Alright... get a load of these photos!

By Krikee! Whot a beeoootee!

Now... THAT'S Draaama!

Whot do you all think of moi Leetle Krykers? Aarn't thaee just graeeet?

Oi am soo praood!

Is this "Missional Day," or something John?

This is the Nebraska Sunset from Sara's uncle's farm:


This is what goes on after sunset:

Photos anyone?

Since everybody cool does photos on Fridays, maybe we should, too! All the missional guys do it!

Steve, Kevin, and I all have digital cameras, and Tom Ascol does it. So I think that effectively justifies us doing it as well. And one of Dr. Ascol's last posts already has over 230 comments and rising. And it's at least partially due to Friday Photo's.

And hopefully it will go better than the Quotable Wednesday idea. (We could keep that going as well, if you guys want.) But here are my two cents (pics).




This is Old Hickory Lake beside Fairvue Golf Course a few miles behind my house. I was driving home from work one morning last January, and it was right after I bought by camera. I still remember thinking what a beautiful morning that was.




This is the entrance to Fairvue. They have the name spelled out in bushes, which seems to be the "thing to do" in this up-and-up part of town. A college and shopping center do the same thing.

Welcome to John!

Hey John! Had a wonderful time on Wednesday - as always you are a gracious guest and the children loved you!

By the way... What IS missional anyway? One thing I know is that if you and Kevin and I really got on the ball and put out a bunch of stuff about it we would see at least 2 things happen:

1. We would get all kinds of traffic here at ThrowtheWord! The 'missional', 'post-modern', and 'emergent/emerging' sites are always packed!

2. We could write anytihng we wanted and still fit in! Whenerver I visit those sites I am amazed at the many differences reflected in each.

Think about it!

Speaking of "emerging conversation" - Ken and I (Ken I still don't know anything about you. Could you email me with a brief introduction of yourself, your family, etc? I won't post it, I would just like to know you a little better) have been having a dialogue about Calvinism and Evangelism. Read it here and here. I think that Ken does a really good job of thinking through his position and I am trying hard to get him to think through mine also. In light of the many discussions going on around the internet about this issue, I would encourage anyone who is interested to read with us and even join in at your pleasure.

Missional?

"It's not about bringing non-Christians in, it's about sending Christians out. It's the opposite of seeker sensitive. It's not a 'come' model, it's a 'go' model."





These are the words of Mark Driscoll, pastor of Mars Hill Church is Seattle, Washington. Above is one of the interview segments shown in preparation for this fall's Desiring God 2006 National Conference.


Wikipedia.com defines missional as

"a commonality displayed in emergent churches. In its broadest form, it is the belief that all believers are active missionaries of Christ in their daily lives.

As the term has come to be closely associated with the emerging church movement, it has come to represent the belief that the Spirit of God is alive and active in the people of God, namely the church as a whole. This approach tends to emphasize the importance of the involvement of 'laymembers' and 'lay-leaders' in churches.

As such, many emergent churches actively seek to involve members in ministry, inviting them to participate in the mission of Christ using the talents and skills they have. Members are encouraged to find a place where they can contribute to the local community of believers.

Due to the young nature of the missional and emergent movement, specific 'missional living' practices vary greatly between churches."

This all comes out of a conversation Steve and I had last night on what the term "missional" means.

Actually, the conversation was more like this:

Steve: What in the world is "missional"?
John: I don't know. Isn't it like "emergent"?
Steve: Do you mean "emerging" or "Emergent"?
John: Huh?
Steve: What?!
John: I don't know.
Steve: Me either!

So I decided to spend some time today finding out what "missional" meant. To be honest, I confess that I've been out of the loop over the last few years. When I was at Boyce College, emerging (or Emergent) churches were just coming out in the open, and my earliest memory is a bulletin posted outside Dr. DeKlavon's office. It was advertising a "Postmodern Worship Service," and someone tacked on a lengthy post-it note response castigating the flyer as liberal.

From that time till now, the Emergent Church, Mark Driscoll, Ed Stetzer, missiology, postmodernism, Brian McLaren, missional living, Leonard Sweet, et al. have just been one big oscillating ball of light looming just out of my peripheral vision. I know of them, but I know little to nothing about who they are and what they believe/teach and how they fit into the emergent puzzle. So my and Steve's question remains open. What is missional? Here are links to more of Mark Driscoll's interview for the Desiring God Conference. Where do we go from here?

