Who is the author?

Just a bit of trivia on limited atonement.  See if you can guess who wrote the following and I will give the answer and source in a few days.  The quote comes in a discussion about faith from James 2:14-17.

"What James does mean, however, is this, no doubt, in brief and short, that while faith saves, it is faith of a certain kind.  No man is saved by persuading himself that he is saved; nobody is saved by believing Jesus Christ died for him.  That may be, or may not be, true in the sense in which he understands it.  In a certain sense Christ died for all men, but since it is evident that many men are lost, Christ's dying for all men is not at all a ground upon which any man may hope to be saved.  Christ died for some men in another sense, in a peculiar and special sense.  No man has a right to believe that Christ peculiarly and specially died for him until he has an evidence of it in casting himself upon Christ, and trusting in Jesus, and bringing forth suitable works to evince the reality of his faith.  The faith that saves is not a historical faith, not a faith that simply believes a creed and certain facts; I have no doubt devils are very orthodox; I do not know which church they belong to, though there are some in all churches, there was one in Christ's Church when he was on earth, for he said one was filled with devils; and there are some in all churches" (Underlines are added by me).

Idiot vs. Atheist

Is there a God?  It is Christmas time here in America and there are always people who seem to get offended.   There is a group trying to have a Nativity scene taken down because it is offensive.  There are debates about whether people who work at certain stores can say "Merry Christmas" or whether they must say "Happy Holidays". Christmas seems to bring out some level of tension over religious matters in our country.  The atheist are the ones that seem to be so offended by the emphasis upon religious things.

I would hope to think that the people who call themselves Atheist would consider themselves rational, logical, and a thinking people.  Surely they examine facts and data to come to conclusions about things.  They read the science books and examine the theories of evolution.  The Atheist desires to believe the cold hard facts and refuses to believe in an invisible, unprovable, irrational theory about God.  The Atheist would not call himself an 'Idiot'.

What is an idiot?  Webster says that an idiot is "showing complete lack of thought or common sense, foolish".  An idiot is a person who totally ignores the facts and is unwilling to think through the truth of the data.  An idiot just blindly goes through life and commits the most mind-boggling actions.  He is an idiot who jumps out of an airplane without a parachute.  He is an idiot who takes a nap in the middle of the train tracts.  He is an idiot who would claim that there was never a man named Jesus who walked upon planet earth.

The Atheist surely is not dumb enough to make a claim that Jesus Christ never existed.  The religious and the non-religious all recognize that there was a man name Jesus who was born in Bethlehem to Joseph and Mary.  It is impossible to prove that Jesus did not exist.  Jesus was seen by thousands of people, taught thousands of people, healed numerous people, preached public sermons, was tried in human courts, and ultimately was crucified on a hillside in front of multitudes.  The facts of Jesus' life are so enormous that only an idiot would deny the existence of Jesus Christ.  Only an idiot would deny abundantly clear evidence that is placed before him.  The existence of Jesus could be proved from secular sources, pagan sources, Christian sources, and even could be proved from people who hated him.  After all, in order to truly hate someone, they have to exist.

Instead of declaring the Atheist an Idiot I will assume that he is intelligent enough to acknowledge the existence of Jesus Christ.  Assuming that the Atheist will agree that Jesus Christ did exist upon this earth there is a large problem now presented.  Jesus Christ is called "Immanuel" (which means, God with us).  The Atheist claims that there is no God, but holds the position that Jesus Christ did exist.  That is just simply not intelligent.  If Jesus Christ exists then God exists, because Jesus Christ is God with us.  The Atheist could claim that Jesus only said He was God.  The Atheist must then deal with the historical facts that Jesus walked on water, gave sight to the blind, healed the leper, raised the dead, caused the lame to walk, fed 5,000 plus with a couple of fish and five loaves of bread, and rose from the dead on the third day.  All of these events were witnessed by numerous people, including enemies.  No mere man can accomplish these things.  It would take God in human flesh to do what Jesus did.

