Leonard Ravenhill - The Value of the Human Soul

All too often we hear of people who "make a decision for Christ" or "prayed and asked Jesus into their heart"...is it that easy to pass from death to life?...

WOTMR - Todd Bentley Kicks Person In Face

Part 1



Part 2

Paul Washer - Keep Crying Out To God Until He Saves You

Mark Kielar - The Heart Of A True Christian

Todd Bentley - "I Saw The Angel Of Finance"

1 John 4

Testing the Spirits

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

I have been posting a lot about Todd Bentley lately and I have been told I should not judge this "man of God". I am here to tell you that Todd Bentley is not a man of God. He is a false prophet (unless he repents). Pray for this man and warn the flock. In this clip, Bentley describes his encounter with the "Angel of Finance." Are you kidding me? I hope I am wrong but I think Todd "Bentley's" goal is to be driving a "Bentley" in the very near future.



End of post.

Todd Bentley - Demon Possessed AFTER Regeneration?

If a person is truly regenerated by the supernatural work of God, can that person then be possessed by demons?

Todd Bentley - 1 Million Decisions For Christ - Without Repentance?

Paul Washer - The Modern Church Worships and Serves Humanism

HT: Lane's Blog

End of post.

Florida Revival - Todd Bentley

Matthew 24:24-25 - "For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect. "Behold, I have told you in advance."



End of post.

John Piper - How the Supremacy of Christ Creates Christian Sacrifice

This is a 6 part series. All 6 parts are embedded on this video. After watching the 1st clip it will automatically start playing the 2nd clip and so on...



End of post.

Phil Johnson and John MacArthur - Election

Part 1



Part 2



Part 3

John MacArthur - Election and Human Responsibility

John MacArthur Comments On Tony Campolo

"The Great Debate: Predestination vs. Free Will"

HT: Lane's Blog

End of post.

Paul Washer - Total Depravity!!! - Take The Test

End of post.

Emergent Tony Jones - Paul Was Inspired By Plato???

End of post.

R.C. Sproul - The Narrow Way

End of post.

Paul Washer - You are saved...IF...you hold fast the Word

End of post.

Frustrated Missionary

My dad has a friend who is a missionary in England who is very frustrated because no one is listening to him as he is out evangelizing. I am posting this video with hope that it is an encouragement to him. The entire video, which I have posted many times, is very edifying and I would encourage you to watch the entire video. However, specifically for this post, please listen from the 18:30 minute mark through the 23:00 minute mark.



End of post.

James White - Who Controls Salvation - Man or God?

I saw this video over on Lane Chaplin's blog and I had to post it. I agree with Lane; this is one of the best closing statements I have ever heard. A must listen to!



End of post.

Mark Kielar - Blessed are the Peace-MAKERS (Not Peace-KEEPERS!)

Below is a remarkable sermon by Mark Kielar. Just click the play button.



End of post.

John MacArthur - Saved or Deceived?

This is a must listen to by Pastor John MacArthur:

Part 1



Part 2

John MacArthur - Cultural Morality Is Not Biblical

John MacArthur - There Are Only Two Religions

Bob DeWaay - The Foreknowledge of God - A Critique of Dr. Greg Boyd’s Open Theism - Part 2 of 2

In part 1 of this two-part series we examined a series of Scripture references that Dr. Greg Boyd cites as proof that God lacks comprehensive foreknowledge of the future choices of free moral agents. We did this in order to answer his challenge for someone to deal with his Biblical exegesis directly from the Scripture, as he claimed his critics have not done. In part two we shall continue this process and show that the passages Boyd cites do not support the claims of open theism.

When God Expresses Surprise or Questions the Future

Dr. Boyd cites Numbers 14:11 as evidence that the future is partially open: “And the Lord said to Moses, ‘How long will this people spurn Me? And how long will they not believe in Me, despite all the signs which I have performed in their midst?’” Dr. Boyd’s assumption is that God really does not know. He admits that this could be a rhetorical question, as when God questioned Adam and Eve in Genesis 3:8-9. Boyd’s response to this explanation is interesting: “This is a possible interpretation, but not a necessary one.” The issue is not which possible interpretation could be given, but which one the context and reason demand. Dr. Boyd then asserts: “[T]here is nothing in these texts or in the whole of Scripture that requires these questions to be rhetorical.”
Frankly, I am surprised that Dr. Boyd would assert this. Let’s take Numbers 14:11 and consider it carefully. The question “how long” is either rhetorical or a literal request for information. It can be shown to be used rhetorically in many places. For example: “And Jesus answered and said, ‘O unbelieving and perverted generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring him here to Me’” (Matthew 17:17). This cannot be a request for information; the gospels make it clear that Jesus knew what was soon to happen—that He would be rejected, crucified, raised from the dead, and ascend into heaven. This is a similar expression to that in Numbers 14:11. So it is clearly false that “nothing...in the whole of Scripture” requires these questions to be rhetorical.

