Bright Wings

I've Moved. . .

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor Erik) — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 16:14:00 -0400

We are hosting my blog through the very sweet new Four Oaks website. Be sure sign up for the feed (on the left sidebar - just click the link) and you'll get each post. We'll be moving all my archived posts over there as well in the future.

No more bright wings for blogger. See you over at Fouroakschurch.com!

A More Clear Knowledge of Christ

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor Erik) — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 14:28:00 -0400

In the introduction to his commentary on the Gospel of Luke, J.C. Ryle (more from Ryle here) gives us the goal of his exposition:

I have a strong conviction that we want more reverent, deep-searching study of the Scripture in the present day. Most Christians see nothing beyond the surface of the Bible when they read it. We want a more clear knowledge of Christ as a living Person, a living priest, a living physician, a living friend, a living advocate at the right hand of God, and a living Saviour soon about to come again. Most Christians know little about Christianity but its skeleton of doctrines. If I can do anything to make Christ and the Bible more honourable in these latter days, I shall be truly thankful and content.

A better summary of my main aim in preaching through this wonderful book of the New Testament. I encourage you to begin reading and meditating upon Luke as we enter into a new expository season.

The 1000 Year Debate

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor Erik) — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 14:26:00 -0400

Well, we didn’t spend much time on Sunday discussing some of the theological distinctions in matters of eschatology. Before I enter into that fray in a later post; a word regarding our statement of faith. The Evangelical Free Church (Four Oaks’ affiliation of churches) statement of faith has two points regarding ‘last things’:

9. We believe in the personal, bodily and premillennial return of our Lord Jesus Christ. The coming of Christ, at a time known only to God, demands constant expectancy and, as our blessed hope, motivates the believer to godly living, sacrificial service and energetic mission.
10. We believe that God commands everyone everywhere to believe the gospel by turning to Him in repentance and receiving the Lord Jesus Christ. We believe that God will raise the dead bodily and judge the world, assigning the unbeliever to condemnation and eternal conscious punishment and the believer to eternal blessedness and joy with the Lord in the new heaven and the new earth, to the praise of His glorious grace. Amen.

Let me first say that I think that these two points of the statement are quite wonderfully put and that I do affirm them without reservation. I especially love the reworking of the old statement’s point on ‘imminence’ in number 9. There was a movement in the past two or three years to amend our denominational doctrinal statement- and the statement was indeed amended this year. You can find out plenty about all that over at efca.org.

In the original design of those seeking to amend, there was hope that the word ‘premillennial’ would be removed from number 9. Premillennialism is the conviction that the Scriptures teach, in various passages, but explicitly and very literally in Rev. 20 that Jesus will return and establish an earthly reign for 1000 years. There are many good reasons to hold to such a conviction in eschatology. I affirm a physical, earthly millennial kingdom (it may or may not be a ‘literal’ thousand years, that number perhaps simply referring to a reign that lasts quite some time) without affirming much of the other distinctions surrounding what has come to be known as ‘dispensational premillennialism’ (certain views re: the nation of Israel, the reality or nature of a ‘rapture’, etc.).

Many in our affiliation of churches think that such a conclusion regarding the millennium is not necessary to an evangelical faith; and believe that unity and health in our local churches is very possible while holding to different convictions on the ‘millennial’ issue. These brothers think this distinction should not be a part of our statement of faith and hope that it will one day be removed. Though I do affirm a premillennial position regarding the last things- I agree that such a distinction in matters of creedal affirmation is not in keeping with the ethos of our doctrinal statement generally. For example, our doctrinal standard does not call for an explicit commitment to believer’s baptism or infant baptism. It seems utterly inconsistent to be broad in the area of sacraments which have very direct implications for unity and harmony in the local church and narrow in your eschatology which have arguably less implications for unity in the local church. Though, alas, that was all part of the debate. Ultimately, the fight to remove the millennial distinction lost.

So, I wish the ‘premillenial’ statement could be removed for the sake of broader fellowship while I wish the statement could be narrowed in certain areas (baptism being one; a more intentionally reformed commitment in soteriology being another). That being said, I submit to the distinction for the sake of unity. And the leadership of our local church allows our membership to enjoy full membership if they might hold a different conviction, or (most likely) are not able to fully make such distinctions as of yet. We ask that our members not teach in opposition to this position, or use any platform to bring division or disunity in the body if indeed, they do not have the same conviction. We believe that there are matters we can disagree upon, yet submit lovingly to one another out of reverence for Christ in them for the sake of unity and common mission.

Maranatha!

Five Ways You Can Be a Part of Fellowship Raleigh

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor Erik) — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 14:16:00 -0400

Our partner in church planting, Matt Schoolfield, and his team on the ground in Raleigh are launching their morning worship services this Sunday. Check it out and be in prayer for our extended family as the seek to reach and impact Raleigh, North Carolina for Jesus Christ. Here are five ways you can be involved in the Four Oaks - Fellowship Raleigh partnership.

1. Go. Consider the call to move up to Raleigh and be a part of the team. Fellowship Raleigh needs godly, committed, and zealous believers to join them in the labor to build the church. We have an embarassment of riches when it comes to people at Four Oaks, and we want to share the wealth. Pray about relocating to Raleigh and use your life for Christ in a radical way. Connect with Pastor Erik through the Four Oaks office or Pastor Matt to begin a process of thinking, praying, and pursuing a move to Raleigh to build the church.

2. Give. Be a part of Matt’s team financially. Make a monthly commitment to the plant, or a one time gift to bless this infant church as it grows. Fellowship Raleigh, and Matt Schoolfield, are under the care of a team of godly leadership through Four Oaks Church in Tallahassee and Fellowship Bible Church in Little Rock, Arkansas (myself, Skip Martin, and Doug Smidley are the three Four Oaks men on his team). This team holds Matt and the plant accountable doctrinally, spiritually, and financially.

3. Connect. Help build our network of believers in Raliegh by connecting Matt and the team with friends and family in the Raleigh area. Challenge those believers you know in Raleigh to join the plant. Challenge those you might know in the Raleigh area who do not know Christ to hear the good news through Fellowship Raleigh.

4. Pray. Keep in touch with Fellowship Raleigh and what God is doing through the team. Pray for them regularly, pray for Pastor Matt and his wife Kristen regularly. Add Fellowship Raleigh to the ‘kingdom centered’ prayer life of your Fellowship Group. Remember our partnership with this team in your family’s devotional time. Email Matt and find out how to best intercede for Fellowship Raleigh.

5. Encourage. Planting a church is a difficult task. It can be all consuming for the team, and at times very discouraging. They are small, with limited worldly resources- and so have an uphill battle to build the church in our consumer culture. Think of creative ways to encourage and build the faith of our planter and his team. Send them encouraging emails. Let them know you are praying. Plan a visit the next time you are in the area- make time to come and be a part of the services and encourage the folks with your presence. Pray and ask God for a vision for how you can be an encouraging, strengthening part of our hope for this local church to grow in Raleigh.

