Slave to the King

Unworthy rebels, redeemed by the King of Kings and made servants fit for His use.

Category: Blog Articles (Page 1 of 5)

All Things to All People?

January 16, 2023 / / 1 Comment

“I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.” – 1 Cor. 9:22b

This passage has often been cited by those who argue that pragmatism in the church is an acceptable practice. That using any means necessary to grow the church is permissible if the ends (more bodies in the pews) are achieved. However, is that really what Paul was saying in the passage? Hardly.

In the preceding verses, Paul refers to the fact that, as an apostle, he had a right to call upon the churches to provide for his financial needs while he engaged in the work of ministry. He even demonstrates biblically that it was well within his authority and rights to do so. Yet, rather than compel the churches to give to his monetary needs, Paul chooses to work with his own hands and earn his keep.

Rather than burden the churches and the people to whom he ministered, Paul humbles himself and engages in manual labor to provide for himself and his ministry. Paul takes himself out of the way that the word of God may be central to his work of preaching, evangelism, and discipleship. Paul never wanted to be seen to be engaged in the work of ministry merely for financial gain. Therefore, when Paul became all things to all people, what he was doing was ensuring that he never became the obstacle to God’s work of salvation and discipleship.

Contrast this with the mega-church growth ideology. Those engaged in church growth use this passage to justify the use of all manner of entertainment to attract the “unchurched” to their services. Be it concerts, self-help messages, laser light shows, giveaways of material goods/money, or high-energy, celebrity-styled preachers, the church growth crowd justifies such pragmatic efforts by saying they are merely becoming “all things to all people.”

After all, this is what all people want. They don’t want to be lectured, told they need to repent, called to forsake sin, warned against Hell, etc. They want to be made to feel comfortable, cared about, and entertained. So, they argue, they must become “all things” by changing the church to meet these needs.

This is the exact opposite of Paul and the message he gave to the Corinthians. What Paul argued was the removal of himself as an obstacle that the unadulterated Word of God may penetrate rock-hard sinful hearts so that God may save sinners.

Church growth, instead, removes the Word that man is made the chief object of worship. Instead of humbling and removing themselves, church-growth pastors remove the Word and make much of themselves so that the unregenerate may be entertained. And the more fans arrive in the building, the more they tout themselves and their message.

We must reject the misuse of Paul’s message to the Corinthians as justification for pragmatism in the church. We must humble ourselves, make much of God and His Word, and trust in Him for the ends to be achieved.

It’s Not About Pluralism, It’s About Worldviews

November 21, 2022 / / 2 Comments

It would be kind to refer to David French (senior editor at The Dispatch and writer at The Atlantic) as an enigma to fellow Christians and political conservatives. In truth, it may be more accurate to describe him as a pretender to the throne. Mr. French writes as someone who espouses both Christian and politically conservative views but his routine attacks against both leave one wondering where he sits. Especially in light of two articles, he posted just this week.

In an article for The Atlantic, French espoused a positive view of the Senate vote for the “Respect for Marriage Act” in which he argued that it was a good thing that the Government is seeking to codify gay marriage into federal law. Two days later, French authored an article at The Dispatch entitled “Why I Changed My Mind About Law and Marriage, Again.” Like The Atlantic article, French makes a positive argument for the codification of gay marriage while trying to balance the concerns for religious liberty. I believe it is safe to say that French genuinely believes he is well-meaning in these articles but fails terribly to recognize the foundational issue at play, the issue of worldviews.

David French’s articles both rely on the need for a neutral worldview to act as an intermediary between two parties, the party of religious liberty and the party of gay marriage. French’s argumentation reveals that he believes such intermediation is possible and that both parties can receive their intended goals without infringing upon the other. The problem is that there is no such neutral worldview. There is no middle ground upon which the Constitution and the laws of America exist where both parties function equally. The myth of neutrality is exactly that, a myth.

French argues that LGBT persons should have the exact same rights as all other persons. They should be able to enjoy those rights without having them trampled upon by Christians and political conservatives. Likewise, LGBT persons should be limited from attacking religious liberty and forcing Christians to affirm or celebrate a civil union they see as sinful under the teachings of Scripture. And French believes that current legal protections are robust enough to allow for such coexistence to happen.

In his Dispatch article, David French points out that the current “Respect for Marriage” bill has language that protects religious organizations from having their credentials or tax-exempt status pulled for opposing gay marriage. He argues that this is a step in the right direction as it seeks to eliminate the language of the “Equality Act” which had virtually no religious protections in place. He likewise admits the marriage bill does nothing to protect private citizens and Christian-owned businesses from legal attacks for standing upon their religious beliefs. However, he argues that this is not a terrible thing as numerous Court cases have been won by private citizens and business owners who have undergone such attacks. One wonders if those business owners who have endured numerous lawsuits, government fines, threats against their business licenses, protests, slander, threats against their lives, and years of litigation feel those protections are as robust as French claims.

At the center of these arguments are the worldviews which drive them. French admits that those who promulgate LGBT rights and gay marriage want to eradicate the religious freedoms that ought to protect Christians and churches. By his own statement, the so-called Equality Act aims at those religious protections to ensure churches would not be free from reprisal for standing in opposition to gay marriage. Why is this? Because the worldview that drives the LGBT agenda stands in direct opposition to a free and open society.

Much like Marxism of the past, this ideology identifies an “oppressed” group, the LGBT, and the oppressor group, Christians and the church. In the LGBT worldview, the only possible way to have true equity and equality is to remove the Christian church from its “privileged” place in society and to elevate the LGBT to a higher status. In other words, Christians must be oppressed and the LGBT must be liberated. This is not a worldview of freedom but one of enslavement.

Those who argue for the elevation of the LGBT worldview will never be satisfied to have a “well-balanced” neutral system where the government grants them the rights they demand while simultaneously protecting the very people they see as their oppressors. We have seen this in the language of Critical Theory. Their worldview argues any system that does not turn oppressors into the oppressed is systemically broken in the favor of the oppressors. Therefore, nothing but the complete replacement of the existing system will bring about equality.

French completely punts on this matter. He demonstrates no willingness to interact with or acknowledge the clear and present danger such a worldview presents to a free society. He simply wants his readers to believe that we can find some kind of zen balance between the two where everyone can be happy.