Even more telling is the situation in the dialogue between God and Moses. Suppose “how long” was not rhetorical but a request for information. That would mean that God was asking Moses about the people’s future, persistent unbelief. If Dr. Boyd’s thesis is correct and God does not know the future choices of free moral agents, why would He expect Moses to know them? Surely God would know more about what the people are going to do than Moses would. So taking the “how long” as a literal question creates an absurdity. However, if we take it as rhetorical, the meaning is that God is grieved by the people’s unbelief and is expressing to Moses how unjustified their response to Him really was. Indeed, the context and the whole of Scripture does “require” this interpretation.

When God Thought One Way and Reality Turned Out Differently

Another similar passage offered as proof of a partially open future is Jeremiah 3:7: “And I thought, ‘After she has done all these things, she will return to Me’; but she did not return, and her treacherous sister Judah saw it.” If taken literally this passage would suggest God thought Israel would turn to Him but was wrong in so thinking. Boyd’s reasoning on this is important:

We need to ask ourselves seriously, how could the Lord honestly say he thought Israel would turn to him if he was always certain that they would never do so? If God tells us he thought something was going to occur while being eternally certain it would not occur, is he not lying to us?

Since God cannot lie, the reasoning goes, He must not have known what Israel was going to do. This appears to be a problem for our belief in divine foreknowledge.

We can find help in this case by contemplating how human language commonly works and by examining other Scriptures. When we say, “I thought” to someone, we are not always speaking about cognitive facts as Dr. Boyd’s interpretation requires. Let me give you an example. My wife is out of town for a week visiting relatives. The last day before she comes home I scurry about and clean up the house. Alas, I overlook some important points: the laundry has piled up all week and the bed has dirty, unchanged sheets. She says, “I thought you would have done the laundry and changed the sheets.” Now as a matter of fact, given my nature and past experience, anyone given to betting would bet on the laundry not having been done and the sheets not having been changed. It was not that she did not know I would fail to do these things; she was expressing displeasure that she came home to such a pile of dirty laundry.

We use the phrase “I thought” in this very sense in many common situations. We say, “I thought drivers in this city would be more courteous,” when in fact all the evidence has pointed to the fact that they would not be. We mean, “I think it would be better and morally right if drivers were more courteous.” Thoughts and expectations often have moral connotations. Dr. Boyd writes, “In this case, God would be wrong for expecting one thing to occur when it was a settled fact that another thing was certainly going to occur.” But this assumes we are talking about factual expectations and not moral ones. There is a big difference. Back to the example of driving in the city, I always expect to be treated courteously in a moral sense, but I never expect I will be in a factual sense when driving in rush hour.

Given this common use of the language, let’s examine the Scripture in question. Did God expect factually, in Jeremiah’s day, that the people were going to turn to him? Clearly He did not. He told Jeremiah many times that the people were rebellious, would not listen and were certainly going into captivity. Lest it be objected that this was after the fact, God told Moses about it many centuries earlier:

And the Lord said to Moses, “Behold, you are about to lie down with your fathers; and this people will arise and play the harlot with the strange gods of the land, into the midst of which they are going, and will forsake Me and break My covenant which I have made with them. Then My anger will be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them and hide My face from them, and they shall be consumed, and many evils and troubles shall come upon them; so that they will say in that day, ‘Is it not because our God is not among us that these evils have come upon us?’” (Deuteronomy 31:16, 17)

But according to the open view of God, He genuinely thought that the people would be faithful to Him and their stubbornness was merely a remote possibility. Dr. Boyd writes, “Since God is omniscient, he always knew that it was remotely possible for his people to be this stubborn, for example. But he genuinely did not expect them to actualize this remote possibility.”

This shows what problems are engendered when we try to force a factual connotation on God’s expressions of expectation when the context shows they have moral connotations. If God genuinely thought that Israel in Jeremiah’s day was going to be faithful to Him, He would be a worse predictor than the casual reader of Scripture. Read the story of the wilderness wanderings, the period of the Judges, the history of the various kings, the sad story of the split kingdom, the apostasy and destruction of the northern kingdom, the degeneration of whole-hearted worship of the true God despite brief periods of revival, and tell me when you get to Jeremiah’s day that you literally “thought” faithfulness would surely happen and rebellion was only a remote possibility. The writers of Scripture have prepared us for just the opposite. So why would God literally think that Israel would be faithful, against all the evidence?

