This Blog has MOVED!

...please update your blogroll and point people to my new site, Shepherdtheflock.com!

The RSS feed is: http://shepherdtheflock.com/?feed=rss2

It is with great excitement and anticipation that I announce that I have moved this blog to a different domain. Let me briefly explain:

It is not about me and my opinions. Nathancwhite might be the contributor here and at my new domain, but I want to get as far away as possible from a 'its all about me and my opinions' website. It is not about nathancwhite at all, so I am taking my blog in a slightly different direction to help convey that conviction. Instead of a simple site where I give my opinions, I envision a more pastoral, servant-minded, 'equipping the saints' kind of website.

People need good resources and direction to other Godly material, not just opinions. Thus, I pray that my new blog will provide people with a few sound resources so they are not stuck taking my word on things! Hopefully I can point people to what others are saying as well.

A podcast is in the works, which will piggy-back off of the new domain. Call me crazy, but I am entering into the webcast/podcast world. I am throwing together some professional equipment to host a weekly or bi-weekly radio show discussing different theological topics of our day. My goal (our goal; I am not doing this alone) is to provide listeners with interviews, gospel presentations, theological discussions, exposition of scripture, current events, blogsphere discussions, and street-witnessing encounters. This project is scheduled to begin in Summer 2007.

In John chapter 21, beginning in verse 15, the risen Christ asked the Apostle Peter three times ‘Peter, do you love me?’ Of course, Peter replied that he did in fact love the Lord. However, it is Jesus’ response that deserves our attention, and it is one that motivated the naming of this blog as ’shepherd the flock’. Jesus doesn’t tell Peter to make sure and obey everything he was taught. He doesn’t tell Peter to make sure and do his daily devotions. He doesn’t tell Peter to spend an hour a day in prayer or he is sinning. No, despite the great importance of these things, Jesus tells Peter three times to, “Feed My lambs”, “Tend My sheep”, and “Feed My Sheep” (ESV). In our American culture, Christianity has become a ‘me’ religion instead of a ‘us’ religion. We are to pursue holiness not in some dark corner by ourselves, but corporately with the other believer’s edification as more important than our own. Neglecting our own private worship will certainly dishonor the name of Christ, but neglecting to pursue and encourage the holiness of others will do exactly the same.

Peter’s last instructions from Christ were to tend the spiritual needs of others; it was this that Jesus pointed him to as an evidence of Godly love! So it is with this understanding that shepherdtheflock enters the world wide web.

Lastly, please see my 'about' page on my new blog for a fuller explanation of what I envision for the new site.

Please try to get the word out on this new site. And, as always, I ask for and welcome any feedback or suggestions on this new endeavor.

Sadly, this will be my last post on nathancwhite.blogspot.com. However, I will leave it up for archives and reference. I did not pull these posts over to my new blog, so these archives will come in handy.

SDG

Dialogue with a Muslim

Today, a couple of friends and I had the opportunity to witness to a Muslim family. Well, I guess you could call it 'witnessing', as it was pretty hard to get a word in. I’d like to share a little bit about our dialogue to see how you would respond in this situation:

When confronted with the gospel, the Muslim almost immediately began to dispute everything we said. Let me first share to you his immediate objections to our challenge of the gospel, and then I will share a little of our dialogue:

The man was adamant about his belief that:

-Jesus was a prophet sent from God, but that He of course not God Himself.

-Jesus came before Muhammad, who was God’s ultimate and final prophet.

-Jesus was not raised from the dead.

-The Koran was God’s word because there was only one true copy of it in the world that has been preserved, and that nobody has the original copy of the Bible, thus it now can’t be trusted. He kept saying that the Bible has been corrupted, that we no longer have the originals, and so what we have today is clearly not God’s preserved word.

Well, we argued for a few minutes on the Koran/Bible issue, but that didn’t go anywhere. I kept saying that Jesus claimed to be God, and so He was a lunatic if He was simply a prophet.

