Kenny Fields preached at my church this past Sunday Morning, May 25, 2008. Here is the link to his sermon. Please download it and critique it. Send your critiques to jaredhmoore@hotmail.com and I’ll get them to him. Or, if you know his email address, go ahead and email it to him (he requested I not put his email address on here because of spam).
Posted by jaredhmoore under Uncategorized | Comments (0)
On May 11 - 15, 2008, Chase Vaughn came to my church (Union Fork Baptist Church) and presented how all knowledge is founded on Christ alone.
He showed how Christianity consistently crushes all other worldviews which oppose it. He specifically examined Naturalism, Modernism, and Postmodernism. The conference focused on how we Christians must found our worldview on Christ, and how we must confront our culture with this same foundation. Instead of us approaching other worldviews acting as if there is some “neutral ground” to argue from, Brother Chase argues that every person on earth has an “ultimate authority” he or she has faith in; whether it’s the Triune God, reason, etc. Every worldview has a foundation that is unproveable; the reality is that Christianity is the only worldview that can be built on its professed foundation. Every other worldview lives contrary to its professed foundation.
The Naturalist cannot account for “reason”; but, he wants to argue from this. The Postmodernist makes “truth” claims such as “There is no truth”; while saying, “There is no truth”.
Just listen to the sermons :).
5/11/08 - Apologetics Introduction
5/13/08 - Worldview Implications
5/14/08 - Confronting Naturalism
Posted by jaredhmoore under Uncategorized | Comments (0)
Here is the video from the hospital when Caden was born. It’s broken up into 3 parts. You might want to push “play”, then “pause” it for a while, giving it a little while to load, before you try to play the video. Children are a blessing!
Posted by jaredhmoore under Uncategorized | Comments (0)
Throughout my ministry I’ve looked for “mentors” to invest in me. To this day, I haven’t really found anyone willing to take the time to. Due to my own frustration in finding a mentor, I’ve tried to find future or present “teachers of the Word” to invest in, seeking to “mentor” them. If you have struggled finding a mentor like I have, and would like someone to critique your sermons, you can email me at jaredhmoore@hotmail.com. You can send me your notes, manuscripts, or audio, and I will do my best to give a biblically-faithful critique. Please make the subject of the email “Critique my Sermon” or something similar.
This invitation is open to all!
I’m definately no expert at this, but my critique will either solidify your original view or change your view. For God’s glory alone brothers!
Email me Soon!
Posted by jaredhmoore under Uncategorized | Comments (0)
Jeff responded to my previous response here.
Jeff doesn’t understand my assertion of the value of children. Let me be as clear as I possibly can.
All humanity is created in God’s image. Because of this, mankind is of greater value than all other creation.
Jeff wrote,
I’m left still wondering what text indicates we should elevate one particular blessing given by God over the others when God has given us no authoritative ranking.
Jeff, All I’m saying is that if humanity is more valuable than all other creation, then it naturally follows that children are more valuable than all other creation as well. If children should be desired (And God doesn’t command us to desire great wealth), and they’re more valuable than all other creation (even material gain or “The American Dream”); then, doesn’t this naturally follow that they’re more of a blessing than things which God doesn’t tell us to desire?
Let’s be honest. Most people in America, including the church, aren’t having children because they had rather have money or more “stuff”. And, I’m saying that children should be desired more than materialism. Now, anticipating Jeff’s response; I’m not saying that Christians have to live in the “poor house” and have as many children as possible. What I am saying is that according to their own consciences, they must ask themselves “Do I desire children more than materialism”… because I believe this is exactly what the Scriptures teach we should ask ourselves. Now, even this question is a step further than Jeff’s view concerning conscience and children.
Their conscience must be their guide; however, I also believe there are clear instances of gross - rebellion which can be addressed. If a billionaire has 20 houses all over the world, and decides not to have children, then how can these parents honestly say that they desire children? And, can the church hold these people accountable to the Scriptures teaching of children being desired? Can the church call this billionaire on his rebellion if he says he desires children; though there’s nothing in his actions to validate his claim, and he clearly admits to desiring materialism instead of children? I would argue “yes”. I believe the church can hold the individual accountable to desiring children. Jeff seems to think if parents say they desire children, then the church can say nothing. A local body, the church, can define what they believe the Scriptures teach concerning desiring children, what this looks like fleshed out, and if their members voluntarily submit to it, then they can hold them accountible to it.