One must also address the institution of marriage itself. French would argue that, while marriage is a religious institution, the government has a duty toward civil marriages. In other words, the government has the authority to decide outside the religious realm what is a marriage and upon whom it can confer this institution. Yet, this too plays into the hands of the LGBT worldview. If indeed marriage is by nature a religious institution, then the government is prohibited by the Constitution from interfering with the Church’s role in it. Yet, French hides behind the “Establishment Clause,” the so-called separation of Church and State, to say that the government cannot enforce a religious view of marriage upon the institution. Yet, this is a capitulation to the new worldview because French ought to recognize that should then remove the government from marriage altogether.

In turn, the worldview upon which our system of government was originally based, the Judeo-Christian worldview, recognizes that rights are not something granted by the government but come from a moral source outside of ourselves. Note that I referred to the Judeo-Christian worldview and did not call it the Christian worldview. It is well understood that not all of our founding fathers were Christians. Many were deists and some were perhaps agnostic or atheistic. Yet, they came together in agreement to state that rights did not sit with the king to be doled out or retracted at his will. Rather, they were self-existent, outside of us, coming from a source of moral authority outside of humanity. They were in fact given to us by our Creator. Therefore, the role of government was to protect those rights and allow for the self-governing of the citizens of the nation.

The fact that our rights were endowed to us by our Creator means we are beholden to that Creator. Therefore, it makes sense that the founders sought to protect the rights of free speech and religion against government infringement. Those that opposed the king in England by not adhering to the dictatorial rule of the Church of England found themselves often persecuted for being held captive to their conscience by the Word of God. In other words, appealing to the Creator over the king, who was head of the church, could result in dire consequences. The Constitution recognized, via the Judeo-Christian worldview, that citizens had an obligation to honor God above all else according to the dictates of their conscience. Therefore, the government had no right to intervene and prevent the exercise of that right.

This worldview emphasized the freedom of the God-informed conscience over and above the whims of government and, thus, bound government to the people, not the other way around. Freedom was found in protecting rights given by God not by ushering in a foreign worldview that seeks to supplant and destroy the existing system.

What French will refuse to admit is that he wants have his cake and eat it too. He wants to have the respect and admiration of Christians who desire religious freedom. At the same time, he wants those who adhere to the LGBT worldview to believe he is on their side. In the end, what French does is punch down the religious crowd by claiming their concerns are overblown while affirming the worldview of the LGBT community which seeks to oppress and silence their detractors. Until French and others recognize that the battle is here and that there is no neutral ground, they’ll never recognize how much of a threat they are to the religious community.

Christians need to decide where they are going to stand on the issue of our day. It is now clear that the worldview upon which our nation was once founded barely exists. Those that hold to it continue to lose ground. And those warring against it find willing collaborators, such as David French, to help them institute a new order. So, we must ask ourselves what we will do.

For the Christian, my suggestion has been and will continue to be the following: we must first and foremost bow the knee to Christ, forsaking all worldly attempts to draw us into compromise. That which God has called sin is and always will be sin. While French would claim that those committing such sinful unions are engaged in marriages and have built actual families, God gives us no ground to concede his claims. We must stand firmly and without apology on the truth. And we must preach this truth, calling out sin and calling the world to repentance in Jesus Christ alone. For, even if we were to win back the culture to a Judeo-Christian worldview, sin would still abound and souls would still be bound for Hell. We stand firm, preach the gospel, and pray for lost souls.

Secondly, we vote and argue based on our God-informed consciences and we do not compromise. Not even a little bit. French and company want to be the voice of the collective Christian conscience. They want to argue a little compromise is fine if it allows us an inroad with the culture. Better to look good in the eyes of the world than to vote for the wrong people or policies and lose our influence. If we are to honor God, then we do so in all areas of our lives. This includes our politics. It will not be long before you or I will find ourselves the lone man or woman standing on the battlefield holding to Christian principles. But, even then, we will not, we cannot, forsake the truth. Honor God, never compromise, and promote that which is godly and true, always.

If God Is Real, Why Is Your Life So Hard?

October 21, 2022 / / 4 Comments

Recently, someone I know was asked “if God is real, why is your life so terrible?” Sadly, this is an all too common question that is loaded with presuppositions. It assumes that for God to be real, life cannot be difficult. It assumes that I should never have to deal with difficulty. It assumes that I am such a good person that I deserve for life to go well. It assumes God owes me a good life. And it assumes God can only be real if He does everything possible to make my life easier.

As Voddie Baucham once said, this is the wrong question. I don’t get to ask a question like this loaded with all the wrong presuppositions and then conclude God cannot be real because He did not meet my standard. Rather, I must look at the question from God’s perspective.

Who decides whether my life should be one of ease or difficulty? Who decides what constitutes my being a good person? Who decides on the basis of the “good person criteria” what I deserve? Who decides what I am owed? And who decides but God if intervening in a time of tribulation will really be best for me?

The truth is, the answer to these questions is that God is the one who decides these things, not me. God is the sole standard of what is right and good. He is morally perfect and righteous. It is against Him that one can determine if they are a good person. And for the record, not a single one of us is good. We are all morally bankrupt and evil when compared against the righteous and holy God.

Knowing that we fail to come even a micrometer close to God’s goodness, knowing that He is a perfect and righteous Judge, how can we possibly think we deserve even the slightest good thing from Him? Determining God’s existence on whether or not my life is difficult is like a criminal deciding Courts cannot be real and have no authority over him because he had a hard life.

We are God’s creation and have rebelled against Him. The fact that we continue to breathe air despite the multitude of sins we commit against Him daily rather than being struck immediately to Hell testifies of His patience and longsuffering. What God owes us is His judgment. Not reward and ease, but His wrath, immediate and without relenting. Yet, God patiently allows us life in this world until the day we must all stand before Him. He does so because God desires that all men everywhere repent and come to faith in Christ.

In other words, God gives us time. Time to see Him for who He is and to recognize ourselves as the sinners we are. Time to turn from our sin and turn to Christ for the forgiveness of our sins. God graciously gives us time.

Will all men turn to Christ? No. Yet, even in this God is gracious because He sends forth His gospel message through His people. Then, God kindly brings to faith and repentance all those whom He will save, because apart from this work, none would turn to Him.

What about those who do not? They will never be able to say they do not deserve His wrath. Creation and conscience testify to the truth of God’s existence and the reality of their sin. They know He is real and will hold them accountable. And they have His Word readily available to find the truth. They will be judged, condemned eternally to Hell and there is no defense. And, in this, God too is glorified.