Mark Driscoll:

Emerging vs. Emergent

Seeker vs. Missional Part One

Seeker vs. Missional Part Two

Open Methods, Closed Principles

Oh, Its Just Three More Years...at least.

I got word this morning from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary that I'm accepted in to their Advanced Master's program in the School of Theology!! What a blessing, and a relief. The Lord truly does work in mysterious ways, letting me slip through the cracks there ; )

If only I didn't have Strep throat right now, I'd go do something to celebrate... : (

Thanks for all the prayers though, I appreciate it very much.

Welcome to all our visitors today!

To all of the Alpha and Omega visitors:

Thanks for visiting our blog today. Spend as much time as you would like.

Dr. White, I would love to hear from you if you have a chance. My email is: pastorsteve@throwtheword.com.

Thanks and God bless!

In Christ, my Rock
Stephen Morse

Updated Conversation on Calvinism & Evangelism

I want to bring everyone up to date on the conversation that Ken and I are having (currently under the I Wish I Knew… SBC 2006 post). Feel free to jump in anytime you want to. Ken and I are discussing Calvinism and Evangelism. I must say that Ken has been very clear and concise in his representation of his own position and refreshing in his dialogue about the Calvinist position. If you want to catch-up reference the prior comments and then join in from here on out:

Ken, thanks for your last comment. I appreciate your willingness to search the Scriptures and present your arguments clearly and objectively. I have no problem with most of your comment. I also believe the Bible teaches us that God is outside of time as we know it. I believe that He is not bound by the ‘space-time continuum’ except in the areas that He placed Himself; for example: the promise that He would deliver Abram’s descendants after 400 years (Genesis 15), that He would rise again in 3 days (Mark 9:31), to mention just a few.

I begin to have reservations with your presentation because we are discussing your view that the Bible tells us that God, who is outside of time, looked ahead, as it were from our perspective, and saw those who ‘would’ choose Him and ‘made them His elect.’ There is no disputing that God has the ability to ‘look ahead’ and see the future. The question is: ‘did He look ahead and choose based on the individual's choice or did He choose based upon His own choice?’ I would like for you to present a Scriptural basis for this question:

Where does the Bible state that God looked ahead and chose based on the human’s choice? Where does it say that God sovereignly limited Himself by giving humanity that ‘kind’ of freedom?

As far as the book of Life in Revelation 13:8, that doesn’t speak, at all, to why or how it was written. Every consistent Calvinist would agree that, not only was it written before the individuals were created, but also from eternity past.
Apparently you and I totally agree that God is omniscient, yet I am struggling to see how that proves, Scripturally, the basis for your theory that He chooses based on a foreseen choice on the part of the human.
Remember that our conversation is on the foreknowledge of God rather than the total knowledge of God. I would say, opposed to your presentation about God watching and knowing what happens, that God “causes all things to work together (Romans 8:28).” The Bible is replete with references pertaining to God absolute control over His creation. (Reference my chapter on God here for passages referring to God’s control, foreknowledge, and omniscience.)

Your verses were adequate to establish that God operates in His own time. What passages refer to human freedom in relation to an individual’s choice? That is the question.

A Calvinist would argue that Ephesians 3:11 reveals that God has had an ‘eternal purpose’ of which Christ Jesus was the fulfillment. God’s plan wasn’t formulated after or even during Genesis 1:1. The word ‘eternal’ means much more than from a specific point in time. God’s omniscience is more than a passive knowledge of events and circumstances. He, as the Triune God, has from eternity past ‘purposed’ to bring about His plan through the work and Word of Christ. His foreknowledge is not based upon what He sees in the future but what He plans in the future. His knowledge is active in that the future is the “plan of the mystery for ages in God who created all things.” (Ephesians 3:9).

An example of this is found in Acts 13:48 “And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and AS MANY AS WERE APPOINTED TO ETERNAL LIFE (emphasis) believed.”

Please clarify for me the differences between omniscience and foreknowledge in reference to human freedom.

Enjoying this immensely Ken! Thanks for your time.

Helping the Grieving?

