• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Christianity |OT| The official thread of hope, faith and infinite love.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Chaplain

Member
New blog is up: Romans 2 (The Guilt of the Moralist and the Jew) verse 17-29.

Things discussed...

God's judgment upon the Jewish man (part 2).

Why was the Jew prideful in their relationship with God?
Why was the Jew prideful in their relationships with non-Jews?
Did Jesus teach that a person could be justified by the Law?
Does God hold us accountable for our motives and actions?
What is spiritual adultery?
How were the Jews blaspheming God's name?
How do Christians blaspheme God's name?
Is salvation based on circumcision or family ancestry?
What is the spiritual concept behind circumcision?
Does baptism save a person?
Is there more than one type of circumcision in the Old Testament?
Do ceremonies or good deeds save a person?
What is the evidence for a true baptism?
What happens to a person's eternal destination if they have never heard of Jesus?
What evidence should be present if God is in our lives?
How does God judge the Gentile and the Jew?

A few apologetics lectures:

Answering the Tough Questions Part I with Michael Ramsden

Lecture I: "Apologetics Defined: A Biblical Mandate for Apologetics"

What is Apologetics? Is it Biblical? How do we go about apologetics? What is the goal of apologetics?

Answering the Tough Questions Part II with Michael Ramsden

Lecture II: "Apologetics Tested: Tough Questions - Tough Answers?"

What are the big questions that we face today? How do we go about answering them? Why is it that answers sometimes seem so tough to give? Are there answers we can give?

Philosophy, Science and the God Debate (Part 1) - Alister McGrath, Keith Ward and John Lennox
Philosophy, Science and the God Debate (Part 2) - Alister McGrath, Keith Ward and John Lennox

Philosophy, Science and the God Debate: 'Science disproves the existence of God'. Scientists and philosophers interviewed: Alister McGrath (The Dawkins Delusion), Keith Ward (Why There Almost Certainly Is a God) and John Lennox (Gunning for God). This documentary shows Oxford professors responding and refuting the New Atheists, like Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion), Christopher Hitchens (God is not Great), Sam Harris (Letter to a Christian Nation) and Daniel Dennett (Breaking the Spell).

New Sermons (Right Click/Save As):

2/12/2015 - Power to Live (Ephesians 1:20-21)
2/15/2015 - Gods Joy in Salvation (Colossians 1:19-23)
2/15/2015 - It's All Good (Psalm 84:11)
2/15/2015 - God's Direction for Husbands (1 Pet 3:7-7)
2/15/2015 - Stand Fast in the Freedom of Christ (Gal 2:11-21)
2/15/2015 - Victory Through Prayer (Luke 22:39-46)
2/15/2015 - (Luke 22)
 

Khronico

Member
Been a while since I've posted here last. Our church has a men's group that is currently going through a pretty good book called 'Today's Gospel' by Walter Chantry. It's a short read but it's pretty good.

Also, Game Analyst, just want to let you now the updates in this thread are appreciated. I've been trying to check and read them every now and then.

Does anyone have any recommend books or biblical text on the subject of abortion? It's a topic that I've been thinking on for a while now, and I'd like to get a solid biblical view on it.
 

Chaplain

Member
New blog is up: Romans 3 (Justified Freely by His Grace) verse 1-4.

Things discussed...

The righteousness of God's judgments (part 1).

God given advantages the Jewish people were given.
What are the oracles of God?
Spiritual advantages as a Jew?
Does Jewish unbelief in the gospel make God wrong?
Jews attack Paul by claiming that he is against God's promises.
How is God justified in all of His actions?
What are we saying when we say God's promises have failed us?
What is Christian Reconstructionism movement?
How do we know someone is lying about God?

Apologetics lectures for download (right click/save as).

Michael Ramsden - A Matter of Inflation

Notes

It is often argued by sceptics that the church has, over time, inflated Jesus’ claims about himself
It is a matter of historical record that early Christians worshipped Jesus as God, even pagan opponents, such as Pliny the Younger record this.
The argument that the Church inflated the claims about Christ fails on a number of levels, but, perhaps the clearest is that the time-line involved is too short.
The books of 1 Corinthians and Galatians are almost universally accepted by scholars as having been written in the mid 40s A.D. about twenty years after the events that they record.
In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 Paul cites a creedal hymn about the death and resurrection of Christ, which had been passed down to him. We know from Galatians that Paul met with Cephas (i.e. Peter) around 34-37 A.D. and Cephas would doubtless have passed the core teachings about Jesus down to him at that time, only years after the death and resurrection of Jesus.
Even the leader of the Jesus Seminar, which argues that 90% of the recorded sayings of Jesus in the New Testament are false, has recently argued that the Gospel message was held by Christians from day one, although he argues from this that the church was wrong from day one!
Another question raised by sceptics is why Jesus didn’t just tell us that he was God. The gospel of Mark is probably the first gospel to have been written and in it, Jesus is asked whether he is “the Christ, the son of the Blessed One” to which he replies “I am” – this is not a question of interpretation. Even though some may not accept its authority, they do so because they don’t like what it clearly says.
This question as to whether Jesus’ claim to being God has been inflated can be answered using a passage of scripture accepted by almost all scholars.
In Ezekiel 34, the shepherds of Israel are denounced for feeding themselves at the expense of the sheep, until the true shepherd rescues the sheep from their abuse. At the end of the passage, it is made explicit that God is the good shepherd, the people are the sheep and that the bad shepherds are the religious leadership.
We should note from this passage that God is disgusted at the behaviour of the bad shepherds and that he himself has promised to intervene as a good shepherd, to seek out the lost and rescue them.
In Luke 15:1-7 Jesus compares himself to a good shepherd who searches out the lost sheep and asks the religious leaders whether they would not leave the ninety-nine safe to seek after the one lost sheep.
“This is who I am” said Jesus, and this is why the bad shepherds killed him. Jesus wasn’t killed because the religious leaders misunderstood him, they killed him because they understood.

Responses to questions

(In response to a question about why God would allow bad shepherds) – All leaders fail. Leaders are called biblically to lead first by example. Our trouble is that we are so obsessed with image that we sacrifice honesty. The extent to which the leader is able to be honest and vulnerable about struggles and failings is the extent to which the congregation will be able to have the same honesty and vulnerability. David remained a leader, even after his sin with Bathsheba.

(In response to the accusation of the film “Zeitgeist” that the claims of early gods are the same as the claims of Jesus, and that the claims of Jesus are simply derived from those of earlier stories about gods) – In Greek mythology, for example, the stories of the gods are influenced by other stories. Pre-Christian stories of pagan gods contain none of the alleged similarities with the story of Jesus, these only appear in the pagan stories centuries after Christ. Also, there is a universal need for redemption which is found in all religion and in all good literature.

Michael Ramsden - A Matter of Exclusivity

Notes

We are asking why is the Christian faith so exclusive?
Whenever you say that something is true, you are automatically saying that any contrary statement is untrue.
For someone raised in an Islamic culture, Christianity can clearly be seen as a different message from Islam, however, in the West, many would argue that Islam, Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism are basically the same. Maybe we need to allow the adherents of these beliefs to explain their own systems.
Surely if God is loving, isn’t being a good person all that matters? Jesus was very clear, all good people are going to heaven. When someone came to Jesus, asking, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus answered, “Why do you call me good? No-one is good, but God alone” (Mark 10:17-18) If good people are going to heaven, and only God is good, then who is going to heaven?
In Luke 18:9-14 Jesus tells a story that is pertinent to our situation, which shows us that there are only two possibilities as to how a person can become righteous, either (1) we make ourselves righteous or (2) someone else makes us righteous.
A Phariseeand tax collector were both praying at the same time in the temple. The Pharisee thanks God for making him such a good person, the tax-collector beats his breast – a strong gesture of remorse. The tax collector literally prays, “may this sacrifice be for me“. Jesus has come into the world as the sacrificial lamb which takes away the sins of the world.
Richard Dawkins argued after the Asian tsunami that it is morally reprehensible that an innocent man should be sacrificed for the guilty.
Why this emphasis on sacrifice, why is the cross at the centre of Christian teaching?
The answer is that we cannot separate love and judgement.
In Pride and Prejudice, Elizabeth Bennett rejects Mr Darcy’s eloquent proposal of marriage, because Darcy states that he loves her against his will, reason and better judgement. He claims to love her though he does not know her.
Most of us project an image of ourselves which is better than the person we really are, the danger of this is that people fall in love with the image, not the real person. Love is only truly meaningful if the one who loves us truly knows us, but God sees everything, therefore, his love is truly meaningful.
True love can only exist in the presence of judgement, “If you never know truth then you never know love” (Black Eyed Peas, “Where is the Love?”).
If your sister is raped, and the judge lets the offender go free, saying, “we must be merciful” then where is the justice? In Christianity alone, God exercises mercy through the exercise of his justice.
Jesus, teaches us that the man who prayed, “may this sacrifice be for me” went away having received God’s gift of righteousness. Christianity is radically humbling – not only does it teach that no-one is good, but also that no-one can make themselves good.
Jesus’ answer to the question, “don’t all paths lead to God?” is that there are no paths that lead to God, only the path that God has made in coming to us.

