Heavenly Treasure

Matthew 6:19-21 "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal; for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."

I was able to see this principle applied the other day during a conversation with my friend...um, we'll call him Jake. Jake is around 70 years old, and is still working a good part-time job, where he travels often for his company. It is important to note here that Jake does not work out of necessity.

Jake was telling me the other day that he could not find anything in the Bible about retirement. I affirmed his conclusion, reminding him that our rest will come in heaven (of course that will not even be close to all that we as believers do in Glory). I told Jake if he ever retired, he should go on the mission field, to which he replied that he felt that the Lord constantly used him to give to fund missions. He did not know it, but giving was one of Jake's spiritual gifts and Romans 12:8 shows that giving to the body or the Lord is in fact a spiritual gift. Jake then told me that it was his goal to give 50% of his income to the Lord! Although he was not there yet, i know that he is close. This was a great blessing to me, because although I have taught this for many years, i have never actually met anybody who practiced this principle of giving.

This experience blessed me because everything that Jake is doing flies in the face of what the rest of our country would tell him to do. Some may say:

1. "you need to use that to increase your life insurance since you are old so you can leave your family a fortune."
2. "You need to invest that money!"
3. "You should travel"
4. "You should retire fully and play golf"

But regardless, all say would say to Jake; "you are a fool." To which I would hope that Jake would reply in the words of Dr. Don Wilton, "I'm a fool for God...who's fool are you!?" For Jake's treasure is in heaven, not on earth.

The church needs more believers like Jake. We need to realize that it is God who gives us the ability to gain wealth (Deuteronomy 8:18), not to build up our own kingdom, but to further His.

Pimp My....Life?

Xzibit would be proud. Not only has he helped to spur on the nationwide car-customization craze that started on the west coast with his TV show Pimp My Ride, this theme is starting to leak into churches as well. A church from South Carolina has recently began a sermon series entitled "Pimy My Life." Its goal is simple. To transform a person's marriage, mind, body, mouth, and relationships to be more Christ-like. Sounds pretty good, right? My prayer everyday is nearly the same (minus the pimp part), for I want all of these things to be transformed daily by the renewing of my mind. Furthermore, I'm sure that Paul meant all of these things plus some more when he stated "for me, to live is Christ" in Philippians 1:21.

So what's the problem? The problem is one of over-contextualization. Now, contextualization is basically the process of making something meaningful to a specific culture. For example, if I were preaching the Gospel in India, i would be sure to make it as relevant as possible to those in that culture, yet WITHOUT weakening the Gospel message. In America today, many churches are striving to reach a postmodern generation, and sadly, many are severely lessening the Gospel of Christ because they think the Gospel will offend those "seekers" who enter their doors. I have known churches in the past who have told their members to not bring their Bibles, for that would make the "seekers" feel out of place. I have also known the same church's worship band to play secular songs about getting drunk and hanging with the rough crowd in the service before they enter into their time of worship. Obviously, this pastor has never read Romans 3, for if he had, he would understand that no one seeks but God!

Back to my point. I understand what this church is trying to do, and I'm sure that their pastor probably has a few good points and insights to teach if he sticks to what Scripture says on each of these topics. But his methodology of life change is all wrong here. Does he know what pimp means? Let us ask the dictionary:

pimp (pimp)
noun
a man who is an agent for a prostitute or prostitutes and lives off their earnings; procurer.

pimp Synonyms
procurer, whoremonger, pander, white-slaver, runner, hustler*, flesh-peddler*; see also criminal.

Xzibit's TV show shows old, beat up cars being transformed into flashy, used-to-be old beat up cars with TVs, stereo systems, custom paint, wheels, and etc. But the old car's body and frame is still underneath. There is just a whitewashing, if you will, of the outside. Contrary to this theme, Christ does not take our old self and add new stuff to it...he destroys our old self! Paul says in Galatians 2:20 that he is "crucified with Christ." Believers are no different. Our old self is destroyed, and our new self is being constantly perfected and made holy day by day. This is sanctification...and it is glorious because of the heinousness of our sin, God would not accept our old selves with new "parts" or thoughts, language, marriage practices, etc. Sin must be destroyed and atoned for, and the only way that this happens is when Christ saves His sheep, destroys their flesh-life, and imparts His righteousness on them! This is true life transformation, and is signified by our baptism, which demonstrates that believers were buried with Jesus in death, and then raised up to walk in newness of life! To God be the glory, great things He has done!

