The Internet Monk, Michael Spencer, writes a thought-provoking article
on the legalism that permeates evangelicalism today, the kind that
makes devotion to other agendas a higher priority than proclaiming the
message of the gospel. I have to admit it took me a couple of readings
for me to decide whether or not I agreed. I'll let you decide. But be
warned. This is pretty heady stuff and it's liable to step on your toes.

Don


_______________________________________________________________________
Hard Times For The Gospel: A Rant
May 29th, 2007 by Michael Spencer
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/hard-times-for-the-gospel-a-rant

My friend Noel Heikinnen is preaching on Jesus and the Law at
Riverview Church up in East Lansing, Michigan. If you haven't listened
to Noel's preaching, this is a great place to start.
http://www.eriv.net/resources/messages/

One of the supreme ironies of the current evangelical scene is that we
have a great cry going up regarding the ignorance of the average
person about the Gospel, a complaint with which I completely agree. I
doubt if one adult evangelical in five could give a passable
definition of the Gospel these days. If you took your survey into the
twenties and the teens, the numbers would go double and beyond I'm sure.

Now I want to do all I can to promote the gospel of salvation by
grace, through faith and by Christ. And, at least for me, you can
stick a big, fat ALONE right behind all those words. Grace alone.
Faith alone. Christ alone. And give me a big bowl of solas for dessert.

Now if you recall, I said there was an irony here, and the irony is
that you can count on most of those evangelicals who can't identify or
articulate the gospel to be legalists of some kind or another.
Legalism, which I define as replacing some part of the Gospel with the
law, is doing just fine these days. We're replacing the great
announcement of what God has done with a regular Library of Congress
containing all our shoulds, oughts and musts. That's legalism, and the
Gospel is swimming in a sea of it in today's evangelicalism.

For example, millions of evangelicals aren't particularly interested
in salvation at all, except in the "don't go to hell" sense. They
actually want to have their best life now, get a purpose, have success
principles, find God's favor and experience the anointing on their
bodies, businesses and children. They don't want to be saved, except
for the occasional problem in their personal world.

In the front of that line are the culture warriors. These evangelicals
can always start the meeting with a bit about the Gospel, but what
they really want to do is make sure there's nothing going on in the
culture that doesn't suit them. So an evangelical leader like Jerry
Falwell dies, and he's remembered almost entirely as a culture
warrior. I told Lino Rulli on "The Catholic Guy" program that
evangelical journalists said nicer things about Pope John Paul II than
they did about Jerry Falwell, and the reason was that Falwell- though
he was a man who preached the Gospel to millions and loved the Gospel-
made his reputation in the trenches of the culture war suing Larry
Flynt and promoting Republican candidates. The gospel took a back seat
to taking back America from gays and abortionists. And he wasn't alone
in that errand.

It's been an interesting couple of years, actually, as more than a few
evangelicals discovered they'd completely been had by promoters of
legalistic, culture war righteousness like James Dobson and the Bush
White House "Faith Relations" gang. The sad thing was when they got
the actual scent of the rotting muck they'd been dropped into, they
just shrugged and said "Oh well. Let's keep at it." The younger
evangelicals who bailed on this little game were dubbed "emerging
liberals" and denounced. Nice work.

And then you simply have your garden variety legalism that eats up the
minds and hearts of millions of evangelicals who believe their job is
to be good and to make others be good, too. These are the prudish,
finger-wagging, Christian media addicted do-gooders who want two-piece
bathing suits banned, rap music burned, gays "helped" and Chuck
Swindoll taken off Christian radio.

Oh….you haven't heard? The free-range bishops of the legalistic
evangelical blogosphere have seen to it that that dangerous heretic
Chuch Swindoll has been removed from one Christian radio network for
his shocking behavior. What did you miss? I'll let this quote from
Monday Morning Insight bring you up to speed:

     Among the bad words Chuck has used since 2000 (yes, they've been
keeping a tally for 7 years now): buns, heck, crap, balls, and also
for mentioning (and encouraging the viewing of) the Lion King.

These kinds of legalists are everywhere. I meet them by the dozens
every week. They are upset about Harry Potter. They are ready to
punish anyone who speaks ill of Casting Crowns as great art. They are
hiding their children and want entire denominations to help them. They
hate all media, except when it's a Christian subsidiary of a Murdoch
company or Steve Baldwin might appear to give his testimony. They have
a blame list a mile long and they care about as much about the Gospel
as I do about the Yankees.

It's a battle, you see. Not the announcement of a battle won. That's
the Gospel. No, this is a battle to free the world from bad examples,
bad language, too much skin, tattoos, beer, bad attitudes and anything
that can't be assigned to its proper place in the newest plaything of
evangelicals: The Christian Worldview. The Christian Worldview can be
a good thing, but for most evangelicals it's simply the scandal of
knowing someone doesn't think like the people on Christian TV or
radio, and we have to do something about it.

If you happen to care about the Gospel in this evangelical circus,
well heaven help you, and I truly mean that. If you care about the
Gospel more than about the threat of gay-friendly sitcoms or evolution
being mentioned near your 9 year old, then you are an odd bird. You
may need to change churches.

It's not all scowling Puritans caricatures trading the Gospel for
culture war and "Christian worldview righteousness." No, there are
more than the usual 57 varieties.

Take the new breed of evangelicals who are enamored with
"spirituality" and are ready to throw out the great doctrines of the
reformation for anything that feels "Goddish." Or the liberal
political activists who find a way to say that anything they like- no
matter who it empowers or who pays- is somehow "doing the gospel." (In
this definition, Hugo Chavez is a follower of Jesus.) Or the church
growth pragmatists who have as much theology as a stray cat, but who
know everything about "doing church" like a successful corporation.
Holy Spirit? Is that a brand name? Or the worship junkies waiting for
the next manufactured emotional experience in a stadium, also
available on DVD and for download.

Then there's the denominations that actually have a confessional,
experiential grasp of the gospel, like the Southern Baptist Convention
and the PCA. The SBC is mostly interested in denouncing anyone who
ever had a drink and in sorting out who baptized whom. Next on their
agenda will be announcing that the public schools are right there in
the book of Revelation. And the PCA? The PCA has the Federal Vision
controversy, which apparently exhibits a Presbyterian specialty, i.e.
exploring how those who believe the gospel actually don't because they
differ in some incomprehensible ways from some more theologically
astute theologian.

I'll spare us all the evidence of what passes for the gospel in much
of Pentecostal/Charismatic evangelicalism. The prosperity gospel has
won the field, and a day spent listening to Christian television or
visiting Christian bookstores will reveal that salvation by grace,
through faith, by Christ is soooooo last century. Of course, if you
are John Haggee and you're all about getting Jews- who are already
saved- into Israel so they can be nuked in the tribulation, you hardly
need anything else to talk about.

It's hard times for the Gospel these days. Fortunately, more than a
few Christians have noticed. For instance, Derek Webb's song says it
very, very well.

don't teach me about politics and government
just tell me who to vote for
don't teach me about truth and beauty
just label my music

don't teach me how to live like a free man
just give me a new law

i don't wanna know if the answers aren't easy
so just bring it down from the mountain to me

i want a new law
i want a new law
gimme that new law

don't teach me about moderation and liberty
i prefer a shot of grape juice

don't teach me about loving my enemies

don't teach me how to listen to the Spirit
just give me a new law

i don't wanna know if the answers aren't easy
so just bring it down from the mountain to me

i want a new law
i want a new law
gimme that new law

what's the use in trading a law you can never keep
for one you can that cannot get you anything
do not be afraid
do not be afraid
do not be afraid

Derek gets one of the crucial things about the Gospel dead center
correct: The Gospel tells you to repent and believe, but it doesn't
tell you everything to do, or everything to think. It doesn't give you
the responsibility to make the other guy into a better person or to
make the world safe for democracy. The Gospel doesn't make salvation a
matter of saving the culture or even your kids. The Gospel isn't a new
law, and it's not a new agenda. Jesus saves. That's the Gospel. You
can apply it. You can take it and follow Jesus, but don't get too far
from the Gospel or you'll wind up just another annoying legalist.

The Gospel isn't open to manipulation. (That's what the reformation
settled, if you are paying attention.) The Gospel comes in a
"worldview," but it doesn't make tax vouchers for homeschoolers as
important as salvation by grace, through faith, by Christ alone.

The Gospel isn't a ball of playdough waiting to be shaped into
whatever happens to be of interest to me. It doesn't serve political
parties. It doesn't sell books. It doesn't make megachurches really
cool. It purchases a people, saves them and changes their hearts to
belong to God, not to the world.

The Gospel is simple. It's free. It overturns us and our little party.
It says things we don't want religion to say, but that's ok, because
it's not religion. The Gospel upsets people who are startled by its
power and universal application. The Gospel can get you crucified, and
then it's even more powerful.

The Gospel breaks your heart over your own sin, and shuts you up about
the other guy's sin. (Yes, it opens our mouths for the victims of
suffering, but it gives us humility before those legalism calls "real
sinners.")

It's not a new law. It's not a new set of rules. It's not a plan, a
program or a personality. The Gospel is the son of God, eternal
mediator, crucified substitute, doing for us what we cannot do for
ourselves. We receive the Gospel, we don't use it. We don't make it a
principle or a priority. We're owned by the Gospel.

It's hard times for the Gospel, but there's hope in hard times. People
are questioning. They are talking. They are looking deeper. They are
discovering that the New Covenant is the Gospel, not the law. The
Gospel changes everything about the law for us, from why we keep it,
to what it does to us if we don't, to how we view its application to
culture. A person who loves the Gospel wouldn't be lawless, but will
be law-fulfilled in every way.

It's always my prayer that Internet Monk readers will be people who
love the Gospel and are turning away from the other agendas of
evangelicalism to a single-hearted devotion to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Yeah Don,

He hits kind of hard, but some times we need that 2X4 sermon. He is
so very right about the Gospel tho. The Gospel fixes and heals and
sets us on a right course. All those Christian clicks that we let
ourselves (myself) get into or not get into are all upended by the
Gospel. We want to do something about politics? Use the Gospel. We
want to abolish abortion? Use the Gospel. We want to get our next
door neighbor to quit throwing those parties every weekend? Use the
Gospel. The Gospel is the answer to everything. Unfortunatley, not
many people who call themselves Christian's have heard it or know
what it is. He's right about that! We also need to deliver it with
love too.

Thanks for the article, dUg-




--- In menofpromise@yahoogroups.com, "Don Black" <donva61@...> wrote:
>
> The Internet Monk, Michael Spencer, writes a thought-provoking
article
> on the legalism that permeates evangelicalism today, the kind that
> makes devotion to other agendas a higher priority than proclaiming
the
> message of the gospel. I have to admit it took me a couple of
readings
> for me to decide whether or not I agreed. I'll let you decide. But
be
> warned. This is pretty heady stuff and it's liable to step on your
toes.
>
> Don
>
>
>
______________________________________________________________________
_
> Hard Times For The Gospel: A Rant
> May 29th, 2007 by Michael Spencer
> http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/hard-times-for-the-gospel-a-rant
>
> My friend Noel Heikinnen is preaching on Jesus and the Law at
> Riverview Church up in East Lansing, Michigan. If you haven't
listened
> to Noel's preaching, this is a great place to start.
> http://www.eriv.net/resources/messages/
>
> One of the supreme ironies of the current evangelical scene is that
we
> have a great cry going up regarding the ignorance of the average
> person about the Gospel, a complaint with which I completely agree.
I
> doubt if one adult evangelical in five could give a passable
> definition of the Gospel these days. If you took your survey into
the
> twenties and the teens, the numbers would go double and beyond I'm
sure.
>
> Now I want to do all I can to promote the gospel of salvation by
> grace, through faith and by Christ. And, at least for me, you can
> stick a big, fat ALONE right behind all those words. Grace alone.
> Faith alone. Christ alone. And give me a big bowl of solas for
dessert.
>
> Now if you recall, I said there was an irony here, and the irony is
> that you can count on most of those evangelicals who can't identify
or
> articulate the gospel to be legalists of some kind or another.
> Legalism, which I define as replacing some part of the Gospel with
the
> law, is doing just fine these days. We're replacing the great
> announcement of what God has done with a regular Library of Congress
> containing all our shoulds, oughts and musts. That's legalism, and
the
> Gospel is swimming in a sea of it in today's evangelicalism.
>
> For example, millions of evangelicals aren't particularly interested
> in salvation at all, except in the "don't go to hell" sense. They
> actually want to have their best life now, get a purpose, have
success
> principles, find God's favor and experience the anointing on their
> bodies, businesses and children. They don't want to be saved, except
> for the occasional problem in their personal world.
>
> In the front of that line are the culture warriors. These
evangelicals
> can always start the meeting with a bit about the Gospel, but what
> they really want to do is make sure there's nothing going on in the
> culture that doesn't suit them. So an evangelical leader like Jerry
> Falwell dies, and he's remembered almost entirely as a culture
> warrior. I told Lino Rulli on "The Catholic Guy" program that
> evangelical journalists said nicer things about Pope John Paul II
than
> they did about Jerry Falwell, and the reason was that Falwell-
though
> he was a man who preached the Gospel to millions and loved the
Gospel-
> made his reputation in the trenches of the culture war suing Larry
> Flynt and promoting Republican candidates. The gospel took a back
seat
> to taking back America from gays and abortionists. And he wasn't
alone
> in that errand.
>
> It's been an interesting couple of years, actually, as more than a
few
> evangelicals discovered they'd completely been had by promoters of
> legalistic, culture war righteousness like James Dobson and the Bush
> White House "Faith Relations" gang. The sad thing was when they got
> the actual scent of the rotting muck they'd been dropped into, they
> just shrugged and said "Oh well. Let's keep at it." The younger
> evangelicals who bailed on this little game were dubbed "emerging
> liberals" and denounced. Nice work.
>
> And then you simply have your garden variety legalism that eats up
the
> minds and hearts of millions of evangelicals who believe their job
is
> to be good and to make others be good, too. These are the prudish,
> finger-wagging, Christian media addicted do-gooders who want two-
piece
> bathing suits banned, rap music burned, gays "helped" and Chuck
> Swindoll taken off Christian radio.
>
> Oh….you haven't heard? The free-range bishops of the legalistic
> evangelical blogosphere have seen to it that that dangerous heretic
> Chuch Swindoll has been removed from one Christian radio network for
> his shocking behavior. What did you miss? I'll let this quote from
> Monday Morning Insight bring you up to speed:
>
>     Among the bad words Chuck has used since 2000 (yes, they've been
> keeping a tally for 7 years now): buns, heck, crap, balls, and also
> for mentioning (and encouraging the viewing of) the Lion King.
>
> These kinds of legalists are everywhere. I meet them by the dozens
> every week. They are upset about Harry Potter. They are ready to
> punish anyone who speaks ill of Casting Crowns as great art. They
are
> hiding their children and want entire denominations to help them.
They
> hate all media, except when it's a Christian subsidiary of a Murdoch
> company or Steve Baldwin might appear to give his testimony. They
have
> a blame list a mile long and they care about as much about the
Gospel
> as I do about the Yankees.
>
> It's a battle, you see. Not the announcement of a battle won. That's
> the Gospel. No, this is a battle to free the world from bad
examples,
> bad language, too much skin, tattoos, beer, bad attitudes and
anything
> that can't be assigned to its proper place in the newest plaything
of
> evangelicals: The Christian Worldview. The Christian Worldview can
be
> a good thing, but for most evangelicals it's simply the scandal of
> knowing someone doesn't think like the people on Christian TV or
> radio, and we have to do something about it.
>
> If you happen to care about the Gospel in this evangelical circus,
> well heaven help you, and I truly mean that. If you care about the
> Gospel more than about the threat of gay-friendly sitcoms or
evolution
> being mentioned near your 9 year old, then you are an odd bird. You
> may need to change churches.
>
> It's not all scowling Puritans caricatures trading the Gospel for
> culture war and "Christian worldview righteousness." No, there are
> more than the usual 57 varieties.
>
> Take the new breed of evangelicals who are enamored with
> "spirituality" and are ready to throw out the great doctrines of the
> reformation for anything that feels "Goddish." Or the liberal
> political activists who find a way to say that anything they like-
no
> matter who it empowers or who pays- is somehow "doing the gospel."
(In
> this definition, Hugo Chavez is a follower of Jesus.) Or the church
> growth pragmatists who have as much theology as a stray cat, but who
> know everything about "doing church" like a successful corporation.
> Holy Spirit? Is that a brand name? Or the worship junkies waiting
for
> the next manufactured emotional experience in a stadium, also
> available on DVD and for download.
>
> Then there's the denominations that actually have a confessional,
> experiential grasp of the gospel, like the Southern Baptist
Convention
> and the PCA. The SBC is mostly interested in denouncing anyone who
> ever had a drink and in sorting out who baptized whom. Next on their
> agenda will be announcing that the public schools are right there in
> the book of Revelation. And the PCA? The PCA has the Federal Vision
> controversy, which apparently exhibits a Presbyterian specialty,
i.e.
> exploring how those who believe the gospel actually don't because
they
> differ in some incomprehensible ways from some more theologically
> astute theologian.
>
> I'll spare us all the evidence of what passes for the gospel in much
> of Pentecostal/Charismatic evangelicalism. The prosperity gospel has
> won the field, and a day spent listening to Christian television or
> visiting Christian bookstores will reveal that salvation by grace,
> through faith, by Christ is soooooo last century. Of course, if you
> are John Haggee and you're all about getting Jews- who are already
> saved- into Israel so they can be nuked in the tribulation, you
hardly
> need anything else to talk about.
>
> It's hard times for the Gospel these days. Fortunately, more than a
> few Christians have noticed. For instance, Derek Webb's song says it
> very, very well.
>
> don't teach me about politics and government
> just tell me who to vote for
> don't teach me about truth and beauty
> just label my music
>
> don't teach me how to live like a free man
> just give me a new law
>
> i don't wanna know if the answers aren't easy
> so just bring it down from the mountain to me
>
> i want a new law
> i want a new law
> gimme that new law
>
> don't teach me about moderation and liberty
> i prefer a shot of grape juice
>
> don't teach me about loving my enemies
>
> don't teach me how to listen to the Spirit
> just give me a new law
>
> i don't wanna know if the answers aren't easy
> so just bring it down from the mountain to me
>
> i want a new law
> i want a new law
> gimme that new law
>
> what's the use in trading a law you can never keep
> for one you can that cannot get you anything
> do not be afraid
> do not be afraid
> do not be afraid
>
> Derek gets one of the crucial things about the Gospel dead center
> correct: The Gospel tells you to repent and believe, but it doesn't
> tell you everything to do, or everything to think. It doesn't give
you
> the responsibility to make the other guy into a better person or to
> make the world safe for democracy. The Gospel doesn't make
salvation a
> matter of saving the culture or even your kids. The Gospel isn't a
new
> law, and it's not a new agenda. Jesus saves. That's the Gospel. You
> can apply it. You can take it and follow Jesus, but don't get too
far
> from the Gospel or you'll wind up just another annoying legalist.
>
> The Gospel isn't open to manipulation. (That's what the reformation
> settled, if you are paying attention.) The Gospel comes in a
> "worldview," but it doesn't make tax vouchers for homeschoolers as
> important as salvation by grace, through faith, by Christ alone.
>
> The Gospel isn't a ball of playdough waiting to be shaped into
> whatever happens to be of interest to me. It doesn't serve political
> parties. It doesn't sell books. It doesn't make megachurches really
> cool. It purchases a people, saves them and changes their hearts to
> belong to God, not to the world.
>
> The Gospel is simple. It's free. It overturns us and our little
party.
> It says things we don't want religion to say, but that's ok, because
> it's not religion. The Gospel upsets people who are startled by its
> power and universal application. The Gospel can get you crucified,
and
> then it's even more powerful.
>
> The Gospel breaks your heart over your own sin, and shuts you up
about
> the other guy's sin. (Yes, it opens our mouths for the victims of
> suffering, but it gives us humility before those legalism
calls "real
> sinners.")
>
> It's not a new law. It's not a new set of rules. It's not a plan, a
> program or a personality. The Gospel is the son of God, eternal
> mediator, crucified substitute, doing for us what we cannot do for
> ourselves. We receive the Gospel, we don't use it. We don't make it
a
> principle or a priority. We're owned by the Gospel.
>
> It's hard times for the Gospel, but there's hope in hard times.
People
> are questioning. They are talking. They are looking deeper. They are
> discovering that the New Covenant is the Gospel, not the law. The
> Gospel changes everything about the law for us, from why we keep it,
> to what it does to us if we don't, to how we view its application to
> culture. A person who loves the Gospel wouldn't be lawless, but will
> be law-fulfilled in every way.
>
> It's always my prayer that Internet Monk readers will be people who
> love the Gospel and are turning away from the other agendas of
> evangelicalism to a single-hearted devotion to the Gospel of Jesus
Christ.
>