Responses to questions

(In response to the question why each religion confirms the truth of the previous religion, but persecutes the followers of the religion that came after it) – The first point is not true, the later sayings of Muhammad abnegate the earlier sayings (which are more tolerant of Judaism and Christianity), Buddhism arose out of the rejection of the Vedas and the Hindu caste system. The second point is, sadly, true. People have persecuted others on the grounds of religion, however, Jesus explicitly denies the use of the sword for the propagation of the faith, and Paul argues that the fruits of the Holy Spirit (see Galatians 5:22-23) should be what people taste when they bite into the life of a genuine follower of Jesus.

(In reponse to a question asking why, in Romans 2, Paul argues that people will be judged by what they know, and whether this means that people can be saved through Christ indirectly) – We are not saved by an idea, we are saved by a relationship, even if that relationship is confused – is this relationship with God a reality in your life?

(In response to a question, asking that, if love is inseparable from truth, how it is that God can only love us when we have been given a righteousness which is not ours, and is therefore untrue) – The message of the gospel is more radical than that God forgave us when we begged him for mercy, God loved us and paid the price to make forgiveness possible, long before we sought him, when we were still his enemies. We forgive people when we think that they have earned forgiveness, but this is not the message of the gospel, God is offering us forgiveness BEFORE we repent, our repentance is the means whereby we receive God’s forgiveness and the relationship is restored.

Michael Ramsden - A Matter of Convenience

Notes

This is a challenging and difficult message, but we must note how the world sees us in order for us to be able to minister effectively.
We should acknowledge that some of the things which the “new atheists” say about us are 100% correct!
Luke 10:25-37 – An expert in the law asks Jesus what he needs to do to inherit eternal life. Jesus’ answer is a relational answer about love for God and for others.
The lawyer’s next question is “who is my neighbour?” One of the key accusations levelled against the church by the “new atheists” is that Christianity makes life convenient for us
Professor John Gray, the author of “Straw Dogs” argues that there is nothing special about being human, and attacks humanism as being simply Christian morality dressed up in secular language, ignoring scientific reality. According to his argument, all human morality is a matter of convenience, something which people follow when things are going well, but discard in tough times, when we revert to acting in our own interests.
Jesus replies to the lawyer’s second question “who is my neighbour?” with the story of the Good Samaritan. Jesus’ first audience probably wouldn’t have been surprised that the priest walked past on the other side. The priest was not only in danger, but in a moral dilemma.
The story continues with the appearance of a Levite, one who served the priests.
Audiences in Jesus’ time would have expected a story about a priest and a Levite to be followed by the appearance of a member of the congregation of Israel, who served the Levites, however, Jesus departs from this formula by introducing a despised Samaritan as the rescuer of the wounded man.
It was manifestly not convenient or safe for the Samaritan to help the wounded man, but he did so.
When Jesus ends the story the audience must have realised that the Samaritan may have had literally to lay down his life for his neighbour.
Jesus therefore changes the question, from “who is my neighbour?” to “who is neighbourly?” We are called to “go and do likewise” and love everybody, whatever the cost to ourselves.
This moral choice is particular problematic for those, who, like us, live in an affluent part of the world. It has been found by sociological research that affluence often leads to a lack of a sense of meaning to life. If our Christianity is too convenient, we should not be surprised if the world is not impressed.
Is your Christian faith simply a matter of convenience?
In struggling with addictive behaviours (such as internet pornography) have you so accommodated God into your way of living, that you barely feel guilt anymore?

Responses to questions:

(In response to a question about whether we should treat people differently on the basis of their behaviour) – We are sometimes worried that the redemption of those who have done terrible things means that justice has sometimes failed, and misses the point of forgiveness. Forgiveness is not about making us feel good about ourselves (as though God were some sort of “forgiveness ATM”) but about restoring our relationship with him.

(In response to a question about how best to speak to others about Jesus in a non-threatening way) – We should have such compassion for people that we do not need to preface our comments to them with words such as “I need to speak the truth to you in love” (which is often neither loving nor truthful). A good approach is to put yourself in a position where you have no power over the other, and everything to lose if you speak inappropriately, and then seek God’s wisdom!

Video Stream:

Ravi Zacharias - The Gospel in Light of New Spirituality

Also, Game Analyst, just want to let you now the updates in this thread are appreciated. I've been trying to check and read them every now and then.

Does anyone have any recommend books or biblical text on the subject of abortion? It's a topic that I've been thinking on for a while now, and I'd like to get a solid biblical view on it.

Your welcome.

As far as abortion, I am sure we can come up with some good resources for you. I will look later today and post some of the things that I have read already (need to find the links).
 

Chaplain

Member
New blog is up: Romans 3 (Justified Freely by His Grace) verse 5-9.

Things discussed...

The righteousness of God's judgments (Part 2)

A human argument that attacks God's nature and purity.
Is God in control of our evil actions?
Why does Paul say that he speaks as a man?
Why is antinomianism unbiblical?
What is antinomianism?
Paul's answer to the objection raised.
How is God gloried by judging humanities sin?
Does the end (God's glorification) justify the means (committing evil)?
What is a good way to examine teachings?
How does God look at people who teach a false gospel?

One Apologetics video:

Is America Really Christian Q&A

Jeff Foxworthy hosts a question and answer time with Ravi Zacharias and Michael Ramsden following Ravi's lecture "Is America Really Christian?"

Khronico, here is my Reflection Paper that I wrote for a logic class that I took last year titled “The Wrong Abortion.” This paper analyzes an essay that argues abortion is wrong from a philosophical point of view. Click here for full essay my paper was based on.

The Wrong of Abortion

In Peter Singer’s book ‘Practical Ethics’ (1993), Peter wrote that babies, "Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons. Hence their lives would seem to be no more worthy of protection than the life of a fetus... a period of 28 days after birth might be allowed before an infant is accepted as having the same right to live as others." Professors Patrick Lee and Robert P. George come to a completely different conclusion in their article titled “The Wrong Abortion.” They concluded that a fetus is a person the moment he or she is conceived because a person “is identical with the human organism, and therefore that subject comes to be when the human organism comes to be, even though it will take him or her months and even years to actualize the natural capacities to reason and make free choices” (p. 16). In addition, since a fetus is a person, having an abortion is immoral, because “abortion (even in the few cases where the baby's death is an unintended but foreseen side effect) is unjust and therefore objectively immoral” (p. 24).

The article's main point is to show that abortion is morally wrong (objectively speaking). Humans begin their lives at conception due to a new organism living inside of a mother. Just weeks after conception, the fetus feels pain, cries, and even sucks his or her thumb." Evidence is given that shows that embryos carry their own individual DNA, completely independent code than the mother or father have, and that they are unique organisms. The only thing the embryo needs is the mother’s body to completely develop. DNA (digital software code) in the embryo guides the building process independently of what the mother does at all stages of his/her development. Since an embryo is a Human being at the moment of conception, aborting him or her kills a human life.

The counterargument is given that if a person (a living entity) is not self-aware, like an embryo or fetus at the beginning stages of life, then he or she is not a person and can be morally aborted (the logical fallacy of begging the question). Regardless of the stage of development of a human life, a physical organism is a Human being regardless of what stage of development they are at. Even if he or she, at the embryo or fetus stage, is unable to speak out or make choices like a person outside of the womb, these capabilities do exist (due to moral status), but are not fully developed. This means that humans have intrinsic value and worth regardless of how young they are and what capacities are lacking at the time. As the article states, “What is intrinsically valuable (as a subject of rights) comes to be at conception” (p. 20).

Another pro-abortion view centered on the idea that a mother is the one who decides if a baby will be allowed to use her body for nine months (“bodily life support”). Since the mother’s body does not belong to the unborn child, it is not morally wrong to abort him or her due to the mother having the right to do whatever she desires with her body. What is really being said is that the mother has the right to ignore the consequences of her actions by the extraction of human life from her womb (“an extraction that usually rips him or her to pieces or does him or her violence in some other way”). Mothers have been endowed with the responsibility of bringing life into the world, and only in cases where it puts the mother’s life at risk, should fulfill those responsibilities by not abortion a child. Certain responsibilities are placed on parents that they must honor regardless if they feel up to it (like feeding their children). Just because a child never asked to be fed, does not give the parent the moral right to ignore their responsibility or duty of taking care of their child. This responsibility also applies to mothers who become pregnant.