But, most urgently, I ask you to pray for the launch of Fellowship Raleigh gatherings this Sunday morning:

Pray for all those working so hard to make it happen and create a welcoming environment for worship and fellowship
Pray for Matt’s preaching that he would faithfully and passionately communicate God’s truth to the people
Pray for their new worship leader as he leads the people to worship in Spirit and in truth
Pray for Michael Graham (church planting intern) as he provides support and serves so faithfully alongside Matt
Pray for visitors to come- both believers (to join the work) and non believers (to join the family)
Pray for the joy and faith of our brothers and sisters as they boldly step forward in reaching Raleigh, North Carolina with the gospel

The New Emergen-ese

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor Erik) — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 14:12:00 -0400

The cry is often heard that the world does not understand the body when we speak Christian-ese. We are told to beware alienating the ‘un-churched’ with language that is foreign and confusing to them. The call of Scripture to be in the world but not of the world is the essence of the plea. Don’t be so heavenly minded that you’re no earthly good. Let your speech be seasoned as with salt. Let the cross be the offense, let the gospel be the stumbling block – don’t trip up the seeker with your strange tongue and weird, antiquated bible-speak. With this cry I am mostly in agreement. The smooth tongued and unctuous preacher who begins each sentence with ‘dearly beloved’ and makes God a three syllable word is as nauseating to me as the next guy. We need to always be defining the terms. No question.

Yet, we need to remember that the regenerate community is a group of ‘strangers and aliens’. We cannot escape the reality that we will behave and speak and believe in a fundamentally different way than the world. There is a fine line between wisdom and propaganda in these matters. It is one thing to be careful to identify the biblical categories and contexts behind language and concepts that are confusing, strange, and rejected by a disbelieving and lost world. This is called good stewardship, intentionality, love, and grace. To abandon biblical concepts and categories – and the words that come with them- because it hurts (or at least fails to tickle ) the sensibilities of the hard heart is manipulation and capitulation. I’ll spare us all the debate over hermeneutical spirals, the possibility of textual meaning, and the other postmodern problems of the day. You get the point.

It amazes me how churches have lurched headlong into this pit of meaninglessness in their striving after relevance. We have replaced christianese with what I call emegernese. People don’t understand, or don’t have categories for, say- membership class? Emerge! Let’s call it something else. Make it cool, hip, and edgy- and just a wee bit inscrutable. How about connection sessions? The guy with the soul patch and square glasses playing capture the flag with your high schooler is no longer the ‘youth pastor’. He is now the lead strategist for student oriented ministry involvement. The Senior Pastor becomes the Catalytic leader via strategic communication. Children’s ministry keeps its name but just puts a ‘z’ in crucial places: Childrenz Ministry. The fellowship hall is now the 2-4-6 room (after Acts 2:46; or because of Ezekiel 24:6 or maybe Deut. 2:4-6; or maybe it is open 24 hours each day except Monday). The sanctuary is now the ‘gathering zone’ and the narthex is still the, uh, narthex. I had a conversation with a younger pastor recently who was decidedly much more rad than I who kept asking me about our ‘church DNA’. I told him that I was not an ecclesiastical biochemist, so I really don’t know.

The problem with this emergent project– this ‘repainting’ of the Christian faith as Rob Bell calls it - is that the timeless truth of the gospel can quickly become the handmaiden of the fickle demands of cultural relevance. The call of the Reformers to be ‘always reforming’ was a call to constant vigilance around the principle of ‘sola scriptura’ – scripture alone. The motto of the pomo reformation is the same, only it is a call to constant vigilance around the principle of ‘sola cultura’ – culture alone. The other day I heard a college student laugh at the song list on a friend’s walkman – sorry – ipod, “those guys (referring to some band) are so five minutes ago!” Cultural relevance is a cruel mistress. If you’ll allow me to keep throwing metaphors at you- reaching for relevance is like catching a tiger by the tail: you got him one minute; you are tiger lunch the next. We are all victims and instigators in this chase, to be sure (we are called ‘Four Oaks Church’ and hardly anyone knows why; we have a 2-6-8 room and only Paul Gilbert knows why). It is not wrong to be creative, it is not wrong to be ‘timely’. But watch out that your timeliness does not take the place of what Os Guinness calls ‘prophetic untimeliness’- our ability to speak into the needs of the world because we have refused to give way to its every demand. We must at some point square off with the root of much of this thirst for timeliness- our idolatry, our pride, and our longing for acceptance from the world- often at the cost of losing the message of reconciliation that we bring to the world.

The truth of the matter is that there are essential truths in the Scriptures that are fundamentally un-cool and unacceptable in all cultures and in every context (we might call it the ‘otherworldliness’ of the Christian faith). The death to self, the reality of innate sin, the need for atonement, the denial of works righteousness, the call to obedience, the core call to surrender and submission- all of these things are not just unknown to the world- but are also, for the most part, rejected and hated. Jesus told us plainly that the bearers of this message would be hated by the world as he was hated. The beautiful thing is- this message saved my life, and will save the lives of all those who have ears to hear.
Do this: speak honestly, transparently, biblically, and sometimes with creative and provocative precision. Let our yes be yes and your no be no. Let the power of the gospel be the power of the gospel and not replace it with our own relatively impotent constructs- however cute or cool we might consider them. Let’s repent often for our lust for acceptance. Let’s never apologize for our willingness to carry our cross daily and lose our lives for the gospel.

I’ll sign off now, I need to get over to Hebdomadal Litany and Intercession, sorry - Wednesday night prayer meeting.

Semper reformanda.

Mother Teresa, we need you now. . .

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor Erik) — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 11:53:00 -0400

A few of you have asked my opinion of the recent appearance of our two presidential hopefuls at the land of all things purpose-ful. From what I saw, it appeared that we fundamentally learned nothing new of either candidate. Obama seemed to run right down the left hand of the dial, with McCain down the right.

Obama said some pretty striking things, of which you can imagine my response. First, I don't fundamentally hold to an individual's right to life from conception as a matter of 'faith'. It is a matter of scientific fact and clear medical evidence, to state this pro-life position as a matter of faith (and so somehow not to be an issue of legislative action as other matters of life and death) is obfuscation and manipulation of the highest order.

Obama was asked when, in his view, a baby gets human rights. His response was fascinating:

"Whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity is, you know, above my pay grade."

Obama is a legislator, civic leader, and running for the highest office in our land and must speak clearly on what is still the most important human rights issue facing our land. This defining moral issue is without a doubt well within the pay grade of our commander in chief. In reality Sen. Obama has made his view clear in every forum thus far. Senator Obama went on to say that he 'believes' in Roe v. Wade, thus making it clear that he denies the human rights of the fetus through to term. He has campaigned unequivocally AGAINST the rights of the unborn and has promised this campaign to continue. How in the world can an American citizen accept such a manipulative and ridiculous answer- regardless of your position on the life of the unborn?

The real issue that I had with the forum, of course, had more to do with the right reverend Rick Warren. Actually, I felt he did a 'good job' as far as all that goes. He moderated well, asked some very helpful questions and was fair and balanced, just like FOX news. The problem with all this is that our pastor-teachers are not called to be debate moderators, or 'forum' providers for political hopefuls. They are to preach the gospel, to oppose sin and injustice, and confront governors and leaders with the truth of God's Word. I am reminded of the famous prayer breakfast when the diminutive and elderly Mother Teresa stood up among a crowd of clergymen and chastised President Bill Clinton for his woeful position on the issue of abortion. She refused the religous stature that the powers and principalities offered and instead chose the cause of the least of these. That Pastor Warren abdicated the prophetic nature of his office at such an opportunity is sad, to say the least. Though it must be argued that such prophetic abdication is the very reason why Saddleback had this opportunity in the first place.

You talkin' a me?

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor Erik) — Thu, 7 Aug 2008 20:25:00 -0400

A great post over at brokenhallelujahs. If you struggle with 'hearing from God', I strongly encourage you to find help and assurance through Dad's solid primer on listening to God.

