Sunday, April 11, 2010
Jump in where you can and hang on!
Happy Monday!
___________________________________________________________________
Douglas Newell IV
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Ronald Reagan on Abortion
In 1983, President Ronald Reagan wrote this article on abortion for Human Events, Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation..
This was AFTER President Reagan was elected. I stress this because modern Republicans are pro-life BEFORE the election, and it is a very important issue until the election is over.
Every legislator, every doctor, and every citizen needs to recognize that the real issue is whether to affirm and protect the sanctity of all human life, or to embrace a social ethic where some human lives are valued and others are not. As a nation, we must choose between the sanctity of life ethic and the "quality of life" ethic.
I have no trouble identifying the answer our nation has always given to this basic question, and the answer that I hope and pray it will give in the future. American was founded by men and women who shared a vision of the value of each and every individual. They stated this vision clearly from the very start in the Declaration of Independence, using words that every schoolboy and schoolgirl can recite:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I also appreciated Reagan's ability to see through the politics and bring the abortion issue down to the true issue, life and murder.
What, then, is the real issue? I have often said that when we talk about abortion, we are talking about two lives — the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child. Why else do we call a pregnant woman a mother? I have also said that anyone who doesn't feel sure whether we are talking about a second human life should clearly give life the benefit of the doubt. If you don't know whether a body is alive or dead, you would never bury it. I think this consideration itself should be enough for all of us to insist on protecting the unborn.
I'm sure the republicans will elect another prime example of prim and proper post-modernity, who says the right things at the right time, who is polite, smiles a lot and eats apple pie. I would rather have an honest man, who speaks the truth, trusts in Christ and unapologetically stands for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, rather than political life, party lines and the pursuit of reelection.
______________________________________________________________________
Douglas Newell IV
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Amos: The Man
Amos is one of my favorite prophets. Years ago, I preached at a Bible conference in which each speaker spoke for 30 minutes on one of the minor prophets. Mine was Amos. I was always thankful that I preached that message, for my own edification. I had never preached a single sermon on a whole book before, and it was a blessing to study the book as a whole and preach on the theme, instead of a verse by verse study or a topical study with a single text.
Even if you are not familiar with the so-called minor prophets, when you do a cursory reading of Amos, you know that you are at least familiar with some of his message in verses like:
I enjoyed what I learned from Amos, the man. Amos made no apologies for who he was and where he was from. He was a farmer and a shepherd from the wilderness of Tekoa. Reading the book, you get the sense that he loved what he did and would have been happy spending the rest of his days honoring God in the fields tending sheep. What I love about Amos is that he didn’t stay; he got up and went when God called him as you see in the parenthesis of chapter seven, when the false prophet tried to shut Amos up, his response shows that he was on a mission from God. I suppose I can identify with Amos. I grew up on a 2,600 acre farm, and would have been happy working there all my life, but I was called to a different field.
Amos was a outdoorsman, a farmer and he talked like one. Amos 2:13; Amos 3:12; Amos 4:9 are some examples of how this plainspoken farmer delivered his message. In J.R. Grave’s book The Seven Dispensations, he has an excellent quote from H.H. Tucker on plenary verbal inspiration. Though every word Amos penned was inspired of God, it still incorporated the speech of Amos.
The people of Israel to whom Amos was called to preach were rich and sophisticated. That is one of the sins for which God judged them. They were oppressive and covetousness. They were a materialistic society. Amos prophesied during the height of Israel’s economic success. This country man, this rustic farmer goes to the big city, to the well to do aristocracy and delivers a stern message of impending doom. Imagine a country preacher walking into a high rise in Manhattan and declaring the Word of God to the wealthy, influential men and women of New York. This was Amos’ calling.
One of my favorite passages is One of my favorite verses Amos 4:1 when he calls the ungodly calf worshiping women “Cows”. Could you imagine? Not very nice of God some would say, but true. These people did not need nice, they needed truth. This is why I like Amos, he was there to do his job, preach. The parenthesis I spoke of earlier is in chapter 7:10-17. The enemy prophet, Amaziah had the king’s ear. He was the well favored, well loved priest of the people, but hated and despise by God. The message of the false prophet was to Amos, not the people. “Go away ‘seer’ we are intellectuals here, we do not subscribe to your “old way” of preaching.” Amaziah was a lost man, had no spiritual understanding or knowledge of what it was to really be a prophet. He said “Go back to the country, Go back to your poverty, eat your meager bread with the sheep. Your over your head and no one wants to hear your message, go back home.”
We see the boldness of Amos, because he didn’t go home. “I didn’t ask for this, I would have happily served God in the field, I would have loved God with my family and friends back home. I didn’t ‘inherit’ this job, I didn’t ask for this job, but it is mine, and I’ll do it or die trying.” Amos stresses God’s call and God’s message. The Lord TOOK ME, He laid hold of me, He seized me to this work. “I didn’t send myself here, God sent me.” This isn’t what anyone would want to do, no one would like to preach such a message, but God sent him and woe to him if he did not preach. He sort of told Amaziah “You won’t tell me what to say, you won’t tell me when to leave, nor will you intimidate me as I am following God’s calling in my life.”
Amos wasn’t a seminary man. He didn’t go to the school of the prophets, proper. He went to the true school of the prophets, God’s seminary. We would be much better off with more men of God rather than more seminary students. More men who study God’s Word rather than more men who study other men. More men God calls and uses rather than homiletical machines. There is certainly nothing wrong with education, and I don’t want to seem that I am anit-education; however, if men took four years and studied the bible instead of four years studying at most seminaries they would be much better off.
Amos was a bold country preacher, and one of my favorites.
______________________________________________________________________
Douglas Newell IV
Even if you are not familiar with the so-called minor prophets, when you do a cursory reading of Amos, you know that you are at least familiar with some of his message in verses like:
Amos 3:3 Can two walk together, except they be agreed?
Amos 4:12 Therefore thus will I do unto thee, O Israel: and because I will do this unto thee, prepare to meet thy God, O Israel.
I enjoyed what I learned from Amos, the man. Amos made no apologies for who he was and where he was from. He was a farmer and a shepherd from the wilderness of Tekoa. Reading the book, you get the sense that he loved what he did and would have been happy spending the rest of his days honoring God in the fields tending sheep. What I love about Amos is that he didn’t stay; he got up and went when God called him as you see in the parenthesis of chapter seven, when the false prophet tried to shut Amos up, his response shows that he was on a mission from God. I suppose I can identify with Amos. I grew up on a 2,600 acre farm, and would have been happy working there all my life, but I was called to a different field.
Amos was a outdoorsman, a farmer and he talked like one. Amos 2:13; Amos 3:12; Amos 4:9 are some examples of how this plainspoken farmer delivered his message. In J.R. Grave’s book The Seven Dispensations, he has an excellent quote from H.H. Tucker on plenary verbal inspiration. Though every word Amos penned was inspired of God, it still incorporated the speech of Amos.
“A man does not cease to be himself when God uses him. His powers are not changed, they are merely controlled so as to effect the very purpose, and no other, which God would accomplish. It is as if a musician were to play first upon a flute and then upon a cornet; each instrument would give its own sound wholly different from the other, but the breath that makes the sound and the genius that inspires the music is the same. Moses, David, Isaiah, James, Paul, Peter, were some many different instruments, though not mechanical instruments, each with personal peculiarities of his own, but all were used by the same God as the media of communicating with men.”
The people of Israel to whom Amos was called to preach were rich and sophisticated. That is one of the sins for which God judged them. They were oppressive and covetousness. They were a materialistic society. Amos prophesied during the height of Israel’s economic success. This country man, this rustic farmer goes to the big city, to the well to do aristocracy and delivers a stern message of impending doom. Imagine a country preacher walking into a high rise in Manhattan and declaring the Word of God to the wealthy, influential men and women of New York. This was Amos’ calling.
One of my favorite passages is One of my favorite verses Amos 4:1 when he calls the ungodly calf worshiping women “Cows”. Could you imagine? Not very nice of God some would say, but true. These people did not need nice, they needed truth. This is why I like Amos, he was there to do his job, preach. The parenthesis I spoke of earlier is in chapter 7:10-17. The enemy prophet, Amaziah had the king’s ear. He was the well favored, well loved priest of the people, but hated and despise by God. The message of the false prophet was to Amos, not the people. “Go away ‘seer’ we are intellectuals here, we do not subscribe to your “old way” of preaching.” Amaziah was a lost man, had no spiritual understanding or knowledge of what it was to really be a prophet. He said “Go back to the country, Go back to your poverty, eat your meager bread with the sheep. Your over your head and no one wants to hear your message, go back home.”
We see the boldness of Amos, because he didn’t go home. “I didn’t ask for this, I would have happily served God in the field, I would have loved God with my family and friends back home. I didn’t ‘inherit’ this job, I didn’t ask for this job, but it is mine, and I’ll do it or die trying.” Amos stresses God’s call and God’s message. The Lord TOOK ME, He laid hold of me, He seized me to this work. “I didn’t send myself here, God sent me.” This isn’t what anyone would want to do, no one would like to preach such a message, but God sent him and woe to him if he did not preach. He sort of told Amaziah “You won’t tell me what to say, you won’t tell me when to leave, nor will you intimidate me as I am following God’s calling in my life.”
Amos wasn’t a seminary man. He didn’t go to the school of the prophets, proper. He went to the true school of the prophets, God’s seminary. We would be much better off with more men of God rather than more seminary students. More men who study God’s Word rather than more men who study other men. More men God calls and uses rather than homiletical machines. There is certainly nothing wrong with education, and I don’t want to seem that I am anit-education; however, if men took four years and studied the bible instead of four years studying at most seminaries they would be much better off.
Amos was a bold country preacher, and one of my favorites.
______________________________________________________________________
Douglas Newell IV
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Fantasic Mr. Fox
Fantastic Mr. Fox, the movie.
I know that I’m late to the party with this, but I just caught this movie on Netflix. The movie was based upon a childrens novel by Roald Dahl.
Good cartoons will have a simple story, loveable characters, a clear protagonist, and will have a captivating storyline that adults can enjoy the deeper struggles and themes of the movie that children might not yet fully grasp. UP! is an excellent example of such a film. Too often cartoon movies fall into either side of the ditch. They are either so childish and moronic that there is no story, but goofball antics and silliness, good for kids, bad for me and Momma on movie night. The other extreme is jokes that are over the child’s head, not because the child might not grasp the greater moral dilemma presented, but because the crude locker-room humor is lost on a young child, as well it should be. I think Dreamworks films are notorious for this.
Somehow, someway, Fantastic Mr. Fox seems to have fallen on all three categories at the same time. The storyline is very simple and captivating from the start. I loved the stop action animation and it was a nice change of pace from CGI. Big stars with recognizable voices can take away from the movie, especially if they have a recognizable voice, but George Clooney did a great job as Mr. Fox. I couldn’t decide whether the movie was intended for children or hipster college kids who have finished a semester of philosophy; my guess, the latter. But, at the same time the absurdity of much of the movie is endearing to children. As far as the language, coarseness of the dialoged was unnecessary. Replacing expletives with the word “cuss” isn’t very clever, especially when the vulgarity is unambiguous.
The theme of the movie is my biggest problem. Mr. Fox sums up the theme for us. After suffering a midlife crisis, Mr. Fox is unhappy with his life. He has promised his wife that he would no longer steal chickens after a near death experience caught in a fox trap and learning that she was pregnant. Mr. Fox, feeling unfulfilled and unhappy says:
“Why a fox? Why not a horse, or a beetle, or a bald eagle? I'm saying this more as, like, existentialism, you know? Who am I? And how can a fox ever be happy without, you'll forgive the expression, a chicken in its teeth?”
