Self-help, self-serve, self-less?? Less-self

'Self is the greatest enemy to a Christian.' Who said that? Anyone? Probably every great theologian who has ever written, every pastor with an understanding of the Word, and every person with an understanding of themselves. I am constantly amazed at how the 'self' has found it's way into every aspect of the 'kingdom' life. It's really nothing of a kingdom life at all, it's a life centered around self. You see we have this idea that wording doesn't really matter, that phrasing isn't important, that words are not representative of the way we feel. But I argue that your words reflect exactly what you mean. I argue that the way you say a thing is indicative of the way you truly feel; not the way you think you feel mind you, but of what you truly believe. And what you truly believe is that you are the center of the universe.

Here's an example. Ask a Christian today about their faith, ask about its importance. They will probably say something like, "My faith is very important to me," or "it's a very big part of my life," or "my faith is part of who I am." What's wrong with those responses? Everything.. They reflect a completely backwards understanding of salvation. They contain SELF in the highest degree. Me, myself, and I are all conspicuously found in this characterization of my faith. But people will say, 'well that's not what I meant of course.' I don't really think God is a part of my life, of course He's much bigger than that. He's God.' Good point. I don't really believe you think that way either, but I do believe you live that way. I don't really care what you think because thoughts don't change lifestyle, they reflect it. Belief is what really changes the way you live. And that's what I care about. I believe it reflects an underlying current in your life and that's why you say it. I don't buy for a moment the argument that it's semantic. We have enough arguments over semantics in the Body, but this is not one; it's far deeper. It reflects WHO we believe ourselves to be. Me, myself, and I are ALL supposed to be dead (Gal. 2, Rom. 7 & 8, the rest of the epistles). But they live. They masquerade themselves as good works and good intentions and good thoughts, but they are not. They do not please God because they begin and end with you, with me. My thoughts should have their beginning in God and their end in God. He is the wellspring from which my mouth should pour forth, the well from which my soul should drink.

All our sins are a result of self; selfishness, self-worth, self-pride, but really we are self-deceived. There is much more to this discussion of self. It could be one of those several part series bloggers are fond of doing. There is adequate evidence in culture, in Scripture, in our lives. We have this notion that we are the center of the universe. I'll just go ahead and paste something I wrote in my journal earlier today. I won't put it in quotes or anything or subset the font to make you think someone important wrote it, I'll just stick it in here, probably typos and all.

My ‘self’ should not be known as the center because it is in fact not the center any more than the earth is the center of the universe. I find it quite ironic how the solar system so perfectly represents in many ways our lives; it mirrors and parallels or perhaps we mirror and parallel, nevertheless the similarities are apparent. For many years we believed the earth was the center of all things and everything revolved around it, but then we saw it was not us but the sun (ironic also we revolve around something that in English is called the sun). Of course it’s a much greater flaw to believe the earth revolves around me. The geocentric theory was perhaps an honest mistake but the selfocentric theory is a much more obvious error. Anyone who cannot, in one moment of looking up at the stars, realize their comparative littleness in the vastness of the cosmos is blind.. completely, utterly unaware. How small am I? very small, and in fact insignificant in the scheme of things if not for God finding value in me. Honestly, apart from His valuation I am utterly worthless. I’m like an OTC-bb stock in desperate need of an analyst upgrade (I know one business major reads this occasionally). Perhaps to a few people I am not, but if majority rules then my life makes little difference. The most important, most loved person on earth right now will mean very little in a few years and few would think often of their death if they passed away today. And even those great names that have gone down in history would eventually be forgotten; all it takes is time and the universe has plenty of that. And after all the life span of humans in existence in totality is an infinitely small speck on the map of the history of our universe so.. are you important? Nah, not at all. Not for long anyway. In fact, you are utterly worthless. As Paul says we are most to be pitied if these things are true. We are the most foolish, the most stupid, the left out, the pathetic, the clueless, the morons of all creation if CHRIST did not rise from the dead.

perspective is crucial. It must be maintained at all costs. The perspective of Christ as central, of Christ as the supreme ruler, of Christ as the key, the vital; everything revolving around HIM. If that can be grasped, held onto at all times then we will see the world as Christ saw it and we will be effective. If not then we will be hit and miss and if you are like me, then mostly miss. The times where I see that are few and far between. Why? Because I care not enough to look. The details must be seen in relation to the whole or else we cannot ever see the meaning in them. That is why so much lacks meaning to us including our day to day affairs, our work, our relationships, our lives in general. A purpose driven life? It can only be seen in the light of the kingdom. Here all things are brought to light. The world makes sense.. perception is reality? No. not at all. You hear that a lot. Reality is not defined by what people believe. My poor perception of the things that go on in the world does not make them real, it simply makes me ill informed or deceived. The mass populous’ view of ‘how things are’ does not really determine ‘how things are.’ We live our lives based on our beliefs, but our beliefs do not influence truth. If I believe firmly in Allah as God and live my life according to that belief that does not make Allah, God. It does not change reality. Reality becomes distorted, it becomes misunderstood and so what people believe influences behavior but it does not influence reality. Real belief does not necessitate the reality of the thing believed.

Less-self. that's really what it's about. I decrease, He increases. Man, there is so much depth in every single one of those statements in the Word, we could spend a great deal of time discussing each of them. Even me, in my shallow understanding, can spend a long time being amazed by the immensity of God's revelation to man, much less God Himself. Anyway, a couple closing illustrations in rhymed form. One is rap and one is old school poetry style because I'm weird like that..

Eyes surprise, wide open, my hope in Christ/ there lies the answer, the cure to life/ like sure You're right, Blood cleansed made pure in His sight// certain to fight like cats in a cage/ fact sheet open like stats on a page/ matt's in a rage, 'me', 'myself', 'I' and it seems, my 'self' always gets 'I' on his team so there's no hope for 'me.'// though well spoken I lean on my own understanding/ so I go under, standing. still refuse to fall//misplaced weight, still uncertain to call, certainly certain to stall/ hurtin' til the curtain will fall, the play ends/ just say 'when' then you ascend from this sentence of sin/ intense, sinister grin, sentence will end. Stop.. Cause this pause to reflect, fought claw and correct, still on call but 'collect'.. my hands are empty i'm bankrupt, speechless i still say stuff.. til i'm killed, blood spilled, give my name up.. been exchanged for a better one, letter one: J: Justified by the Son's Blood, I've been claimed. Even though my birth brought a Crimson stain.. Suffered much on earth when the Savior came.. for US, to bring glory to His name.


An excerpt..

'To death! To death, with flesh,' I mourn,
With hand outstretched to spare its life.
A glimpse of my reflection, torn,
I see the scales, I weigh the price.

Long wearied from this heavy load,
Dear burden slips from back unchained.
Pray grace would leave beside the road,
The body of this flesh, now slain.

Prevent the quick but fatal glance,
Through longing hides some strand of self.
Make no provision, take no chance,
Put sword to soul, unweave the spell..

And, to complete the eccentricity (as Joshua Harris said, people want to be seen as eclectic and different http://theresurgence.com/reform_resurge_conference_2006), how about something more contemporary about how lousy the flesh is..

Pour me out, let me flow,
Over those whose names You long to know.
Let me break, upon the Rock,
Lay my burdens down for the victory of the Cross.

Lord I'm a fool to believe these lies,
That tell me not to trust what's plain to my eyes.
And though I'm weak, I stink with pride,
and still I live my life like my flesh was still alive.

The flesh is ROTTEN. That's because it's dead. It needs to be thrown out. I need to throw it out (by grace and the work of the Lord), you need to throw it out (by grace and the work of the Lord) and we need to rejoice in its death. The problem is we don't really want it to die. We kind of like it. It's scary without it, it's embarrassing without it because who knows what God could have us do. Goodness, that could be dangerous. God isn't always a safe sort, He does crazy things. If I plan my good works and serve in the church and teach a Sunday school class, that's safe; no danger there. Man, I'm starting to sound like Tozer with that, who really just sounds like Paul talking about the 'foolishness' of the Gospel and the Cross in 1st Corinthians 2. Following God is a risky proposition. Let's be honest. A lot of the time you'll look like a complete fool. Casting out demons? Do those even exist anymore? Saying Jesus is the only way to heaven? People are still that narrow minded? Preaching about a spiritual kingdom.. that you can't see.. that you can be a part of..? Who wants to join my club of imaginary people and places? Anyone? Any takers? Taking deserted desert roads, leaving your job, going places where you know you will be beaten and killed, waving your arms at a large body of water, hitting a rock, prophesying about crazy things.. That's not safe, that's not respectable, that's not Christian. Oh, that's unfortunate. I wonder how it made the cut in the Bible. It's really almost a guarantee of looking like an idiot to the world. Mark Driscoll closes one of his sermons on 1st Cor. (one of Parts 5-8) with a long speech of 'all you fools who...' lines. And it's completely true. You really can't care what anyone else thinks. It's not a free card for acting like a moron and doing stupid things. But we have to live for an audience of One as my brother Ryan and I discussed a few days ago. We must listen to God and obey God regardless of what He says. That crazy Lord of the Heavens and Earth.. what will He think of next? Kind of exciting to be a Christian. Kind of AMAZING. Kind of AWESOME, not awful, but FULL of awe. Kind of cool to live forever. Kind of neat not to fear death. Kind of HUMBLING to think of me in relation to the universe.. the eternal Godhead.. Kind of OVERWHELMING. Kind of CONSUMING. Kind of Awe-Inspiring. Kind of GLORIOUS. Kind of CRAZY.

Let's press into the kingdom. Don't wait up, just leave a trail.
EP

Darkened Understanding - Pastor Way

Pastor Way with an edifying look at Ephesians 4:18, and walking in the Truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ...

