "And so it came to pass that the people itself, who had until now refrained from encouraging science, by a new and sparkling energy, suddenly called it into action, spurring it on to a sense of liberty, hitherto unknown." Furthermore, the Scriptures themselves speak to us in a way that demands our knowledge of the world in which we live. For instance, it would be useless for the Scripture to speak to us about Christ walking on the sea of Galilee, or an axe-head floating in the river Jordan, if we were completely ignorant of the fact that human-beings and large pieces of steel generally sink in water rather than float. Moreover, the Scriptures continually speak to us through parables involving agriculture, rain cycles and astrological observations. All of these passages are premised upon our possessing some knowledge of the world in which we live.
Christians must awaken to a new recognition that the raw data of natural revelation does not demand the conclusions of secular science. Abraham Kuyper again has a word for Christians today: "Everything astronomers or geologists, physicists or chemists, zoologists or bacteriologists, historians or archeologists bring to light has to be recorded by you - detached of course from the hypothesis they have slipped behind it and from the conclusions they have drawn from it - but every fact has to be recorded by you as a fact that is to be incorporated as well in your science as in theirs."

Clearly, then, natural revelation is of great value, and is, in fact, absolutely indispensable. It must be remembered, however, that the data from natural revelation alone, cannot lead one to proper conclusions about the world in which we live because it was never meant to stand on its own. When natural revelation is isolated from supra-natural revelation and forced to bear witness by itself, error is the inevitable result.

The Value of Supra-natural Revelation
"The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes." These words represent the great value of supra-natural revelation, and demonstrate the absolute necessity of consulting Scripture in order to arrive at wise and enlightened conclusions about the world. In Scripture, God Himself speaks to us about His creation. He tells us how he brought it into existence: by the power of His spoken Word. He also tells us why He brought it into existence: for His own glory. Armed with this knowledge, the natural scientist is free to investigate the physical world on any level without being misguided with regard to the question of origin or purpose. The witness of supra-natural revelation, therefore, enables natural science to exist. And although the Scriptures were not meant to be a natural science textbook, they nevertheless, speak to us about nature on almost every page; and when they do speak to us about nature, they do so inerrantly.

Supra-natural revelation goes above and beyond natural revelation in terms of value, because it is the only infallible source of revelation available to humanity. When Adam and Eve sinned and brought down the curse of God, all of humanity as well as the entire physical universe suffered the devastating consequences. God, speaking to us through the apostle Paul, says in Romans 8:20-22, "the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption . . . for we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now." The clarity and accuracy of natural revelation, then, has been obscured by the curse of God due to the fall of mankind into sin. All Scripture, however, in Second Timothy 3:16, is said to be "inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." The Scriptures, then, are the only source of revelation that can speak to us with absolute clarity and accuracy about the physical universe. But here, again, there is a problem. This time, however, the problem does not exist within the source of revelation, but within the receiver of the revelation. For the radical corruption of sin has left no part of man untouched, including his intellect. While Adam and Eve enjoyed the full potential of an unfallen intellect before the fall, after the fall, every faculty of man became corrupted. Humanity no longer possess the original, unfallen intellectual power with which it was created, and is, therefore, prone to error even when confronted with a perfect source of revelation.

Hermeneutics is a system of interpretive principles by which to ensure accuracy of Biblical interpretation. Thankfully, God has providentially allowed the development of hermeneutics to serve as a caveat against the erroneous interpretations, which would be the inevitable result of fallen humanity attempting to deal with Scripture devoid of guiding principles. Hermeneutics, therefore enables us to push through our own corruption in order to arrive at the radiant perfection of God’s pure truth contained in supra-natural revelation. In this, once again, we see the gracious character of our God. Not only did He provide us with an alternate source of supra-natural revelation after humanity’s perfect fellowship with Him was broken at the fall, but He has also provided us with a system of interpretation to ensure that we can understand it. The value of supra-natural revelation, then, cannot be overstated.

The Necessity of Reunion
In the garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were surrounded with the wonder and grandeur of God’s creative handiwork revealed in nature. They possessed a perfect specimen of unfallen creation as well as the full potential of an unfallen intellect with which to comprehend it. Yet God was not content to leave them with natural revelation alone. God spoke to them directly by way of instruction, prohibition and commission. The very fact that He chose to speak to them rather than remain silent testifies to the inadequacy of natural revelation alone to lead them to a proper understanding of the world in which they lived or the way in which God desired them to interact with it. What was needed in addition to natural revelation was a kind of supra-natural revelation, a source of information not revealed in nature alone but equally essential. The perfect fellowship, which Adam and Eve enjoyed with God before the fall, enabled them to receive this supra-natural revelation directly through the spoken word of God. This perfect fellowship, however, was broken for all of us when they decided to disobey Him; and along with this loss of fellowship came also the loss of God’s direct, supra-natural revelation. Thankfully, God is gracious and did not leave us destitute of supra-natural revelation. But instead of receiving this revelation through direct fellowship with God, it would now be given to us through the written testimony of Scripture. Nevertheless, from that moment forward, this unnatural dichotomy between natural and supra-natural revelation has existed in one form or another, leaving all those who reject the Scriptures doomed to wander aimlessly in the darkness of error and vain speculation. What is needed, finally, is a proper reunion of these two revelations, in order that humanity, once again, may be able to arrive at a proper understanding of the world in which we live and the way in which God desires us to interact with it.

The Glorious Reunion
Having stated the thesis, laid out the basic paradigm, explored the value of natural and supra-natural revelation, and demonstrated the necessity of reunion, it only remains now to suggest how such a reunion ought to be facilitated. In order to avoid the imposition of anything arbitrary, our methodology must arise naturally from both thesis and paradigm. At least three guiding principles seem to arise naturally from the foregoing discussion.

First, all data must be complete. That is to say that we must forbear the development of any final conclusions until all of the available data has been collected and properly taken into consideration. This is where many scientists go wrong today. Secular scientists, such as Stephen J. Gould, do not recognize the Scriptures as viable data at all, and it is, therefore, completely rejected, leaving them with only half the data from which to derive their conclusions. This approach is doomed to failure. On the other hand, most Christian scientists today recognize the Scriptures as viable data, but do not unite it with the data from nature before rendering conclusions. Instead, they make one conclusion based upon natural data alone, and another based upon Scriptural data alone, and then try to harmonize the conclusions. This approach is also doomed to failure. We must seek to possess all of the available data contained in natural revelation, as well as all of the available data contained in supra-natural revelation, and allow them to speak to us together with complete unity of voice. Only then can we arrive at any proper conclusions.

Second, all data must be accurate. It has already been stated that natural revelation has been corrupted by the fall, and therefore, does not speak to us infallibly. It has also been stated, that although we possess the inspired and innerant Word of God, our intellectual capacity has been effected by the fall in such a way that we cannot interpret it properly without the guiding principles of hermeneutics. These truths demand that we take the utmost care in how we obtain our data. We must use trained scientists to render accurate data from nature, and trained theologians to render accurate data from the Scriptures. We cannot be too careful in this area. In order to produce accurate conclusions, accurate data is of absolute necessity.

Third, all conclusions must be in line with Scripture. It has already been stated that Scripture is the only infallible source of revelation that we possess. If that is the case, it follows that if we should ever find ourselves confronted with data from nature, which does not seem to harmonize with data from Scripture, the Scriptural data must take precedence. It is our earnest intention to give all data equal weight, but since natural revelation has been corrupted by the fall, we must never let it dictate final conclusions over against Scripture. In some cases we may have to live with a certain amount of ambiguity or embrace a paradoxical conclusion. Revelational Reunionism leaves room for exercise of faith.

In the final analysis, Revelational Reunionism simply seeks to do in the realm of natural science, that which David sought to do in Psalm 19:14, when he prayed: "Let the words of my mouth and the meditations of my heart be acceptable in Your sight, O Lord, my rock and my Redeemer." The underlying assumption of Revelational Reunionism is that this goal is achievable in the realm of natural science by reuniting that which should never have been separated. Let us bring natural revelation and supra-natural revelation together once again in glorious reunion; and emblazon upon them forevermore the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate" (Matt. 19:6).

Soli Deo Gloria,
Shane Morgan

CONTOURS OF IMAGO DEI

2006-09-09T10:49:00.000-07:00

CONTOURS OF IMAGO DEI
THE POLITICAL AND SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF
HAVING BEEN MADE IN THE IMAGE OF GOD

by: Shane Morgan

"Calvinism was bound . . . not to rest until both politically and socially every man, simply because he is man, should be recognized, respected and dealt with as a creature created after the Divine likeness" (Kuyper, Abraham, Lectures on Calvinism. pg. 27). When Abraham Kuyper made this statement in his first Stone lecture at Princeton Theological Seminary in 1898, he was expressing in seed form the political and social implications of having been made in the image of God. The task now falls to us to delineate in greater detail, just what these implications are in order to trace the contours of imago Dei.

There are, of course, various different angles from which one may approach a subject of such intrinsic complexity. The angle which we shall adopt in the present analysis will be to trace the contours of imago Dei by fleshing out the essence of three main propositions. The first proposition to which we will give analysis is that man was created imago Dei. Second, we will focus our attention upon the proposition, which states, man is the subject of moral agency. And third, we will examine the undeniable proposition that man is inherently social.

First, to say that man was created imago Dei is to espouse one of the most foundational truths taught in Scripture: "God created man in His own image . . ." (Gen. 1:27). Undeniably, there are certain fundamental differences between human beings and the other creatures with which we cohabit our planet, contra the claims of various animal rights activist groups. There is an intrinsic value and dignity possessed by human beings that by far outweighs that of every other creature. But humans are not only unique in contrast to animals; they are also individually unique in comparison to other human beings. Humans possess the capacity to think for themselves; they have different likes and dislikes, different emotional and psychological needs, different goals and ambitions. And these various combinations of uniquenesses coalesce in each individual constituting an independent being.

In recognition of these truths, it is understandable that the framers of the Declaration of Independence would include among the basic rights of human beings, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The value and dignity of the human person demands these freedoms. People all throughout history have been willing to die for the cause of liberty. Indeed, "[m]an, it would seem, is destined to want to be free" (Samuel, Gregg, On Ordered Liberty. pg. 29). Liberty, however, is not as easily achieved as it is espoused once we realize that there are other persons with whom we must cohabit, who also have the right to freedom. This immediately means that each person’s freedom must be limited by perimeters, which prohibit any free acts that would impinge upon the liberty of another. This then, is the paradox of freedom - that in order to ensure liberty for all who deserve it, liberty itself must be constrained by certain limitations. In the end, "the value of liberty depends upon its being used well," (Ibid. pg. 47) which requires the ability to make choices that are ethically and morally charitable toward all human beings who have been created in the image of God.

Second, to say that man was created imago Dei, is to imply also that man is the subject of moral agency. God, Himself is the supreme moral agent and therefore those created in His image are the subjects of moral agency as well. He tells us in no uncertain terms, "you shall be holy, for I am holy" (Lev. 11:45). Furthermore, "God . . . imprints in men a natural law or rational command that is written in their hearts" (Piedra, Alberto, Natural Law. pg. 10). He preserves an element of freedom within the human person, however, which renders each person free to choose the way in which they will respond to this natural law. This leaves us in a difficult position, because although man is a rational being, the results of the fall render our natural reasoning faculties insufficient to exercise our moral agency in a way that consistently honors the freedom and dignity of others. Even a casual reading of the daily news will prove this to be the case.

As we come to terms with this truth, it becomes evident that if we are to govern ourselves in a way that is mutually beneficial, we simply must appeal to divine revelation. There is no other way. The enlightenment philosophers attempted to circumvent this truth, but in the end they ultimately "failed to provide a public rational justification for a morality void of teleological foundation" (Ibid. pg. 28). With reasoning faculties, which through sin have been rendered insufficient to respond to natural law, and without the corrective influence of divine revelation, every person becomes a law unto themselves with anarchy as the inevitable result. (Sorry Dem's, your self-deluded pipe dream of a world in which your personal autonomy is the highest priority of government simply won't work!) We see this truth in vivid colors when we survey the moral landscape within our post-modern context. Indeed, it is a sad indictment upon any society when a person can at the same time approve of partial-birth abortion and the boycott of KFC because of it’s mistreatment of chickens! Can any thinking person really believe the ACLU is not a living, breathing oxymoron? When truth and morality are divorced from the solid grounding of natural law and divine revelation, they are effectively reduced to nothing more than personally subjective opinions. The so-called "age of reason" has thus nullified the very concepts of truth and morality so as to render human beings all the more incompetent to function as the subjects of moral agency within society. This implies the absolute necessity of human government, whose main purpose is to constrain through force, those who without such constraint, would commit acts which impinge upon the freedom and dignity of others.

Third, that man is inherently social is a principle that permeates and underscores all that we have said hitherto. Human beings are not constituted in such a way as to comfortably live a life of radical autonomy devoid of close relationships. Indeed, God tells us, "it is not good that man should be alone" (Gen. 2:18). This implies the inevitability of human societies, which in turn demands some form of government. It is our task then, as freedom loving people, to create a form of government that is consistent with the dignity and freedom of all persons made in the image of God.

Throughout the history of human existence, man has experimented with many different forms of government ranging from totalitarian rule on one end of the spectrum to utopianism on the other. These experiments have shown democracy to be the one form of government, which takes most seriously both the dignity and the freedom of the human subject. But what form of democracy shall we have? We must keep in mind that "The value of democracy stands or falls with the values which it embodies and promotes" (Pell, George, Is There Only Secular Democracy?. pg. 324). Indeed, Cardinal George Pell asks, "Is there only secular democracy?" (Ibid. pg. 321). Listening to the anti-Christian voices within our post-modern context, one might conclude that there is no other form of democracy. And yet secular democracy is failing miserably to maintain a proper balance between the freedom and dignity of human persons! Instead, secular democracy upholds freedom as the greatest good to the detriment of intrinsic dignity, which is possessed by all who have been created imago Dei. This is seen most vividly in the current abortion epidemic, where people uphold freedom of choice while ignoring the dignity and value of the human fetus. It is also seen in the degradation of human personhood through pornography and the breakdown of the family which leaves countless children emotionally and psychologically damaged. Could any sincere Christian support a political party, which not only endorses but celebrates these moral evils?! If secular democracy continues to win the day and freedom continues to be elevated as the greatest good over against the dignity of human personhood, our very form of government is destined to collapse in on itself. So what is the answer?

What we need, contends Cardinal Pell, is a form of democracy "founded on the transcendent dignity of the human person" (Ibid. pg. 326). But if this sort of democracy is ever to materialize, once again, it is clear that we must embrace the dictates of divine revelation. There is no other way. The moral consciousness of Christianity alone holds the dignity and freedom of the human person in perfect balance and thus forms the basis for a form of democracy, which could rescue secular democracy from its trajectory toward total bankruptcy. We would do well to listen to the likes of Robert Kraynak who spells this out well when he says, "modern democracy needs the faith and morals of Christianity to sustain its deepest assumptions about responsible freedom and human dignity" (Kraynak, Robert P., Christian Faith and Modern Democracy. pg. xiii).

In conclusion, the political and social implications of having been created in the image of God are far-reaching indeed. We must recognize the intrinsic value and dignity of every person who has been created in the image of God and seek to preserve for all the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In the end, we must seek to bring the theology of imago Dei to bear upon all things - not upon ourselves only, but upon others as well. We must bring the theology of imago Dei to bear upon society, culture and ultimately even upon government itself to the end that all things might redound to our good and to God’s greater glory. One can only hope we haven't slid down the slope of moral compromise so far that recovery is impossible.

Soli Deo Gloria,

Shane Morgan

"DON'T DRINK OR DANCE OR CUSS OR CHEW AND DON'T HANG AROUND WITH THOSE WHO DO!!"

2006-08-10T17:17:00.000-07:00

"DON’T DRINK OR DANCE OR CUSS OR CHEW
AND DON’T HANG AROUND WITH THOSE WHO DO!!"

I just read a blog by Tom Ascol in reference to Bobby Welsh’s article in SBC Life, dealing with the much disputed "Resolution # 5," A resolution which will live in infamy! (If I may take the liberty to apply an appropriate quote to the issue). This blog drew down a firestorm of comments written by those who agree and those who disagree with the resolution. It seems as if this thing just won’t go away. And that’s sad, because we have far more important issues, which demand our attention and energy.

So why am I taking the time and energy to speak to the issue? Good question! And the answer is that I think I have an approach to the issue that nobody has voiced as of yet. We have heard all of the arguments for the resolution and we have heard all of the arguments against the resolution. So, who’s right? I think they both are. Now just hang with me for a minute and I’ll explain why I say that. I intend to demonstrate that in all of this bickering we have failed to have a balanced view of the issue. There are principles that weigh in on both sides of the issue, and to fail to take them all into account results in a lopsided theology.

