If We Believe All the Same Things, Why Do Our Churches Seem So Different?

  By Dean | May 18, 2012 - 4:27 pm | Blog, Christian Doctrine
Leave a comment

I read an interesting article from another website entitled, “The Gospel Coalition.” Excerpts from an article are included below. The article asks a poignant question. What is the difference between a solid Bible-believing church and one that appears to be one but something just doesn’t feel right?

The author goes on to list the top 10 things he believes distinguishes a Bible-believing church from one that isn’t necessarily so. They are:

1. The mission of the church has gotten sidetracked. What is the mission of the church and is it clearly spelled out?…

2. The church has become over-accommodating…

3. The gospel is assumed. While the right theology may be affirmed in theory, it rarely gets articulated. No one believes the wrong things, but they don’t believe much of anything….

4. There is no careful doctrinal delineation. Theology is not seen as the church’s outboard motor. It’s a nasty barnacle on the hull….

5. The ministry of the word is diminished. While preaching may still be honored in theory, in many churches there is little confidence that paltry preaching is what ails the church and even less confidence that dynamic preaching is the proper prescription…

6. People are not called to repentance. It sounds so simple, and yet it is so easily forgotten.

7. There is no example of carefully handling specific texts of Scripture. People will not trust the Bible as they should unless they see it regularly taught with detail and clarity…

8. There is no functioning ecclesiology. Careful shepherding, elder training, regenerate church membership, a functioning diaconate, purposeful congregational meetings–these are the things you may not know you’ve never had. But when you do, it’s a different kind of church…

9. There is an almost complete disregard for church discipline. If discipline is truly one of the three marks of the church, then many evangelical congregations are not true churches…

10. The real problem is something other than sin and the real remedy is something other than a Savior. The best churches stay focused on the basics…

I think I would have put the last one at the top of the list but all of these are important and there’s no reason to quibble over the order of the list. But to answer the question asked in the title I would submit not all churches believe the gospel or in the certainty of doctrine or many of the things delineated here. Many reject the inerrancy of scripture. They talk a good talk but when forced into a corner they will drop many of the essential points of Christianity so as  not to offend anyone or drive off their audience.

There is much more in the article for each of these points and I highly recommend you follow the link and read the entire article. These are very short excerpts and the article brings out additional points for thought. Please click HERE to read the entire article.

 

Related Posts

Link to this post!

Phil Robertson, Duck Commander; Arise, kill and eat

  By Dean | May 17, 2012 - 4:10 am | Blog, Christian Doctrine
Leave a comment

Link to this post!

Related Posts

Consternation over Ben Carson, evolution, and morality

  By Dean | May 16, 2012 - 5:38 am | Apologetics, Blog
Leave a comment

An excerpt from an article by Richard Weikart of World Community.  (click on the website link to read the entire article.)

Almost 500 Emory University faculty and students have expressed their dismay that their commencement speaker this morning does not toe the ideological line when it comes to evolutionary biology. Yes, gasp, the renowned Johns Hopkins neurosurgeon Ben Carson does not believe in evolutionary theory. Not only that, the biology professors at Emory and their supporters accuse him of committing a thought crime because he allegedly “equates acceptance of evolution with a lack of ethics and morality.”

Since I am a historian who has studied and published on the history of evolutionary ethics, I was rather surprised by the Emory faculty’s consternation. Last summer I attended a major interdisciplinary conference at Oxford University on “The Evolution of Morality and the Morality of Evolution.” Thus I am well aware that there are a variety of viewpoints in academe on this topic. Nonetheless, many evolutionists—from Darwin to the present (including quite a few at that Oxford conference)—have argued and are still arguing precisely the point that Carson was highlighting: They claim that morality has evolved and thus has no objective existence.

As the article goes on to point out, embracing the theory of evolution removes any ethical standards to preserve social unity. There is no right and no wrong. There is only one group of animals foisting their cultural norms of morality on the rest of society. Or as stated by Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson, “Ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to co-operate.”