Jeff basically believes I’m legalistic in my view; and I believe he’s liberal in his view. I believe you can still leave matters up to conscience while calling blatant sin, sin. The principles which govern our consciences “look” a certain way when fleshed out. They must consistenly respond to the original foundation on which they were built on. In this case, desiring children… everything concerning children and conscience, must be faithful to this foundation; I don’t believe Jeff’s view is faithful to his professed foundation.
Jeff wrote,
The weakness here is in the phrase “while not neglecting any of them.” The question then becomes, if all good things of the Lord are to be pursued (which I agree with) then who determines if an individual is neglecting any one of the blessings being pursued? Since we have no authoritative value scale from scripture the answer is obvious: the conscience of the individual doing the pursuing. Anything beyond that is putting words in God’s mouth and amounts to legalism.
To answer Jeff’s question, I believe the individual’s conscience determines if an individual is neglecting any one of the blessings being pursued. However, I don’t believe that every single Christian on earth can just run to and fro appealing to their own consciences about children. I believe there are more principles and parameters given by Scripture than just “children are to be desired”. To stop there is to be inconsistent. This foundational principle looks a certain way when fleshed out… all that is built on it must “fit” on the original foundation. If it doesn’t, then the foundation isn’t being carried out. Building “Not having children” on the foundation of “Children should be desired”… causes the “conscience building” to crumble. You can’t use the wrong building material to build a correct conscience. If the “fleshing out” doesn’t fit on the foundation, then if must be discarded, and the right building materials must be used. Of course, this too is left up to an individual’s conscience; unless there is a clear admission of “not desiring children” from the individual.
Jeff wrote,
Before God, I believe the Bible teaches that tithing is required of a believer as an act of worship. However, if pressed, I will admit that my position is a theological conclusion sourced from many texts that address the issue indirectly. Again, if pressed, the only thing I can say that the Bible says explicitly is that believers are to be regular, cheerful givers.
I believe to say a conscience can interpret “desiring children” however they want is ridiculous; just like God loving a cheerful giver and the clear principles in the New Testament that God’s earthly kingdom is to be financially supported by Christians; as well as, the pastors over these Christians… saying these things can be carried out however they want to by the Christian’s conscience is also ridiculous.
Now Jeff, can a Christian say that he believes these principles about financially giving, then appeal to his conscience as his justification for refusal to give financially to support God’s kingdom and his pastors? The answer of course is “No”. So, according to Jeff’s view, how can the same parents receive a “pass” to abstain from child-bearing while in the same breath saying, “I desire children.” Parents who are capable of having children, without neglecting their other responsibilities before the Lord, who say they desire children… WILL have children, period. Just like the parents who say, “I believe God loves a cheerful giver; I believe God’s earthly kingdom is to be financially supported by Christians; and I believe Christians should financially support their pastors”… and are capable of obeying the Lord in other areas while giving, WILL give. There is no difference concerning carrying out principles of conscience in these two views.
I believe Jeff is picking and choosing how he wants to apply “conscience principles” to various situations. However, he cannot call capable parents who refuse to give financially for God’s kingdom and pastors, sinners; while calling parents who are faithful to God in all other areas, who refuse to have children, free to do so. He is being inconsistent in his principles of conscience.
Jeff wrote,
We have no ability to discern whether or not someone is or is not neglecting their other responsibilities before the Lord. Therefore, again, this realm is reserved for the Lord of the conscience. He alone has access to the hearts of the individual and He alone can determine whether or not they are being obedient.
