Posted in Apologetic Links, christian apologetics, Christianity, Cornelius Van Til, John Frame, Presuppositional Apologetics, presuppositionalism, Reformed, Theology, Van Til on August 1, 2015 |
5 Comments »
This is part 2 in looking at the images and analogies the Bible gives in describing the church. We are looking at these motif to draw out the implications for readers to see the importance of the church in our own lives in light of how important the church is in God’s eyes.
God sees the church as a body
- The Bible describe Christ relationship to the Church as head to the body
- “He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.” (Colossians 1:18)
- As the head Christ controls the rest of the church which is His body.
- Note also how this analogy drives Paul to suffer for the church (Colossians 1:24)
- Other passages: Ephesians 1:23, 2:15.
- Picture: Health is important; today’s fitness industry reveals our culture’s obsession with being fit:
- “The IHRSA also reported that the total revenue in the fitness industry reached $21.8 billion in 2012.[xv] This is a significant increase from the $20.3 billion made in 2010 by the industry.[xvi] Since 2008, health club memberships rose by 10%, while the number of non-member patrons also increased by 5%.[xvii] This particular number went up from 7.7 million patrons in 2008 to 8.3 in 2012. [xviii]”
- Another website noted that there’s 29, 501 businesses with 573,328 people working in this industry.
- “…over 60% of Americans regularly participate in fitness sports as of 2012.[xix] This is the fifth consecutive year in which these numbers have remained stable at 60% or more[xx]. This goes to show that the fitness trend is not going away soon in America and the fitness industry is only going to grow stronger each year. All in all, fitness is a profitable industry in the US and the numbers will only continue to rise.”
- If people are willing to go all out to take care of God’s temple that the Lord has given them how more so should they care and prioritize the church, the body of Christ! Do you value the body of Christ?
- In the end it comes down to the issue of love because that’s what can sustain you to be selfless and sacrificial for imperfect people in the church; do you have the Love of God in your life?
- Practice your spiritual gifts (Romans 12:4-5)!
- Don’t treat the church as a bad gym membership: You go once a year, merely to pay your dues.
- Become a member: “because we are members of His body” (Ephesians 5:30); explanation of church membership class.
Read Full Post »
Posted in Apologetic Links, christian apologetics, Christian worldview, Christianity, Don Green, Grace Community Church, Grace to You, Homeosexual Agenda, Reformed, Theology on July 24, 2015 |
15 Comments »
This is a post that I forgot to share before I posted our Index to Veritas Domain’s Marathon Series on the Christian Response to Homosexuality. Be sure to check out that post for more resources concerning the issue of homosexuality and the Bible.
Fred Butler alerted me to this resource over at his blog. Don Green, a long time pastor at John MacArthur’s Church (Grace Community) and leader at Grace to You Broadcast is now pastoring as a senior Pastor at Truth Community Church. They have recently completed a conference on the topic of the Bible and Homosexuality in which they are calling the church to have a courageous confidence in Christ.
The nice thing is that they have made the audios to this conference available for the world on their website here.
Here’s the sessions linked to the audios:
1. Refuting the Five Myths on Homosexuality
2. Why Homosexuality is Wrong
3. Scripture, Shellfish, and Homosexual Sin
4. Addressing the Heart of Same-Sex Attraction
5. The Future of the Church and Homosexuality
I have benefited from Don Green’s preaching in the past. May this edify God’s people.
Read Full Post »
This is part 4 of our look at Matthew Vines’ pre-commitment or starting points that prejudice him towards rejecting the Bible’s rejection of same-sex relationship even before he began researching for his book God and the Gay Christian. Here in this post I want to address a paragraph in the book in which he thinks it would be hard for Christians to embrace the traditional interpretation of the Bible’s rejection of homosexuality.
