a view of the woods » Apologetics

Why A Minor Tweak Has Huge Gospel Implications: Watch Out For False Teachers

Lionel Woods — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 15:55:18 +0000

I wasn’t going to post anything today. As I have not written anything in the last few days (the post are on auto-publish just changing the dates and times). This is a live recording

I am trying to smile as I regret posting this but I have to put this out there. Every since the resurrection of Christ false teachers have sprung up in all shapes, colors and sizes. Some of these false teachers are obvious. They look, smell and sound like wolves, you can see ’em coming miles away. You know to put up your young. To lock the gate. To sound the alarm. To head for the hills. To load your rifle. And to shoot when they are in gazing range.

However MOST false teaching does not come that way. I actually believe those big wolves are just a smoke screen from our adversary to slide in the ones that look, walk, sound, act, talk and graze on the pasture just like the rest of us sheep. For all intents and purposes you really can’t tell the difference.

We currently live in a society that is saturated in easy quick fixes. We don’t think critically, we want to be so politically correct as to not offend others. We want to blend in and not cause disruption. This is especially the case for us who aren’t the loud mouth bull horn Christians who tell everyone they are going to hell. Or the over religious Christian who is one face covering away from a burka, or those who enjoy our liberty in Christ, who have little conviction about things that aren’t in scripture. Our variety of Christian have a hard time saying hard things.

Finally we lack discernment. We have the most bible versions on the planet earth. We are the most free nation in this regard yet we are practically biblically illiterate, except for a few key cliche verses. I could line up the first 100 Christians and start to ask them about books of the bible and what that theme may be or what was the writers point (even in opinion) and most people will give you blank stare. They know who is sleeping with whom. They know sports stats, they can tell you the last 100 episodes of their favorite shows. They know all the latest gossip and with the popular people are doing (even guys are buying into this crap) but they have little to any understanding of the bible.

That preface leads to this. There are many false teachers who are disguised as “angels of light” as Paul would say. There are many false teachers that Jude warns about, who looks like us and talks like us and would even attempt to make you look like the guilty person. They are very good and very deceptive. Mormons for an example. They will say they are Christians, just not “protestant” or “evangelical” they will tell you they are talking about the same Jesus you are and serve the same God you serve, just a little differently. THEY ARE LIARS!!!!!!!!! They are not your brothers and sisters in Christ. They are of the lineage of a false prophet and though you should never be rude, you have to tell them that you are not serving the same God. Then we have the Jehovah Witnesses. They will tell you that you serve the same God, they just got a different spin on Jesus. THEY ARE LIARS!!!!!!! Don’t believe them.

Finally to bring this matter to heart. Jon Paden is a FALSE TEACHER!!!!!! He continually comes to this blog attempting to slide in a host of doctrine that is not Christian. He isn’t a confused Christian. He is a false teacher. The reason I have said this is because EVERY Christian on this blog (some a little more mean than others) have attempted to correct him. I have talked with Jon personally about this matter. He even attempts to employ the deceptive tactic of defaming me and making me look like the guilty party. No Soup for Jon (in my Soup Nazi voice).

Listen to me people. PRAY FOR A SPIRIT OF DISCERNMENT!!!!! Please. Pretty please, pretty pretty please. Most people aren’t out here being buttholes. The MacArthur’s, the Sprouls, the Hortons, the Mohlers, the Pipers and so forth may have things I disagree with but I would entrust you to those guys because they have something called discernment. Even the guy Driscoll (took a lot to type LOL). Please let no one take you captive. Paul is always fighting false teaching. Peter is combating false teaching. John is combating false teaching and Jude is combating false teaching. It was a problem 2000 years ago and it is a bigger problem now because of technology.

I regret to write this post but it is necessary. Please use discernment. Please!!! A minor tweak can redefine the Gospel of Jesus Christ just read your bible and you will see!

Sooo…. What’s The Gospel Again?

Lionel Woods — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 13:00:53 +0000

Imputation, Justification, Propitiation, all of those are transactional in their definition. I want to write about something but don’t know how to fully explain it without sounding like a heretic. But I am going to try and let me know what you think okay? Okay!

Because of the protestant reformation, our Gospel has become very transactional very abstract. Actually the Gospel is actually reduced to a list of facts. For the last…. I don’t know 6-7 years I have believed it, fought for it, would argue until I was blue in the face for this position. But, I think I am starting to drift away from that perspective and even more lately as I have been discussing some things in the last few blog post.

So… whats the Gospel? When that question is answered especially from a Reformed perspective. It is narrowed down to a list of facts/beliefs/cognitive recognition. And if you get those right and can articulate it clearly and with passion, my friend you have the Gospel and are justified… However, I think the Gospel is more than that and here is what I mean.

Often times when I read the Gospels I am uncomfortable. Why? Well simply put Jesus’ words are not transactional at all. When you read passages like Matthew 18:21-35, or Matthew 25:31-46 or Matthew 7:1-23, Luke 14:25-33, Mark 8:34 and a host of other texts you can often get a funny feeling in your stomach (at least I do). I then immediately run to the epistles and how I have been taught to interpret justification and salvation by grace through faith and so forth as a balm for the scrapes and bruises I got from the Gospels.