Blessed is the Nation whose God is the Lord (Ps. 33:12). How we have
been blessed because of our acknowledgment of the Creator. And how
desolate will we will be if we ask Him to leave?........

Do you know the Preamble for your state's constitution?


Alabama 1901 , Preamble ... We the people of the State of Alabama ,
invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and
establish the following Constitution.
Alaska 1956, Preamble ... We, the people of Alaska , grateful to God
and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land.
Arizona 1911, Preamble ... We, the people of the State of Arizona ,
grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this
Constitution...
Arkansas 1874, Preamble ... We, the people of the State of Arkansas ,
grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form
of government...
California 1879, Preamble ... We, the People of the State of
California , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom.
Colorado 1876, Preamble ... We, the people of Colorado , with
profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe.
Connecticut 1818, Preamble... The People of Connecticut,
acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting
them to enjoy.
Delaware 1897, Preamble ... Through Divine Goodness all men have, by
nature, the rights of worshiping and serving their Creator according
to the dictates of their consciences.
Florida 1885, Preamble ... We, the people of the State of Florida ,
grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, establish
this Constitution...
Georgia 1777, Preamble ... We, the people of Georgia , relying upon
protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this
Constitution...
Hawaii 1959, Preamble ... We , the people of Hawaii , Grateful for
Divine Guidance ... Establish this Constitution.
Idaho 1889, Preamble ... We, the people of the State of Idaho ,
grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings.
Illinois 1870, Preamble ... We, the people of the State of Illinois,
grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious
liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to
Him for a blessing on our endeavors.
Indiana 1851, Preamble ... We, the People of the State of Indiana ,
grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to choose
our form of government.
Iowa 1857, Preamble ... We, the People of the State of Iowa ,
grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and
feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings
establish this Constitution.
Kansas 1859, Preamble ... We, the people of Kansas , grateful to
Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges establish this
Constitution.
Kentucky 1891, Preamble... We, the people of the Commonwealth are
grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious
liberties...
Louisiana 1921, Preamble ... We, the people of the State of
Louisiana , grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and
religious liberties we enjoy.
Maine 1820, Preamble ... We the People of Maine acknowledging with
grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe
in affording us an opportunity .... And imploring His aid and
direction.
Maryland 1776, Preamble . We, the people of the state of Maryland ,
grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty...
Massachusetts 1780, Preamble ... We...the people of Massachusetts ,
acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great
Legislator of the Universe .. In the course of His Providence, an
opportunity and devoutly imploring His direction...
Michigan 1908, Preamble ... We, the people of the State of Michigan ,
grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom establish this
Constitution.
Minnesota, 1857, Preamble ... We, the people of the State of
Minnesota , grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and
desiring to perpetuate its blessings:
Mississippi 1890, Preamble ... We, the people of Mississippi in
convention assembled, grateful to Al mighty God, and invoking His
blessing on our work.
Missouri 1845, Preamble ... We, the people of Missouri , with
profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and
grateful for His goodness . Establish this Constitution .
Montana 1889, Preamble... We, the people of Montana , grateful to
Almighty God for the
Blessings of liberty establish this Constitution ....
Nebraska 1875, Preamble . We, the people, grateful to Almighty God
for our freedom .. Establish this Constitution.
Nevada 1864, Preamble ... We the people of the State of Nevada ,
grateful to Almighty God for our freedom establish this Constitution
New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art. I. Sec. V . Every individual has a
natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the
dictates of his own conscience.
New Jersey 1844, Preamble... We, the people of the State of New
Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty
which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a
blessing on our endeavors.
New Mexico 1911, Preamble ... We, the People of New Mexico, grateful
to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty
New York 1846, Preamble ... We, the people of the State of New York ,
grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its
blessings.
North Carolina 1868, Preamble ... We the people of the State of North
Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations,
for our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging
our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those
North Dakota 1889, Preamble ... We , the people of North Dakota ,
grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious
liberty, do ordain...
Ohio 1852, Preamble ... We the people of the state of Ohio , grateful
to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to
promote our common
Oklahoma 1907, Preamble ... Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in
order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty ... establish
this
Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I. Section 2... All men shall be
secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the
dictates of their consciences..
Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble ...We, the people of Pennsylvania ,
grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious
liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance
Rhode Island 1842, Preamble.... We the People of the State of Rhode
Island grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty
which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a
blessing
South Carolina, 1778, Preamble ... We, the people of he State of
South Carolina grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and
establish this Constitution.
South Dakota 1889, Preamble ... We, the people of South Dakota ,
grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties
Tennessee 1796, Art. XI.III ...That all men have a natural and
indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates
of their conscience...
Texas 1845, Preamble ... We the People of the Republic of Texas ,
acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God.
Utah 1896, Preamble ... Grateful to Almighty God for life and
liberty, we establish this Constitution.
Vermont 1777, Preamble... Whereas all government ought to enable the
individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other
blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man
Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI ...Religion, or the Duty which we
owe our Creator can be directed only by Reason and that it is the
mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and
Charity towards each other
Washington 1889, Preamble ... We the People of the State of
Washington , grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our
liberties, do ordain this Constitution
West Virginia 1872, Preamble ... Since through Divine Providence we
enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we,
the people of West Virginia reaffirm our faith in and constant
reliance upon God ..
Wisconsin 1848, Preamble ... We, the people of Wisconsin , grateful
to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility
Wyoming 1890, Preamble ... We, the people of the State of Wyoming ,
grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties ..
establish this Constitution.

J.P. Carter of "The Evangelical Outpost" writes this thought provoking
piece on alcohol and Christian liberty, an interesting twist on What
Would Jesus Do. Now before you get your dander up you need to make
good and sure you actually KNOW what the Bible has to say on the
subject. If you haven't already, I would challenge you to do an
exhaustive word study on the various references to "wine" and "strong
drink" found in scripture. It's been my experience that the most
outspoken are not necessarily the most informed. I'll have more to say
on this later.

Don


________________________________________________________________
What Would Jesus Drink?:
Alcohol, Ethics, and Christian Liberty
http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/003653.html


Can we be more ethical than Jesus?

Most evangelicals would consider such a question to be the height of
absurdity. Since we consider Jesus to be the very standard for moral
conduct, it would be impossible to be more ethical than our own
Redeemer. What we claim to believe, though, is often often betrayed by
our actions.

For example, while we Southern Baptists consider Christ to be the
Creator and Sustainer of the cosmos, we do not consider him fit to
serve as a trustee for the Southern Baptist Convention. Not only was
Jesus a "user of alcoholic beverages" (Luke 7:33-34) but he turned
water into wine for a wedding (John 2), a miracle that must be frowned
upon by a group that is in "total opposition to the manufacturing,
advertising, distributing, and consuming of alcoholic beverages."

Although Jesus' cousin was a Baptist (and from the description, John
appears to be a forefather to the Texas Baptists), I don't think he'd
choose our denomination for himself. Unfortunately, SBC committee
rooms are not the only place where his behavior would be considered
inappropriate. In fact, there are few places within evangelical
circles where such behavior would be considered acceptable. A prime
example is the realm of higher education: Jesus' consumption of wine
would put him in violation of the code of conduct on every evangelical
college campus in America.

While a handful of colleges (e.g., Calvin, Dordt, Wheaton) would have
no problem with his drinking alcohol (provided he drank off campus),
the vast majority would consider such behavior inappropriate if he
were enrolled as an undergrad, seminarian, or faculty member. Bethel,
Biola, Covenant, Eastern Nazarene, Messiah, Liberty, Oral Roberts
University, are just some of the colleges and universities where
Jesus' wine-bibbing would get him in trouble.

Although most schools do not give an explanation for their policy, it
is likely that they take a view similar to that of Regent University:

     Regent also forbids the use of alcohol…on campus and prohibits the
abuse of these substances. The Apostle Paul exhorted the Body of
Christ that, if they truly loved their fellow man, they would set
aside their personal freedom by refraining from behavior that might be
a stumbling block to their weaker brother. Regent University
encourages members of the Regent community to exercise their personal
responsibility and, guided by Paul's admonition, appropriately set
aside their personal freedom and refrain from the use of these substances.

The "weaker brother" argument is often used as a justification for
self-imposed (and institutionally mandated) teetotalism. And for good
reason. It is scriptural admonition that must be prayerfully
considered in regards to an issue like this in which personal conduct
can have an impact on others. I myself am sympathetic to that argument
and truly wish that I could be convinced that it provided the
definitive answer. But no matter how much I want to accept that line
of reasoning, I'm stymied by the obvious question: Why did Jesus not
refrain from drinking alcohol if it is an obvious "stumbling block" to
our "weaker brothers"?

There is no disputing the fact that alcohol abuse is, as my SBC
brethren point out, the cause of much "physical, mental, and emotional
damage." No doubt that was as true in 1st century Palestine as it is
in 21st century America. So why didn't Jesus say that we should avoid
alcohol? If nothing else, why did he not refrain from drinking alcohol
himself in order to set an example?

These types of questions have important implications that go far
beyond the concerns about drinking beer or wine. Where does Christian
liberty end and institutional authority over matters of conscience
begin? Obviously there are times when we need to delineate such
boundaries. But we should be cautious about where we mark those lines
-- especially when they would put Jesus on the wrong side.

Thanks for posting this, Don. I finally had a chance to read it with
the time necessary to form a view on it. I agree wholeheartedly that
legalism permeates evangelicalism, today. The Galatian heresy that
Paul addressed is just as prevalent today. We too often want to
complete that which was begun in us by the Spirit, in our own flesh.

But "antinomianism" (anti, "against" and "nomos" law) is just as
prevalent. These believe that the covenant of grace, even as the
Abrahamic Covenant of the O.T., is not established on conditions;
therefore, man cannot be held accountable to any law. It is only
required for him to believe that he is justified. It seems to me that
this is equally dangerous to a man.

While the forgiven soul may and does occasionally sin and thus needs
daily renewal of the joys of salvation at the mercy seat, I agree he
can never come again under the divine wrath and curse.

Both extremes, legalism and antinominalism are wrong. We are not to
just preach the gospel, but we are to "make disciples" of all men.
The question that Charles Colson then has posited "How then should we
live" must come to the forefront. The Christian laid back attitude
of "que sera, sera" and "I must not make judgements" is precisely the
crime that Christians were guilty of in not stopping Adolph Hitler,
much earlier. The apostle Paul was incensed about this attitude in
the Corinthian church. No one would call sin, sin.

John the Baptist lost his head by confronting a political leader of
his day with how he should live. This is part of the Christian
mandate to be "salt and light" in the earth. Each Christian must
search his soul, work out his own salvation and then act. We are
losing the ability to lose the ability to even recognize and confront
evil when we see it.