I agree with the premises and conclusion of this argument. It seems logical to me that since embryos are independent from their parents, have their own unique DNA, and that regardless of their developmental stage, they are human beings (organisms) that are at the beginning of life that have intrinsic worth. A human’s potential shouldn’t be measured by what capacities they have at any stage in life. It’s illogical to me how human beings are the only beings who kill their own offspring in the womb. Animals don’t do it, so why should humans have the right to do it?

Another article that discusses abortion from a Biblical point of view:

Abortion and the Bible by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

A short video on abortion from Ravi Zacharias:

Ravi Zacharias Q & A: Abortion and Free Will
 

Khronico

Member
Khronico, here is my Reflection Paper that I wrote for a logic class that I took last year titled “The Wrong Abortion.” This paper analyzes an essay that argues abortion is wrong from a philosophical point of view. Click here for full essay my paper was based on.

Another article that discusses abortion from a Biblical point of view:

Abortion and the Bible by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

A short video on abortion from Ravi Zacharias:

Ravi Zacharias Q & A: Abortion and Free Will

Thanks for the follow up, I read those first two links and they really clarified the issue in my mind.
 

Chaplain

Member
Thanks for the follow up, I read those first two links and they really clarified the issue in my mind.

Glad I could help. ^_^

New blog has been posted: Romans 3 (Justified Freely by His Grace) verse 9-20.

Things discussed...

The universal guilt of mankind before God:

Why are the Jew and Gentile both guilty before God?
Why is the entire human race guilty for sinning against God?
Is all of humanity a slave to sin?
Are human beings God's children?
What does the Old Testament say about the universal depravity and guilt of mankind?
What is the X-ray study of the lost sinner?
Can mankind save themselves?
Was Adam righteous?
Does moral relativism imprison our hearts?
What does the condition of humanity look like without God?
Paul's Summary: the law cannot save us from our sin and the penalty it deserves.
What is the purpose of God's moral law since it doesn't save people?

A short apologetics video:

06. Is it arrogant to claim you have 'the truth'?

Some new sermons (Right Click/Save as):

2/15/15 - Nahum 2:3-4
2/15/15 - Revelation 2:18-29
2/17/2015 - Genesis 14 (Men's study)
2/17/2015 - Imitating Christ (Ephesians 5) (Women's study)
2/18/15 - Psalms 82-84
2/18/15 - Colossians 3:18-25;4
2/19/2015 - The Future of This Next Generation is in Our Hands (2 Samuel 7)

An article about the purpose of Lent:

Lent reminds us that no one suffers alone. God is with us on the cross

Stephen Fry asked why God allows people to suffer. But God is there for us in the figure of Jesus - and in Lent we try once more to walk in the desert with Him.
 

Chaplain

Member
A new debate has been posted on...

Unbelievable? Is Genocide a Skeleton in God's closet?
Saturday 21st February 2015 - 02:30 pm


Skeleton-Closet-God-Main_article_image.png


Joshua Ryan Butler, author of 'The Skeletons in God's Closet' discusses hell, judgement and holy war with Jeff Cook.

They debate whether Old Testament warfare passages constitute divinely mandated genocide.

Joshua Ryan Butler: I serve as Pastor of Local and Global Outreach at Imago Dei Community, a church in the heart of Portland, Oregon, where I get to develop our city ministries in areas like foster care, human trafficking and homelessness. I also get to craft international partnerships in areas like clean water, HIV-support and church planting. I also love writing worship music, striving to infuse theological depth and poetic imagination into the life of the local church. It’s kind of a dream job.

Jeff Cook: Jeff teaches philosophy at the University of Northern Colorado. He pastors Atlas Church in Greeley, Colorado.

Get the MP3

For Joshua Butler: http://joshuaryanbutler.com

For Jeff Cook: http://everythingnew.org/
 

Chaplain

Member
New blog has been posted: Romans 3 (Justified Freely by His Grace) verse 21-22.

Things discussed...

The revelation of the righteousness of God (Part 1).

Can God's law save or justify us?
Did the Old Testament discuss God's future righteousness?
Why does God not want a merit based relationship with mankind?
How is God's righteousness communicated to mankind?
What is the difference between by faith and through faith?
How is salvation in Christ similar to a marriage?
What is the difference between by faith in God and trusting God?
Can good people earn their way into Heaven?

Some new apologetic videos:

Isn't faith just for the stupid and gullible?
Ravi Zacharias & Vince Vitale Q&A on the problem of evil

Why would an all-good and all-powerful God create a world full of such evil? Christian apologists Ravi Zacharias & Vince Vitale answer questions on the problem of evil and suffering. Zacharias and Vitale co-authored the book, "Why Suffering? Finding Meaning and Comfort When Life Doesn’t Make Sense," carefully walking through a variety of responses that considered cumulatively provide a clear, comprehensive, and convincing case that God is both loving and all-powerful.

Can We Trust The Bible If It Was Written By Men? | Amy Orr-Ewing

Amy Orr-Ewing speaks on the trustworthiness of the Bible.
 

Chaplain

Member
New blog has been posted: Romans 3 (Justified Freely by His Grace) verse 23-24.

Things discussed...

The revelation of the righteousness of God (Part 2).

Man's universal need and God's universal offer.
How does God deal with mankind's rebellion?
How does all mankind fall short of God's glory?
What is Justification?
Why can't justification be earned through good works?
Is Justification a one time event?
Why is Jesus the only one that can save a person?

31 audio studies on the entire book of Proverbs. Audio files can be streamed or downloaded at the following link:

Books of the Bible - Proverbs

The Books of Psalms and Proverbs balance each other beautifully…

• Psalms deals with worship.
Proverbs deals primarily with work.
• Psalms is to be read on one’s knees.
Proverbs is to be read on one’s feet.
• Psalms is man talking to God.
Proverbs is man talking to man.
• Psalms causes one’s heart to grow.
Proverbs causes one’s walk to be stabilized.
• Psalms is best read in the closet of prayer.
Proverbs is best read in the place of business.

According to 1 Kings 4, Solomon spoke with such practical wisdom and incredible insight that people traveled great distances to glean from his understanding. Yet, even though he was an exceedingly wise individual, he ended up playing the fool, for he would forsake his own wisdom in an attempt to find satisfaction in partying, material possessions, women, and intellectualism—only to conclude it was all empty.

The Book of Proverbs, however, was written by Solomon before he embarked on his journey to vanity…
 

Chaplain

Member
New blog has been posted on Romans 3 (Justified Freely by His Grace) verses 25-31.

Things discussed...

The revelation of the righteousness of God (Part 3)

Why was Jesus a substitute sacrifice for the sins of mankind?
Did the Old Testament substitute sacrifice's point to Jesus' death on the cross?
Did God the Father force Jesus to die on mankind's behalf?
How were believers in the Old Testament saved?
What was God's solution to having to judge all evil and save mankind?
What did Adam's sin do to his relationship with God?
Did Abraham offering His son point to God's offering of His Son?
How does the death of Jesus satisfy the righteous judgment of God?
Should there be any boasting or pride when a person receives salvation?
Why do some people hate that salvation is not merit-based?
How does the law fit in with God's gift of salvation?
Does James contradict Paul's analysis of justification by faith?
Is Salvation only offered to the Jews?
What is the purpose of God's law since it doesn't save people?

New Sermons (Right Click/Save As).

2/22/2015 - Isaiah 46-48
2/22/2015 - No Peace for the Wicked (Is 48:22-22)
2/22/2015 - Paul's View of Ministry (Colossians 1:24-29)
2/22/2015 - What Will You Do With Jesus? (Luke 23:1-25)
2/22/2015 - Luke 23 (verse by verse)
2/22/2015 - Revelation 3:1-6
2/22/2015 - Zephaniah 1;2:1-3

A new Apologetics study (Right Click/Save As).

2/22/2015 - Dr. Andy Bannister (Luke 11:1-3,11-32)
 

Chaplain

Member
A new blog on Romans 4 (Abraham and David Demonstrate Righteousness Apart from Works) verses 1-3.

Things discussed...

Abraham is declared righteous through faith (Part 1):

Introduction to Romans 4 - God’s Greatest Gift
Does the idea of justification through faith make what God did in the Old Testament irrelevant?
Were Abraham works (deeds) enough to justify him before God?
Did God save Abraham because of his good works?
What did past Jewish teacher's believe about Abraham's salvation?
What does it mean to be counted as righteous by God?

Two new apologetics video:

Why choose Jesus and not Buddha or Muhammad?

This video is episode 7 of the "Short Answers to Big Questions" series, in which we take 50 of the most common questions and objections about Christianity and attempt to give short, succinct answers to each of them. In such short videos, we realise we can only often scratch the surface—nevertheless, we hope to give you lots of food for thought.

The Uniqueness of Jesus Christ - EP1

We are surrounded by spiritual options, but what do they even mean? If you are struggling with your spirituality, take a few minutes to listen as Ravi Zacharias looks at why Jesus is still the only answer, today on Just Thinking.

