0154 — Reasons to Believe

Posted on November 10, 2012 by Mark Morrow

Hmmm, I imagine you are wondering, “Reasons to believe WHAT?” Right? In a nutshell, reasons to believe that GOD exists and that He is the Creator and that science bears testimony to both those facts.

So some of you may stop reading right here, since I said “facts” instead of “hypotheses.” But if you’ll hang in there (here!) a little longer, I’ll make it worth your while… really!

I am a scientist. Not a PhD type scientist, but an MS type scientist. (If you’re wondering, Physics and Math. I started getting job offers once my MS was achieved, and I really just didn’t want to invest another three years or so to complete a PhD, so I bailed. Was that the right decision? I don’t know, but God has blessed me greatly so I don’t look back… much.)

I grew up in the church. Six days in Genesis were, well, SIX DAYS, as in 24 periods of 60 minutes each. Dinosaurs? Oil deposits? Cosmic background radiation? I didn’t see any of that in Genesis. But God made everything. So I guessed he just created “everything” that way, with all that already in place. Was that a challenge to my faith? No, not really. Because I had decided to believe. So I put scientific “facts” secondary to my belief in God.

And here is what this post is about: Science does not have to be watered down to “fit” with God’s word. Science, or shall we say the physical universe, is. And it is as God created it. And it does not contradict His word.

Many people do not believe that. Many scientists do not believe that. (Many DO though — and more about that later.)

I had the first inkling of that when I took an Astrophysics graduate physics course. The professor was expounding on our ability to deduce events closer and closer to “time=zero,” i.e., the absolute beginning of the universe. I, knowing that God created the universe at time=zero and that there was not that much mystery about it (!), raised my hand and asked, “Do you think we will ever achieve the ability to determine actually what happened at time=zero?” He tilted his head a little as he thought how to answer that, and finally said, “That question is a theological question, but this course only deals with what we can physically observe.” There were multiple Nobel-winning professors on this particular university staff, and to hear one of that group acknowledge even that much of God really made an impression on me at the time.

There began to be in the church some who spoke about how to reconcile science and religion. Some of them were professed scientists, but their “proofs” were not convincing to me. It seemed I could argue around and through them, and that they were meant more for religionists who had no knowledge of science than those of us who had formal education in that area.

And thirty years passed. Here we are in 2012. What has changed for me with respect to how religion relates to science?

Well, I have seen marriages break up because one spouse became “educated” in science and decided his Christian spouse was too uneducated and too ill-informed, or too Christian, to live with anymore. I have seen young people go off to university and become enamored of atheistic professors and/or their teaching, and become worshippers of science instead of God. And it breaks my heart.

But I heard about an organization a year ago, and learned more about it this year, which is the best thing I’ve seen come along to have an effective approach to reconciling science and the Bible. The organization is composed of very (may I say “very, very”?) advanced scientists, experts in their fields, who believe in God, and believe that He created the universe, and that He sent His Son to us. I haven’t met them all, but the ones I’ve had the privilege of talking to are humble men — even when their academic credentials tend to blow me away.

The organization’s name is: REASONS TO BELIEVE. Their website is http://reasonstobelieve.org

They are hard-core scientists. They are Christians. They are scholars. They are public speakers. And they have a mission to bridge the gap, to eliminate the gap, between science and the Bible. And they are good at what they do. Here is their mission statement:

RTB’s mission is to spread the Christian Gospel by demonstrating that sound reason and scientific research—including the very latest discoveries—consistently support, rather than erode, confidence in the truth of the Bible and faith in the personal, transcendent God revealed in both Scripture and nature.

They further state (the highlighting is mine):

Our leadership team has reaffirmed a rather unique set of features that distinguishes RTB from other ministries. It’s not that other faithful Christian ministries don’t share one or more of these same qualities, but RTB embraces all of them together.

  • A high view of both Scripture and science—because the words of the Bible and the facts of nature come from the same Source, from God himself, who chose to make himself known
  • Apologetics for the sake of evangelism—because history awaits completion of the commission Christ charged his followers to fulfill
  • Constructive integration of God’s revelation (in Scripture and nature)—because truth will always be consistent, wherever it’s found
  • Commitment to application––because intellectual engagement should lead to effective evangelism, not merely to winning arguments
  • Ongoing development of a testable creation model—because the world needs a positive, growing case for faith in a caring Creator
  • Readiness to give reasons (1 Peter 3:15a)—because people have questions and doubts that deserve reasonable, well-researched responses
  • Communication of those reasons with gentleness, respect, and a clear conscience (1 Peter 3:15b)—because people observe attitude and demeanor as much as they listen to words

If you are not a scientist, you may not “click” with the material you find at their website. But I am sure you know of someone whose faith IS challenged by a belief that science and the scriptures do not agree. Point them to REASONS TO BELIEVE. If they are on an authentic journey to truth, they will thank you for making them aware of this resource.

(How long is too long for a blog posting? I don’t know, since I’m not that great of a blogger, but I think I’ll keep going for a while more, in case I’ve held your interest to this point!)

The organization has a Statement of Faith that members/contributors have to agree to before they are allowed to become active. You can click here to view that.

I have spent only hours, not days, investigating this organization and its material, but it seems to me its underpinning is a belief in Dual Revelation. At first glance, this doesn’t sound quite scriptural, but on second glance, it IS scripture. In particular, consider these quotes for what RTB calls “general revelation”:

The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Psalm 19:1

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made. Romans 1:20

“Specific revelation” is written in the Bible; “general revelation” is seen in the work of His hands, and in what is clearly seen.

RTB furnishes excellent material to counter atheism. They also have material to discuss in depth (IN DEPTH!) the differences between Young Earth Creationism and Old Earth Creationism, and why they believe that Old Earth Creationism is supported in God’s word. And they also are very willing to send people to YOUR location to help bolster faith in these areas. Just contact them using the information at their website.

I’ll close with one more observation.