Barnabas





- In menofpromise@yahoogroups.com, "Don Black" <donva61@...> wrote:
>
> The Internet Monk, Michael Spencer, writes a thought-provoking
article
> on the legalism that permeates evangelicalism today, the kind that
> makes devotion to other agendas a higher priority than proclaiming
the
> message of the gospel. I have to admit it took me a couple of
readings
> for me to decide whether or not I agreed. I'll let you decide. But
be
> warned. This is pretty heady stuff and it's liable to step on your
toes.
>
> Don
>
>
>
______________________________________________________________________
_
> Hard Times For The Gospel: A Rant
> May 29th, 2007 by Michael Spencer
> http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/hard-times-for-the-gospel-a-rant
>
> My friend Noel Heikinnen is preaching on Jesus and the Law at
> Riverview Church up in East Lansing, Michigan. If you haven't
listened
> to Noel's preaching, this is a great place to start.
> http://www.eriv.net/resources/messages/
>
> One of the supreme ironies of the current evangelical scene is that
we
> have a great cry going up regarding the ignorance of the average
> person about the Gospel, a complaint with which I completely agree.
I
> doubt if one adult evangelical in five could give a passable
> definition of the Gospel these days. If you took your survey into
the
> twenties and the teens, the numbers would go double and beyond I'm
sure.
>
> Now I want to do all I can to promote the gospel of salvation by
> grace, through faith and by Christ. And, at least for me, you can
> stick a big, fat ALONE right behind all those words. Grace alone.
> Faith alone. Christ alone. And give me a big bowl of solas for
dessert.
>
> Now if you recall, I said there was an irony here, and the irony is
> that you can count on most of those evangelicals who can't identify
or
> articulate the gospel to be legalists of some kind or another.
> Legalism, which I define as replacing some part of the Gospel with
the
> law, is doing just fine these days. We're replacing the great
> announcement of what God has done with a regular Library of Congress
> containing all our shoulds, oughts and musts. That's legalism, and
the
> Gospel is swimming in a sea of it in today's evangelicalism.
>
> For example, millions of evangelicals aren't particularly interested
> in salvation at all, except in the "don't go to hell" sense. They
> actually want to have their best life now, get a purpose, have
success
> principles, find God's favor and experience the anointing on their
> bodies, businesses and children. They don't want to be saved, except
> for the occasional problem in their personal world.
>
> In the front of that line are the culture warriors. These
evangelicals
> can always start the meeting with a bit about the Gospel, but what
> they really want to do is make sure there's nothing going on in the
> culture that doesn't suit them. So an evangelical leader like Jerry
> Falwell dies, and he's remembered almost entirely as a culture
> warrior. I told Lino Rulli on "The Catholic Guy" program that
> evangelical journalists said nicer things about Pope John Paul II
than
> they did about Jerry Falwell, and the reason was that Falwell-
though
> he was a man who preached the Gospel to millions and loved the
Gospel-
> made his reputation in the trenches of the culture war suing Larry
> Flynt and promoting Republican candidates. The gospel took a back
seat
> to taking back America from gays and abortionists. And he wasn't
alone
> in that errand.
>
> It's been an interesting couple of years, actually, as more than a
few
> evangelicals discovered they'd completely been had by promoters of
> legalistic, culture war righteousness like James Dobson and the Bush
> White House "Faith Relations" gang. The sad thing was when they got
> the actual scent of the rotting muck they'd been dropped into, they
> just shrugged and said "Oh well. Let's keep at it." The younger
> evangelicals who bailed on this little game were dubbed "emerging
> liberals" and denounced. Nice work.
>
> And then you simply have your garden variety legalism that eats up
the
> minds and hearts of millions of evangelicals who believe their job
is
> to be good and to make others be good, too. These are the prudish,
> finger-wagging, Christian media addicted do-gooders who want two-
piece
> bathing suits banned, rap music burned, gays "helped" and Chuck
> Swindoll taken off Christian radio.
>
> Oh….you haven't heard? The free-range bishops of the legalistic
> evangelical blogosphere have seen to it that that dangerous heretic
> Chuch Swindoll has been removed from one Christian radio network for
> his shocking behavior. What did you miss? I'll let this quote from
> Monday Morning Insight bring you up to speed:
>
>     Among the bad words Chuck has used since 2000 (yes, they've been
> keeping a tally for 7 years now): buns, heck, crap, balls, and also
> for mentioning (and encouraging the viewing of) the Lion King.
>
> These kinds of legalists are everywhere. I meet them by the dozens
> every week. They are upset about Harry Potter. They are ready to
> punish anyone who speaks ill of Casting Crowns as great art. They
are
> hiding their children and want entire denominations to help them.
They
> hate all media, except when it's a Christian subsidiary of a Murdoch
> company or Steve Baldwin might appear to give his testimony. They
have
> a blame list a mile long and they care about as much about the
Gospel
> as I do about the Yankees.
>
> It's a battle, you see. Not the announcement of a battle won. That's
> the Gospel. No, this is a battle to free the world from bad
examples,
> bad language, too much skin, tattoos, beer, bad attitudes and
anything
> that can't be assigned to its proper place in the newest plaything
of
> evangelicals: The Christian Worldview. The Christian Worldview can
be
> a good thing, but for most evangelicals it's simply the scandal of
> knowing someone doesn't think like the people on Christian TV or
> radio, and we have to do something about it.
>
> If you happen to care about the Gospel in this evangelical circus,
> well heaven help you, and I truly mean that. If you care about the
> Gospel more than about the threat of gay-friendly sitcoms or
evolution
> being mentioned near your 9 year old, then you are an odd bird. You
> may need to change churches.
>
> It's not all scowling Puritans caricatures trading the Gospel for
> culture war and "Christian worldview righteousness." No, there are
> more than the usual 57 varieties.
>
> Take the new breed of evangelicals who are enamored with
> "spirituality" and are ready to throw out the great doctrines of the
> reformation for anything that feels "Goddish." Or the liberal
> political activists who find a way to say that anything they like-
no
> matter who it empowers or who pays- is somehow "doing the gospel."
(In
> this definition, Hugo Chavez is a follower of Jesus.) Or the church
> growth pragmatists who have as much theology as a stray cat, but who
> know everything about "doing church" like a successful corporation.
> Holy Spirit? Is that a brand name? Or the worship junkies waiting
for
> the next manufactured emotional experience in a stadium, also
> available on DVD and for download.
>
> Then there's the denominations that actually have a confessional,
> experiential grasp of the gospel, like the Southern Baptist
Convention
> and the PCA. The SBC is mostly interested in denouncing anyone who
> ever had a drink and in sorting out who baptized whom. Next on their
> agenda will be announcing that the public schools are right there in
> the book of Revelation. And the PCA? The PCA has the Federal Vision
> controversy, which apparently exhibits a Presbyterian specialty,
i.e.
> exploring how those who believe the gospel actually don't because
they
> differ in some incomprehensible ways from some more theologically
> astute theologian.
>
> I'll spare us all the evidence of what passes for the gospel in much
> of Pentecostal/Charismatic evangelicalism. The prosperity gospel has
> won the field, and a day spent listening to Christian television or
> visiting Christian bookstores will reveal that salvation by grace,
> through faith, by Christ is soooooo last century. Of course, if you
> are John Haggee and you're all about getting Jews- who are already
> saved- into Israel so they can be nuked in the tribulation, you
hardly
> need anything else to talk about.
>
> It's hard times for the Gospel these days. Fortunately, more than a
> few Christians have noticed. For instance, Derek Webb's song says it
> very, very well.
>
> don't teach me about politics and government
> just tell me who to vote for
> don't teach me about truth and beauty
> just label my music
>
> don't teach me how to live like a free man
> just give me a new law
>
> i don't wanna know if the answers aren't easy
> so just bring it down from the mountain to me
>
> i want a new law
> i want a new law
> gimme that new law
>
> don't teach me about moderation and liberty
> i prefer a shot of grape juice
>
> don't teach me about loving my enemies
>
> don't teach me how to listen to the Spirit
> just give me a new law
>
> i don't wanna know if the answers aren't easy
> so just bring it down from the mountain to me
>
> i want a new law
> i want a new law
> gimme that new law
>
> what's the use in trading a law you can never keep
> for one you can that cannot get you anything
> do not be afraid
> do not be afraid
> do not be afraid
>
> Derek gets one of the crucial things about the Gospel dead center
> correct: The Gospel tells you to repent and believe, but it doesn't
> tell you everything to do, or everything to think. It doesn't give
you
> the responsibility to make the other guy into a better person or to
> make the world safe for democracy. The Gospel doesn't make
salvation a
> matter of saving the culture or even your kids. The Gospel isn't a
new
> law, and it's not a new agenda. Jesus saves. That's the Gospel. You
> can apply it. You can take it and follow Jesus, but don't get too
far
> from the Gospel or you'll wind up just another annoying legalist.
>
> The Gospel isn't open to manipulation. (That's what the reformation
> settled, if you are paying attention.) The Gospel comes in a
> "worldview," but it doesn't make tax vouchers for homeschoolers as
> important as salvation by grace, through faith, by Christ alone.
>
> The Gospel isn't a ball of playdough waiting to be shaped into
> whatever happens to be of interest to me. It doesn't serve political
> parties. It doesn't sell books. It doesn't make megachurches really
> cool. It purchases a people, saves them and changes their hearts to
> belong to God, not to the world.
>
> The Gospel is simple. It's free. It overturns us and our little
party.
> It says things we don't want religion to say, but that's ok, because
> it's not religion. The Gospel upsets people who are startled by its
> power and universal application. The Gospel can get you crucified,
and
> then it's even more powerful.
>
> The Gospel breaks your heart over your own sin, and shuts you up
about
> the other guy's sin. (Yes, it opens our mouths for the victims of
> suffering, but it gives us humility before those legalism
calls "real
> sinners.")
>
> It's not a new law. It's not a new set of rules. It's not a plan, a
> program or a personality. The Gospel is the son of God, eternal
> mediator, crucified substitute, doing for us what we cannot do for
> ourselves. We receive the Gospel, we don't use it. We don't make it
a
> principle or a priority. We're owned by the Gospel.
>
> It's hard times for the Gospel, but there's hope in hard times.
People
> are questioning. They are talking. They are looking deeper. They are
> discovering that the New Covenant is the Gospel, not the law. The
> Gospel changes everything about the law for us, from why we keep it,
> to what it does to us if we don't, to how we view its application to
> culture. A person who loves the Gospel wouldn't be lawless, but will
> be law-fulfilled in every way.
>
> It's always my prayer that Internet Monk readers will be people who
> love the Gospel and are turning away from the other agendas of
> evangelicalism to a single-hearted devotion to the Gospel of Jesus
Christ.
>

Unfortunately the "salt and light" defense has become an excuse for
many to get so caught up in fighting a cultural war that the message
of the gospel is getting drowned out in all the rhetoric. Sure Jude
exhorts us to "contend earnestly for the faith" but there are a couple
of things worth noting. First, he said we should contend; we are never
told to be contentious. In fact Titus 3:9 says we are to avoid foolish
"contentions". Furthermore, it is "the faith" for which we are to be
contending. Michael Spencer's point is that far too many believers
have become so preoccupied with fighting "a battle to free the world
from bad examples" that they show little care for sharing the gospel
message that the battle has been won. You wanna rid the world of evil?
Then lets give them Jesus.



--- In menofpromise@yahoogroups.com, "barnabas500" <oceanranch@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks for posting this, Don. I finally had a chance to read it with
> the time necessary to form a view on it. I agree wholeheartedly that
> legalism permeates evangelicalism, today. The Galatian heresy that
> Paul addressed is just as prevalent today. We too often want to
> complete that which was begun in us by the Spirit, in our own flesh.
>
> But "antinomianism" (anti, "against" and "nomos" law) is just as
> prevalent. These believe that the covenant of grace, even as the
> Abrahamic Covenant of the O.T., is not established on conditions;
> therefore, man cannot be held accountable to any law. It is only
> required for him to believe that he is justified. It seems to me that
> this is equally dangerous to a man.
>
> While the forgiven soul may and does occasionally sin and thus needs
> daily renewal of the joys of salvation at the mercy seat, I agree he
> can never come again under the divine wrath and curse.
>
> Both extremes, legalism and antinominalism are wrong. We are not to
> just preach the gospel, but we are to "make disciples" of all men.
> The question that Charles Colson then has posited "How then should we
> live" must come to the forefront. The Christian laid back attitude
> of "que sera, sera" and "I must not make judgements" is precisely the
> crime that Christians were guilty of in not stopping Adolph Hitler,
> much earlier. The apostle Paul was incensed about this attitude in
> the Corinthian church. No one would call sin, sin.
>
> John the Baptist lost his head by confronting a political leader of
> his day with how he should live. This is part of the Christian
> mandate to be "salt and light" in the earth. Each Christian must
> search his soul, work out his own salvation and then act. We are
> losing the ability to lose the ability to even recognize and confront
> evil when we see it.
>
> Barnabas
>
>
>
>
>
> - In menofpromise@yahoogroups.com, "Don Black" <donva61@> wrote:
> >
> > The Internet Monk, Michael Spencer, writes a thought-provoking
> article
> > on the legalism that permeates evangelicalism today, the kind that
> > makes devotion to other agendas a higher priority than proclaiming
> the
> > message of the gospel. I have to admit it took me a couple of
> readings
> > for me to decide whether or not I agreed. I'll let you decide. But
> be
> > warned. This is pretty heady stuff and it's liable to step on your
> toes.
> >
> > Don
> >
> >
> >
> ______________________________________________________________________
> _
> > Hard Times For The Gospel: A Rant
> > May 29th, 2007 by Michael Spencer
> > http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/hard-times-for-the-gospel-a-rant
> >
> > My friend Noel Heikinnen is preaching on Jesus and the Law at
> > Riverview Church up in East Lansing, Michigan. If you haven't
> listened
> > to Noel's preaching, this is a great place to start.
> > http://www.eriv.net/resources/messages/
> >
> > One of the supreme ironies of the current evangelical scene is that
> we
> > have a great cry going up regarding the ignorance of the average
> > person about the Gospel, a complaint with which I completely agree.
> I
> > doubt if one adult evangelical in five could give a passable
> > definition of the Gospel these days. If you took your survey into
> the
> > twenties and the teens, the numbers would go double and beyond I'm
> sure.
> >
> > Now I want to do all I can to promote the gospel of salvation by
> > grace, through faith and by Christ. And, at least for me, you can
> > stick a big, fat ALONE right behind all those words. Grace alone.
> > Faith alone. Christ alone. And give me a big bowl of solas for
> dessert.
> >
> > Now if you recall, I said there was an irony here, and the irony is
> > that you can count on most of those evangelicals who can't identify
> or
> > articulate the gospel to be legalists of some kind or another.
> > Legalism, which I define as replacing some part of the Gospel with
> the
> > law, is doing just fine these days. We're replacing the great
> > announcement of what God has done with a regular Library of Congress
> > containing all our shoulds, oughts and musts. That's legalism, and
> the
> > Gospel is swimming in a sea of it in today's evangelicalism.
> >
> > For example, millions of evangelicals aren't particularly interested
> > in salvation at all, except in the "don't go to hell" sense. They
> > actually want to have their best life now, get a purpose, have
> success
> > principles, find God's favor and experience the anointing on their
> > bodies, businesses and children. They don't want to be saved, except
> > for the occasional problem in their personal world.
> >
> > In the front of that line are the culture warriors. These
> evangelicals
> > can always start the meeting with a bit about the Gospel, but what
> > they really want to do is make sure there's nothing going on in the
> > culture that doesn't suit them. So an evangelical leader like Jerry
> > Falwell dies, and he's remembered almost entirely as a culture
> > warrior. I told Lino Rulli on "The Catholic Guy" program that
> > evangelical journalists said nicer things about Pope John Paul II
> than
> > they did about Jerry Falwell, and the reason was that Falwell-
> though
> > he was a man who preached the Gospel to millions and loved the
> Gospel-
> > made his reputation in the trenches of the culture war suing Larry
> > Flynt and promoting Republican candidates. The gospel took a back
> seat
> > to taking back America from gays and abortionists. And he wasn't
> alone
> > in that errand.
> >
> > It's been an interesting couple of years, actually, as more than a
> few
> > evangelicals discovered they'd completely been had by promoters of
> > legalistic, culture war righteousness like James Dobson and the Bush
> > White House "Faith Relations" gang. The sad thing was when they got
> > the actual scent of the rotting muck they'd been dropped into, they
> > just shrugged and said "Oh well. Let's keep at it." The younger
> > evangelicals who bailed on this little game were dubbed "emerging
> > liberals" and denounced. Nice work.
> >
> > And then you simply have your garden variety legalism that eats up
> the
> > minds and hearts of millions of evangelicals who believe their job
> is
> > to be good and to make others be good, too. These are the prudish,
> > finger-wagging, Christian media addicted do-gooders who want two-
> piece
> > bathing suits banned, rap music burned, gays "helped" and Chuck
> > Swindoll taken off Christian radio.
> >
> > Oh….you haven't heard? The free-range bishops of the legalistic
> > evangelical blogosphere have seen to it that that dangerous heretic
> > Chuch Swindoll has been removed from one Christian radio network for
> > his shocking behavior. What did you miss? I'll let this quote from
> > Monday Morning Insight bring you up to speed:
> >
> >     Among the bad words Chuck has used since 2000 (yes, they've been
> > keeping a tally for 7 years now): buns, heck, crap, balls, and also
> > for mentioning (and encouraging the viewing of) the Lion King.
> >
> > These kinds of legalists are everywhere. I meet them by the dozens
> > every week. They are upset about Harry Potter. They are ready to
> > punish anyone who speaks ill of Casting Crowns as great art. They
> are
> > hiding their children and want entire denominations to help them.
> They
> > hate all media, except when it's a Christian subsidiary of a Murdoch
> > company or Steve Baldwin might appear to give his testimony. They
> have
> > a blame list a mile long and they care about as much about the
> Gospel
> > as I do about the Yankees.
> >
> > It's a battle, you see. Not the announcement of a battle won. That's
> > the Gospel. No, this is a battle to free the world from bad
> examples,
> > bad language, too much skin, tattoos, beer, bad attitudes and
> anything
> > that can't be assigned to its proper place in the newest plaything
> of
> > evangelicals: The Christian Worldview. The Christian Worldview can
> be
> > a good thing, but for most evangelicals it's simply the scandal of
> > knowing someone doesn't think like the people on Christian TV or
> > radio, and we have to do something about it.
> >
> > If you happen to care about the Gospel in this evangelical circus,
> > well heaven help you, and I truly mean that. If you care about the
> > Gospel more than about the threat of gay-friendly sitcoms or
> evolution
> > being mentioned near your 9 year old, then you are an odd bird. You
> > may need to change churches.
> >
> > It's not all scowling Puritans caricatures trading the Gospel for
> > culture war and "Christian worldview righteousness." No, there are
> > more than the usual 57 varieties.
> >
> > Take the new breed of evangelicals who are enamored with
> > "spirituality" and are ready to throw out the great doctrines of the
> > reformation for anything that feels "Goddish." Or the liberal
> > political activists who find a way to say that anything they like-
> no
> > matter who it empowers or who pays- is somehow "doing the gospel."
> (In
> > this definition, Hugo Chavez is a follower of Jesus.) Or the church
> > growth pragmatists who have as much theology as a stray cat, but who
> > know everything about "doing church" like a successful corporation.
> > Holy Spirit? Is that a brand name? Or the worship junkies waiting
> for
> > the next manufactured emotional experience in a stadium, also
> > available on DVD and for download.
> >
> > Then there's the denominations that actually have a confessional,
> > experiential grasp of the gospel, like the Southern Baptist
> Convention
> > and the PCA. The SBC is mostly interested in denouncing anyone who
> > ever had a drink and in sorting out who baptized whom. Next on their
> > agenda will be announcing that the public schools are right there in
> > the book of Revelation. And the PCA? The PCA has the Federal Vision
> > controversy, which apparently exhibits a Presbyterian specialty,
> i.e.
> > exploring how those who believe the gospel actually don't because
> they
> > differ in some incomprehensible ways from some more theologically
> > astute theologian.
> >
> > I'll spare us all the evidence of what passes for the gospel in much
> > of Pentecostal/Charismatic evangelicalism. The prosperity gospel has
> > won the field, and a day spent listening to Christian television or
> > visiting Christian bookstores will reveal that salvation by grace,
> > through faith, by Christ is soooooo last century. Of course, if you
> > are John Haggee and you're all about getting Jews- who are already
> > saved- into Israel so they can be nuked in the tribulation, you
> hardly
> > need anything else to talk about.
> >
> > It's hard times for the Gospel these days. Fortunately, more than a
> > few Christians have noticed. For instance, Derek Webb's song says it
> > very, very well.
> >
> > don't teach me about politics and government
> > just tell me who to vote for
> > don't teach me about truth and beauty
> > just label my music
> >
> > don't teach me how to live like a free man
> > just give me a new law
> >
> > i don't wanna know if the answers aren't easy
> > so just bring it down from the mountain to me
> >
> > i want a new law
> > i want a new law
> > gimme that new law
> >
> > don't teach me about moderation and liberty
> > i prefer a shot of grape juice
> >
> > don't teach me about loving my enemies
> >
> > don't teach me how to listen to the Spirit
> > just give me a new law
> >
> > i don't wanna know if the answers aren't easy
> > so just bring it down from the mountain to me
> >
> > i want a new law
> > i want a new law
> > gimme that new law
> >
> > what's the use in trading a law you can never keep
> > for one you can that cannot get you anything
> > do not be afraid
> > do not be afraid
> > do not be afraid
> >
> > Derek gets one of the crucial things about the Gospel dead center
> > correct: The Gospel tells you to repent and believe, but it doesn't
> > tell you everything to do, or everything to think. It doesn't give
> you
> > the responsibility to make the other guy into a better person or to
> > make the world safe for democracy. The Gospel doesn't make
> salvation a
> > matter of saving the culture or even your kids. The Gospel isn't a
> new
> > law, and it's not a new agenda. Jesus saves. That's the Gospel. You
> > can apply it. You can take it and follow Jesus, but don't get too
> far
> > from the Gospel or you'll wind up just another annoying legalist.
> >
> > The Gospel isn't open to manipulation. (That's what the reformation
> > settled, if you are paying attention.) The Gospel comes in a
> > "worldview," but it doesn't make tax vouchers for homeschoolers as
> > important as salvation by grace, through faith, by Christ alone.
> >
> > The Gospel isn't a ball of playdough waiting to be shaped into
> > whatever happens to be of interest to me. It doesn't serve political
> > parties. It doesn't sell books. It doesn't make megachurches really
> > cool. It purchases a people, saves them and changes their hearts to
> > belong to God, not to the world.
> >
> > The Gospel is simple. It's free. It overturns us and our little
> party.
> > It says things we don't want religion to say, but that's ok, because
> > it's not religion. The Gospel upsets people who are startled by its
> > power and universal application. The Gospel can get you crucified,
> and
> > then it's even more powerful.
> >
> > The Gospel breaks your heart over your own sin, and shuts you up
> about
> > the other guy's sin. (Yes, it opens our mouths for the victims of
> > suffering, but it gives us humility before those legalism
> calls "real
> > sinners.")
> >
> > It's not a new law. It's not a new set of rules. It's not a plan, a
> > program or a personality. The Gospel is the son of God, eternal
> > mediator, crucified substitute, doing for us what we cannot do for
> > ourselves. We receive the Gospel, we don't use it. We don't make it
> a
> > principle or a priority. We're owned by the Gospel.
> >
> > It's hard times for the Gospel, but there's hope in hard times.
> People
> > are questioning. They are talking. They are looking deeper. They are
> > discovering that the New Covenant is the Gospel, not the law. The
> > Gospel changes everything about the law for us, from why we keep it,
> > to what it does to us if we don't, to how we view its application to
> > culture. A person who loves the Gospel wouldn't be lawless, but will
> > be law-fulfilled in every way.
> >
> > It's always my prayer that Internet Monk readers will be people who
> > love the Gospel and are turning away from the other agendas of
> > evangelicalism to a single-hearted devotion to the Gospel of Jesus
> Christ.
> >
>

Thoughts- Psalm 23

   There are two types of people in this world, first, a minor group who make
consistent efforts to follow God faithfully , obeying Him unconditionally and
second, major group who live out their lives driven by the selfish desires and
tuned towards the expectations of the world. God as Shepherd, leads His people
in honesty, integrity, righteousness, holiness etc and His flock is content and
joyful, irrespective of the happenings around them. God would be their leader in
this life on earth and the life following death. They commit themselves to
follow Him, strive to live up to His expectations and at times their lifestyles
and preferences would be in direct conflict with that of the worldly system,
which promotes name, fame, popularity, lust, pride etc. Godly path is narrow and
unpopular whereas the worldly one is broad and exciting. Unfortunately most of
the sheep from the God's flock wander in the world wearing the name card
(stating that they belong to Jesus) and end up in
  self deception. God wants to be our Shepherd but are we willing follow Him only
????