In matters of conscience, are there any standards? I would argue that there are. The principle by which the conscience is governed (in this case: Children are to be desired), must be carried to its consistent end. “Desiring children” looks like something… and, to think it’s like daylight and dark from one conscience to the next, to me is foolish. Isn’t every Christian’s conscience informed by the same Word of God and the same God the Holy Spirit? Shouldn’t then, the fleshing out of desiring children look similar from one Christian to the next? I’m arguing “yes”. Let’s say there are two capable Christian families who both profess to desire children; one has 8 children and the other has none and doesn’t plan on having any due to their desire for “stuff”. Now, which family really desires children? The answer is obvious… the one who consistently carries out their professed desire.
Please also note: Due to conscience and capability being relative, in some cases a family with 8 children may still be desiring materialism over children; and a family with no children may be desiring children above materialism. Bottom line, it’s a matter of conscience that no man can judge unless a confession is made; or an individual is directly rebelling against the body’s decision he is a member of; if he’s rebelling against what the church has covenanted together to submit to.
If children are more valuable than all other creation and “are to be desired”, both according to Scripture, then doesn’t this speak of their value in God’s eyes? My question is: Christians who had rather live luxuriously instead of having children; do they understand the value of children? I believe the answer is clearly “No”. Now, Jeff would argue that this is perfectly fine according to a person’s conscience. As mentioned earlier, I disagree.
Lastly, Jeff wrote:
Still, the remedy to such a situation isn’t to attempt to create some rule believers have to live up to. It’s to teach people to be obedient to the Lord of the conscience. He, then, becomes the factor that compels them to love, value, and desire children. Just as He intended.
I totally agree with Jeff’s statement here. I also don’t believe I’m “creating some rule believers have to live up to”. I believe God has created the rules that I’ve mentioned. I believe Jeff, in his overwhelming desire to run from legalism, has swung too far the other way; so much so, that he even believes a billionaire can “desire children” while sinlessly refusing and not even planning to have them. Though there may be rare instances where this is biblically fine; I believe this is a rare occurance; therefore, I just don’t get it.
Jeff, I appreciate your willingness to dialogue with me. I’ve found and am continuing to find this beneficial. I appreciate your honesty and love for God’s Word; and ultimately, your desire for His glory. Let us continue on, chipping away that which is unbiblical.
For God’s glory alone brother,
Jared
Posted by jaredhmoore under Uncategorized | Comments (2)
Jeff has responded to my view here.
There have already been two individuals post comments supporting Jeff’s view of children.
It seems Jeff and his commenters believe my worldview is inconsistent. I want to encourage everyone to thoroughly examine my view before they outright dismiss it. We must understand that in America, the lost and saved both when told they are required to have as many children as possible, naturally scoff “It’s my life, how dare you place any commandments on me about my life”. This is the natural reaction. The average household in America has 1.9 children and the church only has a little over 2; so, the church and the world are very similar in their view of how many children they should have. In other words, Christ has little effect on the church in this area, if His view of children is even thought of and consistently carried out at all.
So, please thoroughly examine both views before you make a decision.
The interesting thing about Jeff and his commenters’ comments about my worldview, is that their argument is exactly my argument concerning their worldviews. I believe they are inconsistent. Let me explain.
Jeff said,
Aye, there’s the rub. See, that’s all well and good but there is simply no textual support for elevating the blessing of children over other blessings listed in the Bible.
Can Chrstians biblically say that human life is to be exalted above all other life? Of course, the biblical answer is “yes”. Due to being created in God’s image, humanity is the crowning glory of God’s creation.
Jeff then names other blessings which Scripture names; however, what he fails to realize is that everything he names also deals with human life. Here is what he said,
Paul’s assertion that God has blessed believers with “every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ” includes election, justification, adoption, redemption, forgiveness, revelation, and an inheritance in Christ. If we are going to turn to human wisdom to evaluate which of God’s blessings is the greatest my list is going to start here in the Ephesians passage.
Election, justification, adoption, redemption, forgiveness, revelation, and an inheritance in Christ all deal with the salvation of a human created in God’s image.