The theory of evolution claims survival of the fittest. If evolution is true as proclaimed by the educational elite, morality has no basis in a transcendent Being and all attempts to institute social norms are simply survival of the fittest; one group being the strong setting social norms for everyone else. What’s to prevent an upstart from claiming their social norms should now be the social norm and dominant cultural influence and changing them to suit their desires? In fact, they should be expected to and encouraged to do so. This would lead to constant political, moral and social upheaval in society. The weak are to be used, abused and discarded. Only the strong survive. This is not a society I would wish to be a part of.

 

Link to this post!

Related Posts

Shutting Down Christianity

  By Dean | May 15, 2012 - 3:51 am | Blog
Leave a comment

Liberal disdain for all things Christian, and the desire to remove all vestiges of Christianity from public view so as to pack the Christian faith into the four walls of the church, and no place else, is nothing new. The American Civil Liberties Union has been one of those organizations at the forefront of limiting biblical exposure to the general public. Click on the links below to view two different articles on this subject.

 

Shutting Down Christianity One Commandment at a Time.

Judge Suggests Chopping 10 Commandments Down to 6.

Link to this post!

Related Posts

Does God “Look on Wickedness”?

  By Dean | May 14, 2012 - 4:18 pm | Blog, Christian Doctrine
Leave a comment

by Eric Lyons, M.Min of Apologetics Press

The prophet Habakkuk once spoke to God, saying, “You are of purer eyes than to behold evil, and cannot look on wickedness” (1:13). Some have questioned how this statement could be true, considering God allowed the diabolical devil to come before His presence on the “day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord” (Job 1:6). How can God be described accurately as having “purer eyes than to behold evil,” when Satan, “the evil one” (Matthew 6:13), was able to present himself before the Lord and have a conversation with Him? If God can be in the presence of “the wicked one” (1 John 3:12), how can He simultaneously not be able to “look on wickedness”?

Consider, first of all, the fact that the Bible repeatedly testifies to God’s omniscience and omnipresence. “[T]here is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account” (Hebrews 4:13). Neither the righteous nor the wicked can flee from God’s presence (cf. Psalm 139:7-8). He fills heaven and Earth (Jeremiah 23:23-24). Indeed, God is the all-knowing, ever-present One. Thus, given the Bible’s overall teaching about the nature of God, it should be obvious that Habakkuk 1:13 means something other than “God does not know or see what the wicked are doing.”

Second, that Habakkuk meant something other than “God cannot literally look upon wickedness” is also evident from the very chapter and verse in which he makes this statement. After declaring, “You are of purer eyes than to behold evil, and cannot look on wickedness” (1:13a), he asked, “Why do You look on those who deal treacherously, and hold Your tongue when the wicked devours a person more righteous than he?” (1:13b, emp. added). Those who “deal treacherously” certainly are engaged in wickedness, and yet, God looks on them. Consider also verse two where the prophet asked, “[H]ow long shall I cry, and You will not hear?” (emp. added). What did he mean by “hear”? He explained in his next statement: “Even cry out to You, ‘Violence!’ and You will not save” (emp. added). Thus, to “hear” in verse two meant “to save.” Similarly, in verse 13 the prophet was not suggesting that God cannot see the wicked. He does, in fact, see them and often even allows them to continue in their existence for a time in order to fulfill His purposes.

In context, Habakkuk was bewildered by the fact that God was using a wicked nation like Babylon to punish Judah. The prophet was undoubtedly aware of Judah’s perverse ways (1:1-4), but did not understand why God would “look” toward the extremely wicked nation of Babylon in order to punish the Jews. The truth is, however, God neither approved of nor ignored Babylon’s sins. After He providentially used them to punish the Jews, He likewise brought judgment upon the Babylonians. Just as He predicted (Jeremiah 50-51; Isaiah 21; 45:1; etc.), Babylon was soon destroyed in the sixth century B.C.

God’s perfectly holy, just, divine nature will not allow Him to “look on wickedness”—meaning, He cannot delight, accept, or ignore iniquity. He hates sin (Proverbs 6:16-19). He “is against those who do evil” (1 Peter 3:12). He may have allowed Satan to come into His presence with the sons of God, but God never looks upon wickedness with pleasure and approval.