The existentialism philosophy runs through the whole movie. Mr. Fox defined his life and his happiness by what he does and what he wants. By not being able to steal and lie and do all the things that are natural to him, he questions his purpose. When asked how he could lie to his wife he says “I’m a wild animal.” The philosophy of the movie teaches that we define what is right and wrong for us, we define truth and our existence and how we exist define who we are. When Mr. Fox had found a way to steal and be deceptive for the good of others, he was happy again, thus his life had meaning, for him. There was no redemption, only a shifting of the moral standard. Though the “evil corporations” to whom Mr. Fox was stealing their wares, were pouring out a ridiculous amount of wrath upon the animals to try and kill the fox, and had become obsessed with their vengeance; but they had every right to try and kill the fox. The enemy in the film is the enemy for protecting their property and the hero is the hero for saying that the end justifies the means. Class warfare at its most basic, yet so devilishly subtle, you almost miss it; because you need an antagonist. The only reason that farmers were hated was because they were rich. Rich = bad, poor = good; unless of course you are a filmmaker or actor, then it’s OK to be rich.
Without God and Jesus Christ, there is no meaning in life. Why a fox? Because God made him a fox. Why are you who you are? Because God made you who you are, and you were made to glorify God, not yourself. The emptiness Mr. Fox felt was because he was the center of his universe, and if you are the center of your universe, then you must do all that you can to make yourself happy. He could not be happy unless he was doing what he wanted to do, steal chickens. Doesn’t matter if that was right or wrong to steal, he wanted to, it was in his nature to, so in order to be happy, he had to fulfill all the desires of his heart, despite the consequences it had on anyone else. When confronted on this very issue, the answer was that he couldn’t help it, it was in his nature. Mr. Fox, in his atheistic, humanistic existentialism had ironically made himself a god who determines right and wrong for himself, while at the same time condemning others for being evil and unjust for living by the same rules.
Who am I, why am I here? The Bible tells us. We are here to glorify God, yet we have sinned and come short of God’s glory. Who am I? A sinner. God provided a way of Salvation and reconciliation in His Son, Jesus Christ, dying for our sins and giving us life. We have a reason to live, for His glory, we see the purpose of life, we see that life is not only about our existence and we are not the center of the universe, there is a right and a wrong, good and bad but we are not the judge of that, God is. The Bible shows us that in whatever state we are in, we can rejoice and be content because life is more that the possessions we have and the situation we are in because God is the center of all things.
I thought of the book of Ecclesiastes in light of this film. King Solomon and tried the existentialist lifestyle and provided himself with every possible pleasure and every possible way of happiness, but was left at the end depressed and unfulfilled. There is no true joy, happiness or fulfillment outside of God, in Christ Jesus. Ecclesiastes 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
Long story short; the movie has a dangerous anti-christian worldview. I do not recommend it.
______________________________________________________________________
Douglas Newell IV
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
The Burden of Nineveh: A Study of Nahum
Around 150 years after Jonah preached in Nineveh, God has another prophet to preach to that wicked city, the prophet Nahum. It is interesting to consider that God has given us two books in the Old Testament, Jonah and Nahum, that directly deal with one Gentile city. Nineveh is a prime example of the ‘goodness and severity of God.’
The city had quickly fallen from the previous generations trust in the Lord. They again had become a bloody city of war, a ravenous, predatory, bloodthirsty people. The Assyrians were steeped in idol worship and false prophets and false gods. Their riches, commerce and city walls had become their resting place and they have, as a people, totally forsaken God. For two hundred years, the known world trembled at this mighty power.
We might wonder at whether or not the people were really saved in the book of Jonah since they have fallen in to egregious sin again. Both Jonah and Jesus said they repented and believed, so there is no need to question the salvation of the Ninevites in the book of Jonah. Think about this example; we are in 2010, what was America like in 1860? Has the morality and the people changed here in 150 years? The infants that did not know their left hand from their right had lived and died, seven generations from Jonah and the city is back to where it was before Jonah. It is not hard to see how after seven generations, the city had forsaken the Lord.
We do not know much about Nahum himself. We know that he was an Elkoshite, but that doesn’t really tell us much either. He was a man of God, with a heavy message from God to a wicked people. In the order of prophets, he would have prophesied either during the reign of King Manassah, or King Josiah. If you put this historically and chronologically in the Old Testament, the book would have been written during the times of II Kings 22-23 area, II Chronicles 35-36 and most likely a contemporary of Jeremiah. We know this from the accuracy of the prophecy and knowing the time when Nineveh was brought down. It was no small event that Nineveh fell. The Assyrians were the scourge of the world, and many leaders and many countries tried to fell this capital city.
Nahum is a vivid book with amazing imagery. The book’s theme is simple and straight forward, God’s judgment on Nineveh. God lays out for us first that He will not acquit the wicked. After the verdict, secondly God will judge the guilty. Third God pronounces His woe upon the guilty and judged city. Verse number one gives us our title, The Burden of Nineveh. Burden – load, carrying; the burden of Nineveh is the burden of unforgiven sin. Judgment is hanging upon the wicked city, waiting for the judgment. Not waiting to be condemned, but condemned already.
B.H. Carroll had a good alliterated outline of the book.
I. Verdict of Vengeance (chapter 1)
II. Vision of Vengeance (chapter 2)
III. Vindication of Vengeance (chapter 3)
My outline is not as clever, but serves the purpose.
I. GOD WILL NOT ACQUIT THE WICKED
II. GOD WILL JUDGE THE WICKED
III. GOD’S WRATH ON THE WICKED
______________________________________________________________________
Douglas Newell IV
The city had quickly fallen from the previous generations trust in the Lord. They again had become a bloody city of war, a ravenous, predatory, bloodthirsty people. The Assyrians were steeped in idol worship and false prophets and false gods. Their riches, commerce and city walls had become their resting place and they have, as a people, totally forsaken God. For two hundred years, the known world trembled at this mighty power.
We might wonder at whether or not the people were really saved in the book of Jonah since they have fallen in to egregious sin again. Both Jonah and Jesus said they repented and believed, so there is no need to question the salvation of the Ninevites in the book of Jonah. Think about this example; we are in 2010, what was America like in 1860? Has the morality and the people changed here in 150 years? The infants that did not know their left hand from their right had lived and died, seven generations from Jonah and the city is back to where it was before Jonah. It is not hard to see how after seven generations, the city had forsaken the Lord.
We do not know much about Nahum himself. We know that he was an Elkoshite, but that doesn’t really tell us much either. He was a man of God, with a heavy message from God to a wicked people. In the order of prophets, he would have prophesied either during the reign of King Manassah, or King Josiah. If you put this historically and chronologically in the Old Testament, the book would have been written during the times of II Kings 22-23 area, II Chronicles 35-36 and most likely a contemporary of Jeremiah. We know this from the accuracy of the prophecy and knowing the time when Nineveh was brought down. It was no small event that Nineveh fell. The Assyrians were the scourge of the world, and many leaders and many countries tried to fell this capital city.
Nahum is a vivid book with amazing imagery. The book’s theme is simple and straight forward, God’s judgment on Nineveh. God lays out for us first that He will not acquit the wicked. After the verdict, secondly God will judge the guilty. Third God pronounces His woe upon the guilty and judged city. Verse number one gives us our title, The Burden of Nineveh. Burden – load, carrying; the burden of Nineveh is the burden of unforgiven sin. Judgment is hanging upon the wicked city, waiting for the judgment. Not waiting to be condemned, but condemned already.
B.H. Carroll had a good alliterated outline of the book.
I. Verdict of Vengeance (chapter 1)
II. Vision of Vengeance (chapter 2)
III. Vindication of Vengeance (chapter 3)
My outline is not as clever, but serves the purpose.
I. GOD WILL NOT ACQUIT THE WICKED
II. GOD WILL JUDGE THE WICKED
III. GOD’S WRATH ON THE WICKED
______________________________________________________________________
Douglas Newell IV
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Street Preacher Fined for Preaching
Street preacher, Shawn Holes preaching in Glasgow, Scotland was arrested and fined for preaching.
______________________________________________________________________
Douglas Newell IV
______________________________________________________________________
Douglas Newell IV
Monday, March 29, 2010
Bondage
This past weekend we had some friends from Florida visit with us and we had a great time, fellowshipping in the Lord Christ. It came at a great time and my family was truly blessed of the Lord and it caused me to pause and thank God for Christian fellowship.
We were discussing at one point the differences between the laws of North Carolina and the laws of Florida and how different they are. Our friends really could not believe the added regulations and taxes that we have here that they do not have in Florida. When I moved from Kentucky to North Carolina, I was shell shocked when I learned of all the regulations and laws and taxes that you have to go through, just to LIVE here.
I jokingly told my wife that we had moved to the People’s Republic of North Carolina because of the government interference into our lives. Kentucky, as I learned, was a place with far more personal freedom. I missed Kentucky. 
When I began to express my frustration with the natives of NC, they kind of looked at me as if I were insane, and really didn’t understand my frustration. You see, they had lived here all their lives and know nothing else but North Carolina living. The government regulations and taxes that I found to be appalling were just a way of life here, and the norm. The people are less free here and do not even realize it.
John 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. The unsaved of the world think that they are free. They do whatever they want to do, whenever they want to do it. They are not going to answer to anyone, free to do as the please, when they please. The unsaved are slaves and under bondage and do not even know it. They have lived in sin their entire lives and know nothing else. I once thought that I was free. My life was my own and I could do whatever I wanted and no one was going to tell me what to do. However, I was not free, I was under the bondage of my sinful nature. My depravity had control of me, and my freedom was kind of like the freedom a rock has when dropped from a high cliff. The rock is free to go wherever it wants, but gravity is going to bring it down. I was “free” to do what I wanted, but my sin nature always brought me to the same place, sin, unhappiness and unfulfilled.
Jesus Christ saved me from my sins. He gave me life and with that new birth, opened my eyes. Being brought from the bondage of sin to the peace of Christ in salvation, I see that I wasn’t really free. I really didn’t do whatever I wanted, but was controlled by the flesh, controlled by my depravity and now I am Christ’s freeman. Who Christ sets free is free indeed. So I shouldn’t look down my nose at those who are lost and undone and sin, but should have mercy and compassion on them. Mercy shows them the way of deliverance, the way of salvation; compassion shows them that they are not free, but sinners and sin has consequences in eternal damnation. But there is liberty in Christ, there is freedom, forgiveness from the guilt of the law and life eternal.
Romans 5:8-11 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
______________________________________________________________________
Douglas Newell IV
We were discussing at one point the differences between the laws of North Carolina and the laws of Florida and how different they are. Our friends really could not believe the added regulations and taxes that we have here that they do not have in Florida. When I moved from Kentucky to North Carolina, I was shell shocked when I learned of all the regulations and laws and taxes that you have to go through, just to LIVE here.
I jokingly told my wife that we had moved to the People’s Republic of North Carolina because of the government interference into our lives. Kentucky, as I learned, was a place with far more personal freedom. I missed Kentucky. 
When I began to express my frustration with the natives of NC, they kind of looked at me as if I were insane, and really didn’t understand my frustration. You see, they had lived here all their lives and know nothing else but North Carolina living. The government regulations and taxes that I found to be appalling were just a way of life here, and the norm. The people are less free here and do not even realize it.
John 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. The unsaved of the world think that they are free. They do whatever they want to do, whenever they want to do it. They are not going to answer to anyone, free to do as the please, when they please. The unsaved are slaves and under bondage and do not even know it. They have lived in sin their entire lives and know nothing else. I once thought that I was free. My life was my own and I could do whatever I wanted and no one was going to tell me what to do. However, I was not free, I was under the bondage of my sinful nature. My depravity had control of me, and my freedom was kind of like the freedom a rock has when dropped from a high cliff. The rock is free to go wherever it wants, but gravity is going to bring it down. I was “free” to do what I wanted, but my sin nature always brought me to the same place, sin, unhappiness and unfulfilled.