Some new sermons (Right Click/Save As):

2-24-15 - Genesis 15 (Men's Study)
2-24-15 - Waging Warfare (Ephesians 6) (Women's Study)
2-25-15 - Psalms 85-88
2-25-15 - Proverbs 2:1-3:20
 

Chaplain

Member
A new blog on Romans 4 (Abraham and David Demonstrate Righteousness Apart from Works) verses 4-5.

Things discussed...

Abraham is declared righteous through faith (Part 2)

What is the difference between grace and works?
What does word charis (grace) mean?
Would God owe us if salvation was merit based?
What type of person does God offer salvation and blessings to?
Is the Santa Claus concept of God Biblical?
Why does God justify ungodly people?
Can people be saved like Abraham was saved?
Are there two types of salvation?
 

Chaplain

Member
A new blog on Romans 4 (Abraham and David Demonstrate Righteousness Apart from Works) verses 6-8.

Things discussed...

Abraham is declared righteous through faith (Part 3)

Blessedness of justification through faith.
How was King David saved in the Old Testament?
What is imputed righteousness?
Are there any immediate consequences when we sin?
Why was king David happy that God forgave his sins?
What is the difference between transgression, sin, and iniquity?

A new Unbelievable? podcast has been posted:

Unbelievable? Is the church failing gay Christians? Steve Chalke, Ed Shaw, Jayne
Saturday 28th February 2015 - 02:30 pm


Steve-Chalk-Unbelievable-Main_article_image.jpg


Church leader Steve Chalke is well known for his support of same-sex relationships. Ed Shaw is a same sex attracted Christian whose traditional Biblical convictions have led him to remain celibate. They discuss how churches should treat those in their congregation who are LGBT.

Jayne Ozanne, an evangelical and former member of the Archbishop's council who recently came out as gay joins by phone and we hear the story of Rosaria Butterfield's journey from lesbian activist english professor to becoming wife of a church pastor.

Get the MP3 (Right Click/Save As)

For the article 'Is the church failing gay Christians?' by Chalke and Doherty: http://www.premierchristianity.com/Past-Issues/2015/March-2015/Is-the-Church-failing-gay-Christians

Watch footage from the debate here

A couple of new sermons for download (Right Click/Save As):

2/25/2015 - Lesson 10- Moses (Hebrews 11:1)
2/25/15 - 1 Thessalonians 1
2/26/15 - The Lordship of Christ (Ephesians 1:22-23)

A new apologetics lecture:

Has Science Destroyed God? - John Lennox @ UCLA Univeristy

Oxford Professor John Lennox addresses The Veritas Forum at UCLA, 2015.
 
Ana Marie Cox (the original Wonkette): Why I'm 'Coming Out' as a Christian
Here is why I believe I am a Christian: I believe I have a personal relationship with my Lord and Savior. I believe in the grace offered by the Resurrection. I believe that whatever spiritual rewards I may reap come directly from trying to live the example set by Christ. Whether or not I succeed in living up to that example is primarily between Him and me.

My understanding of Christianity is that it doesn’t require me to prove my faith to anyone on this plane of existence. It is about a direct relationship with the divine and freely offered salvation. That’s one of the reasons that when my generic “There must be something out there” gut feeling blossomed into a desire for a personal connection to that “something,” it was Christianity that I choose to explore. They’ll let anyone in.

To be clear, I don’t just believe in God. I am a Christian. Decades of mass culture New Ageism has fluffed up “belief in God” into a spiritual buffet, a holy catch-all for those who want to cover all the numbers: Pascal’s wager as a roulette wheel and not a coin toss. Me, I’m going all in with Jesus. It’s not just that the payoff could be tremendous—it already has been! The only cost is the judgment that comes from others, from telling people that my belief has a specific shape, with its own human legacy of both shame and triumph.
 

Chaplain

Member
A new blog on Romans 4 (Abraham and David Demonstrate Righteousness Apart from Works) verses 9-15.

Things discussed...

Abraham is declared righteous through faith (Part 4)

What does it mean that Abraham was counted righteous (saved) before he was circumcised?
Why was circumcision so important to the Jew?
Does getting baptized prove someone is saved?
Why can Christians call Abraham their father?
Was God's promise to Abraham based on the principle of faith, law or works?
Why is God's wrath directed towards at us if we attempt to be saved by works/merit?
What is the root of all sin?

New sermons (Right Click/Save As):

3/1/2015 - Jesus Desires to Reveal Himself (Luke 24:13-35)
3/1/2015 - Luke 24
3/1/2015 - Abased and Abounding (Phi 4:10-13)
3/1/2015 - God's Direction for Wives (1 Peter 3:1-6)
3/1/2015 - Revelation 3:7-13
3/1/2015 - Zephaniah 2:4-15;3
3/1/2015 - Complete in Him (Colossians 2:1-10)
 

legend166

Member
I'm....not sure about that article. She seems to be rejecting one branch of cultural/political Christianity (that being the Christian-right in the US), and attaching herself to another branch of cultural/political Christianity, that being the Liberal Christianity of the US, without releasing it. Both are false and are formed more around the cultural and political norms of the environment in which they are formed, moreso than any attempt to follow scriptural precepts and commands.

Reading your Bible and going to church are vital aspects of the Christian life. That's not to say all Christians will be doing things at all times. But it's not something we should handwave away as not important. Otherwise we're putting forth a very low picture of the Christian life.
 

Chaplain

Member
A new blog on Romans 4 (Abraham and David Demonstrate Righteousness Apart from Works) verses 16-18.

Things discussed...

Following Abraham's example (Part 1).

How are faith and grace related to each other?
How does God offer salvation to us?
Is it possible to earn God's grace?
What would happen if salvation depended on our good works?
Is it Biblical to say that Abraham is father of the gentiles?
Are the church and Israel one in the same?
The life-giving power of the God Abraham believed in.
Why does God speak of His promises in the past tense?
How did Abraham model trust and reliance on God?
What is the Biblical definition of hope?
How does faith keep reason and our imaginations in check?

New Sermons (Right Click/Save As).

3-04-15 - Psalms 89-90
3-04-15 - God is Not Hard to Please (Mark 12:38-44)

New apologetics videos:

08. "Prove to me that God exists!"
Does Science point toward atheism? A UCI physicist shares professional and personal perspectives
The Uniqueness of Jesus Christ - EP2
Give Me an Answer - #1314 - It's Not About Rules

Reading your Bible and going to church are vital aspects of the Christian life. That's not to say all Christians will be doing things at all times. But it's not something we should handwave away as not important. Otherwise we're putting forth a very low picture of the Christian life.

I agree. I think many Christians don't put such a priority on church community and fellowship maybe due to not knowing what the Bible says about church. Here is a overall summary of some of the finer points scriptures discusses:

1. Jesus and the founding of the church

• The church as God’s creation through the action of the spirit
• People saw themselves sharing faith and salvation through Jesus death and resurrection
• Early church communities expressed their belief that their foundation was in Christ
• Church relates to Jesus by its continuity with his vision and actions

2. Christian faith and life in community

• Need an environment that makes Christian life possible
• Not isolation, but a historical community
• A community is a place where doubt and problems can be shared and addressed
• Beliefs are tested in the community
• Believers united at church preserve and illumine the total Christian experience to one another
• Help us be in contact with mature Christians (living models) who represent Christ and the Christian way of life
• Provide counseling and spiritual direction and marital help
• Serving as a locus of social life and celebration

3. The Church as Institution

• Personal fulfillment rejects community.
• Sinfulness can be found at church due to saved sinners being there

4. The Church as a community of disciples

• Christians join church not for cultural reasons
• Discipleship is a precarious relationship obeying Jesus
• Discipleship is not a passive consumer or critic
• Disciple is a person on a way, a learner, who struggles, and helping supporting other followers of Jesus, all of us growing often slowly and painfully.

5. The Churches Mission

• To serve those in and around us
• Serving believers, to equip them with God's Word, to serve others in the body, and share the gospel with the world
• Interpreting the signs of the times, knowing the culture, in order to share Christ and show its application to modern society.
 
I'm....not sure about that article. She seems to be rejecting one branch of cultural/political Christianity (that being the Christian-right in the US), and attaching herself to another branch of cultural/political Christianity, that being the Liberal Christianity of the US, without releasing it. Both are false and are formed more around the cultural and political norms of the environment in which they are formed, moreso than any attempt to follow scriptural precepts and commands.

Reading your Bible and going to church are vital aspects of the Christian life. That's not to say all Christians will be doing things at all times. But it's not something we should handwave away as not important. Otherwise we're putting forth a very low picture of the Christian life.
Yeah, it's not my favorite article either. I certainly can agree that questioning Obama's faith or anyone's faith is a dangerous road to go down. Particularly because in this context, people are using it to make a judgement about a person.

