In bringing to its end this discussion respecting the entire field of Ecclesiology, it may be restated that a true development of this great theme, if Biblical, must be built on the second Pauline revelation. As asserted at the opening of this treatise on Ecclesiology, the Reformation regained the truth of the first Pauline revelation, namely, justification by faith alone, but did not go on to restore the truth contained in the second revelation. It is altogether possible that the problems attending the restoration of the first revelation, being so far-reaching and revolutionary as a reaction from the Romish perversions of truth, were all that could be undertaken at one time or by one generation. Later studies of the New Testament developed the almost limitless theme of the second revelation. Unfortunately, however, theologians were unprepared to receive any added truth beyond that gained in the Reformation, and Protestant theology has, by a misguided loyalty to orthodoxy, never received the truth contained in the second revelation. It has been assumed that this added truth is dangerous if it was not included in the Reformation attainments and that it must be in conflict with those attainments. Early in the history of Protestantism there were individual theologians who caught the first gleams of truth contained in the second revelation, and an ever increasing light has fallen on this body of truth until today there is a great company of students of doctrine who hold and teach, along with the first revelation, the clear divine unfoldings respecting the Church which is Christ’s Body. Nevertheless, orthodox Reformed theology persists in its original, isolated, and exclusive recognition of the first revelation, and continues to reject and condemn as intrusive and disruptive the great certified findings of those theologians who have given their years of study to the second revelation. So persistent is this self-imposed loyalty to a limited Reformation theology that a complete disruption of orthodox forces has already set in. This is not a controversy between heterodox and orthodox contenders; it is wholly within the orthodox ranks and is properly analyzed as a dissension between those who without worthy investigation of all that is involved restrict their theology to the first Pauline revelation and those who, contending as earnestly for the first revelation, have, with great study and research, gone on to the understanding of the second revelation. The second revelation respecting the Church, if pursued worthily, leads with inexorable logic to such dispensational and general Biblical distinctions as have been set forth in this treatise. An attack against these distinctions cannot be sustained by recourse to the beliefs of Reformers and early theologians; for such is an assumption that there is no progress to be made in the knowledge of truth, that the very light which fell on the Reformers by which they emerged from Romish darkness could not fall upon any others in subsequent years to lead them into wider fields of the understanding of God’s inexhaustible revelation. There is an inherent weakness disclosed in this attitude. It tends to shirk all responsibility in the direction of advancement in the truth and to deify the writings of the Reformers or the writings of the founders of a sect, apparently forgetting for the moment that these worthy scholars made no claim to inspiration nor did they intend to set up a barrier past which no further investigation in the truth should advance. It is no disrespect to Reformers or church fathers to maintain an attitude of open-mindedness in the direction of new understanding of truth which was not accorded to men of earlier generations. No science would be benefited by such slavish assent to supposedly implacable teachers of the past.
Chafer, L. S. (1993). Vol. 4: Systematic theology (249–250). Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications.

To summarize the quote, Chafer is stating that one of the problems persistent in the faith among Christians & theologians is the tendency to stop at a given era of Christian history and claiming only that progression of doctrinal understanding is orthodox. The problem with this is that it has a very natural tendency to flavor one’s understanding of Scripture and the systematizing of theology that comes along with it.

In practice, what does that look like? Let’s say you stopped with the period right before the Reformers set straight the doctrine of soteriology. If your growth & understanding stopped there, you’d likely be a Roman Catholic and all of your understanding would come from that point of view. The same is true if you stop with the Reformers like Luther or Calvin. Many people follow the Reformers, so what’s wrong with that? Honestly, nothing; I read and appreciate their works. The problem lies in the fact that their writings are not God-breathed & inspired, which means that it contains error and they didn’t get everything right. How so? Much like Chafer is saying in the above quote, the Reformers did great in claiming a proper soteriology, but their understanding of ecclesiology was still very Romish. Yet, if you look at the Church history that followed the Reformation, it was this doctrine that began to get unraveled and understood, much in the same way that soteriology was restored in the Reformation.

It’s not a new idea (see James Orr’s The Progress of Dogma), but when you look at Church history as a whole, it’s very interesting to note how closely it lines up with the table of contents for most systematic theologies. In looking at the early church fathers, a lot of what they wrote about and discussed was the matter of canonicity and setting straight some of the core understanding of who God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is, which align with bibliology and theology proper. As you move on you get the Reformers correcting soteriology, followed by the next era tackling ecclesiology, and so on.

Studying Church history makes it pretty obvious that our understanding of Scripture and theology has only expanded with time. Simply stated, we know a lot more now about the Bible and doctrine than previous generations did. What’s more, our current understanding didn’t come from thin air; instead, it was built upon the foundation that our forefathers laid before us. We recognize that Scripture is the source, we evaluate the teachings of those who came before us, accepting & keeping what they got right, and recognizing those areas where they didn’t fully develop some areas of teaching or just altogether missed the mark. This is how we grow and continue to progress in our understanding of Scripture. But, let’s be clear in understanding that I’m not saying that there is new revelation of Scripture (because the canon is closed), but our knowledge of what we do have in Scripture is growing. It’s much like science in many respects. We know & can do things now in science & medicine that couldn’t be done in times past, but only because of the foundation & study that was laid prior and subsequently building upon that foundation. The same is true of theology.

Admittedly, a lot of this requires an open mind. As a said above, if your understanding of Scripture stops at a certain era, then you will undoubtedly have your understanding flavored by that. I would dare say that this is the reason why different schools of theology constantly take issue with one another (i.e. covenant theology vs. dispensationalism).

I could say more, but I think the Chafer quote says it well enough. I’ll close by saying let’s have an open mind when studying the Scriptures and let’s not simply enslave ourselves to the understanding that we’re given by men who came before us. Let’s use them to lay the foundation and then let’s build upon it as we study to show ourselves approved and only holding to what we find true in Scripture. And most importantly, let’s walk in grace toward one another as we do this!

The other day I had one of those moments. I had previously been told by someone about something I was doing that could be perceived in the wrong way. Because of who it was coming from, I didn’t pay it much mind and brushed it aside thinking that I knew better because they didn’t know the “whole picture.” Well, just the other day I had one of my “boys” come alongside and tell me the exact same thing and that it’d be wise if I knocked it off. Unlike the first time I heard it, this time it struck a chord and almost felt like a dagger making its way into my abdomen. Did this person really just tell me that?! Could they be right?! After much thought, I came to the conclusion that they were right, and that I should have listened to that first person when they advised me.

Needless to say, this series of events has caused me to eat a big slice of humble pie. The blinders are now off and things are looking a lot clearer & making sense. So, stuff will change in regard to the situation. Big ups to the brother who brought it all to my attention!

Without going into details, there are some matters in my life that are leaving me with a couple of directions to be taken, one of which could completely change things around like nothing else possibly could. That’s fine because any direction I take can be deemed as “good,” at least when looking at it from a distance. The problem lies in the fact that I know only one of them is what God wants, and I want to be one hundred percent sure that I’m lining up with what He wants, and not what may seem best for me at the given time.