Next, we got into it briefly about the crucifixion. He looked at my friend and said, ‘Do you have children?’ My friend, Davide, who does not have kids, said ‘no, but he does’, and pointed to me. :) Looking back I laugh at that, but in the heat of the moment I did immediately step forward and say ‘yes I have a child’, so Davide really wasn't 'volunteering' me. :)

So, the gentlemen asked me if I’d ever let my child be tortured and killed, to which I responded ‘no, not if you ask me like that, but I am wicked and evil and I want my own desires’; maybe not the best thing to say in that moment, but its what first came to mind :)

But he continued to say that it was ludicrous that God gave up his only Son to be killed. At this point I pulled out my Bible and began to read Romans 3 to him, particularly verses 21 on, in an attempt to show that God put Him forth to show His own righteousness in passing over the former sins, but the gentlemen almost immediately cut me off and said that he didn’t believe that book and so I was wasting my time.

I then responded with ‘the Bible is my ultimate authority, and you want me to abandon that to explain to you why Christ was crucified?’, which only brought us back to the original question of the Bible versus the Koran. Thus, we were getting nowhere, and he said that it was best to go our separate ways.

But before we left, what I attempted to end with was this: our faith in Jesus is rooted in the historical fact that Jesus Christ was crucified, and that He rose from the dead. God confirmed His deity and His scripture by raising Christ from the dead.

So that was my last word, and I’m not sure exactly how it came out or if it was understood, but we then walked away.

What can I learn from this? What could/should I have said or done differently? Should we have engaged him further on the Koran issue? Should we have nailed down Jesus’ deity in clearer terms? Should we have pointed to the history of the Koran and of Muhammad? I value the advice of those who know more about these things and this religion than I do.

SDG

Impressions and Feelings: Part...nevermind

Last year I did a series on impressions and feelings in the Christian life, and I asked the question whether we are to interpret these things as coming from God (see tag: Cessationism -scroll down). Obviously, I made the point then that we cannot biblically affirm that impressions and feelings come from God. There was quite a bit discussion in that series, as there are some who definitely disagree with that.

Today I thought I'd just throw in a quick quote by Phil Johnson. In my sidebar, I just linked to a Dan Phillips article on Team Pyro (discussing spiritual gifts), and in that thread Phil Johnson made a great comment that I believe deserves mentioning here. Take head my brothers and sisters:

"I'm tied up with meetings today and unable to participate in the blog-discussion, but a couple of people have e-mailed me privately with the same question about this thread. One begged me for an answer; the other accused me of dodging the question.

So here's the question and my short answer:

Q: If God doesn't speak to you directly, how does he "lead" you to do anything? How, for example, did you know Darlene was the right person to marry?; how did you know you were called to ministry?; and how do you explain it when a thought pops into your head and prompts you to pray for someone?

Short answer: I trust the providence of God. I can't necessarily interpret the providence of God infallibly, though.

So if (for example) I suddenly think to pray for the safety or holiness of one of my children, I don't need to interpret that as a prophetic message from God that Pecadillo or one of his brothers in in immediate danger. But I pray for them nonetheless, though I can't possibly understand why that thought popped into my head or even discern correctly whether it originated in my own imagination or was immediately infused into my brain by the Holy Spirit.

If it turns out later that I prayed at exactly the right moment when some specific danger befell one of my kids, I praise God for a remarkable providence.

I DON'T, however, twist it into some kind of quasi-revelation and use it as an excuse to trust my own heart. Scripture says those who do that are fools (Proverbs 28:26).

Here's the thing: I trust Providence enough to believe that God ordained that I should pray, and He will answer my prayer for His glory and my good, even if the thought that prompted the prayer was out of my own imagination.

But it would be a sin for me to claim God "told" me to pray about that particular thing at that particular time when He did no such thing.

Providence, people. Go and learn what that means, and we can avoid having this debate every 6 weeks or so.

Here's a book, written by a good friend of mine, that deals with this issue well."

Street Preaching: Still effective in this culture?

I’m sure everyone is familiar with The Way of the Master and The Way of the Master Radio with Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, and Todd Friel. I occasionally listen to their podcasts, and you should check them out too if you’ve never heard them before.