Be careful, however, not to confuse God’s refusal to approve sin, with the idea that He does not use sinners—or even Satan—to accomplish His will. He used the extremely wicked Chaldeans to bring judgment upon the Jews. He used the Medes and Persians to destroy the Babylonians. And He even used Satan to prove that His servant Job was faithful, and ultimately to show Himself as the sovereign Ruler of the Universe, Who warrants man’s unwavering respect and loyalty.

Link to this post!

Related Posts

The Skeptic Says: Part Six

  By Dean | May 10, 2012 - 5:58 am | Blog
Leave a comment

This is a series of posts answering a skeptic who rejects Christianity (or any other religion/god) and clings to atheism and natural causes for everything in the universe. Here is the link to the last post – Part Five.

In this post I want to point out the utter emptiness of the atheist’s position IN HIS OWN WORDS. His words show there is no hope, no God and no reason for fulfillment and happiness. There is no joy in atheism. If we are all made up of a bunch of molecules that got together to make this blob of living material, then there is no reason to exist other than to fulfill your every desire. Once that has run its course, nothing else gives meaning to existence. There is no transcendent reason for living, no right, no wrong. No anything other than meaningless existence. The skeptic says:

The other week, I encountered a throng of protesters marching right up my route home. They had banners, flags, cardboard signs, megaphones, and every possible piece of propaganda imaginable. There was not a single left-wing issue that was not mentioned, somewhere. Down with capitalism, it’s time for revolution, stop the regime…

And I thought to myself: I’ll bet they feel great, having some transcendent cause to get together and chant about; their loins girded up by the absolute certainty of their rightness.

I don’t think I’m ever going to feel that again.

Speaking of his fellow atheists he writes:

Nearly every one of you believes you are intelligent, but this is emphatically not the case. You all believe you are upstanding and empathetic human beings, but this is also not the case. A great many of you are hateful, superficial in your thoughts about key issues, selfish and prejudiced.

You were a reason to keep the faith.

And here in this quote on why he left Christianity:

I happened to find myself in a particular set of life circumstances that allowed a complete and uninterrupted inquiry into the givens of existence, and it has resulted in my effectively disowning the Christian faith that started all this off. The operative question for me had always been: if Christianity is not true in some way, shape or form, then what is? What can replace it? And my search of the alternatives has left me with nothing. It is obvious to me that people who happily leave Christianity for Atheism, and describe a sense of freedom, have never really thought about Christianity when they were Christians, and never really thought about Atheism before embracing it. I would dare say that they never really thought about anything at all.

That’s just my view. I challenge the optimistic philosophers, and the distracted and well-fed secular humanists, to explain the existence of the pessimists and the failing struggle with nihilism. For all the ridicule heaped on religious believers for wishful thinking, the irony is piled sky-high by the lazy and optimistic philosophies of the atheists who do the ridiculing. Do they really think such people who have thought extensively upon such things wish to be terrified and made so miserable by their own views? Or does their logic and reason not show them the obvious–that they have every motivation in the world to delude themselves, and that they have successfully done so?

And here, describing Christian music:

I dug up some of the old worship songs / Christian music that I used to listen to.

Some of it was almost too much to take–hearing it again.

And some of it even got me dancing around and mouthing the words (combined with a complicated feeling that I’m not sure I know how to describe). And I felt like I believed every word I was mouthing. There’s nothing to replace it.

The emptiness of atheism on display. And logically, his thoughts are correct. If there is no God, nothing is worth living for.

Link to this post!

Related Posts

The Real Integrity Test

  By Dean | May 9, 2012 - 1:20 pm | Blog, Christian Doctrine
Leave a comment

From Church and Culture.

If you lie, commit adultery, take drugs, break the speed limit, drink and drive, and willingly handle stolen goods, you’re in good company.

Or at least company.

