Monday, January 31, 2011

The church and children

By Martin Downes

Public worship and the teaching of God’s word, in the Old Testament and the New, is for all of God’s people. Indeed Moses commands, at the Feast of Booths, to ‘Assemble the people, men, women, and little ones, and the sojourner within your towns, that they may hear and learn to fear the LORD your God, and be careful to do all the words of this law, and that their children, who have not known it, may hear and learn to fear the LORD your God’ (Deut. 31:12-13).

Our task is not to send all the children out during our gathered worship but to teach them that this is for them. This will involve getting them used to sitting still and helping them to understand the songs, reading and sermon. If you have young children draw appropriate cartoons to help them follow the sermon. We should ‘educate them up’ and not dumb the service down for them. If we do the latter we are sending the message that Christianity is something to grow out of and not a message so great that it transcends our highest thoughts. It is also important that families worship together, that children learn what is expected of them by seeing mum and dad listening to God’s word.

When the church teaches children it is vital to show them how the stories of the Bible are part of and make sense in the light of the ‘big story’ of redemptive history. In this way we can educate children to see that the Bible is not a random collection of spiritual and moral lessons but is one book with one message about the kingdom and grace of the one and only Saviour Jesus.

We also need the courage to turn back the clock and to learn the great catechisms. The best education that we can have would be to learn the Westminster Shorter Catechism. Learning by question and answer is found in Exodus 12:26-27, ‘And when your children say to you, “What do you mean by this service?” you shall say, “It is the sacrifice of the LORD’s Passover, for he passed over the houses of the people of Israel in Egypt, when he struck the Egyptians but spared our houses”’. It is how we all learn, and it is a proven way to store the mind with essential biblical truths.

A husband and father, as the head of the home must lead the way in these matters. Christian families must know what God requires of them and be encouraged and exhorted to do it. All must be done so that the doctrine of God will be adorned, and the word of God not reviled.

Martin Downes is the minister of Christ Church, Deeside.

James White On Evangelism

James White in this video answers some very important questions on evangelism in the context of the local church. Far too often people can put so much stress on others to evangelise that it becomes unhealthy and unbalanced. Dr. White helps us see a proper biblical approach to evangelism. Well worth watching!!


Interview 3 | White and Barcellos from MCTS on Vimeo.

Thursday, January 27, 2011

Abraham the faithful

I was watching a TV program with my children. Abraham’s almost-sacrifice of Isaac was the topic. As I was watching I noticed that it showed Abraham in tears and struggling with the command of sacrificing his son. His hand went in the air and started to fall with anguish on his face and painful cries to heaven before an angel stopped it. As viewers, we are supposed to sympathize with Abraham and how he was obedient even though the command was hard for him to carry out. This is a LIE. Make no mistake the event actually happened but the way it happened on the TV was not scripture. It is important that we get this straight. Nowhere in the Biblical account do you see Abraham struggling with his decision to obey God. Let’s be good Bereans (Acts 17:11) and examine what scripture says.

1. Genesis 22:3 says “Abraham rose early in the morning and saddled his donkey and took two young men with, and Isaac his son; and split the wood for burnt offering, and arose and went to the place that God had told him.” Abraham got up in the morning and DIRECTLY went to carrying out God’s will. There was NO delay.

2. Genesis 22:4 states that it was not until the third day the He found the place where God wanted him to make his sacrifice. It took three days! This shows us that there was a VIGILANCE to carry out God’s word. He did not cease looking when he did not find the mountain God wanted him to go to. He did not give up! He was sent to offer up his son and he did not look for a way to worm out of it saying, “Oh well I’ve been on the road for days, sorry God I couldn’t find where you want me to be.”

3. Genesis 22:5 states that when he saw the place from A FAR OFF that he immediately told his servants to stay there and he and Isaac headed off. Again there is NO HESITATION. There is something else here, why leave the servants. They were apart of the covenant as well. One reason that is possible (though not spelled out in scripture) is that if the servants went with him they may have tried to talk him out of it. He wanted no interference with carrying out God’s will.