The WOM ministry is essentially built upon witnessing, particularly to strangers and people on the street. While I do not endorse every practice, method, or theology that they advocate, I am constantly edified and challenged by their ministry.

One area of emphasis coming from the WOM ministry is on street preaching. Essentially, street preaching is…well, just that: standing up on a public street and preaching...loudly. This is not the same as just plain witnessing, such as handing out tracts and talking to people, etc., and they make this crystal clear. Street preaching, they say, takes boldness –you must be firm, loud, clear, and to the point. Its aim is to grab the attention of those just passing by, and to immediately impact their conscience. It is something that takes practice and a tough personality to withstand the insults and contentions that could potentially come.

My question to you today is this: what impact has the fundamentalist movement had on street preaching? That is, when I think of street preaching, I think of the guys downtown with their KJV-only bibles, shouting at everyone about homosexuals, drunkards, etc. Hell and fire are the constant theme of their message, and grace seems to be completely absent from the equation. Or I think of the Fred Phelps type: they hold signs which say that everybody is going to hell, homosexuals are under God’s divine wrath, or abortion is what *proves* that this nation needs repentance.

So, the essence of my question is this: is street preaching still an effective means for sharing/preaching the gospel? Has the fundamentalist approach ruined it for everyone else to the point where people will just think we’re a bunch of freaks if stand up and preach? If we were to street preach, how should we go about doing it? What should we talk about, what should we avoid saying? How should we approach people? Is it still an effective means for preaching Christ?

I’m still formulating my own thoughts and opinions on the matter, but I definitely want to hear from all of you. Please leave a comment or shoot me an email with your thoughts.

SDG

New blog within the next week or so...

Posting has been slow because I have been spending hours and hours on my new blog. It is almost finished, and will be a substantial upgrade to what you see here, trust me. I am really excited about this launch and the ministry of sorts that hopefully will come from it. Thus, check back soon!

SDG

Premillennialism: I'm taking the gloves OFF

For those readers of mine who might hold to a futurist or premillennial view on the end-times, I thought I’d put together a short list of odd beliefs coming from the premill position. Some of these points deal with Dispensationalism as well, not just premillennialism, given the fact that MacArthur is the one who has stirred up this controversy.

If you are premillennial, please don't be offended by my candor. I'm certainly not pulling any punches here, but I'm only trying to promote the study of scripture and the edification of the saints. This topic is extremely, extremely important to the Christian life, contrary to popular belief. However, please don't be mistaken, it is a secondary doctrine, and I extend the right hand of Christian fellowship to all my brothers and sisters who disagree with me on this issue.

Thus, for those who don’t know what position they hold, who can’t really defend what they believe, who only hold to premillennialism because that’s what good teachers like MacArthur hold to, and who like to think that Revelation should be read and interpreted like a historical narrative, here are a few points that premillennialism teaches, just so you can get a good idea of what you are subscribing to:

The Premill position teaches:

-That there will be a rapture and a second coming of Christ, -which is essentially two, separate comings of Christ, when the ‘literal’ interpretation of scripture only speaks of one.

-That there will be a judgment at the first coming of Christ, before the millennial kingdom, and a judgment after the millennium, thus they believe in two ‘final’ judgments.

-That there are actually 2 different, future ‘day(s) of the Lord’ spoken of by the prophets where God reigns down His wrath on mankind. Thus, even though Christ is supposed to be reigning from Israel with immortal believers during the millennium, and this reign is supposed to be one of ‘a rod of iron’, rebellion still occurs and the ‘day of the Lord’ must come even after 1000years of ‘peace’. Therefore, in reality, they believe in 2 ‘falls’ of mankind, so to speak, in that Adam and Eve fell and subjected the creation to futility by their sin, and that there is another fall after the millennium to again warrant punishment after God tries to restore peace and tranquility on earth.

-That Peter is warning us about the end of the millennium when he speaks of the ‘day of the Lord’ and the destruction of the earth in 2 Peter chapter 3. This must be the interpretation since the premill position affirms that the destruction of the earth comes after the millennium, rather than when Christ returns again.