Figuring out what God wants isn’t the problem, because I’m sure that I’ll have no doubt what direction to go in when the time is right. The issue right now is that I’m personally ready to make a decision one way or the other to simply get it all over with, but I can’t do that. The circumstances surrounding the decisions to be made demand that I wait before I can move forward. God has chosen to withhold some details in the matter and I’m forced to pray and wait until those details are revealed. I have no qualms with waiting, except for the fact that waiting is giving my imagination an opportunity to run wild with all of the “what if” scenarios that I can possibly come up with, knowing that it only adds to the excitement/frustration.

Even though I hate having to wait, I know that it’s for the best and it’s another object lesson in my spiritual maturity. Will I find rest in the midst of the “storm” that’s surrounding me by leaving it all in His hands? I think I can; I think I am. I can’t help but to think of my friend Pastor Cliff Beveridge and the patience that he & his wife had to endure while waiting to be placed in ministry after his ordination. It took a year before he got an answer, but he was still resting in faith and working faithfully where the Lord had him at that time. I’m hoping that I can live out that same example, finding rest while also being patient, knowing that I have no choice but to wait on the Lord and recognizing that He will make it all clear in His perfect timing. I’m thankful for the fact that I have enough on my plate to keep me busy/distracted because it makes waiting & resting that much easier.

But, I will be glad when all is made clear and a decision can be made.

Now, most people, given the opportunity would jump on it without a second thought. Quite honestly, I would do the exact same thing, and would love nothing more than to take this opportunity up on its offer. But, there’s a catch. You see, the current circumstances surrounding my life are preventing me from accepting the offer, at least for the time being. More than anything, the one thing that’s keeping me from jumping all over this offer is the fact that I’ve committed myself to training my spiritual gift of pastor-teacher, which is something that I am absolutely not willing to abandon, especially not after having put in two years of work. I’m not willing to abandon what I know to be God’s will for my life right now, not even for what may be the opportunity of a lifetime.

In many ways, I know this is nothing more than a test of my resolve to see what’s more important to me. Well, the answer is quite obvious and it was easy to make, although it leaves me mentally taxed with “what ifs” and monkeying with scenarios. The fact of the matter is that I know where God wants me to be right here & right now, which is training my gift, and that’s where I’m going to stay.

Even though it’s not remotely related, I can’t help but to think of Saul when he was given orders to destroy the Amalekites (1 Samuel 15). He followed Samuel’s instructions except for the fact that he kept back some of the choice livestock, instead of destroying it all as the Lord had commanded. It was at this point that God rejected Saul and his line as king over Israel. Although it doesn’t completely relate to my circumstance, it has taught me the importance of complete obedience to the Lord, and not just following His instruction partly. The words of Samuel in 1 Samuel 15:22 still ring in my ears, “to obey is better than sacrifice.” The rest of what he says hits pretty hard too.

I feel that if I took this opportunity right now, I’d be putting myself in the same situation as Saul when he didn’t completely obey the Lord. I have my instructions (finish my training), and I have to see that through, and not just do it halfway, even if I think this opportunity may benefit me & still be honoring to God. The fact is that this is most honoring to God, so that’s where I need to be. If the Lord wills, the door of opportunity will remain open until my training is complete and the Lord allows for me to take hold of it; otherwise, I will view this as a matter of testing to see where my heart and focus are. I will say that I appreciate the opportunity set before me, but it’s not worth squandering what God has placed before me.

For the most part, I’m a calm guy and it takes a lot to get me riled up (my kids are another story, LOL). Life is stressful & busy, but even that doesn’t bother me or make me lose my cool. I roll with the punches and keep on going. Sometimes, though, I wonder if this is such a good thing. A perfect example would be my finances. My money is tight, sometimes in the red. Does that bother me? Not really. Sure, it concerns me and I do what I can to better manage my money, but I don’t let it get to me or bend me out of shape. I remain cool about it all. I’ll find out about stuff that’s going on with my family, like when my grandfather passed away from cancer. Was I sad to lose him? Yes, but I was still calm about it, almost too calm if you ask me.

The more I think about it, I realize that it’s probably the way I should be. The more I study Scripture, it makes sense. If I’m focused on my Father’s business and heavenly things, then the rest of what happens in my life is an afterthought. The bad things? Momentary light afflictions that pale in comparison to what God has in store for me. The good things? Highlights that give me opportunity to thank the Lord for His kindness. I sometimes wonder if this is how Jesus was while walking the earth. Stuff was happening around Him, but He didn’t let it phase Him.

Whether it’s good or bad, I’ll keep walking this way because it keeps me from being anxious (a command from Scripture) and from fearing. My faith is in the Lord, and I’ll keep rolling with whatever comes my way because I realize that it’s all part of God’s design for me & my family. Maybe being nonchalant in a Christian way can be a good thing…

With all of this comes the temptation to get proud and go spouting off everything I’ve learned. To a point, I think we all get that way when we learn something new; but, I think it has helped me that I’m an introvert and not a very confrontational kind of person. It’s very tempting to get into debates and heated theological discussions, but I hate arguing, so it hasn’t become an issue. I mean, a lot of times I’ll get involved in a discussion and quickly bow out when it turns into debate mode.

To get to my point, I’m glad that being a pastor-teacher doesn’t mean that I have to be someone who constantly debates over theology and doctrine. I’m glad because that’s really not who I am, and I’d rather just spend my time teaching the Bible.

One of the things I’ve really noticed in the course of my studies is how averse some people are towards certain theological views. Sadly enough, a lot of this comes from a particular branch of theology and their seeming dislike for anyone that isn’t of their camp. For instance, I was watching a youtube video last night of a pastor answering a question about the beliefs of another theological system of interpretation and he was pretty harsh in his comments, and in many areas off in his assessment of them; in many ways, his comments weren’t fair to that view and were spun in such a way to make his beliefs look superior. What’s worse, it seemed as if he even questioned the salvation of some of the proponents of this theological view.

I hope that if the time ever comes for me to have to do the same that I can be more gracious, loving, & fair in my statements. I don’t ever want to come off as a know-it-all or someone who bashes others’ theological points of view. Although I believe that I have a better hermeneutic & understanding in some areas of Scripture because of my theological background, I pray that it never comes off rude or arrogant. I want to be fair to each side when I discuss an issue, which is something I’ve come to appreciate in reading Chafer’s Systematic Theology. So, if you could, keep that as a matter of prayer, as I press on in my studies, that I would remain humble & teachable as I search & study the Bible and firm up my theological beliefs.

It’s pretty obvious that I frequent message boards, especially those that are a part of the Christian hip-hop community. One of the things that I’ve noticed, at least that I’ve finally started noticing, is that people listen to a lot of Bible teaching online. They are watching YouTube clips of sermons, downloading sermon podcasts & listening to them, or purchasing them from all different kinds of ministries. I’m not going to knock that because it’s a great thing and I do it myself; I’m actually an advocate of taking advantage of technology in this way.