There I was, sitting in the vet's office with my pooch Jasper. The rabid little mutt had just been given a shot and had her nails clipped (who knew that a 27 pound dog could be so hard to contain?) I was waiting for the results from the blood they had drawn, and nursing the wounds on my arm and side from where I had held Jasper, when I spotted a Cat magazine. So I popped it open and began to read. And the article I read was on what to do for a friend who just lost a cat. I like cats. I even have a cat. I like all kinds of animals, and wish I had all kinds of animals. But when I read this article, I just felt depressed that we live in a society that places as much, if not more, emphasis on pets than it does our children.

Quite honestly, this little article would have been just as acceptable in our culture had the word "pet" been substituted with the word "child." The article began by explaining the phases one goes through when he loses a pet. First there is "shock" at the loss. Then, there is grief. and then a feel of irreplaceable loss. And the article continues, telling how you should treat the one who has experienced such unspeakable pain. It even provides a Hotline that a person can call to talk with people who are trained in "pet loss counseling."

Now, keep in mind. I like my pets. I'm not just some insensitive jerk. But, don't you think it is telling of our culture that we need a Hotline to call because we can't cope with the loss of our pet? In the Creation account, God gives to man, in Adam, authority over the animals. God places Adam as the ruler of the fish of the seas, the birds, the beasts, and so on (Gen. 1:26) When he tells Adam to name the animals (Gen. 3:19) , he allows Adam to assert authority over them. We have been given a certain responsibility over creation, and over the living animals, a responsibility that I think we have too often abused and shirked.

The point is, there is a clear difference between man and animal. Our pets are not "children." Many people in our culture have replaced children with dogs, or cats, because of one reason or another. Maybe its easier to care for them, or there are too many children in the world, and on and on. But the fact is we like pets because they are comfortable. They provide security. They keep a house from being empty when you are home alone. But we cannot allow the line to be blurred between man and his pet. They are still "pets."

While the lost and dying world at least has an excuse because its eyes are blinded to the truth of salvation, we as Christians cannot place so much emotion and dependence upon our cuddly little animals that we "grieve as those who have no hope" when little Fido bites the big one.

A sad day for US

Although I'm sure most of the people who will read this don't care, the United States lost to Ghana yesterday 2-1. It was a sad end to what should have been a much more successful World Cup appearance. Let's have a moment of silence for the great effort. And another one for the death of good refereeing (sp?)

Welcome New Team Member: John Wootten!

My good friend and a fellow servant of our Lord Jesus Christ has joined our blogging team.

John Wootten has been a dear friend for almost a decade now. His scholarly attitude and his sense of humor endeared him, almost immediately, to my family and I. If any of you remember our dear friend Jane666 then you recognize John from his able dialogue with her on so many levels of philosophy, history, and biblical dictrine.

Kevin and I look forward to his participation with us as we Throw the Word and watch Christ bring the fruit!

Welcome John! Hope you will post something soon brother!

Mudslinging just gets everyone dirty!

Its official... I do not care about the debate in Lynchburg anymore. Kevin and I have talked about this before, even posted on it here, but now it has gotten too childish. Go and visit AOMIN.org and just start to read the newest email interaction.

I really enjoy Dr. White's books. I enjoy listening to his dialogue and I try to utilize his instruction as I throw the Word because he is a very thorough, literate, concise, charismatic individual.

I have also, in the past, enjoyed listening to Dr. Ergun Caner speak. At the beginning of this whole shebang I began to lose my respect for him. Later as I heard him destroy Romans 9 in a sermon at Thomas Road Baptist Church, I simply wrote him off as an angry, yipping puppy. His rhetoric and vitrolic verbage doesn't interest me in the least and it makes him look like a jr. high punk.

The longer I read the interaction between Drs White and Caner though, I struggle to see the difference. The more they dialogue the more they are beginning to look like each other.

Dr. White... Give it up already. Who cares what they (the Caner ilk) think of you... those who respect you and enjoy your ministry are beginning to think ill of you. It won't make you look any better and it certainly doesn't reflect well on your testimony of Christ's work when you end up looking as bad as they do! Be the bigger man and let the little boys have their fun... it doesn't reflect on you at all but when you join them at their tired ploys... it does.

Conventional Thinking, The Dr. Strikes Again

Personally, I think the man needs to take a vacation. I'd love to hear that he was taking a month off to be with his family. But, if that won't do, then I guess I'm glad to see that he has started another new blog (how many does the guy have now??!) on issues in the Southern Baptist Convention. I am very interested to see where this will go, and I hope that Dr. Mohler responds to the issues that guys like
Dr. Ascol, among others, are raising. But whatever takes place, it is surely a blog to take notice of.