Matthew Vines In His Own Words
On page 28 of the book Vines stated the following:
If you are like me, you grew up in a community that embraced this view of human sexuality without controversy. But increasingly, even for Christians who affirm the Bible’s full authority, the traditional understanding has become harder to accept. Especially for young believers, the trouble starts when we put names, faces, and outcomes to what the traditional interpretation means in practice”
In other words, for younger Christians who personally know homosexuals and what they go through, Vines believes that this would make them bent towards rejecting the traditional interpretation of the Bible that homosexuality is a sin. Note here that Vines has said nothing about any consideration for what does the Bible objectively have to say about same-sex relations; just the mere knowledge of a homosexual makes it hard to accept that homosexuality is a sin according to Vines. But is this without it’s problem?
The Problem with Vines’ view
- Matthew Vines’ line of reasoning here does not logically follow. Just because one personally knows a homosexual it does not logically follow that the desire and behavior of homosexuality itself is not sinful. Vines commits a categorical fallacy since knowing a person with a certain desire and/or behavior is not the same thing as knowing the ethical value of a desire and behavior.
- The error of Vines’ reasoning is best illustrated when it is applied to other sins. Vines himself believes that adultery is a sin because he believes that Christians must be in committed monogamous relationships. Yet is Vines willing to say that his “traditional understanding” about the sinfulness of adultery “has become harder to accept” once he can put names and faces to adulterers? There are some “nice,” “kind” and “loving” adulterers out there. Does Vines know of any? Does knowing adulterers as persons somehow make the act of adultery somehow less heinous?
- Again, being able to “put names and faces” of individuals associated with certain pet sins doesn’t mean that it must be harder to accept those sins as sins. Think of all those who work intimately counseling alcoholics, drug addicts and felons as their calling. Their familiarity with those who practice sinful behavior and struggle with sinful desires doesn’t make them necessarily less inclined to see sins as sins.
- Make no mistake that Romans 1:26-27 does not speak highly of same-sex relationship: “26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.” This passage is situated in Romans chapter one that talks about the sinfulness of man and God’s judgement.
- What are we to make of those who personally know homosexuals and suddenly approve of homosexual desires and acts? After identifying same-sex relationship as sinful and part of God’s judgment Paul goes on to say in Romans 1:32 that “although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.” God does not approve of those who call what is sinful as “good.”
- This problematic pre-commitment is a symptom of Matthew Vines’ misplaced role of experience over Scripture which we have documented and refuted in part 2.
Read Full Post »
Posted in Christianity, Reformed, Marine Corp, Sin, Terrorism, Military, total depravity, biblical worldview, Marines, Chattanooga Shooting on July 17, 2015 |
9 Comments »
My heart goes out to the loved ones of the four Marines who were killed yesterday during the Chattanooga Shooting. I imagine Liberals and Democrats would want to take advantage of this unfortunate incident to cry for more gun control such as restriction on more weapons that could be purchased and also more areas that are legally gun free zone.
While I do think most gun-control activists are sincere I think many are mistaken at a fundamental level of understanding human nature. One wonders if they understand the extent of man’s depravity. I think “Gun Free Zone” that is not enforced with people who are armed is quite a naive concept; in fact it is dangerous and irresponsible on the part of lawmakers and bureaucrats who come up with such a thing. The biggest problem I think is that it neglect to account for the reality of human depravity, that those who are wicked and sinful and want to carry out sinful terrorist acts are not going to stop when you merely have a sticker that says “No guns.”
Sadly yesterday’s shooting is a case in point:
Original picture SOURCE
Having a picture and a sign that says no guns is just as persuasive to a depraved gunman as an “Obama ’08” bumper sticker is for a Republican in 2015. It’s “irrelevant” to a simple criminal let alone a committed Muslim extremist. Actually it is relevant for such gunman: it allows them to face lesser resistance to their wicked schemes.
Read Full Post »
Posted in Apologetic Links, christian apologetics, Christianity, Cornelius Van Til, Gordon Clark, Matt Slick, Presuppositional Apologetics, presuppositionalism, Reformed, Theology, Van Til on July 16, 2015 |
6 Comments »