Jesus Christ saved me from my sins. He gave me life and with that new birth, opened my eyes. Being brought from the bondage of sin to the peace of Christ in salvation, I see that I wasn’t really free. I really didn’t do whatever I wanted, but was controlled by the flesh, controlled by my depravity and now I am Christ’s freeman. Who Christ sets free is free indeed. So I shouldn’t look down my nose at those who are lost and undone and sin, but should have mercy and compassion on them. Mercy shows them the way of deliverance, the way of salvation; compassion shows them that they are not free, but sinners and sin has consequences in eternal damnation. But there is liberty in Christ, there is freedom, forgiveness from the guilt of the law and life eternal.
Romans 5:8-11 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
______________________________________________________________________
Douglas Newell IV
Friday, March 26, 2010
When the Door Is Open by Dr. M. J. Seymour, Sr.
The more that I read from Dr. Seymour, the more I enjoy his devotions. Admittedly, I am not much of a devotional reader. What I enjoy about these devotionals are they are spiritually deep, and scratch the surface of great Biblical truths, giving the reader a desire to...MEDITATE on the biblical truths, which is really what devotional passages should do.
My apologies for previously posting a devotion without giving the information about where you can get your hands on a copy of this book.
If you are looking for a really good devotional book then click >HERE.
Here is his bio from Amazon.com.
Dr. Manuel J. Seymour, Sr., has been a preacher, missionary, and teaching pastor for over thirty-one years. He has dedicated the greater part of the last twenty-one years teaching Bible principles for Christian growth, which gave fruit to his previous book Cultivating Christian Faith - A Step-by-Step Study Guide. He is a pastor that truly loves his flock and strives to nourish them upon the wholesome writings of the Word of God. In an age when many seekers are overwhelmed by a multitude of hollow religionists, Pastor Seymour endeavors to unveil with simplicity the succulent green pastures of the written Word of God. As it is written, "How sweet are thy words unto my taste! Yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!" (Psalm 119:103)
It is written: “And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth; I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name.” (Rev. 3:7-8)
Only one of the “Seven Churches” spoken to by the Lord Jesus Christ in the book of Revelation merited the gift of the “open door” being set before them. To each of the seven churches Jesus said, “I know thy works”; but what He knew about this church was different. Jesus was so moved by this difference that He set before them an open door for the propagation of the Gospel and then secured it open by the power of His might. Not the gates of hell or any man possesses the power to shut the door Jesus has opened. Oh, what a glorious thing it would be indeed to have an open door for the spreading of the Gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ! Three things made the church at Philadelphia different from the rest of the churches.
“Thou hast a little strength” was the first quality. The words “little strength” are from the Greek words “mikros and dunamis,” which reveal they had only a micro amount of power, but it was power in action. To the world they seemed to be just a feeble little church, but Jesus saw them using what micro amount of power they had to proliferate the Gospel. Jesus took their micro and made it mega.
“And hast kept my word” was the second quality. The word “kept” is from the word “tereoo,” which means, “observe conscientiously.” The church with great consciousness studied to do the spoken word of the Lord Jesus Christ. They did not try to pervert it with their own philosophies. They were faithful to His word in the little, so Jesus trusted them to be faithful to His word in the much.
“And hast not denied my name” was the third quality. The word “deny” is from “apneomai,” which means, “to deny, disown, or refuse." The name of the Lord Jesus Christ was precious to the church in every way. Jesus took their love for His name and gave them multitudes to speak it before.
What a glorious thing indeed to have the door opened by Jesus!
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Behold, I stand at the door and knock. Revelation 3:20
Revelation 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. This is a very familiar passage of scripture. Many know this verse, and many quote and use this verse frequently, but it is used so frequently to promote a wretched doctrine of works for salvation. Revelation 3:20 is erroneously used as an invitation to the lost, but I believe that they, to comfort and ease the minds of the lost, have twisted a verse speaking of the love of Christ toward His church and made it into a doctrine of God dishonoring heresy.
Too many people believe in errors and easily accept falsehood due to the perception that all scriptures in the bible are for all people regardless of whether a child of God or child of the Devil. I could say “I am happy to see you here this morning” to one who enters the Lords house on Sunday morning and there would be nothing strange about that. But the same phrase “I am happy to see you here this morning” would not be the message I would give to an intruder who was trying to break into my house in the early morning. Just as every word you and I speak are not intended for every person walking the earth in all situations, words of peace spoken to those who are loved of God wouldn’t apply to the reprobate. So common sense would tell us that not every message in the Bible is for every person at all times.
We need to see who this message is from and who is the intended recipient. Revelation 1:10-11 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia. Jesus, I am, Alpha and Omega, it was He who had the message. It was he who had the message, and revealed it to John, to give to someone, but who? Revelation 3:14 "And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write,” and Rev. 3:22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches. The message that the Lord had given in Revelation 3:20 was given to the church of the Laodiceans. A message that is given to a church, naturally excludes some people. Since a New Testament church is made up of saved, baptized believers, it can be said that a message to a church would in fact exclude the impenitent sinner. By a simply, cursory reading of the whole message, and knowing to whom the message was intended, we see that Revelation 3:20 cannot be an invitation to the lost as so many believe. Otherwise this verse would be calling for those who are saved to be saved.
This verse cannot be an invitation to the lost to trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. This would contradict the attributes and nature of Jesus. I once saw an artist’s depiction of this verse. A log cabin set back in the woods with a small dirt path leading up to the door. It was dusk; the fire from within the rustic home was putting out a warm glow that could be seen afar off shining out through the windows. There at the door, what I assumed to be Jesus, with his head hung low, and arm out stretched, gently knocking at the door of the old cabin, but alas, no one would answer. HOW OUTRAGEOUS! That is not my Jesus! My Jesus does not beg for one to trust in him, but he is the Great Shepard who said in John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. The lost world loves to think of Jesus in this manner, the needy Saviour who is in great want from us. In December, they will think of Him in the manager, but not as Lord. He is depicted standing outside of “heart’s door” seeking our approval rather than seeking and saving the lost. The choosing is not at “hearts door”, man choosing Christ, but the choosing was in eternity, God choosing his people.
I mentioned “heart’s door” because that is how I have always heard the door in Rev 3:20 being referred as. The bible states clearly in John 10 that Rev 3:20 doesn’t call sinners to open their heart’s door to Jesus. In verse one Jesus says Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. Then in verse seven Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep. All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them. I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. Jesus is the door, not our hearts. And if one is to be saved they must “enter in”, not allow Jesus to enter in. Those who teach another Jesus, knocking at heart’s door, are not “entering in by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way” and are thieves and robbers. It is by grace that we are saved through faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ.
So then, what does it mean? As with the previous churches in Revelation, there was a word of correction of faults then a word of comfort or encouragement. The Laodecians were neither hot nor cold as we find in verses 14-22. They had lots of money, but spiritually poor. They had lost their zeal for service, just playing church if you will. They had not gone off into idolatry either; they were lukewarm. Jesus told them in verse 19 to repent of the sinfulness of idleness and cold heartedness. He commanded the children of God to be zealous. Then in verse 20 we see a word of encouragement. The emphasis of the verse should not be put on the door, or on the knocking, but what the verse is telling us. Consider the foolishness of “heart’s door” in this interpretation. If the door is heart’s door, when we sup, do we sup at heart’s table? No, what we see here is Jesus love for his people and his church. Because of this love, Jesus meets and fellowships with his churches. Jesus will not leave nor forsake us. When his churches gather together to worship, He is there. Jesus loves His people, and loves fellowship with His people. The Laodecians met, but by being lukewarm, they lost sight of the fact that we are given the opportunity to come, fellowship with the Son of God, in His house, and worship Him in spirit and in truth, and we are given that opportunity regularly. We should come to God’s house knowing that Jesus meets and sups with his church, without fail. He is faithful to meet with us and bless us; but are we faithful to be in His house? God is faithful by who ye were called unto the fellowship of His son Jesus Christ our Lord. This love knows no bounds, and with that love there is friendship. There is a special relationship between the Lord and His church. He will choose his bride from among his true church and said “ye are my friends if ye do whatsoever I command you” and the members of the Lord’s churches have followed the Lord in baptism and joining His assembly.
Revelation 3:20 doesn’t tell us that Jesus needs something from us, but that God is there for us! This passage teaches that God is faithful to us as He promised to be. Are you in need? Are you depressed? Do you feel alone child of God? Are you shunned by family and hated by those around you for trusting in Christ? Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. To apply this message to an invitation perverts the sacrifice, the glory of God, God’s relationship with His children and the love Jesus has for his Church. Child of God, do you seek that sweet fellowship with the Lord? He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
Too many people believe in errors and easily accept falsehood due to the perception that all scriptures in the bible are for all people regardless of whether a child of God or child of the Devil. I could say “I am happy to see you here this morning” to one who enters the Lords house on Sunday morning and there would be nothing strange about that. But the same phrase “I am happy to see you here this morning” would not be the message I would give to an intruder who was trying to break into my house in the early morning. Just as every word you and I speak are not intended for every person walking the earth in all situations, words of peace spoken to those who are loved of God wouldn’t apply to the reprobate. So common sense would tell us that not every message in the Bible is for every person at all times.
We need to see who this message is from and who is the intended recipient. Revelation 1:10-11 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia. Jesus, I am, Alpha and Omega, it was He who had the message. It was he who had the message, and revealed it to John, to give to someone, but who? Revelation 3:14 "And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write,” and Rev. 3:22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches. The message that the Lord had given in Revelation 3:20 was given to the church of the Laodiceans. A message that is given to a church, naturally excludes some people. Since a New Testament church is made up of saved, baptized believers, it can be said that a message to a church would in fact exclude the impenitent sinner. By a simply, cursory reading of the whole message, and knowing to whom the message was intended, we see that Revelation 3:20 cannot be an invitation to the lost as so many believe. Otherwise this verse would be calling for those who are saved to be saved.
This verse cannot be an invitation to the lost to trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. This would contradict the attributes and nature of Jesus. I once saw an artist’s depiction of this verse. A log cabin set back in the woods with a small dirt path leading up to the door. It was dusk; the fire from within the rustic home was putting out a warm glow that could be seen afar off shining out through the windows. There at the door, what I assumed to be Jesus, with his head hung low, and arm out stretched, gently knocking at the door of the old cabin, but alas, no one would answer. HOW OUTRAGEOUS! That is not my Jesus! My Jesus does not beg for one to trust in him, but he is the Great Shepard who said in John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. The lost world loves to think of Jesus in this manner, the needy Saviour who is in great want from us. In December, they will think of Him in the manager, but not as Lord. He is depicted standing outside of “heart’s door” seeking our approval rather than seeking and saving the lost. The choosing is not at “hearts door”, man choosing Christ, but the choosing was in eternity, God choosing his people.
I mentioned “heart’s door” because that is how I have always heard the door in Rev 3:20 being referred as. The bible states clearly in John 10 that Rev 3:20 doesn’t call sinners to open their heart’s door to Jesus. In verse one Jesus says Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. Then in verse seven Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep. All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them. I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. Jesus is the door, not our hearts. And if one is to be saved they must “enter in”, not allow Jesus to enter in. Those who teach another Jesus, knocking at heart’s door, are not “entering in by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way” and are thieves and robbers. It is by grace that we are saved through faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ.
