"Preserving the Righteous Among the Wicked"
Genesis 19.1-13
Click the blue play button below to listen to the Sermon...
FULL ARTICLE >>>
Monday, February 08, 2010
Thursday, February 04, 2010
Free Audiobook: Religion Saves...
Free Audiobook: Religion Saves...
and Nine Other Misconceptions
By Mark Driscoll
"Pastor Mark Driscoll addresses the nine most pressing questions posed by visitors to the Mars Hill Church website."
You can download the audiobook free at ChristianAudio.com during the month of February 2010, click here.
Here's the book form at Amazon: Religion Saves: And Nine Other Misconceptions (Re:Lit)
Note: This isn't necessarily an endorsement of Pastor Driscoll or all that he does. I know there are mixed opinions on him in the Reformed community and you will notice I have very little (if any) material from him on this site. This audiobook could serve as a research tool for those that are not Driscoll fans.
FULL ARTICLE >>>
Gospel Salvation or Easy-Believism
John MacArthur lays out nine characteristics of a true understanding of salvation and the Gospel and how they contrast to "easy-believism":
1.) Scripture teaches that the gospel calls sinners to faith joined in oneness with repentance (Acts 2:38; 17:30; 20:21; 2 Pet. 3:9). Repentance is a turning from sin (Acts 3:19; Luke 24:47) that consists not of a human work but of a divinely bestowed grace (Acts 11:18; 2 Tim. 2:25). It is a change of heart, but genuine repentance will effect a change of behavior as well (Luke 3:8; Acts 26:18-20).
In contrast, easy-believism teaches that repentance is simply a synonym for faith and that no turning from sin is required for salvation.
2.) Scripture teaches that salvation is all God’s work. Those who believe are saved utterly apart from any effort on their own (Titus 3:5). Even faith is a gift of God, not a work of man (Eph. 2:1-5,8). Real faith therefore cannot be defective or short-lived but endures forever (Phil. 1:6; cf. Heb. 11).
In contrast, easy-believism teaches that faith might not last and that a true Christian can completely cease believing.
3.) Scripture teaches that the object of faith is Christ Himself, not a creed or a promise (John 3:16). Faith therefore involves personal commitment to Christ (2 Cor. 5:15). In other words, all true believers follow Jesus (John 10:27-28).
In contrast, easy-believism teaches that saving faith is simply being convinced or giving credence to the truth of the gospel and does not include a personal commitment to the person of Christ.
4.) Scripture teaches that real faith inevitably produces a changed life (2 Cor. 5:17). Salvation includes a transformation of the inner person (Gal. 2:20). The nature of the Christian is new and different (Rom. 6:6). The unbroken pattern of sin and enmity with God will not continue when a person is born again (1 John 3:9-10).
Although there is no contrast offered for this one, I would like to add my two cents: Easy-believism usually tries to focus on the changing of the life to force feed the idea of transformation. Topical sermons on marriage, finances, etc. tend to be the focal point. These are all well and good, however if the affections of the heart are not spurned toward Christ as the primer for all of this, these are simply modifying a person's behavior and not true fruit of the Spirit. Thus, they learn our dialect, and act more religious, but their heart is left far from Christ.
5.) Scripture teaches that God’s gift of eternal life includes all that pertains to life and godliness (2 Pet. 1:3; Rom. 8:32), not just a ticket to heaven.
In contrast, according to easy-believism, only the judicial aspects of salvation (e.g., justification, adoption, and positional sanctification) are guaranteed for believers in this life; practical sanctification and growth in grace require a post-conversion act of dedication.
6.) Scripture teaches that Jesus is Lord of all, and the faith He demands involves unconditional surrender (Rom. 6:17-18; 10:9-10). In other words, Christ does not bestow eternal life on those whose hearts remain set against Him (James 4:6)
In contrast, easy-believism teaches that submission to Christ’s supreme authority is not germane to the saving transaction.