Call it what you will, but only an Idiot would deny the historical facts of the life of Christ.  Only a complete fool would say that there is no God (Psalm 14:1; 53:1).  It would be my prayer today that some professing Atheist would humble himself and see the beauty of Jesus Christ and repent of his sin of idolatry and believe upon Jesus Christ for his salvation.  Isaiah the prophet says, "Look to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth!  For I am God, and there is no other" (Isaiah 45:22).

Open-Air Preaching #2

When it comes to preaching outside the church there seems to be an underlying belief that it is simply not acceptable in our culture.  This implies that at one time it was acceptable, but that it is not anymore.  In biblical times they did not have a church on every corner, no public announcement system, and no TV screens.  Thus, it must have been acceptable for people to preach outdoors.  It seems that the modern mind simply imagines that everyone in biblical times was accepting of the open-air preachers.  However, a quick examination of the best sermons ever preached outdoors (Matt. 5-7; John 1:19-34; Acts 3:11-26; 10:34-43; 17:22-34; and etc.)  will reveal that they were met with division, hostility, outrage, and even with prison and death threats.  There were those who repented and believed and there were those who wanted nothing more than to kill the preacher.

The world is not a good way to judge the things of God.  When the church stays inside and does not live out their faith, the world calls the church people hypocrites.  When the church goes outside and begins to live out its faith by proclaiming its message, the world cries out that the church has gone mad and they need to go back to their church buildings.  The world cannot be made happy by people living out truth.  The world tells the preacher to stop 'yelling'.  The world claims the street preacher is to judgmental.  The world claims that you cannot push religion down peoples throats.  The world claims that the preacher is self-righteous.  The world that crams all of their philosophies down the throat of the church is now offended when preachers stand and boldly proclaim the gospel in the open-air.

The religious people of the day are not a good barometer to judge the things of God.  The religious people are worse than the world on many occasions.  The religious people always claim that there is a better way, but fail to communicate what it is.  The religious people would rather be friendly, be relational, and pass out free hot dogs and water bottles (nothing wrong with that) than to actually verbally proclaim the gospel to dying sinners.  As a good friend once said, "A hot dog without the gospel is just a hot dog".  The religious people have found that the world will love them if they give them stuff, but if they actually confront the world with truth it will cause a stir.  The religious would rather have the world to thank them for all of their humanitarian deeds than to have the world offended by the truth that they proclaim.

The question of questions that the open-air preacher hears from the world and from the religious people,  "Is what your doing effective"?  In order to answer such a question one must ask another question, "How is effective to be defined"?  The Christian defines effective in the following way.  Effective - "Doing that which is pleasing to God for the glory of God because he loves God and doing it in a way that reveals his love for humanity".  This definition takes into account the two greatest commandments.  This definition has nothing to do with numbers, popularity, or denominational approval.

Now back to our 21st century context.  Is open-air preaching still a valid ministry?  The answer is yes and the answer is no.  Genesis to Revelation will reveal that the church has been birthed, built, and battle-proven through the public proclamation of the gospel message.  The greatest revival in recorded history was in a place called Nineveh.  A street preacher named Jonah came to a pagan city and publicly proclaimed, "Yet forty days and Nineveh shall be over-thrown".  The entire city was brought to repentance through the open-air preaching of Jonah.  The king all the way to the bottom of the social standing was brought to repentance.  The whole of the book of Acts was the birth of the early church and the key catalyst was public proclamation.  So the answer is yes.  However, do not miss the word that was said earlier, "church".  It is the "church" that as birthed, built, and battle-proven.  Open-air preaching apart from the local church has little credibility before the truth of Scripture.  God's will and work is always tied to the local church.  Open-air preaching that does not move men and women to a local church, discipleship, and accountability is weak at best and destructive at worse.  So, open-air preaching that is not tied to the local church is not a valid ministry.  Certainly there may be good that can come out of preaching any time it is done, but why aim low when one can aim high.  Preach for the glory of God in the midst of a dying world and build a church that will bring Him greater glory both now and in the years to come.