Principle 1: It is an indisputable fact that Scripture nowhere condemns the use of alcohol. Jesus’ first miracle was turning water into wine. Without a doubt, wine was used in the celebration of the Passover and therefore at the Last Supper, which by the way, is the institution of the Lord’s Supper. In evidence of this Paul had to write to the Corinthians in (1 Cor. 11: 17-22) instructing them not to get drunk when they came together to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. This would not have been an issue if wine were not used. Furthermore, Paul actually instructs Timothy in (1 Tim. 5: 23) to use wine for medicinal purposes. In every instance where the Scriptures speak to the issue of alcohol, it is in reference to the abuse thereof. The bottom line is that Scripture nowhere condemns the consumption of alcohol in and of itself, but everywhere condemns it’s abuse.

Principle 2: Every Christian has a personal responsibility to weigh the principle of the weaker brother against the principle of Christian liberty and decide which one is more prudent. As Christians we have the liberty to indulge, as well as the right to waive our liberty to indulge. In almost all cases, those who argue for the liberty to indulge are very good at pointing out that based on (Rom. 14) and (1 Cor. 8 & 9) Christians have the liberty to consume alcohol if they wish, as long as they don’t violate the prohibitions against abuse taught in other portions of Scripture. Unfortunately, the same polemicists always fail miserably to recognize that the OVERWHELMING emphasis in these passages is Paul’s argument that if his liberty could, in any way, become a stumbling block to others, he ABSOLUTELY, WILL NOT partake. In other words, he is willing to waive his Christian liberty with regard to anything, in order to prevent a brother or sister from stumbling. And he has every right to waive this liberty. This is the overwhelming burden of Paul’s teaching in both places. Now I would ask every Christian who sincerely wants to be governed by Scripture to check themselves with regard to this issue. We all know without a shadow of a doubt, how big of a stumbling block alcohol is in our culture (and yes, even within the church). In light of this, it is every sincere Christian’s responsibility to make sure his personal liberty does not cause others to stumble. There are two ways to do this: first, don’t indulge at all; and second, don’t indulge publicly (and that means don’t brag about it or try to champion it as a Christian liberty issue either). If you realize that you, as a Christian, possess the liberty to use alcohol responsibly (as I do), you need to do so with the utmost caution and care for others. And in the vast majority of cases, I think you will conclude that it is better to exercise your right to waive your Christian liberty. Which one of these two solutions you choose in every situation is up to you and should be based upon the particular circumstances in which you find yourself.

Principle 3: It is the churches responsibility to stand exclusively upon Biblical truth and not to water it down or to add to it (Rev. 22: 18-19). As I argued before in my blog entitled: What Is The Gospel, we must be careful to present the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I outlined the gospel in five basic propositions and made the comment that anything less than this is not a full gospel presentation, and anything more than this is to bind up heavy loads and place them on men’s shoulders. The gospel of the kingdom should be presented in all it’s complexity and simplicity without denominational baggage or men’s opinions. Therefore, the church should not require more from it’s members than Scripture does. The church is to be "the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth" (1 Tim. 3: 15). If we cannot trust the church to teach the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, who can we trust? This is a very serious responsibility and one which we should not take lightly. If the church embellishes the revealed truth of God with it’s own extra-Biblical requirements, the revelation is altered just as much as if we were to take something away. And the full truth of Scripture on the issue of alcohol is this: we have the liberty to indulge as well as the right to waive that liberty in the interest of our weaker brothers. Both teachings are necessary in order to maintain Biblical fidelity.

Principle 4: The SBC is not a church. This is where I think so many people fail to have a balanced understanding of this issue. The Scriptures and the truth contained within, are the responsibility of the church to maintain and defend. The church must not take anything away or add anything to God’s revelation. Therefore, for a local church to make any resolutions that fail to live up to Scriptural standards or exceed Scriptural standards, is a failure to maintain the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. But neither the SBC, nor the Seminary, either one, are churches! They are para-church organizations. Anyone who disagrees with me at this point seriously needs to brush up on their ecclesiology. But I’m going to assume that my readers are in full agreement with me here. That being said, the SBC, and the Seminary, (being constituted as para-church organizations and not churches) both have the authority to impose requirements upon their members for any reason they like - even extra-Biblical ones. In the case of Resolution # 5, the reasons are EXTREMELY COMMENDABLE, and ought to be consented to by all serious Christians. They don’t want to cause anybody to stumble! Nor do they want to tarnish their image as a body of like-minded Christian people, distinct from the world. Yes.... yes.... yes; I know there are those in the ranks who advocate the resolution based upon legalistic, fundamental, and just plain poor Biblical theology. But that’s beside the point! The point is that as a para-church organization and not a church, the SBC and the Seminary are not violating God’s Truth Trust by requiring their members to abstain from alcohol. It is specifically the church who has been charged with the task of being the pillar and ground of the Truth.

Now lets juxtapose these four principles and see if we can construct a balanced view of this issue.

The Bible doesn’t condemn the use of alcohol, but rather, the abuse thereof.
It is every Christian’s responsibility weigh the weaker brother principle against the Christian liberty principle.
It is the responsibility of the church to be the pillar and ground of the truth.
The SBC, nor the Seminary, either one, are churches.

When brought together into a comprehensive whole, we begin to see that Resolution #5 is not as polarized as it defenders and detractors would like to believe. The fact of the matter is, they’re both right.

Two points need to be taken into consideration on a personal level. First, Christians have the Biblical liberty to indulge in alcoholic beverages as long as they don’t violate the no-abuse principle. And second, Christians also have the right to waive their Christian liberty if it might become a stumbling block.

Two points need to be taken into consideration on an institutional level. First, it is the Church who has been charged with the task of being the pillar and ground of the Truth. And second, the SBC nor the Seminary are churches.

So when we look at the issue of Resolution # 5 through the lens of these four principles, on an institutional level we see that it was not wrong for the SBC or the Seminary to impose a rule of abstinence upon it’s members because they, in fact, are not churches. Furthermore the weaker brother principle supports the decision as a prudent one at such a time as this. At a time when alcohol is such a huge stumbling block in our culture, it does indeed seem wise and prudent to exercise our right to waive our Christian liberty to indulge. I think the serious Christian who weighs the liberty principle against the weaker brother principle, will eventually see this. On a personal level, each individual Christian has the liberty to indulge, and the right to waive his liberty to indulge. That being said, make your decision Christian. The SBC and the Seminary have made theirs. You have no right to castigate them for exercising their right to waive their Christian liberty. Nobody’s forcing you to remain in the SBC, or for that matter the Seminary. If you cannot live with their decisions, which are both Biblically supported and prudent for our times, then you should leave. As a matter of personal choice whether to exercise your Christian liberty to indulge, or to exercise your right to waive your Christian liberty to indulge, the matter is simple. As students at Southern, you are bound by the Code of Student Conduct to abstain. By enrolling at Southern, you implicitly give your consent to this perfectly legitimate and Biblical rule to exercise your right to waive your Christian liberty. As a member of the SBC you are not bound personally to abstain unless you want to serve in office. Now you have two choices, either exercise your Christian liberty to responsibally indulge in private so as not to cause a brother or sister to stumble; or exercise your right to waive your Christian liberty.

In conclusion, let me say again that the burden of this blog was to demonstrate that the issue if Resolution # 5 is not as polarized as it’s defenders and detractors would like to believe. In fact they are both right. And it is only when we properly juxtapose all of the Biblical principles involved and look at the issue through that lens, that we can escape the lopsided theology of which most are guilty and come to a balanced understanding. May God grant us light!

Soli Deo Gloria,
Shane Morgan

Real Men Like HOT Salsa

2006-08-05T23:43:00.000-07:00

REAL MEN LIKE HOT SALSA

Recently a good friend and I made some fresh garden salsa out of some vegetables I grew in the back yard. When it came time to add the jalapino peppers, my friend asked me to save him a portion without the peppers. To this request, I jokingly replied: "real men like hot salsa." Now, we have an ongoing bit of friendly banter whenever we make salsa, as I ask him if he would like the sissy version. His reply is always something like, "no, I just want you to save me some before you ruin it."

Such friendly banter amongst men is healthy and fun. And, of course, whether or not one likes their salsa hot or mild really has nothing to do with manhood. But I think it does raise a question that is crucial within our current cultural milieu. And that is, What does true masculinity look like?

With that question now asked, I must lament with bitter tears the sad, sad fact that our society has absolutely no clue how to answer this! The influence of feminism has so radically eclipsed the distinctiveness of manhood and labeled the portrayal of masculinity as an expression of male chauvinism, that not only has a healthy masculinity been lost to antiquity, but the very term itself has come into wide-spread disuse. The Feminist and homosexual movements have unwittingly lent strength to one another and in a joint effort have almost completely succeeded in wiping out any vestige of a healthy understanding of gender roles within our society.

I recently read an article on dailymail.com by a columnist named Nirpal Dhaliwal, entitled How Feminism Destroyed Real Men. I cannot endorse the article due to its biting tone and inappropriate sexual content. However, Mr. Dhaliwal is certainly onto something. Listen to a few of his comments. He writes:

"Back in the Nineties, emboldened by the successes of feminism, women sought to slay the dragon of patriarchy by turning men into ridiculous sissies who would cry with them through chick-flicks and then cook up a decent lasagna. . . In recent years, men have been trained like circus seals to be inoffensive to women. . . Now, over a decade later, women are waking up to the fact that these men are drippy, sexless bores. The feminisation of men hasn’t produced the well-rounded males women were hoping for. . . These are cardboard cut-out men who gush with empathy whenever their wives and girlfriends need to dump their professional stresses and female angst on them: weak and soulless men who haven’t the guts to make a mark themselves, who take the passenger seat in their women’s juggernaut journey to post-feminist nirvana. . . Men are now generally terrified of women. They hold their tongues for fear of being misinterpreted as sexist. . .They suppress their masculinity and present themselves as cuddly Mr. Nice Guys, and won’t project self-confidence in case it’s regarded as unreconstructed machismo."

Even if written in an un-Christianly biting tone, Mr. Dhaliwal has leveled a pretty accurate diagnosis of the current state of masculinity. Feminism would have us believe that gender roles are repressive and artificial; that the differentiation of male and female characteristics and mannerisms are simply cultural constraints that tend to devalue women and inhibit their freedom to succeed. And because the female body has been elevated to an object of worship for the vast majority of Americans, women now hold an incredible sexual power over men everywhere. This is a power they have mastered well; and they wield it with incredible efficacy. The result is, of course, that masculinity has virtually disappeared and men have been browbeaten into subjection to the politically correct position, which is now termed "equality."

Men, however, are not simply innocent victims in all of this either. Ever since Adam in the garden of Eden, men have found it easier to take the back-seat. Consider this quote from the story of the fall: "When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate" (Gen. 3:6). The text says that Adam was with here the whole time! The one who was supposed to be the head of the household, the leader, provider and protector, apparently stood right there and let her transgress the express law of God!! Satan successfully turned the family structure on it’s head and enticed Eve to lead the way into sin and Adam into following her.

After the fall, as part of the curse, God said to Eve "your desire shall be for your husband, and he will rule over you" (Gen 3:16). What we have now is a dispute over leadership within the home. Now, says God, "your desire shall be for your husband" (i.e. the leadership capacity of your husband), and yet he is still responsible to "rule over you" (i.e. to be the head of the household). God, in effect, said: if that’s the way you want it, that’s the way you’ll get it. The result is that the natural inclination of every woman’s heart is to usurp the male leadership role within the relationship, and the natural inclination of every mans heart is to be subject to that usurpation. It was an abdication of God-given masculinity that led to the fall; and it’s an abdication of God-given masculinity that plagues us still today.

In Christ, however, the curse has been lifted. We still deal with the residual inclinations of a sinful heart; but we are no longer in bondage to them. It is a woman’s Christian duty to fight against the sinful inclination to usurp the leadership role; and it is a man’s Christian duty to fight against the sinful inclination to submit to that usurpation. We must embrace a healthy, Biblical sense of masculinity and live it out in the power and strength of the Holy Spirit.

Dr. Randy Stinson has written a very insightful article in Southern Seminary magazine, helping us to see just exactly what a Biblical masculinity should look like. He writes:

"Most definitions and descriptions of biblical Christian manhood tend to major on the Christian and minor on the manhood. . . But are there not specific, differing ways in which men and women will live out the Christian life? Are there not certain ways in which I am going to instruct my sons, that I will not do with my daughters? There are no generic people. There are men and there are women. Consequently, there are no generic Christian people. There are Christian men, and there are Christian women."

He draws his instruction from David’s final words to his son Solomon in (1 Kings 2: 1-9). That passage begins like this: "As David’s time to die grew near, he charged Solomon his son, saying, ‘I am going the way of all the earth. Be strong, therefore, and show yourself a man.’" Isn’t it interesting that David begins his instruction by telling his son: "Show yourself a man!" I love that! In the following verses, David spells out how Solomon is supposed to do this. He tells Solomon to "be strong," (v. 2) "Keep the charge of the Lord your God," (v. 3) "Act according to your wisdom," (v. 6) "Show kindness" (v. 7). In other words, David was telling Solomon to show himself a man by leading with strength, remaining obedient to God, acting in wisdom and showing kindness where kindness is due. And these characteristics of masculinity are reiterated all throughout Scripture when speaking about manhood. But there’s more.

"The Bible," Stinson says, "when giving specific instruction and admonition to men, usually does so within three key categories: leading, providing and protecting." Stinson suggests nine characteristics of leadership. Leaders must 1. Cast a vision; 2. Give direction; 3. Provide instruction; 4. Lead by example 5. Provide inspiration; 6. Give affirmation; 7. Evaluate progress; 8. Make corrections when needed; 9. Protect and provide for those in their care.

The Lord Jesus demonstrated these qualities perfectly during His time on earth. He is to be our model; and there could be none better. The Lord Jesus Christ showed Himself a man in everything that he did. His masculinity dominated his character. His strength and resolve was displayed in His victory over the temptations of the devil in the wilderness (Matt. 4: 1-11). "He perfectly manifested a balance of masculine compassion and provision," writes Stinson, "with the woman at the well and the woman caught in adultery, and masculine righteous protective anger in denouncing the Pharisees and Sadducees and cleansing the temple. He set His face like a flint toward the cross and, in spite of the abandonment of His disciples and their failure of nerve, He persevered to His death and victorious resurrection. In other words, Biblical manhood is modeled after the Lord Jesus."

Stinson ends his article with a few suggestions about how we can cultivate masculinity under the lordship of Christ.

Do the hardest task first. Attacking your hardest task of the day without delay will build your resistance to passivity.
Run to the battle. One only needs to consider the life of the Apostle Paul to see that conflict is a regular feature of the Christian life. Men who think all conflict should be avoided, or who refuse to engage with those who would harm the body of Christ or their family, not only model passivity but fail in the area of protection.
Don’t procrastinate. The man who is cultivating Biblical masculinity will not allow things to rule over him. He will exercise dominion over them by doing them in a timely manner.
Keep your domain in order. A life that is characterized by disorder is evidence of passivity. Your home, dorm room, garage, office and car should bear the mark of your masculinity as you subdue it and keep it in order.
Kill a bear or a lion. In other words, do something that is challenging for you. It may actually be to kill a bear or a lion, but it may be a health challenge like running a triathlon or a marathon. It may be riding a roller coaster or snorkeling with sharks. Or it may mean you need to finally share the gospel with your lost friend.

So, just what does true masculinity look like? It will look exactly like the life of the Lord Jesus Christ. It will be characterized by strength of character; it will be characterized by obedience to God; it will be characterized by the exercise of wisdom; it will be characterized by kindness when kindness is due; it will be characterized by a willingness to lead, a willingness to provide, and a willingness to protect; it will be characterized by a rejection of passivity; it will be characterized by an aggressive determination in pursuit of good and godly goals; it will be characterized by the exercise of dominion; it will be characterized by bravery, honor and integrity; and it will be decidedly anti-feminine in its mannerisms.

And on rare occasions, it just may involve working up the nerve to try a mouth-full of really hot salsa (which, by the way, my friend did).

Soli Deo Gloria,
Shane Morgan

ANCIENT BOOK OF PSALMS

2006-08-02T11:08:00.000-07:00

ANCIENT BOOK OF PSALMS

ABC News International published an article today announcing the finding of midieval book of Psalms. You can access the article here.

As a Bible history enthusaist, I revel in findings such as this supposedly 800-1000 year old copy of the book of Psalms. If this dating is accurate, this book was owned by an Irish, Catholic, Christian sometime between 1oo6 and 1206 AD. This is well before the Reformation and smack dab in the middle of the Renaissance period. The Catholic church reigned supreme during this period and therefore, it is no surprise that this copy of the Psalms is written in Latin.

In all probability this book was owned by a monastary or perhaps by an individual monk who translated and bound it himself. This is most probable for several reasons. One, a book like this would have been well outside the price range of the common man in those days. The vast majority lived in abject poverty. This argues for monastic ownership. Two, binding materials were extremely expensive and time comsuming to produce, therefore, velum bindings were almost always extremely thin. But the binding on this codex is said to be "leather velum, very thick, wallet in appearance." This means the production of this codex was a special project and argues for individual ownership. Three, monks would have been the only people educated enough to read and write at a level of proficiency capable of producing a work like this. The vast majority were completely illiterate during this time period. This once again argues for monastic origin.

