Lord, Grant Repentance to the Sinner

Over the past decade (wow, I can actually use that length of time while talking about my adult life) I have struggled over the doctrinal issues surrounding Calvinism and Arminianism. Almost two years ago, though (at about the same time as the birth of my second son, Noah), I settled this issue. I am a firm believer in the doctrines of grace, more commonly called Calvinism. And it was from this foundational understanding of God’s work in the salvation of man that many different phrases, in discussion and prayer, have seeped into my daily lexicon. One such phrase has been, “May God grant you (whomever) grace and repentance.” God’s gift to the believer is faith (Ephesians 2:8,9) and grace is, by definition, a gifting form God. Working from that understanding, I extrapolated that any repentant heart and action must come from God’s initiating work. Could I have pointed to a Scripture that said this specifically in this way (i.e. you repented because God gave you repentance), not really, but any response to God done correctly by a sinful man must, in my understanding, have it’s root cause in God, not man. Praise be to God for today and John MacArthur’s radio broadcast because he referenced a Scripture, that up until now, I have missed.

“When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, "Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life.” (Acts 11:18)

Repentance is a gift, just like faith is a gift, that God’s working of salvation produces in the believer. Hallelujah! Salvation is all of God, and nothing of my own.

Yoga…again

I heard about a television News Magazine segment that pitted John MacArthur against Doug Pagitt on the issue of Christians and the practice of Yoga, and it was quite interesting to see the exchange. This news segment really aligns well and adds further confirmation to my own views on yoga that I wrote about in “Yoga and the Christian: Do They Go together like Apple Pie and Baseball or Oil and Water?”

You can watch the video of this exchange on youtube, but the folks at Pulpit Magazine have transcribed the exchange as well.

Mike Galanos (host): Alright, let’s say I do decide to try yoga, head to the local gym, give it a shot. What am I opening myself up to spiritually that could go against my Christian faith?

John MacArthur: Well that would depend on how the yoga is conducted. If it’s just purely exercise, and you’re a strong Christian, it probably wouldn’t have any impact on your faith. But in the big picture, why would Christians want to borrow an expression from a false religion, from pantheism (god is everything, you’re god, everything is god), when we believe there’s only one true God (the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ). Why would we need to import that? If you want to exercise, exercise. But why borrow a term that has been part of a false religion for centuries?

Mike Galanos (host): Doug Pagitt, let’s get you in on this. And as we do, I want to read the definition from Webster’s on “yoga.” It says it’s “a Hindu theistic philosophy teaching the suppression of all activity of body, mind, and will in order that the self may realize its distinction from them and attain liberation.” Kind of tough one to cipher but, on a spiritual front for a Christian, that does not sound like Christ-centered faith to me. On the surface of that definition, what’s going on here? Help us out.

Doug Pagitt: Well, for people who perform yoga, what they’re normally trying to do is to find a whole and complete and healed life. So when people participate in yoga, most of them aren’t on some kind of a yoga agenda. What they’re trying to do is use whatever practices they can find that would help them have a whole and complete life. And for a Christian, that’s certainly what we’re after. The Jesus agenda is a whole life, is a complete life, is a healed life. So when people use it to relieve stress, to be healthy in their relationships, to feel good in their body, that’s a really good thing.

In fact, there’s a great little verse in the New Testament where it says, “Whatever is good, whatever is right, whatever is noble, whatever is praiseworthy, think upon such things.” And for so many of us, yoga has been one of those ‘whatevers’ that’s such a positive thing in our life.

Mike Galanos (host): So you say, Jesus is alright with yoga?

Doug Pagitt: Yeah, are you asking if I think Jesus was alright with yoga?

Mike Galanos (host): Yeah.