But at the same time we have to be careful because just because it is dangerous does not mean we don't travel that path ever. I wouldn't question Obama's faith because I don't know him. He's not a part of my personal life or my church. His actions are not my business. But with said, I don't think we can be completely disengaged from each other's lives. Especially with those within our personal community. If someone's stated religious views and actual actions are incongruent, I don't know that we can totally ignore that. I absolutely agree, reading Scripture and attending church are vital aspects of our faith. I think according to Scripture we must gently encourage and correct one another. As an example, I run a campus ministry, I can't simply ignore when people go missing or are uneducated.

Also, since I'm not a Protestant (an anomaly in this thread I'm sure), I don't agree with this quote:
I am saved not because of who I am or what I have done (or didn’t do), but simply because I have accepted the infinite grace that was always offered to me.
What we do in life absolutely matters for salvation. I don't ascribe to a"Once saved, always saved" theology. What we fail to do is very important and must be repented over.
 
Yeah, it's not my favorite article either. I certainly can agree that questioning Obama's faith or anyone's faith is a dangerous road to go down. Particularly because in this context, people are using it to make a judgement about a person.

But at the same time we have to be careful because just because it is dangerous does not mean we don't travel that path ever. I wouldn't question Obama's faith because I don't know him. He's not a part of my personal life or my church. His actions are not my business. But with said, I don't think we can be completely disengaged from each other's lives. Especially with those within our personal community. If someone's stated religious views and actual actions are incongruent, I don't know that we can totally ignore that. I absolutely agree, reading Scripture and attending church are vital aspects of our faith. I think according to Scripture we must gently encourage and correct one another. As an example, I run a campus ministry, I can't simply ignore when people go missing or are uneducated.

Also, since I'm not a Protestant (an anomaly in this thread I'm sure), I don't agree with this quote:

What we do in life absolutely matters for salvation. I don't ascribe to a"Once saved, always saved" theology. What we fail to do is very important and must be repented over.

Well if it becomes a focal point of anyone's political campaign, religion is open season.

I still recall a lot of jokes and Mitt Romney and the magic Mormon underwear.
 
Well if it becomes a focal point of anyone's political campaign, religion is open season.

I still recall a lot of jokes and Mitt Romney and the magic Mormon underwear.
And that's really the problem. Saying "He's not a real Christian because X, Y and Z" is wrong because it's just being used for cheap political points and to validate preconceived notions of who Obama is.

I think it's possible to ask about a person's faith but it has to be an action borne out of love. People questioning Obama don't care about his soul, they care about elections. But a person who gently talks to a friend about church may very well do it out of love and in a Christ-centered and Scripturally-based manner.
 

Chaplain

Member
A new blog has been posted on Romans 4 (Abraham and David Demonstrate Righteousness Apart from Works) verses 19-25.

Things discussed...

Following Abraham's example (Part 2).

The character of Abraham's faith.
Is it possible for our faith to be strengthened?
What can human difficulties do to our faith?
What are the four areas of Abraham's faith?
What are the consequences of not trusting God or the benefits of trusting God?
Abraham's justification and our own.
Was Abraham's example of justification only for him?
What faith saves a person?
Are there types of faith that will not save a person?
What does the resurrection prove?
What does it mean that Jesus is our advocate once we are saved?
Is the gospel a fulfillment of the Old Testament?

Videos from a recent apologetics conference in Canada:

1. Trust is the Question: Nathan Betts
2. Where is God when it Hurts? - Michelle Tepper
3. Is God Optional? - Cameron McAllister
4. When God's words sound too tough: Love, Relationships & Sex - Michelle Tepper
5. Big Deal Questions - Q&A
 

Chaplain

Member
A new blog has been posted on Romans 5 (Benefits of Being Justified through Faith) verses 1-2.

Things discussed...

The benefits of believing (part 1)

Introduction to Romans 5
Peace and a standing of grace.
How is guilty humanity justified by faith?
Benefit #1 of being justified by faith.
Is there a difference between the peace of God and peace with God?
Would it be possible to have peace with God through good works?
Benefit #2 of being justified by faith.
What does it mean to have standing grace with God?
What is the evidence that a person is under God's grace?
Is access to Jesus possible without faith?
Can Christians approach God 24/7 before his throne in heaven?
Is hope in God possible through a works based relationship?
Does existential philosophy offer hope since truth is subjective?
What are the implications of not being justified by grace?

A few apologetic lectures and videos:

The Bible: Gospel, Guide, or Garbage? NT Wright and Sean Kelly at Harvard University
Neighbors: A Campus Conversation on Race, Empathy, and Faith - William Tate and Jody David Armour at USC

Faith Conversations: Real Transformation | Michael Ramsden

In Luke 7 a woman kisses Jesus' feet, washes them with her tears, and anoints them with oil; a strangely extravagant action. In this talk, Michael Ramsden looks at what this story teaches us about love and forgiveness, and what it means to experience real transformation.

Faith Conversations: Is God Love? | Michael Ramsden

For many, the idea of a God of Love stands in sharp contrast to a God who would judge. But in this talk, guest speaker Michael Ramsden considers how love and judgment work together, and shows the powerful implications of God being described not simply as 'loving' but as 'love.'

Faith Conversations: God and the New Atheists | Alister McGrath

Professor McGrath is a much-sought-after writer and speaker, and has debated many of the world's leading atheists, including Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and the late Christopher Hitchens. In this talk, he will examine some of their key arguments, and seek to demonstrate why Christianity provides compelling answers to their doubts and questions.

Dr. Os Guiness on Islam and the Challenge of a Civil Public Square

Living with our deepest differences when the differences are absolute. Dr. Os Guiness for the John Jay Institute, Philadelphia, PA

New sermons (Right Click/Save As):

3/4/15 - 1 Thessalonians 2

Stream: Pastor Terry Hlebo - Peter's Six steps to Falling from Grace (3/6/15)
 
And that's really the problem. Saying "He's not a real Christian because X, Y and Z" is wrong because it's just being used for cheap political points and to validate preconceived notions of who Obama is.

I think it's possible to ask about a person's faith but it has to be an action borne out of love.
People questioning Obama don't care about his soul, they care about elections. But a person who gently talks to a friend about church may very well do it out of love and in a Christ-centered and Scripturally-based manner.

It's possible yes, but I can't find a conversation like that natural or organic on any level(questioning someone's loyalty to their religion).

I'm not a good devout Catholic. I'm lukewarm at best, but I know what sins are the big sins and that overwhelming sense of guilt that Catholicism brings to people keeps me from making life-altering stupid decisions.

As much as I dislike evangelical and radical Christianity, I find it difficult to question their loyalty to God or Jesus. That question seems to be something rather personal.
 
It's possible yes, but I can't find a conversation like that natural or organic on any level(questioning someone's loyalty to their religion).

I'm not a good devout Catholic. I'm lukewarm at best, but I know what sins are the big sins and that overwhelming sense of guilt that Catholicism brings to people keeps me from making life-altering stupid decisions.

As much as I dislike evangelical and radical Christianity, I find it difficult to question their loyalty to God or Jesus. That question seems to be something rather personal.
I'm not talking about questioning an evangelical's loyalty to Christ. That's my entire issue with any "concern" over Obama. I have zero interest in his habits. He's not part of my circle of friends and he's certainly not part of my church. His faith is not my problem.

I'm talking about discussing faith with a friend or neighbor who attends your church. Should you go up to them and demand to know how loyal they are to XYZ church? No, that's going to come off as a wee bit aggressive. Are they responsible to me? No. I don't have judgement or say over them.

But we are responsible for one another and for exhorting our brothers and sisters who fall away from Christ. That's simply a reality of Scripture. If a friend stop attending church, I don't sign them off to Jesus and figure they're alright. I check in on them, I see if something's wrong, I encourage them to come with me to a service. A person who knows what's right (attending church and reading Scripture) and does it regularly, but also fails to attempt to help their brothers/sisters who fall away is more sinful than the one who fell away. One person is merely lost, but the other is a hypocrite and not doing what Scripture tells them to do (building one another up).
 

Chaplain

Member
A new Unbelievable? podcast has been posted:

Williams-Millican-Main_article_image.jpg


MP3 Download Link

Unbelievable? Debating the Ontological Argument - Peter S Williams & Peter Millican
Saturday 7th March 2015 - 02:30 pm


Can God be proved by definition? That's the claim of the Ontological Argument for God's existence.

Christian philosopher Peter S Williams and sceptic philosopher Peter Millican from Oxford University explore the different versions of the argument. Williams defends the argument, Millican believes it is flawed.