-That the new covenant was made with Israel and NOT with the church (a dispensational/MacArthur belief).

-There will be a reinstitution of sacrifices, yes, real animal sacrifices on an altar in the rebuilt temple, during the millennial period when Jesus is physically sitting on the throne.

-That in the millennium, there will be people in glorified bodies walking around and reigning with Christ, but that there will be people in mortal bodies living here as well. And to add to that, these un-glorified, mortal people actually have the audacity to rise up against the glorified Jesus and the glorified saints who are reigning with Him. Obviously, we want to make a point now to spread the word that in the millennium, its best that glorified people don’t hang out with un-glorified neighbors :) (H.T. FIDE-O for pointing this out).


-That in Revelation 20, a chapter that speaks of a ‘key’, a ‘dragon’, a ‘bottomless pit’, ‘beheadings’, ‘gog and magog’, etc., that the term ‘a thousand years’ should actually be taken extremely literally just because it is used 6 times! This certainly is odd since the author says things like ‘until the thousand years are ended’, and ‘when the thousand years are ended’, referring to the period as ‘the thousand years’ instead of using a normal description of literal time such as ‘when one thousand years ended’, or ‘until one thousand years passed’, etc.

That’s enough for now. I just wanted to give a brief preview of some of the teachings of premillennialism for those of you who clearly hold this position only by default. Listen, you may not have a problem with some of the points above, but I most certainly do. I just can't get there with my new testament in hand, I just can't.

Let me just say this, folks: Christ is reigning right now, check your new testament. The final judgment and the second coming of Christ happen at the same time -just take the ‘literal’ plain sense of scripture. The glorification of believers happens when we are given new bodies, which happens at the 2nd coming of Christ, which happens at the same time when He defeats all His enemies, including sin and death (not death for some), and hands the kingdom over to the Father; refer to 1 Cor 15. The Day of the Lord isn’t interrupted by a 1000year gap, check 2 Peter chapter 3. Everlasting, eternal punishment awaits the wicked at Christ’s second coming, not 1000 years after Christ returns, read 2 Thess chapter 2. The creation itself is awaiting redemption from sin, just like we are, and this redemption isn’t temporary -only to be subjected again after the 1000years are over; study Romans 8. And finally, Jesus Himself said that Satan, the ruler of this world, has been cast out, and that Jesus is drawing all nations unto Himself, so reconcile that with a futuristic view Revelation 20.

Let us get back to the bible, not man’s tradition! The physical kingdom was being dreamed of by sinful, religious men in Jesus’ day; and in our day, the 'Left Behind' theology is proving to be just a re-packaging of these very same errors. Let us not fall into the same error the first century Jews fell into because they were looking for a physical kingdom and thus completely missed their Messiah! We have been given the scriptures, the final word, the complete new testament, we should be smarter and wiser than this.

SDG

The Importance of Prayer

“And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.” – Acts 2:42

As many of you already know, Courtney and I are currently looking for a church home here in the Atlanta/Marietta/Woodstock area of North Georgia. Surprisingly so, there are many decent options available. The last time I seriously looked for a Calvinist church in our area (a church that holds to what scripture alone teaches regarding how man can be saved), I found only one or two options. Now, about 4 years later, there are no less than half a dozen sound, Calvinistic churches within driving distance of my home, and even more if I'm willing to drive a bit. I believe this is a wonderful testimony for what the Lord is doing in our midst. Nevertheless, even of these half a dozen or so, the largest of the group is no bigger than a couple hundred people. Most fit somewhere in the 50-100 range, though that is certainly to be expected. Pure doctrinal teaching is becoming more wide-spread, but it certainly isn’t popular in what is commonly called the ‘bible-belt’.


Given what the Lord is doing in raising up these godly churches and the ‘variety’ so to speak of the options available, Courtney and I are looking much deeper than just the doctrinal statement alone. We can find many churches in which we agree doctrinally, and so there becomes other points of emphasis that we will be examining closely. One aspect to which we are paying close attention to is the prayer life of the church. Without question, this area often goes unnoticed and overlooked, but I believe scripture is crystal clear in that this area will manifest the true character of any church, and individual person for that matter.