So then, what does it mean? As with the previous churches in Revelation, there was a word of correction of faults then a word of comfort or encouragement. The Laodecians were neither hot nor cold as we find in verses 14-22. They had lots of money, but spiritually poor. They had lost their zeal for service, just playing church if you will. They had not gone off into idolatry either; they were lukewarm. Jesus told them in verse 19 to repent of the sinfulness of idleness and cold heartedness. He commanded the children of God to be zealous. Then in verse 20 we see a word of encouragement. The emphasis of the verse should not be put on the door, or on the knocking, but what the verse is telling us. Consider the foolishness of “heart’s door” in this interpretation. If the door is heart’s door, when we sup, do we sup at heart’s table? No, what we see here is Jesus love for his people and his church. Because of this love, Jesus meets and fellowships with his churches. Jesus will not leave nor forsake us. When his churches gather together to worship, He is there. Jesus loves His people, and loves fellowship with His people. The Laodecians met, but by being lukewarm, they lost sight of the fact that we are given the opportunity to come, fellowship with the Son of God, in His house, and worship Him in spirit and in truth, and we are given that opportunity regularly. We should come to God’s house knowing that Jesus meets and sups with his church, without fail. He is faithful to meet with us and bless us; but are we faithful to be in His house? God is faithful by who ye were called unto the fellowship of His son Jesus Christ our Lord. This love knows no bounds, and with that love there is friendship. There is a special relationship between the Lord and His church. He will choose his bride from among his true church and said “ye are my friends if ye do whatsoever I command you” and the members of the Lord’s churches have followed the Lord in baptism and joining His assembly.
Revelation 3:20 doesn’t tell us that Jesus needs something from us, but that God is there for us! This passage teaches that God is faithful to us as He promised to be. Are you in need? Are you depressed? Do you feel alone child of God? Are you shunned by family and hated by those around you for trusting in Christ? Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. To apply this message to an invitation perverts the sacrifice, the glory of God, God’s relationship with His children and the love Jesus has for his Church. Child of God, do you seek that sweet fellowship with the Lord? He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
Shoot First
______________________________________________________________________
Douglas Newell IV
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Lux lucet in tenebris
If you wonder what the symbol is that is on the header of the blog, here you go. Lux lucet in tenebris is Latin for “Light shining in darkness”. It was the motto for the Waldenses, the Anabaptists who lived and preached in Europe in the ninth century. I am a Baptist who holds to Baptist truths; I am a Christian and Jesus said that I am the light of the world, and so are you if saved by God’s marvelous grace. Also, if you have any books from Baptist Standard Bearer, then you will recognize the image.
Jesus said in Matthew 5:14 Ye are the light of the world. He tells us what a Christin is, not what a Christian should try to be. If you are a child of God, you ARE the light of the world. The world has no other source of light. Not in politics, not in art, not if philosophy and not in any other religion.
The Bible says a lot about light and darkness. I believe that darkness is shown in scripture to be sin, ignorance of truth, death, judgment, error, the unsaved, and the power of darkness in Satan. Darkness is the absence of light. God is light. Men love the darkness, love to be in sin and far, far from the holiness of God. John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. Despite the horror and consequences of darkness; men love it. Ignorance is bliss for a season. Men love their false gods and false religions and would rather spend their time groping in the dark Egyptian night than to stand before the Holy God.
We are the light because we are in The Light, Jesus Christ the Lord. We cannont try to be the light but ARE the light because if we are truly Christians, we are in Christ. In a world of darkness, you Christian, are the light. You are the bright spot in this Earth, not the scourge. You are the answer to the problem, not the source of its troubles. Do not feel insignificant and helpless because you are the light of the world. Do not try to hide your usefulness but shine the grace of God in your life! Love God, love your neighbors, not to be seen, but because Jesus Christ died for your sins, and you have a home in Heaven because your sins are forgiven.
Christian, you are the light of the world. Jesus did not say that only Peter was the light of the world, or only the apostles were the light, but all his people, all Christians are the light of the world. Some men God raises up and have fame and far reaching ministries; but they are not the ONLY light of the world. Spurgeon was not the ONLY light of the world. A.W. Pink was not the ONLY light in the world. John MacArthur is not the only light in the world. YOU are the light of the world. Look what God said through Paul in Philippians 2:13-15 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Do all things without murmurings and disputings: That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world. He did not say that HE was the only light because he was the apostle, but you church at Philipi, you shine as lights in this crook, perverse world, you are shining in the darkness of sin.
God is light (I John 1:5-7) and Jesus said “I am the light of the world” (John 9:5). We are Saved by the Light (Luke 1:79). The Lord is my light and my salvation (Psalm. 27:1). How is it that God is the light, and we are the light? We are the Light as we are brought into the Light (Christ). We are reflectors of the Light. For example, Christ is the sun, we are the moon. We shine forth the light that is in us. Christ IS the light, He is purity, He is holiness, He is salvation, the Way the Truth and the Life. By being His children, we reflect Christ in our lives.
How is it we can shine our light? We are the light, by living as Christians we shine our lights. One way we are light is we walk in the light. Ephesians 5:8;11 For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light: And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. Living a holy life is being light in the dark world; living like you are saved is shining our light. Philippians 2:15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world. Giving the light or the gospel is shining our light in this sinful, wicked, dark world. II Corinthians 4:6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
Christian, Lux lucet in tenebris.
______________________________________________________________________
Douglas Newell IV
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
This is what change looks like
With all due respect to President Obama, THIS is what change looks like.
John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
Ephesians 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
Colossians 1:13-14 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
This is what change looks like. This is the kind of change our country needs. Unless God sends revival and many people are saved, we have no hope as a nation. Had those that professed to be saved NOT voted for leaders that supported abortion, then this monstrosity would have never passed. Yes those in Washington wrote the bill, passed the bill and did who knows what to get the bill passed; but we sent them there. It is the professing Christians who voted their pocketbook instead of their principles who put this through, for if this were truly a Christian nation, we would not have sent pro-abortionist to Washington to represent us.
I have not hope in Washington in either party. I am not looking for change Republicans can bring either. My hope is in looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. For all of us who have trusted in the Lord Jesus Christ for the salvation of our souls, been redeemed by His precious blood, this is the change we are LOOKING for.
Philippians 3:20-21 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.
1 Corinthians 15:51-51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
______________________________________________________________________
Douglas Newell IV
Sunday, March 21, 2010
STATEMENT BY THE NATIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE COMMITTEE ON ABORTION "DEAL" ON HEALTH CARE LEGISLATION
WASHINGTON -- (Sunday, March 21, 2010, 6 PM EDT) -- In response to today's announcement regarding an agreement between Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mi.) and President Obama on the pending health care bill (H.R. 3590), the following statement was issued by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the federation of right-to-life organizations in the 50 states:
The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) remains strongly opposed to the Senate-passed health bill (H.R. 3590). A lawmaker who votes for this bill is voting to require federal agencies to subsidize and administer health plans that will pay for elective abortion, and voting to undermine longstanding pro-life policies in other ways as well. Pro-life citizens nationwide know that this is a pro-abortion bill. Pro-life citizens know, and they will be reminded again and again, which lawmakers deserve their gratitude for voting against this pro-abortion legislation.
The executive order promised by President Obama was issued for political effect. It changes nothing. It does not correct any of the serious pro-abortion provisions in the bill. The president cannot amend a bill by issuing an order, and the federal courts will enforce what the law says.
To elaborate: The order does not truly correct any of the seven objectionable pro-abortion provisions described in NRLC's March 19 letter to the House of Representatives, which is posted here: www.nrlc.org/AHC/NRLCToHouseOnHealthBill.pdf
Regarding Community Health Centers (CHCs), NRLC has documented the problem created by H.R. 3590 here: www.nrlc.org/AHC/NRLCMemoCommHealth.html.
Prof. Robert Destro, a professor of law and former dean of the Columbus School of Law at the Catholic University of America, and an expert on abortion-related litigation, has sent lawmakers a letter explaining why the bill opens the door to direct federal funding of abortion in Community Health Centers: www.nrlc.org/ahc/DestroLetterToStupakOnCommHealthCenters.pdf
Prof. Destro clearly explains why it is the statutory language that will govern.
Regarding the new program to provide tax credits to purchase private insurance, the executive order merely tinkers with the formalities of a bookkeeping scheme under which federal subsidies will pay for plans that cover elective abortion -- a break from the longstanding principles of the Hyde Amendment.
The order does nothing at all to mitigate the other abortion-related problems described in the NRLC letter, dealing with bill provisions that create dangerous regulatory mandate authorities, revise Indian health programs, and create pools of directly appropriated funds that are not covered by existing restrictions on funding of abortion. Nor can the order correct the omission from the pending legislation of the necessary conscience-protection language that had been included in House-passed health care legislation last November (the "Weldon language").
For additional information regarding the abortion-related components of the legislation, and NRLC's assessment of the gravity of these issues, please refer to the March 19 letter linked above, and other materials posted on the NRLC website at www.nrlc.org/AHC/Index.
The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) remains strongly opposed to the Senate-passed health bill (H.R. 3590). A lawmaker who votes for this bill is voting to require federal agencies to subsidize and administer health plans that will pay for elective abortion, and voting to undermine longstanding pro-life policies in other ways as well. Pro-life citizens nationwide know that this is a pro-abortion bill. Pro-life citizens know, and they will be reminded again and again, which lawmakers deserve their gratitude for voting against this pro-abortion legislation.
The executive order promised by President Obama was issued for political effect. It changes nothing. It does not correct any of the serious pro-abortion provisions in the bill. The president cannot amend a bill by issuing an order, and the federal courts will enforce what the law says.
To elaborate: The order does not truly correct any of the seven objectionable pro-abortion provisions described in NRLC's March 19 letter to the House of Representatives, which is posted here: www.nrlc.org/AHC/NRLCToHouseOnHealthBill.pdf
Regarding Community Health Centers (CHCs), NRLC has documented the problem created by H.R. 3590 here: www.nrlc.org/AHC/NRLCMemoCommHealth.html.
Prof. Robert Destro, a professor of law and former dean of the Columbus School of Law at the Catholic University of America, and an expert on abortion-related litigation, has sent lawmakers a letter explaining why the bill opens the door to direct federal funding of abortion in Community Health Centers: www.nrlc.org/ahc/DestroLetterToStupakOnCommHealthCenters.pdf
Prof. Destro clearly explains why it is the statutory language that will govern.
Regarding the new program to provide tax credits to purchase private insurance, the executive order merely tinkers with the formalities of a bookkeeping scheme under which federal subsidies will pay for plans that cover elective abortion -- a break from the longstanding principles of the Hyde Amendment.
The order does nothing at all to mitigate the other abortion-related problems described in the NRLC letter, dealing with bill provisions that create dangerous regulatory mandate authorities, revise Indian health programs, and create pools of directly appropriated funds that are not covered by existing restrictions on funding of abortion. Nor can the order correct the omission from the pending legislation of the necessary conscience-protection language that had been included in House-passed health care legislation last November (the "Weldon language").
For additional information regarding the abortion-related components of the legislation, and NRLC's assessment of the gravity of these issues, please refer to the March 19 letter linked above, and other materials posted on the NRLC website at www.nrlc.org/AHC/Index.
Sunday's Sermons
I preached this morning on the subject Authority and Baptism. We started in Luke 20:1-8, but in particular verse four; The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? Baptism was from Heaven to John, who baptized Christ, who first authorized His disciples to baptize in His name (John 4:1-2) then authorized His church to baptize (Matthew 28:18-20).
Tonight, if the Lord wills, I will preach on the danger of poor exegesis, using examples from Matthew 5:31-48, in particular and eye for an eye and oaths. If we don’t expound the Word of God correctly, then even though we have a text, we may not learn the true lesson of the text. Taking passages out of context or not in context of chapter, book, testament or the totality of Scripture is a sure fire way to heresy and error in doctrine.
