World Population, and we have a lot of work to do!

The world population is growing at an incredibly fast rate, and the demographics of that change have many things to say to Christians. As of today 6/23/08, the world population stands at 6,705,373,654 (8:10 am CDT). The US Census Bureau estimates world population will increase to 7 billion people in 2012 and 8 billion in 2020. US Census estimates of world population say that the earth's population is growing at a rate of 6.5 million people per month. The world's population has doubled since 1970. Here is an estimate of world population through history.

• 1 AD 150 million
• 1350 AD 300 million
• 1700 AD 600 million
• 1800 AD 900 million
• 1900 AD 1.6 billion
• 1950 AD 2.4 billion
• 1985 AD 5 billion
• 2012 AD 7 billion
• 2020 AD 8 billion

World population has more than doubled in my lifetime and has nearly quadrupled in the lifetime of my mother (who is now 89 years of age). Amazing!

We have much to do in preaching the gospel to the whole world. We cannot sit silent and let a world remain lost in error and sin. We must use every tool, make every effort to speak until we can no longer speak until every soul has come to know the Lord Jesus. We must use television, the internet, radio, and print media to do all we can as long as we can wherever we can.

Phil

Who's the Wife? Confused Living.

By now you've heard the news. Men can marry men and women can marry women in California. Their liberal court went against the vote of the people and said so.

I've conducted more than a few marriage ceremonies over the last 36 years. My first couple was married in June 1972. I could legally perform the marriage ceremony; but since I was still 20 at the time, I could not marry on my own without my parent's signature. It's true. I had to wait a couple of years before I got Jackie.

Well, back to California.
If a couple of gays marry, which one is the wife? If a couple of lesbians marry, which one is the husband?
On the tax form, which one is the head of the household, while the other is a spouse?
We'll have to throw away our jokes about hen-pecked husbands. Now we have hen-pecked hens. I wonder who is doing the pecking.
I wonder which of the guys is the protector and which is the respecter? If both are husbands, here are two married guys without wives.

The sad thing is there'll be some confused, little guys who are fatherless or motherless; instead they'll have two confused moms who have no husband or two confused dads who have no wife.

How do you explain parents who by choice of lifestyle cannot parent? How do explain to innocent children how biological mommy committed adultery with some male outside the family, so that biological mommy and the other mommy could have a child? How do you explain that this was not because the sexual functions of both mommies didn't work but because they don't work together to produce a child and cannot ever produce one, so they had to bring in a third party?
What confusion!

The whole thought that marriage needs redefinition into a perverted confusion is itself offensive to common sense. Homosexual behavior is not married, godly love; it's selfish sex. Those confused, liberal judges didn't redefine marriage; they approved legal lust. Homosexual unions may be legalized by justices, but God regards such as the unfortunate result of a person who fails to acknowledge Him and so given over to perverted lusts (Romans 1:24ff.).

Now some will regard this as mean-spirited and think I'm unChristian for saying what God said. But let's think about who is mean-spirited. Is it kind to rob children of mothers or fathers in order to satisfy selfish sex? Is it kind to rear a child in confusion? Is it kind to so press your agenda (to demand acceptance for what is immoral) that you influence other people's children with your immoral example? Is it kind for one justice to tell the whole state their morality is not as important as some supposed right to pervert marriage and nature? Is it kind to tear the fabric of society apart by confusion and perversion?

Christian kindness does not sit silent in the presence of sin. To do so would be to let the sinner go to hell unwarned. That is the really unkind thing to do. Kindness is to speak out lovingly against the error, even in the face of opposition. Kindness is the calling to repentance, not in the tolerating of gross sin.

The really unChristian person is the one who so hates the light that he must strike out at anyone who calls sin evil. Herodias called for John's head out of hatred. All he did was tell the truth. Who was unChristian?

Well, who's the wife in that gay marriage, and who's the husband in that lesbian union? And you call that a marriage?

Phil

Growing Churches

Growing churches are usually characterized by a number of vital qualities:

First, healthy and growing churches are unconditionally committed to the Lord Jesus Christ and to His Word. They are not distracted by the fads of the day, nor are they given to self-centered pursuits. They realize that gimmicks and cosmetics don't build sound churches. The world will not beat a path to their door simply because they have a better gimmick. Growing churches are built upon the rock, which does not move and is not shifting like sand. They are committed to the one true gospel and hold firm to the teaching of the Scripture, realizing that without God there can be no real growth. They realize that only the gospel can save, and they see no reason to dilute it. They see no value in turning the church into a country club. They know that God gives the increase.

Second, growing churches are healthy and active. They are not lazy, nor do they pass the time from week to week keeping house. They grow by training and by intention and by hard work. They take the Great Commission seriously. They are not waiting for some other congregation to come and help them. Their beauty arises not from pretentious marketing but from the wholesomeness of their souls. They live what they believe.

Third, healthy and growing churches are devoted to praying. They pray for the lost to open their hearts. They pray for open doors for the word (Col. 4:2-4). They pray for their preachers. They pray for opportunities to speak the truth. They pray in victory and in sorrow.

Fourth, healthy and growing churches are outward focused but uncompromising. They are not caught up in the quagmire of fickle religious experience. They do not wake up each Monday wondering what they have to do to outdo the day before. They realize that long-term, loving relationships may have special times but cannot survive on mountaintop experiences alone. They live on daily kindness and blessing. They live on grace and peace and love.