Once again, I’m not as “certain” of my view as Jeff is; however, it is becoming more clear as this debate is practiced (which is why we’re debating). Let me clarify my position. Any blessing dealing with God being glorified by humanity is to be exalted above all other blessings. There must be a healthy balance here. Christians should have children, but they should also tithe, enjoy His creation, give to the poor, etc. This balance is no doubt determined by conscience; however, if an individual (and, I’m sure Jeff would agree with me on this) is able to glorify God in any of the aforementioned areas, and refuses to, then he or she is sinning.
Also, due to this balance, shouldn’t each field of obedience to the Lord be carried out to its most - glorifying end without neglecting the other commandments of the Lord? Let me clarify: If tithing glorifies God, and enjoying God’s creation glorifies God, and having children glorifies God, then shouldn’t every Christian’s goal be to do these things to the fullest while not neglecting any of them? Shouldn’t we tithe as much as we are capable of, and enjoy God’s creation as much as we’re capable of, and give to the poor as much as we’re capable of, and have children as much as we’re capable of (I said earlier that I believe Christians should have as many children as they can possibly have; what’s the difference with children compared to these other commandments of the Lord, whether explicit or implicit)? I believe this is a consistent worldview. If all of these are equal, as Jeff points out, then following his view to its consistent end means an individual should pursue all of these equally. However, this isn’t what he’s teaching in his view. He’s teaching that as long as children are desired, then it’s left up to conscience how many a couple has; and they’re not required to have any at all. What I’m teaching is that if children are desired, then couples will seek to have as many as they are able to have, without neglecting their other resposibilites to the Lord.
Now, Jeff, though he would probably agree that someone who is able to tithe, but refuses to is sinning; he is inconsistent is his woldview by his saying that Christians who are capable of having children unto God’s glory, are perfectly sinless in their decision to refrane from child-bearing. Why is it acceptable to not have children, and unacceptable to not tithe? What is the difference?
I believe how many children a family must have, can be left up to conscience while Jeff believes the decision to have children altogether can be left up to conscience… while he doesn’t believe an individual has a conscience choice of whether or not to tithe; however, he does believe the amount above and beyond the 10% is left up to conscience. I agree with him on tithing; however, I believe he is applying conscience inconsistently to children. How can he be consistent in his view of conscience whenever he allows the decision to have children to be left up to conscience, while not allowing the decision to tithe to be left up to conscience? The answer is that he’s inconsistent in his view of conscience.
Concerning worldview, Jeff wrote,
According to Nancy Pearcey one of the key tests of a worldview is whether or not you can “live” the worldview (i.e. naturalism isn’t a consistent worldview because it doesn’t make sense of the world as we experience it). It is at this point where Jared’s quote above fails the “livable” test.
Without neglecting God’s other commandments, Christians must have as many children as possible. I want to know how this is inconsistent. I believe Jeff is being inconsistent whenever he says children are to be desired, and then he implies that parents capable of having and affording children aren’t required by God to have them. How in the world can a couple who is capable of having children without neglecting the Lord be sinless in their refusal to have children? How can they say they desire children whlie refusing to have them? Also, even if they have one, and are capable of having five more; how can they say they’re desiring children whenever they refuse to have the five more?
Jeff concluded his view with this statement,
Thus Jared’s position fails on two levels. One, it fails to conform to scripture (in that it goes beyond what scripture says) and two, it fails to present livable options (in that an attempt to live it out would cause the believer to violate other clear commands in scripture.)
First, I don’t believe I’m going beyond what the Scripture says. I believe if the Scripture we have on the subject is consistently carried out, then the only conclusion is having as many children unto God’s glory as possible.
Second, (I never meant to advocate neglecting God’s other clear commandments) I believe I’ve clearly answered this critique earlier in this post. To summarize: Without neglecting God’s other commandments, Christians must have as many children as they are capable of having.
Jeff and I are buddies. We both believe, when divorced from emotion, polemics about “unclear”, non-essential to salvation issues, are benefical to the church. My goal is to be corrected where I need to be corrected. May God continue to be glorified as we search for His understanding of children.