Here's an excerpt:

The normative venue for the voice of God is the inspired Word of God. We are to expect God to "speak" to us continually and directly through this means, both collectively and privately. I would not say that God refuses to speak audibly to others in our post-canonical age, but were he to do so, it is a safe bet that it is meant for their "ears" only. It is not to be expected as a normal experience and we will waste precious time waiting for such an event to energize our devotion and service. Everything we share or expect to enjoy in this life is to be monitored and verified by Scripture. The only credentials that verify the truth is the truth itself, the truth of God's Word. We are to train ourselves in this, seeking God's approval in knowing and doing what His word has revealed. Intimacy with him comes from moral obedience, prayer and pure devotion based on his Word. (Eph 4:30; 1 Thes 5:19-22) His demands for us are clear. Our "demands" on him must be Biblical and tempered by an awareness of our mortality and his holiness. In short, don't expect to hear his voice, rather expect to know his will and do it. Any other experiences will be at God's prerogative and not our insistence.

The Reality of True Loss. . .

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor Erik) — Thu, 7 Aug 2008 12:00:00 -0400

. . . And a prayer for true life.

I have often said that one of my great anxieties in this life is over the idea of losing one of my children. Stories like the recent news of the death of Steven Curtis Chapman's little girl fill me not only with heartache, but also a sense of dread that such a loss might befall our family.

In my preparation for this Sunday's message on the person and work of the Holy Spirit I came across this sermon by John Piper. In his discussion of the role of the Spirit in the new birth, Piper shared this story:

When I came home from church last Wednesday night Noël told me she had been shaken because Karsten and Benjamin, our two older sons, had almost run out in front of a car on 11th Avenue on the way home. As I lay there in bed trying to go to sleep I shivered at the scene in my mind of my sons being killed by a speeding car. But then my mind shifted to the long view, to eternity, and the last thing I prayed as I went off to sleep was, "O God, I would rather lose all my sons now than that one of them fail to be born again. If, God forbid, it were a choice between life with me now and life with you forever, then take them. But don't let one be lost! Don't let one of them fail to be born again!" There is no more important event in anyone's life than being born again.

I was challenged by this prayer. I can honestly say that my greatest earthly treasure and my greatest human and temporal joy is found in my family. I would gladly be a pauper in a mud hut without a cent to my name as long as I have these five by my side. I would gladly give up my calling as a pastor for their sake. There is no earthly thing I desire above them- their presence, their love, their voices, and their very persons.

Note well that I have said earthly, human, and temporal. The real question is: Do I desire their spiritual and eternal blessedness above the temporal blessing of having them at my side today? Do I desire their spiritual life above their physical life? Could I pray with Pastor Piper, "O God, I would rather lose all my children now than that one of them fail to be born again. If, God forbid, it were a choice between life with me now and life with you forever, then take them."

Join with me in begging God not for the mere safety of our children, or their comfort, or their earthly security (financial or otherwise)- but for their LIFE. That they might have LIFE and have it abundantly. That they might now spiritual life, eternal life, life from the very Spirit of God by the work of Jesus Christ.

Living God and Heavenly Father, I intercede now for Tess, Bo, Emma, and Chloe. I pray that you would grant to them gift of eternal life. I ask that they would know you through your Son, Jesus Christ. I plead with you to rush into their hearts with rebirth, the baptism of the Holy Spirit. I ask for you to give they would taste true life that is beyond this life, infinite joy above and beyond temporal joys, heavenly treasures above and beyond any earthly riches, and that any human breath would be a vapor in light of their eternal life in you. I ask it in the name of Jesus Christ, who redeemed my life from the pit and brought me into your family as a son and heir. Amen.

The Work of Christ - Some Resources

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor Erik) — Wed, 6 Aug 2008 15:06:00 -0400

Last Sunday I continued our walk through what we might call essential evangelical Christianity with a look at the work of Christ. This, as a subset of Christology- the study of Christ, is normally called soteriology. I focused in a bit upon this rather immense topic by looking specifically at the work of Christ as

1. A substitutionary sacrifice. Christ died in our place, so meeting the wages of our sin. He imputed his righteounsess to us and bore the penalty for our sin.
2. A redeeming sacrifice. Sin costs us. Its wages are death. The soul that sins shall die. We are enslaved to the condemning power of God's righteous law. Under God's law we are put, righteously, into debtor's prison. We pay for our cosmic treason of sin with the rather 'cosmic' punishment of eternal condemnation in hell. Jesus pays the wages of our sin, he buys us out of prison with his righteous life and holy and pure sacrifice. He stands righteous before the judge of the universe and offers his holy life as a payment for the sins of God's people.
3. A propitiatory sacrifice. God hates sin. He does so righteously and without human, creaturely passion. He simply cannot bear its presence. He cannot imagine it away, he cannot overlook it, but he can mercifully meet it justly by His own gracious work. He does so in Christ. Jesus makes a righteous God, burning with righteous anger over the evil of the human heart, propitious. Jesus bears God's wrath, and makes us sons and friends.

Here are some helpful resources (actually, most of these works might be called crucial resources) as we explore the depths of God's love to us through the work of His own Son.

"The Heart of the Gospel" by J.I. Packer. This is chapter 18 in Packer's incredible book, Knowing God. I'll keep saying it- if you haven't read this book you are missing out on what is probably the most important evangelical theological primer written in the past 30 years.

Apostolic Preaching of the Cross and The Atonement by Leon Morris. Leon Morris is one of the unsung heroes in the battle for a biblical view of the atonement over the past 50 years. Both of these books are dog eared, torn, wrinkled, marked and highlighted and at arm's length on my bookshelf.

Redemption Accomplished and Applied by John Murrray. One of the greatest little books ever written. Murray's defense of the reformed doctrine of 'limited atonement' or 'particular redemption' in his chapter on the extent of the atonement is a must read. If you call yourself a 'four point' Calvinist, or a Cal-minian [usually meaning that you embrace the T (total depravity) the U (unconditional election) the I (irresistible grace) and the P (perseverance of the saints) yet do not embrace the L (limited atonement) of the five points of Calvinism] you are not fully convinced until you work through Murray's biblical arguments a 'limited' view of Christ's saving work. If you are scandalized by the very thought of Christ's work as limited, then I urge you to read Murray's book as well as the most concise and thoughtful introduction to reformed theology available by J.I. Packer.

That is plenty of reading for now but if you are thirsty for more, then here are a couple of great new works defending 'evangelical' and orthodox views of the atonement- Pierced For Our Transgressions, In My Place Condemned He Stood . Of course the chapters on soteriology in Grudem's systematic text (or in Berkhof, Hodge, and Reymond's Systematic Theologies) are all excellent reference works for the student of theology.

Practicing God's Promises

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor Erik) — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 08:24:00 -0400

Just a quick word from God's Word. Today I came across 2 Peter 1:4 as I was spending some time in the the Scriptures:

2 Peter 1:1-4 Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ: 2 Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord; 3 seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence. 4 For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, in order that by them you might become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust.

Peter begins his letter with an exhortation for God's people to enjoy and savor the 'precious and magnificent promises' that are ours from God in Jesus Christ by the power of the Spirit. I was struck by how much the writers of Scripture revel in God's promises. They gloried in the promises recieved and presently at work in their lives. They eagerly hoped in the promises to come, "For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God, you may receive what was promised" (Hebrews 10:36). Consider as well that Peter sees our view and enjoyment, perhaps we may even say our practice of God's promises as a source of sanctification and a means to holiness.