   Thoughts - Gospel
   http://prithvionnet.wordpress.com/tag/thoughts-gospels/







                         Regards/Prithvi
   Those who teach by their doctrine must teach by their life, or else they pull
down with one hand what they build up with the other. --Matthew Henry
   http://prithvionnet.wordpress.com/














---------------------------------
Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows.
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Would that it were that simplistic, Don. We both know that Christians
in our culture look for the most part no different than the world.
They go to the same movies, read the same books, watch the same TV,
divorce at the same rate, abort babies at the same rate, and on and
on. As for me, I am a Christian--yes and I fight to save our culture.
Christians have too long remained silent and sat on their hands
rather than lift them in prayer and then go into all the world to
make disciples--not just give them Jesus so that they may remain
comfortable in their sins.

--- In menofpromise@yahoogroups.com, "Don Black" <donva61@...> wrote:
>
> Unfortunately the "salt and light" defense has become an excuse for
> many to get so caught up in fighting a cultural war that the message
> of the gospel is getting drowned out in all the rhetoric. Sure Jude
> exhorts us to "contend earnestly for the faith" but there are a
couple
> of things worth noting. First, he said we should contend; we are
never
> told to be contentious. In fact Titus 3:9 says we are to avoid
foolish
> "contentions". Furthermore, it is "the faith" for which we are to be
> contending. Michael Spencer's point is that far too many believers
> have become so preoccupied with fighting "a battle to free the world
> from bad examples" that they show little care for sharing the gospel
> message that the battle has been won. You wanna rid the world of
evil?
> Then lets give them Jesus.
>
>
>
> --- In menofpromise@yahoogroups.com, "barnabas500" <oceanranch@>
wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for posting this, Don. I finally had a chance to read it
with
> > the time necessary to form a view on it. I agree wholeheartedly
that
> > legalism permeates evangelicalism, today. The Galatian heresy
that
> > Paul addressed is just as prevalent today. We too often want to
> > complete that which was begun in us by the Spirit, in our own
flesh.
> >
> > But "antinomianism" (anti, "against" and "nomos" law) is just as
> > prevalent. These believe that the covenant of grace, even as the
> > Abrahamic Covenant of the O.T., is not established on conditions;
> > therefore, man cannot be held accountable to any law. It is only
> > required for him to believe that he is justified. It seems to me
that
> > this is equally dangerous to a man.
> >
> > While the forgiven soul may and does occasionally sin and thus
needs
> > daily renewal of the joys of salvation at the mercy seat, I agree
he
> > can never come again under the divine wrath and curse.
> >
> > Both extremes, legalism and antinominalism are wrong. We are not
to
> > just preach the gospel, but we are to "make disciples" of all
men.
> > The question that Charles Colson then has posited "How then
should we
> > live" must come to the forefront. The Christian laid back
attitude
> > of "que sera, sera" and "I must not make judgements" is precisely
the
> > crime that Christians were guilty of in not stopping Adolph
Hitler,
> > much earlier. The apostle Paul was incensed about this attitude
in
> > the Corinthian church. No one would call sin, sin.
> >
> > John the Baptist lost his head by confronting a political leader
of
> > his day with how he should live. This is part of the Christian
> > mandate to be "salt and light" in the earth. Each Christian must
> > search his soul, work out his own salvation and then act. We are
> > losing the ability to lose the ability to even recognize and
confront
> > evil when we see it.
> >
> > Barnabas
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > - In menofpromise@yahoogroups.com, "Don Black" <donva61@> wrote:
> > >
> > > The Internet Monk, Michael Spencer, writes a thought-provoking
> > article
> > > on the legalism that permeates evangelicalism today, the kind
that
> > > makes devotion to other agendas a higher priority than
proclaiming
> > the
> > > message of the gospel. I have to admit it took me a couple of
> > readings
> > > for me to decide whether or not I agreed. I'll let you decide.
But
> > be
> > > warned. This is pretty heady stuff and it's liable to step on
your
> > toes.
> > >
> > > Don
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
______________________________________________________________________
> > _
> > > Hard Times For The Gospel: A Rant
> > > May 29th, 2007 by Michael Spencer
> > > http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/hard-times-for-the-gospel-a-
rant
> > >
> > > My friend Noel Heikinnen is preaching on Jesus and the Law at
> > > Riverview Church up in East Lansing, Michigan. If you haven't
> > listened
> > > to Noel's preaching, this is a great place to start.
> > > http://www.eriv.net/resources/messages/
> > >
> > > One of the supreme ironies of the current evangelical scene is
that
> > we
> > > have a great cry going up regarding the ignorance of the average
> > > person about the Gospel, a complaint with which I completely
agree.
> > I
> > > doubt if one adult evangelical in five could give a passable
> > > definition of the Gospel these days. If you took your survey
into
> > the
> > > twenties and the teens, the numbers would go double and beyond
I'm
> > sure.
> > >
> > > Now I want to do all I can to promote the gospel of salvation by
> > > grace, through faith and by Christ. And, at least for me, you
can
> > > stick a big, fat ALONE right behind all those words. Grace
alone.
> > > Faith alone. Christ alone. And give me a big bowl of solas for
> > dessert.
> > >
> > > Now if you recall, I said there was an irony here, and the
irony is
> > > that you can count on most of those evangelicals who can't
identify
> > or
> > > articulate the gospel to be legalists of some kind or another.
> > > Legalism, which I define as replacing some part of the Gospel
with
> > the
> > > law, is doing just fine these days. We're replacing the great
> > > announcement of what God has done with a regular Library of
Congress
> > > containing all our shoulds, oughts and musts. That's legalism,
and
> > the
> > > Gospel is swimming in a sea of it in today's evangelicalism.
> > >
> > > For example, millions of evangelicals aren't particularly
interested
> > > in salvation at all, except in the "don't go to hell" sense.
They
> > > actually want to have their best life now, get a purpose, have
> > success
> > > principles, find God's favor and experience the anointing on
their
> > > bodies, businesses and children. They don't want to be saved,
except
> > > for the occasional problem in their personal world.
> > >
> > > In the front of that line are the culture warriors. These
> > evangelicals
> > > can always start the meeting with a bit about the Gospel, but
what
> > > they really want to do is make sure there's nothing going on in
the
> > > culture that doesn't suit them. So an evangelical leader like
Jerry
> > > Falwell dies, and he's remembered almost entirely as a culture
> > > warrior. I told Lino Rulli on "The Catholic Guy" program that
> > > evangelical journalists said nicer things about Pope John Paul
II
> > than
> > > they did about Jerry Falwell, and the reason was that Falwell-
> > though
> > > he was a man who preached the Gospel to millions and loved the
> > Gospel-
> > > made his reputation in the trenches of the culture war suing
Larry
> > > Flynt and promoting Republican candidates. The gospel took a
back
> > seat
> > > to taking back America from gays and abortionists. And he
wasn't
> > alone
> > > in that errand.
> > >
> > > It's been an interesting couple of years, actually, as more
than a
> > few
> > > evangelicals discovered they'd completely been had by promoters
of
> > > legalistic, culture war righteousness like James Dobson and the
Bush
> > > White House "Faith Relations" gang. The sad thing was when they
got
> > > the actual scent of the rotting muck they'd been dropped into,
they
> > > just shrugged and said "Oh well. Let's keep at it." The younger
> > > evangelicals who bailed on this little game were
dubbed "emerging
> > > liberals" and denounced. Nice work.
> > >
> > > And then you simply have your garden variety legalism that eats
up
> > the
> > > minds and hearts of millions of evangelicals who believe their
job
> > is
> > > to be good and to make others be good, too. These are the
prudish,
> > > finger-wagging, Christian media addicted do-gooders who want
two-
> > piece
> > > bathing suits banned, rap music burned, gays "helped" and Chuck
> > > Swindoll taken off Christian radio.
> > >
> > > Oh….you haven't heard? The free-range bishops of the legalistic
> > > evangelical blogosphere have seen to it that that dangerous
heretic
> > > Chuch Swindoll has been removed from one Christian radio
network for
> > > his shocking behavior. What did you miss? I'll let this quote
from
> > > Monday Morning Insight bring you up to speed:
> > >
> > >     Among the bad words Chuck has used since 2000 (yes, they've
been
> > > keeping a tally for 7 years now): buns, heck, crap, balls, and
also
> > > for mentioning (and encouraging the viewing of) the Lion King.
> > >
> > > These kinds of legalists are everywhere. I meet them by the
dozens
> > > every week. They are upset about Harry Potter. They are ready to
> > > punish anyone who speaks ill of Casting Crowns as great art.
They
> > are
> > > hiding their children and want entire denominations to help
them.
> > They
> > > hate all media, except when it's a Christian subsidiary of a
Murdoch
> > > company or Steve Baldwin might appear to give his testimony.
They
> > have
> > > a blame list a mile long and they care about as much about the
> > Gospel
> > > as I do about the Yankees.
> > >
> > > It's a battle, you see. Not the announcement of a battle won.
That's
> > > the Gospel. No, this is a battle to free the world from bad
> > examples,
> > > bad language, too much skin, tattoos, beer, bad attitudes and
> > anything
> > > that can't be assigned to its proper place in the newest
plaything
> > of
> > > evangelicals: The Christian Worldview. The Christian Worldview
can
> > be
> > > a good thing, but for most evangelicals it's simply the scandal
of
> > > knowing someone doesn't think like the people on Christian TV or
> > > radio, and we have to do something about it.
> > >
> > > If you happen to care about the Gospel in this evangelical
circus,
> > > well heaven help you, and I truly mean that. If you care about
the
> > > Gospel more than about the threat of gay-friendly sitcoms or
> > evolution
> > > being mentioned near your 9 year old, then you are an odd bird.
You
> > > may need to change churches.
> > >
> > > It's not all scowling Puritans caricatures trading the Gospel
for
> > > culture war and "Christian worldview righteousness." No, there
are
> > > more than the usual 57 varieties.
> > >
> > > Take the new breed of evangelicals who are enamored with
> > > "spirituality" and are ready to throw out the great doctrines
of the
> > > reformation for anything that feels "Goddish." Or the liberal
> > > political activists who find a way to say that anything they
like-
> > no
> > > matter who it empowers or who pays- is somehow "doing the
gospel."
> > (In
> > > this definition, Hugo Chavez is a follower of Jesus.) Or the
church
> > > growth pragmatists who have as much theology as a stray cat,
but who
> > > know everything about "doing church" like a successful
corporation.
> > > Holy Spirit? Is that a brand name? Or the worship junkies
waiting
> > for
> > > the next manufactured emotional experience in a stadium, also
> > > available on DVD and for download.
> > >
> > > Then there's the denominations that actually have a
confessional,
> > > experiential grasp of the gospel, like the Southern Baptist
> > Convention
> > > and the PCA. The SBC is mostly interested in denouncing anyone
who
> > > ever had a drink and in sorting out who baptized whom. Next on
their
> > > agenda will be announcing that the public schools are right
there in
> > > the book of Revelation. And the PCA? The PCA has the Federal
Vision
> > > controversy, which apparently exhibits a Presbyterian
specialty,
> > i.e.
> > > exploring how those who believe the gospel actually don't
because
> > they
> > > differ in some incomprehensible ways from some more
theologically
> > > astute theologian.
> > >
> > > I'll spare us all the evidence of what passes for the gospel in
much
> > > of Pentecostal/Charismatic evangelicalism. The prosperity
gospel has
> > > won the field, and a day spent listening to Christian
television or
> > > visiting Christian bookstores will reveal that salvation by
grace,
> > > through faith, by Christ is soooooo last century. Of course, if
you
> > > are John Haggee and you're all about getting Jews- who are
already
> > > saved- into Israel so they can be nuked in the tribulation, you
> > hardly
> > > need anything else to talk about.
> > >
> > > It's hard times for the Gospel these days. Fortunately, more
than a
> > > few Christians have noticed. For instance, Derek Webb's song
says it
> > > very, very well.
> > >
> > > don't teach me about politics and government
> > > just tell me who to vote for
> > > don't teach me about truth and beauty
> > > just label my music
> > >
> > > don't teach me how to live like a free man
> > > just give me a new law
> > >
> > > i don't wanna know if the answers aren't easy
> > > so just bring it down from the mountain to me
> > >
> > > i want a new law
> > > i want a new law
> > > gimme that new law
> > >
> > > don't teach me about moderation and liberty
> > > i prefer a shot of grape juice
> > >
> > > don't teach me about loving my enemies
> > >
> > > don't teach me how to listen to the Spirit
> > > just give me a new law
> > >
> > > i don't wanna know if the answers aren't easy
> > > so just bring it down from the mountain to me
> > >
> > > i want a new law
> > > i want a new law
> > > gimme that new law
> > >
> > > what's the use in trading a law you can never keep
> > > for one you can that cannot get you anything
> > > do not be afraid
> > > do not be afraid
> > > do not be afraid
> > >
> > > Derek gets one of the crucial things about the Gospel dead
center
> > > correct: The Gospel tells you to repent and believe, but it
doesn't
> > > tell you everything to do, or everything to think. It doesn't
give
> > you
> > > the responsibility to make the other guy into a better person
or to
> > > make the world safe for democracy. The Gospel doesn't make
> > salvation a
> > > matter of saving the culture or even your kids. The Gospel
isn't a
> > new
> > > law, and it's not a new agenda. Jesus saves. That's the Gospel.
You
> > > can apply it. You can take it and follow Jesus, but don't get
too
> > far
> > > from the Gospel or you'll wind up just another annoying
legalist.
> > >
> > > The Gospel isn't open to manipulation. (That's what the
reformation
> > > settled, if you are paying attention.) The Gospel comes in a
> > > "worldview," but it doesn't make tax vouchers for homeschoolers
as
> > > important as salvation by grace, through faith, by Christ alone.
> > >
> > > The Gospel isn't a ball of playdough waiting to be shaped into
> > > whatever happens to be of interest to me. It doesn't serve
political
> > > parties. It doesn't sell books. It doesn't make megachurches
really
> > > cool. It purchases a people, saves them and changes their
hearts to
> > > belong to God, not to the world.
> > >
> > > The Gospel is simple. It's free. It overturns us and our little
> > party.
> > > It says things we don't want religion to say, but that's ok,
because
> > > it's not religion. The Gospel upsets people who are startled by
its
> > > power and universal application. The Gospel can get you
crucified,
> > and
> > > then it's even more powerful.
> > >
> > > The Gospel breaks your heart over your own sin, and shuts you
up
> > about
> > > the other guy's sin. (Yes, it opens our mouths for the victims
of
> > > suffering, but it gives us humility before those legalism
> > calls "real
> > > sinners.")
> > >
> > > It's not a new law. It's not a new set of rules. It's not a
plan, a
> > > program or a personality. The Gospel is the son of God, eternal
> > > mediator, crucified substitute, doing for us what we cannot do
for
> > > ourselves. We receive the Gospel, we don't use it. We don't
make it
> > a
> > > principle or a priority. We're owned by the Gospel.
> > >
> > > It's hard times for the Gospel, but there's hope in hard times.
> > People
> > > are questioning. They are talking. They are looking deeper.
They are
> > > discovering that the New Covenant is the Gospel, not the law.
The
> > > Gospel changes everything about the law for us, from why we
keep it,
> > > to what it does to us if we don't, to how we view its
application to
> > > culture. A person who loves the Gospel wouldn't be lawless, but
will
> > > be law-fulfilled in every way.
> > >
> > > It's always my prayer that Internet Monk readers will be people
who
> > > love the Gospel and are turning away from the other agendas of
> > > evangelicalism to a single-hearted devotion to the Gospel of
Jesus
> > Christ.
> > >
> >
>

The prerequisite for becoming a disciple of Jesus Christ must first be
to receive Christ since "the natural man does not receive the things
of the Spirit of God" – 1 Cor. 2:14. Only after the "washing of
regeneration" can we begin to teach them to "observe all things" that
Christ commanded us. To do otherwise is to get the cart before the horse.

