Speaking the Truth in Love

Speaking the Truth in Love
by Phil Johnson
Sometimes the best way to love your neighbor is to challenge a false belief that is holding him in confusion, discouragement, or some worse state of spiritual bondage. The idea that it's unloving to defend truth or confront lies is one of the arrogant opinions of this postmodern age that needs to be torn down (2 Cor. 10:5). Authentic love "rejoices with the truth" (1 Cor. 13:6).

Celebrity Pastors

Personality matters, Very few people want to go to church on Sunday and listen to a cardboard speaker. But when that personality becomes the centerpiece and everything revolves around it, then we have a precarious situation."
Samuel Rodreguiz

Irresistable Grace

Ligonier Ministries: The teaching fellowship of R.C. Sproul

The Glorious Doctrine of Irresistible Grace

Those who proclaim the gospel preach in a graveyard. Lazarus cannot obey Christ's command until he is given new life, and this is something only God can do (John 11:1-44). When Lazarus is given new life, he immediately responds and exits the tomb. In the same way, the spiritually dead sinner cannot respond to the gospel until he is given new life through the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. Once he is regenerated, however, he immediately responds, placing his faith in Jesus. He is then justified by God.

THOSE WHO PROCLAIM THE GOSPEL PREACH IN A GRAVEYARD
Irresistible, or efficacious, grace is not a dry and dusty old doctrine that was invented by curmudgeonly Calvinists. It is, in fact, a glorious biblical doctrine, for without the efficacious work of the Holy Spirit, we would all be without hope in this world and the next. When we come to a full understanding of how serious our situation is as fallen human beings, our perspective on these doctrines changes dramatically. If we view fallen man as merely disabled or sick, we will never understand the full riches of God's grace. When we see ourselves as God sees us, however, the truth of the matter is sobering. When we realize that we were spiritually stillborn, rebels against the Almighty and Most Holy God, the Creator of heaven and earth, wicked to our core, we will not have an overinflated sense of our own goodness and abilities. We will not delude ourselves into thinking that God chose us because of some innate goodness within us. We will not flatter ourselves in thinking that we are saved because we made the first move to come to God.

On the contrary, we will fall down on our knees and thank God every day for His amazing grace. We will thank God that He came to our tomb, when we were dead and helpless in sin, and cried out to us, "Come forth!" We will thank Him for giving us new life, for turning our wills from evil, for granting us faith and repentance, for bringing us out of the tomb and loosing us from the burial cloths in which we were bound. If we walked out of the tomb, it was not because of any power in us. It was not because we made a decision for Christ. Rather, it was solely because of the irresistible grace of God, the sovereign and mysterious work of the Holy Spirit, who gave us new life. When we finally learn this, we will, with Calvin and our Reformed forefathers, ascribe all glory to God alone for our salvation.

An excerpt from John Calvin: A Heart for Devotion, Doctrine, and Doxology by Burk Parsons.

DONATE NOW

CONTACT US

EMAIL US  or call  800.435.4343

421 Ligonier Ct. Sanford, FL 32771
407-333-4244

George Whitfield Quotes

George Whitfield said, "We are all born Arminians." It is grace that turns us into Calvinists. ~ Charles H. Spurgeon.

A. W. Pink on the Attributes of God

"Analogy has been drawn between a savage who finds a watch upon the sands, and from a close examination of it infers a watchmaker. So far so good. But attempt to go farther. Suppose the savage sits on the sand and endeavors to form a conception of this watchmaker, his personal affections and manners, his disposition, acquirements, and moral character, all that goes to make up a personality. Could he ever think or reason out a real man, the man who made the watch, so he could say, "I am acquainted with him"? It seems trifling to ask, but is the eternal and infinite God so much more within the grasp of human reason? No, indeed. The God of Scripture can be known only by those to whom He makes Himself known."  -   A.W. Pink

Submitting to Feminism

Evangelical Syncretism: Submitting to Feminism
     Thursday, February 19, 2015

by Cameron Buettel

It is no coincidence that the rise of feminism in the twentieth century paralleled an unprecedented push for female clergy in Western churches. With the shifting views and priorities of the culture, the timeless biblical truths of male headship and church leadership were suddenly under attack.