When I wrote my post about MLK and the Reformers the same question came up repeatedly. That is “what is the Gospel then”. I will say this upfront so you really understand it. Any Gospel that does not carry with it the obligation to love your neighbor as yourself (also your brother) is not a Gospel of the scriptures. Let me say that again… any Gospel that lacks the obligation to love is not a real Gospel. Now will I get in trouble for that? Sure. Will someone delete me or write me off? I am sure they will at least for some time; however, I say this with no reservation.

If we look historically, the way we get around loving neighbor as self is by applying a transactional Gospel. This is how we can say men who would participate in the slave trade, the kidnapping of another human being or their children and selling them for profit and those who supported these ventures through insurance, manufacturing boats, capital investment and even purchasing them could have been Christians. The reason is simple, they can articulate the facts with great accuracy and this gives them a pass to violate almost the entire New Testament.

This is how a group of men can set up a state where those who don’t agree with them could have their goods confiscated, imprisoned and even executed. Why? Because it is simple get the facts right and there you have yourself a Gospel. This is how you can have an entire nation absolutely hate another group of people simply because of complexion and features while simultaneously walking in a building to “worship God”. We can make excuses for them because of the facts. We can say they were just a product of their day; however, Jesus says “any man who doesn’t hate his mother or father… isn’t worthy of me” or “any man who does not pick up his cross and die daily…” you see. Jesus talks about the Spirit that brings conviction the writer of Hebrews talks about the New Heart and Paul talks about a Spirit that indwells us that breaks us free from the power of sin (hatred and racism included) in Romans 8, yet somehow getting the facts right holds precedence over these text.

The Gospel isn’t a list of facts the Gospel is a person who we are now in and now lives in us good works seems to be an essential component and the work of love the greatest of these.

What makes it even more odd is the double standard. For some reason we are much tougher on people today than we are on those of the past. Let me be clear about something and I hate to beat this horse. But it isn’t like someone didn’t say “what you are doing to me is wrong and does not bear the fruit of Jesus Christ”. These men heard this numerous of times, even had it explained from scripture (check Frederick Douglas, the Anabaptist, Martin Luther King and even back to the 5th century). These men just ignored these people and did whatever they wanted to do. It is as if they were just oblivious to their acts of hatred. We need to get that clear. These men just ignored the Gospel command to love. Jesus says “a new commandment I give you, that you love one another”.

So whats the Gospel? Depends on who you ask.

The Church “IS” The Moral Compass of the World

Lionel Woods — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 13:00:38 +0000

In Matthew 5:13 Jesus calls us the salt of the earth. Paul calls the world darkened by Satan in Ephesians 4:17-24, he tells us to live Godly lives in Titus 2:11-14, in 1 Thessalonians 4:3-7 he tells us to pursue holiness. Peter tells us in 2 Peter 3:11-13 we ought to have holy and Godly lives. I can continue but you get the drift. The church is not only called to serve the poor and help the needy it is to be the moral compass of a dark and cold world full of evil and darkness and on its way to destruction.

Today; however, we live in an age where such things have taken a back seat and my friends the Gospel is diluted because of it. Because sin has so permeated our culture, we no longer have the bite we once had. Lets be clear about something. Paul DID NOT preach a Gospel that did not with it carry the weight of the obligation to live Godly. He didn’t. Paul’s Gospel carried with it the obligation to put off fornication, idol worship, idolatry (in other forms), adultery, ungodly sexuality, selfishness, violence, envy, drunkenness (getting high) and other forms of licentiousness.

Paul would have not been okay with a couple who were living together but not married. He would have not been okay with the way Christian women dress in our culture. He would have not been okay with Christians being involved with gossip shows, going to strip clubs, smoking weed, divorcing at will nor sleeping around. You only need to read the epistles for a brief second to see that Paul’s gospel would have eradicated such a philosophy.

With that said, I want to say this very candidly. Any church that would allow people to participate in such things with no attempt of personal correction may have a Gospel that is not from God. Listen to me very carefully. A church does not have the right to ignore or allow such things. They bear the God given responsibility of holding those in their care responsible to the Gospel they say they have embraced. They hold a God given responsibility to not fellowship with people who flaunt such practices and encourages others to do the same.

I want to be honest, I am very afraid for our churches. Many are just inspirational watering holes promising people eternal life who may not actually have it. Placing a balm on wounds that will only be healed through the power of the Gospel. By ignoring such things these churches are acutally fueling the rapid moral decline of the society it finds itself in. My friends the church has no right to do such things and continually call themselves a church.

Now hear what I am not saying. I am not saying, you close the doors and people can no longer come and hear the good news. But you let them know up front that they can not be members, that their lives don’t line up and that they may be in danger of the hell fire. I am not saying you can’t befriend and even have meaningful relationships with such people, but you best let them know that Christian fellowship isn’t whats going on but that because of Christ you are displaying love for you fellow man.

Think about this question. If we are no longer the moral compass then who will be?

Why Martin Luther King’s Gospel Was Closer to Jesus Than the Reformers

Lionel Woods — Sat, 15 Jan 2011 16:04:42 +0000

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Republished<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

“He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly, and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.”