Doug Pagitt: Yeah, I’m not sure exactly how to answer a question like that. My assumption is that Christianity and yoga are not in competition with one another and are not enemies of one another. So to suggest that I could speak clearly for everything that Jesus would have been okay with – if Jesus was familiar with yoga when he was alive, and yoga has certainly around from before the time of Jesus, I don’t think Jesus ever spoke out against yoga and said, don’t perform yoga. But that kind of question that you’re going to ask somebody – “If Jesus was okay with it, then I wouldn’t do it” – that’s the kind of thing that says, would Jesus be okay with pastors wearing suits? Would Jesus be okay with having Christmas trees? These are the kinds of questions that just don’t move forward.

Mike Galanos (host): Let’s get back to the yoga — Doug, let’s get back to yoga real quick – as you do the postures, and this again, again I have not done yoga, but you do the postures, and they’re, one of the concerns is that it’s an offering to some of the millions of Hindu gods. Is there a part of you in the spirit that’s tweaked at all by this? Are you bothered at all. You practice yoga yourself. How do you go through with it?

Doug Pagitt: Hey, I have to confess that I’m not very good at it? Yoga, it’s really hard to hold these postures, to hold these positions. And I’ll tell you that from my own experience, and the many, many people that I know who participate in yoga, none of them have ever found themselves to be opened up to something negative or something demonic or something evil. In fact, many of us find the high benefit that comes from body mind connection, and from knowing that we are pushing, that we are stretching, that we are sending our body into an exercise. And that exercise is not wholly disconnected from our will or from our mind or from our spirit; it’s a complete practice. And I’ve never known anybody who has had anything detrimental come into their spirit because of their practice of yoga.

Mike Galanos (host): John MacArthur, real quick, want to get you in on this as well, is all yoga bad yoga for the Christian?

John MacArthur: Well, let me just respond to what I’ve been hearing. That doesn’t sound anything like Christianity. If you want a whole life, if you want your life to be what it should be, you don’t put yourself in some weird physical position, empty your mind, center on yourself and try to relieve your stress. You go to the word of God, to the gospel of Jesus Christ, you embrace in faith the sacrifice of Christ in his death and resurrection as your savior and redeemer. God comes, regenerates you, transforms your life, makes you a new creation, and you’re saved and you’re on your way to heaven, and you can live a life of peace and joy. That’s the promise of the gospel. There is no contribution made to that by any physical position or any kind of meditation.
The idea of Christianity is to fill your mind with biblical truth and focus on the God who is above you. That’s Christian worship. The idea of yoga is to fill your mind with nothing except to focus on yourself and try to find the god that is inside of you. From a Christian viewpoint, that’s a false religion. Exercise is a different issue.

Mike Galanos (host): Gentlemen, we’re going to have to leave it there. Pastor Doug Pagitt and John MacArthur we appreciate your time, both of you. Thank you very much.¹

I find it interesting that Mr. Pagitt is unable to clearly state what he believes Jesus’ position would be when it comes to Christians practicing Yoga. Perhaps I’m not as involved in the emergent conversation as I should be, but shouldn’t that be one of the first things that is discovered with any activity or issue? But sadly, this is just one of the big problems with the philosophy surrounding Christians and yoga.

In an attempt to defend his position, Mr. Pagitt used a debate tactic and a contemporary theological argument that I am so tired of hearing because it is just plain nonsense. Mr. Pagitt said, “I don’t think Jesus ever spoke out against yoga and said, don’t perform yoga.” First of all, this is such a horrible way of communicating and understanding what Scripture has to say on any subject. Did Jesus ever say anything specifically about yoga? Nope. But He also didn’t specifically mention raping women or abusing children when referring to proper sexual expression. He also didn’t discuss the value (or lack thereof) of dog-fighting or gladiator contests as forms of entertainment, or a host of other issues. Furthermore, Jesus doesn’t make any specific comments about the sin of homosexuality. So, on Mr. Pagitt’s logical grounds, if Jesus doesn’t specifically condemn yoga, then it is (or it could be) fine if a self-professed Christian practices yoga. If that is the case, then we should likewise be able to explore the possibility of the rape and abuse of women and children for sexual expression as well as have a conversation about whether or not we should relax and enjoy some recreation while dogs or humans fight to the death. As a side note, I believe that Solomon’s Porch, Mr. Pagitt’s church, is not concerned with the sin of homosexuality. And the reason for their apathy on this issue, I would guess, is rooted in the same logic as he showed in the interview.