Open-Air Preaching

Once upon a time there was a man walking close to his hometown.  There was a large gathering of people just up in front of him.  Perhaps the crowd was gathered for a marathon, bicycle race, football game, sales event, parade, or something else that typically draws a crowd.  As the man made his way closer to the crowd and took in the scenery of all the people socializing and demonstrating their personal agendas.  He noticed that people freely talked about all types of worldliness.  They talked about abortion, politics, material possessions, sports teams, and some even seem to have their own self-made religion.  There seems to be little to no problem with this cacophony of voices bouncing around the crowd of some 12,000 or more people.  People are wearing clothes that advertise their own bodies, make statements about their favorite team, cliche's that may not be acceptable in the public school, and some shirts that state direct opposite views to what others hold dear.  People are drinking water, coke, beer, and wine.  Some of them smoke and blow their smoke across the crowd and others spit their tobacco on the ground for people to step in.  The man notices that all of these things go on at the same time and no one seems to have a problem with it.

If one was to analyze the conversations it would be readily obvious that they are in opposition to one another.  If one was to take a pole of the crowd and vote there would be a variety of opinions upon what is acceptable to wear in public.  The man is convinced that some in the crowd would be against the public consumption of alcohol and that certain drink companies would rather the crowd would only drink what their company produces.  The man notices a woman turning her nose up in disgust when her 5 year old catches a whiff of cigarette smoke in his face.  It is obvious that some are opposed to the smoke that is floating around the crowd.  Just then the man notices that a child has dropped his pacifier on the ground and it has rolled into a fresh spot of tobacco juice.  The man takes all of these things into account and wonders why there is not more of an outrage.  Then just as all this diversity seems to be existing in unity he hears a loud voice crying out a different message.

The man walks along the valley floor just below the mountain's edge on the outskirts of the crowd and begins to push his way through the noise to find out what this loud voice is saying.  As he pushes through he sees a man elevated over the crowd speaking in an extremely loud voice in order that as many as possible can hear.  The man notices that not all are in agreement.  Some do not believe the man has any right to speak this way.  Others have great interest in the things that are being said.  The man's voice is piercing and the crowd seems to be divided now.  Just a few minutes ago it seemed that everyone was entitled to his own opinion and now it is obvious that all opinions are acceptable except for what this man believes.

It seems to be the religious people who are the most upset.  The religious people are saying that he does not have a right to speak in public like this.  He will offend the people.  This man is crazy.  He will run the people off.  He is being too condemning.  He needs to have more compassion.  He might could preach in the church like that, but it is not right to preach out in the public like this.  He is too judgmental.  He is too narrow.  He is claiming things that are very narrow and saying that those who truly believe the gospel will be recognizable.

The man is now gripped by the intensity of the message and the anger of the crowd.  He begins to look into his own heart and examine his heart before God.  No one sees what is going on with the man and the only one who really cares about the man's heart is the one who is speaking these truths so very loud over the opposition of the crowd.  The man breaks and his heart is softened and he believes for the very first time the truths that he has just heard and his life is changed forever.  He departs from the unknowing crowd and returns home to tell his family what has happened.

The man tells his family that a great crowd had gathered from Galilee, Decapolis, Jersalem, Judea, and the Jordan and that he went to see what was going on.  He tells his family that there was man there elevated over the people on the hillside with a very mighty voice proclaiming a message of truth.  He tells his family that the truth that was proclaimed by that man changed his life forever and that he will never be the same.  He tells them that the open-air preacher that day was a man named Jesus Christ and that Jesus was bold, compassionate, and zealous for the truth.

The Glorious Word of the Gospel

"I Am the good Shepherd.  The good Shepherd lays down his life for the sheep" (John 10:11; cf. 10:15)
In the Greek text the Word is υπέρ.  The word υπέρ means, "in place of", "in ones stead", or "on the behalf of".  This word is clearly brought out by the apostle Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:21 where he says, "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin υπέρ (on our behalf)".  Jesus stood in our place as suffered the wrath of God as if He had lived our life.  The other half of this glorious truth is that He not only took our place, but that he imputed His righteousness into our account.  Jesus was treated as we deserve to be treated and we are treated as if we lived His life.  The theologians call this double imputation.  It is here that believing humanity finds all its hope for this life and the life to come.