For Peter S Williams: www.peterswilliams.com
Peter SW teaching on the argument: s51.podbean.com
For Peter Millican: www.millican.org
Graham Oppy's Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Ontological Arguments: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/

For Millican's 2011 debate with William Lane Craig: www.premier.org.uk/radio/Shows/Satu...m-Lane-Craig-vs-Peter-Millican-Does-God-Exist
 

Chaplain

Member
I uploaded a new blog on Romans 5 (Benefits of Being Justified through Faith) verses 3-4: Why does God allow Christians to suffer? Here is a short summary:

1. To glorify God (Dan 3:16-18, 24-25).
2. Discipline for known sin (Heb 12:5-11; James 4:17; Rom 14:23; 1 Jn 1:9).
3. To prevent us from falling into sin (1 Pet 4:1-2).
4. To keep us from Pride. Paul kept from pride by his “thorn in the flesh.” (2 Cor 12:7-10). Was it his eyes? (Gal 4:15; 6:11).
5. To build faith (1 Pet 1:6-7).
6. To cause growth (Rom 5:3-5).
7. To teach obedience and discipline (Acts 9:15-16; Phil 4:11-13).
8. To equip us to comfort others (2 Cor 1:3-4).
9. To prove the reality of Christ in us (2 Cor 4:7-11).
10. For testimony to the angels (Job 1:8; Eph 3:8-11; 1 Pet 1:12). Thus: James 1:2-4

Some of the other things discussed...

The benefits of believing (Part 2)

Why does God want us to be thankful when problems and trials happen to us?
Why do Christians Have Trials?
How does God use our problems and trials to help us grow in Christ?
Is it possible for our character to grow without problems and suffering?
Should we desire to suffer for Jesus?
 

Chaplain

Member
I uploaded a new blog on Romans 5 (Benefits of Being Justified through Faith) verse 5: Evidenced that God's love is in our lives.

Here is a sample from the study:

Everyone who is a Christian has the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:9). But not every Christian lives in the fullness of the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 5:18), and not every Christian walks in the Spirit (Romans 8:4-5).

Some of the other things discussed...

The benefits of believing (Part 3)

Is God's love in our hearts evidence that the Holy Spirit is in our lives?
Why do so many Christians lose hope?
How is God's love communicated to believers?
Is there evidence of God's love in your own life?

A new apologetics video from Oxford University:

Meaning - Why care about the meaning of life? - Os Guinness

New sermons (Right Click/Save As):

3/8/15 - Those Who Must Be Silenced (Titus 1:10-16)
3/8/15 - Careful What You Believe (Colossians 2:11-23)
3/8/15 - God's Final Revelation (Revelation 1:1-3)
3/8/15 - The Baptism of the Holy Spirit (Selected Scriptures)
3/8/15 - Song of Solomon 1-4
3/8/15 - Luke 4:14-44
 

Chaplain

Member
I uploaded a new blog on Romans 5 (Benefits of Being Justified through Faith) verse 6-11: God's Love & Salvation from His Wrath.

Here is a sample from the study:

"Paul’s progressive description of our condition before God reveals the depths of God’s love. Paul initially notes that God’s love pursues humanity “while we were still helpless.” Then Paul states that God loves “while we were yet sinners,” and finally, God loves and reconciles humanity even “while we were enemies.” Indeed, Paul insists on God’s great love towards even the vilest offender through the life and death of Jesus. He doesn’t make this claim as one who stands removed from the vilest offender. He makes it as a part of his own testimony: “It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all” (1 Timothy 1:15)."

Some of the other things discussed...

The benefits of believing (Part 4)

God's amazing love towards all humanity.
How did Jesus arrive on earth at the perfect time?
Why did Jesus die for each of us?
What is the difference between a righteous man and a good man?
What is the ultimate evidence that God loves humanity?
At what point does God begin to love someone?
What does it ultimately mean that life is sacred?
What is God's wrath?
Will God ever pour out His wrath on believers?
What are the results of being saved by Jesus?
What is the difference between atonement in the Old and New Testament?

A few new apologetic lectures and talks:

Interpreting Failures, Conserving Victories - EP1

Do you ever wonder why we have to endure times of difficulties and trials? Do they really have a purpose? Ravi Zacharias addresses the issue of life’s hardships in his message "Interpreting Failures, Conserving Victories."

Christian Thinkers Society at HBU | William Lane Craig's Interview with Jeremiah Johnston

In February 2015, Dr Craig visited the Houston Baptist University campus. While there, Jeremiah Johnston, who is a professor at HBU in charge of the Christian Thinkers Society, filmed an interview with Dr Craig during his stay.

Pain: Illusion or Truth? John Lennox and Daniel Lowenstein at UCLA

Does Science Make Faith Obsolete? James Tour at Mississippi State University
 

Chaplain

Member
I uploaded a new blog on Romans 5 (Benefits of Being Justified through Faith) verse 12: The spread of sin throughout the human race.

Here is a sample from the study:

The apologist Francis Schaeffer names the four deaths that occur as a result of sin entering into the world:

1. We die theologically, sin having alienated us from God.
2. We die internally, the process of sin having corrupted our souls.
3. We die socially, having become alienated from our neighbor.
4. We die to the physical world, our bodies now being finite and subject to the laws of decay.

The gospel brings life by reconnecting us to God, restoring our relationship with one another, healing souls, and by giving the ability to “relate properly to the environment and the world in which I’m placed.” Christ’s work on the cross leaves no stone unturned where evil is concerned. Even the creation, which “groans” awaiting its redemption according to the Apostle Paul in Romans 8, will ultimately be freed from the ruptures and destruction of sin.

Some of the other things discussed...

The Two Men: Adam and Jesus (Part 1).

Did Paul believe Genesis 3 was historically true?
Why is Adam responsible for spreading-sin throughout the human race?
How did Adam die when he sinned?
Is sin only possible if free will exists?
What does death prove about Adam's sin?
How are people sinners (self-centered moral beings)?
Do babies and children go to Heaven without Jesus?
Is there evidence that something is wrong with the world?
Is evil contrary to God's purpose for humanity?
What are the four deaths that occur to each person due to being a sinner?

New Sermons (Right Click/Save As):

3/8/15 - Revelation 3:14-22
3/8/15 - God's Recipe for a Loving Church (Rm 12:9-16)
3/8/15 - God is Good (Ps 145:1-21)
3/10/15 - Genesis 17 (Men's Study)
3/10/15 - Humility Exemplified (Philippians 2) (Women's study)
3/11/15 - Isaiah 1
3/11/15 - Proverbs 3:21-4:27
3/11/15 - Psalms 91-92

One apologetics video:

09. How can you believe in God without evidence?
 

Chaplain

Member
I uploaded a new blog on Romans 5 (Benefits of Being Justified through Faith) verse 13-18: Adam & Jesus Differences.

Here is a sample from the study:

The idea of Adam and Jesus as two representatives of the human race is sometimes called Federal Theology, or Adam and Jesus are sometimes referred to as Federal Heads. This is because under the federal system of government, representatives are chosen and the representative speaks for the people who chose him. Adam speaks for those he represents, and Jesus speaks for His people. Again, someone may object: "But I never chose to have Adam represent me." Of course you did! You identified yourself with Adam with the first sin you ever committed. It is absolutely true that we were born into our identification with Adam, but we also choose it with our individual acts of sin.

Some of the other things discussed...

The Two Men: Adam and Jesus (Part 2).

Are we sinners because of Adam or due to breaking God's laws?
Was mankind a slave to sin before the law of God was ever given?
What are the differences between Adam's work and Jesus' work?
Should the actions of one person condemn others?
How is Jesus the solution to Adam's fall in the Garden of Eden?
Why and how do Adam and Jesus represent all of humanity?
What is Federal Theology and is it Biblical?
Is salvation a free gift to all of humanity?
What is the doctrine of universalism?

One new apologetics video:

Worldviews - How do you see the world and why? - Os Guinness

A video by Gerald Schroeder claiming to have scientific proof of/for God:

Believe in God in 5 Minutes (Scientific Proof)

"Gerald Schroeder's credentials for those wondering about them: "Gerald Schroeder is a scientist with over thirty years of experience in research and teaching. He earned his Bachelor's, Master's, and Doctorate degrees all at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, with his doctorate thesis being under the supervision of physics professor Robley D. Evans. This was followed by five years on the staff of the MIT physics department prior to moving to Israel, where he joined the Weizmann Institute of Science and then the Volcani Research Institute, while also having a laboratory at The Hebrew University. His Doctorate is in two fields: Earth sciences and physics."
 

Chaplain

Member
A new episode of Unbelievable? has been posted:

Grill an apologist – members of UK Apologetics respond to sceptic callers
Saturday 14th March 2015 - 02:30 pm


UKA-New-banner-Main_article_image.jpg


Ruth Preston, Calum Miller and Peter S Williams of the UK Apologetics Facebook group and blog take a variety of questions from callers.