======================================
TIME in the Word - Daily Devotional
Together for Inspiration, Motivation, and Encouragement

Verse of the Day - Ephesians 4:18
having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart;

Daily Scripture Reading - Romans 1

Puritan Catechism
Question #38 - What shall be done to the wicked at their death?

Answer - The souls of the wicked shall at their death be cast into the torments of hell (Lk. 16:22-24), and their bodies lie in their graves till the resurrection, and judgement of the great day (Ps. 49:14).

Devotional Thoughts
We have seen that if we are to walk in truth then we must not walk as the Gentiles walk, that is, as men who are without Christ walk. We were, before Christ, also Gentiles. We were lost, children of wrath (Eph 2:1-3) who walked in the futility of our minds (Eph 4:17).

And we see next in Ephesians 4:18 that these Gentiles, these people who are walking in the futility of their mind, also have a darkened understanding. They cannot discern! As we work through this verse today we will see that a futile mind combined with a darkened understanding leads to continued alienation from God, ignorance of the truth, and a hard heart. It is no wonder then that the natural man cannot receive the things of God...more

That white devil! - Pride

(Thomas Brooks, "The Privy Key of Heaven" 1665)

"While the disciples were healing diseases and casting
out demons, the proud white devil was a-stirring in
their own souls; as is evident by that gentle rebuke
which our Savior gives them in Luke 10:20, "Don't
rejoice that the spirits submit to you."

There is no pious duty which a Christian performs, but
one white devil or another--one lust or another--will be
still dogging and following of him to that duty. There is
no public duty, there is no family duty, there is no private
duty which a Christian performs--but
either that white devil pride,
or that white devil hypocrisy,
or that white devil vainglory;
or else some one or another white devil will
follow the soul, near at heel to it."

Asahel Nettleton

Sounds like a pen name someone on this blog would have right? Asahel Nettleton. In fact, if I could go back maybe I would make that my name, but that would be similar to a quarterback changing his name to Johnny Unitas. Why Johnny Unitas? Because in another generation or so no one will remember who he was except the true, diehard football fans. Right now most people in my generation are starting to forget him. We probably remember Broadway Joe Namath, but not Johnny Unitas. The same of Asahel Nettleton, a contemporary of.. well, I'd rather say it this way: Charles Finney was a contemporary of Asahel Nettleton. You've almost undoubtedly heard of Finney, but unless you are the diehard church history or evangelism fan you probably haven't heard of Nettleton. I ran across a 14 paqe article on him on the Resurgence website by James Ehrhard. All the quotes here will be taken from that article. It was great reading and really informative.
Here's the rundown: Basically, Nettleton led a lot of revivals along the east coast around the same time as Finney. Nettleton however was basically reformed in his doctrine, he preached more along the lines of Edwards and Whitfield, while Finney was pretty much heretical in a lot of his ministry. What?! The much revered Finney? Yeah, shocking huh. But true. By most accounts Nettleton led around 30,000 people to the Lord in basically a tri-state area (comparable to about 600,000 today based on percent population differences) and these people had an incredibly low 'backsliding' rate. There was a genunine change brought about from the Spirit's work through his preaching and many many years later the people who had been saved were still pursuing the Lord.

"Nettleton's converts were surprisingly solid. For example, of the eighty-four converts in an 1818 revival at Rocky Hill, Connecticut, all eighty-four had remained faithful, according to their pastor's report twenty-six years later. Similarly, only three spurious conversions out of eighty-two professions of faith were noted in another pastor's report on a revival in Ashford, Connecticut."

In comparison, with regards to Finney
"B. B. Warfield also tells of the testimony of Asa Mahan, Finney's closest friend and long-time coworker:
No more powerful testimony is borne ... than that of Asa Mahan, who tells us—to put it briefly—that everyone who was concerned in these revivals suffered a sad subsequent lapse: the people were left like a dead coal which could not be reignited.... 12 Nettleton's ministry was decidedly different than that of Finney, not only with regard to conversions, but also with regard to the lasting impact upon the communities which he visited. One contemporary pastor, Bennett Tyler, noted the differences between the revivals of Finney and Nettleton:
These revivals were not temporary excitements, which like a tornado, sweep through a community, and leave desolutions behind them; but they were like showers of rain, which refresh the dry and thirsty earth, and cause it to bring forth "herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed." These fruits were permanent. By them the churches were not only enlarged, but beautiful and strengthened; and a benign influence was exerted upon the community around."

I would encourage you to check out the rest of the article found at the Resurgence link above. Sometimes history remembers the wrong people for the wrong reasons in the wrong light. This is one of those instances. Instead of remembering the man who said,
"regeneration consists in the sinner changing his ultimate choice, intention, preference.... when mankind becomes truly religious, they are not enabled to put forth exertions which they were unable before to put forth. They only exert powers which they had before, in a different way, and use them for the glory of God."

Perhaps we would be better served to remember the man who said,
"All self-righteousness failed me; and, having no confidence in God, I was left in deep despondency.... After awhile, a surprising tremor seized all my limbs, and death appeared to have taken hold upon me. Eternity—the word Eternity—sounded louder than any voice I ever heard; and every moment of time seemed more valuable than all the wealth of the world. Not long after this, an unusual calmness pervaded my soul, which I thought little of at first, except that I was freed from my awful convictions...The character of God, and the doctrines of the Bible, which I could not meditate upon before without hatred, especially those of election and free grace, now appear delightful, and the only means by which, through grace, dead sinners can be made the living sons of God."

Signing out,
EP

Preach the Word - by MacArthur

Preach the Word
...by John MacArthur

--This is the single greatest message I have ever heard or read on these verses and a fitting encouragement as we approach another Lord's Day. This is what sets John apart from the rest of the pack in evangelicalism who are mostly consumed by the expedient syncretistic moorings of their own imaginings; baptized in the postmodern ecumencial egalitarianism of pragmatism that is more concerned about being "nice" rather than being concerned for the truth. John's undying dedication and preaching of God's Word for close to four decades is a great legacy and testimony of God's grace to all of us in ministry who desire to "present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth."--

When a man steps into the pulpit more interested in telling us about his week so that he can "relate" to his people - he is not preaching the Word. When a man seeks to be funny behind the sacred desk rather than faithful with the text - he is not preaching the Word. When a man claims to have a "word from the Lord" a part from the divine revelation of Scripture - he is deceived and is not preaching the Word. When a man designs his sermons to attract a target audience, appeal to the culture, and has as its primary goal a thirst to be relevent - he is not preaching the Word. When a man strives to change the world through politics, representing America as the new Israel, seeking to bring a societal morality through legislation, and honors the flag equally with the cross - he is not preaching the Word. When a man fails to tremble at God's Word privately before ever preaching it publicly - he is not preaching the Word. And when a man treats the pages of holy writ with a cavalier, seeker-friendly, watered down, cream of wheat irrevernce - he is not preaching the Word.

Better for that man to become a game show host, than represent himself as a "servant of Christ and a steward of the mysteries God."...click here to read the rest...(HT: PastorWay)

What should move God to love us?

(Thomas Brooks, "The Transcendent Excellency of a Believer's Portion above All Earthly Portions")

The free favor and love of God, the good will and pleasure of God--is the true ground and cause of God's bestowing of Himself as a portion upon His people. There was no cause, nor loveliness, nor desirableness in them--which could move God to bestow Himself upon them.

God, for the glory of His own free grace and love, has bestowed Himself as a portion upon those who have deserved to have their portion among devils and damned spirits--in those torments which are endless, ceaseless, and remediless.

But what should move God to love us, who were so unworthy, so filthy, so empty, so beggarly? The question may be resolved in these words--He loves us because He loves us. The root of all divine love to us, lies only in the bosom of God.

"The Lord is my portion, says my soul; therefore I will hope in Him." Lamentations 3:24

Prov 3:33, "The curse of the Lord is in the house of the wicked." Mal 2:2, "If you do not listen, and if you do not set your heart to honor my name," says the Lord Almighty, "I will send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings. Yes, I have already cursed them, because you have not set your heart to honor me." There is a real curse and a secret curse, an invisible curse and an insensible curse, that lies upon all their souls, who have not God for their portion. Gal 3:10, "Cursed is everyone that continues not in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them." And as there is a curse upon all their souls, so there is a curse upon all their comforts, contentments, and enjoyments, who do not enjoy God for their portion. Until a man comes to enjoy God for his portion, all his earthly portions are cursed unto him; but when a man comes to enjoy God for his portion, then all his earthly portions are blessed unto him.

O sirs! there is no mitigating of the curse, there is no reversing of the curse, there is no altering of the curse, nor there is no taking of the curse from off your souls, nor from off your earthly portions—but by gaining God to be your portion. O sirs! you will live accursed, and you will die accursed, and you will appear before God accursed, and you will be judged and sentenced by God accursed, and you will be sent to hell accursed, and you will remain to all eternity accursed—if God is not your portion! Therefore oh how should this consideration awaken every sinner to give God no rest until he has given himself as a portion to him.

===

Oh Lord! That you may be all my portion, and all my strength, and all my hope! May I rest in You and You alone!

Solus Christus
- Brother Hank

IR-Relevant Half-Truth

What's up.. here's another side of the multiple personalities the good Lord saw fit to give me. Forget the smooth talk, here's the real talk, the simple talk. Guess it's cuz' I'm listening to Lecrae's new cd, 'after the music stops' found HERE. This is really in response to reading the article about the Emergent 'theology' found in Hank's post earlier today from another blog.