I suppose there are several ways that this is true- but I'll just talk about one way that God's promises are a source and means of holiness and sanctification. Coupled with the blessing of deep and abiding joy, the promises of God as instruments of obedience and purification blessed my heart and mind yesterday.

Life in a fallen world is full of struggle. Forgive me for stating the obvious, but we live in an age that denies the patent reality of sin and falleness while desperately seeks to avoid or pass off the struggle. Life is hard, then you die. There is a great deal of truth to this sentence. And it is sheer silliness as a Christian to put on a big vapid grin and pretend the hardness of life and the fight for joy isn't necessary if you're saved (pronounced with a deep southern fried accent: say-ivduh). If anything, believers will face MORE struggle. Our fight will be more treacherous. We are strangers and aliens. "All who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted" (1 Tim 3:12). Those who are IN the world but not OF it have real and awful struggles in this life.

In my own life and in my ministry as a shepherd when I face these struggles and hardships I tend to paw and scratch feverishly about for some way to alleviate the pain and remove the struggle. In providing pastoral counsel I rack my mind for ways to minimize the struggle in a couple's marriage, or the minimize the pain of the alienation between a teenager and a father, or get the wife who lost her husband to keep her chin up. We do this through positive thinking: just watch a Joel Osteen broadcast; denial: it'll go away if you just close your eyes, ears, and mouth, or through human endeavor: I'll fix it! I work my way out! I'll make a list and attack the issues one by one! Most of the time we make a creative fusion of all three. In each case we miss out on enjoying the source for hope and joy and an instrument of holiness and growth.

Positive thinking and human endeavor, even denial in a strange way, is making much of yourself as a solution to your problems. It is exalting your mind and your words as a means of victory. It is exalting your power and your acheivements as a way to beat sin and struggle. No matter how great your words are- life is hard, then you die. No matter how hard you work- life is hard and then you die. No matter how much you deny and avoid it- life is hard, then you die.

In considering the promises of God that are ours through Christ and to be enjoyed in the world to come we make much of God and from such a perspective we minimize ourselves. As he increases, we decrease- and our problems and struggles are put into proper perspective.

Do you struggle with ongoing and ever present sin? Consider the promises of God - you have become the righteousness of God in Christ (2 Cor. 5:21); you have been given the sanctifying work of the Spirit (1 Pet 1:2); greater is He that is in you than he that is in the world (1 John 4:4). Fight sin with the promises of God and their reality in your heart!

This can, indeed MUST be done in every arena of our life. In every circumstance, in every problem, in every conflict, we must sink our roots deep down in the promises of God. Let his Word, His promise, and the fulfillment of them (whether present or future) be fuel for joy, for relief, for endurance in our lives.

Yesterday, as I obsessed over a complex of issues that I faced for that day- the Lord said to me, "Son! LOOK AT MY WORD!" As I looked at Peter's letter I decided to drink deep the fountain of God's promises that poured out, and not go away thirsty hoping the world, the flesh, or the devil might offer me a cup.

All those problems are not solved. I have not found complete resolution in each conflict. I did not go through the day with a pristine attitude and total victory over all my sin. But, throughout the day God's promises energized me to take hope in the goodness and greatness of God. His promises were fuel for my weak heart when it tended toward despair or depression. It propelled me to holiness when my flesh enticed me to go down its path.

God has given precious and magnificent promises! As I dwell on his goodness and greatness my problems didn't go away- they were just put in their proper place.

Peter tells us in God's Word:
"we have received faith by the rigteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ"
"grace and peace are multiplied to us in the knowledge of God and Jesus our Lord"
"his divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness through the true knowledge of Him"
"we have been called by His glory and excellence"
"he has granted us His preciaous and magnificent promises"
"by these promises we become partakers of the divine nature"
"by them we have escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust"
And, further down in 1:10-11 we find this great promise: Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble; for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you.

So, life is hard and then you die. By the promises of God we can look this reality in the face and say, "God is good and great and his promises are precious and magnificent!" I hope that these truths from God's Word might be fuel for joy and obedience in your life today by God's grace.

In Case You're Tired of Me...

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor Erik) — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 13:55:00 -0400

You can buy another pastor here.

The Word was God.

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor Erik) — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:40:00 -0400

In this past Sunday's sermon on the Trinity, I spoke briefly regarding John 1:1 as a witness to the deity of Christ and the Jehovah's Witness (JH) mistranslation of this verse. I'd like to recap it here- several of you had asked about it.

A discussion about the JH mistranslation of this passage is simple and difficult. It is simple because the normal, historic, critically and scholarly translation of John 1:1 follows a very basic rule of grammar. To argue with it is rather silly. But, it is always difficult to argue with someone who is unable to accept simple and plain truth. Sometimes arguing with a JH's interpretation of this verse is like debating whether or not the sky is blue.

Here's the deal- in the original Greek this clause reads (transliteration): theos en ho logos. Greek is an inflected language, and word order in translation depends upon case ending. In this verse we find that both 'theos' - God and 'logos'- Word have the nominative, masculine, singular ending. Word- 'logos'- has the article 'ho' before it, while 'theos'- God; does not. The JH translation, the New World Translation, claims that because there is no definite article before 'theos', then it should be translated 'a god' (and so deny the full deity of Christ and assert a sort of Arian, sub-deity, quasi-divinity of Christ).

But, this translation ignores the fundamental rule at work in this clause. In this very simple Greek clause we have two nouns both with the nominative ending (the-os and log-os)connected by the verb 'to be' (eimi or en). We would not know which now stands in the subject position and which stands in the predicate position (the word was God or God was the word?). The rule is that the noun without the article is the predicate and the noun with the article (ho logos) is the subject. We find in this clause that 'theos' is put first, though it is the predicate. John places the predicate in front of the subject as a matter of emphasis. I believe that in the context we can discover plainly that he does this to boldly emphasize the deity of this eternal, preexisting 'logos'.

There are two other interpretive/translation principles that are broken by the JH's on this passage. First, they are fundamentally allowing a theological bias drive translation. Of course, we do recognize that no one is ever without some sort of bias. And, of course, we bring various orthodox convictions to the table whenever we do translation and interpretative (to some degree, us being human and all). But we cannot let it override plain readings of the text. Also, to say that John simply introduces a concept of a created, divine being ('a god') in the face of two thousand years of revealed Jewish monotheism is ludicrous. The JH fundamentally reject the deity of Christ and mistranslate the Scriptures to suit their heresy.

Secondly, the whole context of John 1:1-18 militates against such a denial of the deity of Christ. John is arguing and presenting the whole humanity and the whole deity of Jesus in this passage (indeed, throughout his gospel and his first epistle) while also maintaining the whole counsel of God which reveals his nature as ONE (John 1:1, 18; 8:58; chs. 14-17)! So, the JH mistranslate the Scriptures in the face of the plain contextual force of John's argument.

Here are a couple of resources that might further help in your defense of historic Trinitarian Christianity when reasoning with a Jehovah's Witness or anyone else who denies the biblical teaching on this matter: Christian Research Institute and Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry might be good places to start.

The Doctrine of God - Resources

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor Erik) — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 10:57:00 -0400

Here are some resources on the doctrine of God (theology proper) and the Trinity that I thought helpful.

Packer's classic work Knowing God is a great primer. Every Christian MUST read this book. His first four chapters are an excellent introduction to theology and the being and Trinity of God.

A harder read (average to super theologian), but great stuff, is found in my seminary profs two works- The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God and The Doctrine of God by John Frame. At the Frame and Poythress website there are a ton of great articles, essays, and resources for the believer's study and sanctification.

