Bible Study: Romans 8:31-39

What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised— who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written,

"For your sake we are being killed all the day long;
we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered."

No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

"Come, my brothers and sisters, are you persuaded of the love of God? Are you intelligently persuaded not only that God is love, but that God loves you? Are you fully persuaded of the love of God,—the love of the Father who chose us, because he would choose us, for nothing but his love; the love of Jesus, the Son of God, who bowed himself from his glory that he might redeem us from our shame; the love of the Holy Ghost who has quickened us, and who comes to dwell in us that we may by-and-by dwell with him? Are you persuaded of this love of God to you? Happy man, happy woman, who can truly say, "I am persuaded that God loves me. I have thought it over, I have fully considered it, I have-thoroughly weighed it, and I have come to this persuasion, that the love of God is shed abroad in my heart." -Charles Spurgeon

Unconditional Election Part 1

As you may have already perceived from the title of this post we are beginning a series on the doctrine of Unconditional Election. Most of the posts in this series will center on specific texts but this first one will survey some terminology for the discussion.

I. Defining Terms.

Before we can even begin to see whether or not the Bible sets forth a doctrine of election that is unconditional there are several things that need to be defined.

Election- In its simplest, least biased terms, election is God’s choosing of His people from before the foundation of the world. In most cases (and this is what we will be discussing) this relates specifically to who will be saved.

Conditional Election- This is the view that I am arguing against. There are many different ways that Arminians and non-Calvinists might define election but it is always based upon a condition. We will look at two of them:

According to foreknowledge- That is to say that God knows the future so He looks into it, sees who will respond to the gospel in faith, and elects those persons to inherit the blessings of salvation. Biblical support for this can be found in 1 Peter 1:1-2, “To those who are elect… according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood…” Also Romans 8:29 (which we will look at later) says, “For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.” The problem with this view is that it assumes God’s foreknowledge is a passive taking in of facts as if God needs to learn something. Wayne Grudam also points out that this view of foreknowledge assumes that the Bible is speaking of God foreknowing facts about persons rather than the persons themselves (see Systematic Theology, 676).

In Christ- This view says that God has elected Christ (see Isaiah 42:1 in KJV) and all those who put their faith in him are made elect. Biblical support for this view can be found in Ephesians 1:4, “…even as he chose us in [Christ] before the foundation of the world… The problem with this view is that it basically ignores texts that point to election of persons to salvation, seeing them as an outworking of corporate election.

Certainly there is more than could be shown in defense of this view but that would make this a much longer series. You should know that these two views are not exclusive from each other. I have never seen or heard of a debate on the nature of conditional election.

Unconditional Election- This is the view for which I am arguing. It is that God elected individuals to salvation apart from foreseen obedience. Every person was seen in their state of deadness and enmity with God, yet God chose to save them by sending His Son Jesus Christ.

Predestination- This is a term that is often confused with election. They are very close relatives but still different actions. Predestination is God’s decree of something from before the foundation of the world. For example, in a previous series of posts I argued that God predestined the Fall of mankind. Election is an act of God’s predestination, however, predestination is a broader term.

Double Predestination- This is an even more controversial doctrine that unconditional election. It is that God has decreed both the salvation of His elect and the damnation of the “reprobate” (those who are not elect). Some simply refer to the doctrine of Reprobation. I do believe that this doctrine is biblical but only while making careful distinctions. I do not believe it what is called “equal ultimacy” which means that I do not believe that God is equally active in causing the reprobate to be lost as He is in causing the elect to be saved. As I said before everyone is at enmity with God and He has chosen to save some, while passively leaving others in their reprobate state.

I know this is difficult stuff to learn. I hope it makes sense. Feel free to comment, critique, and/or ask questions.

Grace and Peace,
Stephen

Josh Harris on Church Membership

My attention is scattered over several different projects right now so I offer you another great video courtesy of the Gospel Coalition.



Grace and Peace,
Stephen

What Does it Mean For God to Love Us?