This hermeneutical travesty is so odious that it seems to scream at me whenever I hear someone use it. The Bible condemns any and all sexual expression outside of a marriage between a man and a woman (cf. Lev 18), and this would include rape, incest, molestation, masturbation, fornication, and homosexuality (see also Romans 1:20-32 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11). The Bible encourages us to dwell on good and lovely things (cf. Phil 4:8), not on the brutal maiming and killing of people or animals for sport. The more I see people advocating Christians practicing yoga, or even defending it with the kind of nonsense that Mr. Pagitt used, the more I see the slimy fingers of the enemy closing around the throat of the slightly alive, but mostly apostate group that is American evangelicalism.

Dr. MacArthur hit the nail on the head with his condemnation of the “goal” that Mr. Pagitt described of those people that he knows who practice yoga. The Hindu practice emptying and focusing on nothing or on self is in complete and total contradistinction from the purposeful and discerning practice of faith and focusing our affections and actions on God through the power of the Holy Spirit because of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

I would actually have a lot more to say in refutation and correction of Mr. Pagitt’s errors, but I believe that it was said to him already by Dr. MacArthur. What a blessing it is to have a man of God who has been given, not only a platform but also a mind and heart to use that platform for the sake of Christ and the gospel instead of his own agenda.

As a side, and humorous, note, a while back I was assisting some friends of my parents in finding a local church near where I live. During the e-mail correspondence back and forth with them I happened to mention that a Baptist church I had attended during college was slipping toward emergent error, I believe they even were including yoga in their programs. In part of his responding e-mail to me, this gentleman wrote the following,

“It's interesting that you mentioned that the one church you went to in college has teamed up with the Emergent Church Movement. One of my college mates, Doug Padgett, is apparently one of the 'leaders' of the Emergent movement. I never thought of him as a Pastor or deep theological thinker at the time... but then... okay, so maybe I just answered my own question there - didn't I?”

---

¹ http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/09/13/john-macarthur-doug-pagitt-and-yoga/

Spanking Children

Updated on 1/29/07 (audio clip)

Recently Sally Lieber, a California lawmaker, seems to have made it her mission to outlaw spanking in her state. She seems to have a skewed idea of what spanking is and how it is used. "’I think it's pretty hard to argue you need to beat a child,’ Lieber said. ‘Is it OK to whip a 1-year-old or a 6-month-old or a newborn?’"¹

I don’t know anyone who would argue that beating a child or whipping a 12 or 6 month-old baby is ok. But it is a straw man argument to state that spanking, in any way, is equal with “beating” or “whipping” a child. Furthermore, if someone is abusing their child (i.e. neglect, beating, and sexual molestation)², they are already punished (rightly so) by law. But equating the controlled spanking of a child on his or her buttocks for the purpose of correcting a wrong behavior with that of uncontrolled or rage filled beating of children is truly an abuse; an abuse of language.

So, if this lawmaker succeeds in California and the same law eventually reaches Minnesota (knowing the state of Minnesota politics, it wouldn’t take too long) making spanking children illegal while I have young children, I would be guilty of breaking the law. I would continue to use this form of discipline on my children when it was appropriate.

Apparently the California lawmaker believes that spanking should only be outlawed for children who are under four-years-old.³ I have only been blessed with the duty of parenting two children so far (#3 is on the way), and my oldest is going to be four-years-old this coming summer. My son has been spanked, when appropriate, for about the last 2 years of his life. And he will continue to be spanked until that is no-longer the most effective corrective deterrent to bad behavior.

What do I mean when I say that it is “the most effective corrective deterrent” relating to my son’s behavior? According to the article, Governor Schwarzenegger is not opposed to this bill and is reported to have said that when he was raising his children, “they found it more effective to threaten to take away their children's play time if they didn't do school work” as opposed to spanking. Furthermore, he was quoted as saying, “They hate that much more than getting spanked."