Check it out here.

I Wish I Knew.... SBC 2006

I wish I knew what the conventions of the 1800's were like. I would probably have both negatives and positives to say about them too but I think I might have less to say about them then I do about ours today.

Let me start with the positives:

The Preaching (I am also surprised that I have been able to come up with something positive about the preaching):

Kevin Morse's preaching was wonderful from all reports thus far (I have only spoken with Kevin about it but he assures me that it was the best he's ever heard so we will take his word for it!)

Rob Scott’s sermon on Sunday morning was an example of the preaching that we have come to expect from a Founder’s friend. Thank you, brother.

Dr. Dever's sermon at the Founder's breakfast was very solid (no surprise here). He spoke on Romans 9-10 and his outline was simple and yet simply perfect for the topic. Notable quotes: “I have been an Arminian twice and a Calvinist 3 times!” and “It isn’t our theology that limits our evangelism… it is our apathy, our laziness!”

Fred Luter's challenge during the annual meeting was... refreshing to say the very least. Can anyone say passionate delivery? He was so natural about it. He came in calm and as the sermon proceeded so did his excitement. Praise the Lord for his testimony of God's grace!

Dr. Mohler’s presentation of Southern Seminary was almost a sermon in itself. Unlike the other seminary presidents, who presented videos and testimonies, Dr Mohler gave us an example of what Southern is all about: the proclamation of the Truth! I am proud to be a Southern Graduate!

Meeting several Founder's friends:

Tom Ascol - Tom, if you ever read this I want to say thank you for your gracious demeanor this past week. The suggestion to contact Rob Scott was divinely inspired. We had a wonderful time with him and Dana. The breakfast was good and the food that Dr. Dever brought was even better. Your attitude during the annual meeting was a good example to me and others. Thanks for everything you do.

Ken and Celeste Puls – We sat at the same table with Ken and enjoyed our fellowship together.

Art Rogers – Art, we will be praying for you as you take over your new position. I hope to be able to get to know you better in the future.

Rob and Dana Scott – Rob and Dana, thanks for making us so welcome. Our fellowship on Sunday was just refreshing! Dana, the meal was superb. We ate out for every meal this past week and the best meal by far was yours! Thanks for your hard work. Rob, I hope to finish those books soon. My oldest son, Spencer, is so excited to read them also (He might finish them before I get a chance!).

Nathan and Jessica – What a perfect ending to a super week! Thanks for lunch and Nathan… you’re a riot!

Other Friends:

We had the wonderful pleasure of sitting beside Southeastern Seminary’s Archivist: Jim Lutzweiler during the Patterson-Mohler dialogue. (Amy and I were there an hour and a half early and got seats right in the middle down front!) Jim got there right after we did and we had a great time talking with him. He is such a gracious gentleman. He asked us all kinds of questions about our family and then he LISTENED to us as we talked and talked about our children. He is longsuffering!

We saw Walt Dejager for the first time in at least 10 years. He works for the NAMB as some kind of evangelism specialist. He is the one who trained Amy and I in evangelism. What a precious soul!

The Patterson-Mohler Dialogue:

I was very pleased with what was said and shown at the dialogue. Dr. Mohler showed up in his man-with-no-eyes sunglasses and I thought that he was going to throw down! (My appreciation of the man went up several notches when I found out that he had just had surgery on his eyes! It didn’t even phase him!) The attitude between Patterson and Mohler was what was to be expected. They were very friendly and almost too respectful but I think that went a long way in helping to establish an example of how this subject needs to be approached.

Dr. Patterson, in my opinion, gave the ‘debate’ to Mohler. He introduced his introduction with a list of things that he appreciated about ‘most’ Calvinists: piety, focus on theology, awareness of the danger of the charismatic movement, (I missed the next point), holding to the inerrancy of the Scriptures, the atonement, and their focus on grace alone. Then he spoke about some of his concerns: that there must be an either a Calvinist or an Arminian division, and ‘some’ are HYPER. He was very gracious in his speech and made certain to say ‘some’ in reference to those things he was concerned about. His theological arguments were more a list of verses that didn’t surprise me in the least. He read them and then ‘argued’ against irresistible grace. He did the same thing with the other doctrines.
When I say that he ‘gave the debate to Mohler’ I mean that throughout the dialogue he seemed to agree with whatever Mohler said. He really didn’t say too many things that Calvinists wouldn’t also say (apart from the resistible grace/antecedent-subsequent wills stuff that I didn’t really follow anyway) and Mohler did a good job of clearing that up.