Here comes the disconnect: these preachers are typically the only ones that we ever hear about. “Did you check out this latest Paul Washer clip?!” “Have you heard that Mark Driscoll sermon?” “Man, that MacArthur sermon was on point!” And the comments go on. I’m glad that these people are getting fed by these ministries and great men of God; but, how often do they talk about the teaching that they’re getting from their local church & pastor? I don’t hear enough about that. I’d love to read and hear about what people are getting fed from their own pastor, instead of someone they’re simply listening to online. I think this should especially be the case if they’re at a church where people can get access to the teachings online to share it with others. Personally, I love sharing what I’m learning at my local church and would love it if other people took the opportunity to listen from time to time.

I can’t help but wonder if some of this is a form of “sanctified idol/star worship.” Because our pastors aren’t preaching to thousands a week, we think lesser of them, and would rather talk about the big name preachers that everyone knows about & follows. Of course, I can’t judge people’s motives & intents, nor do I want to; all I’m saying is that I’d like to see more balance and people giving their own pastors some love, instead of always talking about the “big names.”

Just a real quick blog tonight. I want to share a thought I’ve had on my mind recently.

I know without a doubt that I have the pastor-teacher gift, I’m thoroughly convicted of that. With that comes an innate desire and passion to want to study the Word of God and take it to the deepest depths that I can possibly take it to. I enjoy studying the Scriptures, breaking down the Greek and Hebrew, reading reference works, and so on. In a lot of ways, because of the gift that the Spirit has given me, it’s a given that I should have such passion. I honestly can’t think of anything else I’d rather be doing than studying; it’s the only thing that satisfies me.

It is that satisfaction that brings me to my thought. Is it wrong of me to think that others should have that same passion? Of course, I know that the answer is yes, at least on some level; it’s wrong for me to think that all believers should have that desire for the Word. Not everyone will have a desire to delve into the original languages and read church history, and that’s fine. Sure, they should have some level of passion for studying the Word, but I doubt for most it’ll be anywhere near the level of desire that I or other pastor-teachers have. But what about those that really don’t have a desire for the Word at all, to the point where they rarely read their Bible? What’s up with that?

I think a lot of this thinking, for me, stems for the article I wrote over @ TM about holy hip-hop music. Because of my gift, am I looking “too deeply” at the music and expecting too much for other listeners to do the same thing? I mean, I can listen to an album and tear it apart (i.e. Excelsius’ album Liberation that I’m doing the study guide for), but I wonder if others are even interested or equipped to do the same. For me, it comes easy and is second nature almost. But am I wrong to think it should be for others? Maybe so.

I don’t really have an answer other than that; but it’s some food for thought that I’ve been chewing on. At the very least, I gotta stay focused on grace and exhibiting that in my life.

For the most part, just about all of the people I know and “hang out” with online are Calvinists, many of whom are pretty hardcore. Most days that isn’t a problem for me because they’re my brethren. But, there are other days where I feel totally alone because I don’t have anyone online who shares my same theological views. So, a lot of times I end up getting into a theological discussion and find myself trying to discuss Scripture with my many Calvinist friends who are able to back each other up (and quite frequently I might add), while I have no one in my corner who shares my theological views to help me out. Many times it leaves me feeling overwhelmed and out of place, leaving me wondering why I started or joined a discussion in the first place.

It is definitely frustrating, but I try not to let it get me down. The only thing that ends up happening is that I become pretty quiet online and choose not to discuss theology as in-depth as I would like to. I do wonder, though, what it’d be like to not be on this island all alone and to have a tag team partner of sorts.

In the meantime, I will just keep praying, studying, and learning, while I man my island.

A few weeks ago, in December sometime, a friend of mine was having a discussion after church with one of the ordained pastors over this very topic. Since it was getting late, they agreed to discuss it over email, which I happened to be CC’ed on, and got to watch the entire discourse. Well, around the same time one of the TM forum members was posting a topic discussing Calvinism versus Arminianism, a carryover from a debate he had had elsewhere. So, it has been pretty close to home, so I figured I’d briefly share some thoughts concerning the subject (hoping to not start a debate in the process).

In gauging the discussions that I’ve seen online, it seems that one of the major hot button issues is the sovereignty of God. From the Reformed (Calvinist) side of things, there is a major push that God is completely in control of the salvific experience, to the point of choosing some for salvation and dooming others to hell, with them having no say in the matter. On the other hand, the opposing view tries to take God’s sovereignty completely out of the picture, saying that salvation is all about man’s free will and that God’s sovereignty doesn’t play much part at all. The more I study it, I have a hard time believing that either side is balanced in its view. On both sides, each is able to find Bible passages that fit into their view, but from what I’ve seen, neither handles the other’s passages very well.

As I grew up in church, this was never much of a discussion. We were taught to get saved, live like a Christian, that we couldn’t lose our salvation, and that was the extent of it; there really wasn’t a depth to theology and studying the Bible. So, when I left my church back in North Carolina, one of the first things I studied was the doctrine of salvation. I almost immediately rejected Arminianism because I knew that I didn’t agree with their beliefs. So, that left Calvinism for me to study. I bought several books on the subject and read them cover to cover, and I even discussed the subject with many who held to these doctrines. All of that went well, but there were passages that I was never able to adequately resolve in studying that point of view. The idea of Limited Atonement was one of them because it ignored the plain reading of texts like John 3:16 and 1 Timothy 2:3-6 to name a couple. It was things like that, as well as passages showing man’s role in salvation that led me to believe that there had to be something more biblically balanced than what the doctrines of grace teach.

The more I studied things, I couldn’t help but notice a difference between total depravity and total inability. In just about everything I studied from the Calvinist side of things, everything was taken to the point that man is unable to respond to the grace of God, unable to do anything related to the gospel unless God first makes it happen, including man’s belief in the gospel. Hence total inability, there is absolutely nothing that man can do to save himself. Though, this is not the same as total depravity which is the fact that man’s nature and faculties are corrupted by the sin nature. As a result, there’s nothing we can do to earn or deserve eternal life on our own merit. With that, God does indeed draw all men (John 12:32; Titus 2:11), and man is able to receive and respond to the grace of God (Matthew 23:37; John 5:24-25; Ephesians 2:8-9). The main difference is that man is a free moral agent that is vested with the responsibility to respond to God’s grace when it is presented to Him (John 1:1-9; 3:16-17). Even though man is depraved, he can still respond to God’s grace and come to Christ and is called to do so (Revelation 22:17). This is a very important distinction to make because Reformed theology hinges on this point. If man is completely unable to do anything, then of course God is forced to do everything concerning salvation, therefore you end up with the extreme view of God’s sovereignty.