I'm all for making disciples, but that's not at all the issue here.
What Spencer is saying is that believers need to be "people who love
the Gospel and are turning away from the other agendas of
evangelicalism to a single-hearted devotion to the Gospel of Jesus
Christ." It's the "other agendas" such as legalism or political
activism or fighting the culture war that distract us from being
wholly devoted to the pure message of the gospel and become the tail
that wagged the dog. We need to let Christ alone be our agenda. Why
does it have to be anymore complicated then that?




--- In menofpromise@yahoogroups.com, "barnabas500" <oceanranch@...> wrote:
>
> Would that it were that simplistic, Don. We both know that Christians
> in our culture look for the most part no different than the world.
> They go to the same movies, read the same books, watch the same TV,
> divorce at the same rate, abort babies at the same rate, and on and
> on. As for me, I am a Christian--yes and I fight to save our culture.
> Christians have too long remained silent and sat on their hands
> rather than lift them in prayer and then go into all the world to
> make disciples--not just give them Jesus so that they may remain
> comfortable in their sins.

It is interesting to me, Don, that you have gone to agreeing with
posts regarding political activism (including mine), isloamofascism,
etc. to becoming an apologist for the internet monk, who wrote a most
condescending, judgemental article regarding wonderful Christian men,
including our President. Where do you stand? A double minded man is
unstable in all his ways. Again, once a man is regenerated, then
what? John the Baptist did not lose his head by not confronting the
evil of his day anymore than my Dad's generation of men lost their
lives confronting the evil of their day. Please do not play both
sides of the fence--you are merely going along to get along, to
please everyone. It cannot be done.


-- In menofpromise@yahoogroups.com, "Don Black" <donva61@...> wrote:
>
> The prerequisite for becoming a disciple of Jesus Christ must first
be
> to receive Christ since "the natural man does not receive the things
> of the Spirit of God" – 1 Cor. 2:14. Only after the "washing of
> regeneration" can we begin to teach them to "observe all things"
that
> Christ commanded us. To do otherwise is to get the cart before the
horse.
>
> I'm all for making disciples, but that's not at all the issue here.
> What Spencer is saying is that believers need to be "people who love
> the Gospel and are turning away from the other agendas of
> evangelicalism to a single-hearted devotion to the Gospel of Jesus
> Christ." It's the "other agendas" such as legalism or political
> activism or fighting the culture war that distract us from being
> wholly devoted to the pure message of the gospel and become the tail
> that wagged the dog. We need to let Christ alone be our agenda. Why
> does it have to be anymore complicated then that?
>
>
>
>
> --- In menofpromise@yahoogroups.com, "barnabas500" <oceanranch@>
wrote:
> >
> > Would that it were that simplistic, Don. We both know that
Christians
> > in our culture look for the most part no different than the
world.
> > They go to the same movies, read the same books, watch the same
TV,
> > divorce at the same rate, abort babies at the same rate, and on
and
> > on. As for me, I am a Christian--yes and I fight to save our
culture.
> > Christians have too long remained silent and sat on their hands
> > rather than lift them in prayer and then go into all the world to
> > make disciples--not just give them Jesus so that they may remain
> > comfortable in their sins.
>

THE BEST EXPLANATON
By Gary C. Kurtz

Many young people I encounter today are post-modern, moral
relativists. They contend one cannot know anything for sure. Below is
an article that I wrote which, I pray, will give their searching
hearts the hope that I have.

How can you know anything? If you answer you cannot know anything,
how do you account for the evil in the world? How do you account for
the good in the world? How do you know the statement "you cannot know
anything" is a true statement and not a false one? If you are
intellectually honest and truly hold to no belief in anything, I
wonder how you anchor your sanity?

Is there right or wrong? If so, by what measure do you decide? Can
you not agree that a Hitler or Pol Pot was evil? If you say there is
nothing beyond the physical, how did we get here? Why is there
something rather than nothing?  Where did material come from?

I cannot believe you have not come to a belief in something. Everyone
lives by faith. You only believe you will survive a car ride or plane
flight, etc. You have no absolute knowledge of the outcome. No person
knows all. That which you do that is not based on absolute knowledge
is faith. I have faith I truly exist. I have faith my loved ones
exist. I have faith in their love for me and mine for them. I am not
strictly a materialist. That which is visible to the five senses is
physical and temporal, that which is invisible is spiritual and
eternal.

Without God, there is no morality--merely opinion. Might would,
therefore, make right. But might is from power and power corrupts.
But there is much that is uncorrupted in the world, such as kindness
and love. We all have concepts such as justice and fairness and
mercy. Where did these realities come from? Corruption can only spoil
that which is corruptible. Anything in the world can be corrupted.
Yet corruption does not destroy everything. That which comes from God-
-love and peace and mercy are still here--for they are not physical.
They come from a Source (God) Who is incorruptible and Spiritual. If
you say Love is a chemical reaction and comes only from self-
interest, I pity you--for you could not have ever truly loved a woman
or another person or fathered a beloved son or daughter and believe
that.

I have studied many faiths and only one-Christianity- holds up under
scrutiny. It is the only one that once and for all deals with man's
defective nature. It is the only one with a God so compassionate that
he became one of us and provided a way for us to live with Him
eternally. He is the only One Who did for us what we could not do for
ourselves and took our place on a Cross so that we might live. It is
the only faith that holds up to historicity, manuscript evidence,
archaeological findings, numerous prophetic fulfillment's in minute
detail, and defies the statistical probability concerning these
prophecies ever happening--and the greatest testament of all, the
changed hearts and minds of men and women everywhere since Jesus
Christ walked the earth.

The physical sciences attest to God. We now know the universe had a
beginning. It is not eternal as scientists were so sure it was up
until relatively recently. What was there before matter? No thing can
come from nothing. Why then is there something rather than nothing?
Only the Bible accounts of a God that created all that is seen from
what is not seen.

The biological sciences are now showing the incredible design of
life, as are the physical sciences showing the intricate design of
the universe. We now speak of the "anthropic principle" in science-
for all of physics points to the anticipation of life on planet
Earth. Design implies a Designer. The cell, which is the building
block of all life, is not simple (as Darwin was sure it would be,
once we could look at it in detail). It is irreducibly complex with
mi nature "factories" and "motors" made up of parts that could not
have evolved, for they are specific to the function of a greater
whole. A whole that only an Intelligence could have anticipated. The
Bible also tells of a God who created all living things.

As one who finds a wristwatch does not think it "just happened" but
knows there was a watchmaker. When we find the intricate design and
complexity of everything, beyond what man is even rudimentary capable
of reproducing, we must infer a Designer-- not that it "just
happened". The God of the Bible, under scrutiny, is the only One that
corresponds to the reality we sense and the the only One that has
dealt fully with our spirit which we do not see yet sense.

Christianity is not a blind faith. The Resurrection is the most
verifiable event in ancient history, bar none. If you do not believe
that Christ existed (because he wrote nothing and only others told of
him) then you cannot honestly believe Socrates existed (who also
wrote nothing and is testified of only by another--Plato). The
testimonies to this Person in eyewitness accounts (Matthew, John and
Peter, for example) and in holy and secular writings (such as
Josephus) are as real and documented as anything else one believes in
ancient history. I do not know what you believe. But I know you are a
person of faith, even if your faith is only in your five senses--
which quantum physics and every day life has shown to be unreliable.

Man is made to have faith. He must believe in something or life is an
absurdity, as Sartre, Nietzsche and others concluded. But they, like
Kant, (who posited a "categorical imperative") had to conclude that
if there is no God we must live as though there is one. This is
because no sane person can believe that the actions of a Hitler are
no different than those of a Mother Teresa.

There is a God. He has revealed Himself in all Creation. He has
visited us and paid the penalty for all of our wickedness. He has
given us His Word which still stands, despite the predictions of men
like Voltaire and the best efforts of scholars of every generation to
prove it wrong.

If you are one who tries to get around the fact that our Universe
points to a Mover Who is Himself unmoved by belief in "Multi-
verses", "worm holes", etc., you are involved in metaphysical
speculation based, again, on faith as to what this might mean--and
still beg the question where did the other universes start? If you
cannot answer this question, please do not resort to the logical
fallacy of the "infinite regress". Because when you do you will only
come up come up with the childish question "then who made God?"  Only
contingent realities have a cause. All logic is based on this fact.
God is Spirit, not contingent Only contingent realities have a
beginning--He is the First Cause.

Science, philosophy and religion all inexorably and inevitably come
to a point of faith in what cannot be empirically proven.
Christianity is the only faith that encompasses and satisfies all the
claims of all three.

The Universe is not eternal. It has a beginning and as all that
begins, it will end--just as the Bible posited well before modern
science. Again, no faith but Christianity, is such a genuine "anvil"
that it can shatter the "hammers" of any criticism struck against it,
as it has time and again over the centuries.

The Bible is the best explanation spiritually and physically. I
cannot believe that anyone truly believes that he or she will not
have to give an account for his or her life. This is self-evident to
anyone who is intellectually and spiritually honest.

Since the Bible, hands down, is the best explanation scientifically,
historically, archaeologically and spiritually for all we see and do
not see, it is not a "blind faith" to believe what it says is true.
And since it tells of both a Heaven and a Hell, we are all well
advised to read it to find out how to, not only, go to the former and
how to avoid the latter, but to have a joy in your heart in your
journey on earth on your way to be with Him.

Gary Clifford Kurtz

First of all let's be clear. John the Baptist's ministry was
directed specifically to the Jews. His purpose was to prepare the
way for the coming Messiah. It wasn't so much that he was
confronting the evil of his day as it was that he was confronting
the nation of Israel who once again had rejected God. John was
calling God's people to repentance. That's a little different then
what you're talking about.

Secondly, wonderful Christian men (including me and you) have feet
of clay. I don't think it's condescending at all to acknowledge
that. It's been said that the good is often the enemy of the best.
The fact remains that Evangelicals of every persuasion today are
given to allowing programs of lesser importance to overshadow our
most important mission and that's the spreading of the Gospel. As
for me being double minded, I readily admit to having my own
inconsistencies, but I would hardly call posting opinions on
Christian blogs and message boards an agenda of evangelicalism. If
it is, it isn't a very productive one.

And "once a man is regenerated, then what?" Well, sir, I believe
I've already shared that it is at that point we can begin to teach
them to "observe all things" that Christ commanded us. To be more
specific, I believe it is imperative that the new believer be added
to a local body of believers where he can begin building
interdependent relationships that will equip and encourage him in
his new life with the Lord. He should also participate in heartfelt
worship, hear biblically sound preaching, and be equipped to use his
spiritual gifts to edify the church. Have I left anything out? My
original point still remains; salvation must be the FIRST step in
the discipleship process. Any teaching that is done will come
afterward when they are spiritually ready to hear it.






--- In menofpromise@yahoogroups.com, "barnabas500" <oceanranch@...>
wrote:
>
>
> It is interesting to me, Don, that you have gone to agreeing with
> posts regarding political activism (including mine),
isloamofascism,
> etc. to becoming an apologist for the internet monk, who wrote a
most
> condescending, judgemental article regarding wonderful Christian
men,
> including our President. Where do you stand? A double minded man
is
> unstable in all his ways. Again, once a man is regenerated, then
> what? John the Baptist did not lose his head by not confronting
the
> evil of his day anymore than my Dad's generation of men lost their
> lives confronting the evil of their day. Please do not play both
> sides of the fence--you are merely going along to get along, to
> please everyone. It cannot be done.
>
>
> -- In menofpromise@yahoogroups.com, "Don Black" <donva61@> wrote:
> >
> > The prerequisite for becoming a disciple of Jesus Christ must
first
> be
> > to receive Christ since "the natural man does not receive the
things
> > of the Spirit of God" – 1 Cor. 2:14. Only after the "washing of
> > regeneration" can we begin to teach them to "observe all things"
> that
> > Christ commanded us. To do otherwise is to get the cart before
the
> horse.
> >
> > I'm all for making disciples, but that's not at all the issue
here.
> > What Spencer is saying is that believers need to be "people who
love
> > the Gospel and are turning away from the other agendas of
> > evangelicalism to a single-hearted devotion to the Gospel of
Jesus
> > Christ." It's the "other agendas" such as legalism or political
> > activism or fighting the culture war that distract us from being
> > wholly devoted to the pure message of the gospel and become the
tail
> > that wagged the dog. We need to let Christ alone be our agenda.
Why
> > does it have to be anymore complicated then that?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In menofpromise@yahoogroups.com, "barnabas500" <oceanranch@>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Would that it were that simplistic, Don. We both know that
> Christians
> > > in our culture look for the most part no different than the
> world.
> > > They go to the same movies, read the same books, watch the
same
> TV,
> > > divorce at the same rate, abort babies at the same rate, and
on
> and
> > > on. As for me, I am a Christian--yes and I fight to save our
> culture.
> > > Christians have too long remained silent and sat on their
hands
> > > rather than lift them in prayer and then go into all the world
to
> > > make disciples--not just give them Jesus so that they may
remain
> > > comfortable in their sins.
> >
>

The monk, Don, named names and condemned the actions of fellow
Christians. This at best is childish and at worst, accusing the
brothers. His spirit was one of anger and haughtiness. I thank God
for James Dobson et al. I believed like you when I first became a
Chrisitian and watched our country take a moral dive we may not
recover from. You speak well in theory, and know your Bible but as a
Christian, again, we must stand for something more than the nebulous
things you speak of that have no course of action in the real world.
The apostle Paul confronted everyone. He called on his rights as a
Roman citizen to gain an audience with political leaders. He debated
philosophers at Mars Hill. He condemned sin inside and outside the
Church. These are the things we do when we are "born again". When
thugs are breaking into my house, I will pray, lock up the children,
guard the door and have my wife call a cop--not a monk. Please wake
up! The kind of world your grandchildren will have depends on it.
BTW, I do a lot more than blog. I would match your boast of activity
for the Lord any day of the week if that really meant anything to Our
Lord. I want a few good men of action for our Lord, not a sea of pew
potatoes.


In menofpromise@yahoogroups.com, "Don Black" <donva61@...> wrote:
>
> First of all let's be clear. John the Baptist's ministry was
> directed specifically to the Jews. His purpose was to prepare the
> way for the coming Messiah. It wasn't so much that he was
> confronting the evil of his day as it was that he was confronting
> the nation of Israel who once again had rejected God. John was
> calling God's people to repentance. That's a little different then
> what you're talking about.
>
> Secondly, wonderful Christian men (including me and you) have feet
> of clay. I don't think it's condescending at all to acknowledge
> that. It's been said that the good is often the enemy of the best.
> The fact remains that Evangelicals of every persuasion today are
> given to allowing programs of lesser importance to overshadow our
> most important mission and that's the spreading of the Gospel. As
> for me being double minded, I readily admit to having my own
> inconsistencies, but I would hardly call posting opinions on
> Christian blogs and message boards an agenda of evangelicalism. If
> it is, it isn't a very productive one.
>
> And "once a man is regenerated, then what?" Well, sir, I believe
> I've already shared that it is at that point we can begin to teach
> them to "observe all things" that Christ commanded us. To be more
> specific, I believe it is imperative that the new believer be added
> to a local body of believers where he can begin building
> interdependent relationships that will equip and encourage him in
> his new life with the Lord. He should also participate in heartfelt
> worship, hear biblically sound preaching, and be equipped to use
his
> spiritual gifts to edify the church. Have I left anything out? My
> original point still remains; salvation must be the FIRST step in
> the discipleship process. Any teaching that is done will come
> afterward when they are spiritually ready to hear it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In menofpromise@yahoogroups.com, "barnabas500" <oceanranch@>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > It is interesting to me, Don, that you have gone to agreeing with
> > posts regarding political activism (including mine),
> isloamofascism,
> > etc. to becoming an apologist for the internet monk, who wrote a
> most
> > condescending, judgemental article regarding wonderful Christian
> men,
> > including our President. Where do you stand? A double minded man
> is
> > unstable in all his ways. Again, once a man is regenerated, then
> > what? John the Baptist did not lose his head by not confronting
> the
> > evil of his day anymore than my Dad's generation of men lost
their
> > lives confronting the evil of their day. Please do not play both
> > sides of the fence--you are merely going along to get along, to
> > please everyone. It cannot be done.
> >
> >
> > -- In menofpromise@yahoogroups.com, "Don Black" <donva61@> wrote:
> > >
> > > The prerequisite for becoming a disciple of Jesus Christ must
> first
> > be
> > > to receive Christ since "the natural man does not receive the
> things
> > > of the Spirit of God" – 1 Cor. 2:14. Only after the "washing of
> > > regeneration" can we begin to teach them to "observe all
things"
> > that
> > > Christ commanded us. To do otherwise is to get the cart before
> the
> > horse.
> > >
> > > I'm all for making disciples, but that's not at all the issue
> here.
> > > What Spencer is saying is that believers need to be "people who
> love
> > > the Gospel and are turning away from the other agendas of
> > > evangelicalism to a single-hearted devotion to the Gospel of
> Jesus
> > > Christ." It's the "other agendas" such as legalism or political
> > > activism or fighting the culture war that distract us from being
> > > wholly devoted to the pure message of the gospel and become the
> tail
> > > that wagged the dog. We need to let Christ alone be our agenda.
> Why
> > > does it have to be anymore complicated then that?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In menofpromise@yahoogroups.com, "barnabas500"
<oceanranch@>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Would that it were that simplistic, Don. We both know that
> > Christians
> > > > in our culture look for the most part no different than the
> > world.
> > > > They go to the same movies, read the same books, watch the
> same
> > TV,
> > > > divorce at the same rate, abort babies at the same rate, and
> on
> > and
> > > > on. As for me, I am a Christian--yes and I fight to save our
> > culture.
> > > > Christians have too long remained silent and sat on their
> hands
> > > > rather than lift them in prayer and then go into all the
world
> to
> > > > make disciples--not just give them Jesus so that they may
> remain
> > > > comfortable in their sins.
> > >
> >
>

Not sure what "nebulous" things to which you are referring. Once
again, though, there are a couple of points on which we should be
clear. While it is true that Paul called on his rights as a Roman
citizen to gain an audience with political leaders, let's not forget
the reason why. It was by God's sovereign plan that Paul gained an
audience with King Agrippa (who by the way was almost persuade to
become a Christian) and ultimately before Nero himself so that he
might "also bear witness at Rome" – Acts 23:11. And the debate that he
had with philosophers at Mars' hill, that too was a witnessing
opportunity as he boldly proclaimed to them "God, who made the world
and everything in it" – Acts 17:23-24. So you see, the only real
action that has any eternal significance is the spreading of the
gospel message. That is "the power of God unto salvation." Search the
scriptures and show me where I'm wrong on this. I challenge you.