Therefore, when we see life is difficult, when trials are painful, we are reminded that sin is at work in the world and that judgment is one day coming. God does not owe us a life of ease, rather, these trials testify that we deserve far much worse.

Yet, He has given us time. Time to admit we have sinned against Him, to turn from that sin, and to turn to Christ for eternal life. Trials then show us that this life is but a vapor, a time we must endure, be faithful, and serve. Then we will spend eternity with the One whom we had once rebelled against yet, in His kind mercy, He adopted us as His children.

God owes us nothing but His wrath, we do not deserve His kindness. But, God is merciful and will use even the most difficult of lives to demonstrate His goodness.

Deconstruction is Not Reformation

July 7, 2022 / / 1 Comment

On July 4, 2022, Adam Page, a pastor at Amelia Baptist Church made a post on Twitter that read: “I wish I could find my church deacons from the 90s & tell them Daniel Haseltine (Jars of Clay) Derek Webb (Caedmon’s Call) & Kevin Max (DC Talk) no longer hold to sola scriptura and/or have deconstructed, but John Cooper from “devil band” Skillet is persevering strong in doctrine.” This is a great observation from Page as we see numerous Contemporary Christian Music (CCM) artists either loudly leave the faith or advocate for heretical and apostate ideologies. Page’s tweet did not tag any of the artists themselves. He was not seeking to score any points against them. It was simply an observation made to his followers and friends on social media.

Enter then, Derek Webb. It is unclear just how Mr. Webb found Adam Page’s post but find it he did. Webb did not enter into a conversation with Page. He did not ask any questions or seek to make any clarifications. However, what Webb did was share Page’s original post with a comment of his own (known as “quote tweeting”). Webb wrote, “‘deconstructing’ is part of reforming’. i’d like think your church deacons would be comforted knowing that we’re following the reformation’s cry of ‘semper reformanda’ (always reforming), calling out teaching & practices that the church should repent of and leave behind.”

What Derek Webb did in that single quote tweet was to claim that those engaging in deconstruction are just being modern-day Reformers. That is a bold claim. But is it true? Should deconstructionists be seen as acting in concert with the Reformers, seeking to draw themselves closer to Christ while discarding man-made traditions that have been added to His word? An examination of deconstruction as compared to the essence of the Reformation, sola Scriptura, will demonstrate that such an association is not only undeserved but it is a false claim that exposes how apostate is the deconstructionist ideology.

Deconstruction

First, it is recommended readers of this article listen to the 3-hour long podcast episode #117 of “Just Thinking” entitled “Evangelical Deconstructionism.” Yes, it really is 3-hours long and it is worth listening to every minute of the program. Darrell Harrison and Virgil Walker take the time to establish what our source of authority truly is (Scripture), where deconstructionism originated from (Marxist philosopher Jacques Derrida), and how the ideology is being employed to tear down the orthodox Christian faith. Listeners will get a seminary-level education on an ideology that is incongruent with Christianity.

Deconstructionism is the practice of taking something apart (language, a text, a system, a practice); looking for what is believed to be inconsistencies or problems; using what is found to proclaim the system is broken, oppressive or destructive; and then rebuilding the matter into the examiner’s own image. Deconstructionists always engage in this practice in a negative sense. This means they enter into the process assuming the system produces brokenness, oppression, inequality, and more. They do not enter with an intent to determine objective truth. Deconstructionism presumes there cannot be any real objective truth. Deconstructionists also distrust all systems and apply a “hermeneutic of suspicion” when engaging in the process of deconstruction (see again “Just Thinking” episode 117).

Therefore, deconstruction is not concerned with determining whether a system or practice is true as it stands. Since objective truth does not exist in the mind of the deconstructionist, the quest is not about determining if the system is valid or in need of reformation. Deconstruction is concerned only with the process of questioning, it does not concern itself with testing or supporting an argument. Therefore, it focuses on simply questioning the system, breaking it down to find where the cracks exist, then reforming it to achieve the deconstructionist’s predetermined goals. In the end, deconstructionism is ultimately about tearing apart a system so that something else can be built in its place.

Once the deconstructionist has introduced sufficient levels of doubt into the process to tear apart the system, reconstruction can begin. However, reconstruction is not about finding objective truth by which the system should be established. Instead, it seeks to add the voices of intersectionally oppressed groups to be included in the new system. The goal is to ensure the new system meets with the approval and inclusion of groups who previously claimed hurt, oppression, inequality, or some other grievance. Reconstruction is about creating a pluralistic system by which all previously grieved or oppressed classes have their demands met at the expense of the class said to be at fault. Deconstruction and reconstruction are humanistic and godless tools by which men can force the desires of their hearts to be met at the expense of truth.

Evangelical Deconstruction

In the aforementioned “Just Thinking” episode, Darrell Harrison outlines “The Five Points of Progress of Evangelical Deconstructionism.” According to Harrison, the points are:

  • Embrace and posit the idea that the church is a socially constructed system, not a divinely ordained idea that originated in the mind of God;
  • Assume the socially constructed system is designed to be exclusive of certain intersectional identities, traditions, and behaviors (i.e. LGBTQ);
  • Identify subjective points and cracks in the socially constructed system that have failed, in the estimation of the deconstructionist, and need to be fixed or reconstructed;
  • Apply a “hermeneutic of suspicion” to that socially constructed system so that anyone who is even remotely associated or connected to that system is, by default, deemed untrustworthy;
  • Reconstruct that socially constructed system into the image and likeness of the culture with a culturally acceptable theology, soteriology, anthropology, hamartiology, and eschatology.

Remember that that point of deconstruction is not about determining truth. It assumes the system – in this case, Christianity – is one of oppression and inequality. Therefore, evangelical deconstructionists begin with the idea that Christianity, as it exists now, is not something ordained by God in His word. They presuppose the nature of the Christian faith is untrustworthy and damaging in its current state. And, since Christianity is only a social construct, not a divine mandate, then it must be deconstructed to do away with the inequalities that exist.

Evangelical deconstructionists are not starting with God and His revealed word. They are starting with a philosophical ideology that presumes systems are all about power and control. This is not an examination of who God is and what He desires for His people. This is determining what they believe Christianity is supposed to be and how it falls short of meeting cultural expectations.