God knew with complete certainty what would transpire, and inspired His prophets to predict it. When He said “I thought after all of this she would return to me,” He is expressing His moral will. God always expects righteous and God-honoring responses from His creatures, although He rarely gets them. God is never wrong about the future and never is taken by surprise.

When God Says “Now I Know”

Another key passage Dr. Boyd cites is Genesis 22:12, “And he said, ‘Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.’” The question before us is whether God literally did not know what Abraham’s response would be until Abraham made it. Dr. Boyd writes, “The verse has no clear meaning if God was certain that Abraham would fear him before he offered up his son.” He then cites several other Old Testament passages where God tests Israel “to know” whether they would fear God and serve Him. He asserts that these passages cannot be reconciled, “with the view that God eternally knows exactly what will be in the heart of a person to do.”

If we had no other information about God, His nature, and His eternal purposes, we would have to grant that these passages seem to teach that God’s knowledge is growing, that God is learning things as history progresses. However, to claim that God did not know what Abraham would decide right up to the moment he lifted the knife, one would also have to claim that God does not know the heart. It would also require a view of the human will as being so autonomous as to be detached from any previous causes, inclinations, or influences (a view which was powerfully refuted by Jonathan Edwards). Why? Because if God knows everything, right up to the present moment, and also knows the thoughts and intents of the heart, then He knows everything that has causal effect on a human decision. Even if you do not believe in foreknowledge, God’s perfect knowledge of all present and past causes would be sufficient for you to know the effect in the case of Abraham.

In Abraham’s case, we have special “behind the scenes” information, supplied by the Holy Spirit who inspired the Scriptures. “He [Abraham] considered that God is able to raise men even from the dead; from which he also received him back as a type” (Hebrews 11:19). Abraham’s consideration that God is able to raise the dead must have existed before he lifted the knife, or else it would have had no bearing on his decision. For God literally not to know what Abraham would do, He would have had to be lacking knowledge of Abraham’s heart and faith, which the book of Hebrews says motivated Abraham’s obedience. This view must be rejected based on the clear teachings of Scripture. God is said to know the heart: “I, the Lord, search the heart, I test the mind” (Jeremiah 17:10a). In Acts 15:8 God is called the “heart-knower” in the Greek. In many passages He is said to judge according to the heart. Since God must have known Abraham’s heart, and Abraham had faith in his heart that God could even raise the dead if necessary, God must have known what Abraham’s decision would be. Therefore the clear teaching of Scripture demands that we do not take God’s statement, “now I know” to be a literal declaration of previous ignorance.

What does it mean? We speak the same way. When a loving grandchild draws us a special picture and beams with joy as he gives it to us, we sometimes say, “how wonderful, now I know that you love me.” Such a statement is not a confession of previous ignorance but rather a relational and appropriate loving response provided at the moment. It is a statement that expresses approval of the act. That is what God’s statement to Abraham was. Many such statements are found in the Bible, such as God’s interaction with Moses concerning Israel. Since in cases such as Abraham’s we have enough information elsewhere in the Scripture to show what was going on, it seems absolutely reasonable to take other incidents the same way. God lovingly condescends to talk to humans in terms familiar to them and interacts with them on the scene of history as though He were experiencing time the same way we do. But the Bible clearly teaches that God’s relationship to time is different than ours.

Conclusion

I do not think Dr. Boyd has given us sufficient Biblical evidence to warrant changing our whole view of God’s foreknowledge. The passages cited are incidental to the issue at hand. What I mean by this is that they do not specifically address God’s relationship to time and whether or not God’s knowledge is unchanging. There is no clear passage of Scripture that says God does not foreknow, while many state that He does. The passages we have examined, taken in their context, are easily understood without importing the notion of a God who lacks exhaustive foreknowledge. In several instances the Bible predicts what was going to happen in these very examples, showing that God did have foreknowledge. Therefore the “open” view of God should be rejected solely on Biblical grounds.