--- In menofpromise@yahoogroups.com, "barnabas500" <oceanranch@...> wrote:
>
> The monk, Don, named names and condemned the actions of fellow
> Christians. This at best is childish and at worst, accusing the
> brothers. His spirit was one of anger and haughtiness. I thank God
> for James Dobson et al. I believed like you when I first became a
> Chrisitian and watched our country take a moral dive we may not
> recover from. You speak well in theory, and know your Bible but as a
> Christian, again, we must stand for something more than the nebulous
> things you speak of that have no course of action in the real world.
> The apostle Paul confronted everyone. He called on his rights as a
> Roman citizen to gain an audience with political leaders. He debated
> philosophers at Mars Hill. He condemned sin inside and outside the
> Church. These are the things we do when we are "born again". When
> thugs are breaking into my house, I will pray, lock up the children,
> guard the door and have my wife call a cop--not a monk. Please wake
> up! The kind of world your grandchildren will have depends on it.
> BTW, I do a lot more than blog. I would match your boast of activity
> for the Lord any day of the week if that really meant anything to Our
> Lord. I want a few good men of action for our Lord, not a sea of pew
> potatoes.

I personally hold to the teetotaling view. Passages like Proverbs
20:1, "Wine is a mocker, strong drink is a brawler, and whoever is led
astray by it is not wise," and Proverbs 23:31, "Do not look on the
wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup, when it swirls
around smoothly;" seem pretty plain spoken to me. With verses like
that I have a very hard time believing that Jesus drank wine,
particularly given the number of lives that alcoholism has destroyed.
And I've always believed that when Jesus changed the water into wine
it must have had little or no alcoholic content. How could Jesus
create a substance that's so damaging to people?




--- In menofpromise@yahoogroups.com, "Don Black" <donva61@...> wrote:
>
> J.P. Carter of "The Evangelical Outpost" writes this thought provoking
> piece on alcohol and Christian liberty, an interesting twist on What
> Would Jesus Do. Now before you get your dander up you need to make
> good and sure you actually KNOW what the Bible has to say on the
> subject. If you haven't already, I would challenge you to do an
> exhaustive word study on the various references to "wine" and "strong
> drink" found in scripture. It's been my experience that the most
> outspoken are not necessarily the most informed. I'll have more to say
> on this later.
>
> Don
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> What Would Jesus Drink?:
> Alcohol, Ethics, and Christian Liberty
> http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/003653.html
>
>
> Can we be more ethical than Jesus?
>
> Most evangelicals would consider such a question to be the height of
> absurdity. Since we consider Jesus to be the very standard for moral
> conduct, it would be impossible to be more ethical than our own
> Redeemer. What we claim to believe, though, is often often betrayed by
> our actions.
>
> For example, while we Southern Baptists consider Christ to be the
> Creator and Sustainer of the cosmos, we do not consider him fit to
> serve as a trustee for the Southern Baptist Convention. Not only was
> Jesus a "user of alcoholic beverages" (Luke 7:33-34) but he turned
> water into wine for a wedding (John 2), a miracle that must be frowned
> upon by a group that is in "total opposition to the manufacturing,
> advertising, distributing, and consuming of alcoholic beverages."
>
> Although Jesus' cousin was a Baptist (and from the description, John
> appears to be a forefather to the Texas Baptists), I don't think he'd
> choose our denomination for himself. Unfortunately, SBC committee
> rooms are not the only place where his behavior would be considered
> inappropriate. In fact, there are few places within evangelical
> circles where such behavior would be considered acceptable. A prime
> example is the realm of higher education: Jesus' consumption of wine
> would put him in violation of the code of conduct on every evangelical
> college campus in America.
>
> While a handful of colleges (e.g., Calvin, Dordt, Wheaton) would have
> no problem with his drinking alcohol (provided he drank off campus),
> the vast majority would consider such behavior inappropriate if he
> were enrolled as an undergrad, seminarian, or faculty member. Bethel,
> Biola, Covenant, Eastern Nazarene, Messiah, Liberty, Oral Roberts
> University, are just some of the colleges and universities where
> Jesus' wine-bibbing would get him in trouble.
>
> Although most schools do not give an explanation for their policy, it
> is likely that they take a view similar to that of Regent University:
>
>     Regent also forbids the use of alcohol…on campus and prohibits the
> abuse of these substances. The Apostle Paul exhorted the Body of
> Christ that, if they truly loved their fellow man, they would set
> aside their personal freedom by refraining from behavior that might be
> a stumbling block to their weaker brother. Regent University
> encourages members of the Regent community to exercise their personal
> responsibility and, guided by Paul's admonition, appropriately set
> aside their personal freedom and refrain from the use of these
substances.
>
> The "weaker brother" argument is often used as a justification for
> self-imposed (and institutionally mandated) teetotalism. And for good
> reason. It is scriptural admonition that must be prayerfully
> considered in regards to an issue like this in which personal conduct
> can have an impact on others. I myself am sympathetic to that argument
> and truly wish that I could be convinced that it provided the
> definitive answer. But no matter how much I want to accept that line
> of reasoning, I'm stymied by the obvious question: Why did Jesus not
> refrain from drinking alcohol if it is an obvious "stumbling block" to
> our "weaker brothers"?
>
> There is no disputing the fact that alcohol abuse is, as my SBC
> brethren point out, the cause of much "physical, mental, and emotional
> damage." No doubt that was as true in 1st century Palestine as it is
> in 21st century America. So why didn't Jesus say that we should avoid
> alcohol? If nothing else, why did he not refrain from drinking alcohol
> himself in order to set an example?
>
> These types of questions have important implications that go far
> beyond the concerns about drinking beer or wine. Where does Christian
> liberty end and institutional authority over matters of conscience
> begin? Obviously there are times when we need to delineate such
> boundaries. But we should be cautious about where we mark those lines
> -- especially when they would put Jesus on the wrong side.
>

Don, there is no doubt that the spreading of the gospel is paramount. But to
say that is all we must do as Christians is incorrect. Christians were told for
too long in our country to be good little people and stay out of the political
arena, with the attendant devastating cultural results that followed. Every
Christian is a Christian first, and then he has a vocation (Latin for
"calling"). He might be a plumber, a salesman, or a senator. No arena is blocked
to the Christian. Men like James Dobson are called to the arena they are in. Men
like him always put the gospel and Jesus first in all they do. We live in a
country (unheard of in Jesus time on earth) where we can vote and participate.
Paul called on his rights because he was fighting for his due process rights as
a Roman to a fair hearing. This laid the foundation for the kind of rights we
enjoy today. Otherwiswe he would have been executed without a fair hearing. His
letter to Philemon helped to set up the eventual
abolition of slavery. (Another issue Christians were at the forefront of).   To
not bring our moral agendas to the public forum as vigorously as any one else is
a dereliction of our Christian duties. Yes, proclaim the gospel. But just as in
Paul's day, we have far too many "carnal Christians". They drove him nuts, and
they drive me nuts. Get out there and participate in the great freedoms we have
in the country or we will lose them. Many who have heard the gospel are carnal.
Do not just be "hearers", but "doers". To not hear the gospel in the United
States is to be deaf, blind and dumb. I hear it, almost by accident, daily just
by flipping my radio or TV dials. It does not go out void. Thouse with ears to
hear, will hear it and on others it will fall on rocky ground. Just receiving
the gospel is not enough. It is not just "fire insurance" and then go on living
like the rest of the world. As Paul said "God forbid, may it never be!" Please
do not put these men of the Bible in a
"box" of their time. John the Bapist, et al transcend their day. If John the
Baptist was for the Jews, how much more are we to confront our leaders,
including Presidents (all of whom have been Christians). John the Baptist is
more of a role model today, than ever in confronting evil in high places. Please
consider reading the following article on Christian responsibility.Chuck Colson
is the kind of Christian men we are desperately in need of. Because of our love
of our Lord we must confront the issues of our day............Gary Christian
PatriotismWhen is Civil Disobedience Justified?by Charles ColsonJune 5, 2007
During a visit to the United States a few years ago, a pastor from Nepal told of
being thrown into a Nepalese prison for spreading the Gospel. This pastor gave
an excellent summary of Christian patriotism.
"Of course I must obey my Lord and spread His Word," he said. "But even though
we are persecuted, we who are Christians in Nepal pride ourselves on being the
best citizens our king has. We love our country—but we love our God more."
Here in the U.S., Christians are sometimes confused about where to draw the line
between the demands of the state and the demands of God. Is civil disobedience
ever justified? And if so, how do we know?
As I write in my new book, God & Government, Scripture makes clear that
civil disobedience is justified when government attempts to usurp the role of
the Church or our allegiance due only to God. Then the Christian has not just
the right but the duty to resist.
The Bible gives a dramatic example of this in the account of three young Jewish
exiles who were drafted into the Babylonian civil service.
All citizens of Babylon were required to worship the statue of Nebuchadnezzar,
the king. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, the young Hebrews, refused. To
worship an earthly king would be the ultimate offense against their holy God.
So, the three young men were thrown into a blazing furnace—but God miraculously
delivered them.
We also have the example of Peter and John, who, when they were ordered to stop
preaching about Jesus, refused. "Judge for yourselves whether it is right in
God's sight to obey you rather than God," they said.
Their first allegiance was to Christ's command to preach the gospel. They could
not permit the authority of the government-backed Sanhedrin to usurp the
authority of God Himself.
Civil disobedience may also be justified when the state ignores its divinely
mandated responsibilities to preserve life and maintain order and justice. The
resistance of the German church to Hitler was a clear modern example of this
necessity. In the fifties and sixties, this necessary resistance was modeled in
our own country by those active in the civil rights movement. It was later
modeled by those who took part in Operation Rescue sit-ins at abortion clinics.
Christians need to have a thorough understanding of biblical teachings about
civil disobedience. Today, perhaps more than any other time in American history,
Christians face attacks on their freedom of conscience. For instance, colleges
go to great lengths to silence Christians who speak out against the aggressive,
gay agenda. Some states order pharmacists to fill prescriptions for morning
after pills—even if the pharmacist has moral objections. Christian adoption
agencies are told to allow same-sex couples to adopt—or else.
Christians are to be the best of citizens; Out of our love for God, we live in
subjection to governing authorities and we pray for them and respect them. We
also love our neighbors and promote justice. But good citizenship requires both
discernment and courage—discernment to know when duty calls one to obey or
disobey, and courage, as in the case of the latter, to take a stand. But this is
never done lightly. Only when, in consultation with other Christians and
leaders, we feel obligated to do so.
As that Nepali pastor put it, we love our country. But we love our God more.
--- On Wed 06/06, Don Black < donva61@... > wrote:From: Don Black
[mailto: donva61@...]To: menofpromise@...: Wed, 06 Jun
2007 04:08:53 -0000Subject: [Men of Promise] Re: Hard Times For The Gospel: A
Rant



Not sure what "nebulous" things to which you are referring. Onceagain, though,
there are a couple of points on which we should beclear. While it is true that
Paul called on his rights as a Romancitizen to gain an audience with political
leaders, let's not forgetthe reason why. It was by God's sovereign plan that
Paul gained anaudience with King Agrippa (who by the way was almost persuade
tobecome a Christian) and ultimately before Nero himself so that hemight "also
bear witness at Rome" – Acts 23:11. And the debate that hehad with philosophers
at Mars' hill, that too was a witnessingopportunity as he boldly proclaimed to
them "God, who made the worldand everything in it" – Acts 17:23-24. So you see,
the only realaction that has any eternal significance is the spreading of
thegospel message. That is "the power of God unto salvation." Search
thescriptures and show me where I'm wrong on this. I challenge you.--- In
menofpromise@yahoogroups.com, "barnabas500"
Messages in this topic (0) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic
Messages | Polls | Members

  Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email:
Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional Visit Your Group
| Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe


Recent Activity

  1New Members
  1New LinksVisit Your Group


New business?Get new customers.
List your web site
in Yahoo! Search.
Yahoo! 360°Be a Blogger
Do it now
Share with friends
Yahoo! GroupsStart a group
in 3 easy steps.
Connect with others.
.




_______________________________________________
No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.
Make My Way  your home on the Web - http://www.myway.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Gary,

Welcome back.

At this stage in the game I think it's apparent that we have pretty
much exhausted this topic. In your comments you have asserted some
interesting conclusions to biblical references and have set up several
straw man arguments, but by and large you really haven't brought
anything new to the discussion. I'll address some of these issues but
I think at this point we may just have to agree to disagree.

Interestingly enough, we actually do agree on the main point. "There
is no doubt that the spreading of the gospel is paramount." And that's
REALY all I've been trying to say. Sharing the message of the gospel
must take precedence over all other Evangelical agendas. And I don't
really have a problem with much of anything stated in the Chuck Colson
piece either, although for the life of me I'm unsure of it's relevance
in the discussion.

Now regarding your remarks you make several statements about issues
that simply have not been raised:

"To say that [spreading the gospel] is all we must do as Christians is
incorrect." I never said that.

"Get out there and participate in the great freedoms we have in the
country or we will lose them." Nobody said we shouldn't.

The gospel…is not just "fire insurance" and then go on living like the
rest of the world." Couldn't agree more. But that wasn't the issue
that was being raised.

Additionally, you draw conclusions from scripture that really strain
credibility:

"Paul called on his rights because he was fighting for his due process
rights as a Roman to a fair hearing. This laid the foundation for the
kind of rights we enjoy today." Yes, Paul did confront the Roman
authorities concerning his due process rights. But to assert that this
is the foundation for the rights we have today is a real stretch.
There's no evidence for that assumption.

"[Paul's] letter to Philemon helped to set up the eventual abolition
of slavery." Again I know of no evidence, historical or biblical, that
would support that statement.

Gary, quite obviously this is a subject that you are very passionate
about. I respect the fervor with which you stand up for what is right.
But in your zeal to make a point you should really be more careful to
check your facts. Be passionate but be credible.

I think it's safe to say that this subject has run its course. It's
time now to put this one to rest. Thanks to everyone who participated
in the spirited discussion.

Be seeing you.

Don




--- In menofpromise@yahoogroups.com, "Gary"<oceanranch@...> wrote:
>
>  Don, there is no doubt that the spreading of the gospel is
paramount. But to say that is all we must do as Christians is
incorrect. Christians were told for too long in our country to be good
little people and stay out of the political arena, with the attendant
devastating cultural results that followed. Every Christian is a
Christian first, and then he has a vocation (Latin for "calling"). He
might be a plumber, a salesman, or a senator. No arena is blocked to
the Christian. Men like James Dobson are called to the arena they are
in. Men like him always put the gospel and Jesus first in all they do.
We live in a country (unheard of in Jesus time on earth) where we can
vote and participate. Paul called on his rights because he was
fighting for his due process rights as a Roman to a fair hearing. This
laid the foundation for the kind of rights we enjoy today. Otherwiswe
he would have been executed without a fair hearing. His letter to
Philemon helped to set up the eventual
> abolition of slavery. (Another issue Christians were at the
forefront of).   To not bring our moral agendas to the public forum as
vigorously as any one else is a dereliction of our Christian duties.
Yes, proclaim the gospel. But just as in Paul's day, we have far too
many "carnal Christians". They drove him nuts, and they drive me nuts.
Get out there and participate in the great freedoms we have in the
country or we will lose them. Many who have heard the gospel are
carnal. Do not just be "hearers", but "doers". To not hear the gospel
in the United States is to be deaf, blind and dumb. I hear it, almost
by accident, daily just by flipping my radio or TV dials. It does not
go out void. Thouse with ears to hear, will hear it and on others it
will fall on rocky ground. Just receiving the gospel is not enough. It
is not just "fire insurance" and then go on living like the rest of
the world. As Paul said "God forbid, may it never be!" Please do not
put these men of the Bible in a
> "box" of their time. John the Bapist, et al transcend their day. If
John the Baptist was for the Jews, how much more are we to confront
our leaders, including Presidents (all of whom have been Christians).
John the Baptist is more of a role model today, than ever in
confronting evil in high places. Please consider reading the following
article on Christian responsibility.Chuck Colson is the kind of
Christian men we are desperately in need of. Because of our love of
our Lord we must confront the issues of our day............Gary


Christian Patriotism
When is Civil Disobedience Justified?
by Charles Colson
June 5, 2007