If, as Derek Webb claims, evangelical deconstructionists are simply the modern-day equivalent of the Reformers, then one would expect they would seek to apply the same standard of examination the Reformers used. However, when we look at what the Reformers taught, we realize these two groups are worlds apart. Deconstruction is the polar opposite of the Reformation for one basic reason: the principle of sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura

According to Michael Kruger in his article, “Understanding Sola Scriptura,” on Ligonier.org, the “conviction of sola Scriptura— the Scriptures alone are the Word of God and, therefore, the only infallible rule for life and doctrine—provided the fuel needed to ignite the Reformation.”

The Reformers stood against the Catholic Church which acknowledged that Scripture “was the ultimate standard for all of life and doctrine…” but they also believed God communicated outside the written text. The Church “claimed a trifold authority structure, which included Scripture, tradition, and the Magisterium. The key component in this trifold authority was the Magisterium itself, which is the authoritative teaching office of the Roman Catholic Church, manifested primarily in the pope.” The Reformers recognized that there was no other equal or higher authority than the word of God. And they held their ground resolutely on this matter.

The Reformers taught sola Scriptura demanded that man be held to the ultimate authority of God’s word. No man could introduce ideologies, beliefs, commands, or principles of the Christian faith that did not first pass muster under the authority of the Scriptures. This did not mean the creeds or confessions, books, historical examinations of doctrinal development, or other realms of study could not guide or instruct the Christian church. Those very things could be of great help and guidance to the church at large. They could even provide guard rails to prevent Christians from wandering into personal interpretations that were inconsistent with the faith. Yet, none of these tools could be equal to or exceed the authority of Scripture. All such matters must be subservient to the Word of God.

Where sola fide (faith alone) was the material cause (the source) of the Reformation, sola Scriptura was the formal cause (the essence) of it. How could men know that they were saved by faith alone in Christ alone? By the very word of God as revealed in the Scriptures. It was by this that the Reformers sought to combat the man-made traditions of the Catholic Church. They fought and reclaimed the orthodox Christian faith from the ideas and traditions of men who sought to dominate the church. The Reformation was about rejecting outside ideologies and calling Christians to cling more tightly to the revealed word.

For the Reformers, the Reformation was not simply about discarding theologies and practices they did not like. Rather, they examined the claims of the papacy against the Scriptures themselves. Reformers, such as Martin Luther, were not initially seeking to break from the Church but to conform the Catholic Church to the Scriptures. The birth of the Protestant church was a call to turn from worldly traditions, to die to self, and be conformed to Christ as He revealed Himself in His word.

Did the Reformers call out for repentance from false doctrine? Absolutely. But what were those calls based upon? The examination of the Scriptures which demanded the Christian understand the context of the writers and readers. To learn what was meant at the time the words were written, what the original audience was expected to understand, and how they were supposed to apply the teachings in their lives. The Reformers knew that the key to refuting the false teaching of the papacy lie not in simply believing that Rome was wrong and it hurt people. It lay specifically in knowing what God meant in His revealed word, interpreting it rightly, teaching it to the people, and calling them to obey it.

Genuine reformation starts with the Word, not with assuming the Christian faith is just bad because people do not like how it is practiced.

Deconstruction is Not Reformation

Deconstructionists like Derek Webb want to picture themselves as modern-day Reformers who are rescuing the church from itself. In truth, they have much more in common with the Catholic Church of Luther’s day.

Deconstructionists do not examine first the Word of God to determine how they should live and practice the faith. Instead, they begin with a presupposition that the church today simply is wrong because the culture at large feels excluded and oppressed by its practices. Rather than examine those presuppositions against Scripture, they seek to force their ideology upon the church and require it to conform to their man-made traditions. They have elevated their philosophies to be equal with and above Scripture itself. The Christian faith is expected to change to meet their expectations instead of their being required to conform to the commands of Christ.

Christian, the deconstructionist is not a reformer. He is, at best, a confused and deluded person but, at worst, he is an apostate and false teacher. Do not be manipulated by the emotional appeals to see such persons as merely practicing the battle cry of the Reformers. They could not be further from “Semper Reformanda” if they tried. Deconstructionism is antithetical to the Christian faith and it is a direct challenge to the authority of Scripture. Reject such appeals and seek first the kingdom of God as He has revealed it to you in His precious, inspired, infallible, inerrant, and all-sufficient Word.

Elitists Lecturing the Church About Abortion

June 25, 2022 / / 0 Comments

Today, I read articles by both Karen Swallow Prior and David French regarding making abortion “unnecessary” and “unthinkable.” In both cases, they give token acknowledgment to the fact that Christians for hundreds of years have actually done the hard work of caring for those in need. But, their solution isn’t to praise that work and call for churches to keep doing the same.

Rather, it is that Christians simply have not done enough to address those issues, so we must now abdicate that responsibility and give it to the government. Both articles advocate for government-sponsored social and financial programs, appealing to the sense that women who are pregnant seek abortions due to societal and monetary issues.

Both Prior and French call for society at large to be responsible to fund and care for pregnant women through government-enforced taxation and redistribution of resources. What I find interesting in both articles is that neither is willing to recognize that it has been government-based programs that have caused much of the societal and financial decay in our nation.  Welfare programs have repeatedly made women and minorities dependent on handouts. They do so by punishing recipients the moment they obtain any kind of self-sufficiency by ending those benefits. Social and financial programs are very much not an opportunity to provide a “leg up” but force people to live on the meager dolling of what the bureaucrats give them.

Also, rampant sexual immorality in our nation can be traced to the government-sponsored promotion of “safe sex” education over abstinence. And it is the government force-feeding acceptance of “alternate lifestyles,” teaching sexual perversion as virtuous and freeing.  Nowhere in either article do Prior and French call for churches to hold the government accountable for helping to further the depravity that has resulted in “unwanted pregnancies,” yet we are called upon to make this same bureaucracy responsible for solving the problem it helped cause.

Also interesting is their appeal to statistics which say abortion has decreased since Roe. Yet, neither address that abortifacient contraceptives have risen in use (i.e. “the morning after pill”). Countless numbers of babies have been aborted after conception because these “medications” prevent implantation after initial conception. Children that are conceived, yet lost because the pill caused them to be flushed away are still murdered, even if they were not injected with saline, burned, and dismembered.

Both Prior and French want to lecture Christians and take the “moral high ground” by saying we can’t really be pro-life unless we endorse government-based solutions. Yet, their arguments are spurious and vapid. They mostly ignore the work done for centuries by the Church, use statistics slanted in their favor to make their case, and conveniently fail to address the government’s own hand in our current mess.
In short, their solution is no solution at all.

Is Roe the End?