4. Let’s notice something else in verse 5, he told them to stay there and wait because “WE will return to you”. Was Abraham lying?! He was going to sacrifice his son right! How could they both return?! Hebrews 11:17-19 tells us that he did not lie. By FAITH Abraham offered his son, knowing that God could raise Isaac from the dead and God’s promise would be fulfilled. Because God is NOT a liar, no matter our flesh tries to dictate.

5. Finally, what does this tell us about sacrifice in general? It says clearly this: obedience is more important to God than sacrifice. His hand was stopped before the sacrifice happened, because it was his obedience and faith that was being tested. Remember, Saul’s sacrifice that he performed instead of waiting for Samuel. Saul thought he was giving God glory even though he was superceding God’s command. And what did Samuel say we he got there, “Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams” (1 Samuel 15:22) We are to come to God on His terms, not ours. Christ made our sacrifice! And totally sufficient it was! Its obedience that the Lord wants from us.

I think the issue of where Abraham’s heart was, is too often understated. He had FAITH in God that all things are possible and when he was given a command, he did it. And in his obedience God is glorified and a foreshadowing of how God would give his own son and NOT stay His own hand by letting Him do what we could not is given. As a result we are Abraham’s adopted seed. We are heirs with Christ and get to worship the thrice-holy God in His presence without worry of His wrath, because we are undeservingly clothed with the righteousness of Christ. This is the gospel. Christ’s life, death on the cross and resurrection. He completed what Abraham, Adam, you and I not only, are not allowed to do but could not do.

Remember what Christ said in one his “hard sayings” we like to gloss over: "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.” (Luke 14:26) In comparison to our Love for God everything else must be loss. Everything. Why is this hard for us? Because there are times, when we don’t believe. When faith in our eyes and own logic is greater than faith in God. As a result we disobey and seek our own way. My prayer is that our will, will be torn down. Oh Lord, help us to be quick, direct, vigilant, and faithful in our obedience, as Abraham was and help us to do all out of a sincere love for You. Amen.

Sunday, January 23, 2011

Children Ishmael Or Isaac?

“For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.” (Gal. 4:22-23) “Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.” (Gal. 4:30)

Religion is the great imitator of Biblical Christianity. It is born of good intentions with a desire to inherit the promises of God; but it has no solid rock foundation to build its house upon. It seeks to lay claim to the faith of father Abraham; but it has no ability to even touch the hem of its garment. Religion cloaks itself in the works of true believers; but they are merely wishful adornments embroidered upon empty hopes, which shall never embezzle the inheritance of Abraham’s promises. The faith of Abraham is reserved for the sons of the freewoman. They both have Abraham as their blood father; but they both do not have Abraham as their father of the faith of God. As our Lord said, that which is of the flesh is flesh and that which is of the Spirit is spirit. Faith is of the Spirit, not of religion.

That which is born out of the Spirit is heir of the faith of Abraham, and that which is born out of the works of the flesh is heir to the corruption of the flesh, which is sin, and sin brings forth death. Observe the distinction the Holy Scripture draws in the sands of eternity. Mark the place of separation. That which is of the flesh comes out of the hearts of men; yet, that which is of the Spirit comes from the mercies and grace of the heavens through the blood of the heart of the sacrificial Lamb of God, not by merit but by the will of our sovereign God. Religion of the flesh kills, but salvation wrought by the power and grace of God is life everlasting.

Man out of his fleshly heart easily deceives himself because his flesh is as the flesh of a chameleon changing colors to blend in with his surroundings. He mingles with the sons of the freewoman desperately desiring to belong, but the Father knows who is of the bondwoman and who is of the freewoman. He is not fooled by the disguise. Is it not written: “Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?” (II Cor. 13:5)


From the Pastor: Dr. M. J. Seymour, Sr.