The Question that Darwin Could't Answer

It is a little known fact that some of Charles Darwin's strongest initial objectors to his theory of natural evolution were palaeontologists. They claimed that if macro evolution were a fact, there would have to be millions of fossils of the intermediate varieties of species. Tons of species constantly evolving, should be tons of their leftover fossils, correct?

No. According to Zoologist Mark Ridley: "The fossil record of evolutionary change within single evolutionary lineages is very poor. If evolution is true, species originate through changes of ancestral species: one might expect to be able to see this in the fossil record. In fact it can rarely be seen. In 1859 Darwin could not cite a single example"(1).

But Darwin's time was years ago...so certainly today we would have better record of this happening, right? Palaeontologist David Raup of the Field Museum of Natural History said: "We are now 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time" (2, Italics mine).

For me, this serves as striking proof that we need be more diligent to test the claims of natural evolution, especially when we draw them out, such as with the fossil record of supposed intermediate species.

______________________________________________

(1) The Problems of Evolution, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1985, p.11.

(2) Conflicts Between Darwin and Palaeontology, Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, January 1979, p.25.

Quote for the Day

A thought for the natural evolutionist:

by: Voddie Baucham Jr.

"You are an accident. You are a mistake. You are a glorified ape. You are the result of random evolutionary processes. That's it. No rhyme. No reason. No purpose. You are ultimately nothing. This is the pathetic reality when evolution runs its ideological course. If the idea is carried to its logical conclusion, man has no more value than a field mouse; and if the field mouse is an endangered species that happens to share the man's property--guess who has to move?" (1)

________________________________________________

(1) Voddie Baucham Jr. The Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World. (Gen. Eds. John Piper and Justin Taylor), p. 55, italics mine.

The Evolution of the Woodpecker

An observation about the long-tonged woodpecker. It is known that this woodpecker has four distinguishing features that allow it to survive. They are: 1)Sharp talons for holding onto a tree, 2) A long, pointed, strong beak for piercing wood and reaching insects inside the tree, 3) An extremely long tongue for reaching insects, and 4) A membrane around their brain that keeps it from splattering against their skull when they are repeatedly pecking at a tree.

So my question to those who believe in macro evolution is this: How did the woodpecker evolve? All of these traits are needed for its survival, and take any one of these away, and you take the bird away. I think this is an excellent example of intelligent design. Now, there are many websites dedicated to disproving the thought that a Creator formed the woodpecker for a purpose. Some claim that us creationists have got it wrong in the way we describe the exact anatomy of the woodpecker's tongue, and therefore there must be no creator since somebody did not do their proper research before writing an article (kind of a large jump in their conclusion if you ask me). Others state that not all woodpeckers, such as the Sapsucker, have extremely long tongues. But the sapsucker feeds off the sap that oozes out of the hole it just bore in a tree. Does it need an extremely long tongue? Heck no...because the sap comes to it once it bores a hole in the tree. Yet, because of this micro evolutionary trait in this species, many natural evolutionists say that there can be no Creator because the sapsucker does not have a long tongue as do many other woodpeckers. This also seems to implicitly state that a Creator would only create the exact same kind of every species and is not clever enough to create variations. (Ex. This train of thought would state that a Creator would always create an orange tiger with black and white stripes and nothing else, no Siberian tigers or anything like that, just orange ones with black and white stripes).

Yet, regardless of what type of woodpecker we consider, we must remember that these birds are still woodpeckers, designed with different physical characteristics that allow their survival. If it evolved from something like a hummingbird, which also has a long beak, how would it do so since the hummingbird is missing the other three essential traits that most woodpeckers need to survive?

