Volunteer Recruitment Tips

Volunteer Recruitment Tips

1.  You can (almost) never have too many volunteers so make recruiting an ongoing activity instead of just doing it when you are scrambling for people.  Encourage others in your ministry to be recruiters, although make sure they know to run it through you as the leader.

2.  Recruit through relationships.  Invite people to join with you in what God is doing in and through your ministry.

3.  When you invite, give them an opportunity to say no.  Don’t pressure them.  If they do say no, offer to help them find a better fit.  If they are interested, let them observe before making a commitment.  Try to defuse their fears.

4.  Be on the lookout for people who are not currently plugged in.  You can check with the office or use CCB to see who is a member and where they are serving.

5.  When you recruit, be able to cast a vision for your ministry and how it connects to the overall mission of the church.  In other words, be able to explain to them the spiritual contribution they will be making by investing their time in this ministry.

6.  Try to match people up with their passion and gifts. 

7.  Give them a trial period and an honorable way to exit the ministry.

8.  Have a training plan in place that fits your ministry to take new people through.

9.  Have written documents spelling out roles, requirements, and accountability.

10.  Continue to check on them and encourage them.  Encourage the people in your ministry to minister to each other in times of need.

Leadership Lesson From Acts 6:1-7

Leadership Lessons From Acts 6:1-7

1.  Anybody can notice and complain about problems, but leaders take action to solve the problems.  Problems are opportunities in disguise.

2.  As we grow, the leaders become the lid unless we develop teams to do the ministry because a few individuals can only do so much.

3.  Leaders don’t do everything, but they are responsible to make sure everything that needs to get done is done.

4.  Leadership is about developing leaders who develop other leaders.

5.  Think about who you can develop more than what you can do by yourself.

6.  We are to do everything we can to make sure that people we put in positions of leadership are biblically qualified.

7.  If we only delegate tasks, we are developing followers, but if we delegate authority, we are developing leaders.

8.  Growth requires change.  What works in one season and one size will not work at another season and size.  The mission is fixed but the structure is flexible within biblical parameters.  We adjust the structure to better fulfill the mission and meet needs.

9.  A follower’s response is what do I need to do to solve a problem while a leader’s response is who can I get to solve a problem.

10.  Everybody only has the time and gifts to do so much.  However, all of us together have all the time and talents to do everything Jesus wants us to do if we are obedient.

11.  Ministry is multiplied through the multiplication of servants and leaders so leadership development is vital for us to continue to move forward as a church.

Takeaway:  Focus on recruiting and training within the various ministries!

What Did Jesus Accomplish On The Cross?

The question presented as the title is one of the central questions of Christianity.  1 Corinthians 1:18 says, “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.”  The heart of evangelical Christian doctrine regarding what Jesus accomplished on the cross is penal substitutionary atonement.  This means that Jesus paid the penalty that we owed God by dying the death we deserved to die in our place as our substitute in order to bring human beings separated from God by sin back into a relationship with God.  There are various theories of the atonement that are debated by theologians, but I believe it is better to see penal substitutionary atonement as the heart of the cross but see also that Jesus accomplished several other wonderful things for us through His death.  My desire in writing this is to help us see biblically that penal substitutionary atonement is true, see several things that Jesus accomplished for us on the cross, and see what this means to our lives.  I believe that understanding what Jesus did for us on the cross will radically change our lives.

So, why am I writing this now?  One reason is that tomorrow (April 14, 2017) is good Friday so this is a spiritual exercise for me that I hope will be helpful to others also.  However, it was also prompted by an article entitled, “It’s time to end the hands-off attitude to substitutionary atonement,’ written by Chuck Queen and originally published by Baptist News Global.  In this article, Mr. Queen asserts, “It [substitutionary atonement] is such a staple in many Baptist churches that pastors, even though they don’t believe it themselves; refuse to touch it.  I believe, however, we have to try.  There are serious flaws with the theory.”  Also, shortly after this, a college student in our church came to me and asked me a question about something one of her professors had taught them that was essentially the same position as is being espoused in the aforementioned article.  So to some degree, this is my response to Mr. Queen’s article and the denial of substitutionary atonement in general.  I hope it is a helpful service to our church and also the larger body of Christ.  In the first paragraph, Mr. Queen says, “Most members in most Baptist churches across the country don’t know it as theory; they believe it as gospel.” This is true because it is the gospel.  1 Corinthians 15:1-4 says, “Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.  For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures.”  This is not about debating theological theories, disputing over gray areas, or arguing about secondary matters.  This issue is a matter of salvation so it is of eternal importance.

I want to share Mr. Queen’s position, primarily by quoting from his article, and then attempt to present what I believe is the true Scriptural teaching as I outlined in the first paragraph.  To his credit, he does a good job of accurately presenting the evangelical doctrine of the atonement before disagreeing with it.  Of course, I encourage you to read his article for yourself.  Here are what I see as the key points of his disagreement with penal substitutionary atonement and then the idea he presents in its place.  So, he says,

-“Many Christians believe this to be the gospel truth. To deny this truth is to deny Christ. But this theory of the redemptive significance of Jesus’ death is seriously flawed. The major problem with substitutionary atonement is the way it imagines God. This interpretation of Jesus’ death makes God the source of redemptive violence. God required/demanded a violent death for atonement to be made. God required the death of an innocent victim in order to satisfy God’s offended sense of honor or pay off a penalty that God imposed. What kind of justice or God is this? Would a loving parent make forgiveness for the child conditioned upon a violent act?”

-“Another problem with substitutionary atonement is that it reduces salvation to a legal transaction that has nothing to do with the actual transformation of the individual. When a person “believes” in this arrangement (accepts Christ as personal savior) the believer is forgiven all sin and justified (acquitted and declared righteous) before God.”

-“Perhaps the first step in dethroning such a terrible doctrine is to help Christians realize that the  sacrificial language utilized in the New Testament are symbols and metaphors, not to be taken in any literal sense.”

-“God offered Jesus up only in the sense that he sent Jesus to be his agent for mercy and justice in the world. We (human powers) killed Jesus.  Jesus bore our sins on the cross in the sense that he, as the Son of Man, as the representative human being, bore the hate and animosity of the world in his service to God. He became a scapegoat to end scapegoating, to expose the folly and evil of scapegoating any human being. He became the lightning rod where the pent up oppositional energy of the powers that be (the world) became focused. In bearing the sin — the hate, evil and animosity of the world — he exposed it and exhausted it, thus overcoming it.”

-“Paul’s sacrificial metaphors took preference over Jesus’ life and teachings because Paul’s sacrificial metaphors could more easily be adapted to the interests of the empire. The Abba of Jesus, the loving, caring, merciful Father/Mother was replaced as the dominant image of God with a God of wrath who demanded the violent death of a sinless substitute as a ransom for sinners.  The nonviolent God of Jesus, however, is incompatible with a God who makes a horrendous act of violence a divinely required act of atonement. Jesus didn’t die because God needed a sacrifice. Jesus died because the powers that be had him killed. But in a symbolic way, he bore the suffering, hate and evil of the world. We are called to do the same.”

Is this true or does the Bible actually teach substitutionary atonement?  Let’s do a brief survey of the Scriptures, beginning with the Old Testament.  Jesus said, “These are the words that I spoke to you while I was still with you that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me” (Luke 24:44).  In various ways in the Old Testament, Jesus is foreshadowed and prophesied to be the sacrifice for our sins.