Fifth, healthy and growing churches know how to love and forgive; but they realize that true spiritual healing cannot take place without the correction of repentance. They know it is vain to give medicine to kill pain but leave the leg broken. They also realize that talking grace apart from repentance accomplishes nothing.

Sixth, healthy and growing churches are committed to teaching and preaching the gospel message wherever and whenever there is an opportunity. They have not hidden the gospel in the church building, hoping some lost seeker will someday come to his senses and wander in. They have gone out to the hedges and roads, persuading those in need to come to Jesus.

Seventh, healthy and growing churches have committed leaders. They have elders and preachers who believe in loving and working to bring in the lost. They are men who know how to feed others spiritually and give them the divine help they need. They are men who follow-up with the new converts and with the weak. They have counted the sheep again and again. They have bandaged the injured and cleaned the wounds. They have labored into the night to keep the wolves away.

May God be with those laborers, who having known the love and grace of God, are willing to work in the field in good times and bad. And may the Lord help us see the urgency of our calling.

Phil

Faithspeak

People who have strong faith in Jesus Christ speak their conviction in positive and strong terms. “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the men of old gained approval. By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible” (Heb. 11:1-3, NASB).

Faith assures us that what we hope for is true; we are convicted that what God says is utterly trustworthy. Some other examples of speaking faith:

“And we know that God causes all things to work together for good…” (Rom. 8:28).

“For we know that if the earthly tent which is our house is torn down, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands…” (2 Cor. 5:1).

“for I know whom I have believed and I am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him until that day” (2 Tim. 1:12).

“let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins” (James 5:20).

“and though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory” (2 Peter 1:8).

“These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life” (1 John 5:13).

Such speech encourages my heart to have greater confidence and trust in whatever God says in His Word, the Bible.

Speak faith, not doubt. Speak confidence, not fear. Speak hope, not despair. Speak to eternity, not simply the here and now. Speak with conviction, and do not be afraid of “absolutes.” God is, after all, absolutely good, true, and loving. Speak faith.

Then there is doubtspeak. Doubtspeak is full of maybes, possibilties, could be's, and uncertainties. No one can know for sure about anything. Respect for others (especially the scholars) means that no one should assert anything with any judgmentalism.

The devil would love nothing more than to create doubt in the hearts of believers about every essential Christian teaching. Read Genesis 3:1-7 once again. The devil frequently uses this formula:

1. Ask a question that creates doubt.

2. Contradict what God says

3. Produce and alternate truth.

A fourth thing the devil loves to do is to punish and persecute anyone who disagrees with his perverted plan. He is not content to disagree with God; the devil hates God and the light and the people who follow God. His tool of doubt works quite well on the uninformed and the misinformed. Many people fall prey to doubting the truth.

I want faithspeak in my life, but not doubtspeak.

brotherly,

Phil

Why are churches dying?

Ron Sellers of Ellison Research recently released his findings on the changes people make in where they worship and why. There are many reasons why smaller churches die (aging, change in community, apathy, etc.), but some of the things we are told by agents of change are not verified by this research. Sellers said:

"There's sort of an assumption out there that traditional forms of worship are dying out and that smaller churches are really in danger of dying out," he shares. "And while that may be true of individual smaller churches, still the average church in the United States has around a hundred people attending. You've got a lot of smaller churches that are out there, that are very active, that are very involved and people are involved in them -- and there's no evidence that the smaller churches are giving up a lot of congregants to the mega-churches."

"Theologically, 53% of adults who have changed where they worship say their new place of worship is about the same as their old one. Twenty-eight percent moved to a place they feel is more theologically conservative, including 12% who say it is much more conservative, while 19% moved to one that is more theologically liberal (including 7% who feel it is much more liberal). "

Some folks actually prefer to participate in worship rather than be entertained by artists, prefer following Biblical patterns over contemporary fads, and prefer to please God rather than please themselves.

Before one decides that churches must change (to be like the big boys) or die, one should stop and think.

Churches of Christ with 500 and above in attendance only account for 243 of the nearly 13,000 congregations; that's less than two percent and not far off the national average for all religious groups in America. According to the 2006 directory published by 21st Century Christian, the largest 1000 congregations will house 35.4% of the attendance. Only ten percent of the churches will have 200 or more in attendance, but they account for 40.5 percent of the attendees (page 15).

That means that the majority (59.5 percent) of our folks still worship in churches smaller than 200.

Phil

On the Nature of Babies

Before the day is out, Jackie and I will have the pleasure of seeing our fourth grandchild, Ava Annabelle Lee Bryant. Dewayne and Christa have arrived at the hospital, and the waiting has begun.

Singing Sam McAlley wrote this song just before Haydn (the big sister) was born in 2003:

The future looks much brighter;
There's hope within the world.
Today I held within my arms
A brand new baby girl.
And though I don't yet know her
I love her just the same.
What a blessing to watch her turn
When I call out her name.

{Chorus} Fresh from heaven, such a blessin'.
God looked down on us and smiled.
Fresh from heaven, such a blessin'.
God gave this precious child.