We won't know much more about this treasure for a good long while since the pages are stuck together due to 800 to 1000 years of emersion in an Irish bog. The only reason we can know as much as we do now is becasue the book was found open to Psalm 83, which gaves archaeologists a look at the text. Perhaps as studies continue and pages are separated, a date and name will be discovered! Then we will know for certain what we can now only speculate. Regardless, this is an exhilerating discovery and one that I look forward with great anticipation to hearing more about.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Shane Morgan

THE ONE BOOK SURVEY

2006-08-01T11:46:00.000-07:00

THE ONE BOOK

I got this from a friend, who got this from a friend, who probably got it from a friend. It looked like fun, so here goes.

1. One book that changed your life: Without a doubt, this would have to be The Sovereignty of God, by: Arthur W. Pink

2. One book that you’ve read more than once: There are several books I've read more than once but I'm going to say Pilgrim's Progress. I've read that one three times.

3. One book you’d want on a desert island: The Bible of course! (But can I please, please, please take a couple more?!?!)

4. One book that made you laugh: Any and all books that try to defend Arminianism.

5. One book that made you cry: The Sovereignty of God, by: Arthur W. Pink (yes, I've already mentioned that one)

6. One book that you wish had been written: A magic reference book that contains all the information I will ever need when writing papers, with an easy to use table of contents and quick locate tabs.

7. One book that you wish had never been written: The Devinci Code, this has without doubt, become the biggest scurge upon Christianity since Darwin's Origin of Species.

8. One book you’re currently reading: The Mystical Presence, by: John williamson Nevin

9. One book you’ve been meaning to read: Institutes of the Christian Religion, by: John Calvin; it's such a daunting task to try and read this work between semesters!

10. One book you haven't finished but will finish in the next month: John Owen On The Christian Life, by: Sinclair B. Ferguson

WHAT IS THE GOSPEL?

2006-07-27T14:39:00.000-07:00

WHAT IS THE GOSPEL?

It is very interesting to notice that within evangelicalism there seems to be some confusion about just exactly how to define the gospel. The reason I find this so interesting, is of course, because the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ is supposed to be the common denominator upon which all evangelicals take their stand. If this is the case, then one would expect to find a broad, sweeping unanimity amongst our ranks when it comes to defining the gospel. But this just doesn’t seem to be the case. Opinions on what elements are essential to the gospel message vary considerably; and consequently, the way the gospel is shared with lost people varies as well. I believe that all evangelicals, whatever their definition of the gospel may be, are well intentioned. And I understand the necessity to keep the gospel just as simple as the Bible presents it. But, I am concerned that in some cases, a full gospel presentation may not be given; or in other cases, that the gospel is laden with such a load of denominational baggage that it’s darn near impossible to tote. Some clarity is needed on the issue.

What then, are the essential elements of the gospel? Most evangelicals follow something similar to the Romans Road, emphasizing at least three essentials. One, we are all sinners. Two, Jesus died to save sinners. Three, we must accept Christ by faith in order to be saved. Some feel that this is not a full gospel presentation. Others feel this definition to be more exhaustive than Scripture calls for, appealing to (1 Cor. 15: 3-4) "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures. . ." Based upon this passage, some evangelicals insist that there are only three essential elements to the gospel: 1. "Christ died for our sins;" 2. "He was buried;" and 3. "He was raised on the third day." Still others would define the gospel even more simply than this, appealing to (1 Tim. 1:15) "It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all." In this gospel presentation, there is only one essential truth: "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners."

It is my contention, that all of these understandings of the gospel are too simplistic and in the end, they are not full gospel presentations. Even the Romans Road (as described above) I do not consider to be a full gospel presentation. But I do believe that the Romans Road is on the right track. The full gospel message is not contained in any one verse, in any one place. Elements of the gospel are scattered throughout the New Testament, and need to be drawn together in a comprehensive whole, without denominational baggage and without personal opinions.

It is necessary, therefore, to establish a basic hermeneutic principle; and that is that we never build an entire doctrine based upon only one passage of Scripture. While (1 Cor. 15: 3-4) and (1 Tim. 1: 15) are both excellent statements of gospel truth, they never claim to be exhaustive in their treatment of the gospel. The problem with those who reject the Romans Road approach in favor of these passages of Scripture, is that they insist on a very wooden and explicit reading of these passages without taking into consideration their clear implications. For example, when read no deeper than face value (1 Cor. 15: 3-4) only teaches three essential gospel elements: Christ died for sins, Christ was buried and Christ was raised on the third day. But clearly, if Scripture states that Christ died for sins, it implies first that there were sins for which he needed to die; and second, that death was the only way do deal with them. So obviously, when Paul points explicitly to only these three elements, he certainly expects his readers to understand all of the other gospel essentials by way of synecdoche.

The same is true of (1 Tim. 1:15). Taken at face value, this passage only explicitly teaches one element: Christ came into the world to save sinners. There’s not even a hint of the fact that He had to die in order to accomplish this mission; and only a partial elusion to the fact that sinners need to be saved. This is obviously not a comprehensive treatment of the gospel. Once again, Paul expects his readers to understand him by synecdoche, to be referring to whole gospel message.

Now, my problem with the Romans Road model (the way it is most commonly used) is that I believe it to be missing at lease one essential element, and that is the resurrection. I believe that when we do an exhaustive search of the Scriptures, we find five essential elements that make up the gospel message.

We are all sinners separated from God with no hope of reconciliation by our own efforts. (Rom. 3: 32) (Eph. 2: 8-9 & 10)
Jesus Christ is the very Son of God. (Acts 8: 36-38) (1 Jn. 6:13) (Mt. 16: 16-18)
Jesus Christ died as our substitute on the cross to pay the penalty for our sins and provide a means of reconciliation with God. (1 Pet. 3: 18) (Rom. 3: 24-26)
Jesus Christ rose bodily from the grave on the third day. (Rom. 10: 9-10) (Acts 15: 12-19)
Sinners must receive Jesus Christ by faith as both Savior and Lord. (Eph. 2:8-9) (1 Tim. 1:1) (2 Pet. 1:11)

This is the gospel message. And yes, people need to believe all five in order to be saved. You can look up these verses on your own and see if you think I’m straying off course or not. But I fully and committedly believe that anything less than this is not a full gospel presentation. And conversely, anything more than this is binding up heavy loads and placing them on men’s shoulders. I don't think poeple need to fully comprehend all of the theological constructions behind these five elements. For instance, people need to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, but they do not have to have an indepth working knowledge of Chalcedon. People need to believe that Christ died for them personally, but they don't need to have an indepth, working knowledge of propitiation, expiation and imputation. You see what I mean. Belief in these five essentials is necessary, but not full understanding. Faith seeking understanding is the proper persuit of Christian descipleship and sanctification and that will come later.

Calling upon Christ to save sinners through the proclamation of His Word is a serious business and entails a commitment on the part of the preacher to deliver His Word accurately and fully. To present half a gospel dishonors the Lord of the gospel and leaves people in their lost condition. To present a gospel laden with denominational baggage and men’s opinions is to stand in judgment over the gospel message and presume to be an editor of God’s revealed truth; and once again, this leaves people in their lost condition.

We can’t be too careful on this. And the widespread divergence of gospel definitions within evangelicalism demonstrates a lack of seriousness with regard to the essential elements of the gospel. Those who would proclaim God’s Word and ask Him to save sinners through their efforts, need to make sure they are delivering the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Shane Morgan

TRIBUTE TO MY FATHER

2006-06-17T21:08:00.000-07:00

TRIBUTE TO MY FATHER

(Richard Morgan)

One of the most troubling trends within our current cultural milieu is the popularity of making fathers and husbands out to be imbeciles. Consider one of the longest running sit-coms to have aired on television in recent years, Married With Children. Al Bundy was the epitome of a modern day imbecile. Americans sat in their living rooms and laughed as the drunken looser made a fool out of himself, and all the while we were making fools out of ourselves. Consider also the imbecility of a Homer Simpson or a Hank Hill. The popular children’s cartoon The Barenstein Bears follows suite as well, continually making dad out to be, well, not quite as smart or insightful as his own children. And the producers of one of Nickelodean’s current children’s programs The Sweet Life of Zach and Cody apparently decided that the presence of a father is not only non-essential but completely irrelevant. Children watch as these two young boys wreak havoc in their expensive high rise condo under the sole supervision of the mother. One might think the absence of the father would be explained by divorce or death or some other tragedy; but apparently the producers consider fathers to be so insignificant that the issue is never even addressed! Just a glaring absence of any male leadership whatsoever, an element which goes largely undetected by the vast majority of watchers and silently teaches today’s culture that fathers are absolutely unnecessary.

The Bible teaches us something completely different, however. We see very clearly all throughout Scripture the essential paradigm of male leadership within the family and within the church. Apparently, God doesn’t find fathers to be irrelevant at all. In fact it seems that God esteems the necessity of fathers to be so strong that He gave them the place of highest authority and laid upon them the greatest bulk of responsibility. Contrary to popular opinion, fathers play a vital role in the healthy development of children and the stability of the family unit; and the absence of a father will ultimately leave children and families sadly deficient in ways that may never be realized. I can tell you that my own father had a very great deal to do with who and what I am today. There are at least four main areas of my personhood that derive directly from principles which I learned from my father. Take a look at them with me.

1. A Solid Work Ethic:
All throughout my childhood I watched my father work six and sometimes seven days a week. There weren’t many days when my father didn’t get up in the morning, have a cup of coffee and head out to the body shop. In fact, if my father didn’t go to work, you could assume that something extremely terrible had happened. Day in and day out, year after year, I watched my father go to work in the morning even if he was sick, even if he was injured, even if he hadn’t had any sleep the night before, even if he had a throbbing sinus headache, which he actually suffered with chronically. This solid work ethic, inspired by a sense of duty and responsibility to provide for his family was slowly instilled in my own heart and taught me that a solid work ethic is part of what it means to be a man. Without it, I would be less of a man then I am today. I thank you dad from the bottom of my heart for teaching me this essential characteristic of manhood.

2. A Strong Resolve:
All throughout my life, I don’t think I have ever seen my dad give up on anything he had truly set his mind to accomplish. My father has successfully started and operated two different body shops in two different states. It seems like he always succeeds in everything he does and at least part of the reason for that success is that he absolutely refuses to give up. When times get hard, my dad grits his teeth and bears it. When difficult situations threaten to halt progress, my dad finds a way to work through it. When the only way foreword is through great personal sacrifice, my dad steps up to the plate and gives until he has nothing left to give. A resolve like this is crucial to what it means to be a man. A fickle man is no man at all. A man who will launch out with grandiose plans and turn back at the slightest sign of difficulty simply isn’t worth his salt. My dad taught me that at least one element of what it means to be a man is that real men have a strong sense of resolve. They pursue their goals with a radical tenacity that only death or Christ’s return can prevent. I thank you dad from the bottom of my heart for teaching me this principle. Without it I would be less of a man than I am today.

3. A Commitment to Excellence:
My father has been an Auto body and paint technician all of his life. And in order to be successful in this business, you absolutely must have a commitment to excellence. There is no way a customer will pay the repair bill on their car if it is not absolutely perfect, or at least within a very small margin of being perfect. Eventually, I became an auto body and paint technician as well. Before the Lord called me to serve him in Christian ministry, I did professional body and paint work for twelve years. I don’t mind telling you I am exceptionally good at it, which is one of the reasons I struggled with the call to ministry for so long. But it was my father’s commitment to excellence which inspired me to embrace the same commitment. This is a principle that can also be seen in every area of my dad’s life. In his spare time, he builds furniture of the highest quality, featuring intricate craftsmanship and the unique beauty, which comes with custom hand-built furniture. A man who does not have a commitment to excellence is a man who will wallow in mediocrity all the days of his life. I thank you dad from the bottom of my heart for teaching me to embrace a commitment to excellence. Without it, I would be less of a man than I am today.

4. A Sense of Dignity:
Here is an essential element which is tragically missing from today’s culture, especially with regard to manhood. My dad taught me that there is a sense of dignity that comes with being a man. In fact, manhood has a two-fold dignity. First, there is an intrinsic dignity. This is a dignity that is possessed simply by virtue of the fact that God created you as a man. Contrary to popular belief, gender is a good gift from God. I don’t mean to slight women here; there is just as much intrinsic dignity in womanhood as there is in manhood, but please bear with me; after all this is a Fathers Day post.

There is also an extrinsic dignity that is not possessed by all males. Regardless of the way men, husbands, and fathers are being portrayed in popular sit-coms, to truely be a man, husband and father should bring a sense of dignity and pride. I’m not talking about a man who by virtue of his birth, simply possesses male gender. The extrinsic dignity of manhood is far, far more than a gender issue. I’m not talking about a man who is a husband only by virtue of the fact that he is married. The extrinsic dignity that comes with being a husband in the true sense of the word involves more than simply being united in matrimony. And I’m not talking about a man who is a father simply by virtue of the fact that he copulated with a woman and produced offspring. No, no, not at all! I’m talking about a man, husband and father who embraces and embodies all of the essential characteristics I have mentioned in this post. True manhood should bring a sense of dignity. To truly be a husband to your wife should bring a sense of dignity. And to truly be a father to your children should bring a sense of dignity. But this extrinsic dignity doesn't belong to males who refuse to progress on to true manhood by embracing the principles expressed in this post.

It is truly unfortunate that when I look around, I see so many males forsaking the dignity and honor that comes with embracing these principles and responsibilities, in order to remain perpetually adolescent. What a sickening picture it is to see a male in his thirties, forties and even fifties, who really is still a teenager with regard to maturity level. No male should hold himself out to be a true man, husband and father if this is their mindset. A true man will have a solid work ethic, a strong resolve, a commitment to excellence, and where these principles are embraced and lived out to their fullest potential, a true man can also have a sense of dignity.

So, thank you dad for modeling and teaching me these essential principles, and for being such an influential figure in my life and development. Happy Father’s Day!!

Soli Deo Gloria,
Shane Morgan

THE PREEMINANCE OF PREACHING

2006-05-13T13:11:00.000-07:00

THE PREEMINANCE OF PREACHING

"Dr. John Owen, who from his Oxford days had connections with many in high places, was once asked by King Charles II why he listened to an uneducated tinker. His reply: ‘Could I possess the tinker’s abilities for preaching, please your Majesty, I would gladly relinquish all my learning.’" (Christian History. Issue 89: Winter 2006, pg. 30) The tinker here referred to was John Bunyan. Such a statement by such a leaned and respected hero of the faith should cause us all to stop and reflect upon the end for which we are pursuing theological education. All the learning in the world would be to no avail if we should fail to communicate it to others.

The communication of God’s truth is, of course, a serious task. It takes place through three primary mediums: teaching, exemplification, and preaching. All three of these methods are important and without them the church would fail in its mission to build up the Body of Christ. But preaching alone, enjoys the unique and powerful working of the Holy Spirit to the conviction of sin and the conversion of sinners.

The Reformers and Puritans insisted that there were at least two marks that identified the true church of Christ, and those were the right preaching of God’s Word and the right observance of the ordinances. Calvin stood upon these two marks. During the second generation of Reformers, some began to add a third mark, i.e. church discipline. From the very beginning of the Protestant tradition until today, the identification of the right preaching of God’s Word as a central mark of the true church of Christ has not been in question. UNTIL NOW!!

I am sickened today by the variety of different discourses taking place within so called "churches." Many are moving away from the powerful exhortation issued to heart and head through expository sermons preached under the unction of the Holy Spirit. What is being embraced now are methods of communication, which are foreign to the preaching task. Pulpits are being removed and replaced with clear lecterns; Bibles held in hands are being replaced by Power-Point presentations; the oral presentation of God’s Word is being displaced by video and image clips displayed over-head. In all of this the church is demonstrating just how deeply influenced it has become by the age of entertainment and informational seminars. But God is no source of entertainment; and the preaching of His Word is no informational seminar. The preaching of God’s Word is the Biblical means by which God’s truth pierces the hearts of lost sinners and impresses itself so powerfully upon the minds of Christians as to conform them more into the image of Christ.

If you wanted to drive a nail into a piece of wood, you wouldn’t try to drive it in with a saw blade. If you wanted to paint your living room, you wouldn’t try to spread it on with a screwdriver. If you wanted to screw in a screw, you wouldn’t try to do it with a hammer. No, you would utilize the proper means by which to accomplish the task. Incidentally, another Puritan of old once said that preaching was the principal means of "screwing the truth into men’s minds." Why did he say this? Because he recognized that preaching is the primary Biblical, God-ordained, Holy Spirit-empowered means by which the Kingdom is built up and the church is conformed to the image of Christ. God have mercy on us if we change the medium through which God has established to communicate His truth. Get rid of the lectern and bring back the pulpit! Encourage your people to bring their Bibles to church! Get rid of all the video and image clips and for God’s sake people PREACH THE WORD!!