1.  After the Fall as recorded in Genesis 3, God killed an innocent animal to clothe the guilty (3:21).  This is a picture of the cross.

2.  The Passover (Exodus 11-13):  Let me quote from John Stott’s classic book, The Cross Of Christ, to explain this point.  He writes, “The Passover story is a self-disclosure of the God of Israel in three roles.  First, Yahweh revealed himself as the Judge….Second, Yahweh revealed himself as the Redeemer….Third, Yahweh revealed himself as Israel’s covenant God.  He had redeemed them to make them his own people.”  We clearly see this as fulfilled in Jesus because John the Baptist said, “”Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29).  Paul wrote, “For indeed, Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us” (1 Corinthians 5:7b).  Stott goes on to write, “…It is equally clear to us who see the fulfillment of the Passover in the sacrifice of Christ.  First, the Judge and Savior are the same person.  It was the God who ‘passed through’ Egypt to judge the firstborn, who ‘passed over’ Israelite homes to protect them.  We must never characterize the Father as Judge and the Son as Savior.  It is one and the same God who through Christ saves us from himself.  Second, salvation was (and is) by substitution.  The only firstborn males who were spared were those in whose families a firstborn lamb had died instead.  Third, the lamb’s blood had to be sprinkled after it had been shed.  There had to be an individual appropriation of the divine provision.  God had to ‘see the blood’ before he would save the family.  Fourth, each family rescued by God was thereby purchased for God.  Their whole life now belonged to him.  So does ours.  And consecration leads to celebration.”

3.  The Sacrificial System:  Leviticus 17:11 says, “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.”  John Stott writes of this, “Three important affirmations about blood are made in this text.  First, blood is the symbol of life…Second, blood makes atonement, and the reason for its atoning significance is given in the repetition of the word life…T.J. Crawford expressed it well:  ‘The text, then, according to its plain and obvious import, teaches the vicarious nature of the rite of sacrifice.  Life was given for life, the life of the victim for the life of the offerer, indeed the life of the innocent victim for the life of the sinful offerer.’  Third, blood was given by God for this atoning purpose.  ‘I have given it to you, he says, ‘to make atonement for yourselves on the altar.’  So we are to think of the sacrificial system as God-given, not of human origin, and of the individual sacrifices not as a human device to placate God but as a means of atonement provided by God himself.  This Old Testament background helps us to understand two crucial texts in the letter to the Hebrews.  The first is that ‘without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness’ (Hebrews 9:22), and the second that ‘it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins’ (Hebrews 10:4).  No forgiveness without blood meant no atonement without substitution.  There had to be life for life or blood for blood.  But the Old Testament blood sacrifices were only shadows, the substance was Christ.”

4.  Psalm 22:  The 22nd Psalm is a Messianic psalm that presents several specific prophecies regarding the crucifixion of Christ (and crucifixion had not even been invented yet).  Jesus quoted the first part of verse 1 from the cross when He said, “My God, my God, why have You forsaken Me?”  This shows us that Jesus was not only forsaken by people, but He was also forsaken by His Father for our sakes.  The only reason that the Father would have forsaken Him is that “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Corinthians 5:21).

5.  Isaiah 53:  Verses 4-6 say, “Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.  But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed.  All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, every one, to his own way; and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.”  This is as clear an expression of penal substitutionary atonement as can be found in the Bible.

What about the New Testament?  Here is a brief overview of the explicit New Testament teaching regarding penal substitutionary atonement. 

1 Peter 2:24a says, “Who Himself [Jesus] bore our sins in His own body on the tree.”  Hebrews 10:28a says, “So Christ was offered once [meaning ‘once for all’] to bear the sins of many.”  Ephesians 5:2 says, “And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma.”  1 Peter 3:18 says, “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit.”  Romans 5:6-8 says, “For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.  For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die, but God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”  In Wuest’s Word Studies From The Greek New Testament, Kenneth Wuest writes of these verses, “Paul now speaks of a demonstration of God’s love for mankind in that Christ died for the ungodly.  When sinners were in the condition in which they were powerless for good, He died for (huper) them.  The preposition huper means ‘for the sake of, in behalf of, instead of.’  In John 11:50, we have, ‘It is expedient for you that one man should die (huper) instead of the people and not that the whole nation should perish,’ and in Galatians 3:13, ‘Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse (huper) instead of us.’  Dana and Mantey in their Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament say, ‘In both of these passages the context clearly indicates that substitution is meant.’  Thus our Lord died instead of us, taking our penalty, and in behalf of us, in that His death was in our interest.”  These are just a few examples that show the clear New Testament teaching of penal substitutionary atonement.  This had to happen for atonement to occur because Genesis 2:16-17 says, “And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, ‘Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die’.”  Romans 6:23a says, “For the wages of sin is death.”  Death is the just penalty for sin against a holy God.  In order to be holy, righteous, just, and true to His Word, God the Creator and righteous Judge of the universe, had to impose the sentence.  But because He is also loving, merciful, gracious, and kind; God took on humanity in the person of Jesus Christ, the God-Man, and died as our personal substitute making atonement for our sins so God can justly justify sinners.  Therefore, we worship our great God and King as perfectly and simultaneously just, holy, loving, merciful, and gracious!

So, in his penal substitutionary atonement, what did Jesus actually accomplish for us on the cross?  Remember these are not competing theories but complementary pictures of the accomplishment of the atonement.  They are all true.

1.  Jesus is our new-covenant sacrifice:  1 Peter 1:18-19 says, “You were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.”  Hebrews 9:11-12 says, “But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation.  Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.”  Hebrews 8-10 teach us that Jesus is the head of a New Covenant and the promises, prophecies, and pictures of the Old Covenant are fulfilled in Him.  Under the New Covenant, we do not need a priest because Jesus is our Great High Priest.  We no longer need to offer blood sacrifices because Jesus is our once for all perfect sacrifice.  We do not need a temple because Jesus is our Temple.  We do not need to celebrate the Passover because Jesus is our Passover. 

2.  Jesus is our propitiation:  Scripture repeatedly tells us that God hates sin and is righteously angry with sinners on whom He pours out His wrath. John MacArthur explains the various aspects of God’s wrath in this way:

A. Eternal wrath-hell

B. Eschatological wrath-final Day of the Lord

C. Cataclysmic wrath-flood, Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah

D. Consequential wrath-principal of sowing and reaping

E. The wrath of abandonment-removing restraint and letting people go in their sins

Propitiation is the fact that the wrath of God was diverted from us to Jesus when He died as our sacrifice on the cross (Romans 3:23-25, Hebrews 2:17, 1 John 2:2, 1 John 4:10).  For example, 1 John 2:2 says, “And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.”  Romans 5:9 says, “Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.”  Therefore, we are now beloved children of the Father (Romans 8:14-17) who do not have to live in fear of God being angry with us because “there is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:1).  All of the wrath and condemnation that was destined for us and deserved by us was absorbed by Jesus on the cross.

3. Jesus is our justifier:  Romans 3:26 says, “To demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” God is totally just and cannot overlook sin.  Sin must be punished, and the punishment for sin is death.  Thankfully, God is also patient, merciful, gracious, and forgiving.  Therefore, the way that He justly justifies sinners is through the finished work of Jesus Christ.  Justify means to declare righteous.  It is an instantaneous judicial act.  It is our standing before God.  He forgives us of all sin; past, present, and future in Christ.