Grace and Peace,
Stephen

Bible Study: Romans 8:18-30

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

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

"When Adam sinned, the created world was also subjected to futility. One thinks of the thorns and thistles that were to accompany work in Gen. 3:17–19, the pain in childbirth for the woman (Gen. 3:16), and the repeated refrain that all is vanity in Ecclesiastes (where the Septuagint uses the same Greek word here used for “futility”). The original creation (Genesis 1–2) did not have these things, and on the last day it also will be transformed and freed from the effects of sin and will instantly become far more beautiful, productive, and easy to live in than one can ever imagine...

...God's people also groan and long for the completion of his saving work. The tension is seen here between the already and not yet in Paul's theology. Christians already have the firstfruits of the Spirit, but they still await the day of their final adoption when their bodies are fully redeemed and they are raised from the dead. Their adoption has already occurred in a legal sense (v. 15), and they already enjoy many of its privileges, but here Paul uses “adoption” to refer to the yet greater privilege of receiving perfect resurrection bodies." (ESV Study Bible, notes on Romans 8:20-21, 23)

Grace and Peace,
Stephen

The ABC's of the Bible- Zechariah

...John the Baptist's name if he weren't called to be a prophet.

Zechariah was the father of John the Baptist. He was a priest who became much more faithful to God through his wife's pregnancy and his son's birth than he had ever been before.

You can read about Zechariah in Luke 1:5-25, 57-80.

After all he Zechariah went through he was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied. Here is an excerpt:

Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he has visited and redeemed his people and has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David... (Luke 1:68-69)

This concludes the ABC's of the Bible. I hope it has been helpful for you. We only skipped X.

Grace and Peace,
Stephen

On Abortion

Here is the link to a post by the new father Jason Lapp addressing the issue of abortion from a biblical perspective. He makes reference to the video below. Also, Albert Mohler posted an article entitled "Talking About Talking About Abortion" in which he addresses President Obama's recent speech at Notre Dame. The President decided that it was more important to emphasize the rhetoric of the abortion debate over the points of the debate itself. Welcome to a post-modern society.

Grace and Peace,
Stephen

Responding to Criticism of Irresistible Grace

I have written in the past on the subject of Irresistible Grace and the fact that the Bible sets forth an “order of salvation” that includes regeneration preceding faith. That is, in our sinful condition we are totally unable to respond to the gospel in faith and repentance and therefore God awakens faith in us by causing us to be “born again.” Though I don’t see the need to spend more time presenting this doctrine I do see where misunderstandings can make this doctrine sound grossly unbiblical.

In the 2nd edition of Norman Geisler’s book Chosen But Free there is an appendix meant to refute the idea that regeneration precedes faith. The problem with this section is that instead of going to the passages that relate to the new birth, providing a definition of the new birth, and seeing what relationship it has with faith, Geisler equates regeneration with other parts of conversion and demonstrates the relationship between faith and those particular acts. I will give a few examples and the show why this isn’t a problem for my position on the subject.

One common example is Geisler’s use of passages that clearly teach that we are justified through faith (Romans 3:24-25, Romans 5:1). Calvinists do not teach that Justification precedes faith. It is absolutely truth that we are justified through faith in Christ. However, Justification is not equal to salvation even though it is at the heart of the gospel.

The second most common example from the book is use of evangelistic passages in the Bible that tell people that they must have faith and repent in order to be saved (Luke 13:3, John 3:16, Acts 16:31). This comes from the misunderstanding that one must be capable of something in order for God to hold a person responsible for their level of obedience (see Matthew 5:48 for example). In evangelism we declare that the right response to the gospel is faith and repentance, however, we do this with the understanding that in order for that person to obey the gospel God has to change their heart and allow them to see the beauty of the gospel, therefore allowing them to choose Christ freely apart from slavery to sin and Satan (2 Corinthians 4:3-6, Ephesians 2:1-7).