Bob DeWaay - The Foreknowledge of God - A Critique of Dr. Greg Boyd’s Open Theism - Part 1 of 2

“Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me. Declaring the end from the beginning And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, ‘My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure.’” (Isaiah 46:9)

“[A]lso we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will.” (Ephesians 1:11)

In recent years, some evangelicals have rekindled an old controversy by asserting that God does not have exhaustive foreknowledge. That is to say that He does not know everything that is going to happen. Jonathan Edwards devoted many pages of his famous 1754 book, A Careful and Strict Inquiry into the Modern Prevailing Notions of the Freedom of the Will, Which is Supposed to be Essential to Moral Agency, Virtue and Vice, Reward and Punishment, Praise and Blame (commonly known as Freedom of the Will for obvious reasons). Edwards wrote:

First, I am to prove, that God has an absolute and certain foreknowledge of the free actions of moral agents. One would think it should be wholly needless to enter on such an argument with any that profess themselves Christians: but so it is, God’s certain foreknowledge of the free acts of moral agents is denied by some that pretend to believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God; especially of late.

This was the situation in Edwards’ day, and his work on this issue is profound and timeless. He supplies page after page of Scriptural proof that God foreknows the future choices of free moral agents.

In this article I shall respond to a challenge issued in the book God of the Possible by Gregory A. Boyd. He writes: “What is particularly sad about the current state of this debate is that Scripture seems to be playing a small role in it. Most published criticisms raised against the open view have largely ignored the biblical grounds on which open theists base their position.” If it is so that published criticisms do not interact with the specific Scriptures put forth to support the “open” position, then I shall make a contribution toward rectifying this. In this essay I will interact with several of Dr. Boyd’s key proof texts, though space does not permit dealing with all of them. I shall show that the passages cited, if taken in their Biblical context, do not prove Dr. Boyd’s assertion that God lacks knowledge of some of the future.

Defining the Open View

Evangelicals like Dr. Boyd calling themselves “free will theists” or their view “the open view of God” assert that God does not know all of the future. Typically, the specific aspect of the future supposedly unknown by God is the future choices of free moral agents. This was the claim being made in Edwards’ day, and was commonly called Socinianism. Dr. Boyd makes this same claim. He asserts that a limitation on God’s foreknowledge does not detract from God’s omniscience, since God knows everything that is “knowable.” However, the future choices of free moral agents are by nature not knowable. He writes: “So God can’t foreknow the good or bad decisions of the people He creates until He creates these people and they, in turn, create their decisions.” This is in keeping with the claims of others who have denied God’s exhaustive foreknowledge.

In his latest book, Dr. Boyd states his position this way: “God determines whatever he sees fit and leaves as much of the future open to possibilities as he sees fit. The God of the possible creates the ‘Choose Your Own Adventure’ structure of world history and of our lives within which the possibilities of human free choice are actualized.” He states this position again in another section of his book: “God predestines and foreknows as settled whatever he sees fit to predestine and foreknow as settled.” In this view, some of the future is predetermined and some of it is not. I, for one, cannot understand how God can decide what aspect of the future He chooses to foreknow unless the future is already laid open before His eyes (in which case all is foreknown). I will leave that conundrum for others to grapple with. According to the “open” view, future choices of free moral agents are in the category of being unknowable to God and not determined by God. The rest of this article will examine some of the texts that are used to support the open view of God.

When God Expresses Regret

In order for us to determine whether or not God’s regret is due to a lack of knowledge about the future we shall look at two passages where He does express regret. The first is Genesis 6:6: “And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.” This grief was due to mankind’s continual wickedness (Genesis 6:5). Dr. Boyd sees this as evidence that God did not foreknow this situation: “Doesn’t the fact that God regretted the way things turned out — to the point of starting over — suggest that is wasn’t a foregone conclusion at the time God created human beings that they would fall into this state of wickedness?”

There are two important points to be discussed here: 1) Did God foreknow the wickedness and rebellion of mankind, and 2) Does this language of regret require that God could not have foreknown? On the first point, we need only refer to the fact that the Scriptures teach a plan of salvation that is eternal as proof that God foreknew human rebellion. For example: “And all who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain” (Revelation 13:8). Whether the phrase “from the foundation of the world” modifies the names written in the book or the lamb who was slain (see KJV), the passage still shows that the need for a savior was foreknown before mankind rebelled. Other passages express the same thought (1Peter 1:20; Hebrews: 4:3; et. al.). Concerning the Genesis 6:6 passage, it could be argued that God did not know things would get as bad as they did (which is doubtful) but it cannot be said that God did not know the human race would rebel and fall into sin.

