I’m happy to announce that my book “A Brief History of the Future” is now available on Amazon as a Kindle download. That makes four of our books on Amazon. And all for the low price of 2.99 each.
“A Brief History of the Future” is a primer in eschatology that serves as a defense for the premillennial, pretribulational view. And you can download it to your Kindle via the following link —
And you can find all four of our books here —
Hello Friends,
How is your day going? You okay?
Nothing that happened today is surprising. It was predictable and predicted. When sinful humans rule over other sinful humans they can only come to sinful conclusions. They have no other option.
It was interesting reading the four dissenting opinions. It’s a rare thing when every dissenting judge writes an opinion. But they did. We have an attorney in our congregation and he sent out the PDF of the decision the moment it came down the pike.
Anyway, what might be missed in all the hoopla about homosexual marriage is that this was essentially a State’s Rights issue. And the four dissenting judges accused the majority of massive judicial over-reach. That’s what’s really at stake. And it’s why states like Texas are already fighting back. Remember, our nation is made up of “united states.” When the federal government or courts remove an individual state’s ability to operate in accordance with its own state constitution, that’s a very real issue.
In other words, this is one shot across the bow of a much larger issue. And that’s what the other four judges are so concerned about.
Meanwhile, I’m a Bible guy. So, I view these things through a spiritual lens.
We’ve been studying the books of Judges, 1&2 Samuel, and 1&2 Kings on Wednesday nights at GCA. Israel’s history is instructive. You may recall that they were initially a theocracy, ruled by the Law of Moses that codified them as a nation of chosen people. But that wasn’t good enough for them. They wanted a king so they could be like their surrounding neighbors. God gave them Saul, a ruinous king who took all the best of their horses, food, gold, and women … you know, the way politicians always do.
Then God gave them David, a man after His own heart. During the time of Solomon, David’s son, the kingdom was taken away from his posterity and Israel was divided.
The succession of kings in the North went from bad to worse. The kings in the South weren’t much better, although they had occasional rays of light. Whenever their enemies advanced on them or they suffered from famine or other disasters, Israel cried to God. And He would deliver them. Then they became comfortable, safe, well-fed … and they’d forget God and go chase after their foreign gods and their fleshly desires. The pattern is consistent.
That’s how humans are, by nature. When they’re in trouble or pain, they cry to God. When they’re fat and sassy, they feel self-assured and they do their own thing – which is usually sinful, given our sinful nature and proclivities.
At the moment, America is (mostly) safe and well-fed. We’re clothed, air-conditioned, and entertained into a stupor. We’re obsessed with celebrities and we think we can solve our problems by banning flags. And America has forgotten (and is erasing) her history.
Manifest destiny. The faith of the founding fathers. The importance of our Christian heritage. The necessity of theology in the well-rounded education. It’s all being erased.
I am reminded of what God told Abraham. When Abraham asked how he could know that the land he was promised would be his and belong to his (as yet unborn) offspring, God told Abe that his descendants would go into a land where they were not known and serve there for four hundred years.
“But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.” (Gen. 15:16)
Think about that phrase. The Amorites were living in the land that God promised to the descendants of Abraham. God gave them 400 years to fill up their iniquity – their rebellion against Him. Meanwhile, God was growing the nation of Israel as slaves in Egypt. When they came out, they were more than a million strong. And they conquered the land, just as God said.
I am afraid that America is currently filling up her iniquity. Because there is no immediate price to pay, they think that God doesn’t care, or that judgment doesn’t exist. They think that power in numbers and political correctness trumps things like morality. So, killing babies? No big deal. Homosexual marriage? No sweat. Gender confusion? Only natural.
But, let a plane hit buildings in New York and suddenly the entire Senate is singing “God Bless America” on the Capitol steps.
Then the attacks stop. Now, where were we? Ah, yes … what are those pesky Kardashians up to?
Consider the warning of the iniquitous Amorites. Try to find an Amorite, a Jebusite, or a Hivite today. Tough job. They were enemies of God’s people and they’re all gone.
But, try to find a Jew. Ta-daa! Easy. Why? Because God’s faithful when He calls.
As I keep saying, the only thing we’ve learned from history is that we’ve learned nothing from history.
So, lift up your heads, Christians. God did not topple off the throne today. He’s not in terror of nine humans in black robes. I keep warning that it’s going to get worse before it gets better. This is just another step along the way.
And remember that God is faithful to His people. There are folk dancing in the streets today and celebrating because they think they’ve won something. That’s fine. Dance on. Death is imminent. And equal. Everyone gets one.
And then, the judgment. And that’s when this stuff will really matter.
Look, it’s simple. Either the Bible is true or it’s not. If it is (and I am convinced that it is because of the plethora of evidence), then we need to walk, talk, and live as though it’s true. And have confidence. This world is not our home.
“Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me. In My Father’s house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also.” (John 14:1-3)
And nothing the world can or will do can change that.
So, let the world celebrate the sinful fashion in which men rule men. It may not matter to them at this exact moment.
But, it will matter one day ….
and forever.