June 24, 2022 / / 1 Comment

A Historic Moment

Today, June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. In this monumental decision, the Court ruled there is no constitutional protection for abortion and returned the matter to the States. In other words, each State must now decide whether to make abortion illegal, legal, or restricted in some capacity. This means it is not a full ban on the horrific practice despite what commentators, media personalities, or politicians have claimed.  Nor is it a removal of a Constitutional protection enshrined in our founding document. There has never been any such protection in the Constitution. What Roe v. Wade did is interpret that laws banning abortion were unconstitutional. That decision thus prohibited states from making laws outlawing the act. In today’s decision, the Supreme Court reversed that finding and determined no such protection existed. You cannot remove something that was never there.

What Now?

What happens next? All 50 States in the Union must now determine what laws they will pass with regard to the act of abortion. Some states have already passed legislation that would be triggered once the decision was handed down. Other states already have laws protecting the practice of abortion and will continue to stand by them. Ultimately, each state’s laws will be based on the votes of its citizens and the representatives they place in State political offices. This is not the end of abortion, but it most certainly limits the ability of people intent on murdering their babies. The fight to end abortion is far from over, but a major victory has been won.

What does this mean for the church? As Christians, we recognize that Scripture declares murder to be a sin. God knew us before we came into being.  He declared when would be born and would die.  He determined the path our lives would take. And He knit us together in our mothers’ wombs. We are made in His image and likeness. God has declared the willful murder of such image-bearers to be a sin, one which has not only temporal but eternal consequences. Therefore, the church must continue to proclaim to the world at large that the murder of babies is a sin. That those who promote, affirm, endorse, and engage in this willful rebellion will face His just and righteous wrath. We must call on the world to repent of such heinous sin and turn to Christ whereby the only hope of forgiveness can be found. We must not equivocate on this matter. We must firmly, authoritatively, and with great love, proclaim this truth to the world.

What Cannot Be

But we must not fall prey to the language of the world on this matter. We must not seek to soften the blow that abortion is a sin by telling people that abortion is only thinkable because we have failed to provide for the needs of women. That abortion only happens because social justice has not yet been achieved. This is patently untrue. Murder occurs because people are sinners. We commit sin because our hearts are enslaved to sin. That sin will be shown in a myriad of ways, including the murder of babies in the womb. We can justify our sins all day long with hundreds of reasons but it is still sin. We cannot remove the guilt of sin because life is unfair or difficult.

We must also not fall prey to the redefinitions of terms. It has become passé to rephrase pro-life to mean “pro-whole life.” In other words, that protecting infants from murder is not actually being pro-life. To be pro-life, you must be willing to have the secular government at large provide and care for life from womb to tomb. We are told we must authorize the government to so organize society through financial incentives, social programs, and health care to ensure that every life born has every single thing it needs. In this redefinition, you cannot possibly be pro-life without this provision. To reject it means you are “pro-birth” and could not care less what happens after.

Those actually aware of the history of the church know that Christians have created numerous resources for hundreds of years to care for children and families in need. Through local church donations and care in the community – and through the creation of charities, pregnancy centers, hospitals, adoption agencies, and more – the church has always stepped up to the plate to provide for those children in dire need. It is a lie from the pit of Hell to say that Christians do not care what happens after a child is born. And by adopting the language of “pro-whole life” we deny the truth that countless Christians in history have actually done the work of caring for those in need.

Do Not Forget Our Primary Mission

Finally, we must not assume this particular victory means our work is done in the culture. Even if all abortion was banned today (may we see that day soon) evil hearts that desire to murder their children are still enslaved to sin. The very hearts that want to fight to restore abortion to legal status are still speaking vile words that spew forth from evil hearts. Their standing before God has not changed even if the law were changed completely. Sinners bent on evil still need the gospel of Jesus Christ.

While we rejoice and worship God for His mercy on this matter, we must almost recommit ourselves to the command to make disciples of every nation. We must confront hearts with the truth of Scripture that they are enslaved to sin and will stand before God on Judgment Day. That the only hope of forgiveness, even for those who have already murdered children in the womb, is Jesus Christ. We must confront them with their sins, warn them of the danger to come, and plead with them to turn to Christ alone.

Christians, Roe is not the end. While the fight has been long and arduous, it is not yet over. And it would not be over even if we could put an end to this abdominal act. The first and primary mission of the church is the proclamation of the gospel and the winning of souls to Christ. We can fight and win culture wars but still lose souls to Hell. Let us fight the one without neglecting the other. No, Roe is not the end. It is a time of humble rejoicing to be sure. But, it is also a reminder of the great God we serve and the mission He has given us. Let us go forth and serve our King this day and every day till He brings us home.

The Most Dangerous Thing We Can Say

June 19, 2022 / / 0 Comments

One of the most dangerous phrases ever uttered is “but we have to do something!” Because what often follows is thoughtless adherence and obeisance to whatever suggestion comes along. As long as it is immediate, feels good, and satisfies our emotional craving for the appearance of action, we grab it. 

The truth is, such a desire for immediate action lacks thoughtfulness and consideration. It doesn’t look for a solution that is real, has moral and ethical substance, and has consideration for future ramifications. Rather, this mindset eschews such concerns because it is not fast enough, it doesn’t help people feel better right now, and it does not stop our fears that something bad will happen while we wait.

The “do something!” mindset is not ruled by objectivity, rationality, and morality. It is ruled by emotion. It does not care who brings a solution as long as it happens immediately and soothes our anxieties. It does not ask if those bringing the solution have a proper basis for their ideas, it just wants the ideas now. It does not care if there may be ulterior motives for the future because what matters is helping those hurting in the here and now.

If someone questions the validity of the solution, if someone shares concerns that the proposed ideas could be more harmful than good, if they say there are moral, ethical, and legal problems, then that person is decried as having no love for the hurting. It is more important that we act now to give the appearance of care than to wait – being concerned with how we are able to care in the immediate moment – while we develop sound, logical, ethical solutions. That just takes too long and we want our pound of flesh now.

As Christians, we know the most dangerous thing we can do is seek to satisfy the desires of our heart. The human heart is an idol factory that demands the constant worship of self. We, by nature, eschew being held to any outside standard. We don’t want our ideas or solutions examined against an objectively moral rationality that is not our own. We might not get what we want if we do.

Christians know just how wicked the heart of man is because our Savior had to die that we might be saved from those sinful hearts. So, it stands to reason that the Christian should not be quick to grab whatever solution presents itself. If God’s ways are higher than ours, if His plans are superior to our own, if His principles have greater love and kindness than we can ever muster, then we must submit all that we say and do to examination by His holy Word.

