Are You Seeker-Sensitive?

Some hard-line conservative preachers don't want the churches to be seeker-sensitive. But it is to the church that the keys have been given, and the door has been opened. The church is, of course, all believers; but when they gather together they have special anointing and Spirit-power. It should be so Spirit-led that a nonbeliever could come into the service and proclaim, "O my! The Lord is present here!" We need to knock some people out of their comfort zones with lightning bolts; prophetic utterances always make some people uncomfortable--we don't want ear-tickling preachers, who only say what people want to hear, and stay away from controversy. (To avoid controversy, is to avoid Christ Himself [Read John Stott's book, Christ, the Controversialist]).

Many preachers are against pragmatic services (doing what is expedient to meet their needs--if it works it's true!) and tend to just view what they see as biblical means to the end as ordained of God (as diehard traditionalists), and God will only bless that. By pragmatic, I don't mean that the end justifies the means, or that it is just practical, or that one doesn't look at the principles (are they really biblical or tradition?) involved, but the result--pragmatics is much more common in politics--and results matter. (Billy Graham calls adjusting our outreach to the seekers as "contextualization.") I have heard it said by missiologists that the best theories are the ones that work.

What I'm saying, is that something is not working in the American paradigm of singing, liturgy, sermon, prayer, communion, et cetera-which is the European paradigm transplanted here. We need to be more inclusive and not so exclusive, like that we are the only church in town and we are right and the others are wrong. This Bible-club mentality is easily spotted: No one church has a corner on the market of truth! However, Chuck Swindoll says to not drink of just one fountain, or you will lose your discernment, so don't give the impression of being an exclusive club or "cult."

If they like us, they will like Jesus--we are the mirrors of God's glory, and they either see Jesus in us or they don't--people aren't that blind. "That they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in Heaven." I'm not saying we need to open a coffee shop in every church to be more social, or to have plays or concerts or testimonies, or special speakers to attract a crowd. What I am saying is what Paul said in 1 Cor. 9:22, "I have become all things to all people...."

Everyone can reach someone and if you are in your right evangelical outreach, God will bless your witness. Just let the spiritual gifts be manifested, and let people discover their place and God-given talents and gifts. There should be a place for everyone to serve and/or grow. We need to be a little more utilitarian, which means doing what is useful--not the greatest good for the greatest number, what some think and give it a bad reputation.

A person should be able to come to a church with the hope of getting saved if nothing else; and the door should be open. The primary foci are to edify the body and to worship the Lord, but we can't forget those who are thirsty and are coming to the fountain for a drink. Even though the mission field is primarily in the highways and byways of our towns and in our homes and workplaces, the opportunity is wide-open at the church and no one should ever leave, without having had that chance at salvation. Rom. 10:17 says, "Faith comes by hearing and by hearing of the Word."

So, we cannot abandon that format nor de-emphasize it. Paul urged Timothy to do the work of an evangelist! We should all strive to be churches like Philadelphia, which wasn't reprimanded for anything but had an open door. (To be just content to be doctrinally sound at the expense of love or life is not good. We don't want to be like the church of Sardis that had a reputation that is was alive, but it was dead.

The guest should say, "I was glad when they said unto me, 'Let us go into the House of the Lord!'" (Ps. 122:1). "A day in your courts is better than a thousand elsewhere" (Ps.84:10). Remember, though, that a church service is not a performance or a show or a place to get entertained, but a meeting of the body of Christ. But the person who says he didn't get anything out of the worship service went for the wrong reason. The right attitude is Ps. 84:2 which says, "I longed and even yearned for the courts of the Lord."

We should be seeker-sensitive even when taking offering (which is a part of the worship) by announcing that visitors shouldn't feel obliged to give, that they are our guests. And Jesus said His house would be a house of prayer, and prayer should be emphasized even if the guest feels uncomfortable--there are things we don't compromise on. Remember Augustine said, "In essentials [nonnegotiables] unity, in nonessentials liberty, in all things charity."   Soli Deo Gloria!

Who Indwells The Christian?

Most Christians will testify that the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, and hence the third person of the triune God does indeed indwell us. But do you realize that Christ himself has taken up residence if indeed you are born again? Rev. 3:20 which pictures Christ knocking at the door of our heart is a case in point where Jesus seeks to live in our heart and not just in our head as head-knowledge. Paul says in Gal. 2:20, "I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me...." We should come to the realization that not only is Christ God Almighty but that He takes up residence within us.