In all of our education, we had better not become too sophisticated to use the age-old method that God has prescribed. Preaching has always been and always will be the principal means by which God works in His people. If we use it, we will be instrumental in the building up of Christ’s Church. If we turn to some other medium, we will be instrumental in the building up of Christian flavored Country Clubs. Let us all agree with Dr. Owen and aspire to be like the tinker of Bedfordshire who preached the Word of God in the power and unction of the Holy Spirit with such power and conviction that his name lives on three and a half centuries later. Let us do all that we must do to honor the preeminence of preaching.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Shane Morgan

THE IDOLATRY OF TELEVISION

2006-05-05T17:52:00.000-07:00

THE IDOLATRY OF TELEVISION

Maybe you’ve never thought about it quite like this before; but when you consider the staunch devotion and ritualistic indulgence with which Americans attend to their television, it unquestionably qualifies as it’s own religion. Think about it. How many people do you know who haven’t watched T. V. in the last five days? How about in the last two days? How about in the last 24 hours? As a matter of fact, I’ll bet we could count up on one hand the total number of people known by my entire readership who haven’t watched T. V. in even the last 12 hours. This is and has been an epidemic of epic proportions for a long time now. And God is not happy with it! Why? Because I’m convinced that for most people, Television has escalated to the level of idolatry.

Now to prove my point let me ask the same questions I just asked about television; but this time with reference to God. How many people do you know who engaged in some form of Christian worship or personal devotion within the last five days? How about in the last two days? How about in the last 24 hours? Now, how about in the last 12 hours? Now a lot of my Christian readers will have known people who have; but I think it goes without saying that the number of those who have devoted themselves to Television within these time frames, outweighs the number of those who have devoted themselves to God by such a vast margin that it could really be called a void rather than a margin. Even within the Christian community, I’m certain the void is almost equally as large. This is a huge problem. Not only does Television command our attention and rob our fleeting lives of hundreds and thousands of hours which we will never get back, but during those hours, Television indoctrinates us with empty philosophy, secular humanism, radical autonomy, sexual perversion and a hatred toward everything that smacks of God and especially Jesus Christ. To be quite blunt, Satan loves it. I’m not saying that Television in and of itself is evil. In and of itself it is just an electronic device, neutral and available to be used for good or profane purposes. And I admit that sometimes it is used for good purposes. But the widespread misuse is so vast and insidious that it renders meaningless what little good use actually exists.

Television is rotting us away mentally and spiritually and most of us are not even aware of it. We are being killed slowly and quietly. As Aldous Huxley once quipped: "spiritual devastation is more likely to come from an enemy with a smiling face than from one whose countenance exudes suspicion and hate." Television represents an enemy that we do not recognize because he comes to us disguised as our favorite weather man, our favorite news anchor or our favorite movie star. America needs to wake up! The church needs to wake up!! Turn off the T. V. and open your Bibles!! Let’s put an end to the idolatry of Television in our lives and Give God the devotion He deserves!

If what has been said so far has failed to convince you of the idolatry of Television, then briefly consider this. Neil Postman, in his excellent book Amusing Ourselves To Death, quotes George Gerbner as having said, "Television is the new state religion, run by a private Ministry of Culture, offering a universal curriculum for all people, financed by a form of hidden taxation without representation." (pg. 140) I find this assessment to be frighteningly accurate. T. V. has become the new religion in America; and even for many within the church of the Lord Jesus Christ. It has all the components of a classical religion. Consider the following twelve.

It has it’s own appointed time to gather together (i.e. every program has a start time)
It has it’s own preacher (i.e. the television itself)
It has it’s own sacred text (i.e. the T. V. guide)
It has it’s own liturgy (i.e. "and….now…..this!"….."and….now….this!")
It has it’s own dogma (i.e. everything is entertainment)
It has it’s own worship music (i.e. soundtracks behind every scene)
It has it’s own form of tithing (i.e. once a month cable or satellite bill)
It has it’s own community (i.e. the international community of T. V. watchers)
It has it’s own social agenda (i.e. it seeks to influence the way people think and act)
It has it’s own evangelists (i.e. those who take carry the latest news to others)
It has it’s own missionaries (i.e. news reporters who travel the world)
It has it’s own impact on our spiritual condition (i.e. it commands our devotion)

Judge for yourselvs dear readers. How long will we continue to run after this electronic idol? How long will we allow our time to squandered away in mindless worldly indoctrination. Here are just a few disturbing statistics. According to the South Dakota Department of Health, young children will spend aproximately 4 hours per day watching Television. It will be slightly less for older children. The average adult male will spend 29 hours per week watching Television, while the average adult female will spend 34 hours per week watching Television. According to the A.C. Nielsen Co., the average American watches more than 4 hours of TV each day (or 28 hours per week, or 2 months of nonstopTV-watching per year). In a 65-year lifespan, that person will have spent 9 years glued to the tube. From a Christian prespective this is a real danger. And we all must ask ourselves with all seriousness: to watch or not to watch? That is indeed the question.

Soli Deo Gloria,

Shane Morgan

THE DEAF JEDI DUELS WITH TIME

2006-04-26T13:54:00.001-07:00

THE DEAF JEDI DUELS WITH TIME

My good friend Stephen Newell, (a.k.a. "The Deaf Jedi") author of the blog entitled "The Silent Holocron," aparently thinks silence is the cure all for everything -- including aging. In a last ditch effort to save planet Youth, the Deaf Jedi employed the oft-tryed and oft-foiled strategy of remaining silent about his birthday yesterday. But who could blame him? He's 29 years old and the "Big Three-O" looms ominously on the horizon (a scary thought for any mortal). Not to mention the fact that the aging warrior probably felt ill-equiped to deal with the onslaught of years -- especially in light of the fact that Southern doesn't offer a class in geriatrics. In the end, however, April 25th came and went, and time won. Nothing but wheelchairs and shuffleboard from here on out brother. But seriously folks, this light saber wielding UPSer is awsome!! He's just no match for the Sith Lord Father Time. But I have an idea that might make him feel better. Let's all sing a song to commemorate his time here on planet earth.

Ready. . . . . .And:

Happy Birthday to you!

Happy Birthday dear Stepheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeen!!

***GAAASP!***

Happy Birthday to you!

Grace and Peace,
Shane Morgan

LIMITED ATONEMENT AND THE "WORLD" PASSAGES

2006-04-23T19:19:00.000-07:00

LIMITED ATONEMENT AND THE "WORLD" PASSAGES

One of the most common rebuttals against the doctrine of Limited Atonement is the problem of the "World" passages (i.e. passages that seem to be saying that Jesus died for the whole "world"). In this treatment, I intend to show that these passages do not demand the interpretation usually assigned to them. And although the interpretation I am going to advocate is not the most comfortable interpretation given the immediate contexts in which the term is used, I insist that my interpretation is at least a legitimate alternative. And if it is a legitimate alternative, it deserves to be considered not just in it’s immediate context but in the historical context of the entire Bible from Genesis to Revelation. Furthermore, I believe that my interpretation is more in line with the historical context and theological thrust of the whole council of God.

To begin with, let us look at the word "world." In the Old Testament, this English rendering is derived from five different Hebrew words: erets (meaning soil), chedel (meaning the realm of the dead) cheled (meaning fleeting time), owlam (meaning etermity), and tabel (meaning earth; world; or inhabitants). Of these five Hebrew words, the only one that could be used to speak of all persons on the earth is tebel, and out of the 35 times that it is used, only 1 of them refers to actual persons: Isa. 13:11 "I will punish the world for their evil. . ."

In the New Testament, the English word "world" is derived from five different Greek words: aion (meaning perpetuity), aionios (meaning long ago), ge (meaning soil), kosmos (meaning world or possibly the universe), and oikoumene (meaning the Roman empire). Now out of these five Greek words, the only one that could be used to speak of all persons is kosmos, which is indeed the term that is used most often: 183 times out of 238 usage’s. But even then, the context must dictate in which sense the term is to be interpreted. And in the vast majority of cases everybody will admit that the term refers to the earth. There are, however, a number of places where the word kosmos is used, and it definitely refers to actual persons; whether or not it refers to all persons, it is the purpose of this treatment to discern.

Now, before I turn my attention to the 6 particular verses that are usually brought as a rebuttal against the doctrine of Limited Atonement, I want to site a couple of verses that prove that even when the word kosmos is used to refer to persons, the term itself doesn’t demand that we understand it to mean all persons. First, in John 12: 19, the Pharisees said to one another concerning Jesus "look, the world (i.e. kosmos) is gone after Him." Now, of course we know that not every person in the whole world past, present and future were at that time following Jesus. Obviously then, the use of this word does not demand the interpretation of "all persons;" in fact, it would be absurd to do so. Next, 2 Peter 2:5 says that God "brought a flood upon the world (i.e. kosmos) of the ungodly. . ." Now we know that eight persons survived the flood and so although admittedly, the word here means pretty darn near to "all persons," nevertheless, it couldn’t mean "all persons" since Noah and his family survived. A very important point needs to be established from this verse however, and that is the fact that kosmos is here being used to signify only one portion of the persons living on the planet - a very large portion admittedly, but only a portion nonetheless. And although I will not be basing my argument on it in this treatment, let me just put this question in your mind: if Peter here uses the term kosmos to speak of "the world of the ungodly," then why cannot the term kosmos in other places be used to speak of the world of the elect? Just a thought.

With this premise established, what I want to do now is briefly look at the 6 verses that give the doctrine of Limited Atonement so much grief and see if it as actually warranted. First, (Jn. 1: 29) "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" (i.e. kosmos).This famous quote by John the Baptist is a very important one. In fact, it is the very foundation of our faith. But what is it actually saying? It says that Jesus takes away the sin of the world. But how so? If we take the most comfortable interpretation of this passage, then we must all become universalists. So what has to be done? Well, quite simply, we have to abandon the most comfortable interpretation in the immediate context and interpret it within the historical context of the whole council of God, which says that not all persons make it to heaven. Therefore, the verse has to be interpreted differently. Arminians will interpret it like this: Jesus takes away the sins of the world, but you must choose to become a beneficiary of this work in order for it to be applied to you. Christmas Calvinists will interpret it like this: Jesus takes away the sins of the world, but only those who have been chosen by the Father to become beneficiaries of His work will have it applied to them. And full Calvinists will interpret it like this: Jesus takes away the sins of the world in the sense that all persons for whom the atonement was made, out of every nation around the world are the beneficiaries of Christ’s work on the cross. Now, I want to ask you a couple of questions. First, since all of these interpretations depart from the most comfortable interpretation, why is it that the full Calvinist interpretation is the only one that is ever railed against? Second, which one of these interpretations best upholds the power and efficacy of Christ’s work on the cross? I submit to you that the full Calvinist interpretation isn’t any more uncomfortable in the immediate context than the other two interpretations; and it upholds the power and efficacy of Christ’s work on the cross better than the other two. Thus, the doctrine of Limited Atonement is superior both exegetically and theologically.

Second, (Jn. 3:16) "For God so loved the world (i.e. kosmos) that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." Now, this verse is often used against the doctrine of Limited Atonement as one that teaches a general atonement. But this verse really doesn’t say anything at all about the extent of the atonement except by implication. The verse says that God loved the world (i.e. kosmos). Nobody will reject this notion. God loves His creation. He loves every rock, plant, insect, animal, fish, bird and human being with a general love. But virtually all Christians everywhere will admit that He loves Christ and those who are in Christ with a special love. Now those who are in Christ are the "whosoever believes." But Arminians will say that the phrase "whosoever believes" implies that all persons have the ability to believe. But this opinion flatly denies passages such as (Jn. 6:44) "No one can come to Me unless the Father draws Him. . ." It is sometimes argued further that the Father tries to draw every person. But that flatly denies passages such as (Jn. 6:37) "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me. . ." Now obviously if the Father tries to draw everybody and all that the Father draws to Him will come to Him, than all would come to Him. Right? But once again, this argument makes you a universalist, therefore the Arminian interpretation doesn’t work. It ignores the part where Jesus says "no one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him." So what has to be done? Quite simply, we must abandon the most comfortable interpretation within the immediate context and interpret the verse in harmony with the historical context of the whole council of God. All Calvinists would say that the phrase "whosoever believes" means just what it says. Whosoever believes in Christ will certainly have eternal life. But this isn’t the whole story. Remember that Christ said "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws Him." That is the secret to interpreting this verse. The whosoevers are those whom the Father draws to Christ. Now, at this point, the Christmas Calvinist would say that the whosoevers are those whom the Father has eternally elected to participate in Christ’s atonement. The full Calvinist would say they are those whom the Father has eternally elected to be the ones for whom Christ’s death would make atonement. It is a subtle distinction in this context but one of immense significance.

Third, (Jn. 4:42) "for we have heard ourselves and believe that this One is indeed the Savior of the world" (i.e. kosmos). Now this verse says that Christ is the Savior of the world. Again, if we take the most comfortable interpretation then we are universalists. And again, we see that we must forsake the most comfortable interpretation in order to embrace an interpretation that is more in line with the historical context of the whole council of God. Why? Because we know that Christ is only the Savior of those who are in Him; and the rest are lost. So, in what sense is Christ the Savior of the world? Again, Arminians will interpret it like this: Jesus is the Savior of the world, but you must choose to become a beneficiary of this work in order for it to be applied to you. Christmas Calvinists will interpret it like this: Jesus is the Savior of the world, but only those who have been chosen by the Father to become beneficiaries of His work will have it applied to them. And full Calvinists will interpret it like this: Jesus is the Savior of the world in the sense that all persons for whom the atonement was made, out of every nation around the world are the beneficiaries of Christ’s work on the cross. Again, all these depart from the most comfortable interpretation. But the full Calvinist interpretation does the most justice with regard to the power and efficacy of the work of Christ on the cross.

Fourth, (Jn. 12:47) "I did not come to judge the world (i.e. kosmos), but to save the world." It is obvious by now that to take the most comfortable interpretation of this verse makes you a universalist. So we abandon the most comfortable interpretation and interpret it within the historical context of the whole council of God. In so doing we have the same three options we had when we dealt with (Jn. 1:29) and (Jn. 4:42). And once again I think the full Calvinist interpretation is the best. In what sense did Christ save the world? Jesus saved the world in the sense that all persons for whom the atonement was made, out of every nation around the world are the beneficiaries of Christ’s work on the cross.

Fifth, (1 Jn. 2:2) "and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world" (i.e. kosmos). This is the crown jewel for those who balk at the doctrine of Limited Atonement. But there are a couple of very important things to notice about this verse. First of all, this is a somewhat contrived rendering of this Greek sentence. Look at the text of your Bible and you will see that in the NASB the words "those of" are italicized, which means they are not in the Greek text. In the KJV the same words are rendered "the sins of" and they are italicized as well, indicating the same thing. The translators of the NIV were not honest enough to let the reader know this in any fashion whatsoever. In fact, none of these translations give an accurate rendering of the Greek text. The literal translation straight out of my inter-linear reads like this: "And He a propitiation is concerning the sins of us; not concerning ours but only, but also concerning all the world." If we rearrange the syntax in order to make sense in English, the sentence looks like this: "And He is a propitiation concerning the sins of us; not concerning us only, but also concerning all the world." Now this is truly food for thought. This sentence is saying two things: He is the propitiation concerning our sins; and, He is the propitiation concerning all the world. Now, this is where those words in italics found in the NASB and KJV become important. In the Greek it doesn’t explicitly say that He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. Those words were added by the interpreters. They were assumed. What it says is simply this: He is a propitiation concerning all the world. But what exactly does this mean?

Let me suggest beginning with a definition of the word "propitiation." On pg. 96 of my Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, it says this: "An offering that turns away the wrath of God directed against sin." In other words, propitiation is the aversion of wrath. But if God’s wrath has been turned away from every person in the whole world, then once again we become universalists. The Bible clearly says that those outside of Christ are under God’s wrath. So what do we do? Again, we abandon the most comfortable interpretation to embrace one that is more in line with the whole council of God. But in this case, the Greek makes it easy. Because if He is a propitiation concerning all the world, then it makes the full Calvinist interpretation fit perfectly in the immediate context as well as the historical context. While the Arminian would say that Jesus is the propitiation for every person in the world, but you must choose to accept it in order to escape the Fathers wrath, and the Christmas Calvinist would say that Jesus is the propitiation for every person in the world, but only those eternally elected by the Father escape His wrath, the full Calvinist can say that Christ is the propitiation concerning all the world in the sense that those from every nation around the world who have been eternally elected by the Father to have Jesus as their propitiation, have had the wrath of God diverted from them and exhausted upon their perfect substitute when He died on the cross. And once again, I think the full Calvinist interpretation does more justice to the whole council of God and in this case even in the immediate context. So much for the crown jewel.

Sixth, (1 Jn. 4:14) "We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world" (i.e. kosmos). Here, once again Christ is said to be the Savior of the world. And I have already dealt with this in my arguments for (Jn. 1:29), (Jn. 4:42) and (Jn. 12:47). The conclusion in all of these arguments was that He is the Savior of the world in the sense that all persons for whom the atonement was made, out of every nation around the world are the beneficiaries of Christ’s work on the cross.