______________________________________________________________________
Douglas Newell IV
Tonight, if the Lord wills, I will preach on the danger of poor exegesis, using examples from Matthew 5:31-48, in particular and eye for an eye and oaths. If we don’t expound the Word of God correctly, then even though we have a text, we may not learn the true lesson of the text. Taking passages out of context or not in context of chapter, book, testament or the totality of Scripture is a sure fire way to heresy and error in doctrine.
______________________________________________________________________
Douglas Newell IV
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Malice, Mercy and Missions
I preached last Wednesday from the fourth chapter of the book of Jonah. In the final chapter, we have two scenes that play out before us. It is interesting as well to note that each scene leaves us with an unanswered question from God. Jonah had just preached one of the greatest revival meetings that ever have been where the whole city had come under the guilt and condemnation of God’s just wrath; thus repenting of their sins and crying out to God for mercy.
The final chapter opens with Jonah much as we found him in chapter one, angry. What is striking is the difference in Jonah. In other prophesies, we learn little or see little of the prophet, but see much of the message and the people he ministers to; some prophets we don’t really know anything about them. Here, the focus is on Jonah’s development.
We see the sailors in their interaction with Jonah, the fish in relation to Jonah, his preaching, and now the consequences of the preaching. The book has not focused so much on the people he ministered to, but his reaction to their repentance.
Had a man written the book, the conclusion would have focused on the numbers saved, the revival of the city, the benefits to the people, and the people they waged war against who see the change in the city, making Johan a hero. Jonah would have justified his behavior or made himself into the redemptive character who becomes the hero at the end after overcoming tremendous odds (see 95% of every motion picture ever made). But after this great revival, the scene still focuses on Jonah, not in the midst of a jubilant, forgiven city, but alone, angry and hoping for a slaughter.
I. SCENE ONE: THE POUTING PROPHET -- Jonah 4:1-4
II. SCENE TWO: THE PITILESS PROPHET--Jonah 4:5-11
______________________________________________________________________
Douglas Newell IV
The final chapter opens with Jonah much as we found him in chapter one, angry. What is striking is the difference in Jonah. In other prophesies, we learn little or see little of the prophet, but see much of the message and the people he ministers to; some prophets we don’t really know anything about them. Here, the focus is on Jonah’s development.
We see the sailors in their interaction with Jonah, the fish in relation to Jonah, his preaching, and now the consequences of the preaching. The book has not focused so much on the people he ministered to, but his reaction to their repentance.
Had a man written the book, the conclusion would have focused on the numbers saved, the revival of the city, the benefits to the people, and the people they waged war against who see the change in the city, making Johan a hero. Jonah would have justified his behavior or made himself into the redemptive character who becomes the hero at the end after overcoming tremendous odds (see 95% of every motion picture ever made). But after this great revival, the scene still focuses on Jonah, not in the midst of a jubilant, forgiven city, but alone, angry and hoping for a slaughter.
I. SCENE ONE: THE POUTING PROPHET -- Jonah 4:1-4
II. SCENE TWO: THE PITILESS PROPHET--Jonah 4:5-11
______________________________________________________________________
Douglas Newell IV
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Cursed of God by Dr. M. J. Seymour, Sr
(The following is a devotion by Dr. M. J. Seymour, Sr.)
“Cursed be he that setteth light by his father or his mother. And all the people shall say, Amen.” (Deut. 27:16) “A wise son maketh a glad father: but a foolish man despiseth his mother.” (Prov. 15:20) The fifth Commandment is “Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.” (Ex. 20:12)
The words “setteth light” are translated from a Hebrew word which means “to disgrace, to dishonor, to despise, to lightly esteem, to treat with contempt, and/or to treat shamefully.” We learn from this that when one despises or treats shamefully his mother and/or father, he brings upon himself a curse from God. It is not an option, nor is it up for debate or self-reasoning; the offender will have God’s curse come upon him. God leaves no room for excuses; neither does He set any age limitations. If one’s mother is 84 and he is 60 he is still under the command of God to “honor thy father and thy mother.” Age or adulthood does not erase the command of God.
The Apostle Paul writes, “Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.” (Eph. 6:1) The word “Children” simply refers to one being an offspring; age is not a factor in the word. There is also a qualifier given by Paul and that is “in the Lord.” As long as the parent’s instruction is compatible with the Word of God the offspring is obligated to obey the parent. Now, if the parent instructs the offspring to go contrary to the Word of God, the offspring is obligated to obey God and not the parent. For example, if the parent tells the child to steal an object, the child is not required to obey the parent but is to obey God Who commands “Thou shalt not steal.”
One of the identifying marks of the last days given by the Apostle Paul is that offspring will be “disobedient to parents.” This is a spirit of anti-God, that is to say, one sign of the last days is that children will treat their parents shamefully, bring dishonor upon them, despise them, and not obey them in the Lord, which reveals their hatred of God and His Word. They in essence fight against the laws of God. They will become lawless, doing what is right in their own eyes, fulfilling their wicked imaginations and the desires of their own hearts in rebellion against God. This revolt against the commands of God brings upon them a horrid curse from God.
“Cursed be he that setteth light by his father or his mother. And all the people shall say, Amen.” (Deut. 27:16) “A wise son maketh a glad father: but a foolish man despiseth his mother.” (Prov. 15:20) The fifth Commandment is “Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.” (Ex. 20:12)
The words “setteth light” are translated from a Hebrew word which means “to disgrace, to dishonor, to despise, to lightly esteem, to treat with contempt, and/or to treat shamefully.” We learn from this that when one despises or treats shamefully his mother and/or father, he brings upon himself a curse from God. It is not an option, nor is it up for debate or self-reasoning; the offender will have God’s curse come upon him. God leaves no room for excuses; neither does He set any age limitations. If one’s mother is 84 and he is 60 he is still under the command of God to “honor thy father and thy mother.” Age or adulthood does not erase the command of God.
The Apostle Paul writes, “Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.” (Eph. 6:1) The word “Children” simply refers to one being an offspring; age is not a factor in the word. There is also a qualifier given by Paul and that is “in the Lord.” As long as the parent’s instruction is compatible with the Word of God the offspring is obligated to obey the parent. Now, if the parent instructs the offspring to go contrary to the Word of God, the offspring is obligated to obey God and not the parent. For example, if the parent tells the child to steal an object, the child is not required to obey the parent but is to obey God Who commands “Thou shalt not steal.”
One of the identifying marks of the last days given by the Apostle Paul is that offspring will be “disobedient to parents.” This is a spirit of anti-God, that is to say, one sign of the last days is that children will treat their parents shamefully, bring dishonor upon them, despise them, and not obey them in the Lord, which reveals their hatred of God and His Word. They in essence fight against the laws of God. They will become lawless, doing what is right in their own eyes, fulfilling their wicked imaginations and the desires of their own hearts in rebellion against God. This revolt against the commands of God brings upon them a horrid curse from God.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Heart Murder
From Studies on the Sermon on the Mount, considering Matt. 5:21-22
“What is the state of your heart? How do you react to things that happen? Do you find yourself flaring into a raging temper when a person has done something to you? Or do you sometimes feel anger against a person who really has done nothing to you at all? These are the things that matter. It is that which God meant when He said, ‘Thou shalt not kill’. ‘God seeth the heart’ and is not concerned only with the external action. God forbid that we should produce a kind of self-righteousness by reducing the law of God to something which we know we have already kept, or which we feel sure we are not likely to transgress, ‘let every man examine himself’.
–M. D. Llyod-Jones
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
The Greatest Miracle in the Book of Jonah
I preached tonight from Jonah 3:1-10. I believe the greatest miracle in the book of Jonah was the great revival of that wicked city.
In chapter 3 you see:
1. Sovereignty and Responsibility
2. The Great Miracle of Salvation
3. The Results of Salvation
4. The Penitent Preacher
5. The Repenting Preacher
6. God Repented (anthropopathism – the ascription of human feelings and emotions to describe God)
The book of Jonah is full of God’s power and mercy. When you think of Jonah, most likely, the first thing you think about is the miracle of Jonah being swallowed by the fish and preserved and spat out again on the shore. One of the great Bible narratives of the Old Testament.
The greatest miracle in the book of Jonah is not, in my opinion, the fish, but what happens after. I believe the greatest miracle in the book of Jonah is the great revival meeting in Nineveh. Salvation is of the Lord. It is both solely by God’s Grace and power; yet man is responsible to believe and repent in what he will not believe in, or cannot repent to. So anytime one is saved, it is a miracle of Divine mercy and grace.
______________________________________________________________________
Douglas Newell IV
In chapter 3 you see:
1. Sovereignty and Responsibility
2. The Great Miracle of Salvation
3. The Results of Salvation
4. The Penitent Preacher
5. The Repenting Preacher
6. God Repented (anthropopathism – the ascription of human feelings and emotions to describe God)
The book of Jonah is full of God’s power and mercy. When you think of Jonah, most likely, the first thing you think about is the miracle of Jonah being swallowed by the fish and preserved and spat out again on the shore. One of the great Bible narratives of the Old Testament.
The greatest miracle in the book of Jonah is not, in my opinion, the fish, but what happens after. I believe the greatest miracle in the book of Jonah is the great revival meeting in Nineveh. Salvation is of the Lord. It is both solely by God’s Grace and power; yet man is responsible to believe and repent in what he will not believe in, or cannot repent to. So anytime one is saved, it is a miracle of Divine mercy and grace.
______________________________________________________________________
Douglas Newell IV
The cure for the United States
There is a lot of talk about the mid-term elections this year. The elections, we are told, will be a chance to save the Republic, to vote out the representatives that are not representing the will of the people. Politically, that is true; the elections will prove to be crucial to the future of our nation. Will that save us? No, unfortunately it will not.
What the United States needs, is the gospel being faithfully proclaimed, and the Merciful Lord granting revival. That is the only hope of our Republic. Shuffling around career politicians will not do for the country what needs to be done. There needs to be salvation, repentance and trusting and following the Lord Jesus Christ.
Think about Jonah 3:1-10. He was commanded of God to go and preach in Nineveh.
Nineveh was a great city, and extremely wicked. The people of Nineveh were barbaric and unmerciful to their enemies. They were a false god worshiping, war and fear mongering people. What was needed? Regime change? Perhaps that would have changed the course of Nineveh, but they would have been no better off. Replacing one ungodly heathen with another to lead a city would have made no difference. The people did make a drastic change, individually and politically. The answer was the gospel.
Jonah preached about the wrath of God, and I believe that they saw the sign of Jonah, three days and nights in the fish’s belly, seeing the mercy of God and a picture of Christ dying, being buried and rising from the dead. The city was changed, wickedness ceased and the city was a new city. God did not judge Nineveh because the Nineveh that He was going to destroy was no longer there. Old sins had passed away, and all things became new. They were new creatures in Christ, the old Nineveh was gone, and there were a new people, a new city. Hugh Martin said that they city couldn’t have been more new if they had rebuilt every building in the whole city. They had forgiveness of their sins, they believed in Christ for salvation, the repented and followed the Lord.
We have a responsibility to vote, and if God has called you to serve in the government, I hope you do well. Jonah, as he preached in the midst of the city, preached the message that God had sent him to proclaim. Jonah preached, Jonah gave the gospel, and whether anyone reacted to it did not matter; he was going to be faithful. This man of God was not giving advice or selfhelp, but what he was preaching was powerful, was living, the Word of God. 1 Corinthians 1:18;21 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. By the preaching of God’s word, we see the great miracle in the book of Jonah. A group of people worshipping idol gods now have turned from their whole lifestyle, thoughts, and worldview and have radically changed unto God fearing men and women. It was not because of a natural disaster, it was not because of a new king and new philosophy, but by the transforming power of the Holy Spirit. The means was not fire from the sky, or a vision from angels, but a preacher, preaching a very simple message.