Posted by jaredhmoore under Uncategorized | Comments (1)
The other day, my buddy Jeff and I began discussing children. We went back and forth for 30+ minutes; so, I suggested to him that we should debate this on my blog for the benefit of those who might read it. Our goal is to make sure that we’re coming up with the most-biblical conclusion.
The two questions we’re going to answer are:
1. How should Christians view Children?
2. Carried to its consistent end, what does this view look like fleshed out?
The way this debate will go is each of us will briefly present our view of children and how this view is fleshed out. Then, we will “critique” one another’s views until we have exhausted every possible evidence in favor of our view or against the other view.
May God alone be glorified as we seek His correction through polemics.
Jared’s Position
Ok, my position is in agreement with Jeff’s position at the foundational level. I too believe children are to be desired and should be seen as a blessing from the Lord. The area where I disagree with him is the “fleshing out” of this foundation. If children are a blessing from the Lord, then I believe they should be desired above all other blessings. Due to children being created in the Image of God, I believe this raises their “blessing value” above all other blessings given from the Lord. Each child is divinely given; and should be seen as a gift from God. Due to these truths, I believe all Christians should have as many children as they can possibly have. I, however, must confess that I’m not as sure of my view as Jeff is. I do believe that if Children are a blessing from God, and are created in His image, then the only consistent view is that of having as many as possible.
Jeff’s Position can be found here.
May God be glorified as we submit to His inerrant Word.
Posted by jaredhmoore under Polemics - A Healthy Debate | Comments (3)
Many, many times while sitting in the congregation, anxiously-waiting for the word of God to be preached, I’ve heard the pastor pray for a special anointing from God. This has always confused me, and I’ve never understood it. Early in my ministry, because of this up-bringing, I used to pray this way every time before I preached or taught. I hope to examine this from the Scriptures today.
First, let me say that I don’t question the salvation, or the sincerity of the individuals who pray this way. Actually, the fact that they’re praying this way shows a healthy humility concerning the individual’s responsibility in handling and preaching the Word of God.
There are several questions I hope to answer:
II. Do preachers need an extra anointing in order to faithfully preach the word of God?
III. Does God the Holy Spirit have any involvement in the interpretation process?
IV. Does God’s Word need an extra empowerment from the Holy Spirit to accomplish what He set it out to do?
V. Does praying for an anointing exalt the Pastor to the position of Priest, eliminating the priesthood of the believer?
VI. Does praying for an anointing contradict our claim to the inerrancy of God’s Word?
i. Examples of what I’m writing about:
A. Herb Reavis: Audio Sermon Here
-Bro. Herb is a God-fearing man whom I respect; He is one I can learn much from concerning obedience and faithfulness to
the Lord; however, I must lovingly disagree with him on this issue.
-His prayer begins at 2 minutes, 17 seconds; and ends at 3 minutes, 24 seconds
I. Does 1 John 2:20 teach that pastors are to pursue an extra anointing for preaching?
John, in 1 John 2:20 wrote: “But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things.”
I chose this verse because a pastor friend of mine uses this verse in defense of his praying for an anointing. Regardless which way you slice this verse, you will come up with the fact that John is speaking of trusting that his hearers won’t apostatize from true Christianity for the heresy of Gnosticism. He’s simply speaking of their reception of the Holy Spirit…. which, today, every Christian has. So, if this verse doesn’t tell us to seek an extra-anointing, how come so many preachers pray for this from the pulpit? To pray for this anointing is actually praying for something which Christians already have.
II. Do preachers need an extra anointing in order to faithfully preach the word of God?
Acts 16:16-18 reads, “16 Now it happened, as we went to prayer, that a certain slave girl possessed with a spirit of divination met us, who brought her masters much profit by fortune-telling. 17 This girl followed Paul and us, and cried out, saying, “These men are the servants of the Most High God, who proclaim to us the way of salvation.” 18 And this she did for many days.
But Paul, greatly annoyed, turned and said to the spirit, “I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.” And he came out that very hour.”