Now allow me very briefly to remind you of the theological thrust of the entire Bible. Israel is a picture of the church and all throughout Old Testament history, God made special provision for them. He delivered them and them only out of bondage in Egypt, just as today He delivers the elect and the elect only out of bondage to sin death and hell. In the Old Testament sacrificial system, the nation of Israel was atoned for once a year. Not every nation. Only Israel was atoned for; just like today, only the elect are atoned for. The Major Prophets talk about how God had betrothed Israel and Israel alone to Himself and made provisions for her. In the Minor Prophets consider Hosea, how he purchased a wife of harlotry. He did not buy all the harlots; he only purchased one for fifteen shekels of silver and a homer and a half of barley (Hos. 3:2). A very specific price for a very specific bride. And God speaks to Israel saying "You only have I chosen among all the families of the earth. . ." (Amos 3:2). All throughout redemptive history we see God betrothing to Himself a specific people. Not all people - only Israel. All throughout redemptive history he has made provision for a specific people. Not all people - only Israel. Before Christ, God purchased for Himself one nation out of all the nations of the earth. Now that Christ has come, God is purchasing for Himself one people out of all the nations of the earth. Sound similar? It ought to sound familiar too because this is exactly what we see in (Rev. 5: 9-10) "Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation." Notice it says He purchased "men" - not all men, but men from every tribe tongue, people and nation: one people out of all the nations of the earth. Just like Israel was one nation out of all the nations of the earth. Let me ask you a question. If your significant other loved every other man or woman in the same way they love you, would'nt that make their love for you insignificant? God loved His chosen people enough that He chose to send His very own Son to die for them, and them alone! That is a profound love. That is a distinguishing love. That is the kind of love talked about in the Bible: an intimate love, a personal love, a love that penetrates to the very heart of God's elect because it eminates from the depths of God's own heart!

In conclusion, we have seen that the overwhelming usage of the word "world" in the Bible is used in geographical terms. It means just what it says, the world, that is, the earth. In the Old Testament the primary word was tebel. In the New Testament, the primary word was kosmos. Both words are decidedly geographical in meaning. And even in the few cases where they are used to refer to persons, the words themselves nor the immediate context demand that it be interpreted to mean all persons. Next we saw that the full Calvinist interpretation is no more uncomfortable in the immediate context that any other interpretations that may be offered up for the six "world" passages that are commonly offered as a rebuttal against the doctrine of Limited Atonement; and the crown jewel (1 Jn. 2:2), isn’t as strong an argument against it as most people think. Finally we saw that the doctrine of Limited Atonement fits well with the theological thrust of the entire Bible with God betrothing for Himself One nation, Israel, out of every other nation in the earth and purchasing her from a life of spiritual adultery in the Old Testament; and purchasing with His blood, one people out of every tribe, tongue, people and nation for Himself in the New Testament. These truths make an impenetrable case for the doctrine of Limited Atonement! Praise be to God! He loved the church with an intimate, personal, and special love, reserved for us from the foundation of the kosmos.

Soli Deo Gloria,

Shane Morgan

LIMITED ATONEMENT (How Does It Glorify God?)

2006-04-16T13:49:00.000-07:00

LIMITED ATONEMENT
(How does it glorify God?)

The doctrine of Limited Atonement glorifies God by insisting on the absolute power and efficacy of Christ’s death and resurrection. That is to say that all for whom Christ died are saved. Who would deny that? You ask. Well, surprisingly most people would. Allow me to spell out the two most popular misunderstandings of the atonement and then I will spell out the Biblical doctrine of Limited Atonement.

First, the Arminians hold an insufficient view by advocating a general atonement where Christ is said to have died for everybody and yet His death and resurrection does not in and of itself save anybody. This position maintains that in order for a person to be saved two things are required, the death and resurrection of Christ and a persons "choice" to "accept" Christ’s atoning work as their own. This fails to glorify God at two points: first, it divests the death of Christ of it’s power and efficacy by saying that something has to be added to it in order for it to actually save anybody; second, it makes a false distinction between the reality of the atonement and the defeat of death, by imagining that the defeat of death does not happen until the atonement is "accepted" by a person. But the Scripture says that when Christ rose from the grave "death was swallowed up in victory." (1 Cor. 15:54) So in the Arminian view, Christ’s death and resurrection is not efficacious enough to save anybody by itself, nor was it powerful enough to effectively defeat death. Thus, Christ’s death and resurrection has been subjugated to the sovereignty of man’s "free will" in order to complete it and give it it’s efficacy for salvation and it’s power to defeat death.

Secondly, there is another insufficient view that is held by many who call themselves Calvinists. They claim that Christ’s death and resurrection was sufficient for all but efficient only for the elect. This position holds that Christ’s death and resurrection provided a general atonement where Christ died for everybody, but contends that such an atonement is powerless unless the Father has chosen to make it powerful in the lives of the elect. But this view is really not much better than the Arminian view and also fails to glorify God at two points. First, once again, we see that the death and resurrection of Christ is not enough in and of itself to save anybody. In this view two things are need as well, the death and resurrection of Christ coupled with the electing work of the Father. Second, this view also makes a false distinction between the reality of the atonement and the defeat of death. This position says that Christ’s death and resurrection provided an atonement for everybody and yet they freely admit that the vast majority of human beings will be swallowed up in death and spend eternity in hell. But if Christ died for everybody and His death and resurrection effectively defeated death, then the only logical conclusion is that death has been defeated for everybody. But if the greatest part of mankind will spend eternity in hell then this is an impassable incongruency. One of these two claims has to be false. Either He didn’t die for everybody, or His death and resurrection didn’t effectively defeat death.Those who hold to this view have tried to justify this incongruency in some very creative and hilarious ways.

One attempt to reconcile this incongruency is to try and argue that while Christ died for the elect in order to save them, He died for the rest of the world simply to earn the title of "Savior of the World." I think this is the Ameraldian view or something like that. Wherever it comes from, it really doesn’t even deserve a response. Christ didn’t die to earn some title; He died to save His people from their sins. I simply laugh this one off as an entertaining bit of humor. Another attempt to reconcile this incongruency deserves a minute of our time only because it accuses the Limited Atonement view of denying God’s sovereignty. This attempt at reconciliation is in response to the statement, "If Christ died for all, then all must be saved." It is said that because God is sovereign, He has the ability to make an atonement for every single person but only count it effective for those whom He has chosen. To this we say that certainly He could do it that way if He so chose; but nowhere in Scripture do we read of any for whom Christ died being consigned to eternal condemnation. In fact we see exactly the opposite. In John 10 we are told that Christ "lays down His life for the sheep." (v. 15) It does not say that He lays down His life for the sheep and the goats. He did not say "behold, I lay down My life for the sheep and the goats but I shall only attribute My death to the sheep." No, He said He would lay down His life for "the sheep." And later in the passage He says that none of these sheep will be lost. "no one will snatch them out of my hand." The obvious conclusion is that all those (sheep) for whom Jesus "laid down His life" must be saved. So, could God have provided an atonement for every single person and then throw the greatest part of them into hell if He wanted to? Sure. But did He? Absolutely not!

In the end, this incongruity simply cannot be dismissed and neither of these attempts to reconcile the difference has succeeded in doing so. They simply don’t work. And they fail to glorify God because the death and resurrection of Christ is divested of it’s power and efficacy. In these views, very much of Christ’s blood either fell to the ground in shameful defeat, or was spilled for absolutely no purpose whatsoever.

A better view is the Limited Atonement view which says that Christ’s death and resurrection effectively and powerfully defeated sin, death and hell, and secured the salvation of all for whom He made atonement. God (i.e. the Father, Son and Holy Spirit) chose in eternity past a vast number of fallen people out of the massa perdita, and decisively set His love upon them. In so doing, He chose to take upon Himself the form of a man in order that in the flesh He would provide an all powerful, completely efficacious atonement for those upon whom He chose to set His love. And at the appointed time He would draw them into the inheritance which He has secured for them through His death and resurrection. To those for whom Christ died, death is really and truly defeated; and their sins are really and truly atoned for, even before they are born. All that is left to do is to manifest this reality in space and time by granting faith to His chosen ones through the hearing of the gospel.

This position alone maintains the absolute power and efficacy of the death and resurrection of Christ. It does not try to say that His death and resurrection is made powerful and efficacious only when a person chooses to accept it. It does not try to say that His death and resurrection is only made effective when coupled with the electing work of the Father. And it doesn’t try to concoct any ridiculous theories in order to reconcile the incongruency between the false idea of a general atonement and the truth of the few that are saved. Instead, it boldly claims that in the death and resurrection of Christ the whole work is complete. Christ did not suffer an infinite amount of pain and agony for no reason whatsoever. He did not lay down His life and take it back up again for a multitude of people for whom it is absolutely powerless to save. Not one drop of His precious blood was spilled in vain. The creation did not watch a dying Savior whose suffering in great part would avail no return. Every agonizing gasp, every inner sigh, every feeling of alienation, every tinge of humiliation, every lash of the whip, every puncture wound from the crown of thorns, every bruise, every scratch, every cut, every nail hole, spear wound, and lesion, every single red blood cell that ran down his tortured body was filled to the fullest with power and efficacy, purpose and meaning! Nobody, but nobody will ever be able to raise their eyes to God from hell and challenge His justice, saying, "Christ paid for my sins on the cross and defeated death for me in His resurrection, I am cast away unjustly and for nothing!" No, No No! Everybody in hell is there because God’s divine justice says "the soul that sins shall die," and in their case an atonement has not been made. Everybody in heaven is there because an atonement has been made for them; their sins have been paid for on the cross and death has been defeated for them in the resurrection.

Absolute power! Absolute efficacy! Hallelujah, all for whom Christ died are powerfully and efficaciously saved and not one of them is lost! Let others keep their half-baked view of the atonement. I would not give a dime for it! They can have their Christ who for the most part died in vain. The only atonement that I want is the one that glorifies God, the one that is filled with power, efficacy, meaning and purpose. The Scripture tells us that Christ died for "His sheep" and not one of them is lost. Christ died for "the church" and she is not the beneficiary of only half of Christ’s payment. No matter how you try do justify it, atonement and condemnation cannot live together in harmony. If Christ has paid your sin debt, then obviously there is no outstanding debt left to pay in hell. Think about it. A person is either atoned for or they are condemned; they cannot be both atoned for and condemned at the same time. Away with this nonsense! Let us glorify God together by believing the testimony of Scripture that "Having loved His own who were in the world, He loved them to the end." (Jn. 13:1) Let us glorify God by embracing the doctrine of Limited Atonement.

Soli Deo Gloria,

Shane Morgan

LIMITED ATONEMENT (In Two Parts)

2006-04-06T14:11:00.000-07:00

LIMITED ATONEMENT
(In two parts)

PART I: THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT

Before we can even begin to discuss the limits of the atonement, we must first address the nature of the atonement. The truth is, most people don’t have a clear understanding of the atonement; and it is my contention that of those who actually do have a clear understanding of it, most hold a misconception of it’s nature. So, let’s ask the question, What is the nature of the atonement? Or to put it another way, What did Christ actually accomplish on the cross?

Although most people have never articulated or thought through the issue of the atonement, I’m convinced that most people subconsciously understand it as follows. They think that when Christ offered up Himself on the cross, his sacrificial death earned enough merit to pay the sin debt of every person who has ever lived. And when a sinner comes to Jesus and asks Him to be their Savior, Jesus transfers enough merit to their account to pay for their sins and so they are saved. In this view, Christ is said to have been "earning" something by His sacrificial death on the cross. He was "earning" some kind of wages, lets call them death credits. These death credits do not ACTUALLY save anybody, they have simply been earned by Christ so that He may make them available to all who will come and ask for them. He is like a good Den Mother at Gattiland, standing there with a bag of video game tokens, freely giving them out to all the good little children who ask politely. But is this the correct view of the atonement? Was Christ simply "earning" death credits on the cross so that He may offer them to the world? Or was He ACTUALLY atoning for the sins of His people?

Let me be crystal clear at this point folks. The simple truth is: Christ wasn’t earning wages on the cross - He was paying bills! Let me repeat that: Christ wasn’t earning wages on the cross - He was paying bills! Allow me to paint a picture for you that is far different from the one in the previous paragraph, one that frankly is far more Biblical.

The Bible teaches us that on the cross, Christ took our sins upon Himself "Having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross." (Col. 2:14) He wasn’t earning wages - He was paying bills! "But when the fullness of time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons." (Gal. 4:4-5) He wasn’t earning wages - He was paying bills! "And He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the cross. . ." (1 Pet. 2:24) He wasn’t earning wages - He was paying bills! "But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed." (Isa. 53:5) He wasn’t earning wages - He was paying bills! I could go on and on with these passages. The simple truth is that whenever and wherever the Scripture addresses the atonement, we find payment language. He is our "Redeemer," He is our "Savior," He "purchased" our freedom. If this is not the case, then the church has been fatally misleading people for 2000 years with words like "Penal substitution," and "Redemption." I invite anybody at this point to try and prove me wrong. The Bible is crystal clear on the nature of the atonement - Christ wasn’t earning wages on the cross - He was paying bills! The cross was the divine checkbook upon which Christ balanced our account in blood.

But now lets follow this through to it’s application. On the cross Christ paid the bills! For whom did He pay the bills? Well, let’s just say that if everybody’s bill has been paid than universalism is true and we can all go home. But neither the Bible, nor redemptive history allow us to make this kind of application. Instead, we must realize that on the cross Christ paid the bills for the elect only. Once this has been accomplished, at the appointed time the Holy Spirit delivers a "paid-in-full" receipt to the elect for whom it was paid; this is called regeneration. Before the receipt is delivered it belongs to the elect person by predestination; after it is delivered, it belongs to them by possession. It is very similar to a trust fund having been taken out for a child’s college education while he is still an infant. The trust fund really belongs to the child in the sense that they are destined to possess it, but they don’t enjoy the benefits of it until it has actually been handed over to them at the appointed time. Another picture would be that of an infant prince who is destined to ascend the throne and wear the crown some day. The crown really belongs to him in the sense that he is destined to wear it, but he doesn’t enjoy the benefits of it until it has actually been handed over to him at the appointed time. So it is with our salvation. If you are one of God’s elect, then that means that your sin bill has been paid by Christ on the cross and your redemption is really accomplished, but you don’t enjoy the benefits of it until it has actually been handed over to you by regeneration at the appointed time. Once it has been delivered to you, it’s power brings about regeneration and you become a new creature in Christ.

Now, having painted this Biblical picture of the atonement, lets recap the highlights: 1. Christ paid the sin debts of the elect on the cross. 2. Redemption is a reality for the elect although they do not enjoy the benefits of it until it is actually handed over to them. 3. At the appointed time the Holy Spirit delivers the "paid-in-full" receipt to the elect by way of regeneration. Now, if these three points are true, let me be so bold as to state the obvious: either He paid your bill or He didn’t (Period!) It really is that simple. We only have two options with regard to the nature of the atonement, either Christ was earning wages, or He was paying bills; and if He was paying bills then yours was either one of them or it was not. If your bill was paid, you will receive the paid-in-full receipt at the appointed time. If your bill wasn’t paid, you will pay it yourself in eternal hellfire.

PART II: THE LIMITATION OF THE ATONEMENT

Now you may be saying, I see your logic Shane, but can you prove limited atonement Biblically? I can! And I will do so in the simplest way, by pointing to four very clear passages of Scripture - two passages dealing with Christ’s death for the elect, and two passages dealing with the destiny of the non-elect.

The first passage we will look at is found in (Jn. 10:1-18). Lets begin with vs. 11-15; there we read:"I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep. . . I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me, even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep." Now this passage could not be more clear concerning who Christ laid down His life for: "the sheep." But who are these sheep? The text is clear in vs. 2-4, "But he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he puts forth all his own, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him because they know his voice." So according to these verses, the sheep are those who "hear his voice," and "know his voice," and "follow him" when he "calls them by name." Furthermore, He calls them "his own sheep." Notice carefully, they don’t become His sheep because they hear his voice, but rather they hear his voice because they are His sheep. This is a very key element. We are His sheep before He calls us, so that when He does call us we will "hear His voice," "know His voice," and "follow Him." Now the text is crystal clear that it is these sheep for whom He lays down his life. Once again, He says "I lay down my life for (who?) the sheep." Now to use the metaphor consistently, those who are not His sheep are called goats. "As the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left." (Mat. 25:32-33) Concerning sheep and goats, my friend Stephen Newell has written a very good blog entitled "On Sheep and Goats." I will not spend time reiterating what he has already said; but I encourage you to read it.

The next passage is similar and is found in (Eph. 5:25-27). Here we read: "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless." Now obviously this is a charge to husbands given by the apostle Paul, but because marriage is to mirror the relationship between Christ and His church, Paul uses this as the model to which the husband is to aspire. In this passage he says plainly, "Christ loved the church and have Himself up for her." He did this so that He might "sanctify her," and "cleanse her," in order that "she would be holy and blameless." Clearly this is all about the church. Christ have his life for the church in order to sanctify, cleanse and make the church holy and blameless. Now, let me be so bold as to state the obvious, the church is made up of Christ’s sheep, for whom He died. Jesus said in (Jn. 10:15) "I lay down my life for the sheep." And now here in (Eph. 5:25) Paul is saying that "Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her." Those outside the church are not sheep; they are goats. He did not lay down his life for the goats; He laid down His life for the sheep, for the church.