I posted a short comment and a link on the GCA Facebook page and then mentioned those comments in our most recent Wednesday night message. I forget that not everyone who listens to the Salvation by Grace messages is in our Facebook group. I was asked if I would post that information on my blog so that non-FB listeners could see to what I was referring. And I’m happy to oblige.
It went like this —
_________________________
While I would normally refrain from posting a “news article” in the GCA group, this one is the exception. It’s from Breitbart.com and it states some basic truths that I’ve been saying for a long time. To wit: the church in America has abandoned the distinctives that make it truly Christian.
After citing some facts and figures, Thomas D. Williams PhD. writes:
Though it is impossible to establish a strict causal relationship between the two phenomena of moral liberalism and declining religiosity, the correlation between them is still striking.
What may not seem immediately apparent is why as Americans become increasingly progressive, they are abandoning liberal religious denominations in favor of conservative ones.
One theory, advanced by Arthur E. Farnsley II, a professor of religious studies at Indiana University, is that the more churches resemble society at large in terms of their moral teachings and understanding of the meaning of human existence, the less relevant they are. Why continue to attend church services to hear the same message you get from reigning culture? Religion only makes a difference when it offers an alternative account of reality, distinguishable from secular culture.
It is, in fact, the countercultural religious groups that are holding on to their membership.
Farnsley suggests, therefore, that the more liberal religious groups will continue to lose members and influence “because they are already on the modernist side, meaning many of their core values are expressed in other institutions, including government.”
Much of the decline in membership for mainstream Christianity seems to be the result of a loss of recognizable Christian identity in those churches.
_______________
Bingo. You got it. The church that has lost its savor is good for nothing.
Later, Williams writes:
A final trend among mainstream Christian churches has been a progressive lowering of the moral bar, seemingly out of fear of appearing “judgmental” or “hypocritical.” Confusing judgmentalism with the ability to tell right from wrong, many Christians have moved in the direction of withdrawing disapproval from all but the most egregious sins. The lower the bar, the fewer fail to get over it: “I’m okay. You’re okay.” Similarly, some have confused hypocrisy with a simple failure to live up to one’s moral ideals, and have embraced the facile solution of chucking their ideals. Hypocrisy, in fact, becomes impossible when one no longer endorses any moral standards.
That is genuinely insightful. I have long argued that there is a difference between being “judgmental” and practicing proper discernment (what Jesus calls, “proper judgment”). I like William’s differentiation. People confuse judgmentalism with the ability to tell right from wrong. We, as Christians, are expected to know the difference. Too much of modern Christianity has fallen for the world’s very specious argument that practicing biblical discernment is tantamount to being judgmental.
If you’re interested in reading the whole article, here’s the link:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/01/why-is-america-moving-left/
And if you’re interested in hearing the Wednesday night message from 2Kings that includes a reference to these comments, it’s here:
I was watching a nature show on TV when they turned their attention to the black heron, a medium-sized African bird who is keen on fishing. They showed video of the heron draping its wings forward, cape-like around its body, casting a shadow over the shallow bank of a pond. Small fish gathered in the shadowy water, allowing the heron easier access to lunch.
The commentator said, “The heron has evolved this behavior and ability to create an umbrella with its wings in order to catch fish more effectively.” 
And that got me thinking. We are told repeatedly that animal behavior is the result of evolution. But, we should pause when we hear such things and ask ourselves whether that’s even logical.
Think with me …
What we’re being asked to believe is that an early ancestor of this bird was doing a bit of fishing and came to realize that fish preferred shadows to direct sunlight. But there was very little he could do about it since his wings were built for flying rather than for shadow-casting. Nevertheless, he held on to that bit of information and managed to share it with friends and progressive generations of herons after him. As thousands of years passed, generation after generation of herons tried with all their might to bring their wings forward, block the sun, and attract their meal. They were apparently not dissuaded by the fact that couldn’t do it and that this particular technique was of no immediate help to them. The plucky birds continued their attempts until, by mere force of will and determination, they changed their own genetic code. Eventually, their wings grew wider and more flexible, allowing them to accomplish their long-awaited wing-wrapping behavior. Amazing tenacity, you herons, you.
Now, before you’re put off by my approach, isn’t that exactly what the commentator meant by saying that the heron had “evolved this behavior and ability”? Isn’t evolution something that happens gradually, over long stretches of time? And isn’t all evolution driven by the need for food and the preservation of the species? Well then, how did a bird who couldn’t do something know that it would be beneficial to do it? And how did that knowledge change the genetic makeup of that particular type of bird?
Darwinian evolution tells us that behaviors and physical traits that do not benefit the survival of the species eventually fall away. Survival of the fit, and all that. The heron’s inability to cast a shadow with its wings would not have eventually produced the ability to do it. It would have resulted in adaptation: the herons would have eaten something else or learned to fish with the abilities it had. Either that, or die.
Where, I wondered, did those early herons get the idea that throwing a shadow on the water would be beneficial? Careful observation? Are birds really that logical? And, if they couldn’t do anything about it, how were they capable of passing that information along, generation after generation for thousands of years, until one day one young heron was able to do it? And since his newfound ability would have been a mutation, how was it passed along to all herons so that they could all benefit from this unique fishing experience?