On the second point, the language used in Genesis 6:6 is completely understandable without assuming a lack of foreknowledge on God’s part. Allow me to make an analogy. Suppose a man has a teenage son who is prone to wildness and indiscretion. This son desires a sports car. The father warns him saying, “Son, you are only going to get into trouble; you will get tickets and will probably wreck the car, injure yourself and injure others.” Yet the son persists and is unrelenting in his demands for the car. Finally the son has nagged his dad for the car for an entire year and has reached age 17. The father, against his better judgment yet feeling the son needs to learn his own lessons in life, buys the car for him. Sure enough, the young man gets tickets and eventually gets into a serious accident with multiple injuries. The father, visiting him in the hospital says, “Son, I regret that I bought you that car.”

In this case, the father’s regret does not indicate a lack of foreknowledge about what would happen. He was quite sure of what would happen but still had reasons for buying the car for his son. In God’s case the difference is that His foreknowledge is absolute, while that of the earthly father is merely a very strong assumption based on present knowledge. However, the point of the analogy is that expressions of regret, as human languages are commonly used, do not always imply a lack of foreknowledge. We regret many things that are very much predictable or even inevitable. So why do we assume God cannot regret what He foreknows will happen? Such an assumption is contrary to Biblical teaching: “And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind” (1Samuel 15:29). It is also contrary to the ordinary use of language.

Greg Boyd’s next example is that of Saul’s kingship. Ironically, the verses he cites come from the same chapter (1Samuel 15) that teaches God does not change His mind. The key text is 1Samuel 15:11: “I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following Me, and has not carried out My commands.” Dr. Boyd explains why he thinks this is important:

“Could God genuinely confess, ‘I regret that I made Saul king’ if he could in the same breath also proclaim, ‘I was certain of what Saul would do when I made him king’? I do not see how.” There is even stronger evidence in this case that God’s regret does not imply a lack of foreknowledge. God predicted Saul’s wickedness before he became king!

In 1Samuel 8, the people of Israel, having bad motives, demanded a king. God told Samuel they had rejected God in their demand for a king (1Samuel 8:7). God told Samuel this: “Now then, listen to their voice; however, you shall solemnly warn them and tell them of the procedure of the king who will reign over them” (1Samuel 8:9). Then verses 11-17 predict the king’s abusive behavior. That the king would be so evil that the people would want to be rid of him is also predicted: “Then you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the Lord will not answer you in that day” (1Samuel 8:18). God knew what Saul would be like yet gave him to Israel partially in order to bring judgment upon her for rejecting God.

Since the Bible predicts Saul’s evil, self-centered ways, this example actually serves as a clarification for other passages where God expresses regret. God knew that the king Israel received would be evil, yet He regretted making Saul king. How does this make sense? The apparent problem is resolved with the simple fact that God had a greater purpose in mind in the larger scheme of things. Yet God’s holy nature is such that He cannot but abhor evil. Therefore God expresses genuine regret. God knew what Saul would do, could have stopped it, but chose not to in order to accomplish a greater good in the long term. Part of this greater good was the calling and anointing of David in the midst of Saul’s wicked reign. A Messianic plan existed from all eternity, and it included a king that would arise from Israel. Yet on the scene of history it was Israel’s rebellion that first brought about a monarchy.

This is a key point, so further clarification is in order. Consider the outcome of God’s Messianic purposes: “[T]his Man, delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. And God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power.” (Acts 2:23,24). The act of rejecting and killing Messiah was morally reprehensible and thus repugnant to God’s holy nature. Yet it happened by God’s plan and foreknowledge. So it must be possible for God to will in one sense (His eternal purposes) what is against His will in another. God grieves over the moral wickedness that led to the crucifixion of Messiah, yet He willed it from all eternity.

This explanation of God’s expressions of regret is far more Biblical. It takes into account the whole counsel of God rather than assume that God cannot have foreknown whatever He regrets. This is just as it was with Saul — God knew Saul would do what was against His moral will (compare Deuteronomy 17:14-17 and 1Samuel 8:13-18), yet He had righteous and holy purposes for giving Saul to Israel as her first king, nevertheless. Even the fact that the people would demand a king was predicted in Deuteronomy 17:14, which was a free moral choice foreknown by God.

Conclusion to Part 1

The evidence that we have examined thus far indicates that Open Theism is a philosophical position that appeals to some people for various reasons, but it is a position not derived from careful Biblical exegesis. What we know certainly about God is known because God chose to reveal it to use through inerrant Scripture. In part two of this series we shall continue to examine various passages cited by Dr. Boyd in support of Open Theism and see if any of them lead to the conclusion that God lacks comprehensive knowledge of the future. If they do not, then we must reject Open Theism and build our theology on what the Bible does tell us about God.