So now you might ask, what about those outside the church, those outside of His sheepfold? This brings us to the first of the last two passages to which I will appeal in order to make my case. Turn to (1 Pet. 2:7-8), there we read: "This precious value, then, is for you who believe; but for those who disbelieve, ‘the stone which the builders rejected, this became the very corner stone,’ and, ‘a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense;’ for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed." What! Appointed to stumble at the word! Appointed to be disobedient to the word! My friends, that is exactly what the text says. Neither you or I have the authority to erase it or blunt its force. The text says that those who disbelieve and stumble at the word have been appointed to such doom. How does this fit in with our discussion? Well, it’s quite simple. Those who are Christ’s sheep, hear His voice, know His voice, and follow Him. It is these for whom He has laid down His life. Those for whom He did not lay down His life have been appointed to this doom. But wait! You say. That’s not fair! You claim. Maybe not according to our very human, democratic way of understanding fariness. But, if you take into consideration the fact that nobody deserves to be saved in the first place you have nothing to grovel about. Those who were appointed to doom are treated fairly, they receive what they deserve. Those who are Christ’s sheep, for whom He laid down His life do not receive what they deserve, but are recipients of amazing grace. The only thing that isn't fair is that anybody is saved at all.

Let me appeal to one last passage. It is found in (Rom. 9:21-22). There we read: "Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction." Now in this passage, the apostle clearly points out that God has made some vessels for honorable use and the others are "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction." Once again, allow me to be so bold as to state the obvious. The vessels of honor are the sheep, for whom Christ laid down His life; the vessels of wrath, are those for whom Christ did not lay down His life; instead, they have been "prepared for destruction."

CONCLUSION

Now lets step back and take a deep breath and try to take in the whole panarama of what has been said here. First, we saw that rather than earning a big bag of death credits, on the cross Christ was actually paying the bills. He couldn’t have paid the bill for everybody because if he had, nobody would have any outstanding debt to pay in hell. So if He really was paying bills, we have to ask, for whom did He pay the bills. And the answer is, He paid the bills for the elect and we will see this next. Second, Christ Himself told us that He laid down His life for (who?), that’s right, the sheep. Those who are not His sheep are called goats. Paul tells us that Christ laid down His life for (who?), that’s right, the church. So, on the cross, Christ paid the bills for the elect, His sheep, the church. Third, what about those outside of the sheepfold? Peter tells us that they were appointed to stumble at the word; they were appointed to doom. Paul tells us that God has made two kinds of vessels, some vessels of honor and some vessels of wrath, and these vessels of wrath have been prepared for destruction.

In the final analysis, it is crystal clear that Christ paid the bills for the elect, His sheep, the church; and the rest are goats, vessels of wrath, appointed for doom and destruction. Now reader, the text is crystal clear on these issues; and at the risk of sounding overly pious let me be so bold as to simply say that at this point, it is simply a matter of whether or not you are willing to submit to the Word of God. Will you allow it to stand in judgment over you or will you stand in judgment over it? Christ died for the elect and the rest are appointed for destruction. You may not like it. But it is the truth of God’s Word. I have laid it out for you very clearly and systematically. This is what God has said. AMEN!

Soli Deo Gloria,
Shane Morgan

Total Depravity (How does it glorify God?)

2006-02-13T17:27:00.000-08:00

TOTAL DEPRAVITY
(How does it glorify God?)
Hello again folks! First, I want to apologize for taking such a long time to bring this post. The Spring semester ship left port a couple of weeks ago and I’ve been trying to regain my sea-legs. I think I’m stabilized now. But only time will tell if that is truly the case.
Anyway, let me, once again reiterate the purpose of this series. My friend Stephen Newell and I agreed to co-blog this series together with the understanding that he would lay out the doctrinal position in his blog and in my blog, I would show how each individual doctrine actually glorifies God. Stephen has finished his treatment of total depravity in two posts. (And by the way, let me just say that his "part two" of this doctrine is OUTSTANDING.) Please go check it out! Having said that, I will now treat the doctrine of total depravity from the perspective of how it glorifies God.

Well, if what Stephen advocates about our human condition is true, and we are all spiritual zombies, who are completely incapable of doing anything without it being tainted with sin and thus rendered odious in the sight of God, then how could such a condition glorify God? The answer to this question will be seen as we look at the situation from a five different vantage points.

First, the doctrine of total depravity glorifies God by placing every human being on an even playing field before Him. "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." (Rom. 3:23) In other words, if we scoured the globe from one end to the other from now until Christ comes back, and turned up every stone and looked in every nook and cranny, and examined the lives of every individual who has ever lived, we would not and could not ever find even one person who could say that they were saved because of anything good in themselves. Nobody can say "I am saved because I was smart enough to place my faith in Jesus Christ; and you are lost because you are not smart enough to do what I did." Nobody can say, "I am saved because I did some good things; and you are lost because you refuse to do anything good." No! No! These statements, and any like them are totally ruled out by the doctrine of total depravity. Every, single, solitary person who has ever lived, is living now, or ever will live, is lost, lost, lost. In the words of the apostle, "There is none righteous, not even one; there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God; all have turned aside, together they have become useless; there is none who does good, there is not even one. Their throat is an open grave, with their tongues they keep deceiving, the poison of asps is under their lips; whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness; their feet are swift to shed blood, destruction and misery are in their paths, and the path of peace they have not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes." (Rom. 3:10-18) God does not play favorites. All flesh is condemned before Him and He is glorified in the fact that He judges with impartiality based upon this common human condition.

Second, the doctrine of total depravity glorifies God because it is a result of the just curse which He sovereignly imposed, not only upon all flesh, but upon all of creation. In the garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were created without original sin. That means that while they did possess the capacity to sin, they were not tainted with a propensity to sin as we are. They were not under the righteous condemnation of Almighty God through the curse but were free to sin or not to sin. But something happened to this pristine condition when Adam and eve sinned against God. Genesis 3:14-19 contains a sweeping curse that extends throughout the entire created universe. This includes the inanimate creation such as rocks, water, planets, moons and stars, as well as the animate creation, including fish, mammals, insects, all plant life and all human beings. There is absolutely nothing and absolutely nobody who is not under the curse and liable to the condemnation that comes therewith. Paul again shows us how this came to be our condition, "through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned." (Rom. 5:12) God sovereignly placed Adam in the garden as our representative and when he sinned, we all sinned with him. Article two of the Canons of Dordt puts it this way: "Man after the fall begat children in his own likeness. A corrupt stock produced a corrupt offspring. Hence all the posterity of Adam, Christ only excepted, have derived corruption from their original parent, not by imitation, as the Pelagians of old asserted, but by the propagation of a vicious nature, in consequence of the just judgment of God." Thus, the doctrine of total depravity glorifies God because it is a just recompense for such an unjust breach of the Creator’s ordinance.

Third, this doctrine glorifies God by placing us completely at His mercy in order to obtain salvation. Those who are the elect, therefore, exist to the praise of His glorious grace. Our captivity to sin, death and hell, renders us totally helpless with regard to our position before God and desperately in need of His intervention if ever we are to have our condition changed. This is why salvation MUST be a totally free gift. Salvation MUST be given to us by God’s free grace. This is why we are told in (Eph. 2:8-9) "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast." And again in (Rom. 9:15-16), God tells us "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy." There is nothing we can do to earn our salvation. There is nothing we can do to make us more worthy of salvation than any other person. People are so often directed to place their faith in Christ as if this were the one good work that we can do that will make God indebted to save us. But this fails to recognize that even the faith that we place in Christ does not come from us. We are given the ability to have faith in Christ. It does not come from within ourselves but from God. And He gives it to whom He chooses. Brothers and sisters, if you are a Christian today, it is not because you were smarter or better or more enlightened or more spiritual or any other thing you could possibly dream up. No! You are saved simply because God chose to have mercy on you; and this while you were still in hateful rebellion against Him. The doctrine of total depravity thus glorifies God by making salvation necessarily an absolute free gift based solely upon His grace and received by a faith, which He sovereignly imparts to whom He chooses.

Fourth, the doctrine of total depravity glorifies God by manifesting His perfect justice in the damnation of willful sinners. Often, people like to cavil against this doctrine by saying something like this: "Well I just can’t believe that God would turn away any who come to Him desiring salvation." My answer is, I can’t believe it either. This is not a correct picture of the sinner who is in willful rebellion against the Creator. In our natural condition we do not really want God, we do not really seek God, we really cannot submit to His Lordship over our lives; nor would we ever wish to part with our beloved sins in order to embrace a life of holiness. No! the fact of the matter is, in our natural state, man is at enmity with God. We are His enemies. Nobody cries out to Him for salvation unless they have first been changed on the inside by the work of the Holy Spirit. We naturally hate the way of holiness, we spurn the chaste life that calls us to abandon our sinful pleasures. There is nothing about God, Jesus Christ, or the life of piety that we desire unless it is the good reputation that comes along with such a condition. But then we desire it for sinful reasons, which only illustrates once again the depraved condition into which we are born. In the end, the only ones who will suffer eternal separation from God are those who hate Him, those who refuse to come to Him, those who spurn Him and mock at Him and His people. Those who will be in hell suffering the righteous condemnation of God will be only such as could not stand the idea of submitting to His Lordship or forsaking their sinful ways in order to embrace Christ. Such a one as this certainly deserves to fall under the eternal condemnation of God. It is often asked how a loving God could ever send anybody to hell. But this question totally ignores the fact that God is also a God of holiness and justice, and as such He cannot allow sin to go unpunished. The more accurate question is to ask how such a holy and righteous God could ever see fit to rescue any who rightly deserve to suffer His holy wrath. I, personally deserve death, hell and eternal separation from God because of my many rebellions against Him. And you deserve the same thing. If some get what they deserve, it may not glorify God’s mercy but it certainly does glorify God’s justice. Thus, the doctrine of total depravity glorifies God by manifesting His righteous indignation in the eternal condemnation of those who hate Him.

Fifth, and finally, the doctrine of total depravity glorifies God by allowing us to take the Scriptures at face value. Therefore, when the Scriptures say "every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" (Gen. 6:5), the one who embraces the doctrine of total depravity can say "yes." But the one who rejects total depravity has to say "yes, but. . ." When the Scriptures say "The heart is decietful above all things and desperately wicked. Who can know it?" (Jer. 17:9), the one who embraces the doctrine of total depravity can say "yes." But the one who rejects total depravity has to say "yes, but. . ." When the Scriptures say "There is none righteous, no not one. There is none that understands, there is none that seeks after God" (Rom. 3:10-11), the one who embraces the doctrine of total depravity can say "yes." But the one who rejects total depravity has to say "yes, but. . ." When the Scriptures say "This is the condemnation that light has come into the world, and men love darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil" (Jn. 3:19), the one who embraces the doctrine of total depravity can say "yes." Or when Scripture says "ye will not come to Me, that ye may have life" (Jn 5:40); or when it says "The natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him. Neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor. 2:14); or when it says "You were dead in your trespasses and sins" (Eph. 2:1); or when it says that in order to be saved we must "escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will" (2 Tim. 2:26); to all of these and many more, which I will not take the time to list, the one who embraces the doctrine of total depravity can say "yes." But the one who rejects this doctrine must water it down and explain it away and perform all kinds of hermeneutical gymnastics in order to make these passages appear to say something other than what they say. If we are to rightly glorify God, we must take Him at His word and the doctrine of total depravity glorifies God because it allows us to do just that: take Him at His word.

By way of closing, it may be said further that this doctrine glorifies God with regard to His eternal plan to redeem for Himself a people who were purchased and perfected with the imputed righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ. It was God's plan from the very beginning to create a kingdom of redeemed believers. That's why the fall was necessary, that's why the curse was necessary, that's why total depravity was necessary. In the end, all these things which seem bad will result in perfection when seen woven into the larger tapestry of God's eternal plan. Thus the doctrine of total depravity glorifies God in the minutia as well as in the grand scope of things. May He be glorified forever and ever. Amen!

Soli Deo Gloria,
Shane Morgan

THE DOCTRINES OF GRACE

2006-02-01T13:43:00.000-08:00

THE DOCTRINES OF GRACE

(Introduction to a series)

My friend, Stephen Newell has been studying the Doctrines of Grace for some time now in an effort to crystallize exactly what he believes to be taught in the Bible with regard to soteriology. I have agreed to co-blog a series on the Doctrines of Grace with him. I had not intended to do a series on the Doctrines of Grace on this site simply because there is a pervading stigma within the broader theological world that Reformed Theology, or Calvinism, (terms, which may be used interchangeably) is all about the five points. This is a tragic understatement. Reformed Theology, or Calvinism, is a Total-Life theology, encompassing a grand view of the sovereignty of God in ALL things big and small; and a firm commitment to the fact that ALL things big and small exist and function SOLELY for the Gory of God. Reformed Theology/ Calvinism moves man out of the center of everything and places God on the throne. In other words, Reformed Theology is manifestly, necessarily and unapologetically Theo-centric, and snarls with disgust and contempt at anything anthropocentric. It encompasses all areas of theology: revelation, creation, sanctification, pneumatology, harmartology, ecclesiology, eschatology, and yes soteriology. Everything, everything, everything. . . is "from Him, and through Him and to Him; to Him be glory forever, amen." That is Reformed Theology/ Calvinism in a nutshell, and this is the picture I want people to see when those terms are used, instead of immediately focusing on the five points.

That being said, it is certainly within the realm of the purpose of this blog site to do a series on the Doctrines of Grace. However, I will be taking a little bit different approach than usual. With all of the material and discussion about the five points that has flooded the book stores, blog sites and conversations within recent years, I thought it refreshing and more edifying not to simply state and restate the basic doctrinal positions again and again, but rather to show how each particular doctrine serves to glorify God in and of itself. I have seen, (as I’m sure most of my readers will have also) many discussions about how the TULIP system glorifies God as a whole. But I have never read a discussion on how each individual doctrine redounds the Glory of God. It is high time someone approached it from this position.

So here’s how this is going to work. I am going to leave it up to Stephen to lay out the doctrinal positions as he has come to understand them and then I will treat them from the standpoint of how each one glorifies God. We will be posting our blogs simultaneously and they are meant to be read simultaneously, beginning today with the introduction; and then once a week until we finish all five points. I may weigh in doctrinally when it comes to Limited Atonement since this seems to be a sticking point for most people; but by in large I do not intend to replicate what he will be doing. And then at the end, I will unfold a profound secret by explaining why I am a Six Point Calvinist. That’s right! - SIX points. But you’ll have to stay with us through the series in order to get to that one. Having laid out the basic premise, now let me give my brief introduction to the series.

In 1618 the National Synod of Dordt convened in order to form a response to the encroaching heresy of Palegianism/ Arminianism, which taught in so many doctrines that God had done all He could do in the salvation process, and that now it was up to man to finish it. This disgusting doctrine is currently what is being taught in the vast majority of churches. God has done all He can do, they say. The Cross of Christ is not enough to save anybody by itself. We must complete the work by "accepting the free gift." Christ "stands at the door and knocks" hoping and pleading with elephant tears that sinners will just open up and let Him in so that He can save them; but alas, the poor fellow is simply powerless to make that happen. So there he stands, rejected and dejected, un-victorious and incapable of accomplishing that which He desires. This is putrid vomit! This is not the victorious warrior, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords that is presented to us in the Word of God. The Word of God tells us that "He does according to His will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of earth; and no one can say to Him, ‘what have You done?’" (Dan. 4:35). There is no possibility that He could ever fail to accomplish that which He wishes to accomplish. "But," says someone, "He wishes to preserve the free will of man so much that He is willing to leave the outcome in our hands." Really!? I have read the Bible many times over and have yet to find a passage where God values the free will of human beings so much that He is willing to take a loss in order to preserve it. And until I do, I consider those who insist this to be guilty of blasphemy. And I am not alone in this. In fact, this is exactly the same conclusion that the National Synod of Dordt reached in 1618 with the codification of T.U.L.I.P. as a response to five heretical doctrines taught by the Palegians and the Arminians.

The Doctrines of Grace, then, consist of five essential doctrines that explain Reformed soteriology, or the process by which God saves sinners. The "T" stands for Total depravity; the "U" stands for Unconditional election; the "L" stands for Limited atonement; and the "P" stands for the Perseverance of the Saints. Notice I said that this is the process by which "God saves sinners." Really, the whole thing can be summed up in that one simple statement. Sinners do not save themselves. They are "dead in trespasses and sins," according to (Eph. 2:1). In our natural, fallen condition, we do not want to come to Christ. Jesus tells us in (Jn. 5:40) "You are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life." In our natural, fallen condition we do not have the ability to come to Christ. Jesus tells us, "no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" (Jn. 6:44). In our natural, fallen condition, nobody seeks God or does anything to deserve His mercy. The apostle tells us in (Rom. 3: 10-18) "There is none righteous, not even one; there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God; all have turned aside, together they have become useless; there is none who does good, there is not even one." The only way a person can be saved is if God takes the initiative to save us. "But God demonstrated His own love toward us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us" (Rom. 5:8).