Of course, the two main systematic theologies that I am using in my preparation for Theology 101 every week are Grudem and Culver. But a cheap buy, and a classic theological set that would be great to have at your fingertips is Charles Hodge's three volume work (three beautiful books- a classic in protestant theology- for about 20 bucks!).

There is a wealth of resources over at one of my favorite site monergism.com They have a great list of articles on theology, attributes of God, and the Trinity. Check it out.

The Aggressive System

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor Erik) — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:19:00 -0400

I am reading the second volume of Dallimore's now classic biography of the great revival preacher George Whitefield. I commend both volumes to you as you seek out encouragement and learning from the biographies of great saints. (I commend to you the biographical sermons of John Piper- every year he researches and presents a biographical sketch of a giant of the Christian faith at his Pastor's Conference). I came across this great quote from Bishop J.C. Ryle on the life and ministry of Whitefield:

"Whitefield was the very first Englishman who seems to have thoroughly understood what Dr. Chalmers aptly called the aggressive system. He was the first to see that Christ's ministers must do the work of fishermen. They must not wait for souls to come to them, but must go after souls, and 'compel them to come in.' He did not sit tamely by his fire-side...mourning over the wickedness of the land. He went forth to beard the devil in his high places. He attacked sin and wickedness face to face and gave them no peace...In short, he set on foot a system of action, which up to his time, had been comparatively unknown in this country, but a system which, once commenced, has never ceased to be employed..."

I think of Paul's word to Timothy, "do the work of an evangelist". Don't let the ministry get in the way of the 'aggressive system' of being a fisher of men through the preaching of the gospel everywhere, all the time.

I am convicted, as I sit here in a local coffee shop, with the reality that the man dutifully surfing the web across the room will most likely not walk over and ask me my testimony of faith in Christ. But, there is certainly nothing but my pride (and the need to answer emails and put up blog posts and other busy busy ministry things) keeping me from walking over to him.

The Dreadful Work of Homemaking

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor Erik) — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:53:00 -0400

Over at Carolyn Mahaney's (along with her daughters) excellent blog you'll find ongoing conversations with women, by women, for women on the joys and struggles of biblical womanhood. They have a few posts with some great quotes from Chesterton from a great little piece he wrote called The Emancipation of Domesticity. Here's a sample that Tori and I thought profound and encouraging:

"[W]hen people begin to talk about this domestic duty as not merely difficult but trivial and dreary, I simply give up the question. For I cannot with the utmost energy of imagination conceive what they mean. When domesticity, for instance, is called drudgery, all the difficulty arises from a double meaning in the word. If drudgery only means dreadfully hard work, I admit the woman drudges in the home, as a man might drudge [at his work]. But if it means that the hard work is more heavy because it is trifling, colorless and of small import to the soul, then as I say, I give it up; I do not know what the words mean…. I can understand how this might exhaust the mind, but I cannot imagine how it could narrow it. How can it be a large career to tell other people's children [arithmetic], and a small career to tell one's own children about the universe? How can it be broad to be the same thing to everyone, and narrow to be everything to someone? No; a woman's function is laborious, but because it is gigantic, not because it is minute. I will pity Mrs. Jones for the hugeness of her task; I will never pity her for its smallness."

Consider Chesterton's words the next time you roll your eyes at a woman who doesn't 'work' but 'stays at home'. Remember this quote at your temptation to think disparagingly of the woman who schools her children at home rather than ply her trade in the marketplace as if this were some ignoble vocation. Or just remember God's Word,

"Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, anot malicious gossips, nor be enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being bsubject to their own husbands, cthat the word of God may not be dishonored." (Titus 2:3-5)

"So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander." (1 Timothy 5:14)

A Culture of Offendedness

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor Erik) — Tue, 1 Jul 2008 16:01:00 -0400

[Guest Blogger: Ryan Oelshlager, Four Oaks Pastor of Student Ministries. Originally written for student ministries newsletter.]

Recently I’ve been especially bothered by a news phenomenon: Whether it’s watching a politician at a rally or listening to an athlete talk about an upcoming game: They all sound the SAME. The person may be different (eg., Barack Obama now attacking John McCain instead of Hillary Clinton) but the talking points are the same. What is it about our culture that prevents a person from saying something original?

Believe it or not, I think the answer to this question has vast implications for parenting...stay tuned.

Albert Mohler, prolific Christian author and president of Southern Seminary in Louisville, aptly addresses this question in a book I’ve been reading called Cultural Shift: Engaging Current Issues with Timeless Truth. Mohler agrees with Christian philosopher Paul Helm who says, “Historically, being offended has been a very serious matter. To be offended is to be caused to stumble so as to fall, to fail, to apostasize.” As evidence Professor Helm utilizes the language of the KJV when Jesus says to his disciples: “And if they right eye offend thee, pluck it out” (Mt. 5:29) and also Jesus’ warning toward those who would “offend” the “little ones” (Mt. 18:6).

This is a very subtle but important change in the usage of offendedness. Now, any emotional distaste is deemed offensive. And public figures apologize not for wrongdoing but “if anyone was offended.”

Mohler goes on to argue: “[We must recognize] that some degree of real or perceived offendedness is the cost society must pay for the right to enjoy the free exchange of ideas and the freedom to speak one’s mind.” Indeed, especially if we are to be salt & light to the world, but even if we are to grow as a society, different and/or unusual ideas must be set forth. And different ideas offend by the very fact that they are different.

I deeply sympathize with parents of teenagers with regard to this issue. On the one hand, if you protect your children from the world and deadly worldviews, they stand a better shot at having a different voice, a salty voice that stands out—but, having been protected, face the risk of not actually letting their voices be heard.

On the other hand, for those who tend to more promptly release their children into the world, while the child is more likely to discover his/her voice, we are left questioning what are the convictions behind that voice and to what degree has my child’s saltiness been lost to the world.

This is no easy dilemma.

Christ calls us to be in the world but with a distinct mission. Both must occur. We must risk our child to be in the world and make mistakes and learn while they are still under our care and guidance. We can reel them back in now—we cannot when they go to college. But we also need to challenge them regarding their mission. What is their mission in being on the football or volleyball team? What is the purpose in going to this party or to befriend Jim? Because their mission isn’t to simply offend, but to put forth the cross of Christ as the offense (1 Cor. 1:23).

I pray for wisdom for you as you train your child for a salty voice in this culture of offendedness.

Rarely offended (except by my own sin),

Ryan Oelschlager

Pray for our High Schoolers!

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor Erik) — Tue, 1 Jul 2008 15:54:00 -0400

Our High Schoolers left last Saturday for a week in Taylorsville, N.C. They will be engaged in a variety of things on this mission trip- such as evangelism training, planning and carrying out a Kids Club program, restoring homes and carrying out acts and missions of mercy in the community. I urge you to lift up our brothers and sisters in Christ during this week of service and kingdom building.
I’ll go ahead and post the daily prayer guide through this week for some pointers and helps as you lift the team up in prayer: (you can pray retroactively for the past days!)