According to research from Essex University in England, British people have become markedly less honest in the last decade.  Coupled with this decline in morality is a growing acceptance of dishonest behavior.

For example, in 2000 70% said that an extramarital affair was never justified.  Now, barely 50% would agree.  Only 33% feel lying on a job application was wrong.

I am confident the same survey would reveal similar results in the United States.

Here is the test:

Rate your attitude to each of the following activities with one point if you think it is never justified; two points if you think it is rarely justified; three if you view it as sometimes justified and four if you think it is always justified.

Be honest.

A. Avoiding paying the fare on public transport.

B. Cheating on taxes if you have a chance.

C. Driving faster than the speed limit.

D. Keeping money you found in the street.

E. Lying in your own interests.

F. Not reporting accidental damage you have done to a parked car.

G. Throwing away litter in a public place.

H. Driving under the influence of alcohol.

I. Making up a job application.

J. Buying something you know is stolen.

According to the authors, a score below 10 suggests you are very honest, 11 to 15 means you do not mind bending the rules but are more honest than average, 16 to 20 suggests you are relaxed about the rules and anything more than 21 suggests you do not believe in living by the rules.

I’ll let you judge your own score.

I’ll confess I scored in the 11-15 range.  (My answer on “speeding” took a toll.)

What I found interesting was not simply the decline in morality, or its growing acceptance, but the nature of that acceptance.  Did you notice what the questions had in common?

They each posed the opportunity to do something when no one was looking.

It is often said that true integrity is who you are when no one is looking.  If the lack of integrity is similarly scored, then “Oh, my.”  Suddenly, this test is even more revealing than imagined.

It’s not that we would do more things that lack integrity, or are more accepting of them in ourselves and others, but that the opportunity to “get away” with it is one of the great driving forces of whether we would do it.  It’s not only an absence of an internal compass, but no sense of any transcendent accountability.

One of the great biblical models of integrity, Joseph, faced a sexual temptation of this nature.  He was approached for a sexual tryst with a woman that would be private, discrete, and enormously enjoyable (Potiphar’s position ensured that he could have almost any woman of his choosing, so there is little doubt she would have been highly attractive).

Joseph’s response?

“How then could I do such a wicked thing and sin against God?”

Who talks that way anymore?  Who believes that way anymore?

This is the heart of the moral decline, and the deeper spiritual story behind the cultural polling.  It’s not that we don’t know right from wrong.  According to the Bible, that’s written in our hearts.

No, it’s that we’ve lost any sense of constantly living our life before an audience

… of One.

James Emery White

Sources

John Binghan, “Rise in dishonesty signals looming ‘integrity crisis’ in Britain,” The Telegraph, January 25, 2012. Read online.

Link to this post!

Related Posts

The Atheistic Naturalist’s Self-Contradiction

  By Dean | May 6, 2012 - 4:32 am | Apologetics, Blog
Leave a comment

by Jeff Miller, PhD. of Apologetics Press. Reprinted with permission. Please visit their website.

When thoroughly scrutinized, error always exposes itself through some kind of self-contradiction. Truth alone stands the test of scrutiny. One such example is highlighted when considering a fundamental plank of the atheistic naturalist’s position.

The atheist says, “I refuse to consider believing in anything that isn’t natural—whose explanation cannot be found in nature. Everything must and can be explained through natural processes.” So, according to the atheist, the existence of everything in the Universe must be explainable by natural means—nothing unnatural (e.g., a supernatural Being) can be considered in the equation. Evolutionary geologist Robert Hazen, who received a Ph.D. in Earth Science from Harvard, is a research scientist at the Carnegie Institution of Washington’s Geophysical Laboratory and a professor of Earth Science at George Mason University. In his lecture series, Origins of Life, Hazen said:

In this lecture series I make a basic assumption that life emerged by some kind of natural process. I propose that life arose by a sequence of events that are completely consistent with the natural laws of chemistry and physics. In this assumption I am like most other scientists. I believe in a universe that is ordered by these natural laws. Like other scientists, I rely on the power of observations and experiments and theoretical reasoning to understand how the cosmos came to be the way it is (2005, emp. added).

