"For many shall come in my name...and shall deceive many."
Be sure to vote Tuesday and get at least 10 people from your church to vote, too.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Political Musings
“The powers that be are ordained of God.”In light of the election coming up and the direction our country may head, what does that mean?
If it’s taken at face value and applied universally it means the status quo in government should never be challenged by God’s people. I heard a preacher say once that our Founding Fathers were sinning by breaking away from dictatorship (and consequently establishing religious liberty) because they challenged “the powers that be.” That’s one way to look at it.
But then Ehud was sinning also when he assassinated Eglon. And Joshua when he overthrew the Canaanites. And Esther when she tried to stop the genocide ordered by Haman. So it can’t mean God disapproves of us challenging evil governments.
We tend to think “ordained” means “authorized and approved.” It really means “arranged”—at least in this instance.
God has a plan and that plan involves not only His people, but His enemies as well. He is writing (actually has written) a great novel, and like any novel it would not be great if it didn’t have villains and tragedy as well as heroes and triumph. God arranged for Nebuchadnezzar to come to power—and He also arranged his downfall. He arranged for Hitler to come to power—and also arranged his downfall.
If He arranges for a socialist raised in Muslim schools to become the nominal leader of America, that doesn’t mean He approves of Obama’s actions--or that we must all passively consent to every anti-American, anti-Christian proposal that comes out of his administration. It means it is part of the plot, part of God’s temporary arrangement.
We still have to play our own role in the story, regardless. Part of my role as a Christian will be to vote against Obama in two weeks. But I won’t be depressed about a negative outcome because God is writing a story for His people and it doesn’t always rely on politicians and nation-states.
In any event, we shouldn’t complain too much about media bias or crooked community organizing or leftist textbooks unless we’re willing to do something about it. The truth is, the anti-Christian leftists had a sense of dominion the last one hundred years and Christians did not. I’m not saying that Christians should focus exclusively on influencing civil institutions; but if we aren’t going to be the salt of world, we can't complain that the world has lost its savor. And it’s difficult to function as salt unless you put yourself in a saltshaker.
Do you think the early apostles, if they were alive today, would utilize the internet? Would try to get on radio or cable TV? Would go into schools and universities? Would publish? Would hold forth in front of a microphone on the steps of the U.S. Capitol? Not to advocate for political change; but to spread the gospel of the kingdom and change the hearts of men. Political change is secondary or even tertiary and won’t come about anyway unless the hearts of men are changed. That’s what happened in the American Revolution, which followed many years of spiritual revival in the colonies.
Anyway, I’m not sure I’ve done anything but muddy the waters further on this topic, but I’ll leave you with this anecdote:
“And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them, saying, ‘Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? And, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us’. Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, ‘We ought to obey God rather than men’” (Acts 5: 27-29).
In this instance, who were “the powers that be”? The council or the apostles?
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Verse of the month
Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?
Matthew 6: 25, 26
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Taking a stand on baptism
[I said I wouldn't post until I had something important to say. Well now I do.]
Two words I would love to see retired: credo-baptist and pedo-baptist. People talk about “credobaptist” (baptizing believers) vs. “pedobaptist” (baptizing newborns) as if there are two different kinds of baptism to chose from, each with its own pros and cons. But the debate shouldn’t be, “Are you a credobaptist or a pedobaptist?” It should be, “Are you a baptist or not?” Pedobaptism is not baptism.
Baptism (from the Greek baptizo) means immersion, and in Scripture the only candidates for baptism were believers. Baptism is a public profession of Christ. It symbolizes His death, burial and resurrection—just as the believer was once dead in sins and has been born again. “Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life” (Romans 6: 4).
How does the act of flicking a few drops on a newborn’s head fulfill this public profession? Not only is the mode of pedobaptism wrong, but the recipient of the mode is wrong as well. Pedobaptism is the sprinkling of an infant whom everyone would agree is a nonbeliever. Yet the word that’s used interchangeably with pedobaptism—christening—implies that it marks the moment the individual officially becomes a Christian. Ask a pedobaptist when they became a Christian and you’re likely to hear about an event they don’t even remember: their sprinkling.
Nowhere in Scripture will you find an infant baptized. Nowhere in Scripture will you find any unregenerate person baptized. “Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized…Then they that gladly received his word were baptized” (Acts 2: 38, 41). Certain Pharisees wanted to be baptized, but John the Baptist wouldn’t allow it because they offered no evidence of repentance.