Saturday, June 28 – Protection
“For our battle is not against flesh and blood but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.” Ephesians 6:20
-spiritual protection from the deceptions and attempts to divide by the enemy
-physical protection and safety
Pray specifically for: Stephen Scaringe, Zac Howard, David Stewart, Brittany Hill, Mitch Overton

Sunday, June 29 – Unity
“complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love.” Phil. 2:2
-unity of purpose – to share the gospel of grace and call for response of faith alone.
-unity among students of different ages
-unity between Four Oaksters, the youth works leadership, and other churches
Ryan Oelshlager, Ariel Currieo, Taylor Dayton, Porter Watson

Monday, June 30 – Evangelism
“Pray also for us, that God may open to us a door for the word, to declare the mystery of Christ…that I may make it clear.” Col. 4:3-4
-God would prepare hearts and quickly provide opportunities to build relationships
-Kids and parents would respond to gospel
-Students would take the faith risk to share when opportunity is present
Rob Pifer, David Fish, Andrew Ferguson

Tuesday, July 1 – Agents of Mercy and Justice to the Poor
“If you spend yourselves on behalf of the hungry and satisfy the needs of the oppressed, then your light will rise in the darkness and your night will become like the noon day.” Isa. 58:10
-God would help us partner with Youthworks and other local churches to restore a sense of dignity and hope in the midst of poverty and great need.
Nancy Duff, Caleb Peters, Colton Dudley, Sarah Casteel

Wednesday, July 2 - Sanctification/Growth
"To this end we always pray for you, that our God may make your worthy of
his calling and may fulfill every resolve for good and every work of faith by
his power, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ." 2 Thess 1: 11-12
-Pray that ‘resolves’ for good on the part of students would more &
more spring from faith & be prompted by God’s grace in their lives
>> that students would see that temporary compassion & mere
mushiness won’t carry the day <<
-Students & leaders would further conform to the image of Christ as
they serve Him and rely upon Him.
Michael Argersinger, Sarah Crawford, Ryan Crawford,
Daniel Sellinger.

Thursday, July 3 - Leadership & Accountability
"If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall
ask, and God will give him life..."-1 John 5: 16
-Wisdom amongst leaders to balance encouragement and prayer
for sin with gently confronting any student caught up in sin.
-Pray that any confrontations would lead to restoration & growth.
Sarah Duff, Josh Elliot, Sarah Jean Fickett.

Friday, July 4 - Perseverance
Consider him who endured such opposition from sinful men so that you
may not grow weary or lose heart. -Hebrews 12:3.
-Persevere in recognizing and receiving God’ gracious love
-Persevere in sharing the gospel and loving their neighbor upon
returning home.
-Persevere in a commitment to fellowship during the summer & fall.

The Doctrine of Revelation and Scripture- a resource list

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor Erik) — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:50:00 -0400

Here are some of the resources I would recommend to you in your study of the doctrine of revelation and scripture (following our two weeks on the topic for Theology 101). I'll rate them according to level of difficulty- super theologian (pretty technical, difficult and dense to work through), average theologian (heady stuff, but most can benefit greatly in working through it), erik (easy and helpful for the average layman).

Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology. His chapters on Scripture were very helpful and useful to me. (level: erik)

John Calvin, Institutes; Book 1:chs.6-13 Calvin is the great pastor theologian of the Reformed tradition, this theological tome should be on every Christian's bookshelf. I find it one of my constant devotional helps. (level: average theologian-erik)

B.B. Warfield, Inspiration and Authority of the Bible. A classic and the definitive work on the protestant reformed view of Scripture. (level: super theologian)

Geisler, ed. Inerrancy. A great compilation of crucial articles on Scripture. I benefited greatly from Bahnsen's chapter on Inerrancy in the autographs. (level: average theol. - erik)

John W. Montgomery, ed. God's Inerrant Word. Another classic compilation. Especially - John Frame, Scripture Speaks for Itself; Clark Pinnock, Inspiration of Scripture and the Authority of Jesus Christ. (level: average - erik)

Bruce Metzger, The Text of the N.T. - Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. A difficult read, but easier than The Text of the N.T. by Aland and Aland. Very helpful in understanding the task of text criticism, understanding transmission, and a great book to inspire confidence in the believer in the translations before us today. (level: super-average)

Peter Jensen, The Revelation of God. A great book, part of the Contours of Christian Theology series. I recommend this whole series to you- especially Helm's The Providence of God; and Ferguson's The Church. (level: super- average)

F.F. Bruce, The N.T. Documents: Are They Reliable? An easy, must read for all Christians. A great apologetic tool as well. (level: erik) Also, The Canon of Scripture by Bruce .

Expositor's Bible Commentary: Vol. I- Introductory Articles. This is a great commentary series for general bible study reference. This first volume has a great bunch of articles on the authority of Scripture; its transmission, the canon, the reliability of our translations; as well as more specific studies in Old and New Testament.

If you want some resources in the area of basic Bible introduction/overview, and general surveys and helps in bible study I recommend:

Gleason Archer, Old Testament Introduction
Carson, Moo, and Morris, New Testament Introduction
Fee and Stuart, Reading the Bible for All It's Worth
Tremper Longman, Reading the Bible with Heart and Mind
Kay Arthur, How to Study Your Bible

Piper on the Prosperity Gospel

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor Erik) — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:12:00 -0400

And, for that matter, our idolatrous evangelifish worship at the altar of self and affluence.

Broken Hallelujahs

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor Erik) — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 12:21:00 -0400

My Dad, after much urging from all who know him has finally entered the blogosphere. I strongly commend you to his new site.

His latest post Word Up is a great follow up to my last sermon on revelation and scripture- a rather necessary addendum on the theological and philosophical implications of our convictions regarding God's Word. I will be preaching another sermon on Scripture in a couple weeks, and I am thankful to my Dad for giving me my material!

If you want to know more of God's Word, about God's Word, and about God- lurk often on Dad's blog and attend his class on Moses and the Modern Mind this fall at Four Oaks.

The Old Worn Out Drum

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor Erik) — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 11:46:00 -0400

I'll continue to bang the old worn out drum for the cause of the unborn as THE singular moral, social, and political issue of our day.

John Piper on One-Issue Politics, One-Issue Marriage, and the Humane Society :

No endorsement of any single issue qualifies a person to hold public office. Being pro-life does not make a person a good governor, mayor, or president. But there are numerous single issues that disqualify a person from public office. For example, any candidate who endorsed bribery as a form of government efficiency would be disqualified, no matter what his party or platform was. Or a person who endorsed corporate fraud (say under $50 million) would be disqualified no matter what else he endorsed. Or a person who said that no black people could hold office—on that single issue alone he would be unfit for office. Or a person who said that rape is only a misdemeanor—that single issue would end his political career. These examples could go on and on. Everybody knows a single issue that for them would disqualify a candidate for
office.

It's the same with marriage. No one quality makes a good wife or husband, but some qualities would make a person unacceptable. For example, back when I was thinking about getting married, not liking cats would not have disqualified a woman as my wife, but not liking people would. Drinking coffee would not, but drinking whiskey would. Kissing dogs wouldn't, but kissing the mailman would. And so on. Being a single-issue fiancé does not mean that only one issue matters.It means that some issues may matter enough to break off the relationship.

So it is with politics. You have to decide what those issues are for you. What do you think disqualifies a person from holding public office? I believe that the endorsement of the right to kill unborn children disqualifies a person from any position of public office. It's simply the same as saying that the endorsement of racism, fraud, or bribery would disqualify him—except that child-killing is more serious than those.

Doug Groothuis on Recovering from Fetus Fatigue:

Evangelicals, for God's sake, please wake up. Remember the least, the last, and the lost: the millions of unborn human beings who hang in the balance (Matthew 25:31-46). No, this is not the only issue, but it is a titanic issue that cannot be ignored. Rouse yourself to recover from fetus fatigue. God is watching.

Gene Edward Veith says that what a candidate believes about abortion tells us how he will treat other issues.

Scott Klusendorf on why children should be free to smoke in pro-choice America.