I think that Gov. Schwarzenegger’s comments clarify this issue, but as with the case of Ms. Lieber‘s reckless equivocation of traditional spanking with child abuse, the clarification is not the way that he intended. He said that his children responded better to a threatened losing of privileges if schoolwork was not completed, but four-year-old children are not in school. This example is as irrelevant to the issue as it could be.

A two-year old child may not like to have a toy taken away, but within seconds (literally seconds), that same child may be more content doing something else and completely miss the reason for having a taken away. I want to argue for the validity of spanking as a worthwhile form of discipline to young children in two areas; personal experience and the biblical witness.

First I will look at my personal experience. As always, personal experience and “traditional” ways of doing things are always subject to being corrected or changed based upon the Word of God. So, admittedly, my first argument is what I perceive to be the weaker of the two and, if taken by itself, could almost be disregarded. However, if taken in conjunction with biblical teaching, it very powerfully shows the truth of Scripture.

A Child’s Perspective (Experience)

When I was a child, my parents spanked me…a lot. I don’t remember when it started (which means it started early on), but I do remember a few things about my own experience of being the “spankee”. I remember that it was very effective as a deterrent to my misbehavior. My parents had a spanking tool that was used to spank both me and my brothers.⁴ It was a deterrent in two ways.

First of all, the stinging that follows spanking (which dissipates fairly quickly, in retrospect), caused me to remember the price of disobedience clearly. So I was less likely to be disobedient in the same manner as frequently in the future. Secondly, the visible reminder of the spanking tool was key, I think. I don’t remember if my parents would take it out to be seen by me if I was heading down the path toward a spanking, but I do know that seeing it made me think of the consequences of disobedience.

As a college student away from school on some sort of a break, I was sitting with both of my brothers and we all had a similar conclusion or thought from our childhood; we probably should have been spanked more than we were. This came out of discussion of the (then) possibility of becoming husbands and fathers and how we could use our experience to help us as we assumed the parental leadership role. We were not scarred by the fact that our parents spanked us, on the contrary we saw the reason (even if we didn’t understand it totally as a child) for spanking.

A Parent’s Perspective (Experience)

All children are sinful from the get-go. Sure, they are cute, cuddly, funny, but they are ultimately sinful from the very beginning of life. Even knowing that this is true, it was hard to come to grips with it and how to deal with it when it concerned my own child. Specifically relating to spanking, my wife and I didn’t spank our son until he was right around 18 months old. We haven’t used spanking as the primary method of correction, but it has always been setup to be the final punishment for disobedience. Because we have used it regularly, but not frequently (i.e. when disobedience calls for a spanking, it is used, but it is not invoked frivolously), Micah has an understanding of the gravity of disobedience when he is warned with something similar to, “Micah, if you continue to disobey Mommy, I will have to spank your bottom. Do you want me to do that?” To which he replies with a quick “No,” and we have a little discussion about being obedient. It has served as a good deterrent against common childhood problems of tantrums, hitting⁵, and overall disrespect of others (Sunday school teachers, grandparents, etc.).

As for the general impact on Micah, it is quite remarkable. Frequently we are around other children that are of a similar age of Micah, so we are able to see how other children act as well as how their parents act or react towards their own disobedient children. I will not go into any great detail about any one of these experiences except for one story. Some of our family does not agree with spanking children, and therefore the children in these family units are not disciplined in this manner. One such relative must have seen me talk to my son (in a corrective/disciplining manner) at a family event and didn’t approve of my action. I don’t remember the specific circumstances that led me to (a) take my son away from the action, (b) speak to him in a serious manner about being obedient, and then (c) sent him back to play in a more controlled manner, but I know that I was the only parent to have intervened. The reaction of this relative was to say, basically, “They are too strict with that boy.” The irony of this comment was that later on that same day, this same relative said, while witnessing a general mayhem that had taken over the other children that was now out of control, said, “My, Micah sure is a well behaved boy.”