I pray that she will grow up strong,
I pray that she is wise,
I pray that she will find success
In a world filled with lies.
But most of all I pray that she
Will come to know the Lord,
To find the joy and happiness
That heaven will afford.

{Chorus} Fresh from heaven, such a blessin'.
God looked down on us and smiled.
Fresh from heaven, such a blessin'.
God gave this precious child.

From the theological point of view, I have always regretted Augustine's wrongheaded assessment of children. He argued they must be evil, since they constantly cry and are so utterly selfish as infants. Augustine and Calvin promoted the "original sin" view of children, thinking they must be tainted somehow by coming into this sinful world. Sin is an act of will and cannot be inherited. You'd think to listen to some today that Adam & Eve ate of "the tree of the knowledge of evil and evil" instead of "good and evil."

Paul spoke clearly in Romans 7:9-11

I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. ¹⁰The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. ¹¹For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.

The Law of God teaching Paul not to covet came inspired in the days of Moses (Romans 7:7-8), but for Paul it came when he was old and responsible enough to understand it. Before that time, as an infant and a small child, he was spiritually alive and precious to God. No sin was in his life at all. Yes, he like David was born into a world filled with sin (Psalm 51:5) and learned sin from those around him. God, however, did not make him wicked. He was alive spiritually at birth. This is why belief in "limbo" is a fantasy. When a little one dies, God takes him into heaven.

That all responsible people have weakness is altogether true. In Genesis 8:21 the Lord declared that man's intention is evil from his youth, but not at birth or from birth. Humans have to learn evil. Jesus understood that even his disciples could be weak. He said to his trained and closest friends and disciples at the Garden of Gethsemane, "Watch and pray that you enter not into temptation, for the spirit is indeed willing but the flesh is weak" (Mt. 26:41).

Infants and small children are fresh from heaven and pure in heart. To such the kingdom of heaven already belongs (Mt. 19:14). They are alive to God, and their angels in heaven always behold the face of the Father who is in heaven (18:10). God is protecting and watching over them.

Well, pray for little ones to grow up and know the true and living God.

in Christian love,

phil

Why baptize infants?

I have often appealed to the baptism of infants as an innovation, arising in Christian history many years after the New Testament Scriptures. Those who uphold infant baptism often appeal to the tradition of the church (quoting early church fathers) for their source and claiming that the traditions of the living church were derived orally but not in written form from the apostles. They make this claim of oral tradition often in spite of the written accounts of the New Testament.

The traditions of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches in matters like the baptism of infants reminds me of the warning Jesus gave to the Jews who also were convinced that their oral Torah found its origin in Moses. Their traditions became so strong they began to trump the written commandments of God in Scripture (see Mark 7:1-19; Matthew 15:1-14). When human traditions are given authority, they find many ways to annul what Scripture enjoins. Such is the case with infant baptism.

The Scriptures emphatically teach that baptism follows the preaching of the gospel, confessed faith and repentance (Mk. 16:15-16; Acts 2: 38; 3:19; 8:35-38; Rom. 10:9-10). Since infants are incapable hearing the word with understanding, confessing their faith, or repenting of sin, they are not appropriate candidates for baptism.

Baptism is for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38); baptism is the time when sins are washed away (Acts 22:16); baptism is that time when the old self is crucified with Christ so that the body of sin may be done away (Rom. 6:4-6) and one enters into newness of life being freed from sin; baptism is an act of faith in the working of God who forgives us of sin (Col. 2:12-13); and baptism is an appeal to God for a good conscience (1 Pet. 3:21).

When one considers that an infant is sinless and alive spiritually (Rom. 7:7-11) until that point that sin becomes alive, one sees the utter fallacy of baptizing an innocent infant for the remission of his non-existent sins.

Those who baptize infants often do so against the baby's will. Is the heart not to be involved? When the Romans obeyed a form of teaching that made them free from sin, they did so from the heart (Rom. 6:3-7; 16-18). Are we free to baptize adults against their will? If we cannot kidnap an adult and force an immersion against his will, what makes us think we can do so with an infant?

And what is the example of the first century? In Acts 5:14 the Lord was adding "men and women" (aner and gune) to their number in the church (cf. Acts 2:41, 47). Their baptisms came at the hands or under the oversight of the apostles. In Acts 8:12 Philip baptized both "men and women" (again aner and gune).

The terms men and women refer to males and females of responsible age, old enough to be married. These words are set in contrast to infants and boys and girls, who are too immature to be responsible or to marry. Now if the tradition of infant baptism holds to be a rule of faith and practice for the church, why didn't the apostles and Philip know it? Why do we not find this out until a later century? Could it be that infant baptism was never an apostolic tradition at all, but came about as an invention of later leaders?

"The first ecclesiastical command to baptize infants is contained in the fourth‑century Apostolic Constitutions VI:15." (Everett Ferguson, Early Christians Speak, I:64)

"The early Christian feeling about the innocence of infants finds clear expression in second century authors and in the writer who makes the first explicit reference to infant baptism in Christian history, Tertullian (On Baptism 18:1‑10,12). Innocence here meant "sinlessness, or at least guiltlessness." (Ferguson, I:58)

"The earliest likely reference to infant baptism is to be found in Irenaeus" (Against Heresies II.xxii.4). (p. 59) "The first unambiguous reference is to be found in Tertullian (V. 12), and he was opposed to the practice . . .. He seems to be stating, as elsewhere in his treatise On Baptism, the common position of the church." (p. 60)

The fact is the practice of infant baptism was a human innovation, a human tradition that actually nullifies the commandments of Scripture to confess faith and repent of sins (since infants are incapable of such things). Those who hold such views fall into the same trap as the legalistic Jews of Jesus day who demanded the keeping of the traditions of the elders (the supposed oral Torah), which they swore was handed down from Moses in unwritten form.