The only RTB meeting I have ever gone to was in September. The featured speaker was unable to come, due to her husband’s medical condition, but her story was how, as an atheist, she was educated in cosmology (not cosmetics, but cosmology – the study of the cosmos/universe, ~astronomy if you will) and as she continued to learn about the intricacies of the universe, and the rules that govern it, she was left with the inescapable conclusion that it was created. And if the universe were created, there is a Creator. And therefore she could no longer be atheistic in her outlook. I still am looking forward to hearing her personally. Hopefully she will be rescheduled for early in 2013.  (I may have part of this story wrong, but if so I’ll correct it when I get to hear her!)

And looking back I realize I have left one thing unsaid. I did mention how some early apologists I was aware of in the church left me feeling rather cold, but I never said really what I thought in that same context about the RTB group. So I’ll say it. The RTB organization has it together. Their science is science, not just a waving of hands and a pretending that they understand what they are talking about. They DO understand. They have written some of the books that guide others in their fields. Give them a look/see. And let us know what you think.

20121110-094855.jpg

Posted in Science | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

0153 — Behold the Sectarian Pattern

Posted on November 10, 2012 by Mark Morrow

I had thought about using a different title, but in deference to the author I just kept the title of his original article, “Behold the Sectarian Pattern.”

Joe Beam has a story that will keep you on the edge of your seat, wondering (when you finally look at your watch) how an hour went by so quickly.  While not the “point” of this post, here are some audio links to Joe’s material.  You will receive a blessing if you carve out some time to listen to some of these:

He Lifted Me from the Ragged Edge Strong Church   Characteristics (#1, #2, #3)
Teen Commitment (good for   ANY AGE!) Strong Church   Characteristics (#4, #5, #6)
Most Churches Are   Wrong on Divorce  For other messages by Joe Beam, CLICK HERE and search (ctrl-F) for “Beam”

Meanwhile, back to the topic at hand — Sectarianism.

The concept that was new to me in Joe’s article below, or certainly the first time I ever saw it put into words, is this:  We say we want to “restore the New Testament church,” but when we attempt to copy the things we read about, what is keeping us from, instead, restoring the sectarianism instead?  I could ramble on some more, but Joe does a much better job than I, so here is his article for your consideration.

 

Behold the Sectarian Pattern

By: Joe Beam

 

For years our brotherhood has preached that to restore the New Testament church you simply find the pattern in the Bible and replicate it.

If that’s true then the same thing could be done to restore New Testament sectarianism.

Of course, no one admits to wanting that. But if we can determine the pattern of sectarians in the New Testament, we can identify sectarians today. As I’ve repeatedly heard, “If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck!” If we can determine how sectarians looked, walked, and quacked in the New Testament, we can know who is a sectarian today – especially since sectarians are the last ones to admit being sectarian.

Convert

An examination of the New Testament reveals three major steps in the way sectarians operated. The first thing they attempted was conversion, convincing someone their sect was right and getting him to join their group to the exclusion of other groups. (Matthew 23:15) The Pharisees, for example, felt that they were the only ones that interpreted the Scriptures correctly and that no one else had the favor of God but them. They considered their interpretations and resulting regulations to be virtually as authoritative as scripture. Their views grew even stronger with each succeeding generation who revered their aging or dead teachers. Therefore, it followed that they wanted everyone to come to the same beliefs as they and attacked any who did not. (Matthew 15:3-9; Mark 7:5-13)

Discredit

If sectarians failed to convert a person, they couldn’t ignore him or live in peaceful coexistence with him if he taught or preached something different than what they believed. So failed conversion attempts were followed by the second step of discrediting the person who didn’t come into their fold if he appeared to be a threat to them. Amazingly, warring sectarian parties joined together to attack a person each sect viewed as a threat. For example, the Pharisees joined with their arch-enemies the Sadducees (Matthew 16:1) and even their enemies the Herodians (Matthew 22:15-22) to try to trap Jesus. All the differences which made each group disassociate themselves from the others were ignored when they felt the need to combine forces to discredit the interloper Jesus.

The first tool for discrediting was the “theological trap.” They knew their own particular doctrines and had studied them carefully for years so they could convert new disciples and refute other sects in debate. Knowing their arguments better than they knew scripture, they tried to trap Jesus with the same polemic they used on enemies who preceded Him. Their intention was not to find truth through honest discussion or study; it was to trap their perceived enemy in a theological contradiction in an attempt to discredit him. (Matthew 19:3; 2:18)

The second tool for discrediting was to slander through inflammatory labels. (Matthew 11:18-19) Sectarians know that people love to hear gossip and believe the worst, so labeling is a powerful tool.

A third way to discredit was to condemn the perceived enemy for the people with whom he associated. (Luke 5:29-32) The reason for the association was irrelevant – they didn’t care if he’d gone to heal or teach them, all they wanted was something to make him look bad.

Destroy

When discrediting failed to stop their perceived enemy, sectarians moved to the last step – destroying. Once they convinced themselves they were right and that God blessed only them, it was easy to do whatever it took to destroy the person they felt was drawing people away from God. Attributing their perceived enemy’s doctrines and motives to Satan made it essential that they stop him. (Matthew 9:32-34; Mark 12:24) They could even violate their own morals to accomplish that task. They lied to the person they sought to destroy (Matthew 22:15-22) in an effort to “set him up” for a theological trap. They lied about him to turn others against him (Matthew 26:59-68), even using those lies to lead people to kill him.

Know Anyone Like That?

Reading through the above pattern I realize that some have successfully restored New Testament Sectarianism. They look, walk, and quack just like those sectarians in the New Testament! And just like their ancestors, they have no clue that they practice sectarianism because they truly believe that they are the people of God and that he blesses only them!

They try to convert everyone to their view, but they have much greater knowledge of what has been handed down to them by those who have gone before than they have of the scriptures. They really do equate their deductions, interpretations, and resulting regulations as equal to scripture. Therefore, they aren’t open to the Word any longer, only to the interpretations of their leaders.