A man asked “what is the greatest of the commandments” Jesus answered “to love the Lord your God, with all of your heart, all of your mind and all of your soul, and to love your neighbor as yourself”. My friends MLK embodied this. I remember a few years ago, falling for the okedoke about King’s theological positions. A group of self-righteous Christians attempted to cripple MLK”s legacy by attacking his theological positions (which really can’t be pinned down because he never spoke clearly on his theology). So here are some questions to ask.

1. Was MLK’s gospel social? The answer is yes and ours better be also, especially if we want our Gospel to look like the one in the bible. Lets be clear about something. ANY GOSPEL THAT DOES NOT DRIVE A MAN’S FEET TO LOVE IS A FALSE GOSPEL. So lets clear that up now. Anyone who preaches a gospel that doesn’t necessitate love in action is preaching a false gospel. I don’t care how precise it is, how well it was written, who they are, or what else they have done. A Social Gospel is a Godly Gospel. Any Gospel that gives someone a trap door to escape out of when it comes to pracital love is not preaching Jesus’ gospel. MLK held a nation who called itself Christian, built on Christian principles and had Christian language in almost all parts of its existence, responsible to be Christian.

It is odd to me that men whom we praise for their theology often ignored their divine responsiblity to love their neighbor as themselves. MLK gave his life loving his neighbor as himself!

2. Whats wrong with a social gospel? Let me explain something. If you want a governmental framework that most closely assembles Christian thought it would be Socialism. Socialism in its ideal form is more Christian than capitalism will ever be. Heaven my friends will be socialistic. Everyone will work for the Lord yet receive the same (think about it). But more seriously, a social gospel holds those who call upon the name of the Lord responsible to love as the Lord says. James ask “can that type of faith save a man” after saying “go and be well fed”. Our Gospel best be socialistic. Actually if Capitalism would not run the Church in America we could make a huge impact on the world. But bottom lines, stock value and suburbanism is synonymous with Christianity in America and if you don’t have these things something has went totally wrong in your life somewhere.

3. What about MLK’s nonviolence? MLK turned a nation upside down using the Chrisitian principle of nonviolence. However, the Reformers used violence and force to coerce man to submit to their will. MLK laid his life down to protect the rights of others. The reformers took others lives for their religious convictions.

So you tell me, which Gospel looks more biblical to you? Remember the religious leaders that Jesus often rebuked had all the fact rights. Happy Birthday MLK, thank you for everything.

….But They Are Not With Us

Lionel Woods — Sat, 08 Jan 2011 14:00:07 +0000

My good buddy Gabriel and I were talking about sectarianism and its dangers. Alan Knox posted a really good post along these line also. Here is fundamental position I have taken and I refuse to back down from it.

If your local Church is not accepting of other churches, it is not a healthy church and actually is very dangerous. If a Christian refuses other Christians who agree on the fundamental doctrines of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 3) then I would say they are not a healthy Christian and may be very dangerous.

I say this with little reservation, actually no reservations. Not an ounce. The simple reason is there is an imperative given in John 13 about Christian love that can not be escaped. If you want to know the foundation for Christian ethics. I think John 13:34-35 is the foundation. Everything and I do mean everything flows from this command. If a Christian is unloving, in which being non-accepting is unloving then you best believe that everything else they are doing has the wrong motive and wrong function.

As Gabriel and I were discussing, he brought up the passage found in Luke 9:49

49 John answered, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he does not follow with us.” 50 But Jesus said to him, “Do not stop him, for the one who is not against you is for you.”

How often do you see ministries talking about other ministries, or churches talking about other churches or Christians bashing other Christians about doing the work of the Lord but not “our way”. How many sound just like John who said “he doesn’t follow us”. Now if you want to know what God thinks about this, just hear what God says. He says “do not stop him”. Should be the end of discussion right? Anyone who is proclaiming Jesus as Lord alone (the exclusivity of Christ). Jesus raised from the dead physically (1 Corinthians 15) and that salvation is by grace and grace alone, not by merit of any type (Romans 3 and Galatians 1-3) is our friend. They are for us. Yes they may do things differently, they may believe some things we hold to strongly differently, they may even do some things wrong. But if God Himself, didn’t correct the guy, who are we to?

To drive it home a little further. Lets think about Paul. Now Paul had given up everything, even to the point where he was a walking dead man. He had been imprisoned, beaten, stoned, whipped, left hungry, slandered and all. Paul who was probably one of the greatest missionaries says what about this thing:

15 Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. 16 The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17 The former proclaim Christ out of rivalry, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. 18 What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice.

Paul says “as long as Christ is being preached, I rejoice”. Paul himself wasn’t worried about this, as long as the name of Jesus was being proclaimed he didn’t care about people being on his team, he didn’t even care if they had bad motives. He was so enamored with the person of Christ and the Gospel that he never took his eyes off of him to gaze upon what others were doing. He simply rejoiced that the name of Jesus was being heard.

Now let me finish with what I am not saying. Both Jesus and Paul were 100% against false teaching. And we are to be also. This doesn’t mean we sit by and let people proclaim a different Jesus. False teachers are called to the table even if that means death. The Jesus that the Jehovah Witness or the Mormon, or the Christian Scientist and quite a few other, is not the same Jesus. We are to fight adamantly against heresies that destroy the Gospel. However, we must be careful on how we define the true Gospel. A lot of time we attach our pet doctrines to this and this is dangerous. Are some of the pet doctrines true? Sure. Are some of them important? Yes. But do they redefine the Gospel? No! And thus we are not to exert too much energy into them.