When people trust in oral traditions supposedly from the apostles and not found in the written Scriptures, they deceive themselves in thinking what they have planted has come from God. Even the false prophets of the Old Testament thought they were speaking the oracles of God (Jeremiah 23:16-40); but they were deceiving themselves. Their words never came from God.

"Every plant which my Father has not planted shall be uprooted." This truth still applies.

kindly,
Phil

The Dawkins Delusion

The former atheist and scientist who turned to theism, Alister McGrath, in a short tome responds quite well to Richard Dawkins' unfortunate railing against Christianity. I'm finding more and more that the present militancy of atheism against Christianity has more to do with attitude than evidence. McGrath amply demonstrates that.

When I studied skeptics and atheists in graduate school in the early 80s I found a common characteristic: they tended to look at the ugly and dysfunctional rather than see the beauty, order, and design of nature. David Hume was just sure that if there were a God, he was indeed limited in power or intelligence or in love.

Hume and Dawkins see what they want to see and dismiss (in true postmodern style) everything else. The self-described "objective" and "rational" scientist, Dawkins is just sure that anyone who thinks differently than he does about God must surely be biased and ignorant. McAlister says:

"Relgion is persistently and consistently portrayed in the worst possible way, mimicking the worst features of religious fundamentalism's portrayal of atheism" (14).

Atheists can not let go of the carnival atmosphere of the Scopes trial. Ann Coulter's book, Godless, has a wonderful retelling of what really happened. It seems the whole thing was hatched up in New York, that Scopes was only a rare substitute and recruited, that the town council wanted the trial to gain attention, and the movie Inherit the Wind told the story unfairly. The devil worked hard to make religion look silly, and a small town didn't get in the way.

So many charges against Christianity as a religion cannot be leveled against Jesus Christ the Lord. Jesus never sent anyone into war. The teaching of Jesus did much to end slavery and to elevate women. The ethic He taught on the mountain has yet to be surpassed by anyone anywhere.

I ran across a website recently that spoke of the "myth" of Christ and compared him to the myths surrounding Joseph Smith and Muhammad. While I concur that neither Smith nor Muhammad were prophets, the website was misleading about Jesus. Neither Smith nor Islam have any ancient prophecies about them, but there are hundreds pointing to the Messiah Jesus. The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus from the dead is indisputable and overwhelming. The website dismissed this but certainly never answered it.

We live in a society that hollers loud and long about narrowness and closed-mindedness in Christianity but hardly looks at itself. The human body could not have occurred undesigned. We know that. The intricacies of our cells and our bodies demand a designer, just as the morality of our souls demand a moral governor. This designer and governor is no less than God, the God of the Bible.

Phil

The Word is All-Sufficient

So much of the disputes of our day center around Biblical authority. The questions of inspiration and inerrancy have much to do with what we think the character of Scripture is. The question of all-sufficiency, however, leads to many more issues.

It has been some time since our pulpits and lectureships have sounded out a cry that the word of God is all-sufficient. So much error stems from a belief that the Word somehow does not measure up to God's desired will for our faith and practice.

The challenge of "living church tradition" and papal decrees said that the Scriptures were not enough to teach us, that we needed church officials to give us the right and true interpretation to God's Word.

The challenge of the Apocrypha that intertestamental, Judean beliefs could be inserted into the Old Testament, in spite of the lack of recognition by the Jews, Jesus or the apostles.

The challenge of creeds and denominational dogmas was that we needed human authorities to direct us in addition to the Scriptures. We must be able to see the Scriptures through their lens.

The challenge of tongue-speaking in the 70s argued that we needed gifts beyond the teaching of the Scriptures.

The challenge of the Crossroads/Boston cult was that the word was not sufficient to mentor us in Christian living, we needed a personal leader to control our daily lives with guilt and manipulation.

The challenge of modern day prophets who speak messages beyond the teaching of the New Testament.

The challenge of postmodernism is that truth is so diverse that there are no absolutes or final revelations from God which cannot be dismissed or set aside for the current cultural dictates.

Scripture, however, claims for itself finality and sufficiency. There is no other revealed truth from God beyond the 66 books of the Bible. Jesus promised to reveal to the apostles of the first century "all truth" (John 16:12-13). The "faith" was once for all time "handed down" in the first century. No one was to abide outside the words of Jesus. There was a finality not to be transgressed. It is a salvation issue (Gal. 1:6-9; 2 John 9; Rev. 22:18-19).

We need nothing more than Scripture, and humanly-designed religious beliefs and practices beyond the Scripture are broad ways and sand theology. We need the Lord and His teaching, not the presumptuous traditions of men. We need Bible, not cultural solutions, to save us and to show us what is pleasing to God (Acts 20:32).

The Word of God is final and sufficient. That is where we go to build our houses on rock. All else is sinking sand.