Ben, who lost his faith, wants to know why God didn’t provide him with more evidence. Michael asks: Why should I believe Paul? Tim wants to know why evangelicals can be so insular, and Brian has questions about the moral Argument for God

Get the MP3

For The UK Apologetics Facebook Group Click Here

For the UK Apologetics Blog: http://apologeticsuk.blogspot.co.uk/
 

Chaplain

Member
I uploaded a new blog on Romans 5 (Benefits of Being Justified through Faith) verse 19-21.

Here is a sample from the study:

In his book Confessions, the great theologian of the ancient church Augustine described how this dynamic worked in his life as a young man: "There was a pear tree near our vineyard, laden with fruit. One stormy night we rascally youths set out to rob it and carry our spoils away. We took off a huge load of pears - not to feast upon ourselves, but to throw them to the pigs, though we ate just enough to have the pleasure of forbidden fruit. They were nice pears, but it was not the pears that my wretched soul coveted, for I had plenty better at home. I picked them simply in order to become a thief. The only feast I got was a feast of iniquity, and that I enjoyed to the full. What was it that I loved in the theft? Was it the pleasure of acting against the law? The desire to steal was awakened simply by the prohibition of stealing.

Some of the other things discussed...

The Two Men: Adam and Jesus (Part 3).

Summary of the contrasts: Adam vs. Jesus.
What is the purpose of the Law?
How does the Law make us sin more?
How much grace does God offer believers?
What is the reign of God's grace?
How does God's grace confront sin?

New Sermons (Right Click/Save As):

3/12/15 - Dead, Disobedient, Children of Wrath (Ephesians 2:1-3)
3/15/15 - Overview 7 Churches
3/15/15 - What are You All Wrapped Up in? (Colossians 3:1-4)
3/15/15 - The Unveiled, Glorified Christ (Revelation 1:9-20)
3/15/15 - The Word of Knowledge, Wisdom, & Discerning of Spirits (Selected Scriptures)

A new apologetics lecture:

Interpreting Failures, Conserving Victories - EP2

No matter how dark life becomes, and no matter how severe the challenges we face, God is still there. How can tribulations teach us and bring us closer to Him? Ravi Zacharias has thoughts on those questions in the conclusion of "Interpreting Failures, Conserving Victories."

Doctrine of God Part 5: God's Eternity

A interesting article by atheist journalist Matthew Parris (who is gay) on why the church shouldn't allow gay bishops:

No, God would not have approved of gay bishops by Matthew Parris

Matthew Parris
The London Times

Anglican evangelicals are right. Knowingly to appoint gay bishops robs
Christianity of meaning. It is time that convinced Christians stopped
trying to reconcile their spiritual beliefs with the modern age and
understood that if one thing comes clearly through every account we
have of Jesus's teaching, it is that His followers are not urged to
accommodate themselves to their age, but to the mind of God.
Christianity is not supposed to be comfortable or feel "natural". The
mind of God, contemplating the behaviour of man, is not expected to be
suffused with a spirit of "whatever". As it happens I do not believe in
the mind of God. But Christians do and must strive to know more of it.
Nothing they read in the Old and New Testaments gives a scintilla of
support to the view that the God of Israel was an inclusive God, or
inclined to go with the grain of human nature; much they read suggests
a righteous going against the grain.

Certainly it is true that Jesus departed from conventional Judaic
teaching in the emphasis He put on forgiveness, but neither the story
(for example) of the woman taken in adultery, nor the parable of the
prodigal son suggest that He countenanced a continuation of the sins of
either. What these stories teach is that repentance is acceptable to
God however late it comes, and that the virtuous should not behave in a
vindictive manner towards sinners. That is a very different thing from
a shoulder-shrugging chuckle of "different strokes for different
folks".

When the row over the appointment of gay bishops first blew up I
expected, being gay, to join the side of the Christian modernisers. But
try as I do to summon up enthusiasm for my natural allies; sorry as I
feel for homosexuals struggling to reconcile their sexuality with their
membership of the Church; and strive though I have to feel indignant at
the conservative evangelicals, passion fails me. I know why.

"Inclusive", "moderate" or "sensible" Christianity is inching its way
up a philosophical cul-de-sac. The Church stands for revealed truth and
divine inspiration or it stands for nothing. Belief grounded in
everyday experience alone is not belief. The attempt, sustained since
the Reformation, to establish the truth of Christianity on the rock of
human observation of our own natures and of the world around us runs
right against what the Bible teaches from the moment Moses beheld a
burning bush in the Egyptian desert to the point when Jesus rises from
the dead in His sepulchre. Stripped of the supernatural, the Church is
on a losing wicket.

Even as a ten-year-old boy in Miss Silk's Scripture class, when I heard
the account of how the parting of the Red Sea could actually be
explained by freak tides, and that the story of the loaves and fishes
really taught us how Jesus set an example by sharing His disciples'
picnic (so everybody else shared theirs), I thought: "Don't be silly
Miss Silk! If Jesus couldn't do miracles, why should we listen? If the
bush was just burning naturally, then Moses was fooled."

But - perhaps because like countless would-be Christians down the ages
I was fighting an internal scepticism about the supernatural claims of
religion - I found myself as an undergraduate powerfully drawn towards
the sermons and writings of Joseph Butler. The persuasive, quiet sense
of this early- 18th-century Bishop of Durham makes (as our college
dean, Mark Santer, later to become Bishop of Birmingham, put it gently
to me) "the best case one can" for the theory of natural religion.

By induction alone, Butler seems to suggest, we can draw from what we
know of ourselves, of science, and of our world, a picture of the mind
of God. He was suspicious of revelation. Butler it was who remarked to
the evangelist John Wesley: "Sir, the pretending to extraordinary
revelations and gifts of the Holy Ghost is a horrid thing, a very
horrid thing."

In typically compressed but lucid style, he ascribed human goodness to
a divine intention. Look at human nature, he said. "It will as fully
appear from this our nature . . . is adapted to virtue, as, from the
idea of a watch, it appears that its nature . . . is adapted to measure
time." Every work, he said, "is a system; and as every particular
thing, both natural and artificial, is for some use or purpose, out of
or beyond itself," so we must ask what mankind is for. He went on to
induce the existence of God from the fact that human nature yearns
towards something greater and more perfect than itself.

My 1910 Encyclopaedia Britannica devotes 6,000 words to Joseph Butler,
and about the same to John Wesley. By the 1960 edition Wesley is steady
at 6,000 but Butler is down to a quarter of that length. Today Wesley
gets about six times as many words as Butler. Revelation may be a very
horrid thing, but it seems to be selling better than reason.

At university I tried very hard to convince myself (as one senses
Butler was trying to convince himself) that this appeal to sense will
do. I was wrestling with my own sexual leanings at the time (I was 19)
and the idea that anything we find within ourselves must be put there
for a purpose appealed. Interestingly, it is the Butlerian slant we get
today from those Anglicans who advocate the ordination of gay bishops:
God cannot reject any loving impulse He has implanted in men, they say.
"Really?" I asked the shade of Joseph Butler at 19, and ask the
modernists now: how about child- molesting?

At 20 I turned from natural religion to an agnosticism which by degrees
has slipped into something as close to atheism as makes no difference.
But one could as easily - or, at least, as logically - have turned the
other way: towards evangelism, revealed truth and self-denial. For
though the New Testament says little about sex or marriage, nothing in
the Gospels suggests any departure from Judaic wisdom on such matters,
a pretty robust sense of which we gain from the Old Testament.

Jesus was never reluctant to challenge received wisdoms that He wanted
to change. He gives no impression that He came into the world to
revolutionise sexual mores. Even our eye, if it offends us, must be
plucked out.

So this, in summary, is my charge against the Anglican modernists. Can
they point to biblical authority for what, on any estimate, amounts to
a disturbing challenge to the values assumed in both Testaments? No.
Can they point to any divinely inspired religious leader since to whom
has been revealed God's benevolent intentions towards homosexuals? I
know of no such saint or holy man. Most have taught the opposite.

Can they honestly say that they would have drawn from Christ's
teachings the same lessons of sexual tolerance in 1000, or 1590, or
indeed 1950? Surely not, for almost no such voices were heard then.

In which case, to what does this "reform" amount? Like the changes to
Church teaching on divorce or Sunday observance, the new tolerance
gains its force within the Anglican Communion from a fear of becoming
isolated from changing public morals. Is that a reason for a Christian
to modify his own morality? I cannot recall that Moses took this view
of golden calf worship. Whispering beneath the modernisers' soft
aspirational language of love and tolerance, I hear an insistent "when
in Rome, we must do as the Romans do. Times have changed." Gays in
particular should be very wary of that message; some of us remember
when it was used against us, and such a time may come again.