Convinced they are the only people of God, they cannot ignore or live in peaceful harmony with anyone who doesn’t agree with them if they view that person as a threat to them. So sectarians give grace to someone who believes he can kill in war even if they believe God teaches us to be pacifists. After all, killing in war doesn’t threaten the existence of their sect. Therefore, it must be a matter of opinion. But using a translation that doesn’t support their interpretations or worshipping in a way that is different than their traditions does threaten their sect. Obviously, that then must be a matter of faith to them. So they ignore the “killer” and attack the Bible reader or the sincere worshipper!

With smooth words and flattering statements they attempt to maneuver a perceived enemy into a theological trap designed to discredit him. And they attempt to discredit with labels like “liberal,” “Crossroads,” or worse. They even join forces with others with whom they disagree to attack a brother they perceive as a threat.

We’ve witnessed terrible lies and other sins that sectarians justify because they are trying to destroy a person or institution viewed as an enemy of God. I know of instances where a brother said point blank that he doesn’t believe a specific thing only to have the interviewer publish an article or start gossip that states just the opposite. Only a true New Testament Sectarian could justify such evil behavior as being service to the God of heaven.

It’s not service to God; it’s service to the sect. They pay lip service to God but give true loyalty to what the sect believes. (Matthew 15:1-9)

Dealing With Sectarians

It’s time we deal with sectarians in a New Testament manner. For too long we’ve allowed them to flourish undeterred because we feared that if we opposed them we would become what they are. But just as there is a “pattern” for sectarians in the New Testament, there is a pattern for dealing with them.

First, expect them to attack you. Read Matthew 10 to see what comes to those who love and follow Jesus. As Jesus pointed out, if they called him Beelzebub what should we expect them to call us who follow Him? We shouldn’t be surprised at the actions of sectarians anymore than we should be surprised when ducks quack. It’s their nature to do what they do.

Second, keep doing good in spite of their intention to harm you. David didn’t let the giant’s threats stop him (1 Samuel 17:41-51) and proved that God was alive and at work. When Jesus saw what needed to be done, He did it even though He knew it would cost Him his life. He was angry and deeply distressed at the stubborn hearts of the sectarians, just as we may be, but He did the work of God in spite of them. (Mark 3:1-6)

Third, rebuke them for their sectarian sin when you see it. It wouldn’t be right to ignore a brother’s drunkenness or adultery. We’d tell him to stop and call what he was doing a sin. The same is true with sectarians. Don’t emulate their spirit. Don’t go looking for them or trying to set theological traps to make them look bad. And certainly don’t make it your business to try to destroy them. But rebuke them in the love of Jesus with plain language so that they are confronted with their sin. John did it. (Matthew 3:7-12) Jesus did it too. (Matthew 23:1-36) If we want to walk in His steps, we must do the same.

God, in an effort to restore Your church some restored New Testament Sectarianism instead. Show every open heart the way from the sects into Your Way.

-Joe Beam

Posted in Sectarianism | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

0152 — I’m Having a Different Experience

Posted on November 13, 2011 by Mark Morrow

Couples (and sometimes churches) experience events in their lives differently and wind up arguing about “who said what” and therefore “who is really right.” I have found it far more productive for couples to acknowledge, “I’m having a different experience of this than you,” and to vulnerably invite, “help me understand yours better.” When Modernism persuades us Reason is the only game in town, intimate relationships suffer greatly. When both members of the marriage can acknowledge they have subjective interpretations of events, including fights, humility that brings unity can prevail.

Quote from SCOTT GREEN, 7/28/2011

Posted in Quotes | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

0148 — IS God “in control?”

Posted on December 7, 2009 by Mark Morrow

God’s will does not always come to pass.

Does that sound… wrong… somehow?

How many times have we heard, though normally stated in softer, more compassionate terms, “Just get over it!  It happened, so it was obviously God’s will; accept it and get on with your life!”?

Sometimes it takes the form of, “Don’t grieve about the loss of your child, God just needed another angel and called your child to Him.”

Sometimes it sounds like, “Of course it was God’s will that people flew those airplanes into those office buildings; they could not have done it were it not God’s will!”

Or have you heard, “That storm drowned all those people because they lived in such a sinful city!  It was God’s punishment for their sin.”

Why would I suggest that God’s will is not the answer to everything that happens on the earth?  Well, because He told me so.  And He told you too.

The Bible is replete with references to the will of God.  One such verse is 2 Peter 3:9, where the Lord uses Peter to tell us that it is not His will that “any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”

But Jesus tells us in Matthew 7:13-14 to “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

What is the will of God?  That all be saved.

What will happen?  Only a few will be saved.

Does the will of God come to pass in this instance?  No.

Does that mean when we see tragedy occur we can say that it was NOT God’s will?  No.  But it does mean that we can not automatically say, “It happened, so it was the will of God.”

Does this mean that God is not all-powerful, or that God is not “in control?”

Let’s consider those two points separately.

Is God all-powerful?  Omnipotent?  Absolutely.  Without question.

Does that mean He forces you to make good choices?  That He prevents consequences of your actions from coming about?  That He prevents consequences of sin in a person’s life from affecting bystanders innocent of that sin?  In other words, does the omnipotence of God mean that He prevents bad things from happening to good people?  (We’ll forego discussion that our definition of “good” does not align with Jesus’ definition of “good” in Luke 18:18.)  The answer is “No!” to each question.

Does He WANT you to make good choices?  YES.  Does He MAKE you choose wisely?  NO.

Does He abhor what Satan has done in this world by introducing sin and its wages?  YES.  Does He prevent sin, and eliminate its consequences?  NO.

What about the “in control” comment?  Is God in control?  By definition, God’s omnipotence means that He is indeed “in control.”  Perhaps the more relevant issue though is, “Does He choose to exercise that control?”  Hmmm…

Consider Ephesians 6:12:

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

What are (who are) “the rulers of the darkness of this world?”  What does “rule” mean?  Might “control” be a good definition?

Was God “in control” of you the last time you disobeyed His will?

Was God “in control” of the drunk who killed the parents of a 3-year-old and crippled her for life?

Was God “in control” of the men who took over the airplanes on September 11, 2001?