Here we have a demon-possessed girl speaking the truth of God. Now, if a demon is capable of speaking truth, why do pastors need an anointing above and beyond salvation in order to speak truth? God’s Word is absolute truth, and anyone can repeat it. God inspired writers to write words, and it doesn’t take an extra anointing above salvation in order to read these words. Lost people can still speak God’s Truth… Lost people can even rightly interpret the Scriptures… if they can understand words, then they can rightly divide the Word. Now, the ability to actually understand what is interpreted, as divine truth, is only a divine work of the Holy Spirit.
III. Does God the Holy Spirit have any involvement in the interpretation process?
Because God inspired words, anyone who can understand words are capable of understanding what the authors meant when they wrote the Scriptures; however, because salvation is a divine work, the ability to recognize it as truth and respond to it is only that which the Holy Spirit can produce. Any liberal lost person can read John 14:6 and say that the apostle John did write that Jesus said He was the way, the truth, and the life, and no one comes to the Father, but by Him; however, the lost liberal says it’s just hogwash; it’s a myth, etc.
IV. Does God’s Word need an extra empowerment from the Holy Spirit?
The argument I’m trying to make is that God’s Word is truth, and it needs nothing extra in order to make it more-true, or for it to come alive, or any other empowerment. It is the Word of God because God breathed it.
Hebrews 4:12 reads, “For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.”
God’s Word is absolute. It is absolutely true. The power is in God’s Word, not in the Speaker, Teacher, or Pastor. Any lost man, saved man, demon, or angel can preach God’s Word and it will accomplish the purpose He has ordained for it.
Isaiah 55:11 reads, “so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.”
God has sent His Word to plant a seed, which the Holy Spirit empowers individuals to recognize as truth and respond to. The Word of God doesn’t need any empowerment, nor do those who present it; however, dead sinners do need empowerment to respond to it.
V. Does praying for an anointing exalt the Pastor to the position of Priest, eliminating the priesthood of the believer?
If indeed there is such an anointing concerning pastors, then it would have to take pastors to a higher spiritual level at that moment in the pulpit… As if the Pastor is literally a mediator between God and His people. Now, the men who pray these prayers must answer between them and God concerning exactly what they’re intending when they pray for an anointing before they preach; however, from an audience member’s perspective it sounds like these men are praying for some extra-empowerment in communicating the Word of God. Now, if you need an extra-anointing, an extra-empowerment, then why does Paul lay “rightly dividing” the Scriptures at the feet of Timothy. After all… why study at all, why make it a point to handle the Word of God properly if the whole process can be eliminated by praying a priestly prayer for a divine anointing before you preach? A pastor cannot be a mediator of God’s Word to man; however, God’s Word is His Word to man, so pastors only need to repeat it and expound upon it.
Bottom line, to pray for something extra is to doubt what you have already been given. To pray for something extra is to doubt that God has already equipped you to the task. All the ability you need in speaking the Gospel or in any ministry for that matter is given through the Holy Spirit at salvation, and spiritually grown and equipped through the Holy Spirit’s application of God’s Word by sanctification. Praying for something extra or God to divinely intervene in your preaching is to pray for a miracle. This prayer for a miracle is praying for God to intervene in a task that He has given you to perform. We are responsible to faithfully preach the Gospel. I’m not saying God won’t intervene; however, I am asking you why He would divinely intervene in a task He has equipped you to perform, and given you His Holy Spirit as your helper in performing it?
Also, if God uses His Holy Spirit to make us recognize truth, to make us understand what has been interpreted as divine truth or untruth, then preaching should be the easy part. I mean, what a great sermonette the demon-possessed woman was preaching in the aforementioned passage. We must preach the truth… I’m doing my best to say that preaching is not a divine work. The faithfulness rests on the individual. God has clearly placed being faithful to the Gospel as a responsibility of His church. He will always keep a remnant; however, if pastors want to preach untruth, then God will allow it. How do I know this? How many pastors have prayed this prayer and still preached the Scriptures wrongly? Countless… It’s like praying for God to take your desire to lust away… in order to do this completely, He would have to kill you…. for then, and only then would you be sinless. However, God has promised that His Holy Spirit has given us the power to pass through temptation resisting as we are carried safely through in obedience (1 Corinthians 10:13). Because of God’s provision in enduring us through temptation, why would we want to pray for something He has already provided for us? In like manner God has warned us of our handling of His Word; as well as, equipping us to the task. Praying for an anointing… praying for God’s intervention, is neglecting the responsibility He has given us as pastors to study to show ourselves approved. It is also neglecting the clear provision God has provided… it’s like saying, “God, you haven’t provided enough ability for me to preach your Word.”