Jesus Christ is the only hope.
______________________________________________________________________
Douglas Newell IV
What the United States needs, is the gospel being faithfully proclaimed, and the Merciful Lord granting revival. That is the only hope of our Republic. Shuffling around career politicians will not do for the country what needs to be done. There needs to be salvation, repentance and trusting and following the Lord Jesus Christ.
Think about Jonah 3:1-10. He was commanded of God to go and preach in Nineveh.
Nineveh was a great city, and extremely wicked. The people of Nineveh were barbaric and unmerciful to their enemies. They were a false god worshiping, war and fear mongering people. What was needed? Regime change? Perhaps that would have changed the course of Nineveh, but they would have been no better off. Replacing one ungodly heathen with another to lead a city would have made no difference. The people did make a drastic change, individually and politically. The answer was the gospel.
Jonah preached about the wrath of God, and I believe that they saw the sign of Jonah, three days and nights in the fish’s belly, seeing the mercy of God and a picture of Christ dying, being buried and rising from the dead. The city was changed, wickedness ceased and the city was a new city. God did not judge Nineveh because the Nineveh that He was going to destroy was no longer there. Old sins had passed away, and all things became new. They were new creatures in Christ, the old Nineveh was gone, and there were a new people, a new city. Hugh Martin said that they city couldn’t have been more new if they had rebuilt every building in the whole city. They had forgiveness of their sins, they believed in Christ for salvation, the repented and followed the Lord.
We have a responsibility to vote, and if God has called you to serve in the government, I hope you do well. Jonah, as he preached in the midst of the city, preached the message that God had sent him to proclaim. Jonah preached, Jonah gave the gospel, and whether anyone reacted to it did not matter; he was going to be faithful. This man of God was not giving advice or selfhelp, but what he was preaching was powerful, was living, the Word of God. 1 Corinthians 1:18;21 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. By the preaching of God’s word, we see the great miracle in the book of Jonah. A group of people worshipping idol gods now have turned from their whole lifestyle, thoughts, and worldview and have radically changed unto God fearing men and women. It was not because of a natural disaster, it was not because of a new king and new philosophy, but by the transforming power of the Holy Spirit. The means was not fire from the sky, or a vision from angels, but a preacher, preaching a very simple message.
Jesus Christ is the only hope.
______________________________________________________________________
Douglas Newell IV
Monday, March 8, 2010
Psalm 8:3-4
The White Mountain from charles on Vimeo.
Psalms 8:3-4 When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Phil Johnson on manliness.
Pulpit Highlights - Phil Johnson from Grace Community Church on Vimeo.
"We have traded up to cushy seats instead of hard benched pews and we expect our preachers to fashion their message accordingly."
Friday, March 5, 2010
Fort Hood Terror
You have to be willingly ignorant and blind to say that this was not Muslim terror. We are going to "nice" ourselves to death as a nation.
HT: Medford Caudill
------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Newell IV
HT: Medford Caudill
------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Newell IV
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
The Divine Inspiration of…the Constitution?
I was listening to Glenn Beck’s radio program and heard Him say that the Constitution of the United States is a Divinely inspired document. I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt, hoping that perhaps Mr. Beck doesn’t understand what Divinely inspired means. Perhaps he meant, not so much inspired, but influenced by God. In other words, their knowledge of God and the scriptures were the foundation for the writing of the document.
He could have meant perhaps that they were influenced Sovereignly by God, and that the Providence of God was manifested in the Constitution. The founding was surely the Providence of God, but so it is for every other nation. But I do not think that he meant that because he went on to say that our founding documents are not the same as the Magna Carta or other constitutions, not because of the superiority of content, but because of their origins, meaning our constitution is superior because ours was from God. Then hearing him say that Americans need to “preach the gospel of Madison” sealed the deal for me, I think he believes that the founders were Apostles of God.
The Constitution of the United States was not inspired by God. It is a man made document. This may be unsettling for those who are more American than Christian, but it’s a fact.
II Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.
Scripture is given by inspiration of God. If the Constitution of the United States is Divinely inspired, then it is Holy Scripture and should be added to the Bible. God is unchangeable, His Word is unchangeable and pure and perfect. So if God inspired the Constitution, that is part of His inerrant, unchangeable perfect, holy Word. (By the way, it would make Constitutional amendments blasphemy and very dangerous, right? Revelation 22:18) What does it mean that God inspired the bible. The Greek word translated “inspiration of God” is Θεόπνευστος (theopneustos). The word is a compound of θεόÏ‚ (Theos)or God and πνέω (pneō) which means to breathe, so the word translated inspired by God means that it is divinely breathed in; given by inspiration of God. The Holy Scriptures are not merely the ideas men have about who God is; rather it is God speaking through men. II Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Paul did not take the ideas of God and relate the theme in his own words, but penned God’s very words. Every word, every sentence is of God.
Though the Constitution of the United States is a remarkable document and though it is the greatest example of manmade government the world has ever seen, it is, none the less from the minds of men and not inspired of God.
Scriptures are authoritative because they are the Words of God. Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. The Word of God is powerful, living, penetrating truth. God’s Word is absolute truth; it gives us the truth about God and about ourselves, displaying even the thoughts and intentions of the heart. The Constitution has been amended and ratified because it was not perfect, but every word of God is pure (Proverbs 30:5). The Word of God contains the truth about wickedness of man and his need of a Saviour. God tells us in His Word the gospel of Jesus Christ; the only way to Heaven, by Grace through faith in the finished work of Christ, dying on the cross as a substitue for sinners, paying their sin debt, then rising from the dead after three days and three nights for our justification. There is power in the Word of God, not in the Constitution.
Remember, when you read the Constitution, you are reading a document conceived in the mind of a man who is long since dead and gone. It has a beginning, and like every other nation that has come into being, it will have an end. The Constitution of the United States will pass away. Heaven and Earth will pass away, and that includes the Constitution and the founding documents, but, Jesus said till Heaven and Earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. God’s Word will not pass away, God’s Word cannot be defeated. The best that men can do and the greatest men can achieve will ultimately come to an end.
I think most Christians are like me, freedom loving men and women, and agree with most conservative pundits. I caution you if you listen to Glenn Beck not to get caught up in this deification of this country’s founding to the point of making the founding documents God’s Word. This is idol worship and blasphemy.
(Corrected gramatical errors 3-3-10.)
He could have meant perhaps that they were influenced Sovereignly by God, and that the Providence of God was manifested in the Constitution. The founding was surely the Providence of God, but so it is for every other nation. But I do not think that he meant that because he went on to say that our founding documents are not the same as the Magna Carta or other constitutions, not because of the superiority of content, but because of their origins, meaning our constitution is superior because ours was from God. Then hearing him say that Americans need to “preach the gospel of Madison” sealed the deal for me, I think he believes that the founders were Apostles of God.
The Constitution of the United States was not inspired by God. It is a man made document. This may be unsettling for those who are more American than Christian, but it’s a fact.
II Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.
Scripture is given by inspiration of God. If the Constitution of the United States is Divinely inspired, then it is Holy Scripture and should be added to the Bible. God is unchangeable, His Word is unchangeable and pure and perfect. So if God inspired the Constitution, that is part of His inerrant, unchangeable perfect, holy Word. (By the way, it would make Constitutional amendments blasphemy and very dangerous, right? Revelation 22:18) What does it mean that God inspired the bible. The Greek word translated “inspiration of God” is Θεόπνευστος (theopneustos). The word is a compound of θεόÏ‚ (Theos)or God and πνέω (pneō) which means to breathe, so the word translated inspired by God means that it is divinely breathed in; given by inspiration of God. The Holy Scriptures are not merely the ideas men have about who God is; rather it is God speaking through men. II Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Paul did not take the ideas of God and relate the theme in his own words, but penned God’s very words. Every word, every sentence is of God.
Though the Constitution of the United States is a remarkable document and though it is the greatest example of manmade government the world has ever seen, it is, none the less from the minds of men and not inspired of God.
Scriptures are authoritative because they are the Words of God. Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. The Word of God is powerful, living, penetrating truth. God’s Word is absolute truth; it gives us the truth about God and about ourselves, displaying even the thoughts and intentions of the heart. The Constitution has been amended and ratified because it was not perfect, but every word of God is pure (Proverbs 30:5). The Word of God contains the truth about wickedness of man and his need of a Saviour. God tells us in His Word the gospel of Jesus Christ; the only way to Heaven, by Grace through faith in the finished work of Christ, dying on the cross as a substitue for sinners, paying their sin debt, then rising from the dead after three days and three nights for our justification. There is power in the Word of God, not in the Constitution.
Remember, when you read the Constitution, you are reading a document conceived in the mind of a man who is long since dead and gone. It has a beginning, and like every other nation that has come into being, it will have an end. The Constitution of the United States will pass away. Heaven and Earth will pass away, and that includes the Constitution and the founding documents, but, Jesus said till Heaven and Earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. God’s Word will not pass away, God’s Word cannot be defeated. The best that men can do and the greatest men can achieve will ultimately come to an end.
I think most Christians are like me, freedom loving men and women, and agree with most conservative pundits. I caution you if you listen to Glenn Beck not to get caught up in this deification of this country’s founding to the point of making the founding documents God’s Word. This is idol worship and blasphemy.
The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Psalms 19:7-10
(Corrected gramatical errors 3-3-10.)
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Look Up!
"O Brothers and Sisters, if you can say, “I will trust and not be afraid,” how bold you will be! You will go forward in duty. You will go forward in service. You will go forward in the confession of Christ before men, not asking whether men like it or dislike it, for while you trust in God you will not be afraid of men! I daresay you have heard the story of a certain boy who went to sea. On his first voyage, the captain said to him, “Can you climb?” He answered, “Oh, yes!” He thought he could climb, for he had been up an old tree at home after a raven’s nest. So, after a time, the captain told him to climb the mast to attend to something up aloft. As the ship plunged into the trough of the sea and then rose, again, to the crest of the waves, and the poor boy felt
the mast swaying to and fro as the tree in the garden had never done, he began to feel very strange and he feared that he would fall.
The good captain, who was watching him and who thought it very likely that he would fall, shouted out to him, “Boy, look up! Look up!” He did look up and that saved him! He had been growing dizzy and would have fallen if he had continued looking at the waves—and then he would have been killed. But when he looked up, everything above was all right. The sun does not reel to and fro! So looking up, the lad forgot his fears, performed his duty and descended in safety. You will find that the best thing for you to do, also, my dear Brothers and Sisters, is to look up! When you have been looking down and all around you, and you have begun to tremble and to fear that you will fall, look up, look up! Say, “I will trust and not be afraid”—and that looking up will make you bold in your Master’s service!"
C.H. Spurgeon Mr. Moody's Text sermon #2541
the mast swaying to and fro as the tree in the garden had never done, he began to feel very strange and he feared that he would fall.
The good captain, who was watching him and who thought it very likely that he would fall, shouted out to him, “Boy, look up! Look up!” He did look up and that saved him! He had been growing dizzy and would have fallen if he had continued looking at the waves—and then he would have been killed. But when he looked up, everything above was all right. The sun does not reel to and fro! So looking up, the lad forgot his fears, performed his duty and descended in safety. You will find that the best thing for you to do, also, my dear Brothers and Sisters, is to look up! When you have been looking down and all around you, and you have begun to tremble and to fear that you will fall, look up, look up! Say, “I will trust and not be afraid”—and that looking up will make you bold in your Master’s service!"
C.H. Spurgeon Mr. Moody's Text sermon #2541
Friday, February 26, 2010
The Myth of Old Testament Jewish Proselyte Baptism
Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance.