Finally, a quote of Emery Bancroft is provided:

Man is never to wait for God’s working. If he is ever regenerated, it must be in and through a movement of his own will, in which he turns to God as unconstrainedly and with as little conscientiousness of God’s operating upon him as if no such operation of God were involved in the change. And in preaching we are to impress upon men the claims of God and their duty of immediate submission to Christ, with the certainty that they who do so submit will subsequently recognize this new and holy activity of their own will as due to a working within them of divine power. (Cited in Chosen But Free 2nd edition 239-240)

The problem with this quote (or at least Geisler’s use of it) is that it is an unhonest and extreme view of free will. Of course we should never wait on God to supernaturally push us into obedience of any kind. We do what we God commands us to do realizing that we cannot do it apart from His work in us (Philippians 2:12-13). But just follow the logic of what is being said in the quote. “If [man] is ever regenerated, it must be in and through a movement of his own will…” But the gospel of John seems to differ. When speaking of the new birth/regeneration John says that it is an act “not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:13). In chapter 3 Jesus tells Nicodemus that the new birth is an act of the Spirit’s free will (John 3:8) but doesn’t seem to go out of his way to say anything about this being caused by man’s “free will.”

But what is more disturbing about Geisler’s use of this quote is that implies that a person does what God requires of him and then dishonestly attributes his obedience to God. He says, “…they who do so submit will subsequently recognize this new and holy activity of their own will as due to a working within them of divine power.” A person cannot truly do something “unconstrainedly “ and “of their own free will” and it, at the same time, be doing it “by divine power” unless they are themselves divine.

So what’s the point in bringing this up? It’s not to bash Dr. Geisler, he has been very helpful for me in several areas of study, just not when it comes to systematic theology. But the point really is to demonstrate that even great minds can miss the point of reformed theology. It isn’t about telling people to wait for God to do everything for them or trying to negate our own responsibilities in the Christian life. Instead, we recognize the widespread teaching of Scripture that we are unholy and incapable of pleasing God on our own yet God graciously saves us from our sinful ways and His wrath. He does so for His glory.

Grace and Peace,
Stephen

I Surrender All

All to Jesus I surrender,
All to Him I freely give;
I will ever love and trust Him,
In His presence daily live.

All to Jesus I surrender,
Humbly at His feet I bow,
Worldly pleasures all forsaken;
Take me, Jesus, take me now.

All to Jesus I surrender,
Make me, Savior, wholly Thine;
Let me feel Thy Holy Spirit,
Truly know that Thou art mine.

All to Jesus I surrender,
Lord, I give myself to Thee;
Fill me with Thy love and power,
Let Thy blessing fall on me.

All to Jesus I surrender,
Now I feel the sacred flame.
Oh, the joy of full salvation!
Glory, glory to His name!

I surrender all,
I surrender all.
All to Thee, my blessed Savior,
I surrender all. -Judson W. Van de Venter

Bible Study: Romans 8:12-17 Children of God by Faith

So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you d put to death the deeds of the body, you will live…

The necessity of a working faith- "But someone will say, 'You have faith and I have works.' Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?" (James 2:18-20)

The necessity of the Spirit in a working faith- "Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?" (Galatians 3:3)

…For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

“What is a Christian? The question can be answered in many ways, but the richest answer I know is that a Christian is one who has God as Father…But cannot this be said of every person, Christian or not? Emphatically no! …Sonship to God is not…a universal status into which everyone enters by natural birth, but a supernatural gift which one receives through receiving Jesus.” –J. I. Packer (Knowing God, 200-201)

"But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1:12-13)

The ABC's of the Bible-Yahweh

YHWH — the Hebrew name of the God of Israel, probably originally pronounced Yahweh. Eventually the Jews gave up pronouncing it, considering the name too holy for human lips. Instead they said Adonai or “Lord.” This oral tradition came to be reflected in the written Greek translation of the Old Testament as kurios or “Lord,” and it is often so quoted in the New Testament (Mark 1:3; Rom. 4:8). English versions of the Old Testament also tend to translate this word as “LORD.” There is also a shorter form, YAH (Ps. 68:4; Is. 12:2; 26:4; 38:11). In Exodus 3:14–16 YHWH is linked with the verb hayah, “to be,” probably referring to the presence of God with His people (Ex. 3:12). (Nelson's New Illustrated Bible Dictionary).