4. Jesus is our righteousness:  This is a righteousness that is given by grace as a gift.  It is an imputed righteousness (see Romans 4) and not an infused righteousness.  On the cross what Martin Luther liked to call the “great exchange” occurred.  Jesus took our sin and gave us his righteousness.  2 Corinthians 5:21 says, “For He made Him who knew no sin to be in for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”  In other words, on the cross, our sin was transferred to Jesus and his righteousness was transferred to us.  Therefore, we do not have to live in guilt and shame any more because “the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin” (1 John 1:7).

5.  Jesus is our redemption:  We are enslaved by sin, but Jesus died to buy us back and bring us back to God (Galatians 4:1-7) and enable us to live as new creations (2 Corinthians 5:17).  1 Timothy 2:5-6 says, “For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.”  Titus 2:14 says, “Who [Jesus] gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works.”  We can now live in freedom because “if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed” (John 8:36).

6.  Jesus is our victory:  Colossians 2:13-15 says, “You, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands.  This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.  He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.”  Through his atoning death and glorious resurrection; Jesus defeated Satan, death, and hell.  We can now live out of His victory.

7.  Jesus is our expiation:  This is pictured by the scapegoat on the Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16.  It is the reality that God not only forgives our sins, but He also cleanses us from the defilement of our sins and the sins which are committed against us.

8.  Jesus is our example:  Jesus is our example, both in His life and His death.  He repeatedly invites us to follow Him.  As disciples, we are to grow to be more and more like Him.  He is our example in times of blessing and times of hardship.  A prosperity gospel cannot be reconciled with the cross.  Jesus said, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me” (Luke 9:23).

9.  Jesus is our reconciler.  Sin separates us from God our Creator (Isaiah 59:2).  In his atonement, Jesus brings us back to God and enables us to be in relationship with Him again.  Atonement as been expressed as at-one-ment.  2 Corinthians 5:18 says, “Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation.”  Romans 5:10 says, “For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.”

10.  Jesus is the revelation of God’s love:  John 3:16 says, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.”   Romans 5:8 tells us that God “demonstrates,” which means proves, His love for us because Jesus died for us while we were sinners.  John Stott writes, “I could never myself believe in God, if it were not for the cross.  The only God I believe in is the One Nietzsche ridiculed as ‘God on the cross’.”

11.  Jesus is the Head of the Church:  This is what Colossians 1:18 tells us.  Acts 20:28 says, “Therefore, take heed to yourselves and to all the flock among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.”  Jesus did not just die for us as individuals but also to create the Church, the family of God.  We are brothers and sisters in Christ.  Ephesians 2:16 says, “And that He might reconcile them both [Jews and Gentiles] to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.”

The cross is our only hope for salvation.  Ephesians 2:8-9 says, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.”  The cross is humbling because it exposes our spiritual bankruptcy.  Jesus said, “Blessed are the poor in spirit [those who admit their spiritual bankruptcy]; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:3).  Philippians 3:3 says, “For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.”  We trust Jesus and not ourselves.  We worship Him.  The glory belongs to Him and not us.  1 Corinthians 1:30-31 says, “But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God-and righteousness and sanctification and redemption-that, as it is written, ‘He who glories, let him glory in the Lord’.”  The cross is also the basis of our sanctification (see Romans 6).  We are set free from sin-not to sin.  When we are saved, we are regenerated, given new hearts, and indwelled by the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5-6).  The gospel enables us to change and live new lives from the inside out.

Let me conclude with this quotation from the Apostle Paul.  In Galatians 6:14, he wrote, “But God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.”

The Roman Catholic Doctrine Of Mary Considered Biblically

The Virgin Mary is probably the most adored and loved woman in the history of the world. Even in our modern, sometimes skeptical world, her popularity is on the rise. In fact, according to “Time” magazine, there has been an explosion in visits to her shrines and reported sightings of her (Ostling 62). Pope John Paul II had a golden M emblazoned on his coat of arms when ordained a bishop, calls upon Mary in most of his public prayers and speeches, and believes that Mary’s intercession saved his life during an assassination attempt and also freed Europe from the clutches of communism (Ostling 64). Obviously, the Virgin Mary is a central figure in Roman Catholic theology. This paper will trace the development of the Roman Catholic Marian doctrine from its quiet beginning to the prominent position it now holds in Catholic theology and then assess the doctrine in light of the Scriptures.

 References to Mary in second century writings are not very common (The Encyclopedia of Religion, vol. 9, 251). Justin Martyr compares and contrasts her with Eve, and Irenaeus picks up on this theme and develops it even further (Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church 882). The Protevangelium of James, written in the mid-second century, was the first writing to assert the perpetual virginity of Mary (The Encyclopedia of Religion, vol. 9, 251). However, in 222, Tertullian, one of the greatest leaders in the early church, raised a voice in protest to the assertions of the Protevangelium (Boettner 136). Therefore, it seems clear that Marian doctrine was not highly important or extremely clear during the first century after the completion of the New Testament.

In contrast, twentieth century Marian doctrine is both clear and important. For example, Pope Pius, XII proclaimed 1945 as Marian Year (New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 9, 368). The New Catholic Encyclopedia quotes from the Mediator Dei, written in 1947, that devotion to Mary is a “sign of predestination” (365). Hopefully, these examples demonstrate the vast difference in Catholic thought about Mary between the second and twentieth centuries. The paper will now chronologically trace the development of the Marian doctrine over the intervening years.

Even though it was not officially defined as dogma until 1854, the first doctrine about Mary to be recognized by the Church was the doctrine of her complete sinlessness (New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 9, 348). It probably originated in the fourth century and then evolved into a doctrine (Scott 69). In her case, “perfect sinlessness implies more than merely the absence of sin; it implies also a complete indefectibility in the moral order, or the actual inability to sin” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 9, 347). However, Catholic theology does teach that God’s grace brought about her sinlessness. Mary is not considered to have been innately perfect (New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 9, 348). The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was disputed even through the Middle Ages (Oxford 883). However, in 1854, Pius IX, defined this concept as dogma in Ineffabilis Deus. He wrote, “The most blessed Virgin Mary…. was preserved free from all stain of original sin” (Encyclopedia of Religion, vol. 9, 252).

Another doctrine that developed fairly early was the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. As stated earlier, it was first mentioned int he apocryphal book of James. This view was certainly held by Athanasius who referred to Mary as “ever virgin,” and it has been accepted by both the eastern and western orthodox fathers since the fifth century (Oxford 882).

A third doctrine that developed, and the first to cause a great deal of controversy, was the doctrine that conferred upon Mary the title of “Mother of God”. This title began to be used in either the third or the fourth century. It grew out of the official establishment of the doctrine of the full deity of Christ (New Encyclopedia Brittanica, vol. 7, 898). Nestorius fought this doctrine. He insisted on Mary being called christotokos (“the one who bore Christ”) rather than theotokos. However, Cyril of Alexandria stood for “God-bearer”, and this was officially established as a title for Mary at the council of Ephesus in 431 A.D. and the council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D. (Encyclopedia of Religion, vol. 9, 251).

A fourth doctrine that developed over the years was the Assumption of Mary. Despite the absence of valid historical information concerning her death, Roman Catholics assert that “three days after death her body was carried by angels up to heaven, and her tomb was found empty” (Scott 72). The Church celebrates the feast of her Assumption on August 15th (Scott 72). Gregory of Tours formulated the doctrine in the sixth century, and it spread without much opposition (Oxford 882). It was an unofficial doctrine of the church for hundreds of years. However, in 1950, Pope Pius XII made it official dogma when he stated that “the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, when the course of her earthly life was run, was assumed in body and soul to heavenly glory” (New Encyclopedia Brittanica, vol. 7, 898).