Let’s first consider whether or not baptism was a Levitical ceremony for converts. There simply is no proselyte baptism in the Old Testament. The scriptures are very clear Exodus 12:48-49 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you. There is the Gentile convert, but there is no baptism. The idea is you take that passage along with Exodus 19:10 And the LORD said unto Moses, Go unto the people, and sanctify them to day and to morrow, and let them wash their clothes . This is the best Old Testament answer to prove proselyte baptism. There is simply no scriptural basis. The first accounts of proselyte washing are found in the Babylonian Talmud, written in the 5th century. The custom, for lack of scriptural evidence, was inserted into the tradition. C.H. Toy wrote a very interesting paper published in the Baptist Quarterly volume 6, 1872 on Proselyte Baptism which he said “The ideas of an initiatory baptism in the Old Testament, the conception of which originated, no doubt, in the natural desire on the part of the Rabbinic teachers to obtain Scriptural support for a custom which the exigencies of the times had established.” The scriptural grounds seem to come from the cleansings and circumcision. The proselyte had to be circumcised and then had to be purified according to the Jews, not scripture. Following tradition, the Jews had to offer sacrifices but after the temple was destroyed, purification became the last order of the convert since they could not offer sacrifice. However, this was not limited to the Gentile convert as the Jewish boy ALSO had to be purified by washing because the circumcision made one unclean. The purification or the washing was on account of the circumcision. Historically, there is no basis for Jewish proselyte baptism prior to the fourth or fifth century. There are, of course, rules and regulations that accompany the ritual for the Jews after this time, even down to how many gallons of water were to be used, but prior, history is silent. To quote Toy again on the historicity of the practice “There is positively no evidence of the existence of proselyte baptism before the destruction of Jerusalem, and that the negative evidence against it up to that time, is as decisive as negative evidence can be; that there are no clear proofs of its existence before the fifth century, while it is possible that it may have been gradually coming into use for a century or two that there are reasons why the Jews should have been led to adopt some such ceremony after the destruction of Jerusalem; that the form is such as their national observances would suggest; and the way in which this rite is mentioned, is just what we should expect on the supposition that it came into use first about the third century, gradually gaining ground till, in the fifth century, in was firmly established.” I believe this to be grasping at straws and it may have started, in part, to explain away John’s baptism to the Jewish converts and Jews who were confronted with the New Testament.
Toy once more says says “If the custom of proselyte baptism arose in the inter-biblical times, we should expect to find some reference to it at least in the apocryphal books, and in Josephus and Philo. …It is difficult to see how a new (or indeed and old) ceremony of initiation could be passed over entirely without mention.” This lack of evidence becomes even more powerful when we consider those histories detail converts to Judiasm, to which baptism is silent. Toy again “Josephus mentions four prominent cases [in his history] of proselyting that one of these is given at great length, with the debates on the ceremony required, by persons who would gladly have found some other ceremony than circumcision; that he writes minutely on the customs of the Jews; and yet throughout his voluminous writings, which are very full on our Lord's time, there is not a single reference or allusion to a proselyte immersion. We seem to be not passing the bounds of moderation, then, when we say that his silence amounts very nearly to demonstration of our position.” John Broadus in A Commentary on Matthew as well as the work of John Gill on the history of this Jewish practice, tried and failed to find any historical record of Jewish proselyte baptism prior to the fourth or fifth centuries. In regards to history, the earliest Christian writers are silent on the subject of Jewish proselyte baptism, which speaks volumes as they dealt much with the Jews in polemical writings. When considering the false Jewish teachers who tried to pull Gentiles and Jew away from Christ back into the ceremony in regards to circumcision, why was there never an attempt to turn baptism into a similar work, or why was there never misunderstanding of baptism in the early days of the church? “It is hardly conceivable that proselyte baptism , if it were know to them, should not appear sometimes in their writings. Yet no mention of the rite has been produced.” C.H. Toy.
The Pharisees were full of self righteous hypocrisy in their strict keeping of the ceremonial law. Their counterparts, the Sadducees were religious liberals who did not believe in supernatural and interestingly enough, many were priests. Both groups hated Christ and both groups relied on outward works for their justification. When John was baptizing, both groups then came to the baptism. If something new was going on, they wanted to know what it was. I supposed the final nail in the coffin of the Old Testament proselyte baptism is if it was proselyte washing, why did they want it? Luke 3:7 Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Which we know from Matthew were the Pharisees. Here the pious religious leaders come to take part of the religious right. I can almost imagine them coming to see, to question, and to grace John with their presence. I can almost see them coming to give their expert opinion, since they were the religious leaders or perhaps they thought that John would be impressed with their attendance and sanctioning by their observance. John 1:19 And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? John 1:25 And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet? First, we see that the Jews sent priest and Levites to find out who he was, and the Pharisees asked him “why do you baptize if you are not Christ, Elijah or that prophet?” Had the John been performing a common Jewish ritual, why so many questions? It was recognizable to the Scribes and Pharisees that this was of Divine origin and their questioning tells us much. Had this been a Jewish practice, the question would not have been “why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ” but the question would have been “why bapzitest thou then these Jews as if they were Gentiles?” Why would the Pharisees ask who he was and what was the purpose of his baptizing? If John’s baptism was an Old Testament practice, when Jesus asked in Luke 20:4 “The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men?”, most assuredly the chief priests and scribes would have asserted Moses and the Old Testament, but by remaining silent, they loudly declare where and when baptism came into practice; with John. They would have said “our fathers have baptized since the wilderness.” We are to believe that even though circumcision was a major point of contention in the churches between Jews and Gentiles and false teachers, the baptism that followed was never questioned or pointed out to be separate from circumcision? The Pharisees never questioned Jesus for having a proselyte baptism or His disciples for baptizing Jews, both men and women?
“Why baptizest thou then?” Why did John baptize? If this was proselyte baptism, why did the Jews want it? If this was a common Jewish custom, why did the Pharisees ask why he was baptizing? If this was common Jewish custom, why did the Pharisees marvel that he was baptism, yet not Elijah or the Messiah? The fact is this was something new John was doing. The Jews knew this, realized it and wanted to be part of it since they perceived that John was a prophet. They saw another outward ceremony that they could be a part of, but the ax was struck to the root of their outward legalism. The biblical narrative shows without a shadow of doubt that what John was doing was a new and unique practice, something that God sent him to do. The whole idea of Old Testament proselyte baptism is a myth that is propagated and repeated as if it is common biblical history. Only one problem; Old Testament proselyte baptism is not found in the OLD TESTAMENT, or in the first centuries among any practicing Jews.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Apples of Gold
.
I found this quote to be quite amusing. From B.A. Ramsbottom's biography on Christmas Evans.
The Welsh, though loving their preachers, for the most part, did not take care of their physical needs. Christmas Evans, a powerful Welsh Baptist was content with his poverty. On one occasion, he did speak his mind. After he had given a sermon, his hearers informed him that he would be recompensed at the resurrection. To which Evans offered the following reply.
“Yes, yes, no doubt of that; but I have to live till I get there. And what of my poor old white horse that needs to be fed now? For my horse there will be no resurrection!”
In Austin Phelps Theory of Preaching he gives a caricature of the sometimes "offensively elaborate" preface given to texts, merely to take up time.
"You will find the particular passage of the Sacred Scriptures to which it is my present purpose to invite your earnest attention on this solemn occasion, in that most interesting and impressive description of the most blessed of the virtues, recorded in the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, in the thirteenth chapter, the first verse, the last clause of the verse, and expressed in the following language; to wit, 'I am become as sounding brass'."
________________________________________________________
Douglas Newell IV
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
The Bible - Various Quotes
"If God spare my life, ere many years I will cause a boy that driveth the plough shall know more of the Scripture than thou dost" William Tyndale to a Roman Priest.
"Clearness in the pulpit is good sense in the pew. Mysticism in the pulpit is nonsense in the pew. The absence of exposition from the pulpit is ignorance of the Bible in the power." Austin Phelps from The Theory of Preaching
"If the Bible be an inspired volume, it is inspired for a purpose. If inspired for a purpose, it is divinely fitted to that purpose. If fitted to that purpose, it is a compendium of the truths most necessary to the world in all time. The world will always need it, and will need the whole of it. As a unit, it will be as fresh to the last man as to you and to me." Austin Phelps The Theory of Preaching
_______________________________________________
Douglas Newell IV
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Apples of Gold (Proverbs 25:11)
This week brings us the D.M. Lloyd-Jones addition of Apples of Gold this week. These quotes came from his book Studies on the Sermon on the Mount.
We now have Marriage Guidance classes. Up to this century mean and women were married without this expert advice which now seems to be so essential.
It is a great characteristic of scriptural truth that it can compress, as it were, the whole content of our entire position into a pregnant verse such as this. ‘Ye’, said our Lord, looking out upon those simple people, those entirely unimportant people from the standpoint of the world, ‘Ye are the light of the world.’ It is one of those statements which should always have the effect upon us of making us lift up our heads, causing us to realize once more what a remarkable and glorious thing it is to be a Christian.
Though you try to educate and control man it will avail nothing as long as his nature is sinful and fallen and he is a creature of passion and dishonor. We have tried knowledge, we have tried education, we have tried political enactments, we have tried international conferences, we have tried them all but nothing avails. Is there no hope? Yes, there is abundant and everlasting hope: “Ye must be born again”.
_____________________________________________
Douglas Newell IV
Monday, February 8, 2010
What is a Church?
I suppose that you could ask 100 people that question and get 75 different answers. It is amazing that such a common word as church could have so many different meanings. What is even more astounding is when people have personal definitions to words. You could ask a person for a definition of the word church and you would hear something like “the church, to me, means…” as if words do not have any meaning or can change from person to person. Or the they may struggle to even answer the question because it is too deep to define. Could you imagine treating any other word like that? For example, if you asked someone to define the word car and then they say “the word car, means to me…” or “the word care is so deep that it has many meanings.” Wouldn’t you find that to be odd? Then, on the other extreme of defining words, some words are so familiar that we have never even considered what the word means. Sometimes we assume we know what the word means, but if we were asked to write a definition of the word, we would be at a loss. You may have gone to church your whole life, but never stopped to ask yourself, what is a church?
The English word church is found 80 times in the Bible and the word churches 37 times. Christians should understand a word that is found so many times in the Bible. The better question would be “what does God mean by church?” rather than the common question, “What does the word church mean to me.” When God inspired the writers of the New Testament to pen the very Words of God, what did God mean? When speaking of church, some refer to denominations, others to buildings and some say the church means every saved person on earth. What did God mean when He said church?
God could have used any word that He wanted to use. God was not short on vocabulary, so whatever word we find is the exact word God wanted to use. I really do not enjoy hearing preachers say “what Paul really meant to say was…” or “what would have been better to say…” rather “this is what God said.” The first time the word church is used is in Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The word church is the word ἐκκλησία, (ekklēsia) in Greek, which was the language the New Testament was originally penned. The word ἐκκλησία means a called assembly. However, in many popular lexicon’s and dictionaries, the modern usage of the word has been inserted into their definition. I am afraid that many people put more authority on the work of one man who authored a lexicon, than in God’s word. As I hope to point out, merely because a man is an authority on the language, does not make him beyond reproof.