But, all too often, we as Christians are quick to jump on the “do something right now!” bandwagon. We fear being seen as unkind or unloving if we do not act quickly. Yet, love is not really demonstrated if hasty solutions not only fail to heal the hurt but also deceive those we care about into thinking that we need not take our worries and cares before the Lord.

Hastiness means we are being led by our hearts and not the Lord. It tells us that what matters is not seeking the wisdom of God in all things but trying to calm our anxieties quickly in whatever manner sounds good. This is not caring for the hurting. This leaves them in their pain running from one worldly idea to another in hopes they find an immediate peace, one that may or may not last.

Christians know that God’s ways mean He works in His timing and according to His nature. God may heal now or He may heal over the course of a lifetime. But, He will always work according to His revealed Word. And, He will do it for His glory.

Therefore, Christians, we must be willing to be patient, work hard, examine ideas in the light of Scripture, and be willing to reject any solution that does not seek first the glory of God. If we do this first, then what we bring to the hurting will not only bring genuine healing and peace, but it will point those people back to the One who can not only heal in the temporal but in the eternal.

Let’s Talk About Bad Online Arguments

October 27, 2021 / / 0 Comments

Recently, Chris Huff of Matter of Theology made a post on Twitter that I believe is both sound and biblical (see attached pic). A screenshot of that post was shared on the Facebook page, “Expository Parenting.”  The hosts of that page clearly agreed with Chris Huff’s post and wanted to share that with their followers. Now, as with any online engagement, you will always have your supporters and your detractors. At the time of the writing of this article, there were 373 comments and 247 shares. To say this post generated conversation would be putting things mildly. 

When it comes to the matter of the music used during a worship service, there are no end to the opinions Christians will share and defend. In this case, Chris Huff made a solidly biblical and rational statement. The “ministries” he named are well known for their false teachings: that God will always heal people of their illnesses; that God must always give you whatever you decree and declare; that God “broke the law for love”; the list is endless. And, as such, whatever materials produced and promoted to the Christian church at large should be not be considered as suitable for use in Christ’s church. You don’t eat a meal tainted with poison and you don’t use the “worship” material from churches that preach heresy.

Hence, Chris Huff is absolutely correct. Pastors are the under-shepherds of Christ’s sheep. They have a solemn and sacred duty to not only feed and care for the flock but to protect them from ravenous wolves as well. To fail to vet the music coming into a church, including the ministry which created and promoted said worship band, because a song seems close enough to biblical truth is to shirk the duty assigned by God to every pastor. Now, this does not mean that pastors who have failed to do so are heretics or false teachers themselves. It means that they need to wake up to the danger these so-called worship bands present to their congregations and they need to step up to the solemn responsibility they have.

Going back to the post that Expository Parenting shared, there was one detractor, a self-identified pastor, who took issue with Mr. Huff’s post. That’s not unusual. Many times people, including pastors, will comment their disagreements with online posts. Fair enough. But, in this case, the pastor took to making personal attacks and character assassinations against Chris Huff. It is worth reviewing and discussing his charges in his post, not because we want to denigrate this man, but because, as a pastor, what he does here funnels down to the congregation. Want to know where such fallacious straw man attacks given by professing Christians come from? Look to the man who is teaching them these things from the pulpit.

Now, I’m leaving the pastor’s name out of this post. We’ll just refer to him as Pastor X. This is primarily because I don’t want this perceived as a personal attack against him. This is not about him. This is about what he lays out publicly, as a pastor, against another Christian with whom he publicly disagreed. I’m sharing his entire post, putting in bold lettering the points I wish to engage and making my responses as we go.  This is a teaching moment. A chance to interact with a fallacious online argument and point out where the problems are. With that foundation laid, let’s proceed.

Pastor X writes:  “Wide brushes of judgmental statements always make me cringe for many reasons, and this one does just that. Theology is a funny thing. When you attend higher learning for theology or biblical studies, you should learn one thing really fast. If you intend to only read or listen to people you agree with completely on every theological issue, you will only listen to yourself. I don’t know the author of the original post, but I can almost guarantee he spends a lot of time listening to himself.”

Let’s start here. Pastor X starts by making the statement that we need to be willing to listen to those who have different theological beliefs than ourselves. That if we fail to do so, then what we end up doing is only listening to ourselves. That’s a fair observation. Many of us lament that the current culture lives in perpetual echo chambers, wanting only to hear people affirm themselves.  So, Pastor X should be willing to listen to Chris Huff, right? Clearly, he disagrees with the post, so, wouldn’t we then assume what is to follow will a fair examination of Mr. Huff’s statement? Well, not so much.

Pastor X admits having zero knowledge of Chris Huff, which means he knows nothing about his person, his character, his theology, or his motivations. Yet, he immediately assigns a character flaw. Why? On the basis that Mr. Huff establishes a theological premise that pastors are responsible for ensuring that false doctrine and false teachers ought not to enter into the church proper. For stating that firmly and unapologetically. For holding that position and expecting pastors to do the same. Pastor X is declaring that, because Chris Huff does not hold to a nuanced view on this matter, that he does not entertain the positions that others (like Pastor X) hold as having equal weight, he is not listening to others who differ from him. Thus, because Mr. Huff does this, it is apparent that he must only ever listen to himself, otherwise, he would never have made such a post. This is presumptuous and a character assassination built on nothing but Pastor X’s own irritation with Chris Huff’s post. In other words, he’s violating his own standard here.

“The community of God has never and will never completely agree on all things theological.” 

This is true. In fact, we have 2,000 years of church history to prove it. But, that history exists because Christians have fought for, wrangled through, and held councils for the express purpose of determining sound doctrine! Why? Because it’s that important! Theology and doctrine are not mere matters to quibble over and simply agree to disagree about. Doctrine, our understanding of God and our practice of worship, is directly tied to God and His nature. It comes from His revealed Word. Therefore, we don’t simply chalk things up to, “well, we all don’t agree about all things!” Yes, we have to recognize denominational differences. Yes, we recognize some areas are matters of salvation versus areas of important, yet orthodox differences. But we don’t just dismiss them in this way. This, quite simply, is a dodge.