Sadly, many churches and denominations have looked for ways to accommodate feminism. Some eagerly leapt aboard the egalitarian bandwagon. Others were slower to cave in to cultural pressure but eventually waved the white flag of surrender. The legion of female pastors filling pulpits today is the legacy of the evangelical syncretists who were willing to marry feminist ideology to Scripture.

That capitulation stands in opposition to the clear teaching of Scripture: that wives should submit to their husbands as unto Christ, while their husbands are to love them as Christ loved the church (Ephesians 5:22–33) and that women are prohibited from teaching men in Christ's church (1 Timothy 2:12–14). Both of those passages, read in their context, have clear universal application—the latter tying its basis back to God's original design in creation and the former to God's design in salvation. In other words, biblical manhood and womanhood is a reflection of creation and salvation. And there is no biblical precedent to overturn God's design.

In reality, no honest exegete of Scripture can come to any other conclusion. It is difficult to think that anyone could lock himself in a room with a Bible and arrive at some other interpretation of the God-ordained roles of men and women. In that sense, egalitarianism is one of the most obvious examples of the culture's corrupting influence on the church.

And yet there seems to be no limit to the hermeneutical gymnastics some scholars are willing to perform in order to make Scripture say what they want. Here are just two examples.

Inventive Reinterpretation

Craig Keener is a respected New Testament scholar and professor of New Testament at Eastern Seminary, Wynnewood, Pennsylvania. The following excerpt displays his fundamental approach, which allows him to dismiss the clear meaning of 1 Timothy 2:9-15:

In any case, here Paul also forbade women to "teach," something he apparently allowed elsewhere (Romans 16; Philippians 4:2,3). Thus he presumably addressed the specific situation in this community. Because both Paul and his readers knew their situation and could take it for granted, the situation which elicited Paul's response was thus assumed in his intended meaning. [1] http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/200102/082_paul.cfm

Only a rudimentary understanding of Bible interpretation is necessary to spot the gaping holes in Keener's arguments. In the quote above, Keener points to two passages where Paul affirms women in ministry. Remarkably, without evidence Keener assumes and declares that such ministries included teaching—in doing so, he actually points women away from the kinds of ministry the apostle encouraged them to pursue.

Moreover, Keener makes several logical leaps to recreate the historical situation which was "assumed" by Paul and his readers. Further in his article he claims that women were being misled by false teachers and subsequently promoted that teaching in the church. Therefore, says Keener, Paul was not establishing universal principles. Instead, he "provided a short-range solution: 'Do not teach' (under the present circumstances); and a long-range solution: 'Let them learn' (1 Timothy 2:11)."

There are at least two problems with such an approach. First, the historical situation is invented. While Paul speaks about the influence of false teachers, he makes no mention of its effect on women specifically. Second, the grammar of Paul's instruction does not allow for the "short-range" and "long-range" distinctions. These two commands are parallel with Paul's other commands in the surrounding context, none of which have temporal limitations. This is to say nothing of the fact that immediately following the prohibition against women teaching and having authority over men, Paul details the universal qualifications for shepherds—one of which is "the husband of one wife."

In short, in order to set aside the clear meaning of the text (which is consistent with Titus and other equally clear passages), Keener simply invents history and reinterprets the text in light of his assumptions.

Outright Rejection

Gordon Fee is likewise a widely respected New Testament scholar among evangelicals and has written many truly helpful books and commentaries. But even he is determined to drive the square peg of feminism into the round hole of Scripture's clear teaching. When Fee's award-winning commentary on 1 Corinthians discusses Paul's insistence for women to remain silent in the church meetings (1 Corinthians 14:34–35), he brushes it aside by trying to argue that Paul never actually wrote it:

Although these two verses are found in all known manuscripts, either here or at the end of the chapter, the two text-critical criteria of transcriptional and intrinsic probability combine to cast considerable doubt on their authenticity. [2] Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (The New International Commentary on the New Testament), 1987, page 699)

Fee cannot imagine Paul making such a statement and insists that another writer must have inserted it into the text at a later date. His scholarly language hides an unscholarly and dishonest approach to the text. While it is true that scholars debate the authenticity of the text, it is also true that there is an overwhelming consensus that they belong in Scripture. Fee seems to take advantage of the debate for the convenience of his theology. As another scholar writes, "Few [scholars] place the weight that Fee does on a textual variant." [3] Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (New International Greek Testament Commentary), 1148.