That is just one example of how the manner that my wife and I parent our children, not perfectly by any means, is readily apparent already while our son is less than four-years-old. This brings me back to the statute that Ms. Lieber is trying to force on the people of California. If I were to not have spanked Micah at all yet, and we were to wait for another 6 months, we would have to deal with the entire course of his little life of learned wrong behaviors that were unable to be corrected properly or effectively. This, I think, would be much harder on everyone, both the children and the parents. Again, I am not saying that spanking is to be used all of the time for every opportunity to discipline or correct a child; I am simply saying that without the deterrent of spanking, Micah would have more areas in need of correction that had corrected earlier.

The Biblical Witness

• The biblical passages that I am going to look at next need little in the way of explanation. However, modern thought or methods cause us to defend the strikingly (no pun intended) obvious verses that deal with the corporal punishment of a child.
• “On the lips of the discerning, wisdom is found, But a rod is for the back of him who lacks understanding.” (Proverbs 10:13)
• “He who withholds his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines him diligently.” (Proverbs 13:24)
• “Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; The rod of discipline will remove it far from him.” (Proverbs 22:15)
• “Do not hold back discipline from the child, Although you strike him with the rod, he will not die. You shall strike him with the rod And rescue his soul from Sheol.” (Proverbs 23:13,14)
• “The rod and reproof give wisdom, But a child who gets his own way brings shame to his mother.” (Proverbs 29:15)

So, as far as the Bible is concerned, there is not a debate as to whether a parent should spank a child who needs to be corrected. I think that it is helpful to hear some solid Bible teachers on how they apply the truths of parental love and correction as it relates to spanking.

“’A rod is for the back of him who lacks understanding.’ Now very simply, folks, how do you get this little guy or this little girl to obey? Bottom line, you hit them with something, it's here called a rod. You say, "You sure that's what it means?" Well, what's the point in just saying...look, here's a rod, would you please obey? If the rod has never been applied, I don't think they understand the picture. You basically are called to use corporeal punishment. That's what it says. A rod is for the back of him who lacks...and isn't it interesting the Lord even tells you where to hit them? Not on the front and not on the top, on the back, where they've been designed to be hit.”⁶

“Can I suggest to you, it really isn't that hard? What it says here is pretty straightforward. You have a depraved and foolish child, if you want him not to be so foolish, spank him. That's it.”⁷

John Piper makes the case that children react to the “thou shalt” commands of police officers, parents, the Bible, God, by saying, “But I want….’ And that this is something that emanates from the sinful roots of their (and our) humanity. He then exhorts his congregation with how parents must respond to the “but I want” reactions of the children with this plea:

“You must teach children ‘NO!’ You will be spanked if you do what you want here. And if you continue [to follow your own will] to the end of your life you’ll go to hell, which is why we spank lovingly. If kids don’t learn the meaning of the wrath of God and the love of God from their parents, who love them, where are they going to learn it? [If] somebody tries, later on, to convince them that a loving God is also a wrathful God, if they haven’t seen that in daddy – that daddy can hug, and kiss, and roll around on the floor, and be sweet and pure and kind and gentle, and really have fire in his eyes when you disobey – if a kid can’t put that together in a parent, how’s he going to put it together in God?”⁸

This last quote from John Piper expresses exactly the reason why we see the necessity for spanking our children. It is because the rod of discipline will drive home the importance of obedience and show the penalty of disobedience. Another interesting note is that David says that he is comforted by the rod of God (Psalms 23:4). The rod is used to beat off wild animals just as it can be used to swat (if necessary) the sheep to get it back in line.

The essence of this whole issue of whether someone should spank a disobedient child comes back to sin and how we as sinful people need to understand what it is and where it comes from. We also need to know how to react to spanking, both as a parent (discipliner) or child (discipline). So, later in that same sermon, Piper goes on to talk about sin and what it is at its core.