But man having a responsibility in salvific experience does not negate God’s sovereignty, not in any way. God was still sovereign when He allowed Satan to fall & rebel, was He not? That’s beside the point, so let’s continue. With total depravity in view, it’s obvious that man cannot merit eternal life, nor can he merit God’s grace. So, yes, election is totally an act of God’s grace (Ephesians 1:4-6), but man is still given a responsibility. Man’s response to God’s grace is to simply believe. The Bible teaches both God’s sovereignty in choosing men for salvation and man’s responsibility to believe. The Bible tells us that God desires for all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4) and that none should perish (2 Peter 3:9). Furthermore, the gospel is a whosoever message, stating that whoever believes in Jesus can have eternal life (John 3:16). Also, with the whole issue of predestination & foreknowledge, the Bible places foreknowledge before predestination (Romans 8:28-30). Nevertheless, those that go to hell go because they chose to reject God’s grace, not because of an inability to respond to it. You see, the problem with total inability is that it says that man is unable to do anything, including believe; yet, the imperative when the gospel is given is always "believe." In other words, the person has the choice whether to believe or deny the offer of salvation. If this were not the case, why would the god of this world be working to blind the minds of the unbelieving if they couldn’t believe anyway without the help of God (2 Corinthians 4:4)? Furthermore, in Paul’s speech at the Areopagus, he even states that God desires for man to seek after God, even to the point of groping Him out and finding Him (Acts 17:27); if we couldn’t seek God, then why are we told that it’s part of God’s reason for making us?

What makes this all the more reasonable is God’s common grace. God gives us everything we need in order to seek after Him, but it’s our choice whether we choose to do so. Passages like Matthew 5:45; Titus 2:11; and Romans 1 all give us a glimpse at the common grace of God, showing how He is impartial to all men. Although circumstances may be different, all receive an equal opportunity at receiving salvation. Scripture clearly teaches that Jesus Christ came to die for all men, not just a specific few; one passage to support this is 1 John 2:2, which is written to believers, and states that He didn’t just die for Christians only, but for the whole world. Other passages would include 1 Timothy 2:3-6 and Hebrews 2:9. The problem is that some choose
not to believe (John 5:40), but those that do believe are saved by grace through their faith in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:8, 9) and are immediately made alive spiritually. Yes, Christ’s death was sufficient for all, but only efficient or effective for those who choose to take advantage of it.

From what I see in Scripture, I see God’s sovereignty in that He has executed a perfect plan from Alpha to Omega that includes sinful man and all of his decisions for good or bad, and I also see man’s responsibility to respond to the grace offered by God. Nowhere in Scripture do I see someone who is "made" to believe in Christ; instead, I always see people who are confronted with the truth and then choose to believe. All throughout the gospels we see examples of those who followed Jesus and witnessed His miracles and still chose to not believe in Him as Messiah, while there were others who believed wholeheartedly. The same holds true in Acts and the rest of Scripture. You have some who deny the truth while others accept it, but for each individual the choice was wholly theirs.

That’s what I believe and what I teach. I’m not here to debate it with anyone, although I will examine the Scriptures with my brethren. Indeed iron does sharpen iron, and we can all stand to learn from the Word of Truth, myself included. In terms of this discussion, I will keep comments moderated because, as I stated, this is not something I choose to debate, at least not at this time; I just wanted to share my observations on a prevalent topic. If you desire to debate the topic, there are many other avenues where that can take place and is better suited.

Grace and peace.

Today, I was looking at a website and noticed that they had a devotional section. I was immediately like, "Aww yeah! Let me check this out and see what’s going on!" I saw that it was being headed up by a good friend of mine, and that gave me a good bit of comfort. Then, given that I know a good number of people who had a hand in putting the site together, and them knowing that I write devotions too, my flesh immediately started to rise up. My flesh started to say, "Why didn’t they holla at me about putting my devotions up there? Mine are just as good!" and so on. Needless to say, I wanted to start beating my chest and cry foul play, especially when I had gotten an email about submitting content for the site, but only asking for editorial/reviews/news type pieces (of which I could care less about these days).

Then it hit me. I had to remember my last blog post and the admonishment I had given to the HHH community. Simply put, I needed to humble myself, put myself in check and realize that they asked my boy to do it, and not me. It was their decision to make, and not mine. Plus, who am I anyway? I’m not ordained or anything of the sort; I’m just a layman training his gift and trying to teach the Bible. The more I thought about it, I realized that it was God’s call and not theirs. Given the circumstances, I’ve already dedicated myself to my studies and will already be cutting back on what I do with the site (that’s my decision, by the way, in reference to a previous blog entry), so I wouldn’t be able to commit to providing content for another site anyway. After that, I felt pretty low and humbled before the Almighty because I knew that it was definitely His call and His circumstances. I repented for my jealousy, covetousness, anger, and pride because I was absolutely in the wrong. If the Lord wills, it’ll happen in His time; and, if not, He’s still God and I’ll just have to be content with what He’s given me stewardship over, nahmean?!

Blessings. G&P.

After having Robin open us up in prayer, I asked Ryan to tell us what he knew about God, what it meant to be a Christian, and what Jesus did on the cross. He wasn’t able to really answer the questions (I think he knows the answer, but was being timid and not wanting to really answer, thinking he’d say the wrong thing). I then asked him about Adam and Eve, and he was able to give a little detail on that. I then asked him if he wanted to read the story of Adam and Eve and their fall. He said yes, so we turned our Bibles to Genesis 3 as I had Robin read aloud the first few verses of the chapter. Once she was finished, I explained the story of how they were perfect and then decided to "break God’s rules." I then asked him to repeat the story back to me in his own words, which he did. I told them that because of what they did, that’s why we all do bad things.

From there, I wanted to take him down the "Romans Road" and give him the gospel, explaining what Jesus did for us. I first took him to Romans 3:23 and had him read that aloud. I explained to him that we all do bad things, even mommy and daddy, and that was because of what Adam and Eve did. From there, we then went to Romans 6:23 and I explained to him how wages work. I told him how I go to work to make money (wages), and showed how doing bad things earns us a "bad" type of money that leads us to hell. Then I told Ryan how Jesus gave us a free gift in Jesus Christ so that we wouldn’t have to go to hell. We then flipped over to Romans 5:8, which I read to him. I used this to explain that even though we’re bad people and do bad things by breaking God’s rules, God still loved us enough to send His Son, Jesus Christ, to take the punishment for our sins so that we wouldn’t have to go to hell. I used this to detail what Jesus had done for us and who He is. He understood all of that, having a worried look on his face, knowing that he had done bad things. We finally turned to Romans 10:9, 10 and I showed him what he needed to do to be saved. I told Ryan that he needed to believe everything about Jesus and then tell God that he was "sorry" for all the bad that he had done and that he wanted to live for Him. He clearly said that he believed that Jesus was the Son of God, lived a perfect life, died on the cross, and rose again on the third day. I made it clear that by believing and trusting those things, that Jesus had taken his punishment for him.

