You Gotta Love A Pastor With Guts

And here's one right here. His name is Stephen Boissoin. He is a pastor in Alberta Canada and was recently fined $7000 dollars and told to cease and desist in sharing his opinion. What opinion is that? Pastor Stephen holds the Biblical viewpoint that homosexuality is sin.

Read the story HERE.

Disciple Making Recipe

Found this interesting piece HERE.

The New and Improved Seeker-Sensitive Recipe for Making Disciples

Heaping Portions of Culturally Appealing Entertainment
Generous Scoops of Songs That Have Little or No Doctrinal Content
Buckets of Sermons That Teach Practical Self-Help Lessons and Pop-Psych Mixed With a Sprinkling of Out-of-Context Bible Verses
The Yeast From a Small Group Study Lead by Un-Trained Lay-People Who Pool Their Biblical Ignorance by Asking the Question, “What Does This Verse Mean to You?”

The Biblical Recipe for Making Disciples - Acts 2:42

A Tenacious Devotion to the Teaching of the Apostles (God’s Word Proclaimed in Song and Sermon) Under A Trained Pastor - 2 Tim 4:1-2, 2 Tim 2:2
Fellowship
Breaking of Bread (Lord's Supper)
Prayers

Which recipe is your church cooking with?

Was Paul A Pragmatist?

By Pastor Larry DeBruyn

Would the apostle have employed "any" means to save some?

These days, pastors and churches will seemingly stoop to anything to build a crowd. Rock-'n'-roll, the culture's dominant music, is fast becoming "the" staple of so-called praise and worship. In their attempt to "connect" with their audience, I've heard pastors use lewd language in their preaching. One church featured an Elvis impersonator, while another, in a Halloween-themed "sanctuary" with a haunted house, featured a Michael Jackson Thriller dance. Pastors even advertise sex-sermons on billboards in ways that offend non-Christians who are tired of the permissiveness of our sex-crazed culture. American "churchianity" is addicted to the unprincipled principle of, "just do it to just get it."

All of the aforementioned, and more, seek justification from a statement in the Bible where Paul wrote, "I have become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some" (1 Corinthians 9:22b). Contortedly, contemporaries interpret this verse to provide apostolic endorsement to do anything to reach anyone. Such a ministry motif is pragmatism, a belief that legitimates any practice so long as it achieves the presumed result of saving some. To the pragmatist, the end justifies the means.

Yet no matter how it is slanted, pragmatism is liberalism. While liberals depart from orthodox belief, pragmatists depart from orthodox behavior. According to pragmatism, even if it's wrong, it's right, so long as it works. Pragmatists will do anything to attract everyone, and churches are full of this philosophy of doing business now-a-days. Noble ends supposedly justify ignoble means. A pragmatist possesses no "set-in-stone" convictions. They will do whatever it takes to win--even cheat. If it does it, do it.

If idols will attract a crowd, then carve the wood, mold the gold, and hew the rocks. The Israelite king Jeroboam was a pragmatist. In defiance of Yahweh's choice of Jerusalem to be the place where the nation was to worship Him, and because it was inconvenient for Israelites to make their mandated pilgrimages to the Holy City, the pragmatic king defied the will of God and created handy "high places" (praise and worship centers) all over the land, especially in Bethel and Dan (See 1 Kings 12:28-30.). By his example, Jeroboam was known in history as the king who "who did sin, and who made Israel to sin" (1 Kings 14:15).

Bored with the "traditional" worship of Yahweh at Jerusalem (i.e., ho-hum . . . same-o' same-o'), and for the experience of innovatively worshipping Baal (i.e., thrills and chills), one might even envision apostate Israelites from the southern-most town of Beersheba by-passing Jerusalem (approximately 50 miles to the north) and journeying all the way to Dan (approximately 150 miles to the north) to observe the idolatrous spectacle. Besides, Baal promised them prosperity that was not dependent upon their behavior (See Deuteronomy 28:1 ff.). Against this backdrop, we turn now to address the issue of what Paul meant when he confessed, "I have become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some." Was he a situational pragmatist who, like Jeroboam, would have built "high places" in order to get people "saved"?