“What’s the ‘nub’ of sin? What is sin? Here my efforts to put it into a few paraphrases. The essence of my condition apart from Christ is not first and mainly that I break specific laws of God. That’s way down the river; that I break specific laws of God is not my main problem. My main problem is that I am hostile to God; that I do not want to submit to God. The essence of my sinful condition is the unwillingness to be told what to do. I don’t want to be told where to find happiness. I don’t want to be told ‘this choice will ruin my life’; ‘that choice will make my life.’ ‘I will not be told what to do. I will tell me what to do.’ This is the beginning of sin in the Garden of Eden, right?

“’No!’ she said and he said, ‘I will eat what I want to eat,’ and there’s sin. ‘I will trust me. I will be my own god, thank you, anyway.’ The essence of sin is a passion for self rule before there is any rule on the scene. My essential problem is that I break laws. My essential problem is that I hate laws. I hate them before the even appear, and as long as they don’t appear, my hatred lies dormant. Which is why there are so many good people in the world. ‘Good’ people. ‘Good’ people.

“The main thing, or the essence of sin, or the sinful nature, is self deification. Deification means ‘I will make myself god; I will be god. I will deify, I will make myself a deity.’ Self deification, that’s the essence of sin.”⁹

Until we understand what sin is, and we really get a grasp of what we are as people because of sin and its effects, we can never have any way to deal with the present issue of disciplining children. My main goal, hope, or dream for my children is that they will be saved by God’s grace through faith in the righteousness of Jesus Christ. And if spanking my children will create a more humble attitude as well as opportunities in which to share the gospel, then I am all for it.

When I say that spanking can be an opportunity to share the gospel, that is just what I mean. In my home, we teach Micah that stealing and lying are wrong, we basically teach him the moral guidelines by using the Ten Commandments.¹⁰ So, when Micah is in need of a spanking, we have a conversation as the first part of the disciplining process. I first ask him to recount what he has done wrong. In our conversation he communicates the reason for his discipline, that he has done a “no-no”, and that “no-nos” are sins.

Once we walk through that part of the discussion, we are able to begin the gospel portion. God is angry with sins, and we deserve to go to “the bad place” because of them. And in order to show him how serious God is about sin, I tell him that the Bible tells daddies and mommies to spank their boys in order to help them to be obedient. And because he is in this position because he broke a rule, it is a clear correlation to the breaking of God’s rules that leads to damnation.

One main point in all of this is that at two points during this whole spanking process, I make it clear that his sin is not primarily against me or anyone else, but against God Himself. I make this clear prior to spanking him, as well as after it is done when I ask him if he needs to say anything. Usually he apologizes to me, but I always ask him further until he says that he needs to apologize to God too.

Spanking, as the practical application of the consequences to disobedience, makes our Bible time when we talk about sin, the cross, and salvation much more clear in his young mind.

UPDATED MATERIAL
Way of the Master Radio had an interview with Ted Trip on this topic of spanking children. It's a good listen (about 15 minutes long) and worth while. Click here to listen (the interview portion begins about 5 minutes into the program).

---

¹ http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,245218,00.html

² http://dictionary.reference.com/search?db=dictionary&q=child+abuse

³http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,245218,00.html

⁴ It was a small, thin, white cutting board that had a handle on it.

⁵ Micah hit Stephanie once. When I came home that day, we dealt with it, and it has never happened again. I think this might be a key to forming good behavior. Come down on a rebellious action like this hard, and it should not happen again.

⁶ “God's Pattern for Children, Pt. 1” by John MacArthur http://gty.org/resources.php?section=transcripts&aid=216215

⁷ Ibid.

⁸ “Dead to the Law, Serving in the Spirit, Part 3” by John Piper, originally preached on February 11, 2001 (Transcribed from the 11/30/2006 audio Netcast)

⁹ Ibid.

¹⁰ You can read “Christmas thought #2: Children and Christmas” for a sample of how I teach my son using the Ten Commandments.

thank you, pastor Lamm

Recently I was blog surfing and I came across a comment from a familiar name. I wasn't sure at first, but I confirmed that the writer of that particular comment was my wife's pastor when she was a young girl. I have never met the man, but I wanted to express my gratitude for his ministry in the life of my family, even before it was my family.