Well, what about Romans 8:28?  Doesn’t it say there that everything that happens is good?  NO, it does not say that.  It DOES say that whatever DOES happen, God is able to work out for good.  Does it say that we will be able to understand the good that He works out?  No.  Does it say that “the good” will come about in our lifetime?  No.  This verse bears testimony that in the universal, grand, cosmic sense, God is indeed fully “in control” – else the promise that He can work “all things for good” could not be true.  But it also bears testimony to the fact that He does NOT control the individual actions of every person, else there would be no “bad things” He would need to work towards good!

I don’t remember the source of this quote that I found a while back, but it expresses so well this concept:  “God’s will does not prevent tragedy, but transforms it.”

You may think that I’ve avoided the real point to all this, the underlying question that can not help but be raised, and that is:  “But then why do bad things happen?”

There is a one-word answer to that:  Sin.

We live in a fallen world.  A cursed world.  Because of sin.  (Read the first few chapters of Genesis again.)  And the creation groans because of it.  Even the saved, the redeemed, groan as we wait for our redemption.

Can God act in our behalf in this cursed world?  Definitely.

Does God act in our behalf in this cursed world?  Again, absolutely!

Does everything that happens in this cursed world:

    • happen because God wills it?  NO.
    • happen because God causes it to happen?  NO.
Posted in Teaching | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

0147 — Grace? or Faith? And?

Posted on September 8, 2009 by Mark Morrow

 

Grace?  Or Faith?  Or Works?

AND Works?  ???

 

 

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.

Ephesians 2:8-9


How many times have you listened to a discussion, or been involved in one personally, where the topic of “Are we saved by belief or by works?” has been vigorously debated?  Or sometimes the question is cast in the form of, “Do you believe we are saved by Faith Alone?  Or is there something WE must do in order to be saved?”

Sometimes we are even so tradition-bound by our upbringing that we can’t hear the truth when it is spoken.  Many of you will remember the reference that Willie Tollison made to this when he was spoke to us.  (You can click HERE1 for a 49-second audio clip to refresh your memory – or to hear this for the first time.)

And sometimes when we look up the words (faith, grace, belief, …) in a modern-day dictionary they do not give us the “cultural” meaning they had during the times the Bible was being written, and so we miss out on the richness present in His Word.

When the words for Grace and Faith (charis and pistis) were used in the 1st Century they conveyed significantly more meaning than they do today, because of a particular cultural/societal practice referred to as the Patron-Client System.

What was that?  And how is it relevant to our modern-day discussion of “Faith vs. Works”?

Oh, before I forget, those of you who prefer auditory or visual material instead of the written form may click HERE2 for an audio version of this discussion or, if you have a nice fast Internet connection, may click HERE3 for a 20MB video of this same topic.  These links are each about 7 minutes long.

Most of us are probably more familiar with the system of feudalism than the Patron-Client system.  There are many similarities, but the Patron-Client system in general pre-dated the development of the feudal system, and was different in several ways.

But underpinning any discussion of the Patron-Client system must be a discussion of the Honor-Shame system.  In today’s time we see reminders again and again of the power of economics.  We see people sacrificing honor to achieve more wealth.  In 1st century Palestine (Israel) the more valuable commodity was honor. A man would expend vast sums of money to get honor.  Conversely, he would do almost anything in order to avoid losing honor.  If a man were shamed, he would lose honor.  Not understanding this societal norm prevents us from fully understanding the depth of such statements as Hebrews 2:2 — Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. But that is a topic for another day.  For now, know that one of the ways that a man could achieve honor was by having more Clients.

In 1st century Israel 2% of the population owned virtually 100% of the goods.  They would hire 5% – 7% of the rest of the population to be their service providers – doctors, artists, builders, virtually anyone with marketable skills.  The lowest 15% of the population were treated as expendable – prostitutes, the homeless, mentally retarded individuals, etc.  The remaining 75% or so of the population were day laborers – they worked each day for the money it would take to eat that day – and there were a lot of days where they did not eat.

So, in order to survive, the 75% could see no higher possibility for their existence than to try to get into the good graces of the 2% who owned everything.  If a person had a skill that was needed by a wealthy PATRON, that wealthy person would take on the poorer person as a CLIENT.  What did that mean?

As a Patron, I want as many Clients as I can afford.  I’ll provide them health care, a house, jobs, clothes, wife, i.e., all their daily needs.  And what will my Clients do for me?  They’ll come to my house every day and give me honor!  They’ll praise me, they’ll tell anyone that walks by what a honorable man I am, they’ll tell about the time I sent my physician to heal their child, they’ll tell them about the year that the crops failed and I provided food for them, and so forth.

The Patron would supply all the needs of the Client, and the Client in turn would honor his Patron.  The Patron gave gifts to his Client that were FREE.  And the job of the Client was to make the Patron famous.

And the Patron was NEVER to mention the gifts he gave his Client; it would be RUDE for him ever to bring it up again.  But the job of the Client was to NEVER CEASE praising his Patron.

So now we get to the good part!  What do you suspect the Greek word for the gifts that the Patron gave his Clients was?  GRACE (charis)

And what do you think the word was that described the job of the Patron’s Clients?  FAITH (pistis)

When Paul says “by grace, through faith…” he was describing exactly this Patron-Client relationship that all of his readers were intimately familiar with.  They were so familiar with it that they didn’t even have a name for it.  It was just LIFE for them; it was “the way it was.”  They knew no other way to live.

So, OF COURSE “works” are involved in the Client’s job!  When the Patron gives you gifts, you will praise his name to all you meet, you’ll vote for him if he runs for office, you’ll provide any sort of service that the Patron asks for, you’ll follow him to the marketplace and tell the crowds what a magnificent honorable Patron he is… YOUR JOBS AS A CLIENT IS TO MAKE YOUR PATRON FAMOUS!

Does this relate to the “Faith vs. Works” argument?  Of course!  That is an argument that would not have even made sense to the 1st century reader.  We get tied up in English, or in whatever language we read the Word, and we have little to no understanding of the sociological issues of the 1st century.  The average 1st century  “man in the street” would likely ask us, “What is your point?  Faith vs. Works?  How can they be different?  It’s the same word!”  Because they knew the job of a Client.  They knew how the whole socioeconomic system worked.  A Client would not be a Client for long if all he did was to receive the gifts of the Patron, and never fulfilled his responsibilities!