I only recite the words of my Master “anyone who is not against us if for us”.

A Friendly Response To Mr. DeYoung

Lionel Woods — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 20:48:33 +0000

I said I wasn’t going to respond but decided I would attempt to address this post. Let me first start by saying there is a growing fear in Christianity. That fear is based off the fact that many young Christians (and older ones also) are a bit tired of what is called “church” today and have responded to it. Now I will say that I have many of the concerns that some of these brothers have. Things such as sound theology, accountability, christian maturity and the like can become very risky outside of the institution called church; however, it doesn’t mean that they definitely will. It is like a male Christian being told that they shouldn’t become roommates with the female for the risk. Or it is like a parent not giving a child a computer because they may fall into pornography, sometimes putting boundaries up can be good, but other times they are just overreactions. So with that I am going to attempt to address Mr. DeYoung’s post by paragraph.

The Glory of Plodding

by Kevin DeYoung

It’s sexy among young people — my generation — to talk about ditching institutional religion and starting a revolution of real Christ-followers living in real community without the confines of church. Besides being unbiblical, such notions of churchless Christianity are unrealistic. It’s immaturity actually, like the newly engaged couple who think romance preserves the marriage, when the couple celebrating their golden anniversary know it’s the institution of marriage that preserves the romance. Without the God-given habit of corporate worship and the God-given mandate of corporate accountability, we will not prove faithful over the long haul.

Lets first start with the word “unbiblical”. Mr. DeYoung says “besides being unbiblical”. Now ANYONE who has had a casual reading of scripture will soon recognize that the word “church” can never be a “confine”. Why is that? Well, first of all I am in the Church because I am a Christian. The scriptures are very, very clear about this. So if anyone is being unbiblical it is Mr. DeYoung. If you are in Christ, you are in Church. Now if by “confines of church”. Mr DeYoung means the building, liturgy, bylaws, leadership, pews and meeting time, then that is fine. But don’t call that church. It isn’t. It is no more church than the Kingdom Hall up the street.

Next, if anyone in his camp read this post I don’t know why they didn’t tell him that there is no such thing as a “God-given habit of corporate worship”. Corporate worship appears no where in your bible, as a matter of fact, barely anything that goes on in a church on Sunday THE BIBLE deems worship. Now I am not saying that Luther, Calvin, Zwigli, Sproul and the rest of the Neo-Reformers don’t call that “worship”. The problem is the bible doesn’t. Sitting in a pew listening to a paid speaker recite something he has practiced all week to encourage you is NEVER called worship in scripture. This is a figment of Reformed Theology imagination. Next if somebody can explain what “corporate accountability” is then I can maybe address that, because the word carries no meaning for me nor can I find a reference in scripture to it, I haveto give him the benefit of the doubt.

What we need are fewer revolutionaries and a few more plodding visionaries. That’s my dream for the church — a multitude of faithful, risktaking plodders. The best churches are full of gospel-saturated people holding tenaciously to a vision of godly obedience and God’s glory, and pursuing that godliness and glory with relentless, often unnoticed, plodding consistency.

Now to say this “the best churches are full of gospel-saturated people”, is about as arrogant as saying, I have the smartest children in the world. The first question someone should ask is “how do you quantify that”, if they don’t just walk off and never say a word to me again. Listen, this statement is.. ummhhh… {sighing here, thinking of a word} bologna. It is a strawman at best. It brings value to itself by devaluing (needless to say with no proof) something else. It is like political sensationalism, it is use to incite disdain with no tangible way of proving rather it is true or false. It is hot air at high noon in July in Kuwait. It has no value. So if what I just said means a whole lot of nothing then you should feel the same way about that statement. So lets move on.

My generation in particular is prone to radicalism without followthrough. We have dreams of changing the world, and the world should take notice accordingly. But we’ve not proved faithful in much of anything yet. We haven’t held a steady job or raised godly kids or done our time in VBS or, in some cases, even moved off the parental dole. We want global change and expect a few more dollars to the ONE campaign or Habitat for Humanity chapter to just about wrap things up. What the church and the world needs, we imagine, is for us to be another Bono — Christian, but more spiritual than religious and more into social justice than the church. As great as it is that Bono is using his fame for some noble purpose, I just don’t believe that the happy future of the church, or the world for that matter, rests on our ability to raise up a million more Bonos (as at least one author suggests). With all due respect, what’s harder: to be an idolized rock star who travels around the world touting good causes and chiding governments for their lack of foreign aid, or to be a line worker at GM with four kids and a mortgage, who tithes to his church, sings in the choir every week, serves on the school board, and supports a Christian relief agency and a few missionaries from his disposable income?

This paragraph is a bit ironic. Here is what I mean. Mr DeYoung, Marc Driscoll and their many minions are the very rock stars that they are telling others not to be. Book after book and conference after conference, the entire “listentomeism because I got the truth in a box” (this very post) proves my point. Many of the young people who have rejected the notions of the Sunday “pay your tithes because we know the best use of your money” mentality have no desire to be the man or woman up front. They refuse to pay a man to tell them about the bible and make decisions for them. These young men and women feel that they have been indwelt with the same Spirit that indwells these men and they can hear directly from God and need no mediators to do so. Does this mean they don’t believe in gifted leaders? No. If that were the case men like Frank Viola, Tony Dale, Jon Zens, George Barna, Milt Rodriguez and the like wouldn’t ever be heard. Women like Felicity Dale wouldn’t be considered one of the greatest ecclesiological minds around.