I then asked Ryan if he wanted to pray, repent of his sins, and become a Christian. It took him a minute or two to answer, but he said that he did. His only concern was that he didn’t know how to pray (other than saying grace before a meal) and asked if I could help him. I told him I would. Before we did, I made sure again that he understood what he was about to do. I even went down some of the Commandments and asked if he had broken those. He said yes to them (i.e. lying, hating people, stealing, etc.) and realized that he had broken God’s rules. We then bowed and I had him repeat a prayer, thanking God for sending His Son and for saving and forgiving him of his sins, then telling God that he wanted to live for Him. After we said amen, I told him that he was now a Christian.

Before we ended, I gave him a little talk on some of the things that he needed to do in order to live for God and to be a good Christian. I asked him first what he thought he needed to do. He said things like, "listen to mommy and daddy" and "be nice to my brother and sister." I also explained that it meant following directions at school and making good decisions (being responsible, which has been as issue of late). I also told him that it meant reading his Bible everyday to learn more about God, Jesus, and how to be a better Christian, as well as praying. I also told him about repenting to God when he did bad things.

All in all, I’m a very happy father right now. I praise the Lord that He has claimed another one of His own and that it’s my oldest son. It’s my prayer now that I will be able to continue to walk with him and train him up in the Faith and that he would be an example both to his siblings and friends. Thank You Jesus! Now that’s what’s up!

I never really considered him to be a “Christian” candidate anyway… and I’m not one to judge anyone’s salvation, but there are lots of red flags & doubts that are raised especially when he doesn’t believe that Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to heaven; he just believes that it’s his way there… Any Christian that believes that isn’t really a Christian cuz John 14:6 makes it perfectly clear.
One way or the other, I’m not particularly pleased with either candidate. I’ll likely write in my presidential vote because I can’t vote for either one of them in my right mind.
I’ll close with this though, from 1 Timothy… this should be the prayer of all believers concerning this election, as well as any other governmental affairs…
1 Timothy 2:1-2 – 1 First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, 2 for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. (emphasis added, my own)
We should be praying for those in authority over us; not that they would be Christians (although we are to pray for their salvation), but that we can continue to live our own lives in a godly manner and worship our Lord freely.

Why am I sharing this? Simply, I want believers to keep divine viewpoint in mind and remain people of prayer. God bless!

Now, I’m not one to condone false teaching, but how far is too far when "defending" the faith? In my opinion, I think this has gone too far. I do not believe that Christ would condone making fun of these teachers and making a mockery of them. It’s one thing to present their teachings and then refute them, but it’s another thing entirely to stoop to the level of joking and making fun of them. When I think about defending the faith, as I taught in my sermon last night, the greatest defense against falsehood is the truth. I think there are people out there who spend so much time pointing out falsehoods and false teachers that they fail to present the truth. We can point out falsehoods until the cows come home, but the greatest defense is to simply teach the truth. For a while on this blog I did this very thing, but one day it hit me that I can either spend my energies talking about these heretical teachings or I can focus my energies on pulling out the truth of Scripture and teaching people what the Bible really says.

Yes, we need to make people aware of false teaching, but that should not be our primary objective. Like right now I think about a certain revivalist and the constant barrage of coverage that he is getting on Christian websites telling how much of a false teacher he is and so on. How many times do you need to say it? Why do they feel the need to post the latest YouTube clip with his latest misuse of Scripture? Wasn’t the first or second (or even the third) time enough? Why can’t we address the issue when it arises, give clear Scriptural teaching that points out the falsehood, and move on and continue with the teaching of the Bible?

Back to the point, I don’t think mockery and joking are very practical methods of combating false teachings. Sure it may get a laugh or two out of us who already know that they are false teachers, but what’s the point in that? Let’s get back to teaching the truth of the Bible and spend less time trying to tear down every false teacher. This is the day & age where people want their ears tickled and God has permitted it; so we’re not going to put an end to it, no matter how bad we may want to. The best thing we can do is to teach people how to study the Bible and accurately handle the text; when we do that, they will then be able to spot false teachings and know how to properly respond. If we do that, I think we’ll have a lot more success in standing firm against false teachers.

I’ve heard the argument before that it may be sin for you, but not for me. Indeed, in some cases, that is Scriptural and correct, but I don’t think that really stands in this instance. How can we willingly sit down and choose to expose ourselves to sinful acts? The same goes for music; how can we find enjoyment listening to an artist talking about cheating on his girl or some other sin?

I don’t really have much more to say; I just want you to ponder on that and think about the entertainment you’re allowing yourself to enjoy. Are they the things that we know for a fact God hates? (And know that I’ve assessed myself before presenting this to you, and I had to do some house cleaning)…

Let me start by laying some groundwork. For starters, both milk and meat are food, spiritual food to be more precise. Let’s not look past this point so quickly because this is where the misconception begins. Milk and meat are the same thing (food), but they are structured in a way that is either easier or more difficult to digest. A babe is unable to feast on meat without choking on it or its stomach having trouble digesting the complexities of the food. On the other hand, the adolescent or adult is equipped with the necessary tools to both chew and digest meat. For the believer, our food is the Word of God. Again, a key point; they are both the Word of God, milk and meat, just in different stages of complexity. What does this look like in action? As a point of example, we could say that teaching a new believer about the basics of salvation and repentance is considered milk. Notice that this is still truth of the Word of God, but it is given on a level that they can understand and isn’t over their head. Then you have the meat, which is still teaching a believer on salvation and repentance, but getting into its depths with doctrines such as the atonement, substitution, hamartiology, peripatology, and so on. Teachings such as these cover the same thing as the milk, but on a more complex level that takes more chewing and digestion to fully grasp. Regardless of the depth of teaching, milk or meat, the content should be the same: the Word of God.

I think a lot of people misunderstand that concept; they think that milk and meat are two different things, opposed to the same thing at varying depths. This concept then creeps into the line of thought where artists say that they are giving their listeners milk, but there is no message at all. Going back to the paragraph above, milk should still offer the Word of God, but just on an easier to understand level, not ignoring the Word altogether. Yes, it’s fine to write feel good songs and the like, but that’s not milk. Christian rap & hip-hop comes in many different forms, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. There is a place for artists like Sivion and Braille or Sev Statik and RedCloud; what they offer in their music is solid Christian content, but it’s not milk or meat, it’s just music with solid content. That’s not to say that there’s no biblical content (because there is), but it’s not teaching the Word.

So what is milk and what is meat (at least in my eyes)? Quite obviously cats like shai linne, Timothy Brindle, Christcentric, Cross Movement, and the like are the ones that are offering up the spiritual meat in holy hip-hop. These are the guys who are offering up that weighty spiritual truth for the listeners to chew on for days upon days; you know, those albums that keep you coming back for more and you come away with something new every time you listen to it. That would mean that guys like Urban D., the Yuinon, La Familia Muzik, Jahaziel, and others are the ones who are offering up the spiritual milk for their listeners. No, their music isn’t any less edifying, but it is music that is on a level for that is easier for the spiritual babe or younger believer to grab hold of and learn from. In other words, they’re making music to meet the listener where they’re at so that they can grow in maturity and come to appreciate the guys who are spitting the spiritual meat.