Aight, so I read the stuff written and I've read other stuff written. The truth is, the church as an organization has done a lousy job RELATING to culture in the last.. century? So, like everything else that brings HORRIBLE doctrine (they probably reject that word in the emergent church) into the church people have gone to the opposite extreme. Look at every single doctrinal error and it comes from the same problem. People are upset with sin within the church, they move toward perfectionist theology. People see the results of hyper-Calvinism and move to semi-Pelagianism. People don't see the gifts manifested in the church so they start their own church and only focus on the physical manifestation of gifts. Here's the problem. People model their lives after the lives of other PEOPLE, they model their thoughts after the thoughts of other PEOPLE, they model their beliefs after the beliefs of other PEOPLE and they RESPOND to the errors of other people by taking the things they feel they are missing and center their theology on that. You want to make people think? You want to bring more people into the kingdom? You want to expand the kingdom? The kingdom is expanded by people submitting to the Lordship of Christ not by people praying prayers to 'accept Jesus' or by people giving intellectual assent to an idea of Jesus that is completely non-Scriptural. Belief in God does not save you and belief in Jesus doesn't save you. What a horribly foolish idea with incredibly grievous consequences.

You don't believe in the continuation of the gifts, you do or don't believe in tongues, you are pre-trib or post-trib or mid-trib, dualist or tripartite, fine whatever. We may disagree but it's cool cuz we can discuss it in heaven. Not a huge issue, let's work together and tell people about the Kingdom of God. That's the small stuff, the side issues. You don't believe in the Deity of Christ, the sufficiency of Christ, that He is God's Son, died on the cross and rose from the dead? You're going to Hell. That's a big thing.

How are we saved? Romans 10:9-10, "..confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For the with heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved."

Confess Jesus is Lord. Believe in your heart. As the brother on the blog Hank linked to pointed out you have to believe in the right Jesus because if not your belief is Misplaced. In fact, you aren't even believing in Jesus anymore, you are believing in an idea or expression of Christ and that doesn't cut it. 'Depart from me, I never knew you.' That's the statement that awaits those who place their trust in a false god. That's really all it is, a false god and idol in man's image made to fit and idea. I understand the need to relate to culture, to be 'relevant' but is a lie really ever relevant? Telling people part of the truth is not relevant to their lives. Sure they relate to it because it doesn't require the spirit. It's a philisophical ideal. It's post modern jibberish. The Gospel is ETERNAL TRUTH. Change the style, adapt to the culture but don't change the truth. Compromise? That's a word for relationships between men. It shouldn't ever be used in relation to foundational doctrinal truths. Gays, lesbians, murderers, sex addicts, drunkards; Jesus' message to them was CHANGE. Religious people, moral people, follower of the law, smart, dumb; Jesus' message to them was.. CHANGE. The message of the Kingdom, the gospel of the Kingdom is come, submit yourself to the rule of the Lord Jesus and you will be CHANGED.

But that's not what they want to preach. Post-modern, non absolute truth ideology is a POWERLESS Gospel. People aren't changed. They feel loved, they feel accepted. That's great, that's fantastic, but guess what? "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, not adulterers, not men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." -1 Corinthians 6:9-11

Key words? Let me break this down real quick.
1. Unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God
2. Righteous will, but Christ is the only one righteous (the divine Son of God who died on the cross and rose again conquering sin, death, and Satan) so we have to go through Him
3. Homosexuality is a sin and so are the rest of the things mentioned.
4. 'And such were some of you.' The word 'were' here is past tense. That means 'in the past' as in prior to God's regeneration, our justification and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

The kingdom brings change. It's that simple. Sometimes it's a slower change, but it brings, at the least, a heart bent towards conforming to the image of Christ. Addictions, homosexual lifestyles; these things are serious issues and in most cases change doesn't come overnight, but it DOES START overnight. An openly gay and unrepentant homosexual or adulterer or alcoholic 'Christian' is an oxymoron. For the kingdom of god does not consist in talk but in power (1 Cor. 4:20). There is power to affect change in a person's life. Will the homosexual struggle with homosexual thoughts? Sure, just as the person who has premarital sex will struggle with those wounds from the past and the alcoholic may struggle with alcohol and the gambling addict with gambling. The difference is the HEART. And it is with the HEART that you believe and are justified. If you are not repentant of those things, then your HEART HAS NOT CHANGED and if your heart has not changed, you are NOT justified. That's what the Word says.. clearly.

Aight, speaking of changing medium to relate to the culture that's good and I've seen it all over. Lecrae says, 'you listen to everything from rap to gospel, but I bet you never heard anybody rap the gospel.' We have Christian hip-hop (the best theological lyrics. Modern day hymns), different instruments for worship in every culture, different styles of worship, different ways of dress, different media and mediums, but the MESSAGE is the SAME. REPENT FOR THE KINGDOM of HEAVEN IS at HAND. The Truth of the gospel is always relevant because it has not changed.

What the world needs now is a dose of reality/ eyes wide shut to spirits and principalities/ mentality that says, I can't know the truth/ and all of this debate is just a hopeless feud// I know it's you, devil with your smoke and mirrors/ twist the thoughts of men when there hope's sincere//but sins here even if you want to brush it under/ til the skies torn back with loud peals of thunder/ whole earth torn asunder, spirits kill and plunder/ preach a kingdom, but no power well then it's no wonder// people get confused and think Jesus is weak/ sittin' up in heaven, so mild and meek/ I hope he turns the other cheek on the judgment seat// well ain't that sweet, I guess that we forgot the sword/ the one he'll carry on his horse when he comes back for war/Dear Lord, I pray You would change these minds/ of men who have placed all their faith in time/ and it's ability to make grand truths from lies/ with ideas that change like skies and tides/ peculiar eyes, view this world with skewed worldviews/so I pray You'd reveal to the chosen few/ those whom You have known since eternity past/ the Truth of Christ before the time's elapsed/ and hold them firm in Your grasp/ speak through them Father so the world will ask/ how do you perform such signs? how do the lame now walk?/ how do you know my mind? what's made the dumb to talk?/ what's made the drunkard sober, made the addict clean?/ what's made the atheist soldier worship Christ as King?/ what's made the racist hatred, change to brotherly love?/ what's the made the homosexual man marry a woman he loves?/ what's made the miser, giving, what's made the prostitute change?/ what's made the dead now living?? that was Jesus man...

Peace in The Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ
-EP

Dr. Mohler opines on Women in the pastorate...

"Do SBC Moderates Really Believe Women Should Serve as Pastors? An Important Research Project"

Posted by: Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr. at Conventionalthinking.net

"The controversy over women in the pastorate has been a part of Southern Baptist life for the last three decades. This is not to say that the controversy has itself reshaped the Baptist landscape at the congregational level. As is now clear, "moderate" churches historically identified with the Southern Baptist Convention are virtually as reluctant as conservative churches to call a woman as pastor. Instead, the question of women in the pastorate has become something of a symbolic issue for SBC moderates and their successors. In a very real sense, the question has become rather hypothetical, serving as an indicator of a theological trajectory rather than a genuine openness to having a woman serve as pastor.

The conclusive evidence for this is found in a report commissioned by Baptist Women in Ministry. "The State of Women in Baptist Life, 2005" by Eileen R. Campbell-Reed and Pamela R. Durso is a major research project that should reshape the conversation over women in ministry among Baptists.

The researchers acknowledge their own ideological commitments, but their analysis appears to be both comprehensive and fair. "The perspective of this report rests firmly in the moderate-to-progressive constellation of Baptist organizations in the southern United States," the authors state. "Institutions that make up this constellation are those that parted company with the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), some gradually and others more abruptly beginning in the 1980s..." click here to read the rest

Some Gems @ Old Truth

Recently OldTruth.com has been posting some interesting material over at their site. Some of their posts include:
=======================================================
Today's Denial of Original Sin. Is Man Dead in Sin?

"Martin Luther believed that it was the necessary precursor to preaching the Cross, and yet it's a belief that's been abandoned by much of today's church.
To demonstrate this, here is an audio clip containing the actual responses that Christian leaders gave to this question: "What do you do with Paul when he says in Romans 3 that noone does good, no not even one, noone seeks after God?" Many of their answers were intriguing, some were even surprised that this passage was in the bible..." to read the rest

Click here for the radio clip
=======================================================
Mailbag: If Election is True Why Bother . . .

"I just received an email asking a common set of questions about election. For example, if election is true - why bother preaching the Gospel, why did Jesus have to go through His death on the cross, etc. Here are some thoughts..." to read the rest
=======================================================
"Belief Statements Create Harmful Borders"

"Tony Jones was recently asked about the concerns of
some people that Emergent does not have doctrine or a statement of faith. His response: "I'm even more concerned that people [do] have statements of faith. Statements of faith are about drawing borders, which means you have to load your weapons and place soldiers at those borders. You have to check people's passports when they pass those borders..." to read the rest
=======================================================

I hope you enjoy them as much as I did.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Brother Hank

The Man in the Mirror..

My posting is sporadic at best, but that is a common theme of my life and the theme of this post. It's good to see Brother Hank has affirmed repeatedly the doctrine of total depravity in my absence though that flower has not taken full bloom as of yet. I apologize for the vague metaphorical or rather acronymical (it's a word.. trust me) reference, but it is too late for eloquent clarity yet still early enough for the simply clarity of the Word of God. So, it is toward that clarity I will make haste.