Grace and Peace,
Stephen

Worldview

Lately I have felt an increasingly greater need to focus some attention on issues relating to the Christian worldview. Recent events that have been occurring within evangelicalism reveal that most Christians, though they may understand the gospel, don’t understand the implications of the gospel in everyday life. That is why I plan on doing more regular posts addressing political issues (not politicians), art, and other “worldview issues” on a weekly basis.

What is a worldview?
No doubt many of you don’t know exactly what a worldview is. Your worldview is the lens through which you view the world. Specifically it relates to your beliefs on God, man, morality, truth, origins, and even the future. One could add or subtract many things from that list but it should give you a basic idea.

What is a biblical worldview?
Certainly there are several different opinions on what consists of a biblical worldview, however, I think we can pull out some things that are agreeable. A small summary of how the Bible depicts each area that consists of a worldview should give you an idea of what a biblical worldview looks like.

God- God is the Creator of everything. He is triune (therefore fully self-sufficient), eternal, self-existent (therefore not needing a creator), Holy, and perfect in every way.

Man- Man is the highest of God’s created order, created in the image of God. As God’s creation man is a dependant being and accountable to God’s judgment.

Morality- God’s moral Law is the foundation for human morality. Though not every person has or will receive the special revelation of this Law their own actions show that it is revealed in their conscience. Therefore, every person has sufficient knowledge to be judged by their Creator (see Romans 1:18-3:20). However, man is incapable of achieving perfect morality because every person is born with a sinful nature.

Truth- Because there is a Creator who serves as the foundation of truth it must be said that truth is objective. Therefore truth is not a mere practice of observing societal norms; rather, it is the practice of finding what God has revealed in total.

Origins- God created the world in six days (see Genesis 1). The first man and woman sinned against God and their sin is imputed has been imputed to their offspring ever since.

Future- All of human history has a purpose that will culminate in redemption. The return of Jesus Christ will bring the degradation of sinful man to a climax and restoration and redemption to those who have been saved by his sacrificial death.

How does all of this (and other biblical truths) affect your everyday life? That’s what I want to spend more future posts dealing with.

Grace and Peace,
Stephen

K. Edward Copeland on Giving Thanks

Sweetly Broken

To the cross I look, to the cross I cling
Of its suffering I do drink
Of its work I do sing

For on it my Savior both bruised and crushed
Showed that God is love
And God is just

What a priceless gift, undeserved life
Have I been given
Through Christ crucified

You’ve called me out of death
You’ve called me into life
And I was under Your wrath
Now through the cross I’m reconciled

In awe of the cross I must confess
How wondrous Your redeeming love and
How great is Your faithfulness

At the cross You beckon me
You draw me gently to my knees, and I am
Lost for words, so lost in love,
I’m sweetly broken, wholly surrendered (Jeremy Riddle)

Bible Study: Romans 8:1-11 No Condemnation

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.

"What was done by this appearance of his: Sin was condemned, that is, God did therein more than ever manifest his hatred of sin; and not only so, but for all that are Christ’s both the damning and the domineering power of sin is broken and taken out of the way. He that is condemned can neither accuse nor rule; his testimony is null, and his authority null. Thus by Christ is sin condemned; though it live and remain, its life in the saints is still but like that of a condemned malefactor. it was by the condemning of sin that death was disarmed, and the devil, who had the power of death, destroyed. The condemning of sin saved the sinner from condemnation." -Matthew Henry

The ABC's of the Bible- Word

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1)

"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1:14)

If you're anything like me you have probably wondered why John uses this strange term to describe Jesus. Also, if you're anything like me this is one of only a few Greek words you have picked up on simply because preachers like to use it a lot (the other word they use a lot is "dulas" or "slave") The word John uses here is Logos. This word, however, does not merely mean "word" in the sense of letters arranged in a particular order. It refers to the transcendent meaning to which those letters point (See definition in the Enhanced Strong's Lexicon).

I have heard preachers refer to the Bible as "Jesus Christ on paper" and that always confused me. Certainly there are ways that you can make that statement sound less like transubstantiation than it did to me but what we should do instead is look at what John really means.