A fifth and final doctrine that is widely accepted but not official church doctrine is that of Mary being “Mediatrix of All Graces” and “Co-Redemptress”. There has been an effort to secure papal sanction for these titles during the last two centuries. However, at the Second Vatican Council, a chapter on Mary was added to the Constitution on the Church instead of a separate document on Mary as many had desired. The chapter stresses Mary’s full reliance on her Son (Oxford 883). On the other hand, many Catholics believe that Mary does co- operate with Christ in imparting grace. In fact, “the vast majority of theologians” believe Mary “is to be styled Coredemptrix because she cooperated directly and immediately in the redemptive process itself” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 9, 359). Catholic theology also teaches that Mary participates in the actual application of graces to individuals (New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 9, 362). This concept may or may not become part of official church dogma.

The Roman Catholic doctrine of Mary can be summarized by saying that she is officially regarded as immaculately conceived, sinless, perpetually a virgin, the mother of God, and resurrected into heaven. Unofficially, she is regarded by many as co-redeemer and co-mediator with Christ. This doctrine developed over a lengthy period of time. Factors in its growth include “growing Christian emphasis on asceticism, with Mary as virgin model, and contacts with ‘mother goddesses’ in other religions (Encyclopedia of Religion, vol. 9, 251).

I would like to conclude by giving a biblical assessment of Roman Catholic teaching regarding Mary. It is my personal conviction that the Bible, and not any person or religious organization, is the authority for our lives because “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16, King James Version). Therefore, I the Marian doctrine must be assessed by comparing it to Scripture.

First, Mary could not have been sinless according to the Scriptures. Romans 3:23 says, “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of
God” (KJV). In Luke 1:26-30, the angel speaks to Mary in very positive terms but never speaks of her as sinless or says anything to indicate she is anything more than a regular human being graced and chosen by God for a special task.

Second, the New Testament refutes the concept of Mary’s perpetual virginity because Matthew 13:55-56 names Jesus as having brothers named James, Joses, Simon, and Judas. The text also says that Jesus has sisters. Roman Catholics attempt to explain this away by calling them cousins, but this is eisegesis and not exegesis of the text. Obviously, Mary had children so she was not a virgin (see the Appendix to this paper for a more details explanation of this).

Third, it must be remembered that Mary was only the earthly mother of Jesus. She was chosen by God in His grace to bear His only begotten Son. Mary is not the heavenly mother of the eternal Word (John 1:1).

Fourth, there is no Scripture that indicates that Mary was assumed into heaven. Furthermore, one of the titles given to Mary because of the doctrine of the assumption is “Queen of Heaven.” Jeremiah 44 states that at one time the Jews burned incense to one known as the queen of heaven (a pagan goddess). Jeremiah 44:22 states that God considered this evil and an abomination.

Fifth, as far as the unofficial doctrine of being co-redeemer goes, the Bible declares, “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5,KJV). The Bible also teaches that we were redeemed by the “precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot” (1 Peter 1:19, KJV).

I believe that the Roman Catholic doctrine concerning Mary takes too much away from her humanity and exalts her to a position that no human being deserves. In my opinion, it would be better to present her as the trusting, faithful, obedient, loving, courageous woman the Bible presents her to be.

Bibliography

Boettner, Loraine. Roman Catholicism. Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1962.

Cross, F.L., editor. Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. London: Oxford University Press, 1974.

Eliade, Mircea, editor. The Encyclopedia of Religion, vol. 9. New York: Mac Millan Publishing Company, 1987.

New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 9. McGraw—Hill Book Company, 1967.

New Encyclopedia Britannica, vol.7. Chicago, 1990.

Ostling, Richard N. “Handmaid or Feminist?”, Time Magazine, Dec. 30, 1991.

Scott, C. Anderson. Romanism and the Gospel. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1937.

Appendix

Question: Did Jesus Christ truly have half brothers and sisters from Mary and Joseph?
Answer: Yes

According to the following Scriptures Jesus did have half brothers and sisters:

Mt. 12:46-50       * Matthew 13:53-58          John 2:12
Mk. 3:31-35         * Mark 6:1-6
* Luke 8:19-21                   John 7:3
* Matthew 1-24-25
* Galatians 1:19

Reasons:

  1.  Brothers is used in these passages of “male children of the same mother” (Vine’s, 154).
  2.  Sister is used “of the sisters of Christ, the children of Joseph and Mary after the virgin birth of Christ” (Vine’s 36).
  3.  The Greek word used in these passages (adelphos) means “male children of the same mother.”
  4.  In Matthew 13:53-58, the reference to Jesus as “the carpenter’s son” (v. 55) and “His mother called Mary” followed by the naming of “His brothers” and a reference to “His sisters” definitely place this in the context of His physical family.
  5.  In Luke 8:19-20 it is stated, “Now Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see him, but they were not able to get near him because of the crowd. Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to see you.”In Luke 8:21, Jesus said, “My mother and my brothers are these who hear the Word of God and do it.” Here Jesus is speaking of His spiritual family. The contrast does not make sense if His physical family is not actually being referred to in verse 20.
  6.  James is referred to as “the Lord’s brother” in Galatians 1:19.
  7.  The belief that Mary and Joseph did not have children together is based on the presupposition of the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary first asserted during the 2nd century in The Protevangelium of James (The Encyclopedia of Religion, vol. 9, 251). Obviously, she could not have borne children if she remained a virgin. However, the Bible teaches very clearly that she did not remain a virgin because Matthew 1:24-25 says Joseph “did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. “Know

 

means” to know carnally” (The New Analytical Greek Lexicon, 81). “Know her till”

clearly indicates that they had sexual relations after the birth of Jesus.

Is It The Mandate Of The Church To Turn America Back Into A Christian Nation?

I hear many Christians, particularly pastors, say things like, “We need to turn America back into a Christian nation,” “we need to restore Christian values in America,” “America needs to return to its Judeo-Christian heritage,” “America needs to put God first,” and other similar statements. Is this really the biblical mandate of the church? I want to make the case that it is not. In fact, I want to go so far as to say that I believe that this focus, while well intentioned, is hurting the church and the nation more than it is helping it because it undercuts our witness. In a nutshell, I am advocating that the church is not called to make America a Christian nation but to make America a nation of Christians. I believe these are mutually exclusive positions because the first is based on moralism, and the second is based on the gospel. I am saying that the church is the missionary with the mandate of making disciples and advancing the Kingdom of God through the gospel of Jesus Christ. I am going to proceed by clarifying some things I am not advocating, telling you why I believe this is true biblically, and giving some suggestions as to how we can make the right kind of difference in our nation.

Here are some things I am not advocating:
1. I am not advocating that America does not have a Judeo-Christian heritage. Historically speaking, at the beginning and moving forward, our nation has been significantly affected by this heritage. The reality of the influence of this heritage is not the same as us being a Christian nation though.

2. I am not advocating that government is unimportant or unbiblical. In fact, Romans 13:1 says, “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.”