"For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror. For he looks at himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing."
-James 1:23-25 (ESV)

We are here told the mirror is as the law and the reflection of this law shows our true condition in light of it. The law brings to light sin as a mirror brings to light imperfection. In the days of James' writings mirrors were nothing more than polished metal, not even so clear as the glass we have today. It is to such mirrors that Paul makes reference in 1 Cor. 3:12, the one we see dimly in. The light of the Lord brings to light the sin in our life, this law, this mirror. We are in desperate need of a picture of our true state. Our society is in love with its image, in love with the mirror, perhaps moreso than any other in history and yet it sees itself less clearly than it ever has before. We do not now forget what it is we see in the mirror, we are looking in a different mirror. We have taken 'judge not, lest ye be judged' to mean 'no one can judge me, including God.' There is no fear of the righteous wrath of a good and Just God. There is a complaceny, an ignorance, an apathy with regards to holiness and with regards to the Law. As the brief excerpt from Spurgeon which Bro. Hank posted so eloquently said, the Law was not abolished by Christ but fulfilled and thus the Law has not faded. It is not for the Law which Christ died but for the ability of the law to now be fulfilled by those who have been transformed by God's grace. Following the Law is NOT the means to holiness, it is the result of holiness and that imparted by God and not man's works and as Paul says in Galatians, "all who rely on works of the law are under a curse.." (3:10).
But we lose sight of these things. We forget who we are apart from Christ. We forget who we were before we were saved, or those who are lost do not see their true state. We look in a mirror that lies to us and we are deceived. The mirror of the devil will reflect no flaws. We will see the good and not the bad, we will see the facade and not the true character of the building and if our mirror is not true, our perception of ourself not be true then how can we know grace and know God? I do not mean to say that by searching ourselves we will know God more, in fact, I mean exactly the opposite. By knowing God I will see myself more clearly. By being in the light I will know my own condition. But if I hide in shadows, if I forget that man in the mirror then I will begin to rely on the works of the Law and begin to do that which Paul admonishes most strongly against, "Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?" (Galatians 3:3).
Let us pray for wisdom in the face of such foolishness. We did not begin this work nor can we complete it, but we can 'strive with all the power He so powerfully works within us' and we can 'work out our salvation with fear and trembling' and we can 'meditate on this Book of the Law and be careful to do everything written in it,' and we can 'decrease that He may increase' and 'live our lives in a manner worthy of the calling we have received,' and pray that we may 'be perfect as He is perfect.' Shall I continue? The great burden upon us is to submit our will to God's and we cannot and will not submit to God's rule if we retain confidence in our own. If we forget our weaknesses where will God be made perfect? We must remember both our infirmities and God's power. If we forget the former we will forsake the latter and if we forget the latter we will fall into utter despair. A clear picture of my state and no picture of Christ is a miserable combination and any notion that creeps in, though it be not said but thought, that views Christ as my peer and not my Lord will surely leave me in a high state of pride and a low state of grace.
I apologize for the lack of clear form in the above writing. The Christian sees dimly in the mirror and the non-believer sees nothing. The veil blocks sight. My prayer is for a giant mirror that reflects the state of a persons soul to stretch across the Eastern sky at dawn and travel with the sun as the shadows lift up from around the globe that men might see themselves as they truly are. I don't know if that exact thing is possible, nevertheless I will keep my eyes toward the horizon in hopes of either that or Christ's return, the latter of which is more likely and will accomplish basically the same thing. Until next time.

Peace in the Lord of all Creation,
EP

Then The Scum Appears

("The Mute Christian Under the Smarting Rod"
or, "The Silent Soul with Sovereign Antidotes"
by Thomas Brooks, 1659, London.)

Few Christians see themselves and understand
themselves rightfully. By trials, God discovers
much of a man's sinful self to his pious self.

When the fire is put under the pot--then the
scum appears; so when God tries a poor soul,
Oh! how does . . .
the scum of pride,
the scum of murmuring,
the scum of distrust,
the scum of impatience,
the scum of worldliness,
the scum of carnality,
the scum of foolishness,
the scum of willfulness--
discover itself in the heart of the poor creature!

Trials are God's looking-glass, in which
His people see their own faults. Oh! . . .
that looseness,
that vileness,
that wretchedness,
that sink of filthiness,
that gulf of wickedness,
which trials show to be in their hearts!

"I have tested you in the furnace of affliction."
Isaiah 48:10

------------------------

Thank God today, for showing us our scum...

Brother Hank

Live Strong, Lance Armstrong

I have often thought about Lance Armstrong. He's a Texan, an Austinite, a multiple Tour de France winner, an international superstar, and a cancer survivor. He's a hero to millions probably. But he rejects Christ. And what kind of hero is that?

Anyways, Jedidiah offers some interesting mediations on the cycling superstar and his Creator - Jesus Christ Superstar. (sorry, I couldn't help myself...lol)


------------------
By: Jedidiah Coppenger

"What do I have in common with Lance Armstrong? He's an international celebrity, a champion bicyclist, and a world-renowned philanthropist who has devoted his resources and his fame to fighting cancer, a cause most closely associated with the yellow "Live Strong" bracelets. And he's an atheist who has rather publicly ridiculed the Christian faith. I'm a Southern Baptist seminary student. But for a few days this summer I found myself with Lance (and 15,000 other bikers) bicycling across Iowa. For seven days, there we were: a group of rookies, some seasoned veterans, and one superstar.

It might be hard to imagine the excitement of riding alongside Lance Armstrong. Just imagine playing basketball with Michael Jordan. When my brother and I saw Lance Armstrong coming up behind us, we couldn't believe we were tearing through the Iowa countryside side-by-side with the man himself.

I didn't want to ruin the moment by saying something dumb. So we enjoyed a brief moment of silence. But I couldn't help myself. Caleb and I engaged Armstrong in some conversation: about the goodness of pie and homemade ice cream, about how much we appreciate his work against cancer since we lost a grandfather to it, about what keeps him going in his athletic pursuits.

We asked Lance Armstrong if he is a Christian and he told us no. We shared the gospel with him and told him that, as Christians, we're on board with his fight against cancer. We told him that we're not just against certain manifestations of death, but the whole thing. Since Jesus has overcome death in all of its ugly wholeness, we're all about taking on death itself.

I'd like to tell you that our witness about Jesus knocked Lance off his bike, like Paul on the way to Damascus. I'd like to tell you that he prayed to receive Christ and is now applying to Southern Seminary to study for the pastorate. But the story's not that dramatic. Lance didn't respond in repentance and faith. He graciously dismissed us. He may not have listened to the gospel, but what happened next sure turned my attention more closely to it..." (find the rest here)

Evangelicals and the Pill / I Wasn't Aborted- Russel D. Moore

Evangelicals and the Pill
"This morning's Wall Street Journal looks at the evangelical Protestant attitude toward contraception. Mostly, the piece notes, they love it: 88 percent according to a Harris poll support birth control.

Still, the author, a professor at Wheaton College, notes the very recent history of such views among Protestants and acknowledges an evangelical minority holding to the older vantage point on contraception, citing Sam and Bethany Torode's Open Embrace: A Protestant Couple Rethinks Contraception and Albert Mohler's qualified rejection of the contraceptive culture..."(click here to read the rest over at Moore's blog)

==============================

I Wasn't Aborted
"Ms. magazine has re-ignited its "I Had An Abortion" campaign, asking readers to "testify" of the fact that they aborted their babies. In today's Wall Street Journal, journalist Julia Gorin offers her take on the campaign:

"The Web site of Ms. Magazine--yes, it still exists--is calling on readers to sign a petition: 'I have had an abortion. I publicly join the millions of women in the United States who have had an abortion in demanding a repeal of laws that restrict women's reproductive freedom.'

"Well, so much for the right to privacy. If Ms. readers hadn't had so many abortions, there might be more Ms. readers. As for the rest of us, here's a petition we could all sign: 'I wasn't aborted.'

"Having narrowly escaped being aborted, I'd be the first in line."

Gorin goes on to explain how both she and her husband were scheduled to be aborted as "fetuses" in Soviet-era Russia. Gorin, who is Jewish, admits that she is no theologian. But she ponders the lives that are now achingly lonely, because of the absence of children they know were conceived but whose faces they never saw."

Spurgeon speak on "the Perpetuity of the Law of God"

The Perpetuity of the Law of God
A Message Delivered on May 21, 1882 by C. H. Spurgeon

“For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” (Matthew 5:18)

It has been said that he who understands the two covenants is a theologian, and this is, no doubt, true. I may also say that the man who knows the relative positions of the Law and the Gospel has the keys of the situation in the matter of doctrine.

THE LAW OF GOD MUST BE PERPETUAL.

There is no abrogation of it, nor amendment of it. It is not to be toned down or adjusted to our fallen condition; but every one of the Lord's righteous judgments abideth forever. I would urge three reasons which will establish this teaching.

In the first place our Lord Jesus declares that he did not come to abolish it. His words are most express: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” And Paul tells us with regard to the gospel, “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law” (Romans 3:31). The gospel is the means of the firm establishment and vindication of the law of God.

Jesus did not come to change the law, but he came to explain it, and that very fact shows that it remains, for there is no need to explain that which is abrogated.

Upon one particular point in which there happened to be a little ceremonialism involved, namely, the keeping of the Sabbath, our Lord enlarged, and showed that the Jewish idea was not the true one. The Pharisees forbade even the doing of works of necessity and mercy, such as rubbing ears of corn to satisfy hunger, and healing the sick. Our Lord Jesus showed that it was not at all according to the mind of God to forbid these things. The sum of our Lord’s teaching was that works of necessity, works of mercy, and works of piety are lawful on the Sabbath. He did explain the law in that point and in others, yet that explanation did not alter the command, but only removed the rust of tradition which had settled upon it. By thus explaining the law he confirmed it; he could not have meant to abolish it or he would not have needed to expound it.

In addition to explaining it the Master went further: he pointed out its spiritual character.

This the Jews had not observed. They thought, for instance, that the command “Thou shalt not kill” simply forbade murder and manslaughter: but the Savior showed that anger without cause violates the law, and that hard words and cursing, and all other displays of enmity and malice, are forbidden by the commandment. They knew that they might not commit adultery, but it did not enter into their minds that a lascivious desire would be an offense against the precept till the Savior said, “He that looketh upon a woman to lust after her committeth adultery with her already in his heart.” Assuredly this was no abrogation of law: it was a wonderful exhibition of its far-reaching sovereignty and of its searching character.