Frankly, that's a dangerous precedent to set when dealing with passages of Scripture that confront or contend with popular opinion and cultural norms.

Submitting to Scripture

When we as believers encounter portions of the Bible that clash with our deeply-held convictions, we need to humbly assume that our convictions are wrong—not Scripture. And we need to carefully consider what benefit there is in following pastors and teachers whose ministries rest on the dismissal of inconvenient parts of God's Word.

For leaders who would kowtow to the pressures of society, it is disingenuous to espouse an inerrant and authoritative biblical text while playing fast and loose with its contents. Oil and water do not mix, and neither does God's Word with ungodly ideologies. The true student of Scripture must be willing to listen and submit to it rather than correct its author when He violates our modern cultural sensibilities.

This article originally appeared on the Grace to You website. www.gty.org.

Donate to GTY

Truth is to be declared

Truth is to be declared not negotiated
John MacArthur

Our Identity

In the end, our identity is so much richer than just what we do for eight hours a day. We all have significant relationships, things we're passionate about and unique personality traits that can't be encompassed by a job. More than that, whether we're picking up garbage or sitting in a cubicle, our identity is found in Christ. - Relevant Magazine

Did Christ Die for all Men or Only His elect?

Did Christ Die for all Men or Only His elect?

The following is a written response to a brother with the following question about limited atonement (that Christ died only for the elect):
Could you please clarify the extent of the atonement, limited versus unlimited? Isn't limited atonement wrong and doesn't the Bible plainly teach unlimited atonement (that Christ died for the sins of all people in the world)?