To understand this issue from Paul's perspective, the context is the key (Read 1 Corinthians 8:1-9:27.). In these chapters, Paul is not addressing the subject of methods. One missiologist wisely observes: "These classic words [i.e., "I have become all things to all men"] are often used by missionaries to justify diverse methods of reaching people for Christ. But that is certainly a misinterpretation."[1] In the flow of these chapters, Paul is discussing mores (the folkways and customs of a culture), not methods. For example, in Lithuania, it was considered rude for a speaker to stand before an audience with his hand in his pocket, or a man to whistle in public places (Personally, I too find this annoying.). So when I preached, I kept my hands out of my pockets! It was no "issue" to me, but it was to the Lithuanians. So I accommodated myself to the custom.

Accordingly, the apostle grouped people as to whether, or not, they were "Jews," "under the Law," "without the law" and "weak" (1 Corinthians 9:20-22). Paradoxically, though Paul considered himself "free from all" these groups, he also considered himself a "slave to all" all these groups (1 Corinthians 9:19). While he did not allow diverse mores to intimidate him, the apostle did, in his ministry, accommodate his outward behavior to the cultural consensus. Presumably, that is why he allowed Timothy to be circumcised (Acts 16:3). As one scholar summarized: "Contextually, then, what Paul meant by becoming 'all things to all men' was doing all things possible to avoid prohibitions, strictures, and offenses peculiar to a culture."[2]

To save some, Paul politely submitted to and served the customs of others. He became "all things to all men." But, to evangelize the unevangelized, the apostle uncompromisingly employed one method--preaching. He employed this method in synagogues, churches, and at Mars Hill. And with this one method the apostle preached one message. As he stated to the Corinthians: "For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified" (1 Corinthians 2:2, KJV). While the places and the people to whom he ministered varied, his method and his message remained consistent. Yet in doing so, Paul served people, for as he wrote, "For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake" (Emphasis mine, 2 Corinthians 4:5, KJV). It is at this juncture that contemporary Christendom had better beware: Different methods may evoke different messages (See Galatians 1:6-10.).

As to the question, "Was Paul a Pragmatist?" John Makujina summarizes: "Becoming 'all things to all men' does not refer to an offensive strategy of inventiveness, creativity, persuasiveness, or accommodation to new modes of evangelism that key in on the latest public novelty. Paul's references here are purely preventative. He simply wished to eliminate any nonessential barriers that would hinder his proclamation of the gospel."[3]

No, Paul was not a pragmatist. He did not employ fleshly or worldly means to attain a "so-called" spiritual good. In fact, he recognized the "flesh" to be in mortal combat against the "Spirit" (Galatians 5:19-21). Unlike many of today's churches, he most certainly would abhor any fleshly method employed to make a crowd. To win the world, the church cannot afford to become like the world. "Fleshly tactics" will not win spiritual battles. If those tactics are used, the church then fights on the devil's "turf" and will surely be defeated.

Confessions Of A Pentecostal Calvinist

By James K. A. Smith - Professor at Calvin College

"It can be a little intimidating in a Reformed context to admit that one is Pentecostal. It's a bit like being at the ballet and letting it slip that you're partial to and country music. Both claims tend to clear a room. And yet I happily define myself as a Reformed charismatic, a Pentecostal Calvinist.

It's been said that testimony is the poetry of Pentecostal experience, so permit me to begin with a personal poem to provide some background. I wasn't raised in the church; rather, I was quite "miraculously saved" the day after my 18th birthday through my girlfriend (now wife!), who was doing a little missionary dating.

I received my earliest formation among the Plymouth Brethren, in a sector that defined itself as anti-Pentecostal and took a certain pride in knowing that the "miraculous" gifts had ceased to function with the death of the last apostle. Through a path that is convoluted and riddled with hurts, our spiritual pilgrimage eventually took us across the threshold of a Pentecostal church where we were welcomed, embraced, and transformed.