I don’t mean this to bash anyone, if I did, then I apologize. I just want us to get our terms straight when we’re talking about our music and ministry. There is no distinction between the milk and the meat because they are both the Word of God; the only difference that exists between them is the depth in which you take your listener. Rapping about everyday life with a positive Christian spin is just that, but it’s not milk, just like it’s not meat. The guys who are intentionally putting the Word of God into their rhymes are the ones who are spitting milk or meat, and it’s a blessing to have those cats who are able to give you both (I think CMR/Reach are cats that do both well). So yeah, this is just some encouragement for us all to better clarify what it is that we’re doing. Again, if you don’t have the milk or meat in your rhymes, but you’re repping Christ, then the community has love for you too, believe that. I just want you to use caution when you say your stuff is milk for the baby believer but all you’re giving them is air pudding (as my parents used to put it).

God bless and keep growing!

One of those situations happens to be that of women preachers. I was visiting a message board and read a topic about a woman pastor who had just recently had a dedication service for her new church building. I decided to make a rather snippy comment to the effect that she needed to read her Bible more. Needless to say, I took a bit of heat for my comment and got called a hater (for what reason, I don’t know). Some of the comments that rolled in afterwards ended up saying things like "so women can’t be pastors?," "don’t you know about the culture at that time?," "women can be over a body of people," and "women can pastor! I see it all the time!" Those are pretty typical comments when the subject comes up, but all of them have their fallacies when brought to the light of Scripture. What are those fallacies? 1) They assume that just because it is commonplace in many churches that it is okay and biblical and 2) they interject the current culture into Scripture and disregard passages that they feel no longer agree with the current state of society.

Both of these arguments are basically the same if you really look at it; they are both saying that the commands of Scripture are dated and no longer valid in our current culture. The sad part is that their argument has no foundation in Scripture whatsoever, especially in terms of this argument in particular. Just because something is commonplace and seemingly accepted, that does not mean that it is biblical or right. And I really love when people try to bring culture into the picture when examining Scripture, definitely when they are arguing the New Testament. In so many cases they are simply using that argument to try and say that their culture was primitive and that we are so much more advanced as a society that the Bible no longer applies to us, which is totally ludicrous. For this discussion, let’s take a look at the passage in question.

1 Timothy 2:11-14 (NASB) – 11 A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

The problem that most people have is with verse 12, which very clearly prohibits women from assuming the pastorate role, and is then continued in the next chapter when Paul gives Timothy clear guidelines for appointing overseers and elders. The detractors like to say that Paul was against women and that the culture as a whole was oppressive towards women, and that is why Paul wrote what he did; but that no longer applies today because men & women are equal. Even if the culture was more male oriented, that has no bearing on this passage and position and it is because of the two verses that follow. If this were to only apply to the current culture, then why did Paul take it all the way back to the created order of Adam and Eve? By taking it all the way back to the beginning, Paul is establishing God’s created order for man and women, which directly translates itself to the church, as we see here. But let us not forget the latter chapters of 1 Corinthians where Paul permits women to prophesy (a no longer operational spiritual gift) in church services, as long as their heads were covered. If he was such a chauvinist, he would not have permitted women to speak at all in church or to be deaconesses.

What does it say to the argument of commonality? The answer is simply this: just because God permits it to happen, that does not mean that it is right. Just like God permits us to sin and go against His will, that does mean that it is right or the brightest thing to do. There are lots of things that God permits to happen but does not condone, women pastors included. A woman is not to have authority over a man, and the exposition of Scripture is an authoritative role that is not to be taken by women. The argument is then begged though, men aren’t stepping up, so women are forced to fill in for them. My response: says who? God will hold the men accountable for not taking up their priestly role, but that does not coincide with giving women permission to step into the pastorate and to start preaching. For women to do so puts them out of their God-given role and only creates disorder within the body of Christ.

As I start to wrap up, I will say this: women are given the spiritual gift of teaching, just not the gift of pastor-teacher. So, what does that look like? It looks like this: women teaching other women, and women teaching children. As soon as it becomes women teaching men, it is out of order; but, within those contexts, it is perfectly acceptable for a woman to exercise her spiritual gift of teaching.

The bottom line is this: the Bible is supremely authoritative and we must not allow our personal preferences or cultural norms to supercede the commands of Scripture. Yes, we must take the Word of God in its proper context, but we must not ignore those commands that transcend cultural barriers and deal with God’s original created order of doing things. And, on a more personal note, I’m all for women exercising their gifts in ministry; but I desire for them to be done in their proper order and in line with how God expects things to be done. The same goes for me too; I want everything I do to line up with the Word of God as best as I possibly can.

Of course, I would be quick to say that a Jehovah’s Witness, Mormon or Catholic is not a Christian. Those are a given because of the extra-biblical doctrine that they teach, including teachings that clearly contradict Scripture. What about a Oneness Pentecostal though; would I call them an unbeliever? I would have to say yes because of their incorrect view on the Trinity and Godhead. So, what about someone who’s caught up in prosperity theology? This is where I start to struggle.
Let me talk about myself right now. I know that I’m still growing in a lot of areas, but right now I do know what is heresy and what isn’t. I understand that there are theological differences on things, and I can walk in grace (albeit a tough walk, but I walk nonetheless). For instance, my brother Kerry (sorry to keep using you as an example bro) is a Calvinist; I am not. I do not agree with the sum of Calvinism & its soteriology, but we agree on many things outside of that. Is he my brother? Of course! Just because we differ on theological issues such as that, he still has sound teaching and handles the Scriptures properly. Just as John Piper believes certain things about the spiritual gifts (and is also himself a Calvinist), I still consider him to be a brother in the faith and look to him as someone who can accurately teach the Word of God (I listen to his podcast). Same with someone like John MacArthur or an R.C. Sproul; we differ theologically in areas, but none that would cause us to break fellowship or call the other a heretic. Quite frankly, I have absolutely no problem calling these my brothers in the faith.
On the other hand, there are those whom I have a difficult time calling my brothers in the faith because of their doctrinal beliefs. I won’t name names here, out of wisdom, but I will speak on the issue. I’ll use prosperity theology since I have already mentioned it above. I consider this distortion of Scripture to be a wicked heresy as it severely distorts the truth of the gospel and the sum total of Scripture, and then goes on to present a twisted view of the Godhead (Jesus incarnate, God the Father, and even the Holy Spirit). I won’t take the time to break that down here, as you can study it for yourself, but it begs the question: if you believe this, are you really in the faith? Yes, you can believe the basic tenets of the faith and say you’ve repented & put your faith in Jesus; but, if your view of Jesus and the teachings of Scripture are off, do we really have the same Jesus? And, if we don’t have the same Jesus, does that Jesus save or is he merely an idol? At this point in time, my stance on the issue is that it’s a false teaching & heresy with that God/Jesus being an idol created by man, as opposed to the God of Scripture.
Now, if that is the case, can I, in my right mind, call that person a brother in the faith? I hesitate, but I struggle to call that person my brother because his views of God, Jesus, and the Scriptures are so far removed from my own. Does it matter whether we seemingly agree on the essential doctrines on the faith, when their view of those key things are so different from my own? Quite frankly, I would argue that a proper understanding of God, Jesus, and the Scriptures are a part of those essentials, and without them I cannot extend a hand of fellowship in calling you my brother in the faith.
This is hard to write and even say because I have many friends and loved ones who are caught up in theologies and teachings that are like this, and I find it hard to say that we are brothers because I do not feel that we are serving the same Lord, even if we say that we are. It’s in instances like this where I feel I must call a spade a spade; just like Mitt Romney (a Mormon) claims that he is an evangelical; I refuse that because of his Mormon beliefs. The same has to hold true here because our views don’t line up. Even in this though, I am working to walk in grace because I want to call them my brother and I don’t want to see anyone go to hell, especially when they feel as if they’re serving Christ.
I’m going to mull over this some more and study the Scriptures, seeing where it takes me, but as of right now I have to say that this is my stance. So, what are your thoughts? Am I way out in left field and just being dogmatic, or is there some substance?

One of those areas is Bible doctrine and study, which is really the primary concern for me at the moment. I have issues elsewhere, but they are minor when compared to this area, at least in my eyes. You see, I hold the Word of God above all else and I have been doing my best to live it out as best I can within the confines of my everyday life. In the devotion series that I am doing for Trailblazin Ministries, I am currently studying to begin teaching on James 3, but I have not been able to write for days (I forced myself to get an introduction to the chapter done) because I am literally scared at the implications of what I am reading and what’s staring me in the face. I have been stuck staring at James 3:1 for days not able to do anything but stare at it and evaluate my life and ministry. It reads:

James 3:1 (NASB) – Let not many of you become teachers my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment.

I know for a fact that God has given me the spiritual gift of teaching, but that scares me to the core. I was recently looking at my old devotions, skimming over them, and I was disgusted with the lack of doctrine and sound teaching that 95% or more of them contained. I’m a teacher and I was mishandling the Scripture left and right, leading people astray. I have since removed them all from my database, but even still, it pains me to know that many can still be found via Internet archives and the like. For instance, when I originally did my study on prayer about two years ago (maybe 1.5 years ago), when I read it again, I almost wanted to puke as I was staring at a teaching that I was touting as sound doctrine, but was nothing more than a man-centered doctrine laced in prosperity theology, as if God were some genie at our beck & call. Needless to say, I just recently spent the sum total of a couple months rewriting that teaching so as to teach a more accurate handling of the Biblical text. I was burdened every step of the way writing that teaching because I knew just how important it was for me to get it right and not make the same mistake I made the previous time.
I will admit that I am getting better in handling the Scripture, but I do still rely heavily upon commentaries and the works of others to aid me in my studies. On the one hand, there is nothing wrong with that, but on the other I wish to be able to work harder at understanding the text on my own without depending upon a commentary. I will say though that I will not forsake the studies of those who have come before me as they undoubtedly know more than I, but it must remain at the forefront that these works are not the Bible, and only man’s thoughts on the Bible.
That commentary tangent aside, I feel weighed down with the amount that I am attempting to study & digest at this point in time. Indeed, I am learning the Scriptures, but I am not sure of how much I am retaining or applying to my life. In some regard, I feel like I’m trying to do too much and setting the bar too high for myself. This is all that I’m doing and/or listening to routinely, let me begin with what I’m studying on my own:

• The Old Testament in a year (chronologically)
• James (for the TM devo series)
• Currently studying for “Worship” & “Live” teachings
• Daily New Testament reading (currently all of James)
• Greek textbook for my Greek class
• (Soon to be Systematic Theology again starting in March)

Here’s what I’m studying @ church and/or listening to via podcast:

• Timothy, 1 Corinthians, & Life of Christ (@ Austin Bible Church)
• John MacArthur
• Alistair Begg
• John Piper
• Epiphany Fellowship
• Way of the Master Radio

Granted, most of the podcasts I listen to are for during the workday when I want something wholesome to fill my ears. The reasoning behind it is because I trust these men to teach the Word of God and to handle the texts properly, granted we differ in a few areas theologically; and with that, I have a burning desire to learn as much and to just be saturated with the Word. I have a fire and passion to have the Word of God around me 24/7 whether I’m listening to it or reading it for myself. But is that too much for one person to try to take in? Am I over-saturating myself with the Word? That last question sounds foolish to me because how can you get too much of God’s Word! I will say, though, that one benefit to the podcasts is variety; it allows me the opportunity to hear different styles of preaching that I otherwise wouldn’t get if I only listened to my pastor (not to say that his teaching is deficient in any way, but sometimes you just need a different style to keep things fresh).
Nevertheless, I feel as if I’m at a crossroads where a decision needs to be made about the direction of things. I know and feel like I’m doing too much, but I don’t want to put any of it down because I see a benefit to it all. I could possibly cut back on a podcast or two, or trim back on some of what I do on TM, but I don’t see where else I can cut the fat, as there isn’t much fat to cut away. I understand that I’m undergoing ministry training right now and I know that it’s going to be difficult, but seriously, am I doing too much? For instance, I know what the Lord has entrusted me with in TM, and I often think of sitting it down for a season so as to not carry that extra burden, but I can never seem to put it down because I know that it’s teaching people the Word and I feel as if I’m neglecting my gift by not continuing and pressing on. I constantly get told that I write a lot, but in my heart, I feel like I don’t write nearly enough. If I had my way, I would be writing a devotion everyday of the week and putting out a Bible study weekly or bi-weekly. That’s how much the passion burns inside of me, but the energy and hours in the day just aren’t there to make it all happen (unless I just stopped sleeping altogether).
I look at my pastor and wonder how he does it. He preaches 4-5 times a week, goes to several prayer meetings during the week, along with all of his other pastoral duties, yet he never misses a beat. Now toss in the fact that a few years ago he was doing this full-time while also working a full-time job (with a wife & kids no less). He’s able to do all of that and bring some of the most in-depth teaching I’ve ever witnessed, yet I struggle with getting a devotion or study written. Plus, I see just how far I have to go when I look at him. As someone who never attended seminary, he is so well versed in the original texts, church history, and almost anything else you would want to know. For example, today at church he was teaching on the Life of Christ in Mark 9:38-41 and noted how in verse 38 the phrase “tried to prevent” is technically incorrect when looking at the Greek; there is no “tried to” because the Greek reads that they “did prevent” and not simply tried. In my own studies, I would have missed something like that, which can completely change ones understanding of the text, and shows just how much further I have to go and how much more intense my studies need to be. Yes, my pastor sets the bar pretty high, but why not aspire to that level of being able to handle the Scriptures?
Again, I go back to James 3:1 and all of this weighs heavy on me. I want so much to be a good teacher; I don’t want to fail, and I most assuredly do not want to disappoint my Savior. I look at His perfection and I see just how imperfect I am; yet He has entrusted this imperfect man with the responsibility of preaching His gospel. How crazy is that?! I will say that this doesn’t scare me to the point of quitting the ministry, but it keeps me extremely humbled and constantly before His throne seeking His grace.
That’s my heart, as best as I can put it into words… so, pray for a brother, would you?