D. A. Carson provides us with his conclusion:

In short, God’s ‘Word’ in the Old Testament is his powerful self-expression in creation, revelation and salvation, and the personification of that ‘Word’ makes it suitable for John to apply it as a title to God’s ultimate self-disclosure, the person of his own Son. (Pillar New Testament Commentary: Gospel According to John, 116)

The incarnate Word is the true [glory], the ultimate manifestation of the presence of God amongst human beings, for this Word became a man. (Ibid, 128)

I hope this is helpful.

Grace and Peace,
Stephen

Limited Atonement Remix Part 9

VIII. Why Does It Matter?

Today is my last installment of the series of the "L" in the TULIP of Calvinism. Many of you probably don't know what TULIP stands for and that's ok. In these posts I have tried to be clear, concise, and gracious to those who will forever disagree with me. I hope it has been beneficial.

First let me say very clearly that smart Christians who love Jesus and read their Bibles disagree on this subject. I'm ok with that. But I don't think it's ok to deny the importance of the nature or subjects of the atonement. The Bible is about God's work in redeeming man for His glory and the atonement is the very centerpiece of that work. So here are a few observations of why I think the doctrine of Limited (or Definite) Atonement is important.

This doctrine is consistent with the clear biblical teaching of penal substitutionary atonement. If Christ died in the place of those who would be saved it doesn’t make sense for him to die as a substitute for people who would end up paying their own penalty.

This doctrine is consistent with the rest of God's dealings in salvation. If the Father only elects those who will believe, and the Spirit only renews the hearts of those who believe, isn't it inconsistent to say that the Son's atoning death was for everyone?

This doctrine gives God the glory rather than man. It is important to see the glorious reality of verses like Revelation 5:9. If you believe in a universal atonement you must admit that Jesus is getting credit as a life raft but it is us who get the credit for jumping on the life raft. That doesn’t line up with the constant cry of the Bible that there will be no man who can boast of anything except in God. And if Christ's death didn't actually save people but merely potentially saved everyone why does he get so much credit in texts like this?

Is it heretical to believe in the Arminian view of the atonement? I don’t think so. But we need to check views like this against Scripture or else we are on real dangerous ground. Arminianism, though not heretical in and of itself, is a slippery slope that leads to many heresies. In the case of the atonement it can lead to universalism.

Grace and Peace,
Stephen

On So-Called "Gay Marriage"

I try not to use too much space on this blog talking about political issues but this will be one of those rare occasions. In December I posted “A Response to the Response to Prop 8” thinking that from then on I had said my piece, contributed to the conversation, and would not have to address it again. However, for whatever reason, things are beginning to heat up again (not that the controversy went away) on the so-called “gay marriage” front.

Note: the following video is offensive to Christians and may contain advertising that is in no way endorsed by this blog.


The video above shows where this debate is now headed. It is an issue that John Stewart brought up in debate with Mike Huckabee and we see it here in this video. The issue is that it seems hypocritical to give preference to people who make decisions on the basis of religion when religion is more of a choice than sexual preference. I don’t want to address this argument at face value but instead I am going to look at the difference in worldview.

We live in a postmodern society. The basic implications of this is that because society has figured out that it’s really hard to say that anything is absolutely true we should instead keep truth claims subjective. This means that all truth is relative to the person evaluating that truth and, especially, given weight in proportion to that person’s education or popularity. It is this way of thinking that sets forth the argument “religion is more of a choice than sexual inclination.”

Of course the implications of this way of thinking are most explicit in the liberal/progressive philosophy of government. For example, if marriage did mean one thing but the popular opinion of the country has shifted, the meaning of marriage must be altered in order to keep in step with society. This is where the argument goes back to old laws that didn’t allow interracial marriage. We changed those laws because we became less racist, so why not change our current laws in order for society to further progress? (biblically this is a regression, Romans 1:18-32).

So why are Christians so hung up on keeping a definition of marriage that was better fit when it was written than now? I will now bring us back to a very simple principle, namely, “if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck…” and so it is with marriage and even more so with the Bible.