VI. Does praying for an anointing contradict our claim to the inerrancy of God’s Word?
Getting to the title of the article. To pray for an anointing is possibly to pray for God to empower His Word from your lips. However, if God needs to empower your words, and you’re simply communicating what He’s already written, then this means that His very WORD needs an extra empowerment. This is where Neo-Orthodoxy comes in.
Basically, Neo-Orthodoxy teaches that the Bible becomes God’s Word whenever the Holy Spirit takes it and “brings it to life” in showing sinners Jesus Christ. Neo-orthodoxy denies inerrancy and inspiration, by saying that inspiration was not given verbally or mechanically, but that the author interpreted the events or “word of God”, thus writing his interpretation of the word of God. Scripture in its original manuscripts is therefore the words of God in the words of men. Also, in the Christian’s life, the Bible isn’t God’s Word, but contains God’s Word, and the Holy Spirit will divinely “tell” the Word of God to His Christians. Neo-orthodoxy places Christians as speaking the Word of God as they interpret the Bible. God’s Word is no longer the authority in Neo-orthodoxy, the individual Christian and his or her interpretation is. If this is what men mean whenever they pray for an anointing, then they really don’t believe in God’s inerrant Word. If men are praying for God to empower their words, then this is the prayer of Neo-orthodoxy not inerrancy.
In Conclusion, Pastors, let us simply preach the Word. Let us be plagiarists of God’s Word. We must simply regurgitate the Word of God for the nourishment of our churches. Let our hearers hear us echo as if God’s Word was shouted in a cave. We must trust in God’s Word instead of our ability to communicate it. Let us continually remind ourselves of our responsibility. May we tremble at our task, but let us not deny God’s clear declaration of His empowering of Christians through His Holy Spirit from the beginning of salvation to the end. May we trust that God’s Word has all the empowering it needs; and may we be about God’s glory alone!
Posted by jaredhmoore under Uncategorized | Comments (1)
The apostle Paul, in Romans 12:1-2 says, “ 1Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship. 2Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.”
We must pursue having the mind of Christ, because only through having His mind can we make godly decisions. If we refuse to study God’s Word, and we have access to it, then there’s no way that we can make godly decisions. The reality is that I’ll make godlier decisions a year from now, than right now, because my knowledge of God and what He wants has increased. We cannot do what we don’t know.
Let me give you an example: There was a Christian man who worked across the parking lot from an abortion clinic. During his work-day he made it a point to read the bumper stickers of the individuals who went there. Some of the bumper stickers said, “Prayer changes things”, “Visit us at First Baptist Church”, etc. One day the man even bumped into a minister reading outside of the clinic who had brought his granddaughter to have an abortion.
Now, do these individuals who had abortions feel “bad” for participating in murder? The answer is that they will only feel bad if they have the knowledge that life begins at conception (Isaiah 49:1, Job 31:15, Psalm 139:13-14). If they suppress this, then there won’t be one ounce of remorse.
Let me give you another example: Mark Dever was a conservative Southern Baptist professor back in the days when our seminaries were liberal. Mark was teaching a theological seminar one day and he made an assertion from Scripture about God. A student in the class interrupted him and said, ” Excuse me Mark, but I like to think of God as wise, but not meddling; compassionate but not overpowering; resourceful but not interrupting. That’s how I like to think about God.” Mark responded, “Thank you Bill for telling us so much about yourself, but we’re here to learn about God from the Bible.”