End of post.

John MacArthur - The Sinner Neither Able Nor Willing: The Doctrine of Absolute Inability

I would encourage you to take the time and listen to THIS John MacArthur Sermon. It is excellent!

End of post.

John Piper - What Is The Christian Gospel?

The gospel is not just a sequence of steps (say, the "Four Laws"of Campus Crusade or the "Six Biblical Truths" of Quest for Joy ).Those are essential. But what makes the gospel "good news" is that it connects a person with the "unsearchable riches of Christ."

There is nothing in itself that makes "forgiveness of sins" good news. Whether being forgiven is good news depends on what it leads to. You could walk out of a courtroom innocent of a crime and get killed on the street. Forgiveness may or may not lead to joy. Even escaping hell is not in itself the good news we long for - not if we find heaven to be massively boring.

Nor is justification in itself good news. Where does it lead? That is the question. Whether justification will be good news, depends on the award we receive because of our imputedrighteousness. What do we receive because we are counted righteous in Christ? The answer is fellowship with Jesus.

Forgiveness of sins and justification are good news because they remove obstacles to the only lasting, all-satisfying source of joy: Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is not merely the means of our rescue from damnation; he is the goal of our salvation. If he is not satisfying to be with, there is no salvation. He is not merely the rope that pulls us from the threatening waves; he is the solid beach under our feet, and the air in our lungs, and the beat of our heart, and the warm sun on our skin, and the song in our ears, and the arms of our beloved.

This is why the New Testament often defines the gospel as, simply, Christ. The gospel is the "gospel of Christ" (Romans 15:19;1 Corinthians 9:12; 2 Corinthians 2:12; 9:13; 10:14; Galatians 1:7;Philippians 1:27; etc.). Or, more specifically, the gospel is "the gospel of the glory of Christ." (2 Corinthians 4:4). And even more wonderfully, perhaps, Paul says that the preaching of the gospel isthe preaching of "the unsearchable riches of Christ" (Ephesians3:8).

Therefore to believe the gospel is not only to accept the awesome truths that 1) God is holy, 2) we are hopeless sinners, 3)Christ died and rose again for sinners, and 4) this great salvation is enjoyed by faith in Christ-but believing the gospel is also to treasure Jesus Christ as your unsearchable riches. What makes thegospel Gospel is that it brings a person into the everlasting and ever-increasing joy of Jesus Christ.

The words Jesus will speak when we come to heaven are: "Enter into the joy of your Master" (Matthew 25:21). The prayer he prayedf or us ended on this note: "Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory"(John 17:24). The glory he wants us to see is the "unsearchable riches of Christ." It is "the immeasurable riches of [God's] grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus" (Ephesians 2:7).

The superlatives "unsearchable" and "immeasurable" mean that there will be no end to our discovery and enjoyment. There will be no boredom. Every day will bring forth new and stunning things about Christ which will cause yesterday's wonder to be seen in newlight, so that not only will there be new sights of glory everyday, but the accumulated glory will become more glorious with every new revelation.

The gospel is the good news that the everlasting and ever-increasing joy of the never-boring, ever-satisfying Christ is ours freely and eternally by faith in the sin-forgiving death and hope-giving resurrection of Jesus Christ.

May God give you "strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge" (Ephesians3:18-19).

Savoring and waiting,
Pastor John

End of post.

John Piper - Heaven Without Jesus

Paul Washer - The Holiness of God

John MacArthur - Does God So Love the World?

Love is the best known but least understood of all God's attributes. Almost everyone who believes in God these days sees Him as a God of love. I have even met agnostics who are quite certain that if God exists, He must be benevolent, compassionate, and loving.

All those things are infinitely true about God, of course, but not in the way most people think. Because of the influence of modern liberal theology, many suppose that God's love and goodness ultimately nullify His righteousness, justice, and holy wrath. They envision God as a benign heavenly grandfather-tolerant, affable, lenient, permissive, devoid of any real displeasure over sin, who without consideration of His holiness will benignly pass over sin and accept people as they are.

Liberal thinking about God's love also permeates much of evangelicalism today. We have lost the reality of God's wrath. We have disregarded His hatred for sin. The God most evangelicals now describe is all-loving and not at all angry. We have forgotten that "It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (Hebrews 10:31). We do not believe in that kind of God anymore.