Millions of people have been murdered throughout the centuries simply because they would not embrace the doctrines of pedobaptists over the Biblical model. It’s a historical fact that infant baptism is found nowhere for the first couple centuries after Christ. But slowly errors and misunderstandings crept into churches. Some confused baptism with regeneration; and if that were the case, why not administer it as early as possible? And since you can’t immerse an infant, why not sprinkle it?
The practice of pedobaptism spread. It was easier, more comfortable than what the Bible commanded. Ultimately it was institutionalized by the Roman-Catholic state as a way to ensure that everyone joined the state-church before they were even given a choice. Any family who refused was persecuted or executed. True baptists had to flee to the outskirts of the empire and live in hiding for many centuries. They found a little breathing room at the start of the Reformation, but in short order were persecuted also by those reformed state-churches that came out of the Roman-Catholic model (pedobaptists themselves). These true baptistic churches fled to Holland, Wales, England—and eventually to the New World, where they finally had an unprecedented opportunity to blossom and spread.
Now many churches from that same heritage are waffling about credobaptism vs. pedobaptism, or dropping the ordinance altogether, or offering “baby dedications.” They’ve not only forgotten their history, they’ve forgotten their Scripture.
But don’t take my word for it. Here’s the testimony of a former pedobaptist who finally read Scripture in context and realized it teaches credobaptism…er, baptism.
Baptism (from the Greek baptizo) means immersion, and in Scripture the only candidates for baptism were believers. Baptism is a public profession of Christ. It symbolizes His death, burial and resurrection—just as the believer was once dead in sins and has been born again. “Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life” (Romans 6: 4).
How does the act of flicking a few drops on a newborn’s head fulfill this public profession? Not only is the mode of pedobaptism wrong, but the recipient of the mode is wrong as well. Pedobaptism is the sprinkling of an infant whom everyone would agree is a nonbeliever. Yet the word that’s used interchangeably with pedobaptism—christening—implies that it marks the moment the individual officially becomes a Christian. Ask a pedobaptist when they became a Christian and you’re likely to hear about an event they don’t even remember: their sprinkling.
Nowhere in Scripture will you find an infant baptized. Nowhere in Scripture will you find any unregenerate person baptized. “Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized…Then they that gladly received his word were baptized” (Acts 2: 38, 41). Certain Pharisees wanted to be baptized, but John the Baptist wouldn’t allow it because they offered no evidence of repentance.
Millions of people have been murdered throughout the centuries simply because they would not embrace the doctrines of pedobaptists over the Biblical model. It’s a historical fact that infant baptism is found nowhere for the first couple centuries after Christ. But slowly errors and misunderstandings crept into churches. Some confused baptism with regeneration; and if that were the case, why not administer it as early as possible? And since you can’t immerse an infant, why not sprinkle it?
The practice of pedobaptism spread. It was easier, more comfortable than what the Bible commanded. Ultimately it was institutionalized by the Roman-Catholic state as a way to ensure that everyone joined the state-church before they were even given a choice. Any family who refused was persecuted or executed. True baptists had to flee to the outskirts of the empire and live in hiding for many centuries. They found a little breathing room at the start of the Reformation, but in short order were persecuted also by those reformed state-churches that came out of the Roman-Catholic model (pedobaptists themselves). These true baptistic churches fled to Holland, Wales, England—and eventually to the New World, where they finally had an unprecedented opportunity to blossom and spread.
Now many churches from that same heritage are waffling about credobaptism vs. pedobaptism, or dropping the ordinance altogether, or offering “baby dedications.” They’ve not only forgotten their history, they’ve forgotten their Scripture.
But don’t take my word for it. Here’s the testimony of a former pedobaptist who finally read Scripture in context and realized it teaches credobaptism…er, baptism.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Time out
I’m taking time out from the blog for a while to finish a book project…and a few other projects that never seem to get done.
We’ve put an end to the church hunting saga and settled on a hundred-year-old multi-generational church that is proudly Baptist. So it’s a relief to finally stop looking.
Now we’re on a mission to simplify our lives for a while and catch our breath. Hence the whole time out from the blog thing. If the book ever gets made, I’ll post about it on here this fall. And if something strikes me as urgent or important I may put up a post. But for now, gotta focus on some other things. So in the meantime, enjoy some random pics of the family from this summer (and a few Fensterpickles thrown in).