Dr. Mohler, in my opinion, was stellar in his presentation and his demeanor! I am not sure if I can put all of what he said down here but I will give some notable quotes.

- He began by affirming the importance of this dialogue. He said, in reference to the Episcopal and United Methodists annual meetings that were being held at the very same time, that “had the conservative resurgence not occurred, homosexual ordination would be being debated right now instead!” He was right on!

- He affirmed Dr. Patterson and even added to his list of concerns about Calvinism: “those who would travel across the state to debate Calvinism but refuse to cross their street to share the gospel.”

- He encouraged us to throw the Word when he spoke of being “promiscuous in our evangelism” not strategically studying demographics!

- He rejected being identified as a Calvinist first but by the “same initials… different name!”

- “We don’t say ‘good luck’ when we go out to evangelize!”

During the Q&A the fate was sealed. I though that Patterson sounded more reformed than ever. Mohler’s explanation should help people see that, when Patterson and his clones speak of hyper-Calvinism, they are not speaking historically. During the Q&A I saw an example of what Rob said to me later on in the day: Patterson is not a systematic theologian. Mohler was very careful to present his arguments within a body of theology that makes sense and fits together. Patterson’s responses were such that they were either unclear or no different than Mohler’s.

On the whole I hope this dialogue will give those who are either on the fence or have no clue which field they are in a taste of meaningful conversation. Maybe we will see a noticeable drop in the ad hominem.

Spending so much time with my WIFE!!!!

I am so grateful that my church family took it upon themselves to provide Amy with the opportunity to join me this time! We had a wonderful time together! No children swiping our drinks, candy, pillows, pens, or shrimp! No extra bathroom breaks every 5 minutes. No interrupted conversations. No endless questions. Just PEACE!

Amy is my best friend in the whole wide world. I am so grateful to have a woman who is as interested (or even more interested) as I am in theology (she was the only woman in the first 2 rows, at least, at the Patterson/Mohler dialogue).
We had the best time together!

The Reading:

I was able to get some great reading in during the Pastor's conference. (I want to recc that everyone read Ichabod Spencer's "A Pastor's Sketches" volumes 1 & 2).

Negatives: I think that these will be more obvious by their absence than if I spend as much time on them as I did on the positives.

The Preaching:

How many more times do we need to hear sermons that are nothing more that the preacher’s ideas connected to a passage of Scripture? Having been spoiled by expository preaching, it is a sad thing to see someone find out what they want to say and them find a passage to help them say it. The rhetoric was deafening! (D.R.: fortunately the power went out while J. Hunt was screaming at us so Amy and I were spared the diatribe!) Without naming names here, suffice it to say that I have already listed above the good preaching.

The response to Tom Ascol's Resolution:

Tom has already responded somewhat to this on his blog but Amy and I were shocked at Brother French's response to Tom. Is the evangelism of our church member's to be our goal? Aren't they supposed to be the fruits of evangelism? I have heard this kind of response too many times to think that it is just spur of the moment. This kind of thinking was the very reason Tom brough tt he resolution to the floor to begin with! Tom, please reword it for next year. We need it discussed!

Spending so much time away from our Children!

No children swiping our drinks, candy, pillows, pens, or shrimp! No extra bathroom breaks every 5 minutes. No interrupted conversations. No endless questions.

Amy and I spent much time looking furtively around for our missing children. Eating out wasn’t as much fun because we kept glancing over at the table next to us to google the little babies or adore the little girls. We were very happy to receive our mauling when we picked our children up last night!

The Admixture of business and worship:

Amy and I agreed that the constant need to place singing and such into the schedule seemed almost contrived. I felt like some kind of a lemming, standing and clapping and standing and clapping and standing and singing and standing and singing. Why can’t we just do business when we need to do business? Why do we have to add all of that other stuff into it?

I wonder why we didn’t have Bible reading inserted into the schedule?

Conclusion:

I titled this blog “I wish I knew” because I wonder what our founders would think of this structure? We are here for the purpose of ‘doing business’ so lets ‘do business.’ We are so consumed with something that we are only allowed a little time to actually discuss the business before the moderator calls “time.” I would like to see us do all the business in one day, reports and all! We could use the other day to have some GOOD preaching like we would have seen from the likes of Boyce, Dagg, Mell, or such.