This is a very good question and has remained an issue between believers through many centuries.
Many people popularly call themselves "four-point" Calvinists because they find the idea of a limited atonement loathsome, or believe somehow that the Bible does not teach it. What is meant by a four-point Calvinist? It is generally understood to mean that an individual claims to believe in total depravity, unconditional election, irresistible grace and perseverance of the saints but not limited atonement (dropping the "L" in limited atonement) in TULIP (TU-IP). What is interesting about this, however, is that everyone involved actually believes in a limited atonement since we can all agree that Christ did not actually redeem everyone who ever lived. There will be some who end up in the lake of fire according to both positions. The question, therefore, is not whether there is a "limit" to the extent of the atonement, but rather, what is the nature of the limit and who limits it? Is it limited by God's choice and design or by free human choices? Did God, from eternity, sovereignly determine to whom He would apply the benefits of the atonement, or did God leave it to man's will? This is why I generally like to call my position "particular redemption" rather than limited atonement since both sides ultimately limit the application of the atonement.
If you ask one of these brothers or sisters, "for whom did Christ die?" they will generally answer something like this: "the Bible plainly teaches that Christ's death and His work of redemption was not only sufficient for the entire world, but that He actually died for the sins of all the world." They will back their position with this verse from 1 John 2:2 - "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." ...as well as John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." (And leave it there as if this settles the argument).
Unfortunately this view leaves an island of righteousness in man to be able to believe the Gospel without the aid of the regenerating grace which Christ purchased on the cross. It follows that those who hold to an general atonement believe the one sin for which Christ did not die is rejection of His person and work (they will cite John 3:18,36). [Some readers have claimed that I am setting up a straw man here but this is actually the position (word for word) currently being taught by such institutions as Dallas Theological Seminary. Anyone wishing to take issue with me here I have evidence of this and will gladly provide it upon request.] So if, as they claim, that Christ did not die for our unbelief, then who did?
What many are, in fact, teaching is that Christ did not die for ALL THE SINS of the whole world, since they have excluded the sin of unbelief. In other words they claim that Christ died for our breaking of the 2nd through 10th commandments in the decalogue but not the first commandment. So, the obvious question to answer here is "who, then, dies for our sin of unbelief?" Do we atone for it ourselves? Does God overlook our former unbelief because the sincerity of our newly found faith makes up for our previous unbelief? Does the atonement for sins of unbelief kick in only after we unlock the door by "accepting Jesus into our hearts?" It is my contention that Christ died for all our sins including the sin of unbelief. If you agree with me yet believe in a universal atonement then why are there still people in hell? If all men's unbelief has been paid for then then all sin has been forgiven - there is nothing left to forgive and we would then have universalism. But 1 John 3:23 teaches "And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ." To disobey this command is a sin, and the greatest sin of all I might add. A question to ask yourself is did Christ pay for this sin or not?
It is not quite apparent to me why the text of John 3:16 should be an argument against limited atonement. The passage does not say Jesus died for everyone, but only that the Father gave his Son for ALL THOSE WHO WOULD BELIEVE. It says, "WHOEVER BELIEVES in HIM shall not perish but have eternal life." Right? Don't we all believe this? That is why the consistent biblical Calvinists, when presenting the gospel to unbelievers, simply teach that Christ died for "all who would believe", which is actually closer to the meaning of this text than the erroneous position that He died for all in a general kind of way, and yet for no individual in particular. Instead, we believe that the benefits of the atonement will apply only to who will be believers, so he did not die for any person who would remain steadfast in their unbelief. So I would argue that John 3:16 actually supports the definite atonement position better than the indefinite position. They are reading into the text that Christ's death only potentially will save someone if they believe without the help and grace of the cross to do so. So in actuality, Christ died for no one in particular this scheme. His affection was only cast forth in a general impersonal kind of way rather then actually coming for His people who He set his affection on from eternity.
In fact, this teaching comes full circle and devastates all of the other doctrines of grace. Although claiming to believe in Total Depravity, the teaching of the so-called four-point Calvinists is really that man still has the moral ability to turn to God on his own without regenerating grace (a grace purchased on the cross) effectively destroying total depravity, even though the Bible plainly teaches that no one seeks God unless first born again (1 John 5:1; John 6:37, 39, 44, 63-65; Rom 3:11. 1 Cor 2:14, John 1:13; John 3). That is to say, natural fallen man has the ability and desire (in some cases) to believe in Christ without regenerating grace. It is teaching a "conditional" election since it depends completely on God's foreknowledge of whether or not we will have faith, even though the Bible plainly teaches that election is not conditioned on something God sees in us and that faith is a divine gift (Eph 2:5-8). So in effect WE end up choosing God with our autonomous free will in this scheme, not the other way around. Those who deny limited atonement are also surreptitiously semi-pelagian in all the other doctrines of grace as well. Salvation becomes the work of man, rather than a monergistic divine work of grace. Some may argue that God's grace works together with man, but the problem with this is that it still leaves the final decision for salvation in the hands of man. Faith, apart from Christ's work on the cross, precedes saving grace in this view, contrary to everything the Bible teaches (ROM 9:16; John 1:13). God's grace would take us part of the way to salvation leaving man's will to make the final decision. So, according to those who claim that the atonement is unlimited (indefinite) there is no divine election in the final analysis, but only humans electing God even though we all know that it is God that chooses us (John 15:16).
The biblical teaching is that God, before the foundation of the world in His eternal counsels, knew and determined to whom He would apply the benefits of the atonement? (2 Timothy 1 9, Titus 1:2; Eph 1:4,5)
"This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day." John 6:39 (emphasis mine)
What does "that of all He has given Me I lose nothing" mean except that God, in His eternal councils had already determined who would be written in the book of life and that Jesus Christ came to earth in time to carry out their eternal redemption. Is Jesus' purpose not in sync with God the Fathers' and God the Holy Spirits'? God the Father elects certain individuals and the Holy Spirit regenerates them. Does the Son have a different redemptive agenda? No, the three Persons of the Trinity are always consistent with one another. If you believe in election, which you do unless you have torn out almost every page of your Bible, then you must believe that that Christ came to redeem His elect, and the Holy Spirit applied the benefits of the atonement only on those the Father had "given" Christ. It means that He will infallibly bring His own into His eternal kingdom. I hear someone say "but that's not fair" ... does God owe you anything my friend? Is He your debtor? The only debt He owes you is His just wrath. His choosing of you is an act of His mercy, an act of His divine good pleasure (Eph 1:4,5).
Before we get to 1 John 2:2 lets familiarize ourselves with some other biblical texts on this crucial issue:
First Take a look at these passages of Scripture:

"Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation." Revelation 5:9 (emphasis mine)
my comment: did Christ redeem everybody by His blood in this passage? the entire world or a limited number? Doesn't it say that He purchased men FROM every tribe???
"...and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption." Heb 9:12
my comment: was everybody's redemption eternal? through His blood He obtained eternal redemption - for whom? all men? then why aren't they all saved? If all men's redemption is eternal then we must become universalists.
"...who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds." Titus 2:14
My question: IN this passage did Christ redeem all men from iniquity or just some? the second half of the verse also narrows the redemption to a particular people, not all people.
v.5 "...But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed.... v. 8 He was cut off out of the land of the living For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due? v.11... By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities. v.12 ...Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, And interceded for the transgressors." Isaiah 53:5,8,11-12
my comment: Are the sins of the whole world "healed" by Christ's scourging in this passage? If they are, then why isn't everyone saved? What meaning does healing have then if it is unlimited? Are the words "my people" referring to all mankind or the many whom He would justify that the Father had "given" Him? (see John 17:9) Since He "bore the sin of many" this certainly is not including the reprobate but a particular people purchased out of the world.
Now we come to the famous text that our "four-point" brothers put all their weight upon as teaching an unlimited atonement:
"He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." 1 John 2:2

At first glance I must admit that this appears to be a pretty good text to back up their argument but upon closer examination, it falls apart. The problem is that if the four-pointers read this verse the way they intend to then we must also conclude that the whole world's sins have already been atoned for (believers and unbelievers) and thus all will be saved (universalism). If Christ is a propitiation or atonement for all men's sins, paying for all sins ever committed, then why isn't everyone in the whole world saved???? So the verse actually proves to much. The verse simply means, (and there is no doubt this is what Paul meant), Christ did not die for every person without exception but every person without distinction. . All kinds of people everywhere, is what is meant. We see this elsewhere when the Scriptures say, Christ "purchased for God with [His] blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation." (Revelation 5:9). Many will argue that He didn't die for our unbelief, which I believe I thoroughly discredited in my argument above. John is speaking, rather, of sins for people throughout the whole world, not each and every person's sins. There are too many problems with saying that the text includes all men (believers and unbelievers) and, as I have shown, this leads to an unbiblical universalism. Saying Christ died for the sins of the whole world is similar in the use of language in many other passages in Scripture such as Mark 1:5 which says, "And all the country of Judea was going out to him, and all the people of Jerusalem." If you think the "all in this passage means every single person without exception, you have missed the point, it means large numbers of people; all persons without distinction, but not all persons without exception.
Christ died for all of the sins of His elect, including their previous sin of unbelief. Belief in the Gospel does not make up for our previous sin of unbelief. Belief (faith) is the witness that God has already wrought grace in our hearts, the inevitable response to His work of regeneration in our souls. (John 3:21) Christ clearly came to lay down His life for His sheep (John 10:11) and some people are not his sheep: "...but you do not believe because you are not my sheep." (John 10:26) Jesus prayed for His own but he would not pray for those the Father had NOT given him: "I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours." Emphasis mine (John 17:9).
This teaching does have great practical value; specifically that our prayers for the lost will be effectual. As we go out to do missions, to reach the lost, we can have confidence that we go not in vain but that we carry with us the Word of God which has the power to raise the dead to life. We don't just go in the hope that maybe someone will be saved; or that Christ died for no one in particular. But rather that He died for a particular people to make them His own. If my hope was based solely on whether someone would respond to the Gospel message by their own free will then I would despair because no one would respond (ROM 3:11. 1 Cor 2:14)... but because God has an eternal plan, a bride he has chosen for His Son, I can rejoice in the knowledge that God's word proclaimed will effectually bring home those whom he delivers the inward call. (ROM 8:28-30)
Finally, remember that it is not a question of whether or not Christ's redemption was able to cleanse the sins of all men, as we know it clearly could have if this is what He so desired. The question is what does the Bible teach about the divine intent with regard to the atonement, which I hope this short paper has answered.
Soli Deo Gloria
John Hendryx
P.S. Historically many of the greatest minds the church has produced were 5 pointers, not four. Some of the more well known ones were Jonathan Edwards, C.H. Spurgeon, A.A. Hodge, Charles Hodge, John Owen, John Calvin, George Whitfield, Thomas Goodwin and more recently, J.I. Packer, R.C Sproul, John Piper, Iain Murray, Michael Horton, James Boice and John Murray