You see to a non-Christian it is strange for me to base my definition of marriage on a standard that was made thousands of years ago claiming to be the word of God. Many people make the argument that the Bible was not complied in total until centuries after the final books were written and is therefore an unreliable source of authority. They would say that the authority of the Bible is, at best, as good as the authority of the group who compiled it, namely, the church. This is, of course, a misunderstanding based in only a little bit of truth. The fact is that the books of the Bible were known as Scripture in the centuries leading up to the final decision. The church didn’t get together to make several books Scripture; they came together to make clear their recognition of the books of Scripture. Very few books were even up for debate when this decision was made. This is because Scripture is self-authenticating as “God breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16) and does not need to derive authority from the church; rather, it is in Scripture that we base any authority the church has.

What’s the point in bringing up Scripture? It is that we know what Scripture is because we can see that it is what it claims to be. We trust the accounts of those who lived in the time of its writing and see the impact that it has on our lives. In other words, the Bible walks like God’s word, talks like God’s word, and looks like God’s word.

It is in the Bible we find the definition of marriage, namely, the uniting of a man and a woman before God in covenantal love (Genesis 2:24). This is the authority on which the founders of our country would have based their understanding of marriage. That means that we must decide if the better philosophy is of the progressive who seeks to change this definition to fit society or the conservative who seeks to keep the definition as it has always been.

The problem with the progressive approach is that they are borrowing a concept from the biblical source of authority and then taking away the definition of that same authority. Now it gets interesting because a progressive could appeal to traditions such as Christmas trees and Easter eggs that Christians adopted and still practice with the knowledge that they are rooted in pagan practices. So what’s the difference between Christians making the tradition of a completely different system of beliefs their own because of progression within tradition? I think it has to do with the fact that we don’t hear any pagans complaining that we stole their tradition. In other words, the source of authority no longer exists to maintain the historical aspects of the tradition. However, with marriage we do still have the source of authority and those who recognize its authority. So in order for so-called “gay marriage” to be recognized the nation must first recognize their unbelief in marriage as an institution. Therefore, so-called “gay marriage” can never truly and meaningfully exist.

What about the argument made in the video? If we deny a person who practices homosexuality the ability to legally “marry” their partner aren’t we opening the door for the government to deny us certain rights? My response is simple: are you kidding me? Try making a realistic video of Christian suppression. I honestly don’t mind the thought of the government taking away religious rights as much as you think (though I am grateful for religious freedom in America). Take away our tax exemptions, civil benefits, and right to worship freely. You would only be doing us a favor because you would help rid us of the Osteens, Jakes, and McLarens who are expediting the damnation of millions.

The difference between the church and those who practice homosexuality that this video failed to mention is the fact that the church does not need civil liberty in order to exist. Go ahead and make Christianity illegal, it sure worked for China. The church is not a governmental institution, it outlasted Rome and it will outlast America. So please stop the mockery, the blasphemy, and the attempts to scare us. Perhaps we can engage in a civil discussion that will allow you to live your life without being unnecessarily harmed. However, we will continue to tell you that if you don’t repent of your sins and cling to the cross for salvation you will only be enjoying a comfortable ride to damnation. We will preach this whether it is legal or not because we want to see our kind God glorified in your salvation and because we want you to experience the superior joy of being in Christ.

Grace and Peace,
Stephen

P.S. I know that most of you are aware of the "Miss California situation" and thought I would comment on that. Honestly, I am disappointing in her. Is her position any different than Barack Obama's ? I don't think so. All this shows is how much hypocrisy there is in this debate.

High Priest

Verse 1

There’s commotion in my brain, strange is the notion

Words cannot explain my range of emotion

I’m speechless, my flaws exposed and my weakness

Each breath draws me closer to a deep test

It’s month number seven, it’s been ten days

I’ve been awake all night reflecting on my ways

A threat to my peace in this greatest of moments

Because I’m the High Priest and it’s the Day of Atonement

The LORD is so holy and perfect, I’m nervous

I’m floored that He chose me to worship through service

Don’t ask me why the God who crafted the sky

Drafted this weak guy from the clan of Levi

Preceding generation taught me to read the regulations

Deep meditation on decreed revelation

Extreme trepidation breeds hesitation

Yet I must lead and be the representation

My occupation- to intercede for the nation

But indeed my own sins need expiation

The wrath of Jehovah’s grim, sin is no joke to Him

The hope is slim for unholy men coming close to Him

He’s spoken in His Word the proper way of approach to Him

Nadab and Abihu got it wrong and He roasted them

These things I weigh as I sigh

This could either be the greatest day of my life or the day that I die!