A few observations from the Acts 2 passage above:

• Sound doctrine without sound prayer leads to a cold, rigid, prideful religion.
• Fellowship without prayer leads to a self-centered and unloving social gathering –no different than the fellowship of the world.
• Worship and the Lord’s Supper without prayer becomes nothing more than a mere ritual, completely separated from the true recognition of the Lord’s Supper –our union with Christ and with each other in the new covenant.

Simply put, prayer was an integral part of the 1st century church worship gatherings, so why have so many now days gone astray from that? Not only has our church society neglected prayer in the Lord’s Day service, but even Wednesday night prayer meetings are rare, and a decent attendance at those are even more scarce.

We need to get back to scripture, folks. When we come together, the teaching, preaching, and fellowship are the norm, but public, corporate prayer is certainly not. This is to our great shame. Prayer requests should be voiced whenever the body meets for worship, and members should be given the opportunity to publicly pray if so desired. To do any less is to supress the spirit of the fellowship, and to grieve the Holy Spirit, no doubt. To pretend to have unity and fellowship without a devotion to prayer is simple hypocrisy. If the leaders and the congregation don’t devote themselves to prayer during the worship hour, what makes us think that they do it behind closed doors? As the great Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones said:

“There is nothing that tells the truth about us as Christians so much as our prayer life.”

Brothers and Sisters, let us get back to the basics of the Christian faith. I plead with you today to devote yourself to prayer –both in church and out of church. Examine your prayer life -for it will clearly show the content and direction of your heart, as it will of your local church.

John MacArthur and Premillennialism

I have heard the sermon. I listened very carefully. I listened with a purposeful intent to allow myself to be corrected by scripture. I wanted to displace the rumors that MacArthur used a barrage of non-sequiturs and that he instead attacked Amillennialism at its weakest point. I didn’t hear that. I was disappointed. I was actually left more confirmed in my Amillennialism after this hearing because there wasn't even one serious attempt to engage the real issues of why so many believe that Amillennialism is a clear biblical truth.

Can I just make a few things clear for those who might hear this sermon and actually entertain the notion that his words were anything but patronizing?

• -Amillennialism (and it's sister, Post-millennialism) is by far the majority view among the ancient church fathers. I have found that three mainstream groups just absolutely hate to hear about church history: the Arminians, the Charismatics, and yes, the Dispensationals. All three downplay church history as if WE are ‘more educated’ and ‘more evolved’ in our understanding of scripture, and that the old guys missed the boat. History doesn't determine truth, but it will guard you from modern-day fads and errors. 1800 years+ overwhelming hurts the 3 positions above. Nobody misses such important doctrines for that long.
  

• -Amillennialism does not teach that the promises to Israel went away or were unfulfilled due to God 'divorcing' Israel. This was asserted dozens of times by MacArthur, which is one reason why it was hard to take his sermon seriously. Does anyone actually believe that God makes a promise and then goes back on His word? Apparently, MacArthur thinks a whole lot of people think that simply because we don't assert that the promises will be fulfilled exactly how he thinks they will be.
  

• -Amillennialism does not deny the reality of a kingdom in which the OT promises are fulfilled! The premillennialists believe that an earthly, temporal kingdom will come before sin and death are done away with, and before the ‘final’ judgment (remember, with premillennialism, they have two ‘judgments’). Amillennialism, however, believes that when Christ returns, it is ‘curtains’ on sin, death, and the ONE final judgment, and that the New Jerusalem, as described in a number of NT texts, will be the reality of the kingdom spoken of in prophecy. Please, if you doubt this, go back and read all of the quotes MacArthur gave out of the OT. Find ONE that indicates that the kingdom spoken of is temporal in nature and not eternal. But, the Premill kingdom is temporal because of the rebellion at the end of Revelation 20 and the destruction of the earth in 2 Peter 3.