Further Studies:
A QUEST FOR GODLINESS The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life by J. I. Packer
2 Peter 2:1 and Universal Redemption By Simon Escobedo III Must Read!
Definite Atonement by R. Scott Clark
Limited Atonement by Loraine Boettner
12 Examples from Spurgeon on Particular Redemption compiled by Colin Maxwell
Christ's Limited Atonement by Charles Spurgeon
The Death of Death in the Death of Christ by John Owen (Book)

home paged

Our Identity

In the end, our identity is so much richer than just what we do for eight hours a day. We all have significant relationships, things we're passionate about and unique personality traits that can't be encompassed by a job. More than that, whether we're picking up garbage or sitting in a cubicle, our identity is found in Christ. - Relevant Magazine

What do you think about free will?

Contributors Erik Raymond 
WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT FREE-WILL?
March 3, 2015
1 Comments599
We have all endured those awkward, uncomfortable moments of a Bible study or small group where no one was willing to talk—except perhaps the leader. It is tough isn't it? Here is a suggestion next time to get things rolling: ask, "What does you guys think about free-will?" This is pretty much a guarantee to get things moving.

I recently walked through Bondage of the Will by Martin Luther. Its logic is only superseded by its sarcasm. Luther is flat-out giving it to Erasmus for his view of the freedom of the will. In the midst of the interaction with his position Luther states that he does not like the term "free-will" very much. In fact, he notes, it is misleading. Instead, Luther suggests that we replace the term with "love".

Think with me for a second. Since God is the greatest good then the greatest good we could do, or the greatest response to him is to love him. Of course, this is the right response to God. When we talk about our wills choosing God then we have to be talking about loving him (obviously, when someone is said to choose God by their free-will they are not saying they are hating him). In short then, the fullest and most pure exercise of our wills would be to choose to love God.

Now, what is the summary of the Law?

""Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." (Matthew 22:36-37)

I am sure that you can see the rub here. If you hold to the free-will of man in salvation then you are saying that you hold to free-love of man. And what is this love but the fulfillment of the great commandment of the law? One may say that they have the free-will to choose God and are then justified by faith. However, it appears what they are actually saying is that they have the free-will to love God and at some level their law-keeping (loving God) plays a part in their conversion. Now, I don't think that most people who believe in free-will mean this when they say it. However, the path of free will is not a path that is wholly paved by grace; there, at some point is some working on the part of man. He stands on an island of self-soveriegnty, an embassy of anthropological freedom where he has the first and final call on who and what he chooses. God, the gracious God, stands by, looking on as he is freely chosen by man. Man either has free will and is not utterly dependent upon the grace and mercy of God or he is depraved and wholly dependent upon such grace and mercy. It is either or; it cannot be both.

This deduction got Luther, and others, quite exercised. There is not one speck of God's creation that he is not sovereign over. Further, there is not one ounce of our humanity that is not radically affected by sin (Rom. 3:9-18, 23; Eph. 2:1-4; Col 1:21; Titus 3:3; etc). Far from being free our wills are bound by sin. We are enslaved to it and unable to liberate ourselves from this state.