No, this means that things such as mutual encouragement, the priesthood of believers and an all Saints ministry is the important to these people and they don’t want to leave their spiritual maturity up to the paid professionals to hash things out, they have taken ownership of their faith unlike the guy who “pays his tithes and goes to the school board”. Also I believe when they settle down and have families they will probably join a school board

Until we are content with being one of the million nameless, faceless church members and not the next globe-trotting rock star, we aren’t ready to be a part of the church. In the grand scheme of things, most of us are going to be more of an Ampliatus (Rom. 16:8) or Phlegon(v. 14) than an apostle Paul. And maybe that’s why so many Christians are getting tired of the church. We haven’t learned how to be part of the crowd. We haven’t learned to be ordinary. Our jobs are often mundane. Our devotional times often seem like a waste. Church services are often forgettable. That’s life. We drive to the same places, go through the same routines with the kids, buy the same groceries at the store, and share a bed with the same person every night. Church is often the same too — same doctrines, same basic order of worship, same preacher, same people. But in all the smallness and sameness, God works — like the smallest seed in the garden growing to unbelievable heights, like beloved Tychicus, that faithful minister, delivering the mail and apostolic greetings (Eph. 6:21). Life is usually pretty ordinary, just like following Jesus most days. Daily discipleship is not a new revolution each morning or an agent of global transformation every evening; it’s a long obedience in the same direction.

I don’t know many people who are trying to be rock stars. Maybe there are some, but again this seems more of a strawman than actual facts. Most people who deflect from the traditional “confines” of the institution called church have no plans to be superstars. Many of the pastors who are burned out from being the “same preacher” have come because they want an environment where all of the gifts of the Spirit are functioning. Where all have the option (not all will) to teach, admonish, reprove, rebuke (Col 3:16-17) and edify. Many aren’t wired to sit back numbly listening to sermons, having the professionals sing polished songs only to have anything they have to say regulated in some “house group” (an ill substitute for the reason the church gathers). I have interacted with quite a few people and this “rock star” gunhoeness is nonexistent. Are some going to go and become the Viola’s and Dale’s of the future? Sure, the Holy Spirit always uses people in that way, but again this isn’t the plan, no more than it was the plan for Mr. DeYoung himself to become the spokesperson for the NeoReformed. I am sure when he set off for seminary he didn’t know he would be writing books and . But then again, since he points at other maybe this was always his goal…. (just kidding)

It’s possible the church needs to change. Certainly in some areas it does. But it’s also possible we’ve changed — and not for the better. It’s possible we no longer find joy in so great a salvation. It’s possible that our boredom has less to do with the church, its doctrines, or its poor leadership and more to do with our unwillingness to tolerate imperfection in others and our own coldness to the same old message about Christ’s death and resurrection. It’s possible we talk a lot about authentic community but we aren’t willing to live in it.

I actually agree here. But I don’t know if the structure that Mr. Deyoung perpetuates will ever produce this type of community. If you look at this generation of young men and women (18-30) they are products of this system. Going to church, paying their tithes and leaving Christianity up to the professionals. This system has helped grow the number of seminaries exponentially, while men and women run off to some other place to get the “skills” necessary to serve. The suburbs with the tall fences, running away from others who weren’t like them, others who effected their net worth. This generation that Mr. DeYoung is so critical of, have experienced what Mr. DeYoung talks about and they don’t like it. To say their dislike for it is wrong, seems to be a tactic to prevent it from crumbling (which is happening thus the purpose of Mr. DeYoung’s post).

The church is not an incidental part of God’s plan. Jesus didn’t invite people to join an anti-religion, anti-doctrine, anti-institutional bandwagon of love, harmony, and re-integration. He showed people how to live, to be sure. But He also called them to repent, called them to faith, called them out of the world, and called them into the church. The Lord “didn’t add them to the church without saving them, and he didn’t save them without adding them to the church” (John Stott).

Again Mr. DeYoung uses this word “church” and tries to get a little emphasis by quoting Stott(one of my favorite theologians by the way). He is correct Christ doesn’t save them without bringing them into the church. Their Salvation makes them part of the church, just as much as our DNA makes us human. We can’t stop being human and those who God saves by His Sovereign Grace are in the church. One can’t happen without the other, it is as simultaneous as justification and regeneration. The same Spirit that regenerates us baptizes us into the Church. The ONE CHURCH. That is mentioned in scripture, yet geographically expressed (i.e The Church at Corinth).

There are people who are anti-doctrine, but that also happens in institutional churches. Just ask Olsteen, Jakes, Dollar and their minions. Doctrine is very important and I even go as far to say “correct” doctrine is important. I hold to the First London Baptist Confession and own 100′s of books on different theological positions but I am also anti-religion and anti-institution. Why? Because Jesus came to save us out of religiosity into relationship and out of an institution into a person (namely Himself). The bible is clear about that my friends.

“Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things” (1 Cor. 13:7). If we truly love the church, we will bear with her in her failings, endure her struggles, believe her to be the beloved bride of Christ, and hope for her final glorification. The church is the hope of the world — not because she gets it all right, but because she is a body with Christ for her Head.

I really like this paragraph and I believe it is the best of all. Why? Well simple. A man who has spent quite a few paragraphs beating up an expression of the body now flips and says the very people he has beat up should bear with the church! Did anyone catch this. What he is saying is that the church and all of her weakness is still Christ’s church and should be beared with, but for some reason the only people who should do the bearing are the people he disagree with, not himself. Just because you don’t like an expression of the church doesn’t make it wrong. And even if they are wrong shouldn’t you “bear with them”? Think about that.

Don’t give up on the church. The New Testament knows nothing of churchless Christianity. The invisible church is for invisible Christians. The visible church is for you and me. Put away the Che Guevara t-shirts, stop the revolution, and join the rest of the plodders. Fifty years from now you’ll be glad you did.

Finally, no one is giving up on the church, to do so is to give up on the Husband as the Church is the bride. Many (me included) feel that she is not all she can be and have decided to express her differently. Now there are some who vilify the “institutional church” , and wrongfully so. God works in spite of our error not because of our correctness. The church is still maturing, could this be a time of growth for her? Could she be a little clumsy because of this growth? For Mr. DeYoung to say his expression is right while others are wrong and yet demand tolerance and forbearance is the most puzzling part of this entire post. Yes lets not give up on the Church (though I don’t think that those who have been purchased Sovereignly by the Lamb’s blood can).

Do We Want Christian Morality in America For Selfish Reasons?

Lionel Woods — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:51:06 +0000

I grew up a pagan. I went to church but my home was far from Christian. Such lack of morality resulted in my life being saturated with sin by 12. Sex, drug use, drug selling, pornography, fighting, carrying a firearm, drinking and partying with adults were a regular part of my diet before I hit 16. I knew people who were the exact opposite. They went to church, the were fairly moral people, they didn’t steal, sell drugs or have sex. They weren’t high or hanging out at parties with me. But neither were they Christians. Let me ask a question. Who did God receive more? Which one of us were closer to God? If your answer isn’t neither, you may want to visit a Christianity 101 course and go see your pastor immediately.

That leads to the question of this post. Why do we want Christian morality to be the standard of law for nonbelievers? As believers what do we get from that? But even more importantly what value does such morality add to God? The answer is no value. It is false worship, it is of no value to God and none to the person. Their abode will still be hell regardless if they are moral or immoral. So that leads back to the question of why?

I believe it is for selfish reasons. It gives us a since of either victory or comfort that our children and we will not have the pagans rubbing their lifestyles in our faces. Many Christians would be comfortable with laws preventing homosexuality. If you have read the Manhattan Declaration they are concerned about the good values and morals which seem to be decaying, yet this only a symptom of a problem, this would be like a guy walking into an emergency room and being upset because all the people had runny noses and upset that the hospital isn’t handing out more Kleenex. Any good doctor would respond “sir, we don’t treat symptoms, we are here to make people better”. And this should also be the mindset of the Christian. We should say “sir or madam, we don’t want your morality, being good is not good enough, following Christian morality without submission to Christ is worthless, turn to Christ for the forgiveness of your sins and then fruit will blossom”.

I am extremely uncomfortable with attempting to conform nonbelievers to some type of pseudo-moral agent. Now don’t go to the extreme please. Most people will say “well why not murder or stealing or rape…”. I am not saying we should have a moral-less society, such a society would be chaotic. But it seems that Paul and Peter both deal with this in their writings. We have government, and government is used by God to curtail chaos; however, Christians ought to be very careful of using government for their own selfish purposes. I wrote in the past that I believe a pluralistic society is the best society. And by best I mean best for the Christian. We get to express our disdain for sin and proclaim the good news for its cure, while allowing others the freedom God has given them to rebel against Him. God Himself dismantled a theocratic nation why are we going to attempt to reestablish one?

Listen very carefully. God knew then that a morality outside of ones heart is insufficient. And either men will rebel against such law or they will become self-righteous under such law. However, an inward motivation by the new heart (Ezekiel 36, Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8-9) will be the only thing that can both cause a man to be upright morally and made right before a Holy God. So again the only reason I can see that American Christians want Christian morality is for their own selfish reasons. It does no good for the person who is attempting to live by such law and it does nothing for God. I honestly believe it is wasted time and energy and resources.

Dove “World” Outreach Center To Burn Qurans on September 11th

Lionel Woods — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 19:07:47 +0000

Dove World Outreach Center (I guess they forget Muslims are part of the world) plans to hold a “Burn Quaran Day” on September the 11th. Here are a few thoughts.

1. If I am a pastor in any decent driving range from this church I am calling the staff in to have a heart to heart about the Gospel and what it demands of us.

2. A group of churches in the area should put up a billboard denouncing such acts (or at least a commercial or something)

3. Maybe a love a Muslim day on Sept 11 will be a good response to such bad behavior. Or a national pray for Muslims day.

4. Extend grace to the church. Because often times our brothers and sisters make very bad decisions. Sometimes the Holy Spirit doesn’t override stupidity

Ashamed of the Gospel? Standing Firm On The Folly of the Cross!