What I would also like to call attention to, for your deliberation, is that when you go to a dictionary or a concordance with Greek definitions, we are reading the authors definition of the word, not necessarily the meaning of the word at the time of its usage. Take, for example, Thayer’s Greek Definitions; he defines the word translated church as “a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly”. However, the definition doesn’t stop there, but he then goes on to define the word as “in a Christian sense… the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth”. That is a broad definition and illustrates the problem that we are going to have to face squarely as we go on. What does the word mean? Is Thayer correct in stating the Greek word ἐκκλησία was understood by those who spoke and wrote Greek in that time to mean “the whole body of Christians” or is that the definition he applies to what the word has become to mean? Strong’s defines the word as “a calling out, that is, (concretely) a popular meeting, especially a religious congregation (Jewish synagogue, or Christian community of members on earth or saints in heaven or both): - assembly, church.” So Strong defines the word church with the word church. He has interjected his opinion into the definition. A.T. Robertson, in his work Word Pictures in the New Testament says “The word originally meant “assembly”, but it came to be applied to an “unassembled assembly”. W.E. Vine falls into the same trap when he defines ἐκκλησία. Vine says the word comes “from ek, out of and klesis, a calling was used among the Greeks of a body of citizens gathered to discuss the affairs of the State, Acts 19:39. In the Septuagint it is used to designate the gathering of Israel, summoned for any definite purpose, or a gathering regarded as representative of the whole nation. In Acts 7:38 it is used of Israel; in 19:32, 41 of a riotous mob.” Here Vine faithfully gives the meaning of the Greek word and the way the Greek word was understood by those living during the times. However, instead of bowing to the authority of God’s Word, he goes on to say “It has two applications to companies of Christians...” then applies the universal invisible body theory. This is interjecting our thoughts into God’s Word. It then becomes easy to declare that you believe every Word of God when you get to choose your own definition of the words. This same duplicity is applied to baptism as well.
The whole problem comes when we try to put our opinions into the word of God. We have men who believe that the church is universal and invisible; but the bible word for “church” means a called out assembly. Rather than conform to the authority of scripture we have generations of men who redefine the word rather than yield to it. When the book of Matthew was penned, there was a definition to the word ἐκκλησία. It had a common usage and a common definition. If Christ had meant to say a universal invisible group, why not say it? If I were to give a speech on television and I wanted to speak to all the Republicans in the United States how would I introduce the speech? I would address the Republican Party, I would not address the Republican assembly. Had Christ intended to speak of one who is a member of a community, then He too would have used a word that meant universal group of believers. But the fact is, Christ did not use a word that referred to a universal body over the whole world united by faith, but Christ spoke of an assembly. J.R. Graves in his book Old Landmarkism said “The Holy Spirit selected the Greek word ἐκκλησία, (ekklēsia) which had but one possible literal meaning to the Greek – that of a local congregation.” The universal church men would have you believe that God said local assembly, but meant universal invisible body, and that the meaning of the word was changed to something completely different without warning or redefining it.
William Tyndale in his translation of Matthew 16:18 rendered it this way, “And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter: and upon this rock I will build my congregation. And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” David Daniell, who wrote the introduction to the 1989 Yale University Press edition of the Tyndale Bible said “The Bishop of London hunted down and burned many thousands of Tyndale’s successive New Testaments and Pentateuch’s with fanatical thoroughness, a ruthlessness that seems close to hysteria – only a dozen in all survive. King Henry VIII’s chancellor, Sir Thomas More, showed himself less than gentile, reasoned, saintly and urbane in his long, and indeed violent polemics against Tyndale. He calls him in his Confutation, ‘a beast’, as one of the ‘hell-hounds that the devil hath in his kennel’, discharging a ‘filthy foam of blasphemies out of his brutish beastly mouth’. Elsewhere, More calls him a deceiver, a hypocrite; puffed up with the poison of pride, malice and envy’. Yet the best that More, in all the great length of his tirades, can summon against Tyndale, when all is boiled down, is the he translated the Greed word for ‘elder’ as elder, not priest and the Greek word for ‘repentance’ as repentance, not do penance, the Greek word for ‘congregation’ as congregation not church…Even Erasmus, More’s friend, had translated the Greek ἐκκλησία, as congregation, not church. Every change that Tyndale makes is more than defensible: it is correct.” Since we are not dealing with the denomination definition or what the English word has become; we are dealing with the meaning of the Greek words, the original meaning and intent of the word, then we must all admit the word ἐκκλησία, means assembly. That is the literal meaning of the word and that is what the writers of the New Testament meant, that is what the Holy Spirit inspired them to write. Had God wanted to use a word that categorized people by faith instead of using a word that means assembly, let us grant that God the Holy Spirit could and would have done so.
The word ἐκκλησία, means a called assembly. The Greeks used the word to mean called assembly. If the Holy Spirit used a word that was known and used for a local assembly, we must know that the Holy Spirit meant assembly. This must be our starting point. Everyone has an idea in their mind of what a church is, but we need to know what meant by the word. If you start here, and with what the word church means and go on through the biblical teaching, using the word as it was intended that you can clearly see the teaching of the Lord’s church without redefining words and using revisionist history. The Lord’s church is not an invisible, universal body, but a local assembly called for official business. Certainly there are other distinguishing marks of a church, but this is the most basic, is your church a church (ἐκκλησία)?
______________________________________________
Douglas Newell IV
The English word church is found 80 times in the Bible and the word churches 37 times. Christians should understand a word that is found so many times in the Bible. The better question would be “what does God mean by church?” rather than the common question, “What does the word church mean to me.” When God inspired the writers of the New Testament to pen the very Words of God, what did God mean? When speaking of church, some refer to denominations, others to buildings and some say the church means every saved person on earth. What did God mean when He said church?
God could have used any word that He wanted to use. God was not short on vocabulary, so whatever word we find is the exact word God wanted to use. I really do not enjoy hearing preachers say “what Paul really meant to say was…” or “what would have been better to say…” rather “this is what God said.” The first time the word church is used is in Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The word church is the word ἐκκλησία, (ekklēsia) in Greek, which was the language the New Testament was originally penned. The word ἐκκλησία means a called assembly. However, in many popular lexicon’s and dictionaries, the modern usage of the word has been inserted into their definition. I am afraid that many people put more authority on the work of one man who authored a lexicon, than in God’s word. As I hope to point out, merely because a man is an authority on the language, does not make him beyond reproof.
What I would also like to call attention to, for your deliberation, is that when you go to a dictionary or a concordance with Greek definitions, we are reading the authors definition of the word, not necessarily the meaning of the word at the time of its usage. Take, for example, Thayer’s Greek Definitions; he defines the word translated church as “a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly”. However, the definition doesn’t stop there, but he then goes on to define the word as “in a Christian sense… the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth”. That is a broad definition and illustrates the problem that we are going to have to face squarely as we go on. What does the word mean? Is Thayer correct in stating the Greek word ἐκκλησία was understood by those who spoke and wrote Greek in that time to mean “the whole body of Christians” or is that the definition he applies to what the word has become to mean? Strong’s defines the word as “a calling out, that is, (concretely) a popular meeting, especially a religious congregation (Jewish synagogue, or Christian community of members on earth or saints in heaven or both): - assembly, church.” So Strong defines the word church with the word church. He has interjected his opinion into the definition. A.T. Robertson, in his work Word Pictures in the New Testament says “The word originally meant “assembly”, but it came to be applied to an “unassembled assembly”. W.E. Vine falls into the same trap when he defines ἐκκλησία. Vine says the word comes “from ek, out of and klesis, a calling was used among the Greeks of a body of citizens gathered to discuss the affairs of the State, Acts 19:39. In the Septuagint it is used to designate the gathering of Israel, summoned for any definite purpose, or a gathering regarded as representative of the whole nation. In Acts 7:38 it is used of Israel; in 19:32, 41 of a riotous mob.” Here Vine faithfully gives the meaning of the Greek word and the way the Greek word was understood by those living during the times. However, instead of bowing to the authority of God’s Word, he goes on to say “It has two applications to companies of Christians...” then applies the universal invisible body theory. This is interjecting our thoughts into God’s Word. It then becomes easy to declare that you believe every Word of God when you get to choose your own definition of the words. This same duplicity is applied to baptism as well.
The whole problem comes when we try to put our opinions into the word of God. We have men who believe that the church is universal and invisible; but the bible word for “church” means a called out assembly. Rather than conform to the authority of scripture we have generations of men who redefine the word rather than yield to it. When the book of Matthew was penned, there was a definition to the word ἐκκλησία. It had a common usage and a common definition. If Christ had meant to say a universal invisible group, why not say it? If I were to give a speech on television and I wanted to speak to all the Republicans in the United States how would I introduce the speech? I would address the Republican Party, I would not address the Republican assembly. Had Christ intended to speak of one who is a member of a community, then He too would have used a word that meant universal group of believers. But the fact is, Christ did not use a word that referred to a universal body over the whole world united by faith, but Christ spoke of an assembly. J.R. Graves in his book Old Landmarkism said “The Holy Spirit selected the Greek word ἐκκλησία, (ekklēsia) which had but one possible literal meaning to the Greek – that of a local congregation.” The universal church men would have you believe that God said local assembly, but meant universal invisible body, and that the meaning of the word was changed to something completely different without warning or redefining it.
William Tyndale in his translation of Matthew 16:18 rendered it this way, “And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter: and upon this rock I will build my congregation. And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” David Daniell, who wrote the introduction to the 1989 Yale University Press edition of the Tyndale Bible said “The Bishop of London hunted down and burned many thousands of Tyndale’s successive New Testaments and Pentateuch’s with fanatical thoroughness, a ruthlessness that seems close to hysteria – only a dozen in all survive. King Henry VIII’s chancellor, Sir Thomas More, showed himself less than gentile, reasoned, saintly and urbane in his long, and indeed violent polemics against Tyndale. He calls him in his Confutation, ‘a beast’, as one of the ‘hell-hounds that the devil hath in his kennel’, discharging a ‘filthy foam of blasphemies out of his brutish beastly mouth’. Elsewhere, More calls him a deceiver, a hypocrite; puffed up with the poison of pride, malice and envy’. Yet the best that More, in all the great length of his tirades, can summon against Tyndale, when all is boiled down, is the he translated the Greed word for ‘elder’ as elder, not priest and the Greek word for ‘repentance’ as repentance, not do penance, the Greek word for ‘congregation’ as congregation not church…Even Erasmus, More’s friend, had translated the Greek ἐκκλησία, as congregation, not church. Every change that Tyndale makes is more than defensible: it is correct.” Since we are not dealing with the denomination definition or what the English word has become; we are dealing with the meaning of the Greek words, the original meaning and intent of the word, then we must all admit the word ἐκκλησία, means assembly. That is the literal meaning of the word and that is what the writers of the New Testament meant, that is what the Holy Spirit inspired them to write. Had God wanted to use a word that categorized people by faith instead of using a word that means assembly, let us grant that God the Holy Spirit could and would have done so.
The word ἐκκλησία, means a called assembly. The Greeks used the word to mean called assembly. If the Holy Spirit used a word that was known and used for a local assembly, we must know that the Holy Spirit meant assembly. This must be our starting point. Everyone has an idea in their mind of what a church is, but we need to know what meant by the word. If you start here, and with what the word church means and go on through the biblical teaching, using the word as it was intended that you can clearly see the teaching of the Lord’s church without redefining words and using revisionist history. The Lord’s church is not an invisible, universal body, but a local assembly called for official business. Certainly there are other distinguishing marks of a church, but this is the most basic, is your church a church (ἐκκλησία)?
______________________________________________
Douglas Newell IV
Monday, February 1, 2010
Honest Movie Review
This is the review of the movie LEGION by Paul Asay from pluggedin.com.
This is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. It is so bad that it could kill monkeys. It is so bad that I'd recommend any cinema playing the thing to put baffles up so its badness doesn't somehow leak onto adjacent screens. It is so bad it should come with a surgeon general's warning—and a government tax for causing cancer.
__________
Douglas Newell IV
This is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. It is so bad that it could kill monkeys. It is so bad that I'd recommend any cinema playing the thing to put baffles up so its badness doesn't somehow leak onto adjacent screens. It is so bad it should come with a surgeon general's warning—and a government tax for causing cancer.
__________
Douglas Newell IV
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)