We must recapture some of the holy terror that comes with a right understanding of God's righteous anger. We need to remember that God's wrath does burn against impenitent sinners (Psalm 38:1-3). That reality is the very thing that makes His love so amazing. Only those who see themselves as sinners in the hands of an angry God can fully appreciate the magnitude and wonder of His love.

In that regard, our generation is surely at a greater disadvantage than any previous age. We have been force-fed the doctrines of self-esteem for so long that most people don't really view themselves as sinners worthy of divine wrath. On top of that, religious liberalism, humanism, evangelical compromise, and ignorance of the Scriptures have all worked against a right understanding of who God is. Ironically, in an age that conceives of God as wholly loving, altogether devoid of wrath, few people really understand what God's love is all about.

How we address the misconception of the present age is crucial. We must not respond to an overemphasis on divine love by denying that God is love. Our generation's imbalanced view of God cannot be corrected by an equal imbalance in the opposite direction, a very real danger in some circles. I'm deeply concerned about a growing trend I've noticed-particularly among people committed to the biblical truth of God's sovereignty and divine election. Some of them flatly deny that God in any sense loves those whom He has not chosen for salvation.

I am troubled by the tendency of some-often young people newly infatuated with Reformed doctrine-who insist that God cannot possibly love those who never repent and believe. I encounter that view, it seems, with increasing frequency.

The argument inevitably goes like this: Psalm 7:11 tells us "God is angry with the wicked every day." It seems reasonable to assume that if God loved everyone, He would have chosen everyone unto salvation. Therefore, God does not love the non-elect. Those who hold this view often go to great lengths to argue that John 3:16 cannot really mean God loves the whole world.

Perhaps the best-known argument for this view is found the unabridged edition of an otherwise excellent book, The Sovereignty of God, by A. W. Pink. Pink wrote, "God loves whom He chooses. He does not love everybody." [1] He further argued that the word world in John 3:16 ("For God so loved the world…") "refers to the world of believers (God's elect), in contradistinction from 'the world of the ungodly.'"[2]

Pink was attempting to make the crucial point that God is sovereign in the exercise of His love. The gist of his argument is certainly valid: It is folly to think that God loves all alike, or that He is compelled by some rule of fairness to love everyone equally. Scripture teaches us that God loves because He chooses to love (Deuteronomy 7:6-7), because He is loving (God is love, 1 John 4:8), not because He is under some obligation to love everyone the same.

Nothing but God's own sovereign good pleasure compels Him to love sinners. Nothing but His own sovereign will governs His love. That has to be true, since there is certainly nothing in any sinner worthy of even the smallest degree of divine love.

Unfortunately, Pink took the corollary too far. The fact that some sinners are not elected to salvation is no proof that God's attitude toward them is utterly devoid of sincere love. We know from Scripture that God is compassionate, kind, generous, and good even to the most stubborn sinners. Who can deny that those mercies flow out of God's boundless love? It is evident that they are showered even on unrepentant sinners.

We must understand that it is God's very nature to love. The reason our Lord commanded us to love our enemies is "in order that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous" (Matthew 5:45). Jesus clearly characterized His Father as One who loves even those who purposefully set themselves at enmity against Him.

At this point, however, an important distinction must be made: God loves believers with a particular love. God's love for the elect is an infinite, eternal, saving love. We know from Scripture that this great love was the very cause of our election (Ephesians 2:4). Such love clearly is not directed toward all of mankind indiscriminately, but is bestowed uniquely and individually on those whom God chose in eternity past.

But from that, it does not follow that God's attitude toward those He did not elect must be unmitigated hatred. Surely His pleading with the lost, His offers of mercy to the reprobate, and the call of the gospel to all who hear are all sincere expressions of the heart of a loving God. Remember, He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but tenderly calls sinners to turn from their evil ways and live.

Reformed theology has historically been the branch of evangelicalism most strongly committed to the sovereignty of God. At the same time, the mainstream of Reformed theologians have always affirmed the love of God for all sinners. John Calvin himself wrote regarding John 3:16, "[Two] points are distinctly stated to us: namely, that faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish." [3]

Calvin continues to explain the biblical balance that both the gospel invitation and "the world" that God loves are by no means limited to the elect alone. He also recognized that God's electing, saving love is uniquely bestowed on His chosen ones.

Those same truths, reflecting a biblical balance, have been vigorously defended by a host of Reformed stalwarts, including Thomas Boston, John Brown, Andrew Fuller, W. G. T. Shedd, R. L. Dabney, B. B. Warfield, John Murray, R. B. Kuiper, and many others. In no sense does belief in divine sovereignty rule out the love of God for all humanity.