Now, here’s my point. When we say that we believe in a Creator, we are often chided and belittled for our naiveté. Belief in such a Being is said to be based in faith, not in fact. But, when we’re told about vision-casting, supremely logical, prescient, genetically self-altering birds …. that’s science.
In response, someone will counter, “Natural selection!” But, natural selection is not a thing. It’s not a force. It’s a phrase. If it IS a thing, if it IS driving all life forward and directing the herons to eventually learn how to fish better, then it’s a creative force akin to the God spoken of in the Bible. “Natural selection” is really just the evolutionist’s version of a creator.
So, the evolutionist spins around in a quasi-scientific Catch-22. Evolution cannot explain things like the eyeball. Only a complex, working eyeball produces sight. But we’re asked to believe that non-sighted animals somehow understood what sight was and that it would be beneficial in hunting and finding a mate. So, the eyeball evolved, despite the fact that every early stage of development would not have produced any sight at all. Nevertheless, “natural selection” kept developing eyeballs until one day sight occurred. And the seeing animal was so excited, he managed to pass that ability along.
OR — eyes exist because God decided they would and He knew what He was doing.
I find that much easier to believe than the alternative.
Thank you, herons, for a valuable object lesson.
Sunday morning as were closing the book of Acts I compared Paul’s snakebite to Jesus’ words to His disciples concerning the divine protection that would accompany their missions. It’s a dicey and very particular bit of theological detail. I expected questions and I started receiving them right away.
The following email exchange is demonstrative of the sort of concerns people voiced. So, I thought I’d post the question and my reply here on my blog in the hope of clearing up any consternation my perspective may have caused.
It’s my constant purpose to be clear and I assume that every person who raises a question represents many more people with the same concern who didn’t write or ask. So, I’m grateful for the question and the opportunity to follow-up on our Sunday morning discussion.
Here’s the email —
Hi Jim,
I’m sitting here listening to your Sunday sermon and have a question. You seem to be stating that we are not (since it was only tossed at only the 11) supposed to be following the “Great Commision.”
Mar 16:15 15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Or am I hearing you wrong?
Blessings,
C. D.
And my reply —
Howdy,
I knew as I approached this passage in Acts and compared it to Jesus’ statements concerning handling vipers it was going to take a fair bit of explaining. But, my position is not complicated. From a very simple, pragmatic point-of-view we must understand our Lord’s statement “They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them” (Mark 16:18) one of two ways. Either (1) Jesus intended that every believer would be impervious to snakebites and poison or (2) those words contained an inherent limitation. Since even “snake handlers” die when bitten, it’s hard to make the case for Christian invulnerability. Even as much faith as I have in Christ’s finished work and God’s sovereign mercy, I’m not ready to swig a glass of poison. So, I conclude that Jesus’ words were meant to be understood in a limited fashion. And since he was talking to a particular group of people, I assume that His words were limited to His apostles.
Now, even as I talked of this on Sunday morning, Jennifer asked about the fact that other gifts mentioned in this same passage did manifest to the church-at-large, such as speaking in tongues and healing the sick. And she’s right. But, those gifts are mentioned in later epistles written to the church as a body. So, I see no conflict from a textual standpoint. Some gifts were given to the apostles that were later also given to a larger body of believers — such as tongues, healing, etc. But, other gifts given to the apostles — such as taking up serpents or drinking deadly things — are not mentioned beyond Jesus’ initial impartation of power. So, inasmuch as they do not seem to be promised to the whole corpus of the Church, I conclude that it’s a mishandling of Scripture (and a form of “tempting God”) to assume those words have universal application and start flinging snakes around.
So, within that framework, I can address your question concerning the “Great Commission.” It is true that Mark 16:15 is directed at Christ’s apostles. That instruction was primarily theirs. However, as we read the epistles from Acts forward we find further instruction from those apostles adjuring believers to spread the gospel of God’s grace. For instance, Paul’s instruction to Timothy, “… do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.” (2 Tim. 4:5)
The necessity to teach and preach is passed on to the Church —
“Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men … And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.” (Eph. 4:8-13)
So, it’s biblically consistent to argue that certain aspects of Christ’s instruction in Mark 16 were meant exclusively for those men standing in His presence as the words were spoken, whereas some of what He spoke was also expanded out into the Church body. That perspective solves the confusion caused by those who see every word uttered by Christ as applicable to every believer in every age under every circumstance. That’s one reason I emphasized the contrast between Paul healing the residents of Malta while failing to heal Epaphroditus. We cannot argue that God’s gifting of miracles is readily available to every person of faith to exercise at their discretion.
So, the long and short of this discussion is simply this: Jesus said certain things to His apostles exclusively and it is an error to usurp His words and apply them indiscriminately. However, certain commands and gifts that Christ gave His immediate disciples were also conveyed to “the body of Christ,” His Church, by the Holy Spirit — including the charismatic gifts and the necessity to preach the gospel of God’s grace. And I am willing to preach both aspects of that equation.
I hope that helps to clear things up.
Thanks for writing! I’m sure you’re not the only one who wrestled with that question.
Yours for His sake,
Jim Mc.