Now back to John 10:11.  This great verse tells us four important things in regards to the gospel.  First, Jesus tells us who He is.  He says, εγώ ειμί (I AM) the good shepherd.  Second, Jesus tells us what He does.  He τίθημι (to take off or give up) His life.  Psalm 49:7 says, "Truly no man can ransom another, or give to God the price of his life, for the ransom of their life is costly and can never suffice, that he should live on forever and never see the pit".  This is why we need a God/man to redeem us.  Humanity by itself would not be enough.  Third, Jesus reveals the glorious truth of the gospel when He says, "υπέρ of the sheep" (on behalf of the sheep).  Lastly, we are confronted with the doctrine of election.  The good Shepherd knows His sheep.  His sheep hear His voice and they follow Him.  Notice that the good Shepherd does not lay down his life for the goats, but only for the sheep.  He is omniscient and knows perfectly who belongs to Him.

What is a man to do with a verse like this?  He should readily and with humility confess that Jesus is the good Shepherd, that He believes Jesus has died in his place, and that he desires to follow the Shepherd for the rest of his life.  After all, that is the response of sheep.

My 'Hagarian' Concern

In Genesis 16 we have the account of Abram, Sarai, and Hagar.  The plan of God is rejected by Sarai and in her fleshly desire she seeks a way of offspring by her servant Hagar.  Sarai believed the only way to obtain offspring was for her husband Abram to go into her servant Hagar and conceive a child.  The result of this ungodly direction was extreme tension within the home.  When Hagar knew that she had conceived she looked with contempt upon Sarai.  Sarai did not take to kindly to this scenario and began to express her displeasure.  Sarai vents her anger upon Abram and Abram turns Hagar over to the will of Sarai.  Sarai explodes upon Hagar and treats her harshly.  Sarai was mean enough to cause Hagar to run away and seek to go back home.

Hagar was willing to take off across the wilderness towards Egypt to get out of the presence of Sarai.  The wilderness that she was to cross is described by Moses as, "the great and terrifying wilderness, with its fiery serpents and scorpions and thirsty ground where there was no water, who brought you water out of the flinty rock"(Deut. 8:15).  Jeremiah says, "And now what do you gain by going to Egypt to drink the waters of the Nile" (Jer. 2:18)?  It can be justly argued that Sarai's actions are wrong and deserving of justice.  A person can understand why Hagar would want out of this situation.  The tension in Abram's tent surely increased daily and there existed anamosity between the two women and surely there was some bad feelings toward Abram from each of the women.

What is the counsel of the angel of the Lord?  First, it is the angel of the Lord who found her.  Second, the angel of the Lord addresses her as servant/slave of Sarai.  Humility answers to a true identity and pride rebels against that which goes against the flesh.  Hagar could have responded by saying, "I am no servant/slave of Sarai.  That woman did me wrong and ruined my life and I will never serve her and I will never go back".  Hagar did not respond in that way, but rather by listening to the voice of the angel of the Lord.  Third, the angel rebukes her departure (cf. Ecc. 10:4).  This is an astounding scenario.  It seems that Hagar is justified in her departure, but yet the Lord rebukes her for departing.  The angle of the Lord tells her not only to 'return/repent', but also to submit.  This phrase would be the number one phrase that the flesh would hate.  Return and submit goes against the flesh and causes anger to rise to the top.

The Lord is the one who called Abram and put him in the position that he is in.  Out of all the thousands upon the earth, Abram is chosen of God and the covenant is with him.  Abram is not perfect nor is his wife, as this story and many others would confirm.  The covenant is based upon God's calling rather than the work of man.  If Hagar flees from the tent of Abram, where will she go?  What can possibly be gained by leaving the place that God has established and returning to the world which is opposed to God?  Countless are the souls of men who have run from the local church that God has established to return to the world which is opposed to God.

I have heard countless stories of why people leave the local church and they all sound like justifiable reasons to leave.  The pastor is an idiot.  The people were unfriendly.  The church was not going in the direction that I believe they ought to be going in.  The deacons run the church.  Mrs. so-and-so is in charge of everything.  The money is being used for things that I do not approve of.  The list can go on for quite some time and these statements are usually made by those who have left churches many times before.  The one common denominator is that it is never their fault.  The fault of their departing the local church is always the fault of someone else.  One wonders why people who always know a better way to do things do not start their own church where they can show everyone else how to do it.  No, most generally they either depart to never return to any local church or they join another church and stay until they find the faults with that one.