Evolution....Fact or Fiction?

This past semester I have studied the topic of evolution more than I ever had in the past. I have: 1) Studied it in theology, 2) Seen Ben Stein's movie Expelled, 3) heard Dr. John C Lennox of The University of Oxford present an excellent series of lectures on atheism, and 4) been reading his book, God's Undertaker. Has Science Buried God? It is an excellent piece, and i would recommend it to ANYBODY, Christian or non, who would like a scientific look into the reality of a Creator.

Of all the things I have learned this semester concerning evolution, one thing stands out. Dr. Lennox describes a fictional setting where his aunt baked a cake and had it analyzed by the world's top scientists. He stated: "The nutrition scientists will tell us about the number of calories in the cake and its nutritional effect; the biochemists will inform us about the structure of the proteins, fats etc. in the cake; the chemists, about the elements involved and their bonding; the physicists will be able to analyze the cake in terms of fundamental particles; and the mathematicians will no doubt offer us a set of elegant equations to describe the behaviour of those particles (bolded mine)." (1)

It seems as if they have all the basics of the cake covered. Yet one thing remains. Nobody knows WHY his aunt made the cake!!! All of these scientists in their distinguished fields each covered the how questions, but none could answer the question of “why?” Lennox states: “the only way we shall ever get an answer (to why the cake was made) is if (his aunt) reveals it to us.” (2)

And it is the same way with the creation of the earth. Our sciences can answer many of the “how” questions, but none can touch the “why” question. That answer we will leave up to God in His Word. For Genesis 1:1 states, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Now, many criticize the Bible for its lack of detail in these opening chapters. But the Bible was never meant to be a scientific account, for if it was, then it would have been of no use until about a century ago when scientific study was adequate enough to answer for some of the “how” answers. The story of creation was meant to answer the question of "who" and "why," and if you must insist on an answer to the question of "how," it says so as well. God created by His Word.

We are just beginning...more to come. And please....if you read this, make a comment of some sort. If you agree...say so. If you disagree...say so! More comments and interests will without a doubt equal more posts.

___________________________________________

(1) John C. Lennox. God's Undertaker. Has Science Buried God? p.40

(2) Ibid.

More Goodies....

Okay....so Washer got me fired up. Here's a few more shorter tid-bits that should be seen. Watch the Osteen one first!



No comments need be made about what Osteen has to say. I will let Piper speak for me.

Don't go through life not having heard this...

To the three of you that read this...sorry for the delay in a new post. I've been held up by some minor things such as exams, traveling to the Congo, accepting my Nobel Peace Prize, etc. Anyway, i thought i would post one of the greatest sermons that i have ever heard. In it, Paul Washer speaks boldly to the youth of America, but the sermon is definitely applicable to any believer, regardless of age. So do something for me. Take an hour (seriously...you can watch American Idol later...) and listen to something that is going to change your walk with the Lord. For my non-believing audience, it just might spark your interest in true Christianity...

LET THE CHILDREN COME TO ME...my thoughts on Luke 18:15-17

A question has come to me involving the meaning Jesus' words in this passage. Is this, as Calvin says, a promotion of infant baptism (1) or is Jesus simply using the children as a illustration in His teaching? There are many today who have taken this to mean that we should baptize children because they are safe in God's hands.

In his commentary on the Harmony of the Gospels, Calvin states; "Infants are renewed by the Spirit of God, according to the capacity of their age, till that power which was concealed within them grows by degrees, and becomes fully manifest at the proper time"(2). It seems, according to Calvin, that Christ is implying an underlying age of accountability where children are protected by God until they are able to comprehend such matters as sin, repentance, Christ's substitutionary death, etc... But is Calvin making too much out of this passage...I believe so.