> During a visit to the United States a few years ago, a pastor from
Nepal told of being thrown into a Nepalese prison for spreading the
Gospel. This pastor gave an excellent summary of Christian patriotism.
> "Of course I must obey my Lord and spread His Word," he said. "But
even though we are persecuted, we who are Christians in Nepal pride
ourselves on being the best citizens our king has. We love our
country—but we love our God more."
> Here in the U.S., Christians are sometimes confused about where to
draw the line between the demands of the state and the demands of God.
Is civil disobedience ever justified? And if so, how do we know?
> As I write in my new book, God & Government, Scripture makes
clear that civil disobedience is justified when government attempts to
usurp the role of the Church or our allegiance due only to God. Then
the Christian has not just the right but the duty to resist.
> The Bible gives a dramatic example of this in the account of three
young Jewish exiles who were drafted into the Babylonian civil service.
> All citizens of Babylon were required to worship the statue of
Nebuchadnezzar, the king. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, the young
Hebrews, refused. To worship an earthly king would be the ultimate
offense against their holy God. So, the three young men were thrown
into a blazing furnace—but God miraculously delivered them.
> We also have the example of Peter and John, who, when they were
ordered to stop preaching about Jesus, refused. "Judge for yourselves
whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God," they
said.
> Their first allegiance was to Christ's command to preach the gospel.
They could not permit the authority of the government-backed Sanhedrin
to usurp the authority of God Himself.
> Civil disobedience may also be justified when the state ignores its
divinely mandated responsibilities to preserve life and maintain order
and justice. The resistance of the German church to Hitler was a clear
modern example of this necessity. In the fifties and sixties, this
necessary resistance was modeled in our own country by those active in
the civil rights movement. It was later modeled by those who took part
in Operation Rescue sit-ins at abortion clinics.
> Christians need to have a thorough understanding of biblical
teachings about civil disobedience. Today, perhaps more than any other
time in American history, Christians face attacks on their freedom of
conscience. For instance, colleges go to great lengths to silence
Christians who speak out against the aggressive, gay agenda. Some
states order pharmacists to fill prescriptions for morning after
pills—even if the pharmacist has moral objections. Christian adoption
agencies are told to allow same-sex couples to adopt—or else.
> Christians are to be the best of citizens; Out of our love for God,
we live in subjection to governing authorities and we pray for them
and respect them. We also love our neighbors and promote justice. But
good citizenship requires both discernment and courage—discernment to
know when duty calls one to obey or disobey, and courage, as in the
case of the latter, to take a stand. But this is never done lightly.
Only when, in consultation with other Christians and leaders, we feel
obligated to do so.
> As that Nepali pastor put it, we love our country. But we love our
God more.
> --- On Wed 06/06, Don Black < donva61@... > wrote:From: Don
Black [mailto: donva61@...]To: menofpromise@...: Wed, 06 Jun 2007
04:08:53 -0000Subject: [Men of Promise] Re: Hard Times For The Gospel:
A Rant
>
>
>
> Not sure what "nebulous" things to which you are referring.
Onceagain, though, there are a couple of points on which we should
beclear. While it is true that Paul called on his rights as a
Romancitizen to gain an audience with political leaders, let's not
forgetthe reason why. It was by God's sovereign plan that Paul gained
anaudience with King Agrippa (who by the way was almost persuade
tobecome a Christian) and ultimately before Nero himself so that
hemight "also bear witness at Rome" – Acts 23:11. And the debate that
hehad with philosophers at Mars' hill, that too was a
witnessingopportunity as he boldly proclaimed to them "God, who made
the worldand everything in it" – Acts 17:23-24. So you see, the only
realaction that has any eternal significance is the spreading of
thegospel message. That is "the power of God unto salvation." Search
thescriptures and show me where I'm wrong on this. I challenge you.---
In menofpromise@yahoogroups.com, "barnabas500"
> Messages in this topic (0) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic
> Messages | Polls | Members
>
>  Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings
via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to
Traditional Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
>
>
> Recent Activity
>
>  1New Members
>  1New LinksVisit Your Group
>
>
> New business?Get new customers.
> List your web site
> in Yahoo! Search.
> Yahoo! 360°Be a Blogger
> Do it now
> Share with friends
> Yahoo! GroupsStart a group
> in 3 easy steps.
> Connect with others.
> .
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.
> Make My Way  your home on the Web - http://www.myway.com
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

I am personally almost totally a teetotaler myself, but not because I believe
the Bible teaches that.  In fact, I think that that is an almost impossible case
to make without reading our preferences back into the Bible.  I used to believe
that Jesus turned the water into Welch's, but that neither fits the historical
context nor the Scriptural one.  Remember, they said of the wine, "hey, this
host kept the best 'til last!". The best wine was customarily introduced first,
and then after the guests were a bit tipsy and wouldn't notice, the cheaper
would be introduced.  If this was the "best" wine, it would certainly have been
alcoholic in nature.

Further, the argument that Jesus wouldn't have created a substance "that's so
damaging to people" is just not a compelling argument.  He created mountains,
oceans, and rivers---dangerous all, if misused.  Frankly, he created me with a
brain, hands, a penis---again, all dangerous if misused.  Used properly, all of
these creations ofg God can be a blessing, as can alcohol, used within
Scriptural constraints.


--- In menofpromise@yahoogroups.com, a_4tun8_man <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> I personally hold to the teetotaling view. Passages like Proverbs
> 20:1, "Wine is a mocker, strong drink is a brawler, and whoever is led
> astray by it is not wise," and Proverbs 23:31, "Do not look on the
> wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup, when it swirls
> around smoothly;" seem pretty plain spoken to me. With verses like
> that I have a very hard time believing that Jesus drank wine,
> particularly given the number of lives that alcoholism has destroyed.
> And I've always believed that when Jesus changed the water into wine
> it must have had little or no alcoholic content. How could Jesus
> create a substance that's so damaging to people?
>
>
>
>
> --- In menofpromise@yahoogroups.com, "Don Black" <donva61@> wrote:
> >
> > J.P. Carter of "The Evangelical Outpost" writes this thought provoking
> > piece on alcohol and Christian liberty, an interesting twist on What
> > Would Jesus Do. Now before you get your dander up you need to make
> > good and sure you actually KNOW what the Bible has to say on the
> > subject. If you haven't already, I would challenge you to do an
> > exhaustive word study on the various references to "wine" and "strong
> > drink" found in scripture. It's been my experience that the most
> > outspoken are not necessarily the most informed. I'll have more to say
> > on this later.
> >
> > Don
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________
> > What Would Jesus Drink?:
> > Alcohol, Ethics, and Christian Liberty
> > http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/003653.html
> >
> >
> > Can we be more ethical than Jesus?
> >
> > Most evangelicals would consider such a question to be the height of
> > absurdity. Since we consider Jesus to be the very standard for moral
> > conduct, it would be impossible to be more ethical than our own
> > Redeemer. What we claim to believe, though, is often often betrayed by
> > our actions.
> >
> > For example, while we Southern Baptists consider Christ to be the
> > Creator and Sustainer of the cosmos, we do not consider him fit to
> > serve as a trustee for the Southern Baptist Convention. Not only was
> > Jesus a "user of alcoholic beverages" (Luke 7:33-34) but he turned
> > water into wine for a wedding (John 2), a miracle that must be frowned
> > upon by a group that is in "total opposition to the manufacturing,
> > advertising, distributing, and consuming of alcoholic beverages."
> >
> > Although Jesus' cousin was a Baptist (and from the description, John
> > appears to be a forefather to the Texas Baptists), I don't think he'd
> > choose our denomination for himself. Unfortunately, SBC committee
> > rooms are not the only place where his behavior would be considered
> > inappropriate. In fact, there are few places within evangelical
> > circles where such behavior would be considered acceptable. A prime
> > example is the realm of higher education: Jesus' consumption of wine
> > would put him in violation of the code of conduct on every evangelical
> > college campus in America.
> >
> > While a handful of colleges (e.g., Calvin, Dordt, Wheaton) would have
> > no problem with his drinking alcohol (provided he drank off campus),
> > the vast majority would consider such behavior inappropriate if he
> > were enrolled as an undergrad, seminarian, or faculty member. Bethel,
> > Biola, Covenant, Eastern Nazarene, Messiah, Liberty, Oral Roberts
> > University, are just some of the colleges and universities where
> > Jesus' wine-bibbing would get him in trouble.
> >
> > Although most schools do not give an explanation for their policy, it
> > is likely that they take a view similar to that of Regent University:
> >
> >     Regent also forbids the use of alcohol…on campus and prohibits the
> > abuse of these substances. The Apostle Paul exhorted the Body of
> > Christ that, if they truly loved their fellow man, they would set
> > aside their personal freedom by refraining from behavior that might be
> > a stumbling block to their weaker brother. Regent University
> > encourages members of the Regent community to exercise their personal
> > responsibility and, guided by Paul's admonition, appropriately set
> > aside their personal freedom and refrain from the use of these
> substances.
> >
> > The "weaker brother" argument is often used as a justification for
> > self-imposed (and institutionally mandated) teetotalism. And for good
> > reason. It is scriptural admonition that must be prayerfully
> > considered in regards to an issue like this in which personal conduct
> > can have an impact on others. I myself am sympathetic to that argument
> > and truly wish that I could be convinced that it provided the
> > definitive answer. But no matter how much I want to accept that line
> > of reasoning, I'm stymied by the obvious question: Why did Jesus not
> > refrain from drinking alcohol if it is an obvious "stumbling block" to
> > our "weaker brothers"?
> >
> > There is no disputing the fact that alcohol abuse is, as my SBC
> > brethren point out, the cause of much "physical, mental, and emotional
> > damage." No doubt that was as true in 1st century Palestine as it is
> > in 21st century America. So why didn't Jesus say that we should avoid
> > alcohol? If nothing else, why did he not refrain from drinking alcohol
> > himself in order to set an example?
> >
> > These types of questions have important implications that go far
> > beyond the concerns about drinking beer or wine. Where does Christian
> > liberty end and institutional authority over matters of conscience
> > begin? Obviously there are times when we need to delineate such
> > boundaries. But we should be cautious about where we mark those lines
> > -- especially when they would put Jesus on the wrong side.
> >
>

Ya, in order to hold the view that the Bible teaches teetotaling, you
pretty much have to use the "Welch's" line of reasoning for the
marriage feast in Cana. For a long time I bought into that theory
myself. A former pastor of mine taught this for years. It sounds
logical if you're a teetotaler, until you try to defend it
scripturally. As Byron has stated, there's really no evidence of that
interoperation from the text. You end up forcing scripture to say
things it really doesn't say, and that's always a dangerous thing.

As I said before, it's important to know what the Bible really has to
say on the subject. You may be surprised to learn that there are far
more positive references to wine in the Bible then there are negative.
In fact there are 27 references alone to the abundance of wine as an
example of God's blessing. But don't take my word for it. Go to
http://www.biblegateway.com and do a keyword search on wine. See for
yourself. Or better yet, there's a great article at
http://wooga.drbacchus.com/bible/alcohol.html on the subject of
Alcohol and the Bible. It's well worth the read.

Don



--- In menofpromise@yahoogroups.com, a_4tun8_man <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> I personally hold to the teetotaling view. Passages like Proverbs
> 20:1, "Wine is a mocker, strong drink is a brawler, and whoever is led
> astray by it is not wise," and Proverbs 23:31, "Do not look on the
> wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup, when it swirls
> around smoothly;" seem pretty plain spoken to me. With verses like
> that I have a very hard time believing that Jesus drank wine,
> particularly given the number of lives that alcoholism has destroyed.
> And I've always believed that when Jesus changed the water into wine
> it must have had little or no alcoholic content. How could Jesus
> create a substance that's so damaging to people?
>
>
>
>
> --- In menofpromise@yahoogroups.com, "Don Black" <donva61@> wrote:
> >
> > J.P. Carter of "The Evangelical Outpost" writes this thought provoking
> > piece on alcohol and Christian liberty, an interesting twist on What
> > Would Jesus Do. Now before you get your dander up you need to make
> > good and sure you actually KNOW what the Bible has to say on the
> > subject. If you haven't already, I would challenge you to do an
> > exhaustive word study on the various references to "wine" and "strong
> > drink" found in scripture. It's been my experience that the most
> > outspoken are not necessarily the most informed. I'll have more to say
> > on this later.
> >
> > Don
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________
> > What Would Jesus Drink?:
> > Alcohol, Ethics, and Christian Liberty
> > http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/003653.html
> >
> >
> > Can we be more ethical than Jesus?
> >
> > Most evangelicals would consider such a question to be the height of
> > absurdity. Since we consider Jesus to be the very standard for moral
> > conduct, it would be impossible to be more ethical than our own
> > Redeemer. What we claim to believe, though, is often often betrayed by
> > our actions.
> >
> > For example, while we Southern Baptists consider Christ to be the
> > Creator and Sustainer of the cosmos, we do not consider him fit to
> > serve as a trustee for the Southern Baptist Convention. Not only was
> > Jesus a "user of alcoholic beverages" (Luke 7:33-34) but he turned
> > water into wine for a wedding (John 2), a miracle that must be frowned
> > upon by a group that is in "total opposition to the manufacturing,
> > advertising, distributing, and consuming of alcoholic beverages."
> >
> > Although Jesus' cousin was a Baptist (and from the description, John
> > appears to be a forefather to the Texas Baptists), I don't think he'd
> > choose our denomination for himself. Unfortunately, SBC committee
> > rooms are not the only place where his behavior would be considered
> > inappropriate. In fact, there are few places within evangelical
> > circles where such behavior would be considered acceptable. A prime
> > example is the realm of higher education: Jesus' consumption of wine
> > would put him in violation of the code of conduct on every evangelical
> > college campus in America.
> >
> > While a handful of colleges (e.g., Calvin, Dordt, Wheaton) would have
> > no problem with his drinking alcohol (provided he drank off campus),
> > the vast majority would consider such behavior inappropriate if he
> > were enrolled as an undergrad, seminarian, or faculty member. Bethel,
> > Biola, Covenant, Eastern Nazarene, Messiah, Liberty, Oral Roberts
> > University, are just some of the colleges and universities where
> > Jesus' wine-bibbing would get him in trouble.
> >
> > Although most schools do not give an explanation for their policy, it
> > is likely that they take a view similar to that of Regent University:
> >
> >     Regent also forbids the use of alcohol…on campus and prohibits the
> > abuse of these substances. The Apostle Paul exhorted the Body of
> > Christ that, if they truly loved their fellow man, they would set
> > aside their personal freedom by refraining from behavior that might be
> > a stumbling block to their weaker brother. Regent University
> > encourages members of the Regent community to exercise their personal
> > responsibility and, guided by Paul's admonition, appropriately set
> > aside their personal freedom and refrain from the use of these
> substances.
> >
> > The "weaker brother" argument is often used as a justification for
> > self-imposed (and institutionally mandated) teetotalism. And for good
> > reason. It is scriptural admonition that must be prayerfully
> > considered in regards to an issue like this in which personal conduct
> > can have an impact on others. I myself am sympathetic to that argument
> > and truly wish that I could be convinced that it provided the
> > definitive answer. But no matter how much I want to accept that line
> > of reasoning, I'm stymied by the obvious question: Why did Jesus not
> > refrain from drinking alcohol if it is an obvious "stumbling block" to
> > our "weaker brothers"?
> >
> > There is no disputing the fact that alcohol abuse is, as my SBC
> > brethren point out, the cause of much "physical, mental, and emotional
> > damage." No doubt that was as true in 1st century Palestine as it is
> > in 21st century America. So why didn't Jesus say that we should avoid
> > alcohol? If nothing else, why did he not refrain from drinking alcohol
> > himself in order to set an example?
> >
> > These types of questions have important implications that go far
> > beyond the concerns about drinking beer or wine. Where does Christian
> > liberty end and institutional authority over matters of conscience
> > begin? Obviously there are times when we need to delineate such
> > boundaries. But we should be cautious about where we mark those lines
> > -- especially when they would put Jesus on the wrong side.
> >
>

I'll drink to that!* ** ***

* Only in moderation.