There, in that Pentecostal church in Stratford, Ontario —once home to Aimee Semple McPherson—God showed up. Encountering him in ways I hadn't experienced or imagined before, God shook my intellectual framework and rattled my spiritual cage at the same time.

But let me add one more layer to this story: Just as I was being immersed in the Spirit's activity and presence in Pentecostal spirituality and worship, I started a master's degree in philosophical theology at the Institute for Christian Studies, a graduate school in the Dutch Reformed tradition at the University of Toronto. So my week looked a bit odd: Monday to Friday I was immersed in the intellectual resources of the Reformed tradition, diving into the works of Calvin, Kuyper, and Dooyeweerd.

Then on Sunday we'd show up at the Pentecostal church where, to be honest, things got pretty crazy sometimes. It was a long way from Toronto to Stratford, if you know what I mean—about the same distance from Geneva to Azusa Street.

For a lot of folks, that must sound like trying to inhabit two different space-time continuums. But I never experienced much tension between these worlds. Of course, my church and academic world didn't bump into one another. Dooyeweerd and Jack Hayford don't often cross paths. But in a way, I felt that they met in me—and they seemed to fit. I experienced a deep resonance between the two. In fact, I would suggest that being charismatic actually makes me a better Calvinist; my being Pentecostal is actually a way for me to be more Reformed. Sovereignty and Surprise.

Reformed folks praise, value, honor, and make central the sovereignty of God. The theological giants of the Reformed tradition—Calvin, Edwards, Kuyper, and others—have put God's sovereignty at the center and heart of a Reformed "world- and life-view." God is the Lord of the cosmos; God is free from having to meet our expectations; God is sovereign in his election of the people of God.

I think there is an interesting way in which Pentecostals live out a spirituality that takes that sovereignty really, really seriously. In particular, I think Pentecostal spirituality and charismatic worship take the sovereignty of God so seriously that you might actually be surprised by God every once in a while. You are open and expectant that the Spirit of God is sometimes going to surprise you, because God is free to act in ways that might differ from your set of expectations

We can see this right in the DNA of the church. The church, you'll remember, is "genetically" Pentecostal. The birthplace of the church is Pentecost, at which some pretty strange stuff happened, strange enough that others didn't know what to make of it and so concluded that the apostles were drunk. But what I find really interesting about Pentecost is not just that St. Peter participated in the surprise of the Spirit, but that he had the courage to stand up and essentially say, "This is what the Spirit was talking about" (Acts 2:16).

Peter was open enough to God doing something new and different that in the face of the madness that was Pentecost Sunday, he could boldly proclaim, "This is God!" When Jesus ascended and promised the Spirit, I don't imagine the disciples expected the scene that unfolded at Pentecost. And yet Peter exhibits openness to God surprising our expectations.

The heart and soul of that Pentecostal spirituality is not the manifestations, but rather the courage and openness to see God in those unexpected manifestations, and to say, "This is what the Spirit promised."

That means acknowledging God's sovereignty in worship in ways that have to be learned. I think most Reformed folk have learned habits of worship that effectively constrain the sovereignty of God by adopting highly defined and narrow expectations of the Spirit's operations.

I long for a kind of "Pentecostalized" Reformed spirituality that expects the sovereign Lord to show up in ways that might surprise us. If we take our Reformed convictions about God's sovereignty seriously, then we can, with Peter, be boldly open to the Spirit's surprise. We need not immediately kick back in fear at what might sometimes appear to be the madness of Pentecost, but can have the courage to say the Spirit is at work.

I think that's exactly the sensibility embodied by Jonathon Edwards, America's greatest theologian. While presenting labyrinthine theological sermons in monotone from his pulpit, the Puritan preacher witnessed strange manifestations, convulsing bodies, and shouts and yelps among his congregants. But Edwards the Reformed theologian was discerning enough not to write this off, but to say, "There's something of the Spirit in this." In Pentecostal spirituality, the Calvinist conviction about the sovereignty of God is extended to worship in a way that makes us open to and even expectant of the sovereign Lord surprising us. The Goodness of Embodiment.