Lionel Woods — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 16:46:08 +0000

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

Paul begins his theological treatise with this phrase, which has made its way unto coffee mugs, t-shirts, christian jewelry, people’s body in the form of tattoos. It is the thesis/foundation for many evangelistic ministries. However, over the last few years and more heavily today, the Gospel is now being brushed aside as too simple, redundant, not enough and to make matters worse it is even being redefined by the likes of many.

The Gospel is not palatable, it is not popular and only those who accept it by grace find any comfort in it. In others words it is a tough pill to swallow an isolating even polarizing truth in which many have died to proclaim. Listen Paul risked His life on this truth. Not only from the Greeks but also from the Jews. He explains such struggles in 2 Corinthians 11:16-33

24 Five times I received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. 25 Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I was stoned. Three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I was adrift at sea; 26 on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers; 27 in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure. 28 And, apart from other things, there is the daily pressure on me of my anxiety for all the churches. 29 Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is made to fall, and I am not indignant?

Today everybody loves Jesus (even Gandhi) but they have a serious problem with the Gospel. Without the Gospel Jesus is just another nice guy, extremely nice but nice none the less. He is another Gandhi, Mother Theresa, another Santa Claus another Robin Hood of type. If you take the Gospel and tweak it what you have is merely a good list of moral principles to live buy to help you along in life. However I want to challenge such a notion.

The Sinfulness of Sin

Listen Sin is the reason for the ministry of Jesus Christ. To exclude sin from the Gospel is to take away the sting and sweetness of the cross. Sin is what caused the Father to turn His back on the Son, to ignore His cry from the cross, it is what got Jesus spit on, slapped, beat to a pulp, His beard torn off, mocked, a crown of thorns placed on His head, nailed Him to a cross and caused the Father to “crush Him” as the prophet Isaiah expresses. Remove Sin and you remove any need for the Passion to ever take place. Every animal that was burned and slayed was because of sin. To somehow attempt to make sin just another thing is to make a mockery of our crucified Lord. However, today moral arguments are being constructed to define sin as something other than sin. A Gospel without the dreadfulness and weight of sin, is no Gospel at all. If we are too embarrassed to talk about Sin we are too embarrassed to talk about the Savior because what are we saved from?

The Bloody Cross

Many theologians are now calling the atoning work of Christ “cosmic child abuse”. This is to say that a loving God would never do that to His Son, especially because He was innocent. This attempts to redefine exactly what occurred. The great exchange our sin for His righteousness. The cross was the plan of God and it was a hideous day, the day an innocent man stood in place of the wicked, again, being “crushed” by His Father. The Father set the sins of the world on the Son and let out His HATRED for sin. To the point where the Son says “Father why have you forsaken me”. The perfect fellowship that had been enjoyed from eternity had to be interrupted. There was no other way justification for the wicked could take place.

I know we get the tattoos and wear the pretty necklaces and even have pictures and drawings and woodwork of the cross all around us. It sort of cheapens the gravity of it. But the cross was not a pretty sight, it is written that you wouldn’t even want to look at Him because He was so disfigured from the abuse. The cross is not to be taken lightly. Not only that it was you and I who beat Him, hung Him, and mocked Him. A cross-less Gospel is no Gospel at all.

The Exclusivity

The next component of the Gospel that many find appalling is the exclusivity. Jesus is the only way. In a pluralistic society. One who boasts of intellect and political correctness, the announcement that there is “no other name under heaven by which man may be saved” is detestable, foolish, downright idiotic. Paul talks about this in 1 Corinthians 3:19.

However we have no Gospel, it is worthless, if our message is not exclusive. To proclaim multiple ways is to also denounce the work of Jesus Christ. It is to call God a liar, one cannot hold multiple paths in concert with the Gospel Jesus proclaims as Jesus proclaims this Himself in John 14:6.

However, today we don’t want to look like fools, we don’t want to sound idiotic, we don’t want to polarize people listen the Church loses her distinctness her uniqueness bestowed upon her by her groom if she compromises, as a matter of fact she ceases to be the Church the day she decides to be palatable to the culture she is to be salt and light to. No exclusivity is no Gospel at all.

Damnation For The Wicked

Finally we come to the last thing the wicked will hear “depart from me”. God will not accept sinners on their own terms. God has provide an escape from the wrath to come (John 3) and that provision is in His Son, if this grace is refused, damnation is inescapable. I know there are those who teach of universal reconciliation but I will say with 100% confidence that is not a Christian message (not that those who teach it are not Christians but the message itself is not Christian). Paul is very clear about this in 2 Thessalonians 1 when he says:

when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels 8 in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, 10 when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed.

The judgement of God will be swift and inescapable and we must teach this with all conviction and with all humility. Christ is returning and when He does the wrath that has been stored up will be unleashed and it will be permanent.

Lets not be ashamed of the Gospel for “it is the power of God unto salvation to those who believe”. It is an unloving thing to proclaim any other Gospel than the one clearly conveyed in scripture. Let us be fools, dogmatic, narrow minded and even buffoons. We are heralds of a living hope, this message originated with God to modify it is nothing less than open defiance.