“God gave us his word throughout thousands of generations to be studied, lived out, and understood through a community of voices,” 

This is flat wrong. We understand Scripture through the study of Scripture, by illumination of the Holy Spirit, and through prayer. While God has in fact gifted many brethren to be preachers, teachers, writers, and expositors (through whom we learn and are taught) it is not the “community of voices” that determine whether doctrine is true or false. The final authority is what does Scripture say? It is not “what does my community of voices tell me” but what Scripture itself tells us.

“voices that will inherently be wrong many times. Including the voice of the person who made this statement. By his own judgment and the words of Jesus, he should be judged. Knowing that no one is theologically sound on all issues, no one should listen to this post at all.” 

This is a complete misrepresentation of what Chris Huff wrote. In his post, he specifically pointed to false churches that are not simply holding to areas of mere disagreement, but entirely false and heretical teachings. Their entire practice is an assault upon the Word of God and they seek to expand their sphere of influence in multiple ways. One such way is the creation and promotion of worship bands. 

These bands produce music that has been promoted on the airwaves of Christian Radio Stations who do little if any, theological discernment as to what they air. These songs are promoted to churches and listed on CCLI as worship songs that can be played at any church. There is not going to be an asterisk next to the song that says “by the way, a heretical church produced this.” It is then incumbent upon Christians themselves, and more specifically pastors who allow such music to be played in the church, to seek out not only what group produced the song, but the beliefs of the group and the doctrinal teachings they sit under. 

We’re not talking about debates over modes of baptism or end-times theology here. These groups come from churches that claim that it is God’s will to always heal, or that God must provide you wealth and prosperity if you declare it. These are attacks against the character and nature of God. 

Yes, just like a blind squirrel can find an occasional nut, a group or band can put out a song that, on its face, does not appear to be overtly heretical. Yet, all it takes is a little leaven to leaven the entire lump. Allowing music from groups that hold to false teaching gives them legitimacy in the eyes of undiscerning Christians. It allows for a false confidence that such a band must not be all bad if we can sing their songs in church. It allows for the foot in the door that leads to compromise down the road. And this is exactly what Chris Huff was saying. Pastor X ungraciously mischaracterizes his post to make it say what it did not, then attempts to club Chris Huff with said misrepresentation. 

“That is the logic of such horrible judgment on illogical theology. Any song intended to be used in the worship of our creator should be judged on the merit of the words that are being used in said worship.” 

Pastor X may appear to trying to be generous here, but it is based on a faulty representation of what Chris Huff said. This isn’t an either/or, but a both/and. Not only should a song be judged by what it says, but also by the beliefs of those who wrote it. What we believe impacts what we write, even in song.

“If a song itself has theological issues with the words of that particular song, I agree that it shouldn’t be sung as worship to our creator. However, saying that no songs a person with bad theology (from the perspective of another person that other people would say has bad theology) will ever write can be used because of that person’s background theological ideas even if the song never comes close to reflecting those disagreeable theological ideas” 

This sounds dangerously like Pastor X believes that false teachers’ teachings and beliefs do not impact what they produce. For that to be the case, said false teacher either would have to be able to disconnect thoughts and belief from action or would have to be a liar and a hypocrite. It simply does not comport with reality to believe that songs from these groups would “never come close to reflecting those disagreeable theological ideas.”  Scripture is clear, out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks. What you hold to in your heart and mind will play itself in what you say and do. In order for a song to not at all represent what a false teacher believes, there would have to be a concerted effort to keep those beliefs out.  The truth of the matter is that many false teachings steal enough from God’s truth and blend in the false. The reality is a false teacher can say and sing just enough to sound true, but all the while they are peddling lies. What Pastor X is writing here is a straw man argument.

“(from the person other people would say has disagreeable theological ideas) and then telling others that if those songs which never reflect bad theology are used in their churches their pastors are not shepherding the King’s bride is simply reckless, ignorant, irresponsible, and just plain arrogant. The share of this post on this page is an example of how people should stay within the lanes of their call and strengths. My wife and I love this page for the call and strength they have for the material they put out. Yet, when they have stepped outside of that here to share and support such an ignorant statement (from what appears to be a personal friend), it diminishes the good work that God has been doing through them.” 

We need to ask some questions here: What are the lanes? To whom do they belong? Who assigns the lanes? And who made Pastor X the guardian of these lanes? Has he been designated the lane police? Is he operating within his own lane in this post? Or is he outside his lane? 

Let’s say something clearly that refutes this idea of “staying in your lane”:  All Christians have a duty to learn and proclaim truth and identify and call out falsehood. This page does not only ever have to talk about parenting as narrowly defined by Pastor X. In fact, parenting as Christian means guarding our children against all that is false, including music. Even if it were appropriate to say they should stay in a particular lane, the Expository Parenting folks are well within those boundaries by informing parents to be concerned about music from false teacher ministries. 

“I’ve done it. I’ve seen people of many others areas of ministry do it. It’s cringy every time. In the end, the most basic issue with the statement is that it is completely laced in arrogance and assumes that they themselves have no lack of perfect theology in their life.” 

Again, Pastor X demonstrates he is practicing exactly what he is preaching against here. With, by his own admission, no knowledge of Chris Huff, of what he believes, what he practices, etc, he declares he has perfect knowledge and understanding of Mr. Huff’s mind and motivation. If that is not arrogant, I simply don’t know what is.

“This, of course, is in direct contradiction with the Scriptures and the character of Jesus, especially as lain out in passages like Philippians 2. Such a broad stroke, character assassination, and attempt at removal of speck of so many the original poster couldn’t possible know is simple in poor character and representation of the image of Jesus.”

I would suggest Pastor X look at the mirror here. He may well be describing himself.

“And with that, the statement, as said above, judges itself as the words of Jesus say they will in Matthew 7. No one should listen to or share the sentiments of the poster, Chris Huff, anymore as he lacks proper theology and nothing he says from this point further should be shared lest you be considered a poor representation of the Kingdom of God. Funny how that works…”

Pastor X concludes his screed by trying to be clever. He takes a completely misrepresented version of Chris Huff’s argument and treats it as a slam dunk. Chris Huff never said lacking in completely perfect theology means your material should never be used. He clearly identified ministries that are well known for the false teaching and called pastors to do their duty, guard the sheep in their care. Yet, Pastor X tries to reduce this to a mere disagreement of lower rungs of theology and mischaracterizes Chris Huff so he can claim Huff’s argument actually defeats itself. This is nonsense. It is a straw man and Pastor X really should be ashamed of himself.