Quite simply, then, this network of doctrines comes together to form a bulwark against all anthropocentric soteriology. It glorifies God primarily because it takes the process of salvation out of mans hands and places it entirely back into the hands of God, from where it should never have been wrested. It gives God all the glory. It does not rob Him of any of the glory which He so richly deserves in order to confer some of it onto men. I once heard a person say that the reason they don’t like Reformed Theology is because "it makes God sovereign over everything; and I at least like to think I made a good choice." This is the sick plight of fallen humanity! We CANNOT STAND to give God all the glory. We feel like we simply MUST retain some of it for ourselves. But until we can agree with the Scriptures that we were dead in trespasses and sins, unwilling and unable to come to Him unless He took the initiative to draw us to Himself, we will never be able to see God in all of His glorious splendor. And furthermore, we will never be able to glorify Him the way we should. But God is sovereign over even this. In His sovereign wisdom, He has decreed that the vast majority of Christians glorify Him but little while they live on earth. Eventually, He will have His full glory from them; but for now, they are but tarnished mirrors, reflecting only a little of the glory of God. But for those whose eyes He has been pleased to open, He is glorified a thousand times over. I urge you brethren and sisters, take the time to look into this issue. Do you have a firm commitment to the absolute inspiration and authority of God’s Word? Then look into what it says with regard to this issue. The truth is available to all who will see it. Ask God to give you light on this issue. It may be that He plans to open your eyes that you might enter into His full glory. Read carefully, think hard, pray diligently and strive with the Holy Spirit, if perhaps He would grant it that you would be numbered amongst those whose joy it is to give God the glory due His name.

Soli Deo Gloria,

Shane Morgan

THE FEAR OF GOD

2006-01-28T12:34:00.000-08:00

"THE FEAR OF GOD"

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been driving down the road and read a bumper sticker that said: "Ain’t Skeered," or "No Fear." And each time I see it I think the same thing: stupid! While the rest of the world thinks its tough and manly to go around parading as a person who fears nothing, Scripture portrays that person as a fool. Because, quite frankly, there are some things that should produce fear in us. Like the possibility of one of these horrible Louisville drivers slamming into you in the freeway when the roads are wet. (Lord knows Louisville people can’t drive!!) Or the possibility of a criminal breaking into your house and harming your wife or children. Like one of your little ones accidentally running out in the street and being hit by a car, or being snatched by a kidnapper walking home from School. And oh, by the way, an intelligent person will have a healthy fear of GOD!

When I survey the moral landscape of contemporary society, I am driven time after time to the same conclusion: "There is no fear of God before their eyes" (Rom. 3:18). Now, Christians reading this are probably sitting back right now in a most pious fashion and saying to themselves: "that’s right; there is no fear of God before their eyes." But if you are like 99% of all other Christians out there, unfortunately you don’t fear God either. In fact, when I survey the broad landscape of contemporary Christianity, I sickeningly see the same thing that I see in the non-believing world: "There is no fear of God before their eyes."

Some of you are seething mad right now at me, saying "how dare you tell me I don’t fear God!" Well I’ll tell you why I dare. For starters, the divorce rate within the Christian community is scarcely less than that of the non-believing community. Does this demonstrate a healthy fear of God? There are scarcely less cases of adultery in the Christian community than there are in the non-believing community! Does this demonstrate a healthy fear of God? There are scarcely less cases of abortion within the Christian community than there are in the non-believing community. Does this demonstrate a healthy fear of God? There is just as much bickering in our churches as within the non-believing community - and over stupider things! Does this demonstrate a healthy fear of God? The vast majority of Christians are no more than pew warmers; and those who do take church involvement seriously are more concerned with their own personal recognition than they are about self-sacrificial service solely for the glory God. Does this demonstrate a healthy fear of God? Scarcely one in ten Christians have a regular prayer time. Does this demonstrate a healthy fear of God. Still less have a regular time for devotion to the Scriptures. Does this demonstrate a healthy fear of God? Every day you hear about more and more pastors and music directors who have made shipwreck of the faith though sexual infidelity, destroying their own families and causing un-repairable damage to some poor, unsuspecting congregation, with the inevitable result of tarnishing the credibility of the churches witness within the world! Now I ask you, does this really demonstrate a healthy fear of God!? The obvious answer is no, No and NO! Everywhere you look Christians have "trampled under foot the Son of God, and have regarded as an unclean thing the blood of the covenant. . ." (Heb. 10:29). I could go on and on, piling up example after heart-wrenching example of the dreadful lack of a healthy fear of God in our churches. This ought to cause us to fall on our faces to repent in dust and ashes!! And if we are truly concerned about the church of the Lord Jesus Christ, that’s exactly what we will do.

I don’t lay all of the fault on the people for this horrible deficiency that has robbed Christiandom of it’s power. In fact, I lay the great bulk of the blame upon pastors who fear God so little themselves that they have failed to faithfully teach others to fear Him. If and when you do hear of the fear of God from the pulpit, it is quickly followed by some stupid explanation about how if your a Christian you don’t need to fear God anymore. And in the extremely rare cases where preachers don’t do this, they almost always reduce the fear of God to what they like to call "reverential awe." It’s high time we had a serious discussion about what it really means to fear God. So what do I mean when I use the phrase: "The Fear of God?"

To begin with, let me say that there is a sense of reverential awe in the fear of God, but to reduce it to that is to leave it sadly anemic. The essence of what it means to fear God is that you truly fear Him - and that with a real fear. Look at what happened to Daniel when he was confronted with a divine visitor: "I was left alone and saw this great vision; yet no strength was left in me, for my natural color turned to a deathly pallor, and I retained no strength. But I heard the sound of his words; and as soon as I heard the sound of his wards, I fell into a deep sleep with my face to the ground. Then behold, a hand touched me and set me trembling on my hands and knees. . .And when he had spoken this word to me, I stood up trembling. Then I opened my mouth and spoke and said to him who was standing before me, ‘O my lord, as a result of the vision anguish has come upon me, and I have retained no strength. For how can such a servant of my lord talk with such as my lord? As for me, there remains just now no strength in me, nor has any breath been left in me" (Dan. 10:9-17). Now, I ask you, what is it that Daniel is experiencing here? Is this simply reverential awe? No, no, a thousand times, no! This is a real fear, a paralyzing fear. Shear terror had gripped the very soul of Daniel. He was reduced to a quivering lump of flesh. He fell prostrate to the ground, trembling uncontrollably and the very breath within his breast was stolen from him!! This is a man who was almost literally scared to death! And Isaiah’s response to a heavenly visitor in (Isa. 6) is scarcely less powerful, as he is forced to cry out "Woe is me, for I am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of Hosts." There is room for reverential awe in the fear of God, but we must also recover this lost element of real fear.

Christian, if you want to take your walk with Christ to a new level, I urge you to embrace this fear of the Lord. Pray for it. Labor to get hold of it and make it part of you. John Bunyan, in his excellent book, ‘The Fear of God’ writes: "The fear of God is called ‘God’s Treasure," for it is one of His choice jewels; it is one of the rarities of heaven. "The fear of the Lord is His treasure" (Isa. 33:6). And it may well go under such a title, for like treasure, the fear of the Lord is not found in every corner. ‘There is no fear of God before their eyes,’ that is, the greatest part of men are utterly destitute of this goodly jewel, this treasure, the fear of the Lord. When poor vagrants come straggling to some lords house, they may perhaps obtain some scraps and fragments; they may also obtain old shoes and some sorry, cast-off rags, but they do not get any of his jewels. They may not touch his choicest treasure, for that is kept for the children and those who shall be his heirs. We may say the same also of this blessed grace of fear, which is here called ‘God’s Treasure.’ It is only bestowed upon the elect, the heirs and children of the promise; all others are destitute of it, and so continue to death and judgment" (pg. 68).

We shouldn’t think, however, that just because we are amongst God’s elect, that we automatically possess the fear of God. The catalogue of miscarriages cited in the third paragraph of this treatment proves that the greatest part even of the church does not possess this fear of God. It is something we must labor for, pray for, and work toward. It is un-natural to the human heart to fear God and therefore, it is not achieved without much effort. Take a look at your life, your walk with God. Does it manifest signs of the fear of God? John Bunyan again says: "Sinner, do not deceive yourself; if you are a stranger to sound repentance, which stands in sorrow and shame before God for sin, and also in turning from it, you have no fear of God. You have none of this godly fear, for that is the fruit of and flows from sound repentance" (pg. 78). Although these last two sentences are addressed primarily to non-Christians, it is more than fitting that Christians take these words to heart as well. The Christian church today lives in a manifestly unrepentant condition with regard to sin. It would not be too strong a suggestion to urge upon the vast majority of Christians to "Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! (2 Cor. 13:5).

Christian, where are you today with regard to your walk with Christ? How goes it with your soul? Do you live in manifest unrepentant sin? If so, you have no fear of God in you. You are in a dangerous position. Your very salvation stands in question. Fall to your knees and repent before the very God at whose judgment bar every man shall stand with every thought, every deed, every intention of his heart "laid open and bare before the face of Him with whom we have to do."

Allow me to quote John Bunyan once more as I bring this treatment to a close. He writes: "Truely to fear, and to abound in this fear, is a sign of a very princely spirit; and the reason is that when I greatly fear my God I am above the fear of all others, nor can anything in this world, be it ever so terrible and dreadful, move me at all to fear them. And hence it is that Christ counsels us to fear: ‘And I say unto you, my friends, be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: fear Him, which after He hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, fear Him’ (Lk. 12:4-5). Indeed, this true fear of God sets a man above all the world; and therefore it is said again, ‘Neither fear ye their fear, nor be afraid. Sanctify the Lord of Hosts Himself; and let Him be your fear, and let Him be your dread’" (Isa. 8:12-13). Christian, if we would be all that we can be for the glory of God, if we would have all the blessings God would bestow upon us, if we would draw as close to God as is humanly possible, we MUST cultivate and take seriously this tragically overlooked principle of the fear of the Lord. Study it with all your mental powers, pray for it with buckets full of tears, pursue it with relentless tenacity, sell whatever you must to gain it, give up whatever stands in your way of embracing it, seek for it as for buried treasure and never, never, never leave off your mission until you have found and possessed this priceless treasure, this grace of all graces, the scarcest of all Christian posessions, the rare jewel of the fear of God.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Shane Morgan

THE MINISTRY OF THE WORD: A DREADFUL CALLING

2006-01-15T10:49:00.000-08:00

THE MINISTRY OF THE WORD: A DREADFULL CALLING

(A Puritan's view of the Pulpit)

"A minister once said, 'The pulpit is the most dreadful place on the earth.' We may ask why a called minister of the Gospel would say such a thing. Why? Why is the pulpit so dreadful? Its just a place where a man, twice a week, or so, gives a short address to people from the Bible on a spiritual lesson which may help them make better decisions in life. If that is your view of the pulpit, then an early retirement, before next Sunday, is very much in order for you."

C. Mathew McMahon has written a very convicting series on the Puritan view of the Pulpit on his website: A Puritans Mind. It is from part one of his series that the previous quote is taken. I encourage you to check it out here. For those of you who are preachers, I want to take a few minutes of your time now to impress upon you the seriousness of the ministry of the Word.

I too, share the sentiments of the minister who said: "The Pulpit is the most dreadful place on earth," and I challenge you, if you do not presently see the ministry of the Word in this way, you seriously need to pause and consider the profundity of the task that has been assigned to you.

First, consider who's ambassador you are. If you have been called to preach the Word, it is no less of a personage than the very God - the Great and Terrible God of the universe, the one Supreme Potentate and Most Holy Judge, in whose hands are all things and for whose purpose all things exist, whom you presume to represent! This is no earthly dictator, no mere human authority for whom you speak. This is no man or woman, whose words may be trifled with without consequence. This is God almighty, of whom it is said: "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." This is the Great God and King of whom it is written: "From His face the earth and the heavens fled away, and there was found no place for them!" This is the God from whose mouth no error proceeds and whose councels shall stand for all of eternity! This is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords whose very word binds and looses, blesses and condemns, kills and gives life! And will you DARE to speak for Him!? Will you open up your mouth and proceed to spew out words on His behalf!? In your fallen, sinful, tainted condition, do you presume to speak for such an one who is absolute holiness, absolute righteousness and perfectly just in all His ways!? What fool could apporach such a task without a sense of holy fear? What mindless oaf would appraoch such a dreadful assignment with a tepid flipancy? This is not play time. This is not lecture time. This is not an exercise in pop-psychology, or a seven-secrets-to-success seminar. You stand under the heavy hand and the piercing watch-gaze of the very Creator Himself when you stand in the pulpit! And will you not take such a task seriously? Will you not tremble under the tremendous weight of what you have been called to do? If not, then I agree with Mr. McMahon, "an early retirement, before next Sunday, is very much in order for you." And this not as a repremand as much as a safeguard. Every Christian under the sound of your voice stands at spiritual risk if you should alter the message. You yourself stand at risk if you should alter the message. I beg of you preacher, take your assignment seriously or do not take it at all!

Second, consider the message you must deliver. You have not been called to report some article cut out of a newspaper, or to give a report of something you read in a magazine. You do not come to give a discussion based upon a book by some human author. This is the very Word of God! Will you water it down? Will you pick and choose which parts of it are good for edification based upon your own wisdom? Will you stand in judgment over it and give obedience to one part of it and not the other? Will you do anything whatever to add to it or take away from it? You are an ambassador; not a king! You are the messanger; not the dictator! You are the servant; not the Lord! It is not your job to stand in judgment over the Word, to water down the Word or to pick and choose what is and what is not good from out of the Word. It is simply your job to deliver the Word! If you cannot simply deliver the Word as it has been given to us by God Himself, then PLEASE do not accept the assignment. If you cannot resign yourself to the truthfulness of every part of God's Holy Word, then PLEASE do not go forth sowing half a seed. If you will not or cannot simply allow God to speak for Himself without redefining, reinterpreting, or reshaping His message than PLEASE spare yourself and those to whom you would presume to speak dangers of a deficient message. Jesus said: "For whoever is ashamed of Me and My Words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when He comes in His glory, and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels"(Lk. 9:26). I ask you; can the Word of God be approached with too much fear? Can the task be taken too seriously? Can too much time be spent in preparation for the preaching of the pure Word of God? Can too much time be spent on exegesis and the propor application of hermeneutics? Can too much time be spent in prayer begging God's assistance in sermon preparation? Can a fallen creature ever see this as too dreadful of a task? Oh Please, please, preacher, I beg of you, take this task seriously!

Third, consider the effects that this peaching will have upon the souls of your hearers. If your words are too soothing, a sinner could be hardened in his sin and eternally damned. If your words are too harsh and legalistic, a sinner could be frightened away from God forever. If your words are too ambiguous, a sinner could be misguided and never find the straight and narrow road that leads to life. If your words are unfaithful to Scripture, God will withhold His blessing upon you and your congregation. While it is true that God has chosen those who will be saved from before the foundation of the world, yet it is through the preaching of His Word that they are drawn. While it is true that He will never fail to bring those whom He has chosen to a lively faith in Christ, yet you and I are still responsible for the faithful delivery of the Word. Judas was predestined by God to betray Christ unto death, but observe Christ's own words conserning Him: "For indeed, the Son of Man is going as it has been determined; but woe to that man by whome He is betrayed!" (Lk. 22:22). God's eternal decrees of salvation and reprobation provide no justification for the one through whom damnation is delivered. When a preacher distorts the Word of God in such a way that sinners are crystalized in their sin and eternally lost, the apostle James has a word for that man: "Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment" (Jms. 3:1). If through the faithful preaching of Gods Word, your sermon becomes "an aroma of death unto death" then so be it; for God has said: "My Word will not return to Me empty, without accomplishing what I desire, and without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it" (Isa. 55:11). But woe unto you preacher, if your sermons should prove to be an aroma of death unto death through your own neglegence! Woe, woe unto you preacher, if your sermons should bind up sinners in eternal fetters of condemnation because you were not faithful to the message that was entrusted to you! Woe, woe, woe unto you preacher, if your sermons should lead sinners away from the straight and narrow path because you were ashamed to preach the pure Word of God!! Oh please, please, preacher, preach the Word, the True Word, and nothing but the Word!!

Finally, those of us who feel we have been commissioned to preach the Word of God had better be sure that we have been called to that ministry. This is not a ministry for everybody. Not just anybody can take up the mantle and preach "the power of God unto Salvation." We are all called to be Christ's witnesses. But few, very few are called to preach the Word of God. How do you know if you are called to preach the Word of God? Let me suggest at least three points of consideration.