Let us not dare to dream that God had given us a perfect law which we poor creatures could not keep, and that therefore he has corrected his legislature, and sent his Son to put us under a relaxed discipline...(click here to read the rest of it over at Fide-O)

Who Can Stand?

"If thou, LORD, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?" - Psalm 130:3

Going along with my post on Romans 3, as well as Travis' from Stepping In Faith and Pat's Ponderings, this verse speaks to the need for JUSTIFICATION. Travis and Pat both have been discussing the beauty of the doctrine over at their blogs, and have some wonderful meditations on the subject.

The profunditity of Psalm 130:3 is hard to express in mere words. It speaks to the heart of every man's sin. "If thou, Lord, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?" And as awesome as that question is, its answer is just as awe inspiring. NO MAN COULD STAND, NO NOT ONE. Wow. When that truth is entered into the heart of man, he can't help but cry out for a Savior. No wonder the feet of those the bring the Gospel of Christ are "BEAUTIFUL". Well, Glory to God, those feet are bring good news.

And then the psalmist continues in verse 4, "But there is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared." Wow again! How awesome is God's Word? In two verses, a rolling tide of glorious news is poured forth from the Heavens - if man's sin is marked, he is without hope; - but there is FORGIVENESS so that GOD MAY BE FEARED. And that last part is important. God grants forgiveness why? Well we know, that at the bottom of it all, He does it for his Glory - to bring Glory to the Father through the Son. But he grants forgiveness for another reason:

So that He may be feared.

Psalm 89:7
"God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the saints, and to be had in reverence of all them that are about him."

Ecclesiastes 12:13
"Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man."

Psalm 111:10
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever."

Fear God, and Serve the King,
Brother Hank

Where the disease is strong, The remedy must be strong

("The Mute Christian Under the Smarting Rod"
or, "The Silent Soul with Sovereign Antidotes"
by Thomas Brooks, 1659, London.)

"Oh! but my afflictions are greater than other
men's afflictions are! Oh! there is no affliction
like my affliction! How can I not murmur?

It may be your sins are greater than other men's
sins. If you have sinned against . . .
more light,
more love,
more mercies,
more promises,
than others--no wonder if your afflictions are
greater than others! If this be your case, you
have more cause to be mute than to murmur!

It may be that the Lord sees that it is very needful
that your afflictions should be greater than others.

It may be your heart is harder than other men's
hearts, and prouder and stouter than other men's
hearts, it may be your heart is more impure than
others, and more carnal than others, or else more
selfish and more worldly than others, or else more
deceitful and more hypocritical than others, or
else more cold and careless than others, or more
formal and lukewarm than others.

Now, if this is your case, certainly God sees
it very necessary, for . . .
the breaking of your hard heart, and
the humbling of your proud heart, and
the cleansing of your foul heart, and
the spiritualizing of your carnal heart, etc.,
that your afflictions should be greater than
others; and therefore do not murmur!

Where the disease is strong, the remedy must
be strong--else the cure will never be wrought!
God is a wise physician, and He would never
give strong medicine--if a weaker one could
effect the cure!

The more rusty the NAIL is, the oftener we put it
into the fire to purify it; and the more crooked it
is, the more blows and the harder blows we give
to straighten it.

You have been long a-gathering rust; and
therefore, if God deal thus with you, you have
no cause to complain."

"For the Lord disciplines the one He loves, and
punishes every son whom He receives." Heb. 12:6

The work of the Law

As I was reading Romans 3 tonight, and meditating on the work of the Law in bringing a child of God unto repentance, the Lord led me to scribble out this poem:

Oh blessed Law that casts me down,
To bow and kiss my Savior's feet,
What blessed Law that humbles so,
And shows my heart's deceit.

All men condemned before your Words,
And no excuse remains,
You show our righteousness as filthy rags,
And our souls as open graves.

How men do strive to pay in full,
The debt that you desire,
Your blessed work does bring their deeds,
Face to face with fire.

But what, dear Law, you cannot do,
Is what is best of all,
Though sin you can unveil to man,
His curse you can't recall.

But look, and see, and lift thine eyes,
'Tis Grace that paid the price.
The Son of Man, the Lamb of God,
Was made our sacrifice.

Oh blessed Law keep on your work,
And bring poor sinners to their knees,
But oh sweet Grace, salvation serve,
And change our sin, to righteousness, indeed.

-
Only when man is stripped of his self-confidence, and self-righteousness, and even self-esteem, can he be brought to the Cross. An unconvicted man has nothing to repent of. An unbroken vessel has no need to be fixed, and a seemingly healthly man would have no need to seek the healing hand of a physician. It is only when, through the Law, man is left 'without excuse' - and comes to see the impending and righteous judgement of the Lord - when he will turn unto the 'heir of our Salvation', Christ Jesus.

Until a sinful man is wholly aware of his damnable condition and the truth that he is in fact a 'sinner in the hand of an angry God' - he is the gravest danger imaginable...eternal seperation from the Lord. No amount of sugar coated Christianity can take the place of this Gospel truth - that man without God is lost, and has no hope. Charles Spurgeon said it this way:

"O you unconverted ones, how can you live apart from Christ? To live one hour apart from Christ is to live in infinite peril, since in that hour you may die, and pass beyond the realms of hope."

I thank God for His Law, and for it's complete fulfillment in Jesus Christ -

What a Glorious King we serve!
Bro. Hank

For all you Aggies out there...

Chris Walker sings Total Eclipse of the Heart (three years before he helped lead A&M to the NCAAs). Poor guy, I bet he doesn't even know this is out in cyberspace...lol

Speak Softly And Carry A Big Stick

Those were the words of Teddy Roosevelt...I think. But they couldn't be truer in our discussion of faith in issues such as birth control. As the other Journeymen have demonstrated, you need not 'storm the castle in one felled swoop' to get your point across. Or as the radio commercial says, you don't have to "yell I'm important into a cell phone" for folks to think you are important. Or as I like to say, I'll take a silent machine gunner over a loud-mouth archer anyday.

What am I trying to get at? What, it's not obvious? hehe...

When dealing with issues of the Faith, especially issues that are "EXTRAbiblical", our starting point must always be the Bible (or the Big Stick). As Nobody alluded to, we all come to the table with different backgrounds, and different experiences in life -- but one of the most important uniters of the Body is the Word of God. When the mutual parties realize and agree that what they are seeking is Truth, as defined by Scripture, there will be no need to "go to the mattresses" (to steal a Godfather quote)*. Even something such as birth control, which some deem as extrabiblical, must still have it's foundations somewhere in the Word of God. Nothing we do should ever be 'apart' from it's precepts. Although there are no proof texts for numerous issues, we have a Spirit that guides us unto Truth, and that is all the proof we need to make our decisions.

I agree with Edmund that this issue comes down to the power that man has 'usurped' from God. I, again, can not find a verse or it's implication that alludes to God delegating his Authority of 'creation of man' over to Man. Basically, I'm concerned that our basis for birth control is built, not on the will of God, but on the will of man. I may very well be wrong, as both of my fellow bloggers have aptly and ably proved, but the reservation still remains. I fear treading territory that man was never meant to tread, and wielding power that is not ours to wield.

It's been clearly stated by both sides, what God's purpose for marriage is. I think we're both pulling on the same string on that one. But it has not been proven that God has given man the "right to choose" birth control, although it is clear that He has given us the "power" to use it. Extrabiblical or not, without that proof - how can we venture to assume that we have that right? (...as I speak it, Luther is rolling over in his grave.)

I know that if a man is truly searching for the will of God in prayer, in Scripture, and in the Spirit of Truth - he will find what he seeks...and I dare not bind his conscience with my own. I only caution, that he does not trust his own heart, but seeks always to please and honor God's. We can do no more, and we are called to do no less.

Dialogue is welcomed -
Bro. Hank

Well said... I think

Edmund, I think you must be too smart for me, as I must say, I'm a little confused with parts of your blog which seem somewhat contradictory, but then again, it's been a long day. On a whole, I'd say I agree. I don't think that either side can say that one position is 100% solid Biblically either way. On that note, if you're reading this and frustrated from the different viewpoints we've all expressed, take heart. As Hank said, healthy theological discussions are winners for all involved. At the very least, it gets us thinking about the Bible, something that I think we'd all admit we don't think nearly enough about. And if you get frustrated that we can't say definitively one way or another, ask yourselves this: if we could know everything perfectly, then why would we need faith? By definition, faith is simply believing in what we can't exactly see or fully understand with our senses.

I think Edmund did hit something on the mark unless I horribly misread his post. The whole birth control discussion isn't even entirely about birth control. Think of all the things that all of us have used to support our viewpoints: stewardship, faith, God's sovereignty, etc. Not to mention that try as we all might to be entirely objective, we all shape what we see and hear based on where we are coming from, and for better or worse, that includes our interpretation of scripture also.

This conversation is about something deeper that gets at the heart and core of who we are. John Eldredge and Brent Curtis say this:

"From one religious camp we're told that what God wants is obedience, or sacrifice, or adherence to the right doctrines, or morality. Those are the answers offered by conservative churches. The more therapeutic churches suggest that no, God is after our contentment, or happiness, or self-actualization, or something else along those lines. He is concerned about all those things, of course, but they are not his primary concern. What he is after is us- our laughter, our dreams, our fears, our heart of hearts."

Really only God knows the motivations for all our perspectives on these issues because as Jeremiah says in chapter 17:9-10,

"The heart is hopelessly dark and deceitful,
a puzzle that no one can figure out.
But I, God, search the heart
and examine the mind.
I get to the heart of the human.
I get to the root of things.
I treat them as they really are,
not as they pretend to be."