Here is what I wrote to him:

to Pastor Steve Lamm:

Pastor Lamm, you do not know me, but you do know my wife, Stephanie. As I understand it, she and your daughter were best friends throughout childhood, and their friendship is still something that is dear to both of them, even though the demands of adulthood and children make it more difficult to get together. However, it is not about her relationship to your daughter that I would like to comment on....

First things first: how did I come to write you this letter? Well, I was reading the Pulpit Magazine article on “Grunge Christianity” and I saw your comment. I clicked on the link that sent me to your church and I found your bio. The facts seemed to fit what I remember of Stephanie’s stories, but I had to call her to confirm. So, that is how I found you online.

Why write?

As you well know, Stephanie grew up in a non-Christian household (Catholic), and was saved at 11 by the witness of her neighbor friend. She speaks highly of her memories of the church that you pastored and welcomed her into. Her only bad experience that she told me about was the way in which your ministry at the church ended – it was painful and difficult for her (as I am sure it was for you and your family), and she never officially joined another church until after we were married. Sadly her parents are still not saved. But gloriously, God saved her brother Jeff about 4 years ago (4 years this week, actually), and so now there are more of us to evangelize her family.

Basically, I am writing to say thank you.

Thank you for raising a godly daughter to be a follower of Christ and to be the true friend that my Stephanie needed.

Thank you for the instruction that she received from you and the various teachers that she had under your ministry.

Thank you for caring for her, for baptizing her, and for equipping her at such a young age and in such a difficult situation.

You will be happy to know that she has grown up to be a godly woman, wife, and mother. We have been blessed with 4 children; Micah (3 yrs), Noah (1 yr), one who will be born in July or August, and one who we lost 2 years ago before birth.

I trust that this note will encourage you. I pray that God will bless your ministry and your family.

Gratefully,
Eric Johnson

I know that being a pastor is a thankless job many times, but at other times the knowledge of how you have been used by God can be a real encouragement. My hope is that in my ministry to the young adults and to the children of Ambassador will be used by God to mold, shape, and encourage young believers and that they would be faithful to the end of their lives.

To God alone be the glory.

An Important Message for Evangelicals Concerning Roman Catholicism

About 1 year ago (sometime in May or June) I was given a sermon/lecture concerning Roman Catholicism focusing on the Pope and the Papacy. But before I talk a little bit more about this lecture, let me bring forward some of my background as it relates to this issue.

I grew up in a Christian home where we attended an Assemblies of God church. When I was in the eighth grade (or so), my parents decided to seek a better church for us to fellowship and worship in. Over the next two (or so) years we went to a few different churches, but I never felt comfortable with them. Finally, we settled in at a local church (LeMars Bible Church, called LBC), and my parents have been there ever since.

Over the course of my life, I have attended a Pentacostal church (Assemblies of God), a charismatic church (Cornerstone Faith Center - I never liked this church because even as a child I could sense the "ickiness" of the health and wealth gospel), a non-denominational Baptist-style church, and now I attend a very good fundamental Baptist church. I bring up this history for a few reasons.

First of all, my theological formation started out more on the Pentacostal and Arminian side and has developed (through study and agony) to be conservative, Baptist, and Calvinistic. So the first reason is to show the diversity of my exposure to various doctrines and traditions.

The second reason that I bring this up is that even though the various churches had different doctrines on Spiritual gifts, doctrines of the roles of men and women, different worship style, various preaching styles, and other issues, one thing remained consistent. These churches agreed on the essential truths of scripture - the Trinity, God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, the inerrancy and infallibility and sufficiency of the Bible, and the message of salvation - the gospel.

The gospel message that I was given as a small child by Mrs. Sylvia Shultz is the same message that was proclaimed to me at LBC, at Ambassador Baptist Church, and it is the same one that I proclaim. Salvation is by grace alone through faith apart from works in Jesus Christ alone.