3. I am not advocating being unpatriotic. I believe the United States is the greatest nation in the world and we should be thankful for the blessings and freedoms of living here. I am not a pacifist. I believe that war is an unfortunate reality in a fallen world and a strong military is a necessity. I greatly appreciate all those who have and are serving and sacrificing to protect our freedoms. I believe in capital punishment (Romans 13:4) and the right to self-defense. Romans 13 teaches that the primary purpose of government is protecting its citizens from evildoers. However, I do believe that for a follower of Jesus that allegiance to Him and His Kingdom takes precedence over allegiance to any nation.

4. I am not advocating that Christians should not speak in the public square or not be involved in politics. I believe the opposite. We need to get as far upstream as possible to make as big of a difference as possible. However, I believe our goal is the advancement of the Kingdom of God instead of the restoring of a Christian nation. In addition, I am appalled by the partisan politics within the church where it seems like a lot of people believe that a party or candidate is in effect our functional savior. I am also appalled by the lack of love, anger, and negativity spewing forth from Christians. It’s like we think that the biblical commands about love and how we are to speak do not apply during election season.

5. I am not advocating that Christians should not vote and not vote their Christian conscience. There are political issues that are hills to die on for me. For example, I would never knowingly vote for a pro-abortion candidate. I am certainly not against Christians speaking out on biblical issues, but I do believe we are to “speak the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15) instead of a derogatory type way.

6. I am not advocating either political party. While there is a party that I generally vote for because its platform better fits my convictions, I don’t think either one is the ultimate answer. There’s a great text in the Old Testament (Joshua 5:13-15) where Jesus appears to Joshua in pre-incarnate form to prepare him for the campaign to take the Promised Land. When Joshua saw him, he said to him, “Are you for us or for our adversaries?” Jesus replied, “No, but as Commander of the army of the Lord I have now come.” In other words, Jesus did not come to take sides but to take over.

7. I am not advocating compromising Scripture. In fact, I am basing my case on Scripture.

So, the preceding seven statements are some things I am not advocating. Let me repeat what I am advocating and then make a case for why. In a nutshell, I am advocating that the church is not called to make America a Christian nation but to make America a nation of Christians. I believe these are mutually exclusive positions because the first is based on moralism, and the second is based on the gospel. I am saying that the church is the missionary with the mandate of making disciples and advancing the Kingdom of God through the gospel of Jesus Christ. Here are ten biblical (and there are other reasons, but I have decided to restrict my case to biblical reasons) reasons why:

1. The whole idea of the nation being a Christian nation is just simply contradicted by Scripture. 1 Peter 2:9-10 says, “But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.” This clearly is produced by the saving work of Jesus. Verses 4-5 say, “Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” This is obviously talking about the church instead of the United States of America.

2. While the last point referred to the church spiritually being the people of God, I want to build on it by showing you in Scripture that Israel is the only nation that has ever truly belonged to God. I am not disputing that the United States has certainly been blessed by God, but look at what King David said in response to God making a covenant with him. As recorded in 2 Samuel 7:23-24, he said, “And who is like Your people, like Israel, the one nation on the earth whom God went to redeem for Himself as a people, to make for Himself a name-and to do for Yourself great and awesome deeds for Your land-before Your people whom You redeemed for Yourself from Egypt, the nations, and their gods? For You have made Your people Israel Your very own people forever; and you, Lord, have become their God.”

3. The church’s mandate is telling as many people as possible about Jesus and making disciples of all the nations. This is what Jesus told us to do. He said, “But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8). He also said, “All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:18-20).

4. We are commissioned to be missionaries. Jesus said, “As You [the Father] sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world” (John 18:36). “Sent” is the Greek word, “apostello,” and it means, “to send forth on a certain mission.” Therefore, Jesus was sent into the world by the Father as a missionary, and in the same way, He sends His followers into the world as missionaries. Jesus was known as the friend of sinners. Does the world see the church in America that way? Or does it see us as judgmental and condemning? Are we going to focus on lifting up Jesus or tearing down politicians? Missionaries have to meet people where they are instead of living with an us vs. them mentality.

5. We cannot expect non-Christians to think and live as Christians. This is moralism instead of the gospel. 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 says, “I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person. For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? But those who are outside God judges. Therefore ‘put away from yourselves the evil person’.” This is telling us to confront sins in the church instead of in the world. Our message is not live a new lifestyle but let God give you a new heart through Jesus so you can then live a new life.

6. Christianity is about heart change from the inside out through the gospel while religious moralism focuses on the outside in. Jesus said to the religious leaders of his day, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness” (Matthew 23:27). 2 Corinthians 3 is clear that the Law condemns instead of giving life. The chapter concludes with verses 17 and 18 saying, “Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord.” Transformation comes from looking to Jesus by faith. People often say that we cannot legislate morality. I concur with Adrian Rogers who stated in a sermon his agreement with that statement but added that we make laws to legislate against immorality because we cannot make people act in moral ways. He said that only God can make people good. The way God makes people righteous, both positionally (justification) and practically (sanctification) is through the gospel. We obviously need good laws, and Christian citizens need to have a voice in the law-making process so, once again, get as far upstream as possible to have as much influence as possible. However, I believe the church’s primary focus must be on proclaiming the gospel so people can be saved and receive the righteousness of Christ. If we expect people who don’t believe in Jesus or the Bible to agree with and practice biblical morality, we are acting like religious moralists instead of gospel-believing Christians (Ephesians 2:1-10). If the message that our society constantly hears from the church is act right, how can we expect them to believe when we proclaim the gospel and tell them they are not right with God, cannot get right with God by their own efforts, and cannot live righteously apart from the grace of God?

7. We need to get our own house in order. Judgment begins at the house of God (1 Peter 4:17). Of course, this is not judgment in a punitive sense because Jesus absorbed all the wrath of God on the cross but discipline for beloved children. Jesus told us to get the plank out of our eyes before we try to get a splinter out of somebody else’s eye or we are a hypocrite (Matthew 7:5). Don’t you see that the world sees us as hypocrites when we condemn people who don’t yet believe in Jesus for not acting, believing, or maybe even voting like Christians and then excuse or sweep under the rug sin within the church? Don’t you see that the world sees us as hypocrites when we condemn character flaws in the candidate of the party we don’t like and excuse them in the candidate we are for by saying things like it’s about the platform instead of the person? The world needs to see a holy church (1 Peter 1:15).

8. The idea of a Christian nation is based on Old Covenant thinking instead of New Covenant thinking. I think this is true in two ways. Let me say in the way of background information so there is no confusion on this point that I believe the church and Israel are distinct in the plan of God and replacement theology is a heresy. The first way this represents Old Covenant thinking is because it applies things said to God’s people, Israel, to our nation instead of to God’s people, the church. Second and primarily, it is Old Covenant thinking because it emphasizes the conditional promises of the Old Covenant based on our obedience instead of the unconditional promises of the New Covenant based on the grace of Jesus (Hebrews 8:7-13) because those who talk about turning America back to God consistently talk about God blessing us if we do certain things and don’t do other things.

9. God raises up and brings down leaders. This includes Him raising up ungodly leaders for purposes that we sometimes do not understand. Here are three biblical examples of this fact: Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 2:37), Pharaoh (Romans 9:17), and Pilate (John 19:11).

10. We can make the greatest impact by loving and serving people instead of arguing with people. We are called to love our neighbors as ourselves (Luke 10:25-37). We show our faith by our works (James 2:18). Jesus said, “You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lamp-stand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father in heaven” (Matthew 5:14-16). As we love people, meet human needs, and share the gospel; people’s lives will be eternally impacted. Our society will be changed one life at a time as people are saved, marriages are repaired, families are restored, and addicts are delivered. The gospel can accomplish this!