But God in Christ sets the captives free. He arrests us by grace, opens eyes to see his beauty, behold his grace, and even love him. But note, the one who initiates this is not the sinner, it is the Savior (Eph. 2:4-10; 1 Pet. 1:3-5). God is the one who acts upon the unregenerate man or woman to make them alive. They neither come kicking and screaming to the kingdom of God nor pounding on the doors of heaven, they come by grace and all of grace, chosen by God and for God (Jn. 1:10-13).

This life-giving grace is also liberating grace! And this will also get your small group talking.

Copyright ©2015 The Gospel Coalition, Inc. All rights reserved.

The Great Commission

"Wonder why your church may not be prospering?  Maybe because you haven't followed the directions.  Fulfill the Great Commission.  Go and make disciples.  Sure, you have to evangelize to do that.  Go and evangelize, then bring them into the church and train them to be disciples that can go out and do evangelizing better.  Fulfill the Great Commission.  Don't change your church service into a seeker service so everyone can come in and feel comfortable.  Frankly, non-Christians shouldn't feel comfortable in a church because they aren't right with God yet; and if they are, it's probably because we've changed the message." 

Loving God

What does it mean to love God?
Jesus, who was God in the flesh, said If you love me you will keep my commandments.

Thoughts taken from Soul Keeping by John Ortberg

I was thinking recently about Psalm 23 and restoring of the soul. Have you ever been so tired and worn out that all you can think if is rest? I think we all have and I can tell you that only the peace of God can cure,a restless soul. We are like sheep in many ways. We need still waters, green pastures,and to lie down as it states in Psalm 23. Paul Simon in his song American Tune says it better, 'Im just weary in my bones.', The kind of tired and restlessness that only the peace of God can cure. Only the peace that passes all understanding can cure the restless soul.  And we dont want to rest most of the time even though it is the very thing that we need. God knows what we need before we even ask. . In America today it is too easy to get too busy in life and forget to rest and take care of the most important part of you. There are so many distractions, social media, entertainment, that are crying out for our attention.  There are a lot of souls out there needing rest. A lot of damaged souls that need healing.  We who have been redeemed and have been promised this peace need to share it with others.  We need to do what we can to help others.  Let the grace that we have been given flow through us into others

Thoughts on Life

Did you ever wonder when you really want something to happen and you pray about it and put a lot of time and energy into it and then it doesen't happen? How did you feel? Disapointed, frustrated, and upset? Did you stop to wonder maybe God has something else planned for you? Something better and far beyond you could even imagine.  You may be saying no to a good thing to say yes to the best thing. But you wouldn't know that if you are still clinging onto that old dream or idea.  Selfishly saying my way is best or bragging that you know more than the creator of the universe.  The truth is, God is still sovereign and on the throne regardless of how you are feeling at this point in time. If you are truly seeking His will and not your own desires you can "Be still and know that I am God." Our finite and fallen minds can not comprehend beyond the human limits of time and space. God exists without these limits. He is the great I AM.  Trusting Him for my future is the best choice to make. Regardless of feelings and circumstances God is still sovereign and in control. We will still feel disappointment and discouragement? Yes, even as followers of Christ in this fallen world with our limited, myopic vision we will feel these things. But, as Gods word says "Take heart, I have overcome the world."

Out of the comfort zone

How many times have we got used to a routine, a way of doing things, a comfort zone, that we do things without even thinking?  God has been working on me lately to tell me to drop the facade and get real, which is way out of my comfort zone.  I would encourage you to lay down your pride and get real with others.  They may need your help just as much or more than you need them. Strike up a conversation with a stranger, ask what's on someone's mind, ask what can I do to help?  Often times it's just showing up that matters, or just to know that someone even cares to ask.  Many people are hurt, suspicious, and tentative when someone wants to help.  They may have been hurt or taken advantage of in the past. You have to look through the pain to see what the real need is, and help.  That's what Jesus did in serving others. And if we are going to follow Him, we need to do what He did. He saw past the pain in other's eyes and got to the heart of the matter, which actually is the heart.  The heart that is desperately wicked and in need of Jesus.