We’ve put an end to the church hunting saga and settled on a hundred-year-old multi-generational church that is proudly Baptist. So it’s a relief to finally stop looking.
Now we’re on a mission to simplify our lives for a while and catch our breath. Hence the whole time out from the blog thing. If the book ever gets made, I’ll post about it on here this fall. And if something strikes me as urgent or important I may put up a post. But for now, gotta focus on some other things. So in the meantime, enjoy some random pics of the family from this summer (and a few Fensterpickles thrown in).
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Verse of the month
Jesus answered them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin. And a slave does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever. Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed."
John 8: 34-36
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
The "last days" catchphrase
A Jehovah’s Witness gave us this “Awake!” magazine not long ago. The eschatology in it isn’t too much different from what you get in Left Behind, or Chick tracks, or even a lot of Sunday school curricula.Are we living in the last days? The implied answer is “Yes!” It’s so obvious, isn’t it? There are “wars and rumors of wars,” there are “perilous times.” These must be the last days.
The implied application is, “Straighten up, the teacher’s coming back, look to the skies…and whatever you do, don’t make any long-range plans.”
But is this Biblical doctrine, or a clever trick of Satan to paralyze our outlook?
Certainly Paul warned Timothy, “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come” (2 Timothy 3: 1). But when are the “last days”? If he was talking about 2,000 years in the future, how would that pertain to Timothy? Did perilous times ever come in Timothy’s lifetime?
If we dig a little deeper it appears that “the last days” mainly refers to the last years of Old Israel.
When many in the church were filled with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, Peter told the bystanders “…these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh…” (Acts 2: 15-17). So the prophecy about the “last days” was being fulfilled at that time—2,000 years ago.
In the opening passages of Hebrews we read, “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son” (1: 1, 2).
John writes, “Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time” (1 John 2: 18). Surely his readers didn’t think he meant the last moments of history. Even if they did, we know that it wasn’t the “last time” of history. It was the “last time” of Israel.
Peter writes of Christ, “Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you” (I Peter 1: 20). So Christ and Peter lived in the “the last times”—the last days of Israel. (The nation of Israel, established by God, was permanently destroyed by God via the Roman army in A.D. 70—just a few years after most of the New Testament books were written).
So the meaning of phrases like “the last days” or “the last times” changes dramatically when they’re read in context. But that doesn’t keep many Christian “experts” from sensationalizing them—or even claiming that they refer exclusively to our own generation. How else can they scare people into buying books and turn their attention away from things that matter?
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Encouraging News
Some random headlines you might have missed. Pass them along.
"Republican Sarah Palin said she thinks creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the state's public classrooms....'Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.'"
"Lousiana Governor Bobby Jindal signed into law the Louisiana Science Education Act, ensuring the state’s teachers their right to teach the scientific evidence both for and against Darwinian evolution. The bill enjoyed surprisingly overwhelming support from lawmakers. It was passed unanimously by the Louisiana state senate, and pased the state House by a vote of 93-4."
"Caner, 37, is the son of a devout Islamic leader and most of his family, including his father, has disowned him. He converted to Christianity in 1982 with the help of a Christian friend who invited him to a prayer meeting at a Southern Baptist church."
"As many as 80 percent of unborn children diagnosed with Down syndrome become victims of abortion, but Alaska Gov, Sarah Palin didn’t let her child become a statistic…'We knew through early testing he would face special challenges, and we feel privileged that God would entrust us with this gift and allow us unspeakable joy as he entered our lives,' she said. 'We have faith that every baby is created for good purpose and has potential to make this world a better place. We are truly blessed.'"
"Republican Sarah Palin said she thinks creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the state's public classrooms....'Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.'"
"Lousiana Governor Bobby Jindal signed into law the Louisiana Science Education Act, ensuring the state’s teachers their right to teach the scientific evidence both for and against Darwinian evolution. The bill enjoyed surprisingly overwhelming support from lawmakers. It was passed unanimously by the Louisiana state senate, and pased the state House by a vote of 93-4."
"Caner, 37, is the son of a devout Islamic leader and most of his family, including his father, has disowned him. He converted to Christianity in 1982 with the help of a Christian friend who invited him to a prayer meeting at a Southern Baptist church."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)