You may say that the word for "in" is to be used figuratively and not literally (Scripture warns against quarreling about words in 1 Tim. 6:4 and 2 Tim. 2:14), but Scripture after Scripture verifies this doctrine, and the clarity of Scripture forces us to take the obvious meaning, rather than argue over the meaning of words, "which only ruins the hearers." Col. 1:27 says that the mystery is "Christ in you, the hope of glory." Col. 3:11 says, "...but Christ is all and in all." Rom. 8:10 says, "But if Christ is in you...." Eph. 3:17 says, "So that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith." Gal. 4:19 says, "My dear children, for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you...." This concept is not taught from this vantage point, simply because most Christians never actualize the role of Christ in their lives. When others see Christ in you, you will know what I mean.

The union with Christ is called the mystical union, or the unio mystica in Latin. If you want to believe that this is only in theory or figurative, I won't call you a heretic; I'll just think that you don't quite get it--Jesus wants to be real to you! In a sense you are denying the Trinity unwittingly, because Jesus, being God, is omnipresent and by definition, there is no conflict with Him living in our hearts (Eph. 3:17 says, "that He may dwell in our hearts by faith")--or do you deny that possibility, thinking that Christ is limited to a physical body in Heaven?

Though Christ became a man He is still, and always was and will be God. (The finite cannot contain the infinite.) "Jesus Christ, the same, yesterday, today and forever." During his earthly humiliation He merely gave up the privileges of Deity and His independent usage of His attributes; He never gave up any of His divine attributes--He is no less God than the Father or the Holy Spirit. And so, Jesus is physically in Heaven seated at the right hand of the Majesty on High, but in spirit, He is omnipresent--just like the Father. Jesus is here in a special way when two or more gather in His name or when we share the Lord's Table as He promised--this is another proof of His omnipresence (N.B. though Christ is in a body, He is not limited by it in His Deity).

The Monophysite heresy said that Christ was either a humanized god or a deified man, but not perfect man--perfect God or the infinite God-Man, as is taught in Scripture. The Chalcedonian definition of Christ was that He had two natures in one person which was neither mixed, confused, separated, or divided. He is vere homo, vere Deus or truly man, truly God, joined together in a hypostatic union, beyond our comprehension (referred to as the unio mysticall).  'We are not to confuse the nature nor divide the person!  

Martin Luther was attacked for his belief of what became known as "ubiquity." His view was that Christ was physically present in the communion elements, which lead to the doctrines of transubstantiation and consubstantiation. These were wrong views of His omnipresence and I will not fault Luther for not being right on everything--he was human.

Let's not forget the Father, who also takes up residence spiritually. Eph. 4:6 says, "one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." Yes, the entire Godhead indwells the believer! (1 John 4:15 says, "Whosoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.) A pertinent exhortation is John 15:5 as follows: "Abide in Me and I in you...."This doctrine is the test that Paul used in 2 Cor. 13:5 which says, "Examine yourselves, whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves.    Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you? Unless indeed you fail the test."  We are also exhorted to test ourselves at the Lord's Supper in 1 Cor. 11:28.

In summary, we should be as confident as Martin Luther that Christ lives in us. Billy Graham tells of how Martin Luther overcame the devil: "When the devil comes to the door, Jesus answers it, and when he asks for me, Jesus says, 'Martin doesn't live here anymore--I do!'"   Soli Deo Gloria!

Scientific Creationism?

It is impossible to have a science of creation because no scientist was there to observe the event that only God and the sons of God saw. "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?" An event must also be repeatable to be valid scientifically. The only true knowledge we have on creation is the Bible or from theology, which we believe is a divine revelation--another accurate way to truth. When scientists claim they know how the earth was formed, it is only conjecture and induction and certainly not infallible. They hypothesize and theorize, but cannot know for absolute certain. "By faith, we understand that the universe was created...."

Now there are some Christians who don't believe in a literal 24-hour day in the Genesis 1 account. The sun wasn't created until the 4th day so it might be postulated that a day could be any length of time--like when we say, "Let's call it a day!" There is also the gap theory that says there is a pause between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2. Grammatically this could be interpreted as a title and then an explanation of the opening remark. The Bible doesn't intend to tell how long it took to create the earth, only that God created it.

Now, as far as man being created on the sixth day, it looks like Eve was also created on the 6th day--and I thought Adam had to name all the animals and get time to get lonely first before he met his match. Another discrepancy is that when you take everything literally, there is no time for the angelic rebellion. Were there angels before there was heaven? By the time of the temptation in the garden of Eden, there was already evil present in the cosmos.

The entire six days is looked on like one day later in Genesis ("On the day that I created...") As you may know, "day" in the Bible doesn't always refer to a 24 hour period, but may even be a thousand years, as in the "day of the Lord."