Our knowledge must constantly be brought in under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, or we will simply do and say what we “feel” is right. However, the sad reality is that if we don’t have the right knowledge, then our feelings will always lie to us, because our feelings are directly related to our knowledge! At salvation, we “felt” bad for our sins because we KNEW we were sinners in need of a Savior (The Holy Spirit revealed this knowledge to us). We “felt” convicted because the KNOWLEDGE of our sin and God’s righteousness condemned us. When we sin, we “feel” bad only because we KNOW that we have sinned. If we don’t understand across the board what sin is in every situation, then we won’t “feel” bad for sin that we don’t KNOW is sin. We must labor in the study of God’s Word so that we can be transformed through the renewing of our minds. This is the only way that we can test and approve what God’s will is —his good, pleasing, and perfect will. None of our minds are fully renewed yet. Let us therefore continue on to maturity in Christ.
What are your thoughts?
Posted by jaredhmoore under Uncategorized | Comments (1)
Inerrantists, according to Geisler and Nix, believe that,
“Inspiration is that mysterious process by which the divine causality [God] worked through the human prophets without destroying their individual personalities and styles to produce divinely authoritative and inerrant writings,”;
furthermore, Geisler and Nix write,
“Thus, the orthodox doctrine that the Bible is the infallible, inerrant Word of God in its original manuscripts has maintained itself from the first century to the present. This position holds that the Bible is without error in everything that it affirms. Indeed, according to the traditional teachings of the Christian church, what the Bible says, God Himself says. That includes all matters of history, science, and any other matter on which it touches. Any results of higher criticism that are contrary to this teaching are incompatible with the traditional doctrine of the inspiration and authority of Scripture as it has been held throughout church history. Being at variance with the traditional teaching of the Christian church in its broadest context, such contrary views of Scripture are actually unorthodox.”
Since we as evangelicals scoff at those who simply look at the Bible, and ask, “what does it mean to me?” While ignoring the historical context, I often wonder why individuals who claim inerrancy, and would affirm the above definitions, would take God’s Word and make it say something they couldn’t possibly know unless they received some sort of “New Divine, Yet Relative Revelation”.
Let me give you an example:
Johnny Hunt… now, please understand, I’m not ATTACKING Johnny Hunt. I actually agree with much of what Johnny believes, and I consider him a dear brother in Christ; however, I am attacking something that he teaches, for I see it as inconsistent and an attack on the inerrancy of Scripture.
Go here
Then, click on “Watch the 2005 SBC Annual Meeting”
Then, scroll down and click on:
“Monday Evening Message Johnny Hunt
Johnny Hunt, First Baptist Church, Woodstock, Georgia”
After a few minutes into the message, Johnny, speaking of being told by God to move from Longleaf Baptist Church to First Baptist Woodstock, says, ”
My wife and I got on a plane [to Woodstock]. I was reading a chapter a day through the Bible. My reading that morning was 1 Samuel 21:2. The Bible says, ‘David answered Ahimelech the priest, “The king gave me a mission, but he told me, ‘Don’t let anyone know anything about the mission I’m sending you on or what I have ordered you to do.’ I have stationed my young men at a certain place.’ To me, it was like arema [spelling?] from God. It was like the Scriptures reached up, grabbed my collar, pulled me into the text, and God was speaking to me, and preparing me to make a move.”
In the aforementioned verse, David straight up lies to Ahimelech to save his life and to receive food. So, contextually, what in the world does this have to do with Johnny moving from one church to another? Now, there is no way that Johnny would say that this verse tells all pastors to move from their present church, to the church that is wanting them. Also, Johnny would reject anyone who simply approaches Scripture as if they have authority to make the Scripture mean something that isn’t even present in the words or genre.
So, why is Johnny, unknowingly no doubt, attacking the inerrancy of this verse by denying the historical context, the narrative genre, as well as the very words which God inspired? I mean, what if Johnny had been reading the passage in Genesis about Abraham, where God tells him to leave his land, telling him to go to a land that God would show him. Would Johnny be out wondering around still today?
Do we really have the authority to pray and then, through “feeling”, claim that God is speaking to us through words that aren’t even contextually present in the Biblical text that we are studying?
What are your thoughts?
Posted by jaredhmoore under Uncategorized | Comments (1)