** Making sure I'm controlled by the Holy Spirit, and not by the wine.

*** Only if I can afford it, and money's been tight lately...

:)

Byron






--- In menofpromise@yahoogroups.com, "Don Black" <donva61@...> wrote:
>
> Ya, in order to hold the view that the Bible teaches teetotaling, you
> pretty much have to use the "Welch's" line of reasoning for the
> marriage feast in Cana. For a long time I bought into that theory
> myself. A former pastor of mine taught this for years. It sounds
> logical if you're a teetotaler, until you try to defend it
> scripturally. As Byron has stated, there's really no evidence of that
> interoperation from the text. You end up forcing scripture to say
> things it really doesn't say, and that's always a dangerous thing.
>
> As I said before, it's important to know what the Bible really has to
> say on the subject. You may be surprised to learn that there are far
> more positive references to wine in the Bible then there are negative.
> In fact there are 27 references alone to the abundance of wine as an
> example of God's blessing. But don't take my word for it. Go to
> http://www.biblegateway.com and do a keyword search on wine. See for
> yourself. Or better yet, there's a great article at
> http://wooga.drbacchus.com/bible/alcohol.html on the subject of
> Alcohol and the Bible. It's well worth the read.
>
> Don
>
>
>
> --- In menofpromise@yahoogroups.com, a_4tun8_man <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > I personally hold to the teetotaling view. Passages like Proverbs
> > 20:1, "Wine is a mocker, strong drink is a brawler, and whoever is led
> > astray by it is not wise," and Proverbs 23:31, "Do not look on the
> > wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup, when it swirls
> > around smoothly;" seem pretty plain spoken to me. With verses like
> > that I have a very hard time believing that Jesus drank wine,
> > particularly given the number of lives that alcoholism has destroyed.
> > And I've always believed that when Jesus changed the water into wine
> > it must have had little or no alcoholic content. How could Jesus
> > create a substance that's so damaging to people?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In menofpromise@yahoogroups.com, "Don Black" <donva61@> wrote:
> > >
> > > J.P. Carter of "The Evangelical Outpost" writes this thought
provoking
> > > piece on alcohol and Christian liberty, an interesting twist on What
> > > Would Jesus Do. Now before you get your dander up you need to make
> > > good and sure you actually KNOW what the Bible has to say on the
> > > subject. If you haven't already, I would challenge you to do an
> > > exhaustive word study on the various references to "wine" and
"strong
> > > drink" found in scripture. It's been my experience that the most
> > > outspoken are not necessarily the most informed. I'll have more
to say
> > > on this later.
> > >
> > > Don
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________________________________________
> > > What Would Jesus Drink?:
> > > Alcohol, Ethics, and Christian Liberty
> > > http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/003653.html
> > >
> > >
> > > Can we be more ethical than Jesus?
> > >
> > > Most evangelicals would consider such a question to be the height of
> > > absurdity. Since we consider Jesus to be the very standard for moral
> > > conduct, it would be impossible to be more ethical than our own
> > > Redeemer. What we claim to believe, though, is often often
betrayed by
> > > our actions.
> > >
> > > For example, while we Southern Baptists consider Christ to be the
> > > Creator and Sustainer of the cosmos, we do not consider him fit to
> > > serve as a trustee for the Southern Baptist Convention. Not only was
> > > Jesus a "user of alcoholic beverages" (Luke 7:33-34) but he turned
> > > water into wine for a wedding (John 2), a miracle that must be
frowned
> > > upon by a group that is in "total opposition to the manufacturing,
> > > advertising, distributing, and consuming of alcoholic beverages."
> > >
> > > Although Jesus' cousin was a Baptist (and from the description, John
> > > appears to be a forefather to the Texas Baptists), I don't think
he'd
> > > choose our denomination for himself. Unfortunately, SBC committee
> > > rooms are not the only place where his behavior would be considered
> > > inappropriate. In fact, there are few places within evangelical
> > > circles where such behavior would be considered acceptable. A prime
> > > example is the realm of higher education: Jesus' consumption of wine
> > > would put him in violation of the code of conduct on every
evangelical
> > > college campus in America.
> > >
> > > While a handful of colleges (e.g., Calvin, Dordt, Wheaton) would
have
> > > no problem with his drinking alcohol (provided he drank off campus),
> > > the vast majority would consider such behavior inappropriate if he
> > > were enrolled as an undergrad, seminarian, or faculty member.
Bethel,
> > > Biola, Covenant, Eastern Nazarene, Messiah, Liberty, Oral Roberts
> > > University, are just some of the colleges and universities where
> > > Jesus' wine-bibbing would get him in trouble.
> > >
> > > Although most schools do not give an explanation for their
policy, it
> > > is likely that they take a view similar to that of Regent
University:
> > >
> > >     Regent also forbids the use of alcohol�on campus and
prohibits the
> > > abuse of these substances. The Apostle Paul exhorted the Body of
> > > Christ that, if they truly loved their fellow man, they would set
> > > aside their personal freedom by refraining from behavior that
might be
> > > a stumbling block to their weaker brother. Regent University
> > > encourages members of the Regent community to exercise their
personal
> > > responsibility and, guided by Paul's admonition, appropriately set
> > > aside their personal freedom and refrain from the use of these
> > substances.
> > >
> > > The "weaker brother" argument is often used as a justification for
> > > self-imposed (and institutionally mandated) teetotalism. And for
good
> > > reason. It is scriptural admonition that must be prayerfully
> > > considered in regards to an issue like this in which personal
conduct
> > > can have an impact on others. I myself am sympathetic to that
argument
> > > and truly wish that I could be convinced that it provided the
> > > definitive answer. But no matter how much I want to accept that line
> > > of reasoning, I'm stymied by the obvious question: Why did Jesus not
> > > refrain from drinking alcohol if it is an obvious "stumbling
block" to
> > > our "weaker brothers"?
> > >
> > > There is no disputing the fact that alcohol abuse is, as my SBC
> > > brethren point out, the cause of much "physical, mental, and
emotional
> > > damage." No doubt that was as true in 1st century Palestine as it is
> > > in 21st century America. So why didn't Jesus say that we should
avoid
> > > alcohol? If nothing else, why did he not refrain from drinking
alcohol
> > > himself in order to set an example?
> > >
> > > These types of questions have important implications that go far
> > > beyond the concerns about drinking beer or wine. Where does
Christian
> > > liberty end and institutional authority over matters of conscience
> > > begin? Obviously there are times when we need to delineate such
> > > boundaries. But we should be cautious about where we mark those
lines
> > > -- especially when they would put Jesus on the wrong side.
> > >
> >
>

Here's something you don't see everyday. Christian Exodus is a group
of "Christian constitutionalists" who plan to move "thousands of
Christians to South Carolina to reestablish constitutionally limited
government founded upon Christian principles." I first heard about
these guys a couple of years ago. At that time Christian Exodus was
more of just an idea. Now it seems they are taking the first steps
toward making the idea a reality. You can read all about it at OneNewsNow:

http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/06/christian_separatist_readying.php

Cory Burnell, leader of Christian Exodus, will be moving his
organization from California where he is presently located to
Anderson, South Carolina by sometime July. He expects another couple
of dozen families to join him by next year. His reason for choosing
this part of the country for his little social experiment? It's
because there are already a good number of conservative families
living in the area.

And by the way, let's not forget, this isn't the first time in the
history of civilization that the idea of establishing a purely
Christian society has ever been tried. You will recall the pilgrims
and later on the puritans who made this their expressed goal for
establishing the Massachusetts Bay Colony.

But there is one other twist to this story. In addition to having a
voice in the South Carolina state government and attempting to
nominate and elect candidates that share his views, Burnell eventually
plans for his group to secede from the United States to form its own
Christian republic. That's right, I said secede.

So are they nuts, or is this an idea whose time has come?


Don

History tells us that numerous cults, sects and such-like groups have
started out just like this, for example Jim Jones, the Moonies or the Branch
Davidians.
    The same history books also show that no country or political state
remains "christian."
      Regards.         John S.















----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Black" <donva61@...>
To: <menofpromise@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 9:34 PM
Subject: [Men of Promise] Christian Exodus


> Here's something you don't see everyday. Christian Exodus is a group
> of "Christian constitutionalists" who plan to move "thousands of
> Christians to South Carolina to reestablish constitutionally limited

Yeah, with the way society is today...becoming more and more against Christians,
I can feel their pain, yet I think we're commanded to remain where we are
(inside the culture) and try to witness and be involved with others. I can also
forsee the cultish problems that the rest of you are concerned with...YIKES!
dUg-  "uh, y'know, I'm not really a fan of kool-aid. Thanks."

"John Spooner, South Oz." <rsp41681@...> wrote:          History
tells us that numerous cults, sects and such-like groups have
started out just like this, for example Jim Jones, the Moonies or the Branch
Davidians.
The same history books also show that no country or political state
remains "christian."
Regards. John S.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Black" <donva61@...>
To: <menofpromise@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 9:34 PM
Subject: [Men of Promise] Christian Exodus

> Here's something you don't see everyday. Christian Exodus is a group
> of "Christian constitutionalists" who plan to move "thousands of
> Christians to South Carolina to reestablish constitutionally limited






---------------------------------
Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally,  mobile search that gives answers, not web links.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

What these folks are proposing is certainly radical, although I'm not
quite sure I'm ready to label them a cult just yet. The original idea
of reestablishing "constitutionally limited government founded upon
Christian principles" seems like a concept that is at least worth
discussing. There have been other instances in which groups of
Americans have banded together in order to make their voices heard.
Establishing a voting district that is predominantly Christian might
just work. I'm not saying I'd necessarily be willing to pack up and
move myself, but I wouldn't object to having these guys as neighbors.
The part about seceding from the United States does, however, seem to
be a bit over the edge. As I recall the last time someone tried
something like that it ended in a bloody civil war. Even if it were
possible to do such a thing, I think John makes a good point. No
society ever remains Christian. The Puritan's attempt at establishing
a Christian community was only successful for a time. Within a
generation or so their society had already begun to loss touch with
their Christian roots. And now look at Massachusetts today.

Don





--- In menofpromise@yahoogroups.com, Doug George <eadg65@...> wrote:
>
> Yeah, with the way society is today...becoming more and more against
Christians, I can feel their pain, yet I think we're commanded to
remain where we are (inside the culture) and try to witness and be
involved with others. I can also forsee the cultish problems that the
rest of you are concerned with...YIKES! dUg-  "uh, y'know, I'm not
really a fan of kool-aid. Thanks."
>
> "John Spooner, South Oz." <rsp41681@...> wrote:          History
tells us that numerous cults, sects and such-like groups have
> started out just like this, for example Jim Jones, the Moonies or
the Branch
> Davidians.
> The same history books also show that no country or political state
> remains "christian."
> Regards. John S.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Don Black" <donva61@...>
> To: <menofpromise@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 9:34 PM
> Subject: [Men of Promise] Christian Exodus
>
> > Here's something you don't see everyday. Christian Exodus is a group
> > of "Christian constitutionalists" who plan to move "thousands of
> > Christians to South Carolina to reestablish constitutionally limited
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally,  mobile search that gives answers, not
web links.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Dr. Mohler analyzes a recent article in "The Times" of London
concerning the apparent double standard in Hollywood over the topic of
abortion. These days it's pretty hard to find very many actors or
filmmakers that aren't profoundly pro-choice. That being said, isn't
it odd that Hollywood so rarely depicts women with "unwanted
pregnancies" getting an abortion? One would think that given the
propensity of the Hollywood elite to "preach" at us through television
and film about every other kind of liberal issue, that they would have
no trouble at all tackling the issue of abortion. After all, isn't
abortion the linchpin for the whole feminist agenda? What's up with
that? Is it because Hollywood is afraid of loosing revenue over such a
controversial topic? Or could it be that deep down inside, even the
pro-choice feminist recognizes that abortion isn't the honorable
choice they'd like for us to believe, and choosing to have the baby is?

Somethin' to think about.

Don

_____________________________________________________________________
Why is Hollywood Afraid of Abortion?
Dr. Mohler's Blog
Posted: Friday, June 15, 2007 at 2:32 am ET
http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=961

Gerard Baker asks an interesting question - If Hollywood is so
liberal, why is it afraid of abortion?

Writing in The Times [London], Baker points to a pair of recent
Hollywood releases, both of which deal with the issue of an unplanned
and unwanted pregnancy. Both movies depict women who decide not to
have an abortion.

Baker then makes a most interesting observation:

"This has some feminists outraged. They point out that in Hollywood,
for decades – in everything from Sex and the City to Parenthood –
women confronted with an unplanned pregnancy almost always choose to
keep the baby. It is odd that Hollywood does this, given that it is a
famously liberal bastion of the "pro-choice" position. If abortion, a
tool for women to make their lives better, is such an important right,
as Hollywood liberals passionately believe, then why not celebrate it
with some positive, abortion-affirming role models?"

Hollywood is a citadel of pro-choice activism -- a fountain of
fundraising for the pro-abortion movement. Furthermore, a good many of
Hollywood's own have had abortions, and have boasted of the fact. So,
why the absence of abortion on the big screen?

Baker considers one suggested theory and then offers a theory of his own:

"One theory is that film producers, with their eye on the box office,
don't want to alienate large numbers of socially conservative Americans."

"This strikes me as a bit flimsy. The big studios are happy to churn
out films that promote wild conspiracy theories about evil cliques of
conservatives who control the military-industrial complex. And you can
hardly turn on your TV these days without coming across some
"courageous" new drama about gay couples, which presumably causes loud
harrumphing in households below the Mason-Dixon line."

"No, there's a much better and simpler explanation. The reality is
that few people – whatever their political views – want to go and see
a film where a woman chooses to have an abortion. We go to the cinema
in large part to be inspired; to be reminded that, while we go through
our real lives making messy moral compromises and falling way short of
our ideals, there are some people, on screen at least, who do the good
and moral and honorable thing. And confronted with the awful trauma of
an unwanted pregnancy, almost all of the time choosing to have the
baby is the good and moral and honorable thing to do."

This is a remarkable and profoundly true statement, and it bears both
repeating and a closer look:

"And confronted with the awful trauma of an unwanted pregnancy, almost
all of the time choosing to have the baby is the good and moral and
honorable thing to do."

Confronted with the moral reality of abortion, any effort to depict
the killing of unborn human life will be revealed as what it is --
immoral and dishonorable.

Baker also points to the incongruous and hypocritical nature of the
pro-abortion position.  Advocates for abortion present two
contradictory claims -- that a decision to have an abortion is
agonizing and that abortion is not all that morally significant.

As Baker explains:

"The defenders of abortion like to say that choosing to have a
termination is an agonizing decision – and certainly many women will
attest to this. But they also say that abortion presents no deep moral
problem because it does not represent the taking of a human life."

"So if having an abortion is no more than the disposal of an unwanted
clump of cells, why on earth should a woman feel so bad about it?"

Baker is confident that abortion will one day be seen in the same
light as slavery.  Generations to come, he predicts, will look back in
embarrassment at this generation's low view of human life and human
dignity.

We must hope he is right on that score, of course.  But Gerard Baker's
observation about Hollywood's fear of abortion on the big screen makes
a very important point about what this generation already knows, but
tries to hide from itself -- that abortion is both immoral and evil.

If they were really convinced that it was such an honorable "choice,"
the decision-makers and opinion-shapers of Hollywood would put it on
the screen for all to see.

Don't expect that to happen any time soon -- and we all know why.

Hello my beloved brothers and sisters in the Lord Jesus and well
beloved children of the Most High God !!!! We are in a time where
you have to understand what true love is and the power of it. Not
talking about the love between man and woman, but the love between
your brethren, that Agape', the love of Christ. Picture this... (for
adults) Our love life in the world should be an example of the way
we should love the Lord. Now follow me a minute. When you love
someone, they usually have some good friends that they love, and you
some how grow a love for them. Because of your relationship with one
person you now have an extended family you have grown to love. Now
that is how it is with Christ! Once you love and accept Him and have
a relationship with Him you automatically inherit a new family to
love. Because of your relationship with Christ. Picture this - a
picture in a picture right. You Father (God) and you big Brother
(Jesus) is gone and you want to see Them, but the only way to see
them is to love your  siblings. What are you going to do? I know
about Greg and what I'm going to do. I'm going to love them and
regardless how another feel about me... guess what I'm going to love
them anyway. I'm going  to love the hell out of them and love them
back into righteous fellowship.
   I know this was longer than others, but we need desperately to
love one another and to show the world the love of Christ. It's easy
to follow love when an example is before you. So lets stop saying it
and start showing it!!!
    Holla @ UR Boy

Thoughts- Psalm 24
   The earth and everything in it belongs to God. He is the maker and ruler of
all things, visible and invisible.Everything/Everyone in the world is created
for His pleasure and to bring glory to His name. We ought to consider ourselves
as users or managers of the resources/blessings we are entrusted with and not as
owners (as if we are going to won it eternally). Whatever we have, we use it
today and pass it to others. God honours/values righteous heart, pure heart,
honesty and complete devotion to Him. In order to bring glory to God, holiness
ought to be extended in every part of our life, every day in every task.

   Thoughts - Gospel

   http://prithvionnet.wordpress.com/tag/thoughts-gospels/







                         Regards/Prithvi
   Those who teach by their doctrine must teach by their life, or else they pull
down with one hand what they build up with the other. --Matthew Henry
   http://prithvionnet.wordpress.com/














---------------------------------
Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story.
  Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> And by the way, let's not forget, this isn't the first time in the
> history of civilization that the idea of establishing a purely
> Christian society has ever been tried. You will recall the pilgrims
> and later on the puritans who made this their expressed goal for
> establishing the Massachusetts Bay Colony.
>

Actually more recently than that, in 1833 the town of Oberlin, Ohio
and Oberlin College were established together to provide a Christian
utopia removed from the worldly influences of Cleaveland (that was the
original spelling of Cleveland). Throughout the 19th century it stayed
largely true to that purpose, and evangelist Charles Finney served 25
years as the college president. Today Oberlin College is one of the
most liberal, left-wing liberal arts colleges in the United States.

This psalm has actually been a great comfort to me for about 24
years now. In January of 1983 I began reading a psalm each night
before going to bed. My mother was suffering from Lou Gehrig's
Disease (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis or ALS). This degenerative
neurological disease had left my mother trapped in a body that would
not work for her. She had long ago lost use of her legs and her
right arm, and she recently lost the last half-inch of mobility in
her left arm. She had extreme difficulty swallowing and labored to
breathe.
On Jan. 22, she had a particularly bad day. Before I went to bed I
kissed her goodnight and told her I loved her. She mouthed "I love
you too," but she had no breath to force through her larynx to make
the sounds.
I went to my room, sat at my desk, and read Psalm 22. I fought back
the tears when I read "I can count all my bones," because that was a
picture of my mother. But verse 24 leaped off the page for me: "For
He has not despised or disdained the suffering of the afflicted one;
He has not hidden His face from him, but has listened to his cry for
help." I remember knowing in my head this is a messianic psalm, but
also knowing in my heart what it meant at that moment. The next
morning I woke to hear my father softly sobbing. He heard me on the
stairs and called out, "Paul, your mother is gone." I wanted to
answer, "I know. God has listened to her cry for help."

Welcome Writer,

Ya, that's a great point. And isn't it interesting how easily and how
quickly academia tends to drift toward the left? Virtually all of your
Ivy League schools were originally established to train preacher boys.
And now look at them today.

That's not to say that the idea of establishing a Christian society is
completely a bad idea. I think anyone would long for little a bit of
heaven here on earth. I mean after all, isn't that partly the idea
behind church? Christians are to enter into community with one
another. But like everything else that sin touches, there is a natural
cycle of things that eventually causes almost everything to move
toward corruption. That's just human nature. Lord, come quickly!

Thanks for joining us, Writer. Stop by anytime and post often.

Don



--- In menofpromise@yahoogroups.com, "writerchristiandad"
<writerchristiandad@...> wrote:
>
>
> > And by the way, let's not forget, this isn't the first time in the
> > history of civilization that the idea of establishing a purely
> > Christian society has ever been tried. You will recall the pilgrims
> > and later on the puritans who made this their expressed goal for
> > establishing the Massachusetts Bay Colony.
> >
>
> Actually more recently than that, in 1833 the town of Oberlin, Ohio
> and Oberlin College were established together to provide a Christian
> utopia removed from the worldly influences of Cleaveland (that was the
> original spelling of Cleveland). Throughout the 19th century it stayed
> largely true to that purpose, and evangelist Charles Finney served 25
> years as the college president. Today Oberlin College is one of the
> most liberal, left-wing liberal arts colleges in the United States.
>