1 Timothy 3:1-15 (NASB) – 1 It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer , it is a fine work he desires to do.2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money.4 He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?),6 and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil.7 And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
8 Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double -tongued, or addicted to much wine or fond of sordid gain,9 but holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience.10 These men must also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach.11 Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things.12 Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households.13 For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a high standing and great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.
14 I am writing these things to you, hoping to come to you before long;15 but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.

Here we see that the first seven verses deal with the qualifications for an overseer (synonymous with pastor, bishop, or elder), of which there are many. In verses 8 to 13 we find the qualifications for deacons, and then 14 to 15 give us the purpose for such qualifications. From the jump, we can see that these are some pretty hefty guidelines to follow, and there is a perfectly good reason for that. The reason: because there are a lot of people who aren’t called to do this! To be a minister or pastor, you really have to be an upright man of God who is walking in holiness. Of course, sin is a given because we all still slip up, but these qualifications are non-negotiable; you cannot mess up in these areas. What happens if you slip up in one of those areas? Simply put, you’re disqualified. For how long? Permanently!
Yes, it is a permanent disqualification! Let me qualify this by saying that you do not lose the gift (or even become exempt from using it), but you do lose this office or position of leadership for life. Why? Because there is no way in the world that you can possibly make yourself qualified again because you are no longer above reproach and have abused the trust of those whom you were leading. There is no period of “time away” or “time off” that can bring you out of reproach or restore the trust that you were given.
If this is the case, why do so many pastors feel that they can blatantly fall into sin in one of the above outlined areas and think they can return to ministry after a period of time off? For example, it is fact that one particular pastor has had numerous children outside of wedlock while in his pastoral role, and paternity has been proven in the Maryland courts. There is no way around it, he cheated on his wife, abused the trust of church members (by having children by them), and so on. That is a clear violation of being “a husband of one wife” (i.e. honoring your wife and being a one woman man) and being above reproach. What did this pastor do in response to this? He stepped down for a period, but ultimately resumed his role as senior pastor. Why?! Dude, you’ve disqualified yourself, you should be nobody’s pastor! And he isn’t the only pastor to have been in this situation and who did the exact same thing.
What about being free from the love of money? There are too many names to name here, but you can tell just by looking at them, the number of pastors and ministers who appear to glorify money more than they do the Lord. For example, the pastor that I just spoke of has a church website that currently uses the front of a BMW (?) for its splash page, and then the inside of the car as the primary image for the content of the website. What is that all about?! Or what about those who feel that they need $200,000 to build a “prayer room” while they are currently living on land with multiple houses that is worth $4+ million (and soon to be foreclosed on) and writing with pens that cost $5,000? Yeah, you can just tell that they love money. Why are they still in their ministry position?
Furthermore, there are those pastors who feel the need to physically abuse their wives. Didn’t qualifications include being peaceable and gentle?! There’s no excuse for that, and no way in the world this kind of person should still be in leadership.
After much discussion with my wife, I came to the conclusion that it all boiled down to two things: 1) pride, and 2) power. First, nobody wants to admit that they are wrong or that they have messed up, especially not to a congregation full of people who have put their trust in them. They want to feel that they are invincible and untouchable. Secondly, they want the power. That is why they refuse to permanently step down from their ministry position; they don’t want to give up the power, control and prestige that they have amassed as a result of being in that position in the ministry. Both of those are the wrong reason to be in ministry in the first place, as all should be done to the glory and honor of God. It’s both funny and painful to know that this is going on and that they are picking and choosing what they want to obey in Scripture. It’s also sad because these are the same ones who seem to have the greatest following behind them, as well as be the ones with the most unsound teachings.
Yes, it is a sad day in Christianity. I just pray that there are those out there who heed every word of Scripture and not just pick and choose what they want to hear. I also pray that there would be more pastors and deacons raised up who would be able to fulfill these qualifications without fail, and lead the body of Christ to a deeper and greater relationship with their Father in heaven. That is also what I pray for myself, as I aspire to this position in ministry; I pray that I can remain steadfast and qualified for ministry. As James says in James 3:1, “Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment.” There was a reason for saying that, I fear for the judgment that these individuals will incur.

When asked, the first thing that popped into my mind to teach on was the Lord’s Prayer (Matthew 6:9-13) since I had been studying that pretty intensely of late for a study here on the website. As I started to prepare the outline for it, I realized that there was no way in the world that I could condense that much information down to an hour’s worth of teaching. After discussing it with my pastor, I opted to go a different route and picked something that I had already taught via Trailblazin Ministries, which happened to deal with Romans 1:16 (one of my favorite passages). In the midst of trying to outline that teaching, I realized that I didn’t want to do something topical (as that previous study was), but instead decided to take a more exegetical approach to the passage so that Scripture could interpret Scripture, thus helping to keep my own personal thoughts, beliefs, or biases from creeping into the teaching. Needless to say, the outline (1.5 pages) was very fun to put together, while still being serious and intensive, and I feel that I’m ready to teach it (link to the outline, slideshow & audio will be made available after I teach it).
Sitting here on the eve of my preaching debut, I must say that I’m both anxious and nervous. I was up in the pulpit on Sunday scoping things out and seeing how much room I would have for my laptop and Bible, and I felt pretty intimidated knowing that all of those people are going to be out there looking at me to deliver the Word of God. It definitely makes me nervous to think about it, but at the same time I know that it’s not going to be me teaching this anyway, but the Holy Spirit through me, which at least gives me a small sense of relief. I do realize though that delivering the Word is no small feat or something to be taken lightly; I reverence and respect the Word of God, as well as the position that I have been put in to be a messenger of the gospel. But the more I think about it, what better way to kick off my preaching “career” than to use one of my favorite passages, and one that I should hold dearly as a messenger of God.
If you would, keep me in prayer as I prepare myself to be God’s tool on tomorrow. I’ll post on the main site tomorrow night or Thursday all of my notes and the audio so that you can give it a listen. God bless!

If you believe in the Trinity, why would you willingly become (or remain) a member of a church/denomination and subject yourself to their leadership and teachings if they deny the Trinity?

That’s it; that’s the question. Ponder it. Answer it. Do whatever you will with it. It’s just something to chew on.
I have my thoughts, but I’ll post them later.