Politics is Politics

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor Erik) — Thu, 5 Jun 2008 11:17:00 -0400

An interesting, and frustrating, article on the so-called younger evangelicals over at the NY Times.

"They [our younger evangelicals] say they are tired of the culture wars. They say they do not want the test of their faith to be the fight against gay rights. They say they want to broaden the traditional evangelical anti-abortion agenda to include care for the poor, the environment, immigrants and people with H.I.V., according to experts on younger evangelicals and the young people themselves.

“Evangelicalism is becoming somewhat less coherent as a movement or as an identity,” said Christian Smith, a sociology professor at the University of Notre Dame. “Younger people don’t even want the label anymore. They don’t believe the main goal of the church is to be political.”
About 17 percent of the nation’s 55 million adult evangelicals are between the ages of 18 and 29, and many are troubled by the methods of the religious right and its close ties to the Republican Party.

Ok, now here is what I don't understand. In the first paragraph above we discover the desire of younger evangelicals to broaden and increase the political agenda to what are obviously more 'left wing' issues (environment, 'the poor', etc.). But, lo and behold, we discover in the very next paragraph that these same younger evangelicals don't believe the main goal of the church is to be political. So, which is it? More politics or less politics? You can't have your cake and eat it too, guys. It is plain that there is specific sort of politicking that the new, fresh, young evangelicals will allow. I wish at least we'd be honest on this point.

This sort of facile grandstanding regarding 'the methods of the religious right and its close ties to the Republican party' means nothing to me. In what way are these methods more troubling than the methods of Wallis' 'religious left'? Why are we not troubled by the close ties of the religious left to the Democratic Party?

And, I will continue to insist that the slaughter of innocent babies is an issue of primary importance for every candidate and a litmus test for justice, righteousness, and compassion for any party. It trumps all and is an issue of singular importance above all others. I simply cannot endorse or vote for any candidate who loves 'the poor' and yet endorses the right of its citizens to have their children (other citizens) dismembered, suctioned from the womb, and discarded as so much garbage. How in the world can we morally compare climate change politics with the abomination of state sanctioned homosexual marriage (and the collapse of the family which is the heart and soul of any nation)? Yes, put in flourescent bulbs, but let's be careful to have some moral perspective here.

For the most part, and forgive my cynicism, these emerging pastors are speaking to trends, appealling to the masses (at least the latte drinking hipster ones), and losing their prophetic voice in the process. You can't say that you are against abortion and believe homosexuality is a sin, but then refuse to address such sins as they are encroaching upon our lives and communities at every turn!

If we discovered tomorrow that John McCain was a card carrying member of the Klan (do they carry cards?) and an avowed racist, for the most part this country would quickly turn into a single issue nation. If Obama revealed that he did in fact support his former pastor's sentiments and politics, and made Farakhan his cheif political strategist- we would become a single issue country. Why are these issue of race more important than the issue of abortion? But the fact of the matter is, we have one party and one candidate that openly affirms and endorses the right of a nation to kill babies. The other candidate and party has fought against this travesty (though my affections for the Republican party and her poster boy are similar to Pastor Bayly's). These facts are plain. These are matters of morality, character, righteousness, and justice. For us to blithely put the issue of infanticide alongside issues of climate change and the minimum wage is, in my mind, pure foolishness (to say nothing of the double talk of our younger evangelicals on such religious politicking).

And, for the record- I am what you might call a 'younger evangelical'. Sadly no one has polled me as of yet.

Liberated Misogyny- Joe Carter on Sex and the City

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor Erik) — Thu, 5 Jun 2008 08:40:00 -0400

I have often asked the question, "What has thirty years of feminist liberation really given us?" There is more misogyny, divorce, child abuse, sexual confusion, std's, domestic violence, and general unrest between the sexes than ever before. I'm no utilitarian, and I believe that the aims of gender feminism (and that odd bird we call evangelical feminism) can easily be dismissed on purely philosophical, theological, and biblical grounds. But we can at least say that pragmatically the movement is a bit of a wash.

Joe Carter over at the evangelical outpost provides us with a helpful examination of that towering pop cultural totem to liberated femininity called Sex and the City. Check it out.

Wolf-Spotting - Part Two

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor Erik) — Fri, 30 May 2008 09:36:00 -0400

"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see if they are from God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world." 1 John 4:1

What are the marks of a false teacher and false teaching? These are issues that are a bit complex, which is why I believe God gave us the context of the local church to grow under teaching. The qualifications for pastors/elders in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 can only be identified in a man's life through a whole life commitment to the community of believers. So, one way to steer clear of false and destructive teaching is to not put yourself under the ministry of teachers and pastors that you fundamentally do not know. There is a real blessing available to us through the ministries of various teachers and leaders that are outside our local churches and denominational affiliations. My ipod is full of John Piper, R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur, Mark Dever, CJ Mahaney, Mark Driscoll, Tim Bayly, Ray Stedman, Lloyd-Jones, etc. (not necessarily in that order!). But there is a real danger in the current 'cult of personality' and celebrity ministry ethos of evangelicalism. So, as we discern who and how we might wade through these waters, here are a few important guidelines for spotting the good from the bad.

1. Godly and wise teachers are those who are committed to the full authority and inerrancy of God's Word. If you are listening to a teacher who equivocates on this issue, or simply denies the authority and inerrancy of the Scriptures, watch out!

2. Godly teachers are those who are committed to historic and orthodox Christianity. Teachers of God's people must not add to, wander outside, or denigrate the doctrines of God's word established and affirmed by his saints throughout history. (So, when Brian McLaren questions the doctrine of hell and judgment- watch out; when Rob Bell questions the necessity of the doctrine of the virgin birth- watch out; when a revival preacher is an absolute kook, charlatan, and heretic- watch out!)

3. A godly teacher is accountable and submitted to a plurality of qualified men of integrity and wisdom. This accountability is to be local, consistent, and easily observed. For example, believers at Four Oaks are able see the elders of our church who I am submitted to actively involved in my life and ministry. You'll notice that most of the men who have a teaching influence in my life are those who are pastors who minister in local church contexts. This doesn't have to be the case necessarily, but it is the normative pattern for teaching accountability.

4. Be careful in submitting to teachers who hold doctrinal convictions that differ from those of your pastors and leaders. Understand the nature of these differences, as well as the differences between what might be called first, second, and third order doctrinal convictions. Be especially careful if a ministry or teacher encourages divisiveness, disloyalty, and dissatisfaction with those who serve you as pastors and elders.

5. In all these matters it is crucial for us to be discerning and exercise godly judgment. The spirit of the age is a blanket acceptance or indifference in the name of some sort of postmodern or sentimental notion of tolerance. This is not in keeping with the teaching of Christ and the full counsel of God's Word.

Let me close this post with the quote from Chesterton that I read last Sunday regarding humility and doctrinal conviction. We must maintain humility and uncertainty with regard to ourselves, our ambitions, and any personal aggrandizement. But we must never mistake lack of conviction in matters of critical doctrinal importance for humility. We must maintain love, grace, and peace in our relationships and our posture towards one another and the world- yet, this posture is never to replace doctrinal conviction and certainty with regard to the truth of God's Word.