So at the end of the day, I guess my position is not that we should use birth control or that we shouldn't. My position is that we shouldn't have a position. We should try to follow His Spirit into finding His position and make it our own for His glory. And ultimately, that's where prayer and study are so vital. I've heard this analogy of prayer.

For those of you who have ever fished from a boat, many of you have accidentally cast a line into the shore or something near it. As a result, when you begin to reel it in, it appears you are bringing the shore towards you. Actually, you are bringing yourself to the shore, but prayer is the same way. While praying for His will, we pull our own thoughts into line with His.

So with this and every other debatable issue, do what you can to glorify God and give him your very heart, very marriage, very everything.

The Monkey and His Wrench..

I again apologize for the extended delay in between posts. Dial-up internet access is like a slow acting poison so I pray for a quick death. At any rate, I have read the previous posts on the issue in my absence and I feel there is little left to be said of great importance on either side so I am going to throw a wrench into the discussion if anyone wishes to continue it. I’ll try to make this short.
First, a couple very quick responses on what has been said:

On the Biblical Nature of the Discussion
In an earlier post regarding the ‘problem’ with the SOS, Hank says, “Let me clarify the issue again: Marital intercourse without the "natural" responsibilty of offspring is unbiblical.” This, though it was not his intent hits on what I believe is a very important point. The current discussion is not UNbiblical but it is EXTRAbiblical meaning the specifics are external to the Scriptures. In principle it may be addressed in Scripture but believers on both sides have exegeted those verses differently. And on such matters, though we may disagree, it is not a matter directly dealt with in Scripture and so it falls to the matter of exegeting those verses upon which one may make a case, but again, it is only making a case and not Biblical proof. To say, ‘it is not mentioned, therefore it is against it’ is a really poor argument, just as to say, ‘it is not mentioned, therefore it is for it’ is a really poor argument (and not one that I made).

On the Treatment of Song of Solomon
“. SOS seems like it would cause some trouble for the "marriage is chiefly for procreation" side of this debate, but it doesn't make the case for "marriage is chiefly for pleasure" either. It beautifully describes the passionate love and affection between a married couple - yes. Does it speak of birth control? Nope. That's an important observation there. All that intimacy, all that pleasure - and yet no birth control. They must've been crazy! Don't they know they could've had kids... Oh, the horror! Haha”

Now first, SOS was NEVER used to present a case that marriage is ONLY for pleasure. It was meant only to show ONE purpose of marriage is pleasure. Second, I am not one who believes in situational ethics, but that is a very big stretch. The reason for using birth control discussed and defended by myself and nobody has been primarily for the time necessary for the preparation and provision for children. Solomon was not quite in this position. Solomon had 700 wives and princesses and 300 concubines so he had the pleasure of many beds, marriage and otherwise (1 Kings 11). He was also the richest man perhaps ever and would have no trouble providing for his family. He was the KING of a nation and from Scripture we have little evidence he was either a good father or good husband. This does not seem to be a fair comparison, but you be the judge.

The Wrench
Now, with all that being said, I believe in my original post I said my stance was this, “birth control that is not abortifacient (nor presents that possibility) and does not interfere with the pleasure of the marriage bed (in any substantial, unnecessary way) is fine and dandy.’ Now that’s not exactly what I said, but it’s the gist of it. I would look it up, but it takes too long to open. So, here’s the wrench: God provided us with a natural form of birth control that is in line with the natural functions of the body and does not require the introduction of any foreign articles or chemicals or the addition of any naturally produced chemicals. This has been discussed in passing in an earlier post and is commonly known as the ‘rhythm’ method. This is a method that has been employed for centuries and is in fact discussed in Scripture in the Levitical law. Basically it requires a thorough understanding of the body and close attention to the woman’s cycle. Now, previously I also stated the argument that is made against this and it is the same as that against the pill. People will say you cannot believe this form is not showing a lack of faith in God while using the pill is because there is no difference in principle. Perhaps one is a "lesser level" of faith than the other, but neither is done completely in faith.
I think that misses an important point that transcends even this discussion. The issue is not the action, it is the heart of the action. The people I have spoken to regarding this issue and to whom this is a very real issue have sought counsel, have prayed, have studied the Word and have not simply taken the argument as face value and have still ended up on different sides. Again, I say the issue is not simply faith, there is something deeper. I do not mean an issue deeper than faith, I mean a root problem with our understanding of the world in which we live. We are in a world saturated with quick fixes, chemical combinations and concoctions that can do almost anything imaginable. You can lose weight, you can gain weight, you can gain muscle, you can be virile longer, you can prevent this or encrouage that, you can do crazy things. Many of these things, so called miracles of modern medicine, are good things and are necessary because we live in a fallen world of sickness and disease. Some things today because of mutations etc., it seems we are no longer able to control using only natural methods. A prime example is cancer. To a large extent it is now ‘in the genes’ though many kinds are a result of lifestyle and diet. After a life of eating a very unhealthy diet it is not surprising we have lots of heart attacks. Previously this would have resulted in death much more quickly, but now we have bypass surgeries and heart transplants and a hundred other ways to keep us alive. All of these things, and believe me, I know I have summed up this argument with a minimal amount of evidence and explanation but let me continue and upon your pressing I will expound at a later date; all of these things have led us to a culture of the quick fix and an extreme lack of discipline.

My thought is this: The pill and other chemical means of birth control are bulemic in nature. That requires explaining so I will. Let me preface it by saying, I do NOT in any way believe bulemia is practiced because of pleasure. Most certainly it reflects a person greatly troubled by any number of factors and I think it’s a tragedy. I speak to means and ends in this comparison, not motives. So, how are they alike? Bulemia is an unnatural means, using natural tools to lose or maintain weight. People with bulemia force themselves to throw up after meals. Many do this because of image issues and there are many negative side effects for those who practice it consistently, but others do it for different reasons. Let us imagine an individual who wants to have a certain figure. This individual also loves to eat. They love fatty foods and sugary foods and all sorts of foods they cannot eat or at least cannot eat much of if they desire to maintain this figure. Now, the natural way to maintain this would be to eat a disciplined diet, excercise, etc. A certain amount of pleasure is given up. That’s just the way it works. In this case you cannot have the cake and eat it too. The bulemic has their cake and eats it, but does not digest it. Now please do not think I am making light of bulemia any more than I am making light of the issue of birth control. The comparison is this: In both, we have been given a purely NATURAL way by God to maintain our bodies. In both, these ways require us to be disciplined and make certain sacrfices in order to obey certain commands. The glutton is not taking care of his temple and by throwing up meals, he/she has not corrected the problem they have simply found a way to conceal their sin. The way around the natural is unnatural and does not require discipline.
The difference between the ‘rhythm’ method and other non-natural methods is not merely an issue of faith, it is an issue of what God has provided and what man has usurped. I welcome Hank and Nobody to address this issue. I am well aware I have left much unexplained.
Peace in Jesus, our Lord, Sovereign over all
Edmund Pevensie

Linking Up To Fide-O's

The guys over at "Fide-O" have got some good posts going up and I figured I'd make it a little easier for all of y'all to track 'em down:
----
On The Ground
By Scott Hill

"Tony, Roger, and I have made it to Maryland. We are planning spending the day in Washington D.C. today, and see some monuments. It has already been an interesting day. Last night we had a long conversation with our waitress, Melissa, who had a question once she found out I was a pastor.

Her friends are getting married and they are not particularly religious. Since she is the only Christian they have asked her to get ordained online and officiate the wedding. She had some reservations and wanted our opinion. I am not going to go into detail about what we told her, but I have seen a trend in this. Maybe it could be attributed to "Friends". Who knows?

Have any of you ran into problems with this in your own churches?"

----
A Quick Look at Amillennialism

By Jason E. Robertson

"What Amillennialism Is Not:

-It does not deny the existence of a millennium.
-It is not a product of either a particular Protestant denomination or a product of Roman Catholicism.
-It does not require one to be a pedobaptist or immersionist.
-It does not require one to be a Calvinist or Arminian.
-It does not require one to be a Covenant theologian or anti-covenant theologian.
-It is not liberalism.
-It is not as divided as Premillennialism.
-It does not symbolize everything in the Bible.
-It does not have a non-literal understanding of the Bible.
-It is not the materialistic view of the millennium as held by all Premillennialists.
-It does not hold to a literal "golden age" on earth like the many Postmillennialists.
-It is not "replacement theology."
-It is not anti-semetic.

What Amillennialism Is:

-It follows a “grammatical-historical” literal interpretation of the Scriptures.
-It looks at the Bible as a unit which contains no contradictions.
-It believes there is no “gap” in Daniel’s prophecy of Seventy Weeks, but that it was fulfilled with the desolation of the Temple and destruction of Jerusalem by Titus and the Roman army in 70 A.D. (as the Tribulation judgment against non-believing Israel).
-It agrees with evangelical preterism that the prophecies concerning the nation Israel have been historically fulfilled, for the most part, and all remaining prophecies concerning Israel will be fulfilled in the church which has always been the “Israel of God.” (Eph. 1:23; Galatians 6:6)
-It believes explicitly in the millennium of Revelation 20.
-It interprets the one thousand year period mentioned only in Rev. 20 as a complete period of time, the length of which is only known by God. (Such symbolism is hermeneutically consistent with Psalm 50:10 and 1Chron. 16:15).
-It believes the millennial kingdom of Christ began with His incarnation and will consummate at His Second Coming.
-It could better be called a “Realized Millennium.”
-It believes that the millennium is the literally the spiritual reign of Christ on earth in the kingdom of His church and in the saints in heaven.
-It believes entrance to the on-going millennium is gained solely through the new birth, and that John refers to this as the first resurrection in Revelation 20:6 (supported by Eph. 2:1,5,6 and Colossians 2:13 and 3:1.)"....continued here.