The greatest demonstration of mercy for people who run from the local church would be for them to be stopped by the living God and told to repent/return to their local church and submit.  Certainly there are valid justifiable positions for leaving a local church, but on the whole most people need to repent and submit.  Countless people will never experience genuine renewal, revival, and reconciliation until they return to their local church and submit.  Abram and Sarai made no effort to retrieve Hagar, but it was the Lord who told her to return and submit.  Oh, that the Lord of glory would press upon a souls heart today that they must "return to their local church and submit to her". 

Marriage and the Local Church

This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.

(Eph 5:32 ESV)
I recently spent some time with Jono Sims and Barry King and our conversations kept returning to the subject of the local church.  Jono preached upon this subject while we were in Illinois at the Encouraged to Endure Conference and Barry King is a man that God is using to start churches in London, England.  As I have reflected upon the sermon by Jono and the conversations that I had with both of these men I simply cannot get away from the text in Ephesians 5:32.

Paul uses the analogy of marriage from 5:22-33 to teach an unmistakable truth about the gospel and about the local church.  In brief bullet statements we should recount the marriage analogy and then apply it to the local church.  Wives, submit to your own husbands as to the Lord.  Husbands, love you wives as Christ loved the church.  After explaining how Christ loved the church the husband is told again to love his wife even as he loves his own body.  The man is to καταλείπω (separate/leave behind) his father and mother and προσκολλάω (to adhere to closely, be faithfully devoted to [BDAG]) to his wife.  This union is of such closeness that Paul would say that they are to become  μια (one/ a single person) flesh.  Lastly, Paul again says that the husband is to love his wife as himself and the wife is to respect/fear her husband. 

Now we can apply this to Christ and the local church.  A believer is to love Christ and his church.  A believer is to separate/leave his old alliances (world, devil, sin, unhealthy relationships, etc.) and he is to be devoted to Christ and His church.  As a husband loves his own wife so a believer is to love Christ and his own local church.  As a husband cares for his wife (sacrifice, sanctifying her, cleansing her) so a believer is to care for his local church.  A believer has not only come into a relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ, but he has also come into relationship with a local church.  The church has spots, blemishes, and wrinkles, but this does not justify a man to hop from church to church.  A husbands responsibility is to be the spiritual leader.  A spiritual leader does not lead a wife of perfection, but a wife who is imperfect.  It is simply a matter of reality that a marriage has difficulty and those who work through the difficulties experience the joy of a more beautiful relationship.  A husband cannot simply hop from one wife to another when things get difficult.  A true husband lays down his life on the behalf of his wife, because he loves her.  The true believer lays down his life for the local church, because he loves Christ.  As sinful as it is for a man to always be looking for a better wife, it is just as sinful for a believer to always be looking for another church. 

There are a few permissible grounds for a marriage to end.  One reason for a marriage to end is for an unbeliever to depart (1 Cor. 7:15), but in that case the person should remain single.  A second reason for a marriage to end is that one of the partners dies (1 Cor. 7:39).  Lastly, a marriage may end upon the account of sexual immorality (Matt. 19:9).  If you terminate your relationship with your local church you will need some clear grounds to do so.  First, you have have to be able to substantiate clear grounds that your church is a group of unbelievers (thus, not a church) who have gone after the world.  Second, you would have to have clear evidence that your church died (Word is not faithfully preached, ordinances are not upheld, and a fellowship of accountability is not a reality).   Lastly, you would need clear proof that your church has gotten into bed with worldliness and refuses to repent out of it. 

I pray that you will evaluate your relationship with Christ and your local church.  Do you value your church as a man who loves his wife or do you simply view the church as something you use for your own selfish benefit?  Do you leave the local church every time things do not go your way?  Do you find yourself looking around the community in hopes of finding greener grass on the other side?  I pray that you will be a person of resolve and say, "come hell or high water I am committed to Christ and the local church where Christ has placed me".