Now, I do believe that children are saved until a certain age when God will hold them accountable, and as far as what that age is...i have no idea, and in fact, believe that nobody knows exactly what that age is except God Himself. This is a subject that the Bible is not extremely explicit on. To show my hand, I hold onto the teaching underlying the narrative of 2 Samuel 12:23 where David says that he will someday go to his son who had recently died. I believe that this subtly shows that children are in God's care until a certain age. Again...what is that age? Alvin Reid says "there is no set age of accountability", nor "there is no singular biblical passage that clearly elaborates this concept" (3).

So...what is Jesus talking about in Luke 18? I believe to answer this question, we must study the passage in the larger scope of the chapter. If we believe that scripture is truly divinely inspired (2 Tim. 3), then we must also believe that God had His hand in the placement of biblical books, chapters, and passages. Therefore, in studying the Word, we must be quick to not isolate a specific text for study. For example, many, many people do this with the Parable of the Lost Son, yet as Al Mohler remarkably demonstrated in a sermon on Luke 15, the Parable is not to be read on its own, but as a continual response of Christ to the Pharisees and their hardness of heart as seen in verses 1-3. In the same way, look at what our passage of study is surrounded by.

Luke 18:1-8 God's mercy shown to a poor widow

Luke 18:9-14 God's mercy shown to a repentant tax collector

Luke 18:15-17 (our passage) God's mercy shown to infants

Luke 18:18-30 God's mercy refused to one in great power/ wealth. (please don't read too much into this)

Do you see the similarities? The majority of this chapter shows that the mercy of our Lord is given to the low, the humble, and the utterly helpless! William Hendriksen agrees, stating; "The meaning is: the only possible way to enter the kingdom is by receiving it readily and trustfully as a chlld accepts a gift. A child is not too proud to accept a gift! (4). What a wonderful testimony to the Sovereignty of our Lord, who chooses not the proud, arrogant, or powerful, or super-religious, but the ones that are not designated as the "cream of the crop." A child, especially an infant, is totally, 100% dependant on their parents for everything. In means of salvation, we are likewise 100% dependant on our Heavenly Father, who gives grace to the humble.

In conclusion, it is my belief that this passage should not be used as a means infant baptism, for it is a very shallow one at that, but instead as Jesus' teaching through demonstration on His goodness and control of Salvation!

Footnotes:

(1) John Calvin. Calvin's Commentaries- Vol. XVI p. 390.
(2) Ibid.
(3) Alvin Reid. Introduction to Evangelism. p.245.
(4)William Hendriksen. New Testament Commentary- Luke. p.830.

I've been punked...

Sooo....i am usually pretty up on the April fool's jokes. One of my roommates at Clemson was a large prankster. And regardless of the occasion, whether it was April 1st or not, the rubber band used to find its way onto the kitchen sink sprayer more times than desired. A few years (and a few change of shirts later) i learned to pick up on a coming prank pretty quickly.

That was until today. As i opened my email to check today's messages after class, i noticed that Google was introducing some new email tools, one of which was called Google Custom Time. To my suprise, this feature allowed you to post-date your emails, as if you wrote them a day or a few years ago. You could even select an option that placed the email in the recepients box having already "been read" by the recepient. They would think that they just glanced over your email, and that you did send it to them when you said you would.

This came with a variety of testimonials from users who had "cheated the system" by winning contests, getting out of missing an appointment, or etc...Not looking at the fine print too closely, i immediately began to lay out just how i was going to use this as a teachable moment with the 3 of you who read my blog. You would have learned just how this is related to the decline of morality in America, and the need for the truth of the Gospel to penetrate every aspect of our society once again as it did a few centuries ago.

Upon doing some more research for the Google-bashing blog post, i began to notice a few things. First, one of the main ingredients that allows Google to post date emails is what they call an e-flux capacitor. Now...this may slip past many of you, but not by someone who's favorite movie trilogy series is Back To The Future! The Flux Capacitor is what allowed the time machine to go back in time. It was somewhere around this point in my studies that i realized the excellent April fools prank that the entire staff at Google had just laid hard on me (and hopefully 1/2 of America as well).

All i can say is this: Well done, Google...well done.