----

When I Was A Dispy No More
By Jason E. Robertson

"THEN

I have always been a Southern Baptist. I was saved in a SBC church and surrendered to God's call to preach in that same church five years later. Later, I attended Liberty Univ. and graduated from an SBC college and from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. I was a defender of Progressive Dispensationalism and a confused 4 point Calvinist.

I actually preached a stronger Calvinistic message than most SBC churches were accustomed to hearing. And unlike most SBC preachers, I never really preached on the end times much. In fact, when I preached through the Book of Revelation I always preached just one sermon that would cover chapters 6 through 19. Hey, I believed in a pre-trib rapture so why bother with the details of the Tribulation!

Through the years, the more I studied and the more I expounded the Word of God, the more Calvinistic I became. It has never caused me a problem in my SBC circles, and those of you who know me know that I am not ashamed to be a known as a Calvinist. I am a church-planting, evangelistic, pastor-theologian 5-point-plus Calvinist who wishes everybody was one.

NOW

But let me tell you about something that happened to me in the recent past. As I studied church history and historical orthodox Christianity, I found the rumors about Dispensationalism being a recent phenomenon to be true. Not only that, I realized how that Dispensationalism had entirely skewed my theology too many ways to count. I discovered Covenant theology and began to marvel at its comprehensiveness. I virtually devoured it, spending untold hours reading everything I could from men that I respected and trusted. I had always read books about CT and various Millennial views,but those books were usually written by men who were Dispensational. I had never really taken the time to let Covenant theologians speak for themselves. Although I wasn't convinced at first glance, every new understanding led to new questions. I became a practical Pan-Millennialist for a while -- the only thing I knew for sure was that it would all pan out!"...continued here.

----

All in all, if you find yourself with some time to spare - check out the rest of Fide-O's bloggings. They are sure to entertain, inspire, and get your spiritual blood moving,or boiling - depending on which side of the issue you fall on ;).

Carry On'
Bro. Hank

Part V - A Prescription for Marriage

First of all, I would like to thank my fellow bloggers for their awesome posts in this series on birth control. Each one was challenging and edifying for me – as I’m sure they were for everyone else. And don’t let this summation stop you from continuing the debate. It’s an issue that needs to be talked about, and a question that is sure to be posed in college bible studies, marriage counselings, etc. After all, iron does sharpen iron.

This series has been centered on “the morality of birth control, and its place in a Christian marriage.” We’ve discussed biblical evidence such as Genesis 1:28, 30:2, 38, Psalm 127, 128, Proverbs 5:18-19, 1 Corinthians 7:4 and 10:31, as well as many others. We’ve looked at the thoughts of theologians such as Luther, Piper, Mohler, and more. We’ve gone over enough scenarios and analogies to float a battleship. But most importantly, we have sought to know the will of God.

I will be the first to admit, when I began this series, I figured the issue was a much cleaner cut than it turned out to be. I’m certain that I aided in its murkiness with my scattered logic, and flash-in-the-pan explanations; but I pray you were able to get the gist at least.

As I think back on what I would have liked to have said better or clearer, or perhaps changed altogether – Luther’s quote on the purpose of marriage comes springing to mind. By quoting it in Part I, it mistakenly became the center-piece for the rest of my comments, when I did not initially intend it to be that way. Although I do agree that “the purpose of marriage is not[only] pleasure and ease but the procreation and education of children and the support of a family”, I did not intend that quote to be my thesis. Luther makes no attempt to elaborate on his statement – and I felt ill-equipped to do it for him.

That being the case, let me explain what I would like you to take away from my part of these posts.

When God created man, and the institution of marriage, He knew what He was doing. When He saw that it was not good for man to be alone, He created a companion, a partner in the form of a woman. What was the difference between the man and the woman? One could argue, there were many things. But you’d be hard pressed to leave out the fact that Eve was created with the power to conceive children. That was the one thing that Adam could not do by himself. God ‘could’ have easily created a companion for Adam that could not bare children. That would solve the lonely problem, right? But God chose to create a vessel that could have children. Could the case then be made, that is one of the chief reasons that God made Eve the way He did? I’d say so. He made her able to procreate. Then, he turned to the couple and instructed them to….what? “Enjoy yourselves?”

I know I’m being asinine, but that’s not what God said, nor what He meant, or perhaps might have even implied. No, God said, “Be fruitful and multiply”. But God didn’t leave his creatures hangin’ (so to speak). He made the completion of that command pleasureful. And to go further, it turns out that He allowed (percentage wise) man to have more ‘pleasure’ than ‘multiplication’. (Or in english, a couple doesn’t necessarily conceive every time they engage in intercourse.)

Song of Solomon speaks vividly about the God given pleasure of the marriage bed. Paul’s writings to the Corinthians, highlight the relationship between man and wife and this pleasure. Proverbs 5 makes it clear that sexual pleasure is to be a part of a holy marriage. BUT IN WHAT CONTEXT? Nowhere, in any Scripture pertaining to marriage, is there the separation between pleasure and procreation. Nowhere. There are verses that speak only of its pleasure – there are others that speak only of procreation; but NONE remotely allude to the option to separate them. In all the inspired Scriptures, we see marriage described as man and wife becoming ‘one flesh’. One flesh does not denote separation, does it? Just the opposite…it illustrates the supreme union of marriage, and all of it’s responsibilities of loyalty and love, and procreation. Procreation is undeniably a page of the blessed story of Christian marriage; and if it is intentionally removed – it’s Author must surely take offense.

The matter is not one of legalism, no more than fidelity, or abortion. A man who is faithful to his wife can not be labeled a legalist, no more than a man who pickets an abortion clinic. The one is merely being true to his marriage, the other true to the sanctity of human life. Should couples not also be true to their marriages and its responsibility to be open to human life? I would say so.

And today, as if on cue, the Lord gave me a word as I read the daily devotional from “A Year With C.S. Lewis”. The August 7th entry was entitled “Holy Intentions”. Listen to what Lewis says:

“The Christian idea of marriage is based on Christ’s words that a man and wife are to be regarded as a single organism – for that is what the words ‘one flesh’ would be in modern English. And the Christian believes that when He said this He was not expressing a sentiment but stating a fact – just as one is stating a fact when one says that a lock and its key are one mechanism, or that a violin and a bow are one musical instrument. The inventor of the human machine was telling us that its two halves, the male and the female, were made to be combined together in pairs, not simply on the sexual level, but totally combined. The monstrosity of sexual intercourse outside marriage is that those who indulge in it are trying to isolate one kind of union (the sexual) from all the other kinds of union which were intended to go along with it and make up the total union. The Christian attitude does not mean that there is anything wrong about sexual pleasure, any more than about the pleasure of eating. It means that you must not isolate that pleasure and try to get it by itself, any more that you ought to try to get the pleasure of taste without swallowing and digesting, by chewing things and spitting them out again. – from Mere Christianity”

May all that we do, in singleness and in marriage, be unto the Glory of God.

Blessings upon blessings,
Bro. Hank

P.S. – I will do my best to get the rest of that interview up for y’all...someday, I hope...

And the gloves come off...!

Just kidding. Thought that might at least get someone browsing past the title in the article. In all seriousness, Bro Hank has a lot of logic in what he says. Though I must say, I never said procreation wasn't a motivation of marriage; just that I think scripture supports the notion (and not just in SOS - "Song of Solomon", but in Genesis with Adam and Eve, Proverbs 5:18-19; 1 Corinthians 7:3-5,33-34 and other places throughout the Bible) that it is not the primary motivation of marriage. Rather, I say it is the spiritual and emotional intimacy and the relationship behind them. But call me crazy, I am nobody after all...!

So let's look at Genesis 38 which is often used as the "definitive" proof of the Bible's stance on birth control. According to GotQuestions, "Genesis 38 tells of Judah's sons, Er and Onan. Er married a woman named Tamar, but he was wicked and the Lord killed him, leaving Tamar with no husband or children. Tamar was given in marriage to Er's brother, Onan, in accordance with the law of levirate marriage in Deuteronomy 25:5-6. Onan did not want to split his inheritance with any child that he might sire on Tamar on his brother's behalf, so he practiced the oldest form of birth control. Genesis 38:10 says "What he did was wicked in the Lord's sight; so He put him to death also." Onan's motivation was selfish: he used Tamar for his own pleasure, but refused to perform his “brotherly” duty of creating an heir for his deceased brother. This passage is often pointed to as evidence that God does not approve of birth control. However, it was not the act of contraception that caused the Lord to put Onan to death, but rather Onan’s selfish motives behind the action."

One of the central themes of the Bible and especially the New Testament is that Jesus is after our hearts. It's not what we necessarily do or not do, the root goes back to the heart. I think the argument that Got Questions employs is in line with scripture. Genesis 38 isn't speaking against birth control itself, it's speaking against the pride and deceit of Onan to use Tamar.

Clearly, the Bible loves children. Jesus said we have to be like children to enter the kingdom of Heaven. Scripture does say in Genesis to "Be fruitful and multiply," though that was also about populating the Earth from 2 people to now over 6 billion. And Psalm 127:3-5 makes it clear that children are a blessing. I'll even go as far as to say that we should want to have children if given the opportunity.