We are seeing today, in some circles, an almost unprecedented interest in the doctrines of the Reformation and the Puritan eras. I'm very encouraged by that in most respects. A return to those historic truths is, I'm convinced, absolutely necessary if the church is to survive. Yet there is a danger when overzealous souls misuse a doctrine like divine sovereignty to deny God's sincere offer of mercy to all sinners.

We must maintain a carefully balanced perspective as we pursue our study of God's love. God's love cannot be isolated from His wrath and vice versa. Nor are His love and wrath in opposition to each other like some mystical yin-yang principle. Both attributes are constant, perfect, without ebb or flow. His wrath coexists with His love; therefore, the two never contradict. Such are the perfections of God that we can never begin to comprehend these things. Above all, we must not set them against one another, as if there were somehow a discrepancy in God.

Both God's wrath and His love work to the same ultimate end-His glory. God is glorified in the condemnation of the wicked; He is glorified in every expression of love for all people without exception; and He is glorified in the particular love He manifests in saving His people.

Expressions of wrath and expressions of love-all are necessary to display God's full glory. We must never ignore any aspect of His character, nor magnify one to the exclusion of another. When we commit those errors, we throw off the biblical balance, distort the true nature of God, and diminish His real glory.

Does God so love the world? Emphatically-yes! Proclaim that truth far and wide, and do so against the backdrop of God's perfect wrath that awaits everyone who does not repent and turn to Christ.

Does the love of God differ in the breadth and depth and manner of its expression? Yes it does. Praise Him for the many manifestations of His love, especially toward the non-elect, and rejoice in the particular manifestation of His saving love for you who believe. God has chosen to display in you the glory of His redeeming grace.

End of post.

Are We Like Judas?

Have you noticed that we rarely hear examples of daily sin from the pulpit anymore? Is it any wonder we have trouble recognizing our total depravity? This piece was a sobering wake up call for me. I pray it is for you, too.

The sin in our lives is the kiss of death.

Then one of the twelve, whose name was Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests and said, "What will you give me if I deliver him over to you?" And they paid him thirty pieces of silver. And from that moment he sought an opportunity to betray him. - Matthew 26: 14-16

It’s important to note that Judas did not publicly reject Jesus or even quietly resign his position as a disciple before opposing him. Instead he deceitfully USED his position as a cowardly cover for his wickedness. In other words, Judas betrayed Jesus while pretending to be His friend and ally.

In light of Pontius Pilate’s own declaration of Jesus' innocence and the agonizing crucifixion that followed, it’s very easy for us to sit back on our “blessed assurance” some two thousand years later and look repugnantly at a man like Judas as if we were somehow more honorable. But I would suggest to you that many of us who claim to be Disciples of Christ betray Him daily with a kiss.

Every time we seek wealth, riches and glory in the name of Christ, we betray Him with a kiss. Every time we endeavor to make a name for ourselves by using His, we betray Him with a kiss. Every time we seek, encourage and accept the praise and applause of others for what God has done through us, ESPECIALLY in a worship service, we betray Him with a kiss. Every time we exchange awards and accolades among ourselves for our “reasonable service” to God, we betray Him with a kiss.

Every time we, as believers, take advantage of another emotionally, psychologically, spiritually, sexually, financially or politically, at home, at church, at work or on the street, we betray Him with a kiss. Every time we use our talents, our gifts, our testimony, our career, our ministry, our credentials, our reputation, our church, our resources or our popularity to bring attention and recognition to ourselves instead of God, we betray Him with a kiss.

Every time we sit silent as a preacher, pastor, teacher, deacon, elder or lay leader deceives another with what we know to be false and unscriptural in the interest of peace and unity, we betray Him with a kiss. Every time we fill the ears of “seekers” with humorous anecdotes, seductive flattery, humanist psychology and 'creeker-speak' rather than risk offending them with the whole council of God, we betray Him with a kiss.

Every time we keep the gospel to ourselves for the sake of career, convenience, compromise, compatibility, camaraderie or political correctness, we betray Him with a kiss. Even one that does nothing worse than give lip service to God on Sunday morning betrays Him with a kiss.

I guess we’re not so different from Judas after all, are we?

We would do well to remember just how much we have in common with him as we stroll into church this Sunday. Let’s not, as my pastor so aptly put a few weeks ago, “Do not confuse God’s approval with God’s mercy”. It could be the kiss of death.

I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. - Romans 12:1

HT: coffeetrader-news&views

End of post.