• -Amillennialism doesn’t teach that the church has replaced Israel, but simply that the church has been grafted into Israel and is a beneficiary of the promises made to Israel (remember, we go to heaven, the New Jerusalem, the kingdom spoken of by the prophets, thus we are grafted into what was promised to Israel). Also, numerous New Testament texts teach us that we have been given the promises of Israel, being that we are a child of Abraham if we are united with Christ.

• -MacArthur unfortunately did not deal with any of the NT texts that present very large problems with his Premill views. In fact, they present more than large problems with premillennialism, they indicate that premillennialism is in fact a recent figment of imagination. Texts like: 1 Cor. 15:22-28; 1 Cor. 15:50-57; Rom. 8:18-23; 2 Pet. 3:8-13; Matt. 25:31-46; 2 Thess. 1:5-10; and John 5:28-29 (I have posted on many of these texts, do a search of this blog for my articles). It would have been very helpful if he would have simply acknowledged these texts and attempted to give a brief explanation of them.

• -And to this list, I will add what the Fide-O team has said:
  
  What Amillennialism Is Not:
• It does not deny the existence of a "millennium."
• It does not require one to be a pedobaptist or immersionist.
• It does not symbolize everything in the Bible.
• It does not have a non-literal understanding of the Bible.
• It does not hold to a literal "golden age" on earth like the many Postmillenarians.
• It is not "replacement theology."
• It is not anti-semetic.
  
  

Want some further reading? A whole lot of people are talking about this. I wish I had the time to join the discussion:

FIDE-O:

• The Mocked Shepherd
• Was Jesus an Amil?
• Preterist Amil Reminders

Justin Taylor (John Piper's editor):

• Problems with Premillennialism
• Premillennialism

Team Pyro (from the Pre-Mill position):

• Why Calvinism necessitates Premillennialism
• Mac make a big boom!

Kim Riddlebarger:

• With all due respect to Dr. MacArthur
• Why John MacArthur is not 'Reformed'

Why Popular Separation is Pharisaical

It can be the result of a doctrinal disagreement. It can be with someone whose personality you just can't stand. It can be over petty but genuine faults/sins in someone you are acquainted with. It can stem because of the race of another, the financial status of another, the athletic ability of another, or even the intellectual ability of another. It can be over someone’s friends, family, or spouse. It can be because of something someone said, or the way they said it. It can be over their church attendance, friendliness while among others, knowledge of the scriptures, or openness to learn.

Separation and cliquish behavior plague the modern church; no doubt about it. 'Love those who love you' has replaced the Good Samaritan.The biblical process of honest ‘church discipline’, at least the first step as outlined in Matt 18, has been replaced by selfish, self-interested, personality cliques and exclusion of those who are unfortunate enough to be on the outside. This isn't biblical separation, folks, this is the terrible sin of showing partiality. Without a doubt, in this day and age, the first step of church discipline has been replaced by avoidance rather than by personal, selfless attempts to rectify the problem. Even worse, avoidance of others also tends to take place at the first little appearance of sin or of even a church-going faux pas.

We saw it in Jesus' day.
The Pharisees judged everything by appearance, by the cross-talk of others, without mercy or compassion, without involvement to the point where every fact can be confirmed, and without ever putting forth the effort to selflessly confront the offender. They called Jesus down for hanging out with the prostitutes, the thieves, tax collectors, drunkards, and other ‘sinners’. Why hang out with those people, Jesus? Don’t you know that we stay away from that kind less we are influenced by them, or approve them in their sin?

We saw it with Paul and the Corinth church.
Paul wasn’t a good speaker, he wasn’t eloquent, and he wasn’t attractive in his appearance or appealing in his preaching. He was always in and out of jail (jail!!), always getting beaten up, shipwrecked, stoned, chased, and persecuted. Surely this man, who experienced the worst of atrocities, wasn’t a man of God, was he? God would have taken care of His own better than that! Why hang out with a guy who is always ticking people off, especially the authorities? No, said the Corinth church, who cared only for appearances and ‘felt needs’. They cast him out in favor of the ‘super apostles’ as Paul called them, and took the high and easy road in leaving Paul to his own troubles.