"What we suffer from today is humility in the wrong place. Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition. Modesty has settled upon the organ of conviction; where it was never meant to be. A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed. Nowadays the part of a man that a man does assert is exactly the part he ought not to assert - himself. The part he doubts is exactly the part he ought not to doubt - the Divine Reason. . . . The new skeptic is so humble that he doubts if he can even learn. . . . There is a real humility typical of our time; but it so happens that it's practically a more poisonous humility than the wildest prostrations of the ascetic. . . . The old humility made a man doubtful about his efforts, which might make him work harder. But the new humility makes a man doubtful about his aims, which makes him stop working altogether. . . . We are on the road to producing a race of man too mentally modest to believe in the multiplication table." (Orthodoxy [Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Co., 1957], pp. 31-32)

More Bell-Ringing

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor Erik) — Fri, 16 May 2008 09:13:00 -0400

Must I harp on this poor servant? Several have voiced concern that I am being unfair in my criticism of Rob Bell.

First, let me give you the full quotation from Bell's first book where he challenges the necessity of the virgin birth of Christ, the possibility of doctrinal certainty, and the importance of orthodox convictions (as well as the sufficiency of Scripture, the trustworthy testimony of the Gospel writers and Apostles, and the development of the canon...):

“What if tomorrow someone digs up definitive proof that Jesus had a real, earthly, biological father named Larry, and archeologists find Larry’s tomb and do DNA samples and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the virgin birth was really just a bit of mythologizing the Gospel writers threw in to appeal to the followers of the Mithra and Dionysian religious cults that were hugely popular at the time of Jesus, whose gods had virgin births? But what if, as you study the origin of the word ‘virgin’ you discover that the word ‘virgin’ in the gospel of Matthew actually comes from the book of Isaiah, and then you find out that in the Hebrew language at that time, the word ‘virgin’ could mean several things. And what if you discover that in the first century being ‘born of a virgin’ also referred to a child whose mother became pregnant the first time she had intercourse? What if that spring were seriously questioned? Could a person keep on jumping? Could a person still love God? Could you still be a Christian? Is the way of Jesus still the best possible way to live? Or does the whole thing fall apart?”

I could say so many things about this disturbing quote. First, Bell, and all who have read his book, need to read some J. Gresham Machen. As well, you need to read Al Mohler's answer to the last couple questions posed above, "Could you still be a Christian? Or does the whole thing fall apart?"

Secondly, remember that this is uttered by the pastor of one of the fastest growing, largest, and influential churches in America. Second, he is touted as a leading voice in evangelicalism (the Chicago Sun Times offered him to us as the next Billy Graham). Third, he is a best selling Christian author. Fourth, he tours the country (world?) promoting his books, packing out churches, nightclubs, and other venues spreading his gospel. Fifth, he has great appeal to the pomo twenty/thirty something generation- a generation that I have the privilege of ministering amongst in a college town. For all these reasons, I challenge believers to watch out for his teachings, which are not in accordance with sound doctrine and the truth of the gospel.

Mind you, Bell does insist that he believes in the literal virgin birth of Christ. His point is 'hypothetical'- he is trying to demonstrate that doctrinal truths are like the springs on a trampoline, and we can remove them willy nilly and keep on jumping. He claims that modernity has set up doctrinal biblical truth like a brick wall, and when a brick is removed- the entire edifice comes crashing. The problem with this is that Bell has set up a false dichotomy (and a straw man- his caricature of modern evangelicalism as a doctrinal brick wall is unhelpful, though I don't necessarily disagree). Either doctrinal truth is like a trampoline or a brick wall. Must we see biblical truth as either/or in the way Bell has set up the discussion?

As I have often said, doctrinal truth, actually all truth, is a web of multiple reciprocities (a term I got from my trusted OT prof, Richard Pratt). The affirmation of the truth of the virgin birth has direct and crucial implications to the affirmation of Christ as truly God. The affirmation of the absolute truth and inerrancy of Scripture has direct bearing upon our affirmation of the virgin birth of Christ. We could go on and on. This is exactly why Paul labored to present to the Ephesians 'the whole counsel of God's Word' when he was with. This is why we are so strongly exhorted toward the preservation of sound doctrine. The denial of plain biblical teaching (which is certainly the case regarding the virgin birth) brings destruction to our churches and our souls.

Let me say as well that I could really care less that Bell personally believes in the virgin birth. This is not the important thing here. What is important is that we proclaim that such a thing is TRUE and why it is true. Bell places belief and truth in the realm of personal preference. I want to know what is true, not just for Bell, not just for me in Tallahassee- but for all men everywhere, for all time. It would be helpful if at this point in his book he explained for us why he believes in the virgin birth? On what basis? To what end? In reality, why should I believe that Bell affirm's historic Christian orthodoxy as he claims? His claim to such an affirmation is contradicted by his rejection of sola scriptura, his embrace of narrative theology, and the web of fallacious and foolish statements offered in the quote above. Bell is very McLaren-esque here- "I love the Bible- even when it's wrong!"

Let's look real quick at Bell's statement about the virgin birth:

1. What if someone digs up definitive proof (beyond a shadow of a doubt) about the real, earthly, biological father of Jesus? Oh, how dreadfully modern of Pastor Bell! Is his trust in DNA evidence? Beyond a shadow of a doubt? But Bell has built a church and a popular ministry around the idea that there is no such thing as proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. Ooops. These sort of horribly modern commitments always seem to creep in somewhere- for many emergents it often happens when the discussion turns to the truth of global warming and economics. I don't get it. I thought Bell had emerged from such enlightenment shackles.

2. Let's consider implication #1- Mary was indeed an adulteress and a liar. Joseph was a liar. And both of them built a whole life around this lie. And in this lie they fabricated angelic visitations. Elizabeth somewhere was dupped, or entered into the conspiracy.

3. Implication #2 - The gospel writers are liars.(in fact, Bell plainly asserts this as entirely plausible and not a problem whatever) Bell says that if such a thing were true (that Jesus had a dad named Larry) then maybe the testimony of Scripture is just a myth to appeal to some rank pagans. But, remember what Luke tells us, "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." (Luke 1:1-4)

4. Implication #3 - Jesus was a liar. Matthew 16:16; 26:63-64...and many others.

5. Implication #4 - Jesus was not the Son of God. "And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy offspring shall be called the Son of God." (Luke 1:35)

6. Implication #5 - Jesus was not the Messiah, sent as the Son of God to redeem a people for himself. Behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for that which has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. And she will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for it is He who will save His people from their sins." (Matt. 1:20-21)

7. Implication #6 - Jesus was merely a man. A teacher (who lied about his claim to deity, and so was a megalomaniacal tyrant who demanded total loyalty from his followers). He simply came to show us 'the best way to live'. We are left with human righteousness as our only hope.

I went through that little walk from one reciprocity to the next- to show you exactly where Bell's point leads us in this whole hypothetical discussion. He says, "Is the way of Jesus still the best possible way to live?" We are left with a pragmatic, works oriented, and redemption-less gospel that is no gospel at all. No, this would not be the best way to live. Paul tells us that this would be the very worst way to live. We would still be in our sins. We would be enemies of God. We would be trusting a lie. We would be lost in a sea of mindless platitudes with no power for holiness, no way to truth, and no hope beyond the grave.

Add this to Bell's rejection of sola scriptura and his heterodox (and mainly sentimentalist gospel-ish) views presented in the NOOMA videos, his social gospel agenda, his Arminian and man centered view of the atonement, his failure to preach the gospel... behold, we have good old fashioned liberalism with hipster glasses and a 'bible church' guise.

Like I said last Sunday, if you must read Miller, Bell, McLaren, et. al. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE go read some Puritans, some Calvin, some Luther, some Spurgeon, some Hodge, some Warfield, some M. Lloyd -Jones, some Packer, some Piper, some Sproul...