Reformed folk, particularly in the Dutch tradition of Kuyper and Dooyeweerd, often emphasize the "goodness of creation"— that God created a material universe that he pronounced "very good" (Gen. 1:31). And although it is fallen, God is redeeming this world, not redeeming us out of it. An important piece of that affirmation is the goodness of embodiment—the goodness of the stuff we bump into, the bodies we inhabit.

But that's precisely why I've always found it a bit strange that Reformed worship so often treats human beings as if we're brains-on-a-stick. All week long we talk about how good creation is, how good embodiment is. But then we have habits of worship that merely deposit great ideas in our heads, making us rather cerebral disciples. Despite all our talk about the goodness of creation and embodiment, in Reformed worship the body doesn't show up that much.

Pentecostals, on the other hand, embody their spirituality. I would argue that Pentecostal worship is the extension of the Reformed intuition about the goodness of creation and the goodness of embodiment. We can see this in just a few examples:

First, Pentecostals believe in healing—and they don't mean only "spiritual" healing. They think physical healing is part of what the Cross accomplished. God doesn't want to just save your soul; God also cares about your body. The Pentecostal emphasis on the healing of the body is an affirmation of the goodness of embodiment.

Second, Pentecostals use their whole bodies in worship. Pentecostal worship can get a little messy; indeed, sometimes there are bodies everywhere! I can still remember the first time I ever raised my hands in worship—there in that Pentecostal church in Stratford. Tentatively and awkwardly raising your arms, hands trembling, you feel like an idiot—and, of course, that's precisely the point. To be in a position with hands outstretched, or prostrate on the floor, is to be in a position of vulnerability and humility. And that can be an especially powerful spiritual discipline for Reformed Christians, who are probably prone to a certain staid confidence in our intellectual prowess and doctrinal precision.

I thank God for those practices of embodied humiliation that are part and parcel of Pentecostal worship; they were exactly the counterweight I needed as a young Reformed philosopher. But they were also fleshing out the theories I was absorbing.

There is a third sense in which Pentecostals enact the Reformed affirmation of embodiment: It's in touch. When Pentecostals pray for one another, we touch one another. We lay hands on our sister or brother. Pentecostal worship always involves dedicated periods of prayer—"altar time"—that bring together the people of God with hands clasped, embraced in prayer, laying hands in hope. Faith, hope, and love are channeled and charged when the community expresses itself in that kind of touch.

Because Pentecostals live out the Reformed affirmation of both the sovereignty of God and the goodness of embodiment, I don't experience much tension between these core aspects of Reformed identity and Pentecostal spirituality.

The explosion of the Spirit's work in world Christianity reminds us that the church's DNA is Pentecostal. It is important for Reformed Christians to not be scared of that, and in fact, to see in it an invitation of the Spirit to live out the Reformed intuitions we talk about all the time."

Is Christ's "Savior Of The World" Title Contradictory?

"And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as Savior of the world."
1 John 4:14.

It has been argued that Jesus could not technically be the 'Savior of the world', because not everyone in the world will be saved. Thus, the doctrine has been spawned that would have us believe that the words ‘Savior’ and/or 'world' must not really mean Savior in the sense of 'Savior of all mankind' or that the word 'world' must mean the 'elect', or only those who've been chosen for salvation.

These who struggle with Christ’s “Savior of the world” title as contradictory seem to have no problem with the Bible’s other beautiful paradoxes like: to be first – you must be last; to find life – you must lose it; to live – you must die; to be the greatest – you must become the least. So what’s difficult about the fact that Jesus is indeed the Savior of the entire world? More on that later.

Is this really as problematic as it may seem?

Obviously, Jesus being the Savior of the world isn’t the same thing as saying that everyone will be saved. That is clearly pointed out in scripture.

The Bible also calls Jesus the “Bread of Life”, the “Only Way”, the “Door” of salvation – so do these titles become untrue of Christ because not everyone will eat of the ‘Bread of Life’, follow the ‘Only Way’, or go through the “Door”? Of course not.

Jesus, indeed, is all of these things – and is the Savior of the world.