We see it now.
Someone at church has an attitude problem? Someone is too quiet? Someone doesn’t give enough $ considering that fancy car they drive? Someone doesn’t regularly attend? Someone doesn’t read their bible enough? Someone is too shy? Too proud? Too loud? Someone care too much for ‘loving Jesus’ rather than the deep truths of biblical theology? Someone cares too much for the deep theology instead of ‘loving Jesus in the way we live’?

Cast them out! -is the cry, but only by way of silent avoidance. Avoid them! Let them subtly know (or figure out) that they are not walking the 'straight and narrow'. God-forbid that they believe that you approve of their behavior! God-forbid that you be seen hanging out with that sinner, that outcast! God-forbid that you dare to reach out to someone who doesn’t act like they want to be reached out to!

I struggle with this immensely, and so do you and the rest of the modern church. And it needs to stop because it is terribly displeasing to our Lord. ‘What credit is it’, Jesus says, ‘when you love those who love you? Do not even tax collectors and sinners do the same?'

There is a reason why Jesus set forth steps for church discipline in Matt chapter 18. He never said it would be easy, but there is a clear reason why the first step is not separation. The greatest in the kingdom will be the servant. The greatest will be the one who refuses to separate himself from sinners as a initial, knee-jerk reaction, but rather selflessly begs and pleads with his straying friend to come back.

Separating yourself is certainly the easy way out, but it is the mark of a selfish coward. Going to someone once, then twice, then three times if necessary, going to them to beg and plead, to implore, to minister to despite their sin, is what marks the loving man. Dare to serve those who hate you; who are in their sin; who despise authority. Dare to be like Christ.

If the issue isn’t sin but rather personality, or status, or any other issue outside of sin, then going to them in confrontation is not the answer, but going to them in order to serve them just like the others in the Christ-like thing to do. Why do we so pick and choose who we serve, who we spend time on, and who we get along with?! This kind of action is wickedness at its core. Separation is certainly our tendency; separation from those who aren’t our best friends, who we dislike, who have weird personalities, who aren't easily teachable, or from those who don’t seem like they care, or from those who have a bad reputation, etc. This is our fallen and selfish way of dealing with what we see as the problem.

Take a moment today, right now, to reach out to someone who has offended you. Reach out to someone who has that annoying personality. Reach out to someone who doesn’t seem to care about others, or the church, or the scriptures. Reach out to someone who is obviously prideful, or slanderous, or obnoxious. Reach out to the quiet ones, the apathetic ones, the weird ones. Reach out to them and seek to lead them back the biblical way, to serve them despite the fact that they wallow in their sin; to give yourself to them knowing that you will not receive anything (even a 'thank you') in return. Do this and you will prove to be a disciple of Jesus…instead of a disciple of the Pharisees.

“Him we proclaim, warning everyone and teaching everyone with all wisdom, that we may present everyone mature in Christ. For this I toil, struggling with all his energy that he powerfully works within me.” – Colossians 1:28-29

Paul toiled and struggled with all his energy…to do what? To warn everyone with the intent to present everyone mature and perfect in Christ. Do you strive with everyone, or only with those who present the easiest case for achievement? Do you toil at all, or do you wait around for people to do the hard work first before you act? This kind of thing isn’t easy, but it is the essence of true religion. EVERYONE. Do something about it. Dare to be like Christ.

The Holiness of God Resources

If you have never read RC Sproul’s book on Holiness, it is one book that I strongly suggest you don't miss.

Recently I came across Sproul’s ‘abbreviated’ version of the book in a sermon format. This year at the Desiring God Pastor’s conference, Sproul preached 3 messages on Holiness. I would like to strongly recommend these free resources to anybody who has the ability to download and listen to these 3 powerful messages:


The Holiness of God


The Holiness of Christ


Holiness and Justice


(To download, right click one of the above links and select ‘save target as’ or ‘save link as’.)