Loving The Church Without All of the Organizational Trappings

Lionel Woods — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 13:00:48 +0000

I want to approach this post from an apologetic perspective. There is a common misconception held about those who don’t agree with the popular church culture. That misconception is that because some reject the organization commonly known as the “church” that somehow those same individuals don’t love or care for the “church”.

I guess the biggest problem with that is that when the word church is used, different groups see this from two totally distinct and often times contradictory points of views! One group says they want to get back to the 1st century or “apostolic” church also known as the New Testament church while the other group says the same thing while both groups often disagree with each other radically. With that lets get into it.

Loving the Church

Lets first start by saying you can’t love Christ without loving the church the two are not to be separated. There is no church without Christ and the church is the bride and body of Christ, thus to dislike the church is to dislike the head and groom of the church which is God in flesh! Thus if someone says they hate the church then it is likely, though not necessarily apparent, that they also hate Christ. The two are one flesh (Ephesians 5:31). So it is simply impossible to take one with the other. Not to mention if you hate the church, then you hate Christ and if you hate Christ you have also rejected the Father, since they are one, and thus most likely you have not been reconciled to God and may like the benefits or the philosophy of God while not loving Him. It happened with the Pharisees and throughout “church” history and I am pretty sure it is happening throughout the world.

So loving the church is synonymous with loving Christ and loving Christ is synonymous with loving the church; however, we now have to define “church”. We have to be fair and biblical with this. The Church IS the body of Christ. The church is a group of one, much like the trinity is a group of one. God is one in three persons and the church is one in many persons. All who have been born from above is the church. We say we understand that, but we don’t, because if we did there would be no need to keep talking about this. We throw the word “local” into the conversation and then we being to redefine church. Don’t believe me?

The Church In Practical Terms

Our lack of concern and love for one another in groups we disagree with is evidence that we have redefined church. Because we disagree we have decided to separate ourselves into denominational (organizational) trappings that cannibalize our witness and makes us look much like a Target vs Wal-Mart scrapping for scarce resources and in the process slandering one another to get such resources. We put walls up and then expect God to move on our behalf. But Paul asks “is Christ divided”? The answer is no and if we are there may be a good chance that we are not in Him at worst or at least not filled with the Spirit at best! We have erected these walls and because of that we have decided who we will and will not care for because they are not part of “our church”. SEE THAT? Do you see that, we can say all the long that we understand the definition of the church, yet our practice rightly shows us that we have no clue with this is about! That is because our organizational trappings have so blinded our eyes that we couldn’t see the church if it fell on us!

The Trappings

From hierarchical positions, to massive buildings, to pastoral visions, to biblical authority, to sacraments, to pulpits, to denominations. I am sure someone could add many, many more. However, these things are not part of the Church. They are part of the organization commonly known as church, but they are not the church nor parts of the Church. And often times when someone comes along (look at the group known as the Anabaptist for more information) that questions such trappings, they are grouped, rounded up and thrown into the lion’s den of “anti-church”. You see how that works? I redefine the church thus giving it a definition not consistent with those who are the cornerstone and foundation of the church and then when someone disagrees with that redefinition I can say “they don’t love the church”. It is the easiest thing to do and it only strengthens my argument and secures my position on the new definition.

There are many men and women who have decided to go a “step past reformed” (the protestant reformation) and have decided to not only question the theology of Rome but also the ecclesiology of Rome. And because some have begun to knock on the door of the enshrined they have been labeled distastefully ( I am very glad that the sword no longer belongs to the church because men like Viola would have been drowned a long time ago ). You see a quick study of church history will show us that though the Reformers did a great job addressing and clarifying Justification and Salvation by Grace, they only turned in the right direction as it related to the priesthood of believers, but they never moved forward really. Yes they did bring the bible into common language, but they kept the same system of not questioning their truths and if you don’t believe me, you need to look no further than a few quotes and few graveyards of those who disagreed with them.

We Do Love The Church

Those who see things differently do love the church and we even love our brothers and sisters who see things differently. Sometimes the disagreements get a bit too serious and sometimes downright ugly but usually that is because of the slanderous positions casted upon us. We love the church because we love the Groom of the church. We love the church because we look to the head of the church. We love the church because for eternity to here she has always been the plan and purpose of God to express His glory to the world. She is His, redeemed and secured in His blood and she is beautiful and beloved and there is no way we can say anything other than lovely things of her because it is the Master who makes her as lovely as she is. She was is in His side and He is coming back to finish what He started with Her. So sure we love her, we are her, we are one flesh with her, how can we reject who we are? We just don’t care for this organization that part of her has decided to clothe her in! Is she organized? Yes to say the least, especially when she is rightfully responded to her head! She has leadership, and working parts, and moving parts who moves together and build one another up so that she grows more and more into the head, but that leadership and those parts are just that PARTS they are not the head and whenever we see those parts doing things that only the head should be doing then we must ignore those parts and this is what is happening today

So you have to love the church, shoot, you are part of the church you are one flesh; however, you don’t have to like what she is being clothed in. You don’t have to submit to the trappings, regardless of how many hold to that trapping or how popular or enshrined the people who created those trappings may be. We have all been given the freedom to respond directly to the head, with no mediators in between and we are obligated to discern His voice as His sheep. So please don’t get the two confused the trappings/organization is not the organism called the Church no matter who tells you so.