The problem is that in holding this position, the naturalist quickly runs into walls of scientific fact that contradict it. The laws of science are formal declarations of what have been proven, time and again through science, to occur in nature without exception. The naturalist cannot hold a view that contradicts the laws of nature and not simultaneously contradict himself. But this is precisely the position that the naturalist is in. He must allege an explanation not in keeping with nature for many things we find in the Universe. For example, the naturalist’s explanation of the origin of matter and energy (i.e., spontaneous generation or eternal existence) is unnatural (i.e., in contradiction to the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics; see Miller, 2007). The naturalist must further contradict himself by alleging an unnatural explanation for the origin of life (i.e., abiogenesis, in contradiction to the Law of Biogenesis; see Miller, 2012). And what’s more, the naturalist must contradict himself by alleging that various kinds of living creatures can give rise to other kinds of living creatures through macroevolution—a contention which, unlike microevolution, has never been observed to occur in nature (see Thompson, 2002). Abiogenesis, spontaneous energy generation, the eternality of matter, and macroevolution are all unnatural suggestions since they have never been observed to occur in nature, and yet they are fundamental to the naturalist’s unnatural view. Simply put, the atheistic naturalist’s position is self-contradictory.

The worldview that is in keeping with the evidence—that is not self-contradictory—is the Christian faith as described on the pages of the Bible. The naturalist cannot explain the Universe without relying on unnatural means. The creationist has no problem with unnatural explanations, since the Bible clearly states that God—a supernatural Being—created the Universe and life. Truth is never self-contradictory. When scrutinized, it always comes out on top. When a person chooses to fight it, he will inevitably get hurt in the end. “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 53:1).

REFERENCES

Hazen, Robert (2005), Origins of Life, audio-taped lecture (Chantilly, VA: The Teaching Company).

Miller, Jeff (2007), “God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective,” Reason & Revelation, 27[4]:25-31, April, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3293.

Miller, Jeff (2012), “The Law of Biogenesis [Parts I & II],” Reason & Revelation, 32[1/2]:1-11,13-22, January-February, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=4165&topic=93.

Thompson, Bert (2002), The Scientific Case for Creation (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Link to this post!

Related Posts

Lutheran Pastor Becomes An Atheist

  By Dean | May 3, 2012 - 11:50 am | Apologetics, Blog, Christian Doctrine
2 Comments

Lutheran Pastor Mike Aus attended the recent Reason rally in Washington D.C. Their website states:

The Reason Rally is a movement-wide event sponsored by the country’s major secular organizations. The intent is to unify, energize, and embolden secular people nationwide, while dispelling the negative opinions held by so much of American society…nontheists from all corners of the nation will descend on Washington, D.C. en masse to deliver the good news: “We’re huge, we’re everywhere, and we’re growing.”

The Reason Rally was organized as an atheist’s convention. It was after this rally he decided to “come out” as a non believer.

Listening to Pastor Aus’ description of his journey from Christianity to atheism saddens me deeply but there is a glaring reason for it. At the beginning of the video he explains he simply rejected the virgin birth of Jesus. Scripture clearly predicted Jesus would be born of a virgin, Isaiah 7:14. In Matthew 1:23 Matthew refers to the prophet Isaiah’s prediction and states Mary is that virgin. Luke confirms this in Luke 1:27 and Luke 1:34. If one rejects the virgin birth of Jesus, well maybe he didn’t feed the 5,000 (admitted), rise from the dead, ascend to heaven or any other miraculous events recorded in scripture. Here’s what John wrote at the end of his account of Jesus:

John 20:30-31  Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book.  (31)  But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

In a post earlier this week it was pointed out the gospel is about Jesus, the incarnation, death, burial, resurrection, ascension and second coming of Jesus. See HERE for the post. The Apostle Paul would agree with Pastor Aus. Yes, I said that right. Paul and Pastor Aus agree.