“For it is by GRACE you have been saved, through FAITH…

God has given us free gifts… but salvation is not by grace alone.  Look at the verse again:  “For it is by grace you have been saved, through FAITH…”

Our response to Him, as a Client to his Patron, MUST be “through faith!”  We fulfill a Client’s responsibilities.  We are to make Him famous.  We are to direct all glory and honor and praise to Him.  We are to be about our Father’s business.

So, is it by FAITH… or WORKS?

The question has no meaning; it is all the same.

Mark Morrow

9/7/2009

Footnotes:

1 – Willie Tollison, Leander, 2005

2 – Dr. Mark Moore, 2007

3 – Dr. Mark Moore, 2007

The short excerpts by Dr. Mark Moore are from a freely-distributable DVD he has produced, with the title “How to Interpret the Bible.”  The video clip I placed on the web for this article is by nature low quality, to make it possible to download and view fairly quickly.  The DVD, on the other hand, is a very high quality production.  If you would like a copy I would be glad to obtain one for you.

Posted in Teaching | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

0146 — IMPOSSIBLE to Repent!

Posted on August 22, 2009 by Mark Morrow

Dear ISI’ers,

I saved this back in March from a posting by Jay Guin to put in the blog sometime. I was impressed all over again reading it just now, refreshing my memory as to why I had saved it in my “need to post someday” folder.  Have you ever spoken with someone like the person who wrote the letter below to Jay?  I have.  Jay gives us an excellent way to respond to the issue of “I guess I’ve fallen from grace, so why try anymore?”

Here is the letter from his reader:

Jay,

I’ve been reading The Holy Spirit and Revolutionary Grace online, and based on what the bible says and your interpretation of what the Hebrews passages say about a Christian losing their salvation, I am pretty sure I fit into that category. I was raised in the church of Christ, baptized at eleven years of age (I am 53 now) but never grew or matured as a Christian. I have tried a few times but always end up giving in to temptation. In all these years I’ve committed many sins. I guess this would constitute rebelling against God.

I never stopped believing in God. At times I would feel extremely guilty, then other times I wouldn’t feel guilty. I’ve had a lot of depression over the guilt and longed to be able to be forgiven but deep inside I knew I couldn’t be forgiven because I sinned willingly and I knew the truth.

Now that I’ve read the book, I’m even more convinced that I cannot regain my salvation. Should I just assume I’m lost since a Christian who has lost their salvation cannot regain it?

A reader in Nashville.

No. No! And I’m very sorry that you’ve gotten that impression from my book.

Let me explain. You are surely thinking of my explanation of this passage –

(Heb 6:4-6)  It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, 6 if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

Now, my interpretation is pretty radical, because I think it means exactly what it says (which is how I get labeled at a “liberal” ). Therefore, if you fall away, it is indeed impossible to be brought back to repentance. That’s what it says, so it must be true.

But there’s an important conclusion we need to draw: if you repent, it wasn’t impossible to repent. As I wrote,

After all, if the Christian ultimately does repent, it must not have been impossible to repent. And if it was not impossible for the Christian to repent, he could not have fallen away.

(p. 72). In other words, the point is that grace is far, far broader that we are often willing to accept. Remember the Parable of the Prodigal Son. The Father was extremely patient with the younger son, and even though the younger son was quite the sinner, he did repent and he was forgiven.

Therefore, the question for you is not whether you can be saved, but whether you will repent. If you repent, God will be there for you. Don’t give up on God. He hasn’t given up on you.

Now, there’s another critically important lesson here. You see, the reason that some get so far from God that they can’t repent is not that God won’t take them back. He’ll always take us back. The problem is that the further we get from God, the harder it is for us to turn back. Our hearts grow hard. Our conscience becomes seared. God’s Spirit wrestles and strives with us, but he’ll eventually be quenched, never to return.

Therefore, it’s urgent that we repent quickly. Relying on God’s grace to continue in sin is far more dangerous than we often imagine, because coming back is much harder than we often imagine.

Posted in Teaching | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

0145 — Falling from Grace?

Posted on August 22, 2009 by Mark Morrow

There’s not a lot for me to add to the plagiarized (well, it’s not plagiarized if I give credit to whom credit is due, right?) posting from Jay Guin except “Amen!”

I especially appreciate his definition of legalism; I think it pretty much hammers that nail down.

In Christ,

Mark

 

Falling from Grace: Why Legalism Can Damn

Posted: 20 Aug 2009 05:02 AM PDT by Jay Guin

While we have to accept Paul’s teaching of justification by faith on the strength of the inspiration and authority of scripture, we should pause to consider why the rule would be that adding works — any works — to faith/faithfulness as justifying the Christian creates a different gospel and causes the Christian to fall away. It’s a truly terrifying prospect that we need to reflect on in a bit more depth.

“Legalism”

When we speak of “legalism,” we don’t mean someone who insists on obedience to God’s commands. We insist on obedience to God’s commands. Rather, by “legalist” we mean someone guilty of the Galatian heresy — that is, insisting that we should add certain works to faith in Jesus as conditions for a Christian to remain saved.

Insisting on baptism is not legalism. Insisting on repentance is not legalism. Damning someone because they disagree with you over instrumental music or whether an elder may have only one child is the Galatian heresy and therefore is legalism.

The dangers of legalism

There are basically two ways that we might respond to being taught a works-based salvation. First, we can be as Martin Luther was before he discovered grace. We can very honestly examine ourselves and conclude we plainly do not merit salvation. If so, we’d live ourselves in constant fear of hellfire — a truly miserable condition. And we’ve known countless good people in the Churches of Christ in this wretched state — unable to believe that their doctrine can possibly be pure enough to be saved and so despondent at their hopelessly damned condition.