In summary: We have to be tolerant of Christians who believe scientific findings that don't directly contradict the Bible, e.g., evolution. The Bible is not a scientific textbook, but where it does say something scientific, it is inerrant. Keeping the main thing the main thing, we should be glad that one believes God did create the cosmos and not quibble over words or doctrines that have no relation to the Christian life, and are therefore considered "minor" doctrines.   Soli Deo Gloria!

Who Chose Whom?

The question is whether we chose Christ first before God chose us, or that God chose us because He saw that we would choose us (called the prescient view); the former being that we become the elect when we get saved, instead of being born elect, and the latter that God merely saw something meritorious in us that prompted election (which would be the beginning of salvation by works). The election is unconditional, meaning that there was nothing in us that God saw to make Him elect us. The answer is that God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world and that we were elect and predestined from our conception to be saved. "For the elect obtained unto it, and the rest were hardened...." Christ said, "You did not choose Me, but I chose you... [John 15:16]."

 Fact is, we never would've chosen Christ if He hadn't intervened and poured out His grace on us to make us willing (yes, God can make us willing to do His will--see Psa. 110:3 and Phil. 2:13). The miracle is not that all don't get saved, but that anyone gets saved--if God would've chosen to save only one He would've been justified.

Jesus said in John 15:5 that without Him we can do nothing. That means that we couldn't even choose Christ apart from grace. The doctrine of total depravity or total inability attests to this fact--all of our nature is infected and depraved with sin, and we are as bad off as we can be. God gives us all a choice, but that does not mean we can choose without grace. Pelagius, the heretic, argued that God can only hold us responsible for what we can do, and this is what people are saying when they say that if the non-elect can't choose, that they have an excuse (that they were on the wrong list). The Word says in Rom. 1:20, "...They are without excuse." The blame is theirs, not God's. Romans 9:20 says, "O man, who are you to reply against God...?" God is no man's debtor, says Luther; and He didn't have to save anyone, just as He did not spare the angels who sinned. "...Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?" (Gen. 18:25).

Some say that election makes God look like the worst of despots--meaning the condemned never had a chance. John 5:40 says that "you were not willing." Do you remember the old poem Invictus by William Ernest Henley? "I am the captain of my soul, I am the master of my fate." Well, sorry to say that God is the master of your destiny and the conqueror of your soul if you are saved." God never gives up His sovereignty in order to get someone saved. "Many are called, but few are chosen." Acts 13:48 says, "For as many as were ordained to eternal life believed."

One of the slogans of the Reformation was soli Deo Gloria, which means "to God alone be the glory." If we choose Christ on our own ability, apart from God's help, then we get some of the glory--but God wants all the glory. It all depends on whether you see salvation as a human achievement or divine accomplishment.

In summary, we owe our faith to our election, not our election to our faith.

SOLI DEO GLORIA!

Seeking The Baptism?

NB:  Nowhere in Scripture are we admonished to "seek the baptism!"  What we ought to do is to "seek the Lord while He may be found."

Are we to seek to be baptized in the Holy Spirit? I'm sure you have come across some preacher who has challenged you about this on TV or radio but has you ever wondered if it is doctrinally accurate?

First of all, Jesus is the one who baptizes in the Holy Spirit. Secondly, baptism with the Holy Spirit and baptism in the Holy Spirit is also the same thing. Thirdly, the Holy Spirit does not baptize, as is commonly claimed from a mistranslation of 1 Cor. 12:13 which says, "by one Spirit you were all baptized." Actually, the Greek says, "in one Spirit...we were all baptized." The reason the translators put in "by" instead of "in" or "with" is because there would be two "ins" in one sentence, making for confusion.

Some Pentecostals believe that there is more than one baptism and especially that it is subsequent to regeneration. Eph. 4:5 says, "One Lord, one faith, one baptism." This is not referring to water baptism, as some would maintain, but to the baptism by Jesus at salvation. 2 Pet. 1:3 says that God has given us all things that pertain to life and godliness: There is nothing more to seek (except a spiritual gift, which is commanded). There is no second blessing! The point of contention here is that there are many fillings, enduements, unctions, and anointings; however, there is only one baptism. Actually, the blessing is not only manifested in tongues, but in prophecy or any spiritual gift.

The false teaching is that the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" is always testified by unknown tongues or glossolalia. They get this from experience or from taking doctrine from narratives in Acts like Cornelius or the Ephesians instead of from didactic portions that contradict their teaching. This early period was a transition period for the church and the "usual" conversion experience wasn't known yet. The principle of hermeneutics is to interpret the narrative in light of the didactic, not vice versa. We don't make our doctrines based on our experiences either, no matter how convincing--this leads to mysticism and heresy. The only sure knowledge we have is Holy Writ.