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

In Defense of Hell: Six Arguments Against Annihilationism

"In the first place, the amount of time spent in wrongdoing is often irrelevant in determining the sentence. As I write these words, police in London are looking for thugs who attacked a forty-five year old man in broad daylight, almost severed his arm with a billhook, pummelled him with a baseball bat and sprayed hydrochloric acid in his face. The assault was all over in less than a minute; would sixty seconds in jail be an appropriate sentence? As William Hendriksen says, 'It is not necessarily the duration of the crime that fixes the duration of the punishment...What is decisive is the nature of the crime.'

Secondly, God alone has the ability to determine the true nature of sin and of the punishment that would be appropriate. Even at an earthly level, the criminal who insisted on manipulating the law to suit his own case would be given pretty short shrift. In the case of God's law, the idea of even trying to do so is absurd. Does anyone seriously claim to know how enormous an evil sin is in God's eyes? As John Wenham freely admits 'No sinner is competent to judge the heinousness of sin.'

The point has been well made by a contemporary theologian: 'The desire to find an escape clause for ourselves or for others is a natural enough reaction, but it simply does not come to terms with the authority of the Bible or with the justice and finality of the judgements of God. The Bible makes it plain enough that human concepts of justice and equity, distorted as they are by the sinfulness of fallen human nature, are deceptive and unreliable, and in any case are not binding upon God, who tells us explicitly, 'For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways' (Isaiah 55:8).'

Thirdly, as God is infinitely worthy of man's love, obedience and honour, man's obligation to give him 'the glory due to his name' (Psalm 29:2) is infinitely great. By the same token, his failure to do so is an infinite evil. And as infinite evil demands infinite punishment, the infinite sufferings of hell exactly fir the crime of which the wicked are guilty and are the ultimate example of God's perfect justice.

Fourthly, the argument about the punishment needing to fit the crime ignores the issues of the sinner's continuing attitude. There is certainly no such thing as repentance in hell; if there were, the end result would lean towards universalism. But as Paul Helm rightly says, 'When judgement is pronounced there is no opportunity for repentance.' Yet the absence of repentance is in itself a sin, deserving punishment; and as that sin will continue for ever, it is difficult to see how everlasting punishment would fail to fit the crime. John Gerstner clinches the point:'Since punishment itself never produces repentance, justice requires it to go on for ever.'

Fifthly, the character of God is at stake here. God's punishment of sinners is not something done in a fit of temper which might blow over after a while. Instead, it is the outcome of his perfect justice and unchanging hatred of evil. That being the case, there will never be a time when God will 'cool off' and take a more lenient view of the sinner's stubborn rebellion. The Roman historian Suetonius tells of a long-term prisoner of Tiberius Caesar who pleaded with the emperor to put an end to his misery by having him put to death, but the emperor replied, 'Stay, sir, you and I are not friends yet.' So it will be in hell. However desperately the sinner might cry to God to be annihilated and put out of his misery, God's righteous nature and the sinner's evil nature will mean that the reply will always be, 'We are not friends yet.' The illustration is not perfect, and is not intended to reduce God to the level of a pagan Roman emperor, yet the general principle involved safeguards God's holy and unchangeable character.

Sixthly, the argument that something done finitely can never have an infinite result proves too much, because it rules out heaven for the righteous as well as hell for the wicked. Jesus said, 'Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him' (John 3:36). I appreciate that heaven is a gift of grace while hell is 'earned', yet it would seem that the only way in which to make Jesus' words mean that the sinner's punishment in hell will come to an end is to say that the believer's joy in heaven will also do so, and I am not aware of any serious Bible student who has ever suggested that.

As if these six points were not conclusive, the argument they answer begs an obvious question. If it would be wrong of God to punish finite sin with everlasting punishment, how can it be right for him to punish it by annihilation, which by definition is itself everlasting? If (as some allege) endless punishment is 'sadistic', surely the same would apply to limited punishment? Would indescribable (but pointless) torture followed by annihilation be any kinder?"

John Blanchard, Whatever Happened to Hell [New York: Evangelical Press, 2003], 223-225.