The Indwelling of the Grace of God

Recently, I began reading George Marsden's biography of Jonathan Edwards, and in it he tells a story about one of Edwards's sisters. Evidently, this particular sister was very hard to get along with, and had a very severe temperament. When a young man came to her father to ask if he might court the girl, Jonathan's father attempted to talk him out of it because she was such a difficult girl! And the young man questioned the Elder Edwards, because the man had been under the impression that the girl had recieved the grace of God upon her life. Was this not so? And the wise father Edwards made this classic statement.

"The grace of God will dwell where you or I cannot!"

Priceless!

From Greensboro through Louisville

Just got word from Steve over at the SBC Annual Meeting. They're doing great, and he wanted me to say that he really enjoyed the forum between Paige Patterson and Dr. Mohler. I don't know anything else, but plan on hearing from Steve about it when he returns. Sara, Ruth and I had a wonderful time down in Tennessee at Steve's church while he was gone (and his church seemd suspiciously thankful we were there too...;-). Until next week then, you're still stuck with me.

The Supreme Master of My Domain

I resent the remark about me stepping up. As though I'm deficient or something...humph. Well, we'll see who is deficient now!

This morning I have a couple of recommendations on how to spend the next few minutes:

First, watch this:


Then, consider reading T.S. Eliot's The Wasteland, or if that is too much of an endeavor (which, it really can be), then read this.

Or, go over to D.R.'s blog and read this post on Homosexuality and the Apostle Paul. It is a great explanation of Romans 1.

If that doesn't tickle your fancy, then perhaps this picture by Purgatorio will teach another greatt lesson on hypocrisy.

Lastly, read this article from a New Jersey Newspaper, and you might understand why I feel safer leaving my wife and daughter in the trusty paws of my cat, rather than my dog.

And There Was Silence For About a Half an Hour!

Hey! This is a note to the three regular readers of Throwtheword.com:

I am heading to the Southern Baptist Convention's Annual Meeting in Greensboro North Carolina in the Morning (Saturday). Unless Kevin steps up with a post or two this blog will be noticably quiet.

Pray for Amy and I as we travel and for those wonderful family members, church members, and friends who have graciously volunteered to watch our precious Morsels for the week! THANK YOU ALL! We love you!

Pray for Kevin and Sara as they travel in so that Kevin can preach for me on Sunday. He did a wonderful job proclaiming the Gospel last week and I am so thankful to have someone I can trust while I am gone!

The Southern Baptist Primer - The Holy Spirit; Part 9

In today's installment of The Southern Baptist Primer, we are looking at the next phrase of The 2000 Baptist Faith and Message concerning the Holy Spirit. I am growing more and more interested in the reality that Christ actually sent His Holy Spirit as proof that He will fulfill all of His promises to us! (The text of the BF&M is in bold/italics)

He seals the believer unto the day of final redemption. His presence in the Christian is the guarantee that God will bring the believer into the fullness of the stature of Christ.

The Spirit is our Emblem. It is an extremely comforting thing to know that we are not left here all alone. It is a certain reality that most Christians fail to realize: God has given us the Spirit as a pledge or a sign of guarantee that He will complete what He has started (2 Corinthians 5:5). We have been sealed, marked as His very own (Ephesians 4:30). The Spirit is described as both guaranteeing and marking the believer (2 Corinthians 1:21-22; Ephesians 1:13-14). The most striking thing that should be noticed is that this marking and sealing is past tense. At the point of conversion the believer is completely sealed. It is a full work of the Spirit that the believer is marked as God’s property and receives the Spirit as the down payment of eternal life!

Another emphasis in this section is the reality of the presence of the Holy Spirit actually in the Christians and the certainty of our sanctification. Paul encourages the Corinthians with this doctrine when he reminds them that their body is a temple of the Holy Spirit with in them (1 Corinthians 6:19-20). It is important to always remember the permanence of the Spirit’s indwelling. This is a tremendous improvement over the Old Testament situation in which the Spirit was temporary. This is the context of David’s cry in Psalm 51:11; ‘do not take your Holy Spirit from me!’ He is repenting for the terrible sin that he had committed with Bathsheba. His mind is reeling with the devastation that he has wrought and the consequences that he faces. He understands the fate of Saul in 1 Samuel 16:14. The Spirit rushed upon David in verse 13 and departs from Saul in verse 14. David knew that Saul had disobeyed and the Spirit was removed. David’s heart for the Lord cannot take the separation from God and He pleads: ‘do not take your Holy Spirit from me!’ This is not the case with us. The Spirit comes to take up residence within us to usher us into the very presence of the kingdom of the Son!

Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Wrath?

Every fairy tale has an antagonist. Witches, wicked stepmothers and wolves top the list. The storyline goes like this: cute, innocent, little child or children going through their day encounter the mean old villain and are in danger for their life. Then enter the savior, lumberjack or prince charming, and they are saved.

I think that these stories carry such an attraction for us as children because they seem to portray some semblance to life as we know it. We see ourselves as the innocent ones living our lives trying to escape the mean old devil or his henchmen waiting for something or someone to miraculously enter our lives and save us.

I wonder how much this kind of story line affects our view of the gospel? Last evening as I was teaching through Exodus 12 and when we came to verse 23 I asked a question that surprised several people: “Do you realize that the antagonist in the gospel is God Himself?” I made the comparison between the “big, bad wolf” and God’s wrath.

I would like for you to think about this for a little while. Who is ‘after us’? Who are we to fear? Who made His way through the camp to kill, KILL, all who refused the blood of the sacrifice? Was it Satan? NO! It was the Lord.

Romans 1:18 tells us that “the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men…” Who will burn the chaff with unquenchable fire (Matthew 3:12)? Who killed Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11)? Who controls the lake of fire (Revelation 20)?

God!

Without getting into a big discussion on whether there are truly any ‘innocent’ children or whether we need to be saved from our own selves, consider this: God’s wrath is revealed from heaven against your ungodliness and your unrighteousness. He will be bringing the judgment down on your head! He is ‘after you’ and you cannot escape from HIM!

Listen to Jonathan Edwards as he explains it in his most famous of sermons:
“God has laid himself under no obligation, by any promise to keep any natural man out of hell one moment. God certainly has made no promises either of eternal life, or of any deliverance or preservation from eternal death, but what are contained in the covenant of grace, the promises that are given in Christ, in whom all the promises are yea and amen. But surely they have no interest in the promises of the covenant of grace who are not the children of the covenant, who do not believe in any of the promises, and have no interest in the Mediator of the covenant.
So that, whatever some have imagined and pretended about promises made to natural men's earnest seeking and knocking, it is plain and manifest, that whatever pains a natural man takes in religion, whatever prayers he makes, till he believes in Christ, God is under no manner of obligation to keep him a moment from eternal destruction.
So that, thus it is that natural men are held in the hand of God, over the pit of hell; they have deserved the fiery pit, and are already sentenced to it; and God is dreadfully provoked, his anger is as great towards them as to those that are actually suffering the executions of the fierceness of his wrath in hell, and they have done nothing in the least to appease or abate that anger, neither is God in the least bound by any promise to hold them up one moment; the devil is waiting for them, hell is gaping for them, the flames gather and flash about them, and would fain lay hold on them, and swallow them up; the fire pent up in their own hearts is struggling to break out: and they have no interest in any Mediator, there are no means within reach that can be any security to them. In short, they have no refuge, nothing to take hold of, all that preserves them every moment is the mere arbitrary will, and uncovenanted, unobliged forbearance of an incensed God.”

This aspect of the gospel is what makes it so gracious! While He is after you, He also provides the escape. How? Well the big, bad, wrath of God descended upon a hill outside of Jerusalem where Isaiah says that God was pleased to crush His Son! God’s crushing wrath was expended upon Himself so that He could offer you an escape from the wrath that is to come!

Christ’s death on the cross provides a way for all who trust God to find shelter from the descending wrath of heaven. Have you entered this shelter? You can. Call on Christ’s name and you will be saved. Confess and repent for the day is approaching when God’s wrath will appear and it will be too late!

Who’s afraid? I AM!

It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. Hebrews 10:31

Parents... This is a must read blog!

Amy, my beautiful wife, told me that I had to read this blog a couple days ago. Well, being the good husband that I am, I read it... today! Dr. Moore has written a very good, touching, post of the glory of parenthood, the beauty of adoption, and their connection to suffering. Read it right now! or sometime in the next couple of days and tell me what you think.