Verse 2

For now, no time to focus on my sinning

I bathe in the laver though it seems extreme

I put on the holy coat made of white linen

Craving His favor- I’m ceremonially clean

I check to inspect- no tangible faltering

Next I must collect the animals for the offering

A spotless ram and a bull- the components

God gives to make atonement for my own sins

This part of the ritual makes me real cautious

Because the very sight of blood makes me feel nauseous

Still I proceed by snatching him close, slashing his throat

when his blood splashed on my coat

Reacting, I choke- gasping that’s when I’m grasping

God’s reaction that sin provokes

I take a moment to reflect on the blood spilled in this

Staring at the goat to be sent into the wilderness

I’ll confess Israel’s sins with my hands on his head

Symbolizing guilt transferred instead

to a substitute the living God provided and stamped

guilty of our sin, driven outside the camp

This beautiful picture of hope and grace motivates

And I don’t want my fear to make this dope occasion go to waste

Change my outer garments, slow my pace- yo I brace

myself to stand before Jehovah’s face in the Holy Place

Verse 3

The time has come, the great moment has arrived

About to enter in- what a lonely enterprise

Look at the other priests, they speak only with their eyes

Rope tied around my ankle just in case I don’t survive

I enter through the first curtain to a dark room

I’m standing in the Holy Place, my thoughts consumed

I’m caught off guard, I’m unraveling at this stage

My heartbeat so hard it’s rattling my ribcage

Feeling like I’m disintegrating and I can’t stand

Comforted by the light emanating from the lampstand

This helps my vision- I can see the showbread

I think of God’s provision, that helps me go ahead

I need courage to worship! Man, this is intense

I take burning coals off the altar for the incense

The sweet aroma fills the room

The smoke protects my eyes- one sight of Jehovah seals my doom

It’s no mere coincidence I’m here surrendering

With fear and trembling I’m nearly entering

I feel like running scared, hoping I’m not unprepared

Stunned with fear- no one comes in here but once a year

Nevertheless I’m at the point of no return

Besides, I don’t want my anointing to be spurned

After counting to three, next time I inhale

I’m in the Holy of Holies beyond the veil!

The first thing I realize is I’m thrilled that I’ve

entered into God’s presence and yet I’m still alive

I’m awestruck by the weight of His terrible beauty

It’s almost unbearable but I must fulfill my duty

Approach the ark, the first part of my work’s complete

when I sprinkle blood seven times on the mercy seat

Quickly I exit, impressed with the Hesed

that rescues the wretched and left us accepted!

Chorus

So you say that you wanna know the LORD?

Do you really wanna stand before the LORD?

Do you know what it takes to meet the LORD?

God is an all-consuming fire

So you say that you wanna know the LORD

Do you really wanna stand before the LORD?

Do you know what it takes to meet the LORD?

Be careful what you desire

-Shai Linne (Storiez)

Bible Study: Romans 7:7-25 "Who will deliver me from this body of death?"

What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet." But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.

So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

"By God’s grace we all should hope and pray that our shadows will come to light through His mercy. Some of us are haunted by the ghosts of a life lived prior to being met by the risen Lord. Others have erred and wandered since that initial experience and reality of salvation. In the case of the former, we are quick to recognize the conversion of Paul as a type of our own experience, having once engaged in egregious sin, but now restored unto belief and life. For the latter, sometimes there is a struggle with how God could possibly forgive one who has willingly engaged in known rebellion after having come to knowledge of the truth...We recognize the great hope of the gospel as extending equally to believer or unbeliever alike in regards to true and godward repentance." -Geoff Ashley (The Village Church)

Grace and Peace,
Stephen