 

So that’s what I wanted to point out here. I felt it necessary to show that poor argumentation abounds within Christianity at large. Oftentimes, it comes straight out of the pulpit. When you engage people like this online, don’t be afraid of them. Take the time to actually analyze what they are saying and why they are saying it. In reality, you will oft times find they are guilty of the very claims they are making against others. Once the straw man claims are exposed and the character assassinations are put aside, then let’s spend time getting to the meat of the argument. Something Pastor X worked really, really hard to avoid. Don’t be like Pastor X. 

Book Review – Christianity and Wokeness

July 20, 2021 / / 0 Comments

I was fortunate to be part of the Launch Team for Owen Strachan’s new book, “Christianity and Wokeness.” As such, I was able to read an early edition of the book sent out to all Launch Team members to read and review prior to the release of the book. I must say that this text is not only an excellent treatment of the subject, but does a fantastic job of equipping Christians and Churches to respond biblically to “Wokeness.”

In “Christianity and Wokeness,” Owen Strachan provides the church with a much-needed resource. Christians are being challenged daily to take up the mantle of “wokeness” and “social justice” as a mandatory requirement of preaching the gospel, but should they be doing so? Owen Strachan pulls back the curtain to help Christians see exactly what “wokeness” is and why it is antithetical to biblical truth.

Strachan spends two chapters explaining what wokeness is and how it has infiltrated society at large and the church specifically. He then takes the time to break down the tenets of wokeness, drawing from the primary sources themselves. Contrasting these teachings with Scripture, he demonstrates that wokeness is an ungodly ideology that is wholly incompatible with the teachings of Scripture.

Strachan then takes his readers through a biblical analysis of identity and ethnicity as it is revealed in God’s Word. He provides the church with biblical answers as to who and what man truly is, the nature of sin (including partiality and ethnic hatred), and points to the only possible solution between God and men, the gospel.

“Christianity and Wokeness” is a great resource for Christians and the church. In a time when so many are trying to use the world’s definitions to explain equality, fairness, justice and love, Christians need to be reminded that God has already defined them in the Scriptures. “Christianity and Wokeness” will equip Christians to not only understand the issues at hand but to respond biblically when the world demands they acquiesce to their demands. I highly recommend this text to Christians and churches everywhere.

Encouragement for the Battle Weary

May 21, 2021 / / 0 Comments

I know a lot of us are weary of the current cultural warfare. Some of us simply never want to hear the terms Critical Race Theory, Intersectionality, Marxism, etc, ever again. If we could just wipe them out of lives, we would be happy beyond measure. I can identify with that. This seems to be all-consuming. It is everywhere. I would love to see and be part of just about any other conversation. Some days, it feels like it is never going to end and we are all battle weary.

Yet, at the same time, this battle is perhaps one of the most important we’ve engaged in for our generation. I’m not talking about the politics (though it is a huge component of what is going on), I’m referring to the spiritual. What this cultural war has revealed is the lack of spiritual maturity going on in the professing Church at large. Many self-identified Christians are either ignorant of Scripture or believe their personal feelings and experiences supplant Scripture. The very core of the cultural war is the battle for the sufficiency of Scripture.

There is little doubt that CRT and similar ideologies will one day collapse in on themselves. Critical Theory systems depend on the idea that there must always be oppressor and oppressed classes. Eventually, competing oppressed classes will come into conflict with one another. Somebody’s victim status is going to demand to be considered more important than another victim status. Thus, competition between victim classes will result in a new oppressor/oppressed battle within currently allied groups. When that happens, when they start eating their own (something that is already happening) the movement will begin to collapse.

Of course, should the Critical Theory promoters actually achieve their stated goals and create a Neo-Marxist “utopia,” then all victim groups will no longer be useful to those in control. They will be dismissed as dissidents to be pushed down, isolated, and ignored. All one needs is a cursory understanding of history to recognize this to be true. Only the willfully deluded will believe “that won’t happen this time.” In either scenario, the existing Critical Theory movement will diminish and fall apart.

But, that is not something we should settle for. Why? Because the very core beliefs that allow for the existence of such a movement will never go away. Critical Theory exists because it descends from previous leftist ideologies. Post-modernism, Neo-Marxism, the Frankfurt School, political activism, and more are the very progenitors of the existing Critical Theory system. Each rose and fell as an ideology or movement, but their very beliefs were passed down and retained within our cultural system. Much of how we think today has been affected. Even those of us who are opposed to Critical theory find ourselves speaking of having one’s own truth, not judging others, there not being only one way, etc. We may not realize it because it has become so ubiquitous, but much of Western Culture, and even the Christian church have been inculcated with the beliefs of these systems.

Once evidence of this is the failed “Emergent Church” movement. Emergent church “preachers” prided themselves in not knowing anything for certain. They asked all kinds of questions, but never really wanted solid answers. Certainty of anything was the only real sin. It was arrogant and prideful to believe anyone could know exactly what God had said. This movement was all the rage, for a time. Eventually, all questions and no answers mean you don’t really have anything to stand on. Without a firm foundation, you sink into the mire of your own creation. And such did the Emergent movement. But, not without leaving a lasting effect.

People may not have called themselves Emergent, but many professed Christians were impacted by its teachings. Uncertainty about the Word of God and a love for one’s own feelings grew in Evangelicalism. The leaven had taken root and grown in churches around America. People still take great pride in believing that it is humble to not stand firmly on doctrine. That genuine love is letting people find their own path and not insisting on believing all of God’s Word is true or sufficient.

Now, the impact from that system, the widespread roots of it are bearing fruit in the Woke Church. Since we need not believe God’s Word has the final say on all things, that our own feelings and lived experiences have equal authority, this became fertile ground to implant Woke ideology. Now, those that once believed we couldn’t be certain about God’s Word believe that people’s own stories can be given equal to or greater weight than Scripture. As Solomon wrote, “There is nothing new under the sun.”

The cultural battle is important because the war of worldviews is important. You either submit to the worldview of God in Scripture or you espouse the worldview of man. Christians cannot abdicate their place in this battle. We must be people of the Book. We must expose “plausible arguments” for the fraud they really are. We must tear down the strongholds of the world and shine the light of God’s gospel as revealed in His Word. I know you are weary, brethren. I know you wish the battle to end. But, until the final trumpet sounds and our Savior returns triumphant, we have much to do and disciples to make. Take heart, do not be weary in doing good. Your Savior and His gospel are worth it.

« Older posts

© 2024 Slave to the King

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