So how can He be called Savior of the World if not everyone will be saved in the world?

Because Jesus is the Savior – not A savior, not the savior of some, not just my Savior, but the Savior – the Savior of the world. It’s because of the fact that He is more than enough, more than able, more than capable of saving every single human being on this planet – that makes Him Savior of the world. There is no other Savior – we can’t save ourselves. There is no other way other than Jesus Christ.

Which is precisely why the apostle said:

"There is salvation in none other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." Acts 4:12.

I was eating breakfast with my son this morning at our favorite little ‘greasy spoon’ restaurant, and on the wall in front of us was a little sign that said: “You had a choice – And you chose us. Thank you!” That’s God’s offer to us. God in His infinite love has given mankind a choice – we can either reject or accept this beautiful offer. It’s open to anyone who will repent of his or her sin and put his or her trust in Him.

Christ is the Savior of the world – just because some won’t take the offer doesn’t diminish His power or what or Who He is in any way. It just speaks of the fact that God enabled us to choose – which goes back to the Garden of Eden – whether we will accept or embrace Him.

The real reason some find it difficult to accept Christ’s unlimited atonement is that it leads to man’s free choice – which means that God’s grace can be rejected or resisted. That means a theological system known as TULIP begins to crumble. I've discovered in my studies that a tulip is a beautiful flower, but it's not a very good representation of the God of the Bible.

And this is precisely why this hill is worth dying on for those with this system. To admit that Christ’s atonement is unlimited is to then concede that man must have free choice which means grace can be resisted. That would mean a theological system may be flawed – and that, to them, is unthinkable.

Is Christ's Atonement "Limited"?

Great discussion going on over HERE.

We're taking a look at the doctrine of Limited Atonement that states that Jesus' atoning death wasn't for everyone, but only for a select few of His choosing (forgive the oversimplification).

Looking at this doctrine through 2 Peter 3:9, this passage alone seems to be very problematic for the Limited Atonement view. The verse says:

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

Peter's phrase "longsuffering to us-ward" cannot be addressed to only the elect. It must include all mankind. If not, the phrase that follows "not willing that any should perish" must apply to only the elect. But that second statement can only mean all mankind since it refers to a perishing that certainly doesn't endanger the elect.

So there are two possibilities - this is in reference to either: perishing under the penalty of sin or escaping that penalty by repenting; OR, perishing in the fire that will destroy the world or escaping it. Certainly, perishing in a world destroying fire is no more applicable to the saved than perishing under the penalty of sin.

I get that the book of 2 Peter is addressed to the 'elect', but that doesn't keep Peter from talking about God's desire to see the whole world saved - including the fate of unbelievers.

Peter may not be speaking to mankind in general in his letter, but he is certainly not speaking ONLY about the elect in his letter either.

Otherwise - Is it the elect who are the last day scoffers? Is it the elect who perished in the flood? Is it the elect to whom God is longsuffering, less they perish in the coming judgment?

Furthermore, if you believe in 'irresistible grace' that claims that God can make anyone get saved any time He wants - why would longsuffering even need to be mentioned, if talking about the elect? That would imply God is longsuffering with Himself. That would be quite odd to say the least.

Another major problem for those who interpret this verse as talking about those already saved is the redundancy: God is not willing that any of those He has sovereignly elected not to perish to perish? And He is longsuffering to accomplish this goal?

That appears to be a very difficult argument to sustain.

Why Unity In Doctrine Is Essential - Part 1

By Dr. Opal Reddin

We agree with David Wells when he says, "there is no Christian faith in the absence of 'sound doctrine' (1 Tim. 1:10; Tit. 1:9)." Without it, we have neither the Father nor the Son (2 Jn. 9). We are told to "contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). We must "guard" this faith (2 Tim. 1:13-14; 4:3). We know that this faith was stated in propositional truths, for Paul wrote to the Corinthians: "I plead with you that you all speak the same thing and that there be no division among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment" (1 Cor. 1:10). It is on this basis that churches have statements of fundamental truths. Belief and practice are inextricably linked (1 Jn. 2:3-3:18).