Phil

My moderating policy

My blog was begun to express my views and beliefs. It is not a public blog, where I allow anyone to trash me or to express views that are unkind or unscriptural. Tacky comments are unwelcome and show the person who wrote them unfavorably. I choose not to include many of them. While I allow some anonymous posting, I will leave other, unfavorable anonymous posts in cyberspace. I sign my name to my posts.

phil

Richard "Seeded" Dawkins

Few movies have moved me quite the way Ben Stein's Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed has! I laughed and cheered as Ben Stein showed the utter foolishness of Richard Dawkins.

Dawkins and Stein had a lengthy conversation, which was recorded in the movie.

Liberalism has showered accolades on atheist author Richard Dawkins' best-selling book "The God Delusion." But when Stein suggests to Dawkins that he's been critical of the Old Testament God, Dawkins protests -- not that Stein is wrong, but that he's being too mild. He then reads from this jaw-dropping paragraph of his book:

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."

Dawkins' arrogant blasphemy was no credit to him. He thinks of himself as quite a scholar and virtually mistake-free in his assessment of God. The Father in heaven will one day "assess" him.

Then came this brilliant piece of logic and wisdom from the mouth of Dawkins:

Moderator Ben Stein asks Dawkins how life began:

DAWKINS:Nobody knows how it got started. We know the kind of event that it must have been. We know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life.
BEN STEIN:And what was that?
DAWKINS:It was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule.
BEN STEIN:Right, and how did that happen?
DAWKINS:I told you, we don't know
...
BEN STEIN:What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution.
DAWKINS:Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

Imagine! Dawkins doesn't believe in God, but he believes in an Alien-seeded humanity. Dawkins is not a son of God, but he believes he is the son of an alien. Such incredible wisdom.

BTW, how did this highly evolved, tech-savvy form of life evolve? Dawkins didn't answer the question, he merely transferred it from one world to another. If Darwinian means hadn't worked so well here, how did it work there?

Dawkins has fallen into a trap like Aquinas' infinite regression. He can't answer anything for sure, because, having rejected God, he is only guessing. Why, friend, should anyone base their lives on his futile and empty guess.

In Scripture, the fool is not necessarily someone who is mentally deficient. It is someone who chooses to live his life without the knowledge or the acknowledgment of God.

Phil

Let's Go to Israel

If you are interested in going to Israel to see where the Lord Jesus lived and walked, then you may want to go with Dan Chambers and me this fall, Nov. 11-20, for a ten-day tour!

This will be Dan's fifth trip and my second. We'll visit Joppa, Caesarea, Nazareth, the Sea of Galilee, Caesarea Philippi, the Golan Heights, Megiddo, the Dead Sea, Ein Gedi, Jerusalem, Bethlehem, the Valley of Elah, and much more.

We will stay in top hotels and each delicious food. It will be a wonderful trip with experienced guides.

When you read the Bible, you'll read it with greater understanding and insight.

If you are interested, please let me know. I will gladly send you a brochure and reservation request.

Phil

Because what we believe matters

I was recently upbraided by a poster for wasting my time on what in his mind was an irrelevant issue (instrumental music in Christian worship). First of all, I really don't live there. Within the last week I have written articles and television transcripts dealing with the apocrypha, sin, the church, and the holiness of God. I am now teaching a class on prayer. I have counseled several people this week, dealing with their personal issues, baptized a person, taught courses in Greek, church growth, the passion of the Christ, a Survey of the Bible, Christian Evidences, and "once saved, always saved." I also have spoken recently with missionaries and helped raised funds for starving Kenyans. My life and work is quite diverse. I recently authored an audio CD on marriage and am preparing one on parenting for Focus Press.

Why do I take a little time on IM? First, because it is sinful, self-made religion, as addictive as idolatry to some. Second, because it is splitting the church and separating people I love from fellowship. Third, because there is so much false information and foolish arguments being made today that need correcting. Fourth, because IM takes the focus off of God and puts it onto performers.

The IM issue is really reflective of a much larger problem. I recently got a post supporting using candles and incense in worship. The IM question is really an authority issue. What will we regard as the authority for our lives? How will we understand the silence of the Scriptures? Since I have researched and written extensively on these matters for years, I wanted to share what I know about these matters to answer the falsehoods and fuzzy thinking some are promoting today.

There is a slippery slope. Some of those who went with the instrument over a century ago have found no stopping place. In 1989 in Cincinnati, some in the same group voted on some key issues. They could not say that Jesus is the only way to heaven, that the Bible is the final authority, or that homosexuality is a sin. In that same meeting they actually encouraged women to consider abortion. When you open the door to self-made religion, people will invent their own faith and forget God. IM is indeed the first step to godlessness.

So that's why.

Phil

Don't describe the water

Two postmodern preachers were discussing their evangelistic efforts on television. One was being congratulated that he did not preach about sin. The assumption was that everyone knows they are in sin and do not need to be told. Then came this advice: "When a man is drowning, you don't describe the water to him. You throw him a rope!" The audience clapped their cheer and approval.
It sounds good, doesn't it. Sin destroys and we need immediate response. Of course the response of the postmodern preacher was for people to stand during the invitation and say a brief, salvation prayer with the preacher. Some rope.

The process of salvation is often cast into the drowning man analogy, but analogies are often short-sighted and inadequate.