There is no 2nd-class Christian (there are some who don't know their gift, though). The Pentecostal view puts us in we/them mentality and separates believers and makes them judgmental and jealous rather than one in the Spirit. We are never to make our doctrine based upon our experiences but test our experiences by sound doctrine. Birds of a feather flock together, right? Well, that is what happens in charismatic circles where ignorance of sound doctrine often prevails and experience is key. I'm sure something happened to them if they claim a second blessing, but it is highly probable that they were having a revival or even getting saved in the first place. It has been said that revival is a baptism on a large scale; I say they are fillings or salvation on a large scale. Let us not dichotomize Christians where the Bible doesn't: baptized and non-baptized Christians. No Christian has a right to feel superior.

Finally, Pentecostals will tell you that tongues are for everyone, and will the Father give you a stone if you ask for bread? However, the Bible tells us that in 1 Cor. 12:11 that the Holy Spirit gives gifts as He wills (that is proof that the baptism in the Holy Spirit cannot be when you speak in tongues, because the Holy Spirit gives tongues and Jesus baptizes!) We are to seek the greater gifts, such as prophecy--not tongues. There is no biblical, exegetical proof that in Jude where it says praying in the Spirit means we are to pray in tongues or have a private prayer language--this is hogwash. We pray in groans too deep for words sometimes and if you want to say that is a prayer language, which only God understands, that is fine.   Soli Deo Gloria!

What Proves Our Love For God?

"For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard" (Acts 4:20). "...And they spoke the word of God with boldness" (Acts 4:31b). When we have the filling of the Holy Spirit (God grants anointing at His discretion to do His will) we will be led to share the good news of Christ, and will have what's called the "can't help-its." We speak of what is in our heart and our tongue, which cannot be controlled, betrays us. 2 Cor. 4:13 says, "And since we have the same spirit of faith, according to what is written, 'I believed and therefore I spoke,' we also believed and therefore speak." Philemon 6 is a blessing on us to have the ability to share the gospel.  (See also Psalm 51:15:  "O LORD, open thou mine lips....")   The door of utterance must be opened, it isn't automatic--we are not to be "machine-gun" evangelists (aiming en masse and not individually targeted), but "sharp-shooters (at a specific target)." And so witnessing is a sure sign of love for God; it is obeying the Great Commission.

Some people describe their conversion experience like "falling in love" with Jesus. This is commendable, but usually what the case is, is that this wears off, like a honeymoon in a marriage, and things become more normal. (However, it is wonderful to be around a baby Christian that has just found salvation.) When one is in love one supposedly talks about that person (but hopefully he talks to that person more). One does talk about things he is interested in or cares about--if you love sports, you will discuss it. But one can love and not talk about someone but to someone. For instance, I love my mom very much and talk to her virtually every day for lengthy discussions, but I do not go around talking "about" her. If you are married, do you want your wife talking about you or talking to you? Actually, you would rather have her submit than talk about you.

1 Sam. 15:22 says that "to obey is better than sacrifice...." Jesus also said, "If you love Me you will keep My commandments." Nowhere does it say if you love Jesus you will talk about Him (Jesus said to Peter, "Do you love Me?...Feed My sheep!)--it is implied that if you witness and share the gospel that He will come up, but you don't necessarily go on a mission to talk exclusively about Jesus, like a Jesus freak. A balanced Christian talks about many subjects, and lets God open doors and waits for His timing--earning the right to be heard, not forcing oneself on someone.

I spent several minutes today talking about King David; however, I cannot say that I love him--I love the Lord. (Just talking about something doesn't mean you love the subject--you may just like to talk, and this even applies to discuss theological topics.) "Falling in love with the Lord" is not biblical terminology. Jesus asked Peter if he loved him, to feed His sheep, not to talk about him, there is a difference.

If you fell in love is past tense, "do you love" is present tense. The point is, is that we are not to live in the past on some experience but to evaluate the here and now. One could fall in love, and also out of love to extend the analogy. The unbeliever is a "son of disobedience," not a silent person. Talk can be cheap and some people are just talkers or have the gift of gab. We are to love not in word or in a tongue, but in deed and in truth, according to 1 John 3:18. We are to be a people zealous of good works and to love the brethren and so prove our discipleship.

A relationship based upon emotion is shallow, indeed; God wants saving faith that results in true heartfelt love, not emotionalism per se (faith, not emotionalism pleases God). There is a command to delight in the Lord through: "Delight yourself in the Lord, and He will give you the delights of your heart" (Ps. 37:4). This called Christian "hedonism" by John Piper; true faith always results in love for the Lord.   Soli Deo Gloria!