There are two kinds of division, one of God and the other of Satan. When Paul warned against division, he was referring to bad division, caused by false doctrine. Some "depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons" (1 Tim. 4:1). In John's Epistles he warned, "Many antichrists have come . . .they went out from us, but they were not of us" (1 Jn. 2:18-19). Regarding fellowship, he wrote, "If anyone comes with another doctrine, do not receive him . . .for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds" (2 Jn. 10,11). Paul told the Romans to "mark those who cause division contrary to the doctrine which you have learned" and avoid them (16:17).

There is good, necessary division, the result of being separated from Error by the Truth (Jn. 17:17). Jesus said, "I came to bring division" (Lk. 12:51); He separated His Church from the Judaism that rejected Him (Jn. 1:11). Paul maintained this separation by exposing the Judaizing heresy as "another (accursed) Gospel" (Gal. 1:6-9). Without this division, Christianity would have gradually become merely a sect of Judaism.

Why Have Doctrines?

I came across an old letter written by Dr. Opal Reddin in response to some A/G ministers asking this question years ago. Given the current struggle that many face as to why it is important to believe the right things about Christianity and the Bible - thought this letter brings up some great points:


"Do we want doctrinal purity? Do we want doctrines? Referring to Pentecostals and Charismatics, one very popular speaker/author recently said that "people don't want doctrine, they just want Him (God)." The writer seems to believe that people can experience God without all the fuss about doctrine.

The Assemblies of God has been delineated as being strong on Experience and weak on Doctrine. Admittedly, we have been too busy trying to evangelize the world to take time to write many "scholarly" tomes, but we have known what we believe. In my time at Fuller Theological Seminary, I was often asked, "What does the AoG believe about this?" I suffered no embarrassment whatever as I always had an answer for any who asked about any doctrinal belief.

It's true that when the 300-plus Pentecostals met in Hot Springs, April 2, 1914 to form the General Council of the Assemblies of God they disdained a formal doctrinal statement. It indeed was a biblical experience they could not deny that had caused them to be driven out of their respective denominations. Since the majority were already "Bereans" and well grounded in the Word, they saw no need for a rigid creed.

(However) It was new "Revelation" that made the young movement realize the need for written "Statement of Fundamental Truths". The (new) "Revelation" was also termed "The New Issue", "Jesus Only", "Oneness", and "Pentecostal Unitarianism". To counteract what the majority could not accept, sixteen doctrines were enunciated at the fourth General Council in 1916. The second doctrinal statement, "The One True God", is almost as lengthy as all the others combined because of the need to defend Trinitarian doctrine against the errors of Unitarianism.

In Anointed To Serve, Dr. William Menzies wrote, "It is remarkable after all of these years the Statement of Fundamental Truths, as it was called, has remained virtually unchanged, with but minor rewording for the sake of clarification in recent years." (GPH, 1971, 119). Presently we face a deja vu: Many Pentecostals and Charismatics are saying ones belief about the Godhead does not matter. I urge each of you to review your understanding of the Trinity. In fact, since many of the "Latter Rain" false teachings are being recycled, why not teach our 16 fundamental doctrines to your congregation? A member of the board of directors told me last week that he's teaching them in Sunday school and the class is growing! They love doctrine, well taught."

In Spirit and Truth,

Opal Reddin


My note: We are definitely having deja vu again today! This time around I would urge our ministers to review their understanding of the Virgin Birth, Substitutionary Atonement, Inerrancy of Scripture and the reality of Hell, just to name of few. Because there are so called "Evangelicals" today who are questioning the veracity of these core doctrines of Christianity. People do love doctrine well taught. We've been doing a Wednesday night study of these 16 fundamental truths and the groups are growing. In fact, we've had better attendance for this study than any other - and folks even had to buy a book for their study groups. I think too often pastors underestimate the desire their people have to learn Biblical doctrine and be versed well enough to never "suffer embarrassment" from not being able to answer a question about their faith. In fact such knowledge may just keep them out of divorce court, the counselor's office, the Kingdom Hall, the Mormon Temple....