First, sin in the minds of most people isn't what it used to be. A recent Ellison Research survey showed that thirteen percent of Americans did not believe there was any such thing as sin. Recent Harris polls now reveal that many people no longer think of a variety sinful behaviors as even a moral issue to be thought about. According to the Ellison report:

"People under age 35 are less likely than Americans in other age groups to believe adultery, getting drunk, not reporting income on taxes, homosexual activity, pornography, and gossip are sin. At the same time, younger people are more likely than others to say using tobacco and working on the Sabbath are sinful." They found that only 35 percent of Americans (who are not evangelicals) thought sex before marriage was sinful.

You have to describe the water to people who don't know they are in it. You have to preach a more balanced approach than "Jesus loves you, believe in Him, say this little prayer, and you are saved and can never be lost."

The main burden of Jesus' preaching was a balance between "repent" and "grace" (though he uses the latter term in the gospel accounts). Jesus talked much about sin, repentance, obedience, and hell. He did not assume the people (even the Pharisees) understood those things. And preachers in a post-modern world cannot assume that either.

Preachers who don't like to talk about sin don't do any favors to the people who hear them. Yes, people like to hear about other things; and I believe in giving hope to people. But if there is a serious problem, then ignoring a discussion about that problem will not make it go away.

Salvation is far more involved than throwing a rope. Jesus did not die simply to save us; He died for us in order to cause us to be new people. We must die to the old man of sin (yes, sin) and be born to a new life. We aren't saved to be reformed a little for a better life; we are saved to be reborn as new creatures altogether (2 Cor. 5:17).

Giving medication to a man with a broken leg relieves the pain for a short while; but until the break is corrected, the man is not helped. Someone has to set the leg, so that it can heal. Repentance, life-correction, is necessary to make a lasting difference. God gives us a great blessing in granting us repentance, because he gives us the ability to start over fresh and clean and right.

Just getting someone out of the water may not keep him out of the water. Until change takes place, the threat is not over. A rope may not be all that person needs. We are not saying, "don't throw a rope." Of course, we must give hope. But what good have we done, if the person doesn't even know when he is drowning? The water is the danger, and we must show people where the shorelines are.

kindly,
phil

You can't be quiet

I am working on a commentary of Deuteronomy 13 for a lectureship in the fall. Manuscripts are due next week. I could not help, however, to point out God's view of tolerating sin.

Dt. 13:6-11
“If your brother, the son of your mother, your son or your daughter, the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, secretly entices you, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which you have not known, neither you nor your fathers, ⁷of the gods of the people which are all around you, near to you or far off from you, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth, ⁸you shall not consent to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him or conceal him; ⁹but you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. ¹⁰And you shall stone him with stones until he dies, because he sought to entice you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. ¹¹So all Israel shall hear and fear, and not again do such wickedness as this among you.

Sin often creeps into networks of family and friends. The temptation was for one loved one to woo another into idolatry and apostasy. This is often done in secret. How often a false teacher has moved into a city, made many friends, and secretly introduces false notions among the congregation.

They were not to yield to the idolater, or listen to him. They were not to pity him in such a way as to spare his destruction or to conceal him from others. They were not to lie to themselves or tolerate this abominable evil (Dt. 12:29-31). They were to expose this loved one and stone him. The close friend or relative who accused him was to be first to stone. God did not permit any tolerance.

Since the temptation came through a loved one, the tempted person would naturally feel compassion and be inclined to cover up the sin of his loved one. To yield to the temptation would certainly be sinful, but just as sinful was to conceal the sin or ignore the sin out of compassion. The tempter put his closest relatives in an awful predicament, making the relative have to choose between allegiance God and natural love for the offender. Here God steps in and insists that the tempted not be silent about the tempter; God would not tolerate the covering up of sin.

It is easy at times to give our friends or relatives a pass on sin. When we do so, we are not doing any favors to the relative or to the Lord. A little leaven still leavens the whole lump of dough. Sin left to grow surely will infect many. You see, it is no good to take this compromise stand that we will only speak what we believe but will not speak out against what we believe is wrong. Paul rebuked Corinth for failing to discipline the sinful man in 1 Corinthians 5. The Lord Jesus rebuked Thyatira for tolerating Jezebel. On some things, there is no place for neutrality. Loyalty to God demands we speak out.

Love for God calls us to speak out.
Phil

Walk in the Light

The Lord is light, and there is no darkness in him at all. God is wholly pure, wholly righteous, wholly good, and wholly loving. He cannot look upon sin with any favor at all (Habakkuk 1:13).

It is easy at times for us to assume that God is like us. We seek to find a way to do as we please. "All we like sheep go astray; each of us turn to his own way" (Isa. 53:6). God never considers being anything but holy, doing what is right.

I remember my father telling the story of three men who were competing for a job driving a wagon. Each were experienced, and the owner of the company wanted to see who was the best driver. He asked each man to drive his wagon down a rather dangerous road. There was a high slope upwards on one side of the road and a deep ditch on the other.

The first driver showed how skilled he was by coming very close to the edge of the ditch without going into it. He was certainly skilled. The second driver felt he must do at least as good, so with great patience he got even closer to the edge without falling in. The third driver would have none of it. He drove the wagon far from the edge and from any danger. The load was too important to risk. The first two drivers were skilled but foolish to the owner, so he gave the job to the third man.