A Christian world view teaches that God ordained the spheres of the family, government, and the church. Each have vital roles to play within their sphere. We need Christians within the sphere of government living out their faith and making a difference, but the church needs to primarily focus on its calling to be gospel-centered missionaries making disciples. This is how we can make the greatest impact. How can we accomplish this? Here are ten suggestions:

1. Be a city within the city that is here for the good of our communities (Jeremiah 29:4-7).

2. Equip Christians, especially young people, to get as far upstream as possible to make a difference for the Kingdom of God in every sphere of life for the good of all people. Biblical examples of this principle include Joseph, Nehemiah, and Daniel.

3. Stay focused on lifting up Jesus, proclaiming the gospel, and living as missionaries. The early church turned the world upside down by doing this (Acts 17:6), and the gospel is still “the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes” (Romans 1:16).

4. Abandon our lives to the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 20:24) and live with radical boldness (Acts 4).

5. Pray fervently and in faith for God to transform lives, families, communities, and ultimately our nation. Acts 4:31 says, “And when they had prayed, the place where they were assembled together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they spoke the word of God with boldness.” I think we all want to see this kind of transformation take place. I am just saying that it will come through the gospel and not moralism.

6. Christians must individually and corporately repent of sin and consistently live lives that are marked by repentance (2 Corinthians 7:10).

7. Churches must lovingly and consistently practice biblical church discipline with the purposes of restoring sinners and protecting the church (Galatians 6:1, Matthew 18:15-18, 1 Corinthians 5, Romans 16:17-18, Titus 3:9-11) instead of condemning sinners for acting like sinners if we are going to have any credibility.

8. Follow the example of Jesus by serving each other and serving the world. Jesus said, “You know that the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you, but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant….just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:25-26, 28).

9. We have to do everything we can to reach, disciple, and equip men to fulfill their God-given roles. In my opinion, this is how we can make the greatest impact on our nation because large amounts of research show that fatherlessness is the primary root of the social pathologies in America.

10. The universal church must unite around the essentials of the gospel and stop fighting and dividing over secondary matters, including politics. The more hostile the world is to Jesus, the more we have to be united and love each other. Maybe something Benjamin Franklin said about the American Revolution applies to the church today. He said, “If we don’t hang together, we shall all hang separately.”

Thank you for taking the time to read this. I hope you will prayerfully consider whether or not it is true and how it applies to your life and church.

Why Be Baptized?

Why Be Baptized?

Why do we make a big deal out of baptism?  Or, a better question may be why should you get baptized if you have not been baptized?

Before I share some reasons for you to be baptized, let me clarify a few other important details about baptism.  Baptism is not for everyone.  It is for believers in Jesus Christ.  Ephesians 2:8-9 says, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works lest anyone should boast.”  The clear New Testament pattern as evidenced repeatedly in the book of Acts is that people repent of sin and place their faith in Jesus and are then baptized as a testimony of their salvation.  Baptism is a symbol of salvation and not a sacrament that confers grace.  Also, the proper mode of baptism is immersion.  We believe that baptism is done by immersion because that is the meaning of the word, the New Testament example, and the symbolism it represents (see Romans 6).

So then, if you are a follower of Jesus, why should you experience believers baptism by immersion?  Here are a few reasons:

1.  You are following the example of Jesus (Matthew 3:15).

2.  You are obeying God and making your initial public confession of faith in Christ (see the pattern of the book of Acts).  This is a gospel witness to others.

3.  You are publicly confessing Jesus and showing that you are not ashamed of Him (Matthew 10:32-33).

4.  You are giving the church an opportunity to join with the angels in celebrating your new life in Christ (Luke 15:7).

5.  You are demonstrating that you are a genuine disciple of Christ (Matthew 28:18-20).

6.  You are proclaiming the gospel of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus for your sins by the symbolism of your action (Romans 6:1-6).

7.  You are picturing the fact that you have died to the old you and been raised to new life through the work of Jesus in your life (Romans 6:1-6).

8.  You are picturing the fact that Jesus has washed your sins away (Acts 22:16).

If you are a believer and have never been baptized, we encourage you to take that step of obedience and publicly declare your faith in Jesus.  Of course, if you are not yet a Christian, we encourage you to receive Him by faith.  If you have questions or we can assist you in taking these steps, please contact us at 865-471-5530 or jimmy@thetruelifechurch.com.

True Life Response To Supreme Court Ruling On Marriage

True Life Response To Supreme Court Ruling On Marriage

1. The Bible is the inspired, inerrant, unchanging Word of God so when the Bible speaks, God speaks, and that settles it as true no matter what any human being says. Therefore, we submit ourselves to the authority of Scripture by doing what God says and saying what God says.

2. We treat everyone with love and compassion. To do otherwise is both ungodly and unhelpful. Our mentality cannot be us vs. them, but those with whom we disagree need to see that we only want what is best for them, which only comes through living according to God’s design.

3. We stay focused on Jesus and the Gospel, and we seek to apply the Gospel to every area of life. We must remember that sin never truly satisfies. Only Jesus does. This decision will hurt those who agree with it more than those who disagree with it. The church must love, build relationships, speak truth, and be there to pick up those who are shattered by sin.

4. We stay on our mission of meeting people where they are and helping them become fully devoted followers of Christ. We are called to be salt and light and live as missionaries in culture.

5. We do not make politics our focus, but we steward our responsibility as citizens of a republic, and we vote and participate wisely as expressions of our biblical convictions.

6. We equip ourselves and our children to think biblically, defend and express our faith clearly and lovingly, and speak to this issue articulately.

7. We do not treat homosexuality differently than any other sin, and we do not expect non-Christians to act like Christians. However, we cannot accept same-sex marriage because God does not define it that way in either Scripture or nature. We are to be people of grace and truth. However, we cannot extend grace without extending truth. People cannot receive the gospel that justifies without first hearing the law that condemns. Without hearing the law and being convicted of sin, people cannot repent of sin and trust Jesus in order to receive grace.

8. We do not stick our heads in the sand and ignore the seriousness of the hour, but we also do not panic because God is still on His throne and will use even this to accomplish His purposes.

9. Our ultimate allegiance is to the Kingdom of God so we live counter-cultural Kingdom lives that become a demonstration of the truth to those around us. We must live out what we believe and repent when we sin to have any credibility in the world.

10. We rejoice in the death of cultural religion and get on one side of the fence or the other when it comes to Jesus. Genuine followers of Jesus must prepare to pay the price for truly following Him. This includes obeying the law of God and disobeying the law of man when they are in conflict with one another, which makes the human law an unjust law.

11. More than ever before, the church lives as a family that loves and takes care of each other.

12. We realize that we do not battle against flesh and blood and the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God so we pray, seek God, and rely on the supernatural power of God.

Forgiveness Q @ A

Forgiveness Q @ A

I think this will be a useful follow-up to yesterday’s message on forgiveness. One time in the past when I preached on forgiveness we took questions afterwards. These are the questions and answers, and I thought sharing this again could help flesh out some of the practical issues related to forgiveness. Forgiveness happens when there is an injury or wrong, a debt resulting from the injury, and we choose to cancel the debt. It is deciding to not hold what was done against the person any more. I will attempt to make practical application of this principal in answering these questions. In attempting to answer them, however, I fully recognize that questions about forgiveness are generally born out of difficult situations and general answers may be insufficient for particular situations. One other thing to remember in regard to forgiveness is that one person can choose to forgive, but it takes two people working together to reconcile a relationship.