Faith And Preaching

"Where there is no prophetic vision, the people cast off restraint..." (Prov. 29:18).

Some of us think in our pride that we were wise enough to have faith, more so than the poor unbeliever. Some think we conjured up our faith on our own efforts. Some think we got it by osmosis or being around other Christians and it just rubbed off on us. Richard Dawkins thinks we got it like a virus become we were naive. Sigmund Freud thought all religion was a neurosis or even psychosis. The fact is, is that it came from God! "Faith comes by hearing, and by hearing, of the Word of God," according to Rom. 10:17. There must be preaching of the Word--that is God's modus operandi. We are all called to preach the Word, not just preachers.

Faith is the gift of God according to Eph. 2:8-9, and it is through grace that we believe, according to Acts 18:27, and it has been granted unto us to believe, according to Phil. 1:29, and God opens the door of our heart to pay attention and heed the gospel (Acts 16:14). No, we were no wiser than anyone else, nor educated, talented, refined, or lucky. It was God's sovereignty in choosing us in eternity past before we were born and had done anything good or evil. Jesus said, "Everyone who is of the truth listens to My voice" (John 18:37). We don't need arguments to prove God to us, because we have the witness in us, ourselves. The proof of the pudding is in the eating! We just know and that is all there is to it. It is like knowing that honey is sweet; if you don't know that I can't help you. 1 John 5:9-11 says that we don't need the witness of man, because we have the witness of God in us.

It is dangerous to believe that faith is a work--it is a work, but the work of God in us, though it is our act (God doesn't have faith). If you believe faith is a work you are being saved by works. Romanists believe faith is a "meritorious work" and this is a denial of sola gratia, one of the slogans of the Reformation (grace alone). The main cry of the Reformation was sola fide or faith alone. Not faith plus works, but faith alone saves--but a faith that is alone, not producing works of love is dead and cannot save. "We are saved by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone," they proclaimed.

Faith is not our righteousness, it is the instrumentality of our righteousness, as we take the step of faith believing in Christ. We turn away from sin toward Christ. Looking to Christ, coming to Christ, committing our lives to Christ are all the same thing. Genuine faith involves repentance as the flip side--they go hand in hand. Faith cannot be both our righteousness and the instrumentality unto righteousness. Nowhere does it say faith is our righteousness or we are saved on account of faith. We must exercise our faith in Christ. It is not faith that saves us, but faith in the object of Christ.

We need great expositors of the Word that don't go around the text, but give you the experience of the text, not just "wowing" you with their scholarship, but knowing where the parishioners are at. We need exegetes that can delve into the original Koine (common, vulgar Greek), Hebrew, or Aramaic text and see something the English conceal. We also need people that can just preach and explain the Scripture plainly for the common man. Remember the common folk heard Christ gladly. But we need preachers who aren't afraid to preach the Word, no matter what it says. The agenda should be the gospel, to the glory of God--Jesus is the Spirit of Prophecy and the scarlet thread of the Bible. The better we know Jesus, the better we know Scripture. We need modern-day prophets who don't foretell the future, but forth tell what is going on right now, not being afraid to stand alone, take an unpopular stand, or preach against sin in the congregation. When the preacher has faith, it rubs off on the hearer--we don't need another lecture, or a story-teller, or a joker, we need someone serious that knows the Bible. Most of all we need the whole counsel of God--not just their favorite passages or doctrines. Paul said that he had not failed to preach the whole counsel of God.

The Old Testament false prophets told the people what they wanted to hear.   Isa. 30:10 says that the people asked them to prophesy illusions and good things. They just thought that the true prophets were just telling bad news. Today we have many preachers who are just telling the parishioners what they want to hear--they are tickling their ears. The people itching for prosperity, wealth, health and peace of mind, mental health, among other things more than the gospel. There is only one gospel--there is no social gospel (that is a misnomer).

There is no prosperity gospel, either. Jesus never went after numbers, but quality. He never toned down his stringent requirements. The paradox is that through the gospel of salvation is free, it costs everything. You may not have to give up your life or property, but you must be willing to. Many preachers today are afraid of "killjoy" words such as "sin" or "repent" and try to stay "upbeat." We need preachers that will tell it like it is. Prosperity, popularity, fame or clout are no indication of God's blessing or of real success. Jesus says, "Woe unto you when all men speak well of you" (Luke 6:26).
Soli Deo Gloria!

Is Providence Downplayed?