Doing things right and avoiding the slippery slopes of life is not foolish. It is wise and safe. I have no desire to "try God" and see how close I can come to sin without falling over the edge. When the devil tempted Jesus, the Lord replied with a quotation from Scripture. "It stands written...." That is why Jesus is the light, and in his example is no darkness at all.

Those who desire to go their own way often mock the concept of the narrow road, the safe way. Let them. At day's end, the safe way is still safe. The narrow road still leads to life. Jesus is still light, and in Him is no darkness at all. Let us do what we know pleases God. Presumptuous sins are great transgression (Psalm 19:13).

Walk in the light of what we know pleases God.

God bless you,
Phil

A cappella tradition? What kind?

Recently a poster sent me this message:

A cappella singing is a fine tradition - perhaps even a long one - but it is not a scriptural command. Singing is indeed something that God wants us to do - but He does not specify a cappella in scripture. What one wishes - whether Baptist or member of a church of Christ - is not command. If our salvation was dependent upon it, I can't imagine Him not expressing that in scripture.

This is certainly not a new position to me. I have been hearing it for years. The suggestion is that if we can turn singing (without accompaniment) into a human tradition (though fine and long), we make it no different than playing the instrument in worship. Just call something a "tradition" and that makes it all right. Or does it?

Following and binding a human tradition is not okay; it is sinful. A tradition always smacks of authority, whether human or divine.

The problem with this poster is that what he is trying to say is a human tradition is not human at all; it is a divine tradition. The word tradition comes from the Greek term "paradosis" and refers to a teaching or practice that has been "handed down." The Lord's Supper was a practice handed down to us (1 Cor. 11:23-26). The gospel is a "handed-down" message (1 Cor. 15:1-3). Paul praised the Corinthians for holding firmly to the traditions, just as he delivered them (1 Cor. 11:2). Paul urged the Thessalonians to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us" (2 Thess. 2:15). He further says that we are to "keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us" (3:6). There is such a thing as Divine tradition.

Now as to specifics in our music. I can read in Scripture words such as speak, teach, admonish, give thanks, confess--all of these are activities of the lips, which is our means of sacrifice (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16: Heb. 13:5). Not once in the New Testament is there any suggestion that the church ever worshiped musically except by verbal means--singing. That is the inspired, apostolic, and divine tradition of the church; and it arises from the New Testament. That is what God desires.

The human tradition is the use of instruments, which came centuries later than the apostles. When one reads the Bible to justify what he desires, exegesis rolls off like water on a duck's back.

What is human is to add to God's word that which God never authorized; and all such additions are condemned. Every plant which my Father has not planted shall be rooted up (Matt. 15:13). Such additions are disgraceful and underhanded tampering with the word of God. God does not want such things. If He had he would have told us.

As for salvation matters, the sin of adding the instrument is in tampering with God's word, of speaking when God is silent. One does not have a specific prohibition for it, since the Bible everywhere condemns men for innovations. This principle of condemning innovation applies every time some human dreams up some new thing (Jer. 23:16-40).

The responsibility for this issue does not fall on those who hold fast to what they know is right--singing; it falls on the innovator to show there is some apostolic justification for the practice of adding to the singing that which has no roots in the New Testament. More than a hundred years has passed, and the innovators have yet to find one shred of evidence. They cannot find what is not there. They just dreamed up what they desire and want everyone else to say it's all right. Well, it is not all right. The principle of condemning innovation stands.

Phil

Pitfalls

While the postmodern world is telling us that doctrine is divisive and ought to be avoided, the Bible presents a very different picture. I remain firmly convinced that what we believe is just as important and the fact that we believe. Have you considered the pitfalls of believing error?

Most errors begin with a loss of right attitude or with underdeveloped skills. Approaching God we must come with the attitudes of love and of humility. We must also believe that we will find what we seek. Without the right attitude, we can never come to know the truth.

All too often people approach the Bible looking for what God will accept or allow rather than for what God desires from us. They believe in loophole religion and justify in their own minds what they themselves desire. I remain amazed at the lengths people will go in order to justify their beliefs and practices. Whenever a person has to use fanciful hermeneutics and imaginative exegesis to perhaps permit his practice, he isn't listening to God. Listening to God with honesty is in God's eyes a precious thing.

Some are not saved because they do not love the truth (2 Thessalonians 2:10). They allow themselves to believe a lie.
Some are blinded by tradition (Matt. 15:1-14), teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. God does not accept their worship.
Some are blinded by the god of this world. They have fallen for a perverted gospel, where disgraceful people have tampered with the word of God to make it their own thinking (2 Cor. 4:1-4). Verse 2 says:

But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God’s word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God.

Some have exploited the brethren with sensuality and false words (2 Peter 2:1-3). Such men are daring, self-willed, and rebellious. They are enslaved to their own lusts and captivate others in their evil. (2:10-19).
Some have listened to the people of their day and have created myths rather than preach the truth. Worldly people who are unconverted sometimes come into the church. Such people cannot endure healthy teaching; they have to have their ears tickled, and they are able to find just the teachers they desire (2 Tim. 4:1-5).
Some fall to the philosophies of their day. Some people will always lose sight of what Christ says and follow the "scholarship" and the trendy thinking of the time (Col. 2:6-10).
Some have left the faith and perverted the grace of Christ into sensuality. They try to creep in unnoticed by private meetings with unstable souls (Jude 3-4, 8-13).