But most of us, unable to bear the thought of damnation, respond to works-based salvation by rationalizing that we aren’t as bad as the lost people who surround us, and we are actually better than most. Worse yet, we go looking for concrete evidence that we are indeed better than others. As we often can’t prove our superiority by our morality (are we really morally better than Mother Teresa? A better evangelist than Billy Graham?), we turn to doctrine and claim we in fact have an absolutely pure and perfect understanding of Scripture — at least the parts that really matter — and so we surely merit salvation (though very few would ever say it that way).

Thus, legalism leads to an arrogance that not only damns but is extraordinarily unattractive to the world around us.

Worse yet, legalism inevitably leads to the sin of division. After all, if I have to be right on every point of doctrine that could lead to sin, and if I can’t treat those who disagree with me as saved, then I soon find the church an awfully lonely place, as there will be few, if any, who completely agree with me on every single doctrine.

The divisions have often been hidden by the use of a common name, but every congregation knows the unofficial list of local Churches of Christ that don’t recognize their congregation’s salvation, that refuse cooperation, and that bitterly attack the others in their bulletins and from their pulpits. If we can’t see this as evil, then we really haven’t been reading our Bibles.

This is all in marked contrast to Jesus’ teachings on the unity of believers. In fact, just before his crucifixion, Jesus prayed for the unity of all believers –

(John 17:20-23) “My prayer is not for [my apostles]alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.”

One of Jesus’ reasons for desiring unity among his followers was so the world would recognize us as his followers. He knew that division and discord would only make us look foolish to those we seek to convert.

And even a slight knowledge of the history of the Churches of Christ (and many other denominations) shows that drawing salvation lines contrary to the Biblical lines of faith and penitence leads to division. The result has been an embarrassment to the body of Christ and a major impediment to evangelism.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the solution we propose is the same solution that Alexander Campbell proposed nearly 100 years ago. As he states in The Christian System,

The principle which was inscribed upon our banners when we withdrew from the ranks of the sects was, “Faith in Jesus as the true Messiah, and obedience to him as our Lawgiver and King, the ONLY TEST of Christian character, and the ONLY BOND of Christian union, communion, and co-operation, irrespective of all creeds, opinions, commandments, and traditions of men.“

Preface to First Edition (1839)(emphasis in original).

Campbell later notes the problems that arise when we try to create unity based on agreement on a system of doctrines —

To establish what is called a system of orthodox opinions as the bond of union was, in fact, offering a premium for new diversities in opinion, and for increasing, ad infinitum, opinions, sects, and divisions. And, what is worse than all, it was establishing self-love and pride as religious principles, as fundamental to salvation; for a love regulated by similarity of opinion is only a love to one’s own opinion; and all the zeal exhibited in the defense of it is but the workings of the pride of opinion.

Pride, Campbell argued, arises when we define salvation as based upon an elaborate doctrinal system.

But the grandeur, sublimity, and beauty of the foundation of hope, and of ecclesiastical or social union, established by the author and founder of Christianity consisted in this, — that THE BELIEF OF ONE FACT, and that upon the best evidence in the world, is all that is requisite, as far as faith goes, to salvation. The belief of this ONE FACT, and submission to ONE INSTITUTION expressive of it, is all that is required of Heaven to admission into the church. A Christian … is one that believes this one fact, and has submitted to one institution, and whose deportment accords with the morality and virtue of the great Prophet. The one fact is expressed in a single proposition – that Jesus the Nazarene is the Messiah.

The Christian System, pages 125-126 (emphasis in original).

 

Falling from Grace: Seeking to be Justified Other Than by Faith

Posted: 20 Aug 2009 05:00 AM PDT by Jay Guin

We’ve gone halfway around the world to make a point.

You see, being penitent and being led by the Spirit all lead to the same place — a devout life of love and fruits of the Spirit. It all ties together in a perfect, beautiful unity.

But there is a very real concern here. Paul says that if you add any law to the gospel as a condition to salvation, then you’ve made yourself accountable for every law as a condition to salvation, and thereby you’ve fallen from grace. Thus, there’s no apostasy in insisting on worshipping a cappella or insisting that instrumental music is acceptable. But declaring that all who worship with an instrument are outside the church and therefore damned may well cause one to fall away. That’s not to say that there is no error possible on the instrumental music issue; only that the error does not cause one to lose his soul — provided he continues in his faith and faithfulness/penitence.

Understand that being wrong and being lost are two very different things, and we sometimes get them confused. If being wrong damns, then there is no grace and Christ died for nothing.

You see, in teaching that certain doctrines other than the gospel are essential to salvation, we’re effectively saying that to be saved, you not only must hear, believe, repent, confess, and be baptized, you must also join a congregation with a scriptural name, with a scriptural organization, and with a scriptural pattern of worship. Thus, if your home church has an elder who might not be properly qualified, or your church does something in worship that might lack authorization, you must change congregations or else lose your soul! I know Christians who have left their local congregation and take communion weekly at home rather than risk damnation by joining an unscriptural Church of Christ.

I fail to see how insisting on these rules as conditions to salvation is any different from insisting on circumcision as a condition to salvation. Either way, you’re insisting on obedience to a law in addition to the gospel. The gospel is meant to take us away from legalism, and the imposition of any rule as a requirement for salvation—even a single morally neutral rule—beyond the gospel is a return to legalism and damnation.

As the Churches of Christ have more than amply proven, legalism breeds division and bitterness. Which of all the divisions we’ve suffered has ever been fully healed? Which fight proved to be worth the cost? What verse in Scripture more pointedly speaks to the Churches of Christ than Galatians 5:15?

If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.

Does this mean that most members of the Churches of Christ are lost? It’s a fair question. And it’s not inconsistent for me to question the salvation of those who’ve added to the gospel while I simultaneously urge us not to condemn one another over the many issues that divide us. After all, Paul is quite plain in declaring that adding to the gospel makes the gospel “no gospel at all” and that his readers have “fallen from grace” and have been “alienated from Christ.”

But nowhere does Scripture deny salvation to those who worship with an instrument, or speak in tongues, or create a missionary society. Even if such actions are unauthorized, it’s an impermissible leap to go from “unauthorized” to “damned.” We should be silent where the Scriptures are silent.