7.) Scripture teaches that those who truly believe will love Christ (1 Pet. 1:8-9; Rom. 8:28-30; 1 Cor. 16:22). They will therefore long to obey Him (John 14:15, 23).
In contrast, easy-believism teaches that Christians may fall into a state of lifelong carnality.
8.) Scripture teaches that behavior is an important test of faith. Obedience is evidence that one’s faith is real (1 John 2:3). On the other hand, the person who remains utterly unwilling to obey Christ does not evidence true faith (1 John 2:4).
In contrast, easy-believism teaches that disobedience and prolonged sin are no reason to doubt the reality of one’s faith.
9.) Scripture teaches that genuine believers may stumble and fall, but they will persevere in the faith (1 Cor. 1:8). Those who later turn completely away from the Lord show that they were never truly born again (1 John 2:19).
In contrast, easy-believism teaches that a true believer may utterly forsake Christ and come to the point of not believing.
FULL ARTICLE >>>
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
Obama Gets Heat For Teaching Responsible Stewardship
Ok, this might surprise some of you, but I can honestly say that I agree with President Obama on something. He recently got a lot of heat for making a comment calling Americans to be responsible with their money. This is what he said:
"When times are tough, you tighten your belts. You don't go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage. You don't blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you're trying to save for college. You prioritize. You make tough choices."
Now Las Vegas is angry with Obama, along with others. They are saying that Obama should not have made those statements. "Let Americans spend their money how they choose" is what they are protesting. How sad, when our country is upset with our leader for telling us to be responsible with our resources in tough times.
Now one thing that should be pointed out is that this is coming from the President who spent more money on his inaugural bash than any other in history. In-spite of our financially tight times, President Obama spent $157 Million dollars for his grand celebration. This, along with his suped-up Limo named "The Beast" seem to contradict his words. So, while I agree with his recent statements, I wish he would teach them to us by example first.
FULL ARTICLE >>>
Monday, February 01, 2010
Why Did God Destroy Sodom?
"Why Did God Destroy Sodom?"
Examining two different perspectives to appraise
correctly from the whole counsel of God.
Click the link below to watch Sunday's Sermon....
Watch live streaming video from riveroflife at livestream.com
FULL ARTICLE >>>
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Article Quoted for my Sermon on Sodom
A few months ago I was involved in a debate about homosexuality, and if it is a sin. The person that claimed it was not a sin pointed me to a gay church website. This website has many articles claiming that homosexuality is not a sin to God. I told the person that I would take some time and look into the articles on the website for further investigation and curiosity.
Today we are starting Genesis 19 for the preaching at River of Life Church. So I decided to start with a topical sermon called "Why God Destroyed Sodom". Before stating the conservative, Biblical point of view that I hold, I decided to be fair enough to quote an excerpt of the article on the gay church's website on this topic. Here is the excerpt that I quoted from their article, annotated by me, including my 5 problems with their article, as well as some Scriptures I went over in the sermon. The article is in plain text, my comments are bolded and italicized:
Why God Destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah from http://gaychurch.org
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah takes place primarily in Genesis 19 with God about ready to pass judgment on the evil people of Sodom. But before He does so, He elects to give them one last chance, a test if you will. He agrees to send two of His angels to the city. If they can find ten righteous among the citizens of Sodom, God will spare the city from destruction. However, if they cannot find ten righteous people then His judgment would stand and the city destroyed. We catch the story as the angels are coming into the town.
Genesis 19:1-5
That evening as the angels bed down for the night, the entire male population of the city encircles Lot’s home and accuses Lot of harboring these uninvited and unapproved strangers. They demand that Lot hand the angels over to them so that they may “know” them (“Yada” Strongs #3045). While there is much debate over the interpretation of this word “Yada”, I believe Moffet’s translation of “violent rape” is probably the closest. I personally don’t think that the citizens of this violent place really intended to sit down and have a nice little chitchat over tea with these strangers!