But the argument of stewardship goes a lot further than many people give it credit. Scripture makes it clear, when we die to Christ, our bodies are not our own. But it is still our responsibility to be stewards of those bodies for the Lord's glory. Now, don't misunderstand me, remember, I pretty much consider myself a Calvinist so God is sovereign over that stewardship and He is in control. But scripture also makes it clear that true Biblical sanctification only happens when we put forth the maximum effort, and then realize and praise God by recognizing that it is from Him and not of us. Clearly we are called to obey God's word and as Paul said, we must test ourselves to make sure we are constantly in accordance with His revealed will to mankind, the Bible. 1 Corinthians 7:4 makes it clear that a husband's body is his wife's and his wife's is her husband's. In a marriage, we are stewards of our partner's body as well as our own. In Matthew 25, Jesus tells us the parable of the master gives 3 slaves a talent (monetary unit- LOT of money) and them using it wisely in the master’s name. To the slave who had been most faithful, the master replied "His master said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful slave You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.'" Clearly, we are supposed to be responsible for our bodies under the direction of the Spirit. As one writer put it, " This stewardship must be exercised under God, however. He is the owner, we are the manager. While I believe that God does not oppose limiting the size of one's family, Christian couples MUST check with the owner to see how he wants us to limit or not limit the act of creation."

For instance, let's examine the case of someone who is on medication for some illness like epilepsy, cancer, heart disease or many other illnesses. Now I specifically listed those illnesses because while some things we do or don't do can affect or increase the risk of say cancer or heart disease, they are largely hereditary. And things like sickle-cell anemia or epilepsy are essentially entirely genetic or shaped by other factors that people can't control. Now many of the people who are on a drug for one of these illnesses to protect their life (and most including Hank have agreed that medicine is not against scripture) also can cause severe birth defects. In fact, many doctors make sure those female patients who are on such a drug take birth control if they are sexually active to protect the unborn child. If a person wants to have children who is on medicine like that, depending on the circumstances, they may be able to modify their medicine under doctor supervision and take supplemental vitamins, etc, to reduce that risk and allow them to have children. Others are forced to adopt because it is virtually assured there will be enormous impact on the child if it is conceived. I think that it is the Biblical responsibility to actively protect that child in that case by doing whatever is necessary, and at the same time, recognizing that the protection is totally God's doing. However, that doesn't preclude us from responsibility. Because I think scripture is patently against abortion, it's not a choice, it is a life and thou shall not murder, and so once a child is conceived, it is in God's hands largely. But even then, that doesn't preclude a pregnant mother from eating right, refraining from drinking alcohol, etc, even though the child is in God's care.

And even if your case is not medical, if you are protecting the unborn child from financial hardships or other things with the benefit of the Child and the glory of God foremost in your heart and mind, I find it hard to see how one could argue against birth control, thou Hank does make a very thorough argument. I agree with Hank that a lot of weight should be given to what Christians have said throughout the history of the church. However, he ignores one crucial fact. Things change. Now, I am not saying that the Bible changes, quite the opposite. I'm talking about the beliefs held by people that are not firmly grounded in scripture. For instance, birth control even 20 years ago was not nearly as safe for the mother, as advanced to protect the child, etc, as it is now. I'm not saying Luther would agree now. But I'm saying that one cannot say with certainty that he would agree with his previous sentiments either.

Children are a blessing that all couples should prayerfully hope for if He so blesses them. But even with all blessings, we are called to exercise stewardship. As another website says, We are called to make decisions about what and how much we can handle. There are good reasons to limit the number of ministries we have, the amount of money we possess (Proverbs 30:7-9), and the number of children we have. Each couple must decide between God and themselves, what God wants them to do."

The world's lies about children are that they are a burden, they're too expensive, you'll help overpopulate the earth if you have too many, etc. And to an extent, that's true, but the Bible does make it clear that they are a blessing. But God's grace and His blessings and His sovereignty does not preclude us the demand to be obedient and responsible. That's my take on the issue.

Part the IV - Poor Luther, and A Semi Wrap-Up

First off, let me thank Nobody for his 2 cents (although I value it as much more...I mean, at least dollar or two...) Like usual, he does a great job of bringing the issue to a clear intersection, and then commences to give it a 'beat down' with his down-to-earth logic. And to steal a quote from Dr. Mohler:
"I am thankful this morning we're here to talk theology. This is good and healthy. It is a sign of maturity. We may be the last people alive who can have a disagreement. If we can no longer talk theology we're soon to taste the dust of death. I'm so thankful we're talking theology because it recognizes the significant and sovereign work of God that gave this denomination a second chance. If it wasn't for the conservative resurgence we may be here considering some resolution on homosexuality."

And so I'll continue:

Poor little Luther. It is obvious that we can't take everything he ever said as golden -- cause then we'd all be paedobaptizers -- and that stuff just don't fly. However, I do think that we are too quick at times, to dismiss his comments on these finer points of theology as 'just Luther'. Oh sure, his 95 thesis were 'right on', but he's got to be nuts if he thinks marriage centers around procreation. And that's just it...It wasn't just Luther who believed that marriage 'without the responsibility of offspring' was unbiblical -- it was the entire weight of historic Protestantism. Were they all nuts too? Or just poor misguided theologians who just were not 'up with the times'? We look to them as reformers of Christ's church, and defenders of the faith 'once for all delivered to the saints' - but simply brush aside their views on marriage and child bearing. Okay, so birth control methods have changed. Genesis 1:38 hasn't. Just because Wesley and Calvin weren't around when Pfizer released the 'male pill' doesn't mean they can't exegete scripture. Some things like marriage and birth control transcend the bounds of modernity. It is easy to spot those doctrines in which the 'heros of the faith' diverge - modes of baptism, free will v. predestination, etc., - but in issues in which they all agree - we have the burden of proof on our shoulders, and not the other way around. If we can not prove from Scripture that God ordains the use of birth control in marriage -- why do we think we have the right to assume it as true? The only clear cut biblical evidence that remotely addresses the issue at face-value is 'against' it's use - not for it (Onan in Genesis 38). But still, that is not enough to force the issue to a head. I just can not see how one can come down on the affirmative side of birth control with no biblical support, and yet still act as if it is clearly a question of stewardship and none other.

The Song Of Solomon Problem. Okay, its not a problem, but I thought that would make for a nice intro line. SOS seems like it would cause some trouble for the "marriage is chiefly for procreation" side of this debate, but it doesn't make the case for "marriage is chiefly for pleasure" either. It beautifully describes the passionate love and affection between a married couple - yes. Does it speak of birth control? Nope. That's an important observation there. All that intimacy, all that pleasure - and yet no birth control. They must've been crazy! Don't they know they could've had kids... Oh, the horror! haha. And that is my point: SOS describes all the marital pleasure that someone could imagine, and yet does not remove the 'responsibility of offspring'. Let me clarify the issue again: Marital intercourse without the "natural" responsibilty of offspring is unbiblical. That fact can not be denied. Rather than dismiss that notion, SOS validates it more!

The Sovereignty of God in Birth Control. God is Sovereign. Yes or No? Yes! Good job. You get a gold star. And now to another question: Because God is sovereign, does that remove the responsibilty of man? No. Okay, you are 2 for 2. Now let's connect the dots. We know God is sovereign in child bearing, just as he is in saving souls. But just as we can't stop preaching the gospel (as it is a means to salvation), we can not prohibit the 'natural use of the woman/man' because it is a means in God's plan of procreation. We could sit back and say, "If God really wanted to save souls, then me sitting on my butt and refusing to evangelize won't stop him" and "If God really wanted us to have children, then the pill wouldn't stop him either". And we thereby REMOVE HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY. That is the heart of birth control. It allows actions that before were inextricably linked to child bearing, to be responsibility free - without repercussions (not meant to be used in the negative sense). That just doesn't seem to be a God thing to me, it seems more of an abuse of Christian liberty that in fact isn't a liberty that Christians were meant to enjoy.

Hoops and Hurdles. It really seems to me, that the marital use of birth control seeks to put hoops and hurdles in the way of God and child birth. Not that a pill could stay the hand of God, but can it not be a feeble human attempt to do just that? Birth control gives man some sense of control over his situation. It allows him to take his eyes off God's providence and focus on his own wisdom and chemical power. Other medicinal uses are different. There is biblical evidence that we are to seek such things as would keep us healthy, and to pray for healing. But none that we should pray for barrenness. I wonder how many Christian couples pray to God that they do not have children. What would a prayer like that be like? I think it may be similar to what Spurgeon said about Arminian prayer:

"You have heard a great many Arminian sermons, I dare say; but you never heard an Arminian prayer—for the saints in prayer appear as one in word, and deed and mind. An Arminian on his knees would pray desperately like a Calvinist. He cannot pray about free-will: there is no room for it. Fancy him praying,
"Lord, I thank thee I am not like those poor presumptuous Calvinists. Lord, I was born with a glorious free-will; I was born with power by which I can turn to thee of myself; I have improved my grace. If everybody had done the same with their grace that I have, they might all have been saved. Lord, I know thou dost not make us willing if we are not willing ourselves. Thou givest grace to everybody; some do not improve it, but I do. There are many that will go to hell as much bought with the blood of Christ as I was; they had as much of the Holy Ghost given to them; they had as good a chance, and were as much blessed as I am. It was not thy grace that made us to differ; I know it did a great deal, still I turned the point; I made use of what was given me, and others did not—that is the difference between me and them." That is a prayer for the devil, for nobody else would offer such a prayer as that. Ah! when they are preaching and talking very slowly, there may be wrong doctrine; but when they come to pray, the true thing slips out; they cannot help it. If a man talks very slowly, he may speak in a fine manner; but when he comes to talk fast, the old brogue of his country, where he was born, slips out. "

Man would like to think he has the right and the power to control life. It is one of his innermost desires. "For the wicked boasteth of his heart's desire" Psalm 10:3 "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9
But with something as important as the creation/obstruction of human life, man can not afford to exercise his so-called 'glorious free-will', at the expense of God's will for marriage. In the end, the stance against birth control is a matter that has centuries of orthodox teaching behind it, and more importantly, at least some, peripheral biblical support. Much more than can be said in support of its use.

It seems to me to be an easy call.
Brother Hank

--
Look for more of the interview to come...