I can remember reading early American literature of the Puritan era where they wrote of  Providence  (a term not found in Scripture, but biblical, nevertheless). The Federalist Papers and the Declaration of Independence mention it also. Ben Franklin said, "The longer I live the more I see that God governs in the affairs of men." Lincoln referred to Providence, and not just as rhetoric--he believed in it. Today a lot of people think this is just some town in Rhode Island.

Actually, Providence is "God's answer to happenstance," as Charles Colson puts it. When you realize there is no such thing as chance (it's merely a mathematical probability),  luck (which is dumb), fortune (it's blind), or fate (which is impersonal). (As R. C. Sproul describes it.) There's no such thing as coincidence; God governs over all things great and small. Prov. 16:33 talks about even the throw of the dice is in God's control. God is no onlooker or spectator, but is actively involved in ruling everything. According to R. C. Sproul, there isn't even one "maverick molecule" in the universe.

Naturalism says everything is ruled by independent iron-clad laws that can't be broken. The mistakes in thinking are Deism (that God doesn't interfere), Pantheism (that God is nature), and the Epicurean notion of chance and the Stoic notion of fate. Providence actually refers to God's government of the universe, concurrence (working together) of secondary and primary causes, and preservation of nature. Theologians have written volumes expounding on these aspects of Providence. The issue is God's sovereignty, plain and simple.

Arminians want to believe that God's will is not always done, and that in our "free will" we can frustrate or thwart God making things happen--that He doesn't ordain to be. Up with man and down with God, so to speak. They think that God was frustrated and had to change His plans when Satan sinned, as if that was not in God's plan. If God was unable to keep evil out of the Universe in the first place (according to Arminians), what makes them think that He can keep it out in eternity--what if one of us goes bad? You see, God could have kept Adam from sinning and also kept his will intact; however, it was in His decreed or secret will to have Adam fall and then to redeem the elect of the race.

Arminians don't understand how God can cause us to do something willingly (cf. Phil. 2:13). Indeed, He makes the unwilling willing (cf. Jer. 20:7).  , because He is the potter and we are the clay (cf. Isa. 64:8). He melts the hardest heart and makes the heart of stone into a heart of flesh (cf. Jer. 24:7). Arminians don't understand that God decreed the crucifixion down to the minutest detail and every sinful act included without interfering (i.e. using an outside force to force him to do something) with anybody's own will. Arminians don't understand that God is the causa prima or first cause and man is only the causa secunda or secondary cause.

We are moral agents who have the power of willing choice and responsibility for what we do. Jesus said, "Apart from Me you can do nothing." Acts 17:28 says, "In Him we live and move and have our being." Eph. 1:11 says, "He accomplishes all things according to the counsel of His will." "I will accomplish all My good pleasure," He says in Isa. 46:`10. God does as He pleases in heaven and on earth (Ps. 135:6); that's one of the perks of being God. The poem, Invictus, by William Ernest Henley, talks about man being the "captain" of his fate. ("I know, O LORD, that the way of man is not in himself, that it is not in man who walks to direct his steps", says Jer. 10:23; cf. Prov. 20:24; 16:9.) But actually, Christ is the captain of our destiny.

The Arminian doesn't see how God can ordain us to do evil without being stained by it--he limits God's omnipotence. God doesn't do evil, but uses evil (yes, he uses Satan as His servant) for His glory and purpose. Ps. 76:10 says, "He makes the wrath of men to praise Him...." Joseph said that his brothers meant him harm, but God meant it for good (Gen. 50:20; 45:5).

If God can ordain the crucifixion, it stands to reason that He can ordain all events. If God ordained one sin,  He can't be holy according to their way of thinking (Acts 2:23; 4:28 refer to the crucifixion). No one can thwart Him or say to Him "What are you doing?" (see Job 9:12; Dan. 4:35).   "No one can resist His will" (Rom. 9:19). Either God rules or man rules, there is no middle ground or neutral position. We live in an age of luck and of denying God's ultimate control over His creation.

Jonathan Edwards said that he likes to "ascribe absolute sovereignty" to God. God is in control of the nations (Psalms 22:28). ("The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord, as rivers of water, He turns it whithersoever he will.") He sets up one and down another--all the nations are a drop in the bucket to Him. ("I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil"--Is. 45:7.)  John Wesley read the newspaper daily "to see how God is doing in the world." God doesn't have "Plan B." He knows the future because He is in control of it; not just because He has foresight or a crystal ball, as it were.   Soli Deo Gloria!