First of all I would direct you to the words of Jeremiah: "But His Word was in mine heart as a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I was weary with forbearing, and I could not stay" (Jer. 20:9). Do you have this burning passion to preach the Word of God? Or is it simply another task that you think might be fun? Is the Word of God shut up like a fire in you bones, so much that you cannot do anything else? Or is it something that you could take or leave? When God calls a preacher, he cannot do anything else. Providence may prevent his preaching until he is proporly trained, but the burning desire is always within him. Which brings me to the next mark of the called preacher.

Second, has God providentially provided you with training in the Word? When a man is called to preach the Word of God, the Sovereign King of Glory will providentially arrange for you to be trained in the Word. The disciplines of exegesis and hermeneutics are no laughing matter. The man who has no understanding of how these disciplines apply, has no business preaching the Word of God. Done rightly, Biblical exegesis can be an exhausting task. Done rightly, the propor application of hermeneutics can be mentally draining. And all this, before the discipline of homiletics can even be attempted, which is no less difficult a labor as the others. Hours and hours can be spent in sermon preparation. The man of God who has truely been called of God will understand the seriousness of these disciplines and seek to be trained for the same, and God will providentially provide the needed education.

Third, I would simply ask you, does your view of the ministry of the Word line up with what has been said here? Is the task a dreadfull one in your mind? Do you truely understand who it is that you represent? Do you truely understand the seriousness of the message with which you have been entrusted? Do you truely understand the effects that message could and will have upon it's hearers? The prospect should terrify you! Such a holy calling should humble you beyond measure and make you cry out in abrogation of yourself and your terrible inadequecy! Such a weighty labor should make you melt under the recognition of your own frailness, sinfullness, weakness and lack of understanding! Only then can you truely embrace the calling of God to preach the Word. Only then have you embraced the Puritan view of the pulpit. Only then have you truely discerned that the ministry of the Word is indeed a dreadful calling.

THE GLORY OF GOD DISPLAYED IN THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST

2006-01-09T08:29:00.000-08:00

The Glory of God Displayed in the Gospel of Christ
(2 Cor. 4:1-7)

A sermon preached at Beachgrove Baptist Church

In the year of our Lord 1765, seven years after the death of the great evangelical theologian, Jonathan Edwards, some of his previously unpublished works were published posthumously. One of these works was entitled: "The End for which God Created the World." In this comprehensive treatise, Edwards fleshes out the proposition that all things material and immaterial, animate and inanimate, were created expressly for the glory of God. Towards the end of the book, Edwards sums up His whole proposition like this: "All that is ever spoken of in the Scripture as an ultimate end of God’s works is included in that one phrase, ‘the glory of God.’" And this is undoubtedly the only sensible conclusion we can come to if we truly submit ourselves to the message of Scripture. Lets briefly look at a few passages of Scripture that affirm this proposition.

God is jealous for His glory
(Isa. 48:11) "For My own sake, for My own sake, I will act; For how can My name be profaned? And My glory I will not give to another."

(Ps. 72:19) "blessed be his glorious name for ever: and let the whole earth be filled with his glory."

The inanimate creation was made for His glory
(Ps. 19:1) "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament displays His handywork."

Human Beings were created for His glory
(Isa. 43:6-7) "I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back: bring
my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth; Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him."

What happens when humans fail to give Him the glory due His name
(Acts 12:23) "And immediately an angel of the Lord struck him because he did not give God the glory, and he was eaten by worms and died."

Sin is sinful because in it we fail to glorify God
(Rom. 3:23) "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

Christ’s incarnation and sacrifice were ultimately for His glory
(Phil. 2:7-11) "But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name. That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

If I were to ask the average Christian why Christ died to save us, I guarantee you the answer would be: because He loves us. But notice what Scripture says in Ephesians chapter 1.
(v.5-6) "He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace.

(v. 11-14) "We have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory. In Him you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation – having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory.

In the passage were looking at today, the message Paul wants to communicate to us is that the entire drama of human redemption exists and is worked out in human experience precisely for the glory of God.

CHRIST’S WITNESSES MUST WALK WITH PERSEVERENCE AND INTEGRITY, IN ORDER THAT THE GLORY OF GOD MAY BE DISPLAYED. (v. 1-2)

"as we have received mercy, we do not lose heart" – Paul is telling the Corinthians here that he and Timothy, regardless of what difficulties they may encounter, will never give up, they will never give in, they will never lose heart. If there is one word that could summarize the ministry of the apostle Paul it would be perseverance. (see 2 Cor. 11:24-28)
We also must persevere in the particular ministry to which God has called us.
(Heb. 3:14) "For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm unto the end."
(2 Cor. 1:7) "Our hope for you is firmly grounded, knowing that as you are sharers of our sufferings, so also you are sharers of our comforts."
(1 Cor. 15:58) "Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your toil is not in vain in the Lord."
"we have renounced the things hidden because of shame" – Paul now shifts gears a bit and reminds the Corinthians that he and Timothy are men of integrity. Their integrity is to be seen in two primary places: first, in the fact that they have renounced sinful behavior, and second, in the fact that they preach the pure Word of God.

First, we are to glorify God, we must renounce sinful behavior. Every Christian stands as Christ’s representative on earth. And in this respect, anything that Christ would not do, we must not do either.

The Christian church today has very little integrity with regard to this issue. Paul refers to sin in this passage as "the things hidden because of shame."

There used to be a time when people were ashamed of sinful behavior. But today, we see it everywhere. People are not ashamed of sinful behavior anymore. Not only is such behavior practiced out in the open, but in many cases it is celebrated and defended.

I recently read a blog entitled "Christian Potty-mouths." In this blog, the author was expressing his astonishment at the language being used within some Christian circles. He is right to find fault. The amazing part if this story is that several Christians left comments on his blog claiming that "this is not something we need to get all worked up about." They tried to argue that this was a minor issued and those who would call a Christian out on the carpet for the use of foul langluage were being legalistic. But until such people can open up the Bible and prove to us from Scripture that Jesus would have used, and would now approve of the use of foul language, we need to live up to our responsibility to Christ's representatives on earth and obey the injunction found in (Eph. 4:29) "Let no unwhoesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification. . ."

"not adulterating the Word of God" - The integrity of Paul and Timothy is not only seen in their renunciation of sinful behavior. It is also seen in the way they deal with the Word of God. Paul tells us in (2 Tim. 2:15) "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of God." Paul and Timothy were determined to preach and teach the pure word of God. They would not pervert it with their own agenda, they would not embellish it with their own perspectives. But rather, they took pains through propor exegesis and the application of hermeneutics, to ensure that the message that they were preaching and teaching was the very message of Scripture. And every person called to preach and teach the Word of God today, must take the same pains in order to preach the pure Word of God or else be disqualified from their ministry.

THE LIGHT OF THE GOSPEL DISPLAYS THE GLORY OF GOD EVEN WHEN SINFUL MAN CANNOT SEE IT. (v. 3-4)
These two verses are summed up beautifully in the third stanza of that old glorious hymn entitled "Holy, Holy, Holy."

"Holy, Holy, Holy! Though the darkness hide Thee,
Though the eye of sinful man, Thy glory may not see;
Only Thou art holy, there is none beside Thee,
Perfect in power, in love, and purity."

The message if this song is the same as the message in verses 3 & 4 of our text. Sin and death have blinded the eyes of the natural man so that he is unable to see the glory of God displayed in the gospel of Christ. Notice, Paul says the light of the gospel is only hidden or veiled to those who are perishing, that is, those whose minds have been blinded by "the god (small 'g') of this present world."
But let us be crystal clear about something. Satan has not won any victory here! He is no competitor with God! He is a dog on a leash and he only gets what God allows him to take.
Scripture tells us plainly why the eyes of some are blinded. (Jn. 12:39-40) "For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said, ‘He has blinded their eyes and He has hardened their heart, so that they would not see with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and be converted and I heal them.’"
And again, after Jesus condemns the cities of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum for their unbelief in (Matt. 11), He says in (v.25-26): "I praise You Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight."
God is glorified even in the fact that some have been blinded to the truth. In (Rom. 9:22), Paul asks: "What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?" And then he tells us at least one reason why God has prepared some vessels for destruction in (v. 23), "He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory."
The big picture is this: the glory of God will be displayed in the gospel of Christ regardless of how humans respond to it. Have they been given the ability to receive it by faith? God will be glorified! Have they been blinded? God will be glorified still! Let us remind ourselves of God’s own words once more in (Isa. 48:11) "For My own sake, for My own sake, I will act; For how can My name be profaned? And My glory I will not give to another."
THE GLORY OF GOD IS DISPLAYED IN THE WEEKNESS AND HUMILITY OF THOSE WHO CARRY THE LIGHT OF THE GOSPEL. (v. 5-7)
"We do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus as Lord." -- The first thing we see here is that Paul and Timothy were not out to make a name for themselves. They were humble.
In (1 Cor. 2:1-5) Paul told the Corinthians: "When I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest in the wisdom of men, but on the power of God."
Paul was a very educated man. He was a Pharasee of the highest order. He would have been a master at Hebrew. He would have studied classical Greek. He would have studeid rhetoric. This is a man who could have argued circles around the most brilliant minds of his time. But he realized that the gospel did not need to be embellished with the arguments of men. In (Rom. 1:16) he says: "I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God unto salvation."
It is an undeniable truth that if Paul and Timothy didn’t need to embellish the gospel with worldly wisdom, then we don’t need to either. All we need is the gospel and a good dose of humility.
The simple gospel, stated in a few basic propositions is all we need to see God miraculously bring people from a state of spiritual death to a state of spiritual life.

The simple gospel propositions

Human beings are separated from God by sin and deserve nothing from Him. We are hopelessly lost and in bondage to sin, death and hell and will spend eternity separated from Him unless He sovereignly intervenes on our behalf.
Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity, parted with His visible glory for a time, in order to be fitted with a human body, for the express purpose of dying on the cross.
His death on the cross payed the penalty for the very sins that had separated His people from His Father in order to reconcile them to God.
He died a truely human death, was burried in a borrowed tomb and on the third day, raised back to life again proving that He is both Mesiah and Lord.
Those who have been given the ability to believe this with all their heart and display a changed life as a result of it, can be assured that they are partakers in His death and will someday be partakers of His resurrection also.

In these five simple gospel propositions, the power of God is expressly manifest and mighty to save. They need not to be dressed up with fancy talk, or supplimented with human wisdom. These things only sully the purity of God's simple truth. Paul and Timothy knew this; and we must get ahold of this truth as well for the glory of God.

(V. 6) Paul quotes God here as saying: "Light shall shine out of darkness." This is the very Creator of the universe who said in (Gen. 1:3) "Let there be light." And there was light.
This same God who caused light to shine out of darkness, is the same God who shines the light of the gospel into our hearts and brings about our conversion. Paul says this same God is "the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ."

This seems to be a complicated sentence at first but in reality it is quite simple. There is a verse in (Ps. 35) that helps us understand what is being said here. In (Ps. 35:9) David writes: "For with You is the fountain of life; and in Your light we see light."
What is being said here is that God illumines our hearts and minds to comprehend the Light. What is this light? It is the knowledge of the glory of God, which is seen fully in the gospel of Jesus Christ.

In the end, it is our job simply to humbly proclaim the gospel. It is God’s job to illumine the hearts and minds of individuals to comprehend His glory as it is displayed in the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

"we have this treasure in earthen vessels." – Finally, Paul wants us to know that God’s glory is also displayed in our weakness. The richness of the contents is amplified by the poverty of the vessel. The idea Paul wants to convey here would be well illustrated by placing the Hope Diamond in a burlap sack. That such feeble, earthen vessels such as you and I should be entrusted with the glorious gospel of Christ, the very "power of God unto salvation," is truley a mystery indeed.

The treasure Paul is speaking of here is the gospel and the earthen vessels are our bodies. We carry a treasure that is infinitely more valuable, infinitely more glorious, infinitely more powerful than we could ever think of being in and of ourselves! Our weakness, in contrast to the glorious gospel of Christ, demonstrates all the more vividly the excellence of what we have been entrusted with.

Conclusion

CHRIST’S WITNESSES MUST WALK WITH PERSEVERENCE AND INTEGRITY, IN ORDER THAT THE GLORY OF GOD MAY BE DISPLAYED.
THE LIGHT OF THE GOSPEL DISPLAYS THE GLORY OF GOD EVEN WHEN SINFUL MAN CANNOT SEE IT.
THE GLORY OF GOD IS DISPLAYED IN THE WEAKNESS AND HUMILITY OF THOSE WHO CARRY THE LIGHT OF THE GOSPEL

If you and I want to display the glory of God in our lives as Christ's witnesses, let us walk with perseverance and integrity of heart, proclaiming the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ in weakness and humility, with full confidence that God will be glorified regardless of the outcome.

2005-12-30T17:10:00.000-08:00

SALVATION: NARNIA STYLE

I went to see The Chronicles of Narnia last weekend and I was very impressed with the special effects and the way in which the movie was so faithful to the book. I highly recommend the movie. There were many good scenes, but one sticks out in my mind as most profound.

As you probably know, the move is about four kids who find their way into the land of Narnia through an old wardrobe. Once inside, they discover that the land of Narnia has been under the control of the White Witch and frozen in a winter wonder land for 100 years during the absance of it's true king Aslan. During that 100 years, many of the creatures of Narnia were frozen into rock-hard ice statues by the dark magic of the White Witch. After the four children enter Narnia, they eventually find out that a friendly Fawn named Thomnas has also been turned into an ice statues as penalty for his treason against the White Witch for helping the youngest of the four children, Lucy.

Eventually, the movie culminates with the death and resurrection of Aslan. Aslan then begins the last great battle where the White Witch is utterly destroyed and summer is once again restored to Narnia. While Aslan and all of His faithful subjects wage war against the White Witch and her minions, they pass through the courtyard of her evil lair. In this courtyard stand all of the creatures whom she has turned to ice and Thomnas is one of them. It is at this time that the one scene occured, which stands out in my mind as the most profound.

This scene illustrates the salvation of a lost sinner better than anything that I believe I have ever seen. Aslan, the true King walks up to Thomnas' lifeless, icey silouette and blows on him. Immediately, the icey form begins to transform back into a living being, and Thomnas is brought back to life!! This is truely amazing, because this is exactly what happens to a lost sinner when the Spirit of the Living God blows upon them!!

The fact that Thomnas is an ice statue and does not possess the power to come to Aslan for healing is a direct representation of the lost sinner. We are told in (Eph. 2: 1) "But you were dead in your trespasses and sins. . ." This means that every person outside of Christ is just like Thomnas spiritually - completely unable to come to Christ for healing. Christ must take the initiative to come heal us if we are ever to be healed, just like Aslan took the initiative to heal Thomnas or he would never have been healed. Now, I know that I depart from my arminian brothers and sisters on this point, but Christ is very clear when He speaks of our inability to come to Him. In (Jn. 6:44) Jesus tells us "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent me draws him. . ."

The fact that Aslan blew upon Thomnas is a direct representation of how the Holy Spirit of God must blow upon the dead soul of lost sinners in order to bring them back to spiritual life. Jesus, again, has the word for us in (Jn. 3:8) "The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit." This is the miracle of regeneration. Arminians have this process backwards. They think that sinners are regenerated becasue they embrace Christ, but Scripture says otherwise. "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent me draws him. . ." The fact of the matter is, we don't become regenerate because we embrace Chrsit, but rather, we embrace Christ because we have been regenerated.

Notice also, that Thomnas did not have any choice in the matter. He could not simply choose to remain a block of ice. Nor do we have the choice to remain dead in our trespasses and sins when the Spirit of God sovereignly takes the initiative to blow new life into our dead souls. While it is true that God many times does not regenerate a dead soul upon the first encounter, it is also true that the Holy Spirit will not fail to accomplish that which He come to fulfill. It is a universal experience among Christians that they heard the gospel many times before they finally embraced Christ; and becaus of this they believe they had the power to resist the Holy Spirit of God. But this assumes that God intended to regenerate them the first time they heard the gospel. But this is simply not the case. Sometimes God chooses to regenerate people upon the first hearing of the gospel; but more often than not, He chooses to work on them for a period of time before decisively bring them to faith in Christ. Jesus, again, has the decisive word for us in (Jn. 6: 37) "All whom the Father has given Me, WILL COME TO ME. . ." In the end, everyone who is a Christian was decisively brought to faith in Christ at the exact moment, in the exact place, and in the exact way that God chose to accomplish their salvation before the foundation of the World, regardless of how long He chose to work on them beforehand.

Aslan sovereignly chose to save Thomnas, and He did not fail. If you are a Christian today, it is because God sovereignly chose to save you, and He did not fail. Instead of railing against this glorious truth, we should all fall on our faces before the Lord of our Salvation and offer up to Him ceaseless praise and thanksgiving for accomplishing for us what we could have never accomplished ourselves, the salvation of our souls. Let us give all of the glory to God and steal none of it for ourselves. He is the true King who has broken winters long, dark night and caused "The Sun of Righteousness to rise with healing in His wings" (Mal. 4:2).

Soli Deo Gloria,

Shane Morgan