Fortunately, Galatians does admit of a different interpretation. For example, in Galatians 3:26-27, Paul declares that his readers are “all sons of God.” In several verses, he calls his readers “brothers.”

Paul does not consider his readers lost—yet—but urges them with the strongest words and greatest passion possible to turn from an extraordinarily dangerous path.

But Paul squarely condemns the false teachers. Perhaps the key verses are —

(Gal. 1:8) But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!

(Gal 5:10) I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion will pay the penalty, whoever he may be.

And Paul declares that his readers are in real jeopardy of hellfire if they don’t turn away from this error—

(Gal. 5:2) Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.

(Gal. 5:15) If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.

Nowhere else does Paul write with such fervor, with such urgency, with such fear for his readers’ souls.

I am not qualified to judge the fate of those among us who teach modern equivalents of circumcision, and less so to judge those who’ve been deceived by such teachers. I only know that having become aware of the problem, I must speak out and call for repentance—urgently—desperately, out of love, not condemnation—out of concern for souls.

It is not enough to be less legalistic than the church down the road. It’s not enough to be less legalistic than you used to be. There is only one gospel, and it won’t admit of any additions at all. Nothing is required to be saved or to stay saved other than the gospel. Those who teach otherwise have been cursed by Paul in the most unambiguous terms. I pray daily for the souls of my brothers and sisters in the Churches of Christ.

Please, let’s stop biting and devouring each other and learn to accept one another just as Jesus accepted us.

Posted in Teaching | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

0144 — Disputable Matters

Posted on August 22, 2009 by Mark Morrow

I had never heard the discussion of “disputable matters” and “matters of indifference” presented in the way Jay does below.  It hangs together for me.  What about you?

In Him,

Mark

 

Falling from Grace: The Paradox of Romans 14 and Galatians

Posted: 17 Aug 2009 05:02 AM PDT  (Jay Guin)

 

Of course, I don’t really think that Romans and Galatians contradict each other. But we in the Churches of Christ often argue and act as though they do. You see, we’ve never really wrestled with the paradox of Romans 14 and Galatians. Let me explain.

In Romans 14, Paul deals with Christians who insist that Christians must celebrate certain holy days.

(Rom 14:5) One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.

Paul declines to take sides in the controversy, concluding that neither side should judge nor look down on the other.

(Rom 14:4-13a) One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. 5 Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. … 10 You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. … 13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another.

In Galatians, the Christians were struggling with a very similar issue —

(Gal 4:10) You are observing special days and months and seasons and years!

However, in Galatians, Paul makes a dramatically different argument.

(Gal 4:9-11) But now that you know God–or rather are known by God–how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? 10 You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! 11 I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you.

(Gal 5:1, 4) It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. … 4 You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

In Galatians, observing holy days is a salvation issue. In Romans, it’s a “don’t judge” issue. In Galatians, Paul fears for the salvation of his readers. In Romans, he tells them not to judge each other over such things. Why the difference?

Is Romans 14 about matters of indifference?

Before we can answer that question, we need to dispense with some arguments routinely made in this context. It’s routinely argued within the conservative Churches of Christ that Romans 14 deals with matters of indifference.

Roy C. Deaver argues in ”Who Is the ‘Weak Brother’?” The Spiritual Sword (Oct. 1986, vol. 18, no. 1, p. 28),

It must be stressed that this section deals with matters of opinion and matters of indifference—things which are right if done, and right if they are not done.

Is Paul really speaking only of matters of indifference? Well, he addresses both the question of eating meat and the question of holy days. He definitively concludes that there is no sin in eating meat. However, he gives no answer as to holy days. Indeed, he doesn’t address the merits of the argument at all — only insisting that both sides should not judge or look down on the other side.

Can we just presume that Paul reached his conclusion by finding the holy day question one of indifference? Surely not! After all, in Galatians, he referred to celebrating holy days as enslaving and even threatening to cause the church to fall from grace.

And there’s another serious problem with Deaver’s analysis. Consider every issue that the Churches of Christ have split over during the last 120 years — going back to Daniel Sommer’s 1889 “Sand Creek Address and Declaration.” Nearly all have been over issues where one side said the question is a matter of indifference and the other said it’s not! Daniel Sommer considered located preachers a sin that damned. The rest of the Churches concluded that located preachers are a matter of indifference. Just so, those who split over one cup, support for orphans homes, and the Sunday school all divided over whether the issue is a matter of indifference or a matter of doctrine.

As a result, Romans 14, which was written for us to help us maintain the unity Jesus died to bring us, has not worked to bring unity to the Churches of Christ at all. Those who see the Sunday school as a matter of indifference are glad to extend fellowship to those who disagree, but those who see the Sunday school as sin see the question as doctrinal, not indifference, and therefore find nothing in Romans 14 to require them to be united with those they disagree with.

In short, under this interpretation of Romans 14, nearly every disagreement among us is over whether a teaching is a matter of indifference and so nearly every disagreement becomes a salvation issue to at least one side of the dispute.

And so, we really need to get past the cliché level of analysis. What’s really going on here?

Well, for the it’s-wrong-to-eat-meat camp, abstention from meat eating was not a matter of indifference. It was doctrinally required? Why?

Paul doesn’t give us a final answer, but it’s surely the same issue we see elsewhere in the New Testament: meat sacrificed to idols. If not that, it’s about keeping kosher, as in many cities a Jew could not find meat prepared in accordance with Mosaic food laws and so couldn’t eat meat. In either case, the anti-meat brother was arguing from doctrine. He would have argued that it’s sin to worship an idol by eating meat dedicated to an idol, or else that it’s sin to violate God’s will for our diet revealed in the Law of Moses.

Just so, the holy day question appears to be an effort to keep the holy days prescribed by the Law of Moses. But Paul does not give the answer on this question! Rather, he jumps directly to the conclusion: don’t look down or judge your brother!

Paul’s logic is that both issues are “disputable” — even though he gives the answer on the meat question. Both questions remained disputable even though Paul had given the answer!