Prosperity Doctrine Caveat

Everyone is talking about the "name-it-and-claim-it" teaching or the "health-wealth-and-prosperity" doctrine. The seeker-sensitive churches are well aware that this draws a crowd. The "church of what's happening now" is telling people just what they want to hear. False prophets in the Bible did the same thing--they prophesied what the people wanted to hear; they tickled their ears. True prophets were known for making people uncomfortable. Evangelism has become a marketing scheme and a promotional effort. Charismatic and entrepreneurial preachers (who don't have any exegetical skills) are gaining a following of themselves, not the Lord. I know this from personal experience where I was a "fan" of the teacher. Jesus never made it easy to become a disciple, he never toned down is requirements and made it more palatable--he wanted self-denial and the willingness to carry a cross. Beware of "easy-believism" that doesn't require bowing to the Lordship of Christ in repentance and faith.

I'm not saying that God doesn't prosper Christians: Far from it--"God delights in the prosperity of His servant." The problem is that Satan masquerades as an angel of light and is a sheep in wolves clothing. Just being able to prophesy or preach (some are really just great speakers or storytellers or comedians) doesn't mean it has the Lord's blessing, but God can still use him for His purposes. (Some will say, "Lord, didn't we prophesy in Your name?") I am not vilifying or casting a slur on any certain preachers--whom I would rather call motivational speakers--but a word to the wise is sufficient.

Some of them are saying, "Ask not what you can do for God, but what God can do for you!" (Does that sound familiar?) People are seeking the benefits, not the Benefactor. God never said that money, fame, prosperity, or success was the reward--He is the reward. "The Lord is my portion..." (Lam. 3:24) See also Ps. 73:26. ("I am thy great and precious reward.") God looks at the motive--are you looking for money or for Him? Seek and you shall find, but you must search with all your heart (Jer. 29:13). Are we just to turn in our "spiritual lottery ticket?" Are the poor Christians in North Korean concentration camps just guilty of being Christians, or of not turning in their ticket? It is a higher calling to be a martyr than to be a millionaire, for instance. Prosperity is becoming the goal, not maturity in Christ. The mark of the believer is becoming wealthy, not the love of the brethren. (John 13:35 says they shall know the disciples by their love.)

The ironic thing is that God does prosper us--sometimes in ways we don't expect, though. Whatever you find to do, he can make you good at it. Brother Lawrence was a faithful cook in a monastery and practiced the presence of God, not wondering what blessing God had in store for him. There is saving faith and temporal faith. Temporal faith can be trusting God for a new job, for instance. Some ask, "If God is going to bless people, why not me?" The rain falls on the just and the unjust--God's principles work for the wicked as well. God's so-called common grace extends to all His creatures. The point is, what is your motive. Scripture says to "seek first the kingdom of God...." If you want God you will get success, etc. and if you want that you won't get it.

The covenant of Abraham still is in effect and we can claim many promises in the Bible. "Be it done unto you according to your faith" (Matt. 9:29). Remember: "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." And "Do not love the world, neither the things of the world...." (Ps. 73:25-26 says, "For who have I in heaven but You, and earth has nothing I desire besides You...the Lord is my portion.") A wise man has said that our wealth doesn't consist in the abundance of our possessions, but in the fewness of our wants. "Store up treasures in Heaven...." Some seem to imply that if you're not prosperous in their estimate, there must be some sin in your life or you don't have enough faith. That may be true for some, but it is not always true, so you cannot judge. Where does it say, "You shall know them by their possessions"?


The truly spiritual man is content with what he has according to Phil 4:11 and David says in Ps. 23: "The Lord is my Shepherd I shall not want...." We are to be "anxious for nothing...." Paul says that if he has food, clothing, and shelter he will be content. The order is to "Delight yourself in the Lord" or to be a Christian "hedonist" (according to John Piper), then God will give you the desires of your heart; however, those desires change as you grow in Christ. Paul said, "Whatever I had counted as profit, I now consider as loss...knowing Christ...." We don't get any promise to get all our "felt" needs, but only our legitimate needs, as God sees them. We are merely stewards of what God gives us, our time, talents, money, resources, and friends. Scripture says that the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil. Greed is one of the seven d/e/a/d/l/y sins. It is not wrong to want something good, but it must be on God's terms. He demands tithing, lordship, repentance, spiritual growth, among other things. Tithing is not a legal requirement for salvation, (note that tithing in itself to bend God's will doesn't work, for God loves a cheerful giver according to 2 Cor. 9:7), or sanctification, but a principle of God's economy to be blessed by God. The secret to being blessed is to bless. "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35). The mature Christian is so busy being a steward of what God has blessed him with and counting his blessing that he doesn't worry about being prosperous or wealthy. We should see God's blessing as having purpose of His glory. "...That you may have an abundance for every good work" (2 Cor. 9:8).