1. Where does discernment factor into the relationship and what do we do when it is ongoing with someone vindictive? These are two different questions from two different people, but I think they fit together. I think that one of the tougher situations in which to forgive is when the person keeps doing the thing that is hurting us. Up front, we obviously need to be discerning before getting into various types of relationships, but we can certainly be fooled. If it is a relationship that we do not have to be in or that we can righteously depart from, at some point we may have to exit the relationship or at the least, set up some boundaries. Being a forgiving person does not mean being other people’s piñata or doormat. If someone is hurting us, we need to lovingly but firmly confront that person. In some cases, a third party will be needed to help in working through the difficulties.

2. Does reconciliation always have to happen for there to be forgiveness? You cannot have reconciliation without forgiveness, but you can have forgiveness without reconciliation. It takes one to forgive but two to reconcile. We can choose to forgive the other person independent of what they do, but both parties must be willing to make things right and work on things for there to be reconciliation. Romans 12:18 says, “If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men.” We are responsible for what we do, and the other person is responsible for her actions. In most cases, the goal should be reconciliation, but if we forgive and try to reconcile the relationship, we are not guilty if the other party is unwilling to do what is necessary for healing and reconciliation to transpire. There are some cases in which reconciliation is not possible or wise. Examples would include forgiving someone who is no longer alive, forgiving someone that you no longer have any contact with and cannot locate, someone who has committed a crime against you (in some cases, at least), someone who is not safe to be around, someone who will not be honest, and in some cases, when someone will not stop the behavior causing the problem.

3. What about offenses where another person may not realize they had caused an injury or hurt? God’s command to forgive is still the same. As far as dealing with it practically, I think we have to decide if this is something we can deal with inside of ourselves, between us and the Lord, and get over it. If we cannot do that, we need to talk to the other person about it and let them know that they hurt us, we have forgiven them, but we needed to talk about it in order to move on in the relationship.

4. How do forgiveness and grief go together? They are somewhat connected and somewhat separate at the same time. They are connected in the sense that grief is a natural, and often unavoidable, response to being hurt and wronged. They are separate in the sense that forgiveness is a choice that is a willful response to a wrong while grief is the feelings and emotions related to the offense. They are also connected in the sense that the way to ultimately change our feelings is by choosing to forgive and letting go of the anger. This is a certainly a process. We may have to reiterate the choice to forgive many times. We can choose to forgive regardless of how we feel.

5. How do you ever get over the trust issue? How do you forgive completely and not be leery of the future intentions of the person? I feel that I may not be forgiving completely if I am still remembering the deed and waiting for it to happen again? Forgiveness is unconditional while trust is conditional. Forgiveness is graciously granted while trust should be earned. You can choose in a moment to forgive someone, but it will take time, work, and counseling in some cases for trust to be restored. Forgiveness is about the past, but trust is about the future. Remember that forgiveness is not holding what the person did against them any more so we must try to put what they did behind us and not just be waiting for it to happen again. However, it is wise to evaluate how much we can trust them going forward. Some factors to consider include:
-Was the wrongdoing confessed or discovered?
-Is it a pattern or an unusual occurrence?
-Is he open and honest?
-Does she give evidence of taking steps to make changes?
-Does he seem genuinely grieved about hurting me?

6. When I forgive, then remember again at a later time, with pain, the offense, does it mean that I have not forgiven? I would say that it means you are human. When that happens, we need to repeat the steps we took when originally forgiving the person, other than there is not a need to talk to the person again. There could be cases where it means that we have not really forgiven, but I think it is usually the process of dealing with our emotions. With some things, we may have to reaffirm our decision to leave it in the past several times.

7. When you forgive someone of a wrong, are they supposed to act like it never happened and you have no right to be upset any longer, no consequences? This is a difficult question because someone could seek to manipulate and take advantage of our graciousness in forgiving. That ends up pertaining to the trust issue instead of the forgiveness issue though. Remember that when we forgive we are taking them off of our hook and canceling the debt they owe us. We can’t really be forgiving and demanding consequences at the same time.

8. Why do other people want to be forgiven but they don’t want to forgive you if you do the slightest thing to them? How do you handle that situation? It is sinful human nature to act in that manner. I would refer back to question #1 for the answer to this question. This is not really an issue about us forgiving, but a situation where we will need to speak the truth in love to them. We certainly should not base whether or not we forgive or how we treat others on how they act.

Introduction to The Song of Solomon

Introduction to The Song of Solomon

We are beginning a new, seven week series entitled, “GodLoveSex,” that is a verse-by-verse study of the book of Song of Solomon. Some Bibles call it Song of Songs (the titles are not inspired). These titles come from the first verse of the book, which says, “The song of songs, which is Solomon’s.” I encourage you to read the book on your own. It is not easy to understand all the details, but it is a very important book, and we want to practically apply it to our relationships. John MacArthur says of the book, “The Song of Solomon expands on the ancient marriage instructions of Genesis 2:24, thus providing spiritual music for a lifetime of marital harmony. It is given by God to demonstrate His intention for the romance and loveliness of marriage, the most precious of human relations and ‘the grace of life’ (1 Peter 3:7). He also says, “In contrast to the two distorted extremes of ascetic abstinence and lustful perversion outside of marriage, Solomon’s ancient love song exalts the purity of marital affection and romance. It parallels and enhances other portions of Scripture which portray God’s plan for marriage, including the beauty and sanctity of sexual intimacy between husband and wife.” The book has two primary characters, Solomon (often referred to as “the beloved”) and the Shulamite woman. The daughters of Jerusalem also speak several times, God speaks once (5:1), and the Shulamite’s brothers speak once (8:8-9). Here is an introduction to the book to help us better understand it.

1. Authorship and Date: The book claims to be written by Solomon, the king of Israel, and we accept the text of Scripture at face value as the inspired Word of God. This would date the book in the 10th century B.C. Here is an important question regarding this book. It is the elephant in the room, so to speak. How could Solomon, who had 700 wives and 300 concubines, write such a book as this? I think the answer is twofold. First, every book of the Bible is ultimately written by the Holy Spirit working through imperfect human vessels. Solomon is a prime example that we can know what is right and fail to do what is right. Second, I think the trajectory of Solomon’s life is that he walked with God in his early years, turned away from the Lord (1 Kings 11:1-13), and came back to the Lord later in life (as recorded in the book of Ecclesiastes). I believe the Shulamite woman was Solomon’s first wife and pictures a godly relationship. He began to be involved with other women after that.

2. Interpretive Approaches: Song of Solomon is highly debated as far as its interpretation. Someone from our church posted the advertisement for the series on her Facebook page, and some friends started a lengthy debated about its interpretation. Historically, it has primarily been viewed as an allegory. Personally, I believe that the most natural, straightforward reading of the text is to take it literally as a love poem. The wording seems to clearly be describing a human relationship (at times a sexual relationship) and not a relationship between a person and God. Here is a lengthy quote from the Believer’s Study Bible notes that explains the options. “The literary form and original context of the Song have been understood in various ways. The Song has been seen as a drama, a collection of Syrian wedding songs, a collection of pagan fertility cult liturgies, or an anthology of unrelated love songs. Basically all approaches can be seen to utilize generally one of three methods: (1) The allegorical view understands the book as a poem describing the relationship between God and Israel or between Christ and the church. Each detail is interpreted in a symbolic manner. This approach often finds as many interpretations as interpreters, which shows its dubious value. Genuine allegory will usually yield basically the same interpretation to its varied interpreters. (2) The typological view differs from the allegorical by keeping a historical foundation and by finding analogy not in all subordinated details, but only in main outlines. The proponents of this view acknowledge the mutual love between Solomon and the Shulamite, but go beyond that to consider the divine analogy with its more elevated and spiritual meaning as being the more important. (3) The literal or lyrical view is one which takes the poem at face value, assigning the simplest and most natural interpretation to the text….However, there is also the option that the poem is a vital expression in frank but pure language of the divine theology of marriage as expressed in the love between husband and wife in the physical area, setting forth the ideal love relationship in monogamous marriage. Even the most intimate and personal human love is according to divine plan and as such is bestowed by God Himself (cf. Gen. 2:18-25, Matt. 19:4-6). The richest and best of human love is only a foretaste of the matchless, greater love of God. In this book , the scarlet thread of redemption is revealed, as man, through seeing and experiencing the purity and holiness of earthly love in marriage, gains a better and and clearer understanding of the eternal, heavenly love of Christ for His church.”

3. Theme: As stated above, this is a love poem “setting forth the ideal love relationship in monogamous marriage.” It is a book that can be a guideline for us in our dating and marital relationship. It also pictures the love of God for Israel and the love of Jesus for His bride, the Church. I think the key verses are 8:6-7, which say, “Set me as a seal upon your heart, as a seal upon your arm; for love is as strong as death, jealousy as cruel as the grave; its flames are flames of fire, a most vehement flame. Many waters cannot quench love, nor can the floods drown it. If a man would give for love all the wealth of his house, it would be utterly despised.”

4. Outline: Here is a basic outline of the book. Other people may view it differently, but this is how I see it.

1. Their Courtship (1:1-3:5)
2. The Wedding and Honeymoon (3:6-5:1)
3. The Maturing of the Marriage (5:2-8:7)
4. An Epilogue That Actually Describes How Their Love Began (8:8-14)

5. Resources Consulted: This is not a full list of the resources I have used in my study of the book, but it lists the primary ones. I am sharing this so you will know what I have used and to give you some guidance on resources if you want to do further study.

Love Song, sermon series by Craig Groeschel
Love Song, sermon series by Tommy Nelson
Believer’s Study Bible notes
Song of Solomon: A Picture of Marriage, Christ by David Roach (an article)
Christ-Centered Exposition: Exalting Jesus in Song of Songs by Daniel Akin
The Song of Solomon in The MacArthur Bible Commentary by John MacArthur
Song of Songs in Bible Knowledge Commentary by Jack Deere
The Revell Concise Bible Dictionary

Overview of the Book of Nehemiah

Nehemiah Overview

Nehemiah was in the king’s palace at Susa in the month of Chislev (which is roughly November or December on our calendar) when Hanani came with men from Judah, and Nehemiah asked him about Jerusalem and the remnant of people who had returned there. Hanani told him that the walls were “broken down and its gates are burned with fire.” This was both a dangerous and embarrassing situation. They were in this predicament because of their unfaithfulness to God so they were failing to be a light to the Gentiles and instead bringing reproach on the name of God. In regard to the historical background, the study notes in the Believer’s Study Bible say, “Just as the Israelites were taken into exile in three successive stages (605, 597, 586 B.C.), they returned in three stages. The first stage occurred under the leadership of Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel (538 B.C.). After a long delay, this return resulted in the rebuilding of the temple (520-516 B.C.), encouraged by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah. Ezra led the second return in the seventh year of Artaxerxes I (458 B.C.; cf. Ezra 7:1, 8). Nehemiah led the final return in the twentieth year of Artxerxes I.”

Nehemiah was the cupbearer of King Artaxerxes I. He was an ordinary person in the sense that he was not royalty or a religious leader. However, he must have been a man of great character who proved himself trustworthy to be placed in a position such as this, although I am sure it was providential as well. The cupbearer tasted the king’s wine to make sure it was not poisoned and assassinations were common in the Persian Empire. Therefore, he was risking his life, but apart from that, he would have enjoyed a comfortable lifestyle in the king’s palace. The cupbearers often became confidants and advisors to the kings because they were so trusted. God obviously used this when he gave Nehemiah the burden to rebuild the walls in Jerusalem, which was a 140 year old problem.

Nehemiah’s brother, Hanani, reported to him that the people of God in Jerusalem were “in great distress and reproach.” Nehemiah was burdened by this and he began to weep, pray, fast, and confess sin. He acted on this God-given burden and prayerfully asked King Artaxerxes for permission and help to go back and rebuild the wall of Jerusalem. He had obviously thought through the circumstances and had an excellent strategy. He clearly cast vision, and the king approved his request and provided him help. However, 2:10 says, “When Sanballat the Horonite and Tobiah the Ammonite official heard of it, they were deeply disturbed that a man had come to seek the well-being of the children of Israel.” This foreshadows the recurring problem of opposition that Nehemiah experienced from these men and others. However, he was undeterred and persevered all the way to the end in completing his God-given mission.

Nehemiah went to Jerusalem with the king’s permission and help, and he began his work by scouting the situation. In 2:17, he cast vision and challenged them by saying, “You see the distress that we are in, how Jerusalem lies waste, and its gates are burned with fire. Come and let us build the wall of Jerusalem, that we may no longer be a reproach.” The people accepted the challenge, and “they set their hands to this good work.” In chapter 3, Nehemiah organized the work into about 40 sections of the wall with different people responsible for each section. They continued to experience opposition, but they continued to work faithfully on the wall. They took a break (recorded in chapter 5) to deal with some internal problems that were threatening the mission. However, through the grace of God, Nehemiah’s excellent leadership, and their hard work; they were able to complete the wall. They solved a 140 year old problem in 52 days. 6:16 sums this up by saying, “And it happened, when all our enemies heard of it, and all the nations around us saw these things, that they were very disheartened in their own eyes; for they perceived that this work was done by our God.”

The focus of the book then changes from the rebuilding of the wall to the repopulating and reorganization of the city, reforming God’s people, and the spiritual renewal of God’s people. Nehemiah began this process by appointing leaders, reviewing the genealogies, and eventually drafting people to move there. However, his primary focus was the spiritual renewal of the people. He brought Ezra, who was a priest and scribe, in to teach the Bible to the people. Out of this, they confessed their sin, worshipped the Lord, reinstituted the biblical feasts, and renewed their covenant with the Lord as they saw His faithful mercy through the Word of God. Chapter 12 records a great worship celebration as they dedicated the wall by two choirs walking on the wall that Tobiah said a fox would break down if it went on the wall. However, chapter 13 records another problem as Nehemiah returned to the king’s palace, and in his absence, the people were led to break the covenant they had made with the Lord in chapter 10. Nehemiah returned and corrected the problem and ends with him making sure that the people would be worshipping God in His city, Jerusalem, as a witness to the nations around them. Even beyond the necessary rebuilding of the wall, this was the ultimate fulfillment of the mission. Of course, the book ultimately points to Jesus, our great and true High Priest, Sacrifice, and Temple, whose finished work brings us into the very presence of God to enable us to worship and give glory to God.