As a child (and now as an adult) I have had close friends and family members who were not Christians. Some of them professed to be Christians and even went to churches, some were basically irreligious. I also have and have had family and friends who are Roman Catholic. The gospel message that these people knew (and was established in their confirmation classes) was not the same gospel.

The gospel of Roman Catholicism is as different from the Biblical gospel as that of Mormonism in that they both are false, and they do not save. I say this not as a stick in the eye of a Catholic who might be reading this (although, that is unavoidably going to be the outcome). I say this to make plain that there is no fellowship of the faithful or believers that can exist in any real form between those who confess a biblical gospel and those who confess the doctrines of Rome.

There have been moves recently to reconcile the Protestants with the Catholics which many (on both sides) vehemently disagree with. For, even if traditional Roman Catholics disagree with my conclusion that their system is false (they charge Protestants with being false), they agree that our systems are so vastly different that there is no way to be acceptable to both Protestants and Catholics in any real theological sense.

With that background....

The lecture that I was presented was delivered by John MacArthur. He articulated, very well, in one message some of the very reasons why Catholicism and the true gospel message are not compatible. In fact, he opens his message by saying that if a Roman Catholic hears this message, they will surely be offended. But it is not the purpose of offending people or inculcating "anti-Catholic" sentiment that either he preached this message or that I talk about it here. It is to defend the gospel of Christ, defend Christ Himself, and to call out to those who are lost with the truth.

You can listen to the message as it was played on the Way of the Master Radio program. It is divided up into two parts (the two portions of the show) by clicking below:

• Click Here for Part 1
• Click Here for Part 2

For my brothers and sisters who desire to reconcile with the Catholic Church, I hope that this will help articulate or clear up why there can be no "blurring" of the distinctions between Catholicism and true Christianity. For my friends and relatives inside of Roman Catholicism, I hope that God will open your eyes, show you the false system that you are in, and call you out of it.


Soli Deo Gloria - Solus Christus - Sola Fide - Sola Gratia - Sola Scriptura

be a berean - don't be fooled

When dealing with the issue of Iraq being a just war, watch to see if you can see someone misusing/misquoting scripture to. Also, the point of using this clip is not to get into a discussion for the pros/cons of Iraq or any other political matter, it is only to show the use of scripture by people who claim to affirm Christ.



Did you notice the quick references to the prophets by Bishop Talbert? He made reference to "making swords into plowshares" as having been promoted by three prophets (Joel, Isaiah, and Micah) and uses that as the basis to say that Christ would be opposed to war (specifically this one). Well, I took the liberty of looking up the references that he seemed to be talking about.

"And He will judge between the nations, And will render decisions for many peoples; And they will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, And never again will they learn war." (Isaiah 2:4)

"Beat your plowshares into swords And your pruning hooks into spears; Let the weak say, 'I am a mighty man.'" (Joel 3:10)

"And He will judge between many peoples And render decisions for mighty, distant nations. Then they will hammer their swords into plowshares And their spears into pruning hooks; Nation will not lift up sword against nation, And never again will they train for war." (Micah 4:3)

Isaiah and Micah both tell their audience to "hammer their swords into plowshares" but Joel says, "Beat your plowshares into swords" which is the exact reverse. This shows that at times God calls for the use of arms, and at others we are to be peaceful. It is as untrue to make the blanket statement that God is opposed to all war as it is to say that He is a war monger who always delights in endless warring.

Compromising the Gospel

I know that I am way behind on getting involved in the "you tube" phenomenon, but...oh well. I thought that the video clip below was a good articulation of the gospel and specifically regarding the exclusiveness of it.

I think that this shows the danger of being at all squishy in our theology or even in how we express our theology. We dare not ever proclaim a gospel that is only true "for me" or that is "my path" and not make the declaration that all men need to repent and believe in Christ. I also think that the pointed scriptural questions that John MacArthur asks as a rebuttal of the statements of a non-exclusive God is clarifying. The first response back is to ask about the faith of a genuine Jew, and if what MacArthur is saying (he is expressing what the Bible clearly teaches), then the Jew is on the wrong path. EXACTLY! That is why we need to evangelize everyone.