There are several promises and passages in Holy Writ that deal with this. God has a lot to say about the subject. Mal. 3:10 says that we should "test" God with tithing and He will meet all our needs and more! Ps. 84:11 says, "...no good thing does He withhold from those whose walk is blameless." 1 Tim. 6:17 says, "He has given us all things for our enjoyment." I like Jer. 29:11 the best: "For I know the plans that I have for you, says the LORD, plans to prosper you and not to harm you, to give you a hope and a future." Josh. 1:8 is classic: "Do not let this Book of the Law depart form your mouth...Then [note the condition] you will be prosperous and successful." "Delight yourself in the Lord [make God your highest joy], and He will give you the desires of your heart" (Ps. 37:5). Deut. 8:18 is widely read: "For remember the Lord your God, for it is He who gives you the ability to produce wealth." (Never give yourself credit for your prosperity , thinking it was a fluke, or just think you're lucky!) "...And I will heal My people and bring them abundant peace and security." By the way, where is your security? Matt. 6:33 says, "Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you."

Prosperity and success per se are no sign of God's favor or approval. One of the oldest questions in the Bible is, "Why do the wicked prosper?" (see Ps. 73) There is a right church for every believer, depending on where he is at spiritually. You don't have to go to a prosperity-teaching church for God to prosper you. I do not wish to judge any preacher's ministry, but only to make manifest the issues involved. "The rich and poor have this in common--God is the maker of them both." Some wise man has said that for every 100 people who can handle poverty, only one can handle prosperity. The point is this: You have to define success and prosperity, because they may vary from person to person. Success to one person may be being a good dishwasher or waiter--to another a good doctor or preacher. Success is really finding God's calling on our lives and enjoying it. Mother Teresa said, "God doesn't call us to success, but to faithfulness."

Success is up to Him, our part is faith. God tests all of us, and we must learn to rejoice in the Lord always, regardless (Hab. 3:18 says even if the trees don't blossom, we should rejoice--as long as we have the Lord we have not lost all.) The commission of the church is to spread the gospel and to edify the saints, not to make an empire. I don't believe we have to take vows of poverty like Catholic priests do, but we should be modest and not flaunt our wealth either. One of the churches in Revelation was poor and Paul collected offerings from a poor church to help out the poor brethren in Jerusalem--they gave out of their poverty--but first, they give of themselves.

Christ, though He was rich, become poor, that you through His poverty might become rich (but he isn't necessarily talking about money). I feel sorry for the rich man who is not rich towards God. "What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul?" Good advice: Earn as much as you can, save as much as you can, give away as much as you can. Hebrews 11 tells of the heroes of the faith that didn't receive the promise, but the world wasn't worthy of them, nevertheless.

True success as a ministry is not measured in clout, prosperity, wealth, politics, numbers, or any other worldly idea, but in its adherence to the truth and faithfulness. Many so-called preachers are highly popular in the eyes of the world, but Jesus says, "Woe unto you when all men speak highly of you" (Luke 6:26). Doesn't Sun Myung Moon, of the Unification Church cult have one of the largest churches in the world?--case in point! "To mock the poor is to insult God," says Proverbs and to imply that everyone should be rich is mocking in my opinion. God has chosen the poor in this life to be rich in faith.   Soli Deo Gloria!

Powers Of Discernment/Judgment

When a preacher claims to be pronouncing prophetic utterances and exercising his discernment to insult the parishioners, I think he is out of line and is really judging. Actually, it could be the preacher's fault and not the congregation's that they are not saying "amen" enough to his satisfaction and encouragement. I believe in the power of discernment to notice people's eye's rolling, people falling asleep, people chattering, or sighing, but not to the extent of telling whether a person is "in the Spirit," as John would term it. Some people are less demonstrative and more stoic or phlegmatic. I can see how a Pentecostal preacher might react to a Baptist or Presbyterian congregation.

The hireling has no care for the flock and is only concerned with making an impression; the wolf in sheep's clothing scatters the flock and does not feed it. Good storytelling, anecdotes, jokes, and witty sayings are no substitute for the exegesis of the Word. The pastor of the church is responsible for the content of what the guest preacher says and should show discernment and not just "amen" everything.

God gives us all discernment and it grows with maturity, but we do not have a license to judge (and I mean insult) our (especially another pastor's) congregation. One has to ask, "Who do you think you are?" The Scripture says in Prov. 16:21 that "the wise in heart shall be called discerning." Chuck Swindoll says that the power of discernment is the ability to read between the lines. It is the power to perceive spiritual truth, not the ability to judge or read minds.   Soli Deo Gloria!