Paul wrote I Corinthians to address a number of problems facing the church in Corinth. In I Corinthians 15 Paul is addressing the resurrection of Jesus. Some in Corinth rejected the resurrection of Jesus. They believed it did not happen but rejecting the resurrection of Jesus is fundamental error;

1 Corinthians 15:12-17  But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?  (13)  If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.  (14)  And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.  (15)  More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised.  (16)  For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either.  (17)  And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.

Rejecting any portion of the gospel of Jesus Christ creates a fundamental error and if this is your position there is no reason to be a Christian. This is where Pastor Aus has ended up. It is a logical position. I’m not saying it is the correct position but as Paul states, if a person rejects Jesus, there is no reason to be a Christian.

When questions in his faith arose he should have sought out sources to help him test the validity of Jesus from Christian sources rather than secular sources as he states in the video. I would have suggested The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowell. Secular writers start with an a priori position there is no God and no salvation in Jesus Christ and to find anything other than this shouldn’t be expected. Secular atheists are not going to provide any evidence for Christianity.

Perhaps Mr. Aus will continue his struggle and search for the validity of Jesus Christ and have his faith restored. I pray he does. His video interview from MSNBC is embedded below:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Link to this post!

Related Posts

Protecting the Long-Born

  By Dean | May 2, 2012 - 5:32 am | Blog
Leave a comment

Written by James Emory White of Church and Culture.

My parents are both in their eighties.

My wife’s parents are also in that era, and one has Alzheimer’s disease.

As I reflect on their lives, and situation, it occurs to me that there is enormous energy spent by many Christians on protecting the un-born. But what about protecting the long-born?

Few groups are more in need of compassion and protection than the elderly.  In the larger sanctity of life debate, I believe that those of age will be the tipping point toward the devaluation of life far more than those in the womb. In other words, I’m convinced that it may very well be euthanasia, not abortion or infanticide, that will move the moral chains down the field most profoundly.

Why?

It’s simple.

*They are more costly and burdensome to society.

*They are less physically and emotionally attractive.

*They are less productive, if productive at all.

In a word, there will be a growing sense that the elderly are dispensable, and necessarily so for the welfare and well-being of the majority.

The Nazis called them “useless eaters.”

In an article in The Telegraph, Alasdair Palmer observed that this will come to a head sooner than later largely through the success of medical science prolonging physical age. By 2033, there will be eight times as many centenarians living in Britain than there are today.

And there won’t be enough money to care for them.

But as he adds, “The economic problem…is less serious than the cultural and social one, which is that, collectively, we don’t value old people.” He goes further, noting that the very old “are not thought of as attractive. They are not ‘sexy’, literally or metaphorically.”

And here is where Palmer’s analysis may be most telling: “For the most part, the knowledge, experience and reliability that come with age aren’t valued – although the few employers that are willing to hire older workers report that they are very glad they did so, because they are usually less demanding, and work harder, than the young.”

He’s right. We erroneously equate “old” with “useless.” And it’s not just the very old. Good luck finding a job if you are over 50 and unemployed. Then consider our mindset toward physical aging. We value youth and beauty above all things, and turn our eyes away from anything that would remind us of its fleeting nature.

The Christian, of course, goes beyond such utilitarian and aesthetic debates.

It’s not whether there is wisdom to be found in the old (there is), or value in their contributions (there are). It’s not even where true beauty lies (it’s not in anyone’s outward appearance). The Christian goes beyond such things and employs a value that is increasingly rare in our world.

Honor.

We are called to honor our fathers and mothers; honor our forbears; honor those who have gone before us; honor those bearing the mantle of advanced age.

Ancient cultures did.

The older you were, the more you were honored and elevated to places of leadership and influence. The “elders” were respected above all others, and those younger gave them their due regard.

It is the mark of a decaying culture that we now trend in the opposite direction.

And it is a fast decay, because it is a powerful and swift trend.

James Emery White

Sources

“Our fixation on youth culture has left the elderly out in the cold,” Alasdair Palmer, August 6, 2011, The Telegraph. Read online.

Link to this post!

Related Posts