1.) They deceive you by wrongly redefining words.
They say that “know” in Gen. 19.5 means “violently rape” rather than just “sex”.
We all know rape is wrong. That is not the question here. The question is weather or not that was the grave sin that God was dealing with that He calls an “abomination”.
They avoid that the same root word that is used in v.5 “know” is also used in Gen. 4.1, for Adam “knowing” his wife to conceive children. Did he violently rape Eve??
3 verses after Genesis 19.5, when Lot wrongly offers up his virgin daughters who have not “known” any man (same root word). Does he mean they have never been “violently raped”??
Whatever the exact translation, I think it’s clear the people of Sodom meant the angels harm. God also seemed to come to the same conclusion since after Lot and his family were a safe distance away, the city was destroyed – just as God had originally planned.
The question that is debated is this: Is God condemning the people because they were homosexual or because they were cruel, selfish and showed no mercy or compassion to others?
Ezekiel 16:49-50 answers many of these questions when he states:
"Behold, this was the inequity of your sister Sodom: pride, overabundance of food (in Hebrew this phrase literally means eating to the point of retching...), prosperous ease, and idleness were hers and her daughters; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty and committed abominable offenses before Me."
2.) They don’t quote all of Ezekiel 16.49-50.
They actually cut off v.50 for some odd reason. Hmmm… suspicious...
The final sentence of that verse says: "So I removed them, when I saw it."
In other words they were evil and self-centered people who totally ignored God and thought nothing of attacking, raping and killing people. Here is where the interpretations begin to differ. One side believes the sin of the Sodomites was the method of rape they intended to inflict upon the angels (i.e. the act of sodomy), while the other side believes the fact that the Sodomites wanted to attack and harm the strangers at all demonstrated the evil nature of these people and their complete abandonment of the law of Love. In other words it wasn’t the method of rape that was important - but the fact that the Sodomites wanted to rape and kill them at all that is truly the issue!
3.) They avoid obvious cross-references.
The Bible defines what the “abomination” is in Ezek. 16.49-50. (Lev. 18.22, 20.13)
The best commentary for the Bible is the Bible! Cross-reference often!
I personally don’t think God cares so much about our method of intercourse as He does about the attitude and intent behind it.
4.) They ignore other passages that tell us why Sodom was destroyed.
No mention of Jude at all. Jude v.7 tells us why Sodom was destroyed.
Theology shouldn’t dictate your Scriptures…
instead allow Scriptures to dictate theology!
Even today, rape has nothing to do with a loving relationship. Rapists are motivated of power, the need for control, anger, hatred and in some cases even vengeance. Ezekiel's account substantiates our belief that the sin of the Sodomites was not one of homosexuality, but of a self-centered, unloving attitude that cared little for God or their fellow man.
5.) They ignore other passages that call homosexuality acts sinful.
Why would they do this if they did not have an agenda.
Other Scriptures Quoted in the Sermon:
Genesis 19.5-8, 19.15; Leviticus 18.22, 20.13; Judges 19.22;
Romans 1.24-27; Jude 1.7; 1 Timothy 1.9-20;
2 Peter 2.6; 1 Corinthians 6.9-10
Is there hope for the sinner?
1 Corinthians 6.9-11
There is hope for the sinner who will call his sin…
for what it truly is - sin.
Turn from your sin (repent)… and trust Christ (believe)
and you will be saved!
1 Corinthians 6.12-20
There is hope for the sinner.
Not in excusing… redefining...
or explaining away their sins…
but there is hope for the sinner in Christ!
FULL ARTICLE >>>
Monday, January 25, 2010
A Topical Sermon on Expository Preaching
"A Topical Sermon on Expository Preaching"
By Pastor Bob
Here is the video that we played just before Pastor Bob preached
Click the blue play button below to listen to the Sermon by Pastor Bob:
FULL ARTICLE >>>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