So many people are "ever learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth." (2 Timothy 3:7) Why? They read the Bible to find what they wish rather than read the Bible for what it has to say. They do not know how to listen.

Now these, my friends, are all salvation matters. When people err from the truth and listen to the prevalent thinking of the time, they are not walking in the Word. They have left the teaching of the Lord for the thinking of man. So much of what I see today in "religion" is not Christianity as God wills. It is a hybrid faith, an impure mixture of a little Scripture with a lot of culture. This is a pitfall. If the blind man leads the blind, they both will fall into a pit.

Phil

What We Know Pleases God

Harold Redd at the Affirming the Faith Seminar in OKC recently said something very worth repeating:

"We need to be far more focused in our Bible study on what pleases God rather than on what God allows."

I fear that much of the so-called scholarship of our day is focused more on expanding our accommodation to culture than it is on learning what God desires from us. Some seem more free to offend God than they do the person they are trying to reach. When "reaching out" to the world becomes more missional than pleasing God, any worldly thing can be justified.

In the emerging church movement, some "pastors" have begun using profane language, drinking a beer now and then, and watching sexually explicit movies, so that they don't appear to be too righteous to others of the world.

Wait! I thought we were to be salt and light! (Matt. 5:13-16) I thought our righteousness was exceed the hypocrites! I thought we were not to be conformed to the world but transformed by renewing our minds (Rom. 12:1-2). I thought we were not to love the world (1 John 2:15-17)!

Well, that's what I get for thinking. These elites have learned that unsalty salt works better than salty salt. Imagine that! I can draw closer to God by pulling further away! Of course, in such matters everything is so muddy, we can't really know anything for certain. Just ask any postmodernist!

I frankly am weary of asking a postmodernist or the public how to be a Christian and how to please God. The postmodernist doesn't know and can't know anything lest he offend someone; and the public changes with the wind. I, for one, am far more concerned about what pleases God. We can know His will. It is not so difficult (Deut. 30:11-20). We are not Christian agnostics; Jesus promised that we can know the truth (John 8:31-32). He has revealed himself in Christ, so that Paul said he had preached the whole counsel of God to the Ephesians (Acts 20:20, 27). Paul knew it well enough to call anyone who tampered with the word of God disgraceful and underhanded (2 Cor. 4:1-3).

The question is not what we can know--we can know what pleases God, because He has told us in His word. The question is whether we are willing to walk in God's ways or whether we will tamper with the word of God in order to accommodate the world.

If we reach out with a bleached out message, we may get a crowd; but they won't be converted to the gospel. They will be converted to a bleached out, powerless human message. I fear in many cases today's form of the gospel makes "Samaritan" who know a little of God but serve other gods. They are ever learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.

Phil

"No one is interested in that stuff"

While in OKC last week, one grumpy brother said to me, "No one is interested in that postmodernism stuff. People are interested any more in doctrines like baptism and instrumental music." This is not the first time he has told me that, but he seemed grumpy this time.

Preachers preach the gospel of Christ whether anyone is interested in it or not. Jesus felt that baptism and observing all that He commanded was important enough to mention as He gave the Great Commission. Jesus, my Lord, was interested in those things. Why shouldn't I be?

God works in baptism to give me rebirth and cleansing and forgiveness by the blood and grace of Christ. He is working on me in baptism. It is worthwhile--no, it is imperative--to help people see what God is doing for them to give them newness of life. That is what preachers do. When people say we don't need baptism to be saved, they are actually interfering with God's gracious work in our lives (Tit. 3:3-7).

Postmodern thinking is man's way of dismissing God. If I love God, I cannot dismiss Him; and I will not stop speaking about Him and His words.

Have you ever considered how Jesus treasures His words? People who talk against "doctrine" are actually speaking against what He teaches, His Words.

• Heeding his words distinguishes the wise from the foolish (Mt. 7:21-27)
• His words impart the truth that sets us free. True disciples abide in His word (Jn. 8:31-32)
• If we are ashamed of Him or His words, He will be ashamed of us (Mk 8:38; Lk. 9:26)
• His words are eternal life (Jn. 6:63)
• We will be judged by His words (Jn. 12:48)
• We become His mother and brothers by hearing and doing His word (Mk. 3:35; Lk 8:21)
• Heaven and earth will pass away but not Jesus' words (Mt. 24:35)
• Whoever is of God hears the words of God (Jn. 8:47)
• Whoever does not love Jesus does not keep his words (Jn. 14:23-24)
• Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death.” (Jn. 8:51)
• Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth (Jn 17:17)

The words, teaching, or doctrine of Christ is not some small matter to be swept aside. When postmodernists seek to set aside the teaching for self-made religion, they begin building on sand. Can I sit silent and not warn them? (Ezek 3:18-21)

What is not interesting to people is often very much the interest of God (Matt. 16:21-23). Our task is to quit thinking how we can accommodate people and begin focusing on pleasing God. We cannot say to God, "hush." God will have His say, if not today then one day. When He speaks then, we will wish we had listened.

think, think, think,

Phil