Now, let’s bring the questions up to current times. Suppose an eldership gets up and announces that they’ve concluded all Christians must eat only vegetables. Would we consider their decision a matter of indifference?

More realistically, we dispute even today over whether to celebrate Christmas or Easter. Some argue that every day is equally holy. Some disagree. Some of our members see Sunday as the Christian Sabbath and consider it wrong to work on Sundays. Others see every day as equally holy. Are these doctrinal questions? Or matters of indifference? If your elders told you not to work on Sunday would you consider that a matter of indifference, like what color to paint the foyer? If they insisted that you honor the Mosaic Sabbath regulations — no food preparation, no travel beyond one mile, no lifting of burdens, no healing — would that be a matter of indifference or a matter of doctrine?

Therefore, you see, the distinction between indifference and doctrine is no difference at all when one or the other of us believes it’s a doctrinal issue. A matter is truly indifferent only when both parties consider it indifferent, which is certainly not what Paul was talking about.

What’s a “disputable matter”?

Another approach taken by many is to focus on “disputable matters” (NIV) or “doubtful disputations” (KJV) in 14:1. The idea is that I should not judge you on a matter that seems doubtful to me. However, if it’s doubtful to you but I’m certain, I may certainly judge and condemn you.

I have a friend who was unsure about instrumental music before he went to college. At that point, he didn’t see the instrument as a salvation issue. To him, it was a disputable matter. After taking some classes, he found the arguments of Justin Martyr and Thomas Aquinas convincing, and so concluded that it is a salvation issue. One year, those using the instrument were going to heaven. The next year, they were going to hell, their eternal fate being determined by the level of my friend’s education.

You see, we tend to judge the doubtfulness of the issue subjectively — whether it’s doubtful to me. And that means that the lines of fellowship depend entirely on how certain we are of our convictions. And we can be very, very certain of some very, very doubtful things.

Obviously, God never intended for the lines of fellowship to depend on our level of certitude.

“Accept one another”

What very few among us will do is allow the text to answer the question. You see, Paul’s discussion doesn’t end at the last verse of chapter 14. The discussion continues into chapter 15, where Paul writes,

(Rom 15:5-6) May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you a spirit of unity among yourselves as you follow Christ Jesus, 6 so that with one heart and mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

What’s the cure for our lack of unity? It’s a gift from God — an attitude from God himself: “the spirit of unity.” It’s all about having the right heart. Paul continues,

(Rom 15:7) Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God.

We considered this verse in an earlier post, where we demonstrated that the verse can be properly translated,

(Rom. 15:7) Continually accept one another, then, [in the same way] Christ accepted you [when you were first saved], in order to bring praise to God.

We concluded,

The standard by which we stay saved today is the same standard by which we are first saved! (Other passages that teach this include Romans 11:20; Galatians 3:2-3; 1 Peter 1:5.)

Now, that means that “disputable matter” means anything that we dispute over — other than the things we have to agree on to first be saved: particularly faith in Jesus and repentance.

Or let’s look at this way. If you and I are disputing over a matter, it’s disputable. We may both be 100% certain as to what we think the answer is, but we are disputing, and so it’s disputable.

However, we can’t still both be Christians and dispute over whether Jesus is the Messiah or whether we must submit to him as Lord. We have to believe those things to be baptized. Those are not disputable among Christians.

That’s, of course, an extremely broad definition of “disputable matter,” but it does have limits. Not just everything qualifies.

Now, imagine that the Churches of Christ had understood this in 1889. How many divisions would we have suffered?

 

Posted in Teaching | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

0143 — What Is a Restoration Church?

Posted on August 20, 2009 by Mark Morrow

Sorry, don’t have much time to expound on this right now, but listen to this sermon (really more of a “talk”) when you get time!

Why? Because this “What is…?” talk is from someone with a lot of credibility with the “The Church of Christ IS The Kingdom, inclusively and exclusively” group… and he basically demolishes that concept.

Is he THE John Smith who wrote “My Mother Played the Piano”? Yes.

My Mother Played the Piano

Here are the links —

What Is a Restoration Church? (Full talk by John Smith – 42 minutes)

Extract #1 (4 minutes)

Extract #2 (5 minutes)

Extract #3 (6 minutes)

Extract #4 (5 minutes)

Posted in Teaching | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

0142 — Diary of a Believer (002)

Posted on July 27, 2009 by Mark Morrow

Sheila explains why she published her Diary:

The Diary of a Believer also includes the events that encouraged, and sometimes forced me to examine my faith, figuring out exactly what I believed and why. These were the same events that slowly opened my spiritual eyes, leading me out of my incorrect assessment of the Lord, and into the type of relationship that one might expect upon embracing something called “The Good News of the Gospel”.

The Diary of a Believer explores the blueprints commonly used to seek God through established religion, which often leaves its seekers doubting and unfulfilled in their faith. Formulas breed complacency, and complacency breeds mediocrity. Mediocre is what I found my own spiritual life to be until I began searching outside the spiritual fences erected long ago by well intentioned, albeit misguided brethren. If at the age of 39, I find myself in the same spiritual position I was in at 25, then I’ve cheated myself of the many things that God desires to reveal to me along the journey I was intended to walk. And if I’ve done so, I’ve probably passed that spiritual mediocrity along to my children as well.

The composition of this book was inspired by the desire to share what I’ve learned along my journey with my children, family and friends. But I also find it fitting for others who feel lost in the maze of Christian tradition. It’s for those who’ve bought into the lie that says you must earn your salvation under the guidance of specific church doctrine. It’s for those who’ve been taught that the Holy Spirit is retired, and encourages seekers of Christ to go about their journey without Him. It’s for those who’ve been taught to love and revere the Word of the Lord, yet dismiss major portions of it as being no longer applicable in the lives of today’s believers.

If you’re in any of those positions, don’t feel alone. This personal collection of stories was also written for you.

The “stories” she mentions are not fictional — they are real!  You may find that her story is your story too!

Blessings in Christ,

Mark

Posted in Freedom | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment