Pitfalls in Redemptive-Historical Preaching and Suggested Remedies

What is the message of the Bible? As you answer this question, here are some pitfalls to avoid and remedy so that you may preach the full counsel of God. More »

Download Lecrae’s New CD for Free

Lecrae's New CD Church Clothes is out, and you can download it for free! More »

Reformed Cast Interview about The Harry Potter Bible Study

Scott Oakland recently interviewed me about my book The Harry Potter Bible Study. More »

Adolf Hitler’s Thoughts About Romney coming to Liberty University

I thought this was funny. More »

My Thoughts on Mitt Romney Speaking at Liberty University’s Spring 2012 Graduation

Should Liberty invite Mormons to speak at their graduation(s)? I try to answer this question using Liberty's own words. More »

Ten Contemporary Sacred Cows that Need to be Tipped

It's time for some cow tipping! More »

Three Youtube Videos we use in Family Worship

Share My wife and I have two children; one is four years of age and the other is about to turn three. Here are three videos from youtube that we use during More »

What’s Wrong With the Church?

Some issues that need to be answered by local churches. More »

Monthly Archives: November 2011

Keep Exalting Christ Tim Tebow: A Response to Kurt Warner’s Functional Vanity

 

I love watching Tim Tebow play.  I love watching him because he’s excellently unpredictable. I never know what he’s going to do, if he’s going to get sacked for a loss, throw a hail mary pass, or run for a 25 yard touchdown.  Plus, he often looks like the guy down the street playing football. Many children or grown men can watch him and think “How does he do that” while also thinking “I could do that.”  

Furthermore, from a Christian perspective, he seems to understand the purpose of football, the purpose of all things: exalting Christ/enjoying Christ.  The apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:31  wrote, “So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.”  Eating and drinking make up the basic foundation of life.  If you don’t eat and drink, you die; therefore, from the foundation of life to everything else, humans must do all things for God’s glory.  In agreement, Solomon argued that when creation is enjoyed apart from God, all is vanity (Ecc. 1:2)!  Solomon continued, “Then I considered all that my hands had done and the toil I had expended in doing it, and behold, all was vanity and a striving after wind, and there was nothing to be gained under the sun (Ecc. 2:11).”  Is there anything worthwhile in life?  Solomon’s point, which the apostle Paul echoes in 1 Cor. 10:31, is that creation and life are vanity, “grasping for wind,” when they are disconnected from the Triune God of Christianity.  Solomon summarizes his point in Ecclesiastes 2:24-26:  

24 There is nothing better for a person than that he should eat and drink and find enjoyment in his toil. This also, I saw, is from the hand of God, 25for apart from him who can eat or who can have enjoyment? 26For to the one who pleases him God has given wisdom and knowledge and joy, but to the sinner he has given the business of gathering and collecting, only to give to one who pleases God.This also is vanity and a striving after wind.

So, biblically, the people who are wrong in our society are not those who refuse to bow down to the culture, those who live out the fact that God owns this world.  The people who are wrong are those who believe life can be enjoyed apart from God.  Those who refuse to submit to God through Christ in light of the Spirit’s work through the Word of God, are those who pursue vanity.  In other words, Tim Tebow is not a weirdo, everyone else is.

Isn’t it amazingly terrible how even Christians are tired of hearing about Jesus in the public realm?  Listen to the advice Kurt Warner, a fellow Christian, had for Tebow:

“You can’t help but cheer for a guy like that,” former NFL star Kurt Warner said. “But I’d tell him, ‘Put down the boldness in regards to the words, and keep living the way you’re living. Let your teammates do the talking for you. Let them cheer on your testimony.’

“I know what he’s going through, and I know what he wants to accomplish, but I don’t want anybody to become calloused toward Tim because they don’t understand him, or are not fully aware of who he is. And you’re starting to see that a little bit.”

“There’s almost a faith cliche, where (athletes) come out and say, ‘I want to thank my Lord and savior,’ ” Warner told The Arizona Republic. “As soon as you say that, the guard goes up, the walls go up, and I came to realize you have to be more strategic.”

Warner continued, “The greatest impact you can have on people is never what you say, but how you live,” Warner told The Arizona Republic. “When you speak and represent the person of Jesus Christ in all actions of your life, people are drawn to that. You set the standard with your actions. The words can come after.”

I realize that Warner’s argument is a popular one in evangelical Christianity.  The problem is that the gospel is a message, not a lifestyle (Matt. 28:18-20; 1 Cor. 15:1-4).  In Jesus’s day, Paul’s day, the most outwardly moral people were the Pharisees, and Jesus called them hypocrites (Matt. 23:13).  The problem with merely “living the Christian life” as an evangelistic strategy is that no one knows the reason “Why” you live this way, unless you tell them!  Furthermore, if Christians only enjoy creation while never telling people that we’re enjoying God through enjoying creation due to the reconciling work of Jesus Christ and His Holy Spirit’s work through the Word of God, we’re communicating to our observers that we’re just like them.  Morality is not what ultimately separates Christians from non-Christians, Jesus Christ is.  In other words, what separates Christians from non-Christians is the “Why” behind our morality, not merely our morality.  We enjoy life not because life is enjoyable, which is why non-Christians enjoy life, but because God is enjoyable through life, and He has crucified and raised His Son from the dead to reconcile us and His sinful creation to Himself (Col. 1:19-23).  Having been reconciled to God through Christ, Jesus is the only Reason Why Christians can enjoy God through creation.

In conclusion, Tim Tebow is correct, Jesus Christ is the source of all his gifts, and not only his gifts, but the giftedness of all professional athletes (Col. 1:16-17).  All things were created by Jesus Christ and for Jesus Christ.  To deny this reality or to be silent about this reality is functional Atheism.  In other words, to leave Christ out, the Source of all of life, the only Person who makes professional football not vanity, is . . . well, vanity!  in order to be accepted by a godless society, Tebow needs to “sneak the gospel in somehow through his life,” or, he needs to “wait until someone asks him?”  You won’t find this in Scripture.  Kurt Warner should be ashamed for advising Tebow to speak as if God doesn’t own the public realm of our society.  Tebow, keep exalting Christ every chance you get, for your/our God owns this world, and to live or speak as if He doesn’t is vanity.

What are your thoughts?

Incoming search terms for the article:

I’m Officially a Contributor at Servants of Grace

Share

Dave Jenkins, the Director of Servants of Grace, has invited me to be a contributor.  I appreciate his ministry and have accepted his invitation.  I join other contributors: Dave Jenkins, Aaron Armstrong, Nate Palmer, Ricky Kirk, Chris Poblete, and Richard Rohlin.  Servants of Grace is a Reformed ministry that reaches over 130 countries and receives over 140,000 page views per month.  I look forward to the opportunity to minister worldwide as a member of the Servants of Grace team.

Thank you for the opportunity Dave.

Share

Credo Magazine: A Gift to Southern Baptists and Evangelicalism

Share
The Living Word – October 2011
In Christ Alone – January 2012

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you haven’t heard of Credo Magazine, then you’re missing out. I recently interviewed Matthew Barrett, founder and executive editor, concerning this wonderful free resource.  If you’re looking for a free, biblically sound, Gospel-centered resource from a distinctly Baptist perspective, Credo Magazine is your resource:

 

What is Credo Magazine?

Credo magazine is self-consciously Evangelical, Reformational, and Baptistic: Evangelical since it aims at being supremely Gospel-centered, exalting in the substitutionary death and historical resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ; Reformational as the gospel it promotes is defined by the solas of the Reformation; and while Credo magazine welcomes contributors from diverse ecclesial backgrounds, it seeks to especially celebrate those doctrines that mark the Baptist tradition.

Credo is a free, full-color, digital magazine that is published bi-monthly and includes:

• Articles by some of the best pastors and scholars today on the most vital and pertinent issues in Christianity.

• Columns engaging pastoral issues in the church and monumental figures in church history.

• Interviews with important pastors and scholars on both their ministries and their new books.

• Reviews of some of the most recent books in Christian theology and literature.

 

How did Credo Magazine come about?

The project evolved out of a desire to provide a resource for those in the church from a Reformed Baptist perspective. There are other magazines out there, such as Tabletalk and Modern Reformation, and while these do an excellent job they assume a Presbyterian background more or less. And then there are other lay-level resources such as Christianity Today, Books and Culture, or Touchstone Magazine but these target a wider audience in Christianity in general. So it became obvious that while Baptists, especially Southern Baptists, make up the largest evangelical denomination(s), nevertheless, there does not seem to be a magazine that is written from such a vantage point. And more rare yet, there does not seem to be a magazine out there that comes from a Reformed Baptist perspective. So this is a gaping hole Credo Magazine seeks to fill, bringing many pastors and scholars to the table to discuss some of the most important theological issues of our day.

However, with that said, Credo is delighted to pull from pastors and scholars from a variety of denominational backgrounds. Once in a while we will devote an issue to Baptist theology or history. But much of the time we are addressing issues that can be discussed by a variety of evangelicals. So we are pleased to have evangelical contributors from diverse ecclesial affiliations. For example, in this forthcoming January issue, “In Christ Alone,” Gerald Bray will be contributing an article and we could not be more pleased to have such an excellent scholar.

 

How can Credo Magazine benefit Southern Baptists and evangelicals?

Southern Baptists have a long and diverse history. Within the last two and a half decades the SBC has undergone a conservative resurgence whereby the gospel and evangelical doctrine has been recovered. I am proud to have graduated (twice!) from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary which in many ways has led the way, thanks to the leadership of President Albert Mohler, in defending Christian orthodoxy. It is a joy to see churches within the SBC as well as its seminaries teaching sound doctrine.

In this regard, Credo Magazine will serve as a theological resource for those in the SBC. Our hope is that lay people, pastors, and scholars will find Credo Magazine a theological feast! Credo is meant to assist other Southern Baptists in thinking through the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith.

Additionally, since Credo Magazine is baptistic in its orientation, it will also serve Southern Baptists by addressing some of the major topics under debate in the SBC. Many of our contributors, both to the magazine itself and to the weekly blog, are Southern Baptist pastors and professors. Therefore, they will naturally be tackling theological and ecclesiological issues that are at the center of discussion in the SBC. Our aim is to provide a magazine that is a valuable resource to those in the SBC as they think through some of the most important issues in their churches.

Furthermore, of late there has been a resurgence of Calvinism within the SBC. I believe this is a very positive movement that is taking place, as the doctrines of grace are being recognized for their biblical accuracy. Credo Magazine is written from a Calvinist perspective, and therefore will seek to highlight the solas of the Reformation and the doctrines of grace from a biblical, theological, and historical vantage point.

 

What resources are currently available through Credo Magazine, and what resources do you hope to provide in the future?

The main resource we offer is the bimonthly magazine (published every two months). The magazine is free to the public and is available on our website. By all means take a look at our most recent October issue, “The Living Word” and keep your eye out this January for “In Christ Alone.”

If you are a dedicated follower then you will also be interested in reading our blog each day. We have guest contributors all the time but we also have consistent weekly contributors including: Thomas Schreiner, Paul Helm, Fred Zaspel, Nathan Finn, Todd Miles, Ardel Caneday, Michael A.G. Haykin, myself (Matthew Barrett), and Luke Stamps.

Also make sure to check out our “reviews” and “media” pages where we post new book reviews as well as videos with some outstanding pastors and scholars. For example, for Reformation week we did a video interview with Michael A.G. Haykin on Martin Luther.

And you will want to keep your eye out for our occasional book giveaways! Last week we gave away Gregg Allison’s Historical Theology these next four weeks leading up to the January issue will also include many other giveaways, including Michael Horton’s The Christian Faith.

 

Who are the contributors to Credo Magazine?

As I said, our blog has weekly contributors. But the contributors to our magazine are many. Some of those who have written or are planning on writing articles for the magazine include: Gregg Allison, Fred Zaspel, Michael A.G. Haykin, Robert Saucy, Bruce Ware, Timothy George, Nathan Finn, Gerald Bray, etc.

We also do interviews often. These include: Bruce Ware, Robert Peterson, David Wells, Timothy George, and many more.

 

What can readers do to help Credo Magazine?

Read it! Share it! And of course leave us comments on what you thought.

 

What are your thoughts?

Share

Skew,Skew,Skew, That’s What Peter Lumpkins Loves to Do

Share

(I’m responding to Peter Lumpkins publicly because his skewing is public.)  Peter, you kill me. You’re not helping the SBC by skewing data to favor your opinions. You’re causing more division. If you want to help the SBC, why don’t you encourage unity? Here’s just a small sampling of your skewing:

This is your doctored video of Al Mohler

 

First, in your recent videos of Dr. Mohler, you add words to his commentary. Mohler just spoke about his convictions. Where does he say “only” in his statements? He doesn’t say it; yet, you argue he does. How do you not know that Mohler considers you in the “Reformed of another name” stream of Baptist life that he mentions in the video? How do you not know that he doesn’t include what you believe concerning the T.U.L.I.P. in his “reformed” definition? How do you not know that he considers the BF&M 2000, a document you affirm, a “reformed” document? I ask this because why is Al Mohler so cooperative with other Southern Baptists that believe like you, if he thinks they’re not serious about the gospel… as you argue? You seem to know Mohler better than he knows himself, because he sure doesn’t live out what you suggest he’s arguing in the video. So, who should I and others believe, the words and implications you put in Mohler’s mouth, or the actual theology and life espoused by Mohler on a consistent basis? The answer is obvious to anyone who isn’t looking for smoke where there’s no fire. You focus more on what he doesn’t say instead of on what he actually says. Can Mohler not believe strongly that Calvinism is what the Bible teaches, and that it is the best option out there? The Abstract of Principles agrees with Mohler. Which is a confession that he did not write, but one that Southern Baptists wrote, affirmed, and demanded others in the future affirm as well in order to teach at SBTS and SEBTS. You of course leave this fact out. You should be ashamed for how you’ve handled Mohler in the above video.  You intentionally ignore his life and example, and skew a 2 minute video to bolster your opinions.  How is intentionally ignoring the context provided by Al Mohler’s life and consistent example, an honest use of the above video?

Second, a few weeks ago you referenced Frank Page’s interview with SBC Today. This is what you wrote:

In the interview, Dr. Page publicly addressed an issue about which he believes “everyone is aware…but few want to talk about…” The issue?  The divisiveness of Calvinism in the SBC.”

You then quoted Page’s words:

I think one of the issues which is a tremendous challenge for us is the theological divide of Calvinism and non-Calvinism.  Everyone is aware of this, but few want to talk about this in public.  The reason is obvious.  It is deeply divisive in many situations and is disconcerting in others.  At some point we are going to see the challenges which are ensuing from this divide become even more problematic for us.  I regularly receive communications from churches who are struggling over this issue.

Did Page emphasize the divisiveness of Calvinism? I don’t see it in his words, and it’s not in the interview either. His exact words are “Calvinism and non-Calvinism.” He doesn’t emphasize one over the other. In other words, non-Calvinism is just as divisive in the SBC as Calvinism is… a fact that you repeatedly ignore.

Third, can you prove that you represent grassroot Southern Baptists? Nope. I personally believe that there’s more proof aliens exist than that your views against Calvinism in the SBC represent grassroot Southern Baptists. So, why do you continually act like you represent them? What proof do you have other than a few Southern Baptists you know, as compared to the 6,000,000+ Southern Baptists you don’t know? You can’t prove it, yet you continually skew various statistics as if grassroot Southern Baptists agree with you. The bottom line is that unless you can prove with the vote of Southern Baptists, not merely with statistics that say the majority of Southern Baptists are non-Calvinists, but that they’re against Calvinism like you are, you’re intentionally skewing the data. You continually point to 90-95% of Southern Baptists being non-Calvinists, even arguing that they “reject” Calvinism, even though you know that the statistics you’re referencing only refer to 5-point Calvinists in the SBC. You do realize that Russell Moore, Bruce Ware, myself, and numerous other Southern Baptist Calvinists are not 5-point Calvinists, don’t you? Yet, we consider ourselves a type of Calvinist, and we’re definitely not afraid of 5-point Calvinism. I know you realize this, but nevertheless, in order to bolster your articles, you, yet again, skew the data.

Fourth, in your recent article concerning the Daviess-McLean Baptist Association and Pleasant Valley Community Church, you leave out the fact that this rejected church’s confession of faith does not violate the Baptist Faith and Message. You even presume to know that high Calvinism (your words… which are inaccurate) was intentionally left out of the various Baptist Faith and Messages in SBC history. Would you also scold churches for being sure about their eschatology, which is also intentionally left out of the Baptist Faith and Message?  Nope.  So, you single out Calvinism to build an argument that attempts to justify this association’s choice. Yet, if your argument against Calvinism here justifies this Association’s rejection, then you should justify any association’s choice to reject a church over anything beyond the Baptist Faith and Message. You need to be okay with any association rejecting a church from membership based on something that has been “intentionally left behind” by the Baptist Faith and Message.

Fifth, to all the other non-Calvinists out there who support Peter, you amaze me as well. It blows my mind that you will applaud Peter, even though he skews data. Can you not see how terribly ironic it is that Peter gets on to Dr. Mohler by skewing numbers, statistics, exaggerating, parsing words, etc. There’s no way it’s honoring to God to intentionally skew data for the purpose of bolstering articles, opinions, and a specific agenda. It’s dishonest, plain and simple.

Sixth, no one has denied that some SBC Calvinists have behaved badly. But, if your stats are correct that the overwhelming majority of Southern Baptists are non-Calvinists, then this means that most of the church splits in the SBC are caused by non-Calvinists. But, of course, you leave this fact out of your discussion. Here’s just one example of an SBC church splitting, not due to Calvinism or Calvinists, but because of divisive non-Calvinists…http://www.salisburypost.com/News/092511-court-Blackwelder-Park-Baptist-civil-lawsuit-pastor-Keith-Kannenberg-qcd and http://www.salisburypost.com/News/102811-court-Keith-Kannenberg-Blackwelder-Park-Baptist-Church-Jamie-Welch-qcd. Make sure you read the comments in the above two links!  Also, when the SBC seminaries became liberal, who was on guard in the SBC that allowed such liberalism, Calvinists or Non-Calvinists?  Non-Calvinists!  Furthermore, if the majority of the convention is made up of Non-Calvinists and baptisms have continually declined, and giving to the Cooperative Program has continually declined, then who is responsible for this?  Non-Calvinists.  (Let me be very clear, I don’t lay the faults of the SBC at the feet of Non-Calvinists, I lay it at the feet of Southern Baptists, both Calvinists and non-Calvinists, because that’s who Southern Baptists are . . . Calvinists and non-Calvinists.)  A fact you ignore, yet again.

The reality is that I know I cannot stereotype all non-Calvinists based on the several instances I’ve seen where non-Calvinist Southern Baptists have split churches. You and others however refuse to apply the same stereotypes you apply to Calvinists, to those within your own theological system. Why the biased? The answer is simply that you are terribly inconsistent. You’ll keep pointing to the few instances to stereotype the many who you disagree with, while those who agree with your theological system rip churches apart left and right . . . as you sit silent. Shouldn’t you warn people about the arrogant aggressive non-Calvinists in the SBC as well who are responsible for most of the church splits in the SBC?

Finally Peter, I don’t think my article will do you any good.  I’m hoping it will do some good for the few who read and believe your various conspiracy theories.  The reality, however, is that you deal with data in a dishonest manner for the purpose of bolstering your opinions.  You should be ashamed for how you handle some of your articles.  Those who support you should be ashamed and embarrassed as well.  You have an opportunity to encourage unity in the SBC, and instead of encouraging unity, you’re further destroying what you claim to love. You’re better than this.

(If anyone leaves a comment, be kind.  Otherwise, your comment will be deleted.)

What are your thoughts?

Incoming search terms for the article:

Share

The Hidden Danger of Covenant Eyes: It’s Not the Gospel

Share

Covenant Eyes is a software program that automatically blocks inappropriate sites on your computer and/or monitors Internet use and sends a report to the person you designate. The goal is either to protect one’s children from various evils they may stumble upon on the Internet or to protect oneself from unwanted temptation.  Let me begin by saying this article is not against Covenant Eyes.  I’m in favor of Covenant Eyes, if it’s used correctly.  My main contention is that Covenant Eyes is not the gospel; it is not the answer for the sin problem.  It therefore must be used as an avenue through which to further depend on the gospel, not as a gospel substitute.

The problem I see with those who use Covenant Eyes to avoid unwanted temptation is that it frees men and women to think that the problem is outside of them.  ”If I can just keep those nude pictures or videos away from me, I won’t commit adultery.”  The problem is if you blame everyone else for your adultery, you may never deal with the root of your wickedness: your heart (Jer. 17:9).  Eventually, because you live in a wicked world, you will be faced with some form of adulterous temptation.  How will you respond then?

If you previously thought the problem was outside of you, then when faced with sexual temptation, you will probably fail sexually.  Desiring sexual, emotional, etc. fulfillment outside of one’s spouse is not a “natural” desire.  Adulterous desire period is not a “necessary evil” that you and I must embrace as absolute.  On the contrary, adulterous desire is a result of the fall.  It’s not one of the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:18-25), and therefore, should not be viewed as an “assumed reality for Christians.”  You and I should be able to work, fellowship, etc. with attractive men or women without adulterous desire: sin.  We must constantly put to death the adulterous desire in our hearts.

Here’s a test to see if you have dealt with your wicked heart. For men, what if the most beautiful woman you can think of stopped by your office and propositioned you?  How would you respond?  For women, what if a very handsome man from your favorite romantic movie began pursuing you the way he pursued the woman in the movie, would you commit adultery?  I realize we cannot answer these hypothetical situations absolutely, but we can make an educated guess concerning our response.  Have you dealt with your wicked heart?

It’s not enough for Christians to try to keep evil away from them.  We must necessarily kill the sin in our hearts. We must put it to death (Rom. 8:13), instead of merely lulling it to sleep by trying to starve it.  As soon as you near an attractive woman or a man who shows interest, your flesh will awake from sleep and kill you.  ”Be killing sin or it will be killing you” (John Owen).  If you’re a man or woman on an island with your spouse, you may remain outwardly faithful to your spouse, but your mind may be saturated with evil, adulterous desire, and all you need is an opportunity.  Christians, however, should be holy, and thus, more than just one opportunity away from sinful failure.

So, how should Christians use Covenant Eyes?  Christians should use Covenant Eyes while depending on the gospel alone to save and sanctify them (Eph. 2:8-9).  In other words, Christians should use Covenant Eyes, not to save or sanctify them from adultery or adulterous desire, but rather for the purpose of protecting themselves from seeing another human being who doesn’t realize his or her value.

Pornography is dehumanizing due to its glorification of the sexual availability of humans outside of marriage, and its portrayal of human sexual availability as the end-all and be-all of humanity. Humans, being created in God’s image are so much more valuable than their sexual availability and the perverted twisting of this God-given gift known as sexuality (Gen. 1:26-28). Thus, if you are able to keep yourself from seeing someone other than your spouse in a sexual situation, then you should do so.  After all, what right do you have to see someone other than your spouse in a sexual situation?  You don’t have this right. You should block these images and videos if at all possible, not because you desire adultery, but because you desire sexual holiness: seeing only your spouse in a sexual situation.  

In other words, because you have been and are being changed by the gospel, you must live a life wholly devoted to the Lord (2 Cor. 5:14-21).  Because of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection, you belong to His kingdom through faith alone, and thus, you are expected to view humanity as created in God’s image for His glory (Gen. 1-2). Covenant Eyes will only help you accomplish this if you use it to reveal the gospel transformation inside of your heart, namely that you value humanity as God’s Word says you should. The sinful way to use Covenant Eyes is for the purpose of hiding your gospel-less value of humanity as less than God’s image bearers.  

To summarize, if you use Covenant Eyes while still rejecting God’s definition of humanity, you may be headed to hell with Covenant Eyes installed on your computer.  The gospel alone saves you, and you must make sure that your trust is in Christ alone for your salvation.  The problem with you is not that porn exists; the problem is that you desire to look at porn.  You don’t need protection from porn as if it will overtake you, you need saving from your desire to believe the truth-claim porn portrays: namely that the sexual availability of humanity is the end-all and be-all of humanity, not mirroring God in His world through Christ’s finished work and the Holy Spirit’s power through the Word of God (Gen. 1:26-28; John 14:6; 1 Cor. 2:12-14).  Any man or woman who believes God’s definition of humanity continually and consistently cannot desire or look at porn.  So, use Covenant Eyes because the gospel has transformed your heart to agree with God’s value of humanity, not because you desire adultery and sexual immorality, and believe Covenant Eyes will save you from adultery and sexual immorality.

How will you use Covenant Eyes and other software programs like it . . . as the gospel, the answer for your adulterous desire, or as an avenue through which to further depend on the gospel?

BTW: If it’s not happening already, I hope that one day a Christian will apply the above biblical principles and attack the porn industry somehow with the gospel.  If Christian men and women however desire adultery, the porn industry will never be eradicated with the gospel.  We’ll never get close enough with the gospel to eradicate it.

What are your thoughts?

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Incoming search terms for the article:

Share
Powered by WordPress | Designed by: best suv | Thanks to trucks, infiniti suv and toyota suv