A religion needs a compass. Logic alone does not point the way and
religion adds to the general stock of human reasonableness a new
directional needle - if it adds anything at all. I cannot read the
Gospels in any way other than as declaring that this was revealed to
man by God through Jesus. Revelation, therefore, not logic, must lie at
the core of the Church's message. You cannot pick and choose from
revealed truth.

The path to which the compass points may be a stony one, but this
should not matter to a believer. The teachings of the early Church
looked unattractive to the Romans. Revelation pointed the way, and only
Revelation can point the way now. I believe this Revelation is false,
but Christians have nothing else firm to cling to. The common sense of
1720 may almost have seemed to suffice in Joseph Butler's day, but it
will not suffice now. The Church must take wings and fly above sense,
or it will drown. Let it fly - and fly away.

END
 

Chaplain

Member
I uploaded a new blog on Romans 6 (Made Safe for Grace) verse 1-2: Grace and habitual sinning.

Romans 6 is one of the most powerful chapters in the Bible. It explains the whys and hows of being free from sin, and goes into many details about how to deal with habitual sins. Many people do not know that Christ offers believers freedom from sinning (not having to give into to the desires of the body) once they are saved to live like Jesus lived (full of love, joy and the freedom/power to obey and serve God). This is what Romans chapter 6 is all about.

That being said, here are a few samples from the study:

In this first part of Romans 6, Paul writes about someone who remains in a lifestyle of sin, thinking that it is acceptable so that grace may abound.

"If a sense of purpose is imbued in human life by God, then there is a higher, moral authority that governs our choices and our relationships. In other words, our commitment to live as creations of the living God forms our basic purpose and determines purpose as we live in this world. Remove this sense of purpose and all of our foundation for treating human beings with worth crumbles away. Abuse and violation will result. When purpose is removed, human dignity and worth “are totally negotiable and pragmatically determined by the moment” without any recourse to a higher authority other than the self and its whims." (Zacharias)

"I have received Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. In receiving Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior I have done that and the result is that I am born again. I am now a child of God through faith in Jesus Christ. If I am born again, then where is the old Chuck? He is dead. That old fellow who used to live after his flesh, he is dead. I now have a new life, a spiritual life, that life from Christ. Therefore, to say, "Well, let's go ahead and just live in sin that grace may abound," is folly. Because I am dead to sin, that old life is dead." (Smith)

"Since there is daily warfare that goes on in the life of all believers, it is crucial that we pick up our crosses (a choice that we must make) and put to death our flesh. Why? Once the spirit has come alive, now there comes this striving for the mastery of us. Will I be mastered by the Spirit or will I be mastered by the flesh? If I am mastered by the flesh, then I have the mind of the flesh. That is, my mind is constantly upon fleshly things. And the mind of the flesh is alienated from God; it cannot know God. The mind of the flesh is death. And so, another issue arises in five minutes. Uh-huh, you did that five minutes. All right, you know. And I can choose whether or not to walk in the flesh, or then again, to commit it and walk after the Spirit. You see, it isn't a once-in-forever kind of a thing. It is once that I have reckoned myself to be crucified with Christ when I accepted Him. I was crucified with Christ, but now I have to reckon it in so many situations everyday. But if my life is dominated by the Spirit, then I have the mind of the Spirit. And I'm thinking of God, and I'm thinking upon spiritual things, and the result of life and joy and peace in the holy Spirit. The mind of the flesh is death, but the mind of the Spirit is life and joy and peace. The warfare going on. Am I going to yield to my flesh, or am I going to yield to the Spirit? And this comes up every day in many situations, and I have actually the choice in this situation. I can yield to my flesh and I can blow off steam and I can get in and I can fight and I can get into the striving and the whole issue. Or I can walk after the Spirit and say, "Oh Lord, it doesn't matter. Help me, Lord, to just keep the right attitude." And I can just go and pass it by."

Some of the other things discussed...

The believer under grace and the problem of habitual sin (Part 1)

Does God care if Christians live sinful self-centered lives?
Why is living a life of sin a violation of our purpose of existence?
What does it mean that each of us has died to the power of sin?
Does this mean that sinning is a choice for the Christian?
Is there a way that habitual habits and behaviors can be eliminated from our lives?
 

Chaplain

Member
I uploaded a new blog on Romans 6 (Made Safe for Grace) verse 3-11: Baptism, Death, & Resurrection in Christ. Here are a few samples from the study:

"It's a whole newness of life, that new life after the Spirit and, of course, that is the old things. The old life after Adam is a life after the flesh. It is a life where the body is dominant, and the consciousness is occupied by the body needs. It is life on the animal plane--body and soul. The body supreme, the mind subjected and filled with the consciousness of the body needs. Therefore, when you are born again, that which is born of the flesh is flesh. If you are born again by the Spirit of God, the new life that you now have is spirit, soul, and body. So now the spirit is the dominant feature and the new life is spiritual life, the old life was a fleshly life. The new life is a spiritual life. A spirit in union with God's Spirit. So a spirit in union with God's Spirit, my thoughts, my consciousness now is upon God and the things of God and how I might please Him by walking in the spirit. These are the things that dominate my conscious state. God's love for me, God's grace for me, God's goodness for me, these things dominate my conscious state. No longer dominated by my fleshly desires or fleshly needs."

Some of the other things discussed...

The believer under grace and the problem of habitual sin (Part 2)

Fundamental concepts that every Christian should know.
How many types of baptisms does the Bible mention?
What is the meaning of water baptism?
Does getting baptized guarantee a person is saved?
What is Sanctification?
What is the evidence that a person is born again?
How are Christians united with/to Jesus?
Why does Paul associate human nature (the old man) with Adam?
Why Can human nature ever be reformed?
What or who is the new man?
How has God delivered believers from Sin (past, present, and future)?
Why are some Christians dominated by their human nature?
Does the Bible teach that human nature can be put to death?
What is the solution to dealing with sins that continue to entice us?
What is the meaning and purpose of God giving us a new life?

New Sermons (Right Click/Save As):

3/15/2015 - Isaiah 49:1-50:11
3/15/2015 - Awakened Morning by Morning (Is 50:4-9)
3/18/2015 - Proverbs 5:1-6:19
 

Chaplain

Member
I uploaded a new blog on Romans 6 (Made Safe for Grace) verse 11-14: Choosing Sin or Freedom. Here are a few samples from the study:

"Our biographies has been written in two volumes. Volume one is the old man, the old nature, the old self before salvation. Volume two is the new man, the new self, the new creation. Volume one ended with my death in Christ. Volume two began with my resurrection in Christ." (JM)

Jesus paid the entire penalty for our sin and paralyzed our sin nature. The question is not whether His provision is sufficient. The question is whether or not we reckon it to be true - whether or not we we will die to ourselves and let Jesus live through us. Living for self allows the old man to live. Living for Jesus allows the new man to live.

Some of the other things discussed...

The believer under grace and the problem of habitual sin (Part 3)

Choosing Sin or Freedom: How do we die to our sin nature?
How does the old man or new man live?
Why are Christians the only people who have been set free from sin?
Why do some Christians remain slaves to sin?
Is slavery to sin a choice?
Steps to live a life free from slavery.
Step 1: Choosing to give our bodies to do good instead of evil.
Step 2: Present our lives (bodies) to God daily or moment by moment.
What does it mean if our lives are still dominated by sin (self-centeredness)?
What does it mean to sin is not our master anymore?
Can a merit-based relationship with God allow freedom from sin?
What type of evidence should be visible if someone has accepted Christ and surrendered to Him?
What does habitual sin say about someone's claim that they are saved?

New Sermons (Right Click/Save As):

3/15/2015 - Job 32-39
3/15/2015 - Luke 5:1-11
3/15/2015 - Awakened Morning by Morning (Is 50:4-9)
3/15/2015 - Isaiah 49-50
3/18/2015 - Rapture Vs 2nd Coming
3/19/2015 - Alive, Obedient, Children of God (Ephesians 2:4-7)
3/22/2015 - Proper Apparel for God's Children (Colossians 3:5-14)
3/22/2015 - The Loveless Church, Ephesus (Revelation 2:1-7)
3/22/2015 - Jesus Wants to Make You Alive (Ephesians 2:1-10)
3/22/2015 - Revelation 4-5
3/22/2015 - Jesus Satisfies (Is 53:10-11)
3/22/2015 - Isaiah 51-53 (Is 51:1-53:12)
3/22/2015 - Job 40-41
3/22/2015 - Luke 5:12-39
 

Chaplain

Member
I uploaded a new blog on Romans 6 (Made Safe for Grace) verse 15-23: Choosing Sin or Freedom. Here are a few samples from the study:

"Every man is ruled. No man is supreme; no man is master of his fate or captain of his soul. We are all governed by an outside power. We are governed either by the power of God or by the power of Satan, and it is your choice. You can choose to be governed by God, or you can choose to live after Satan's authority. You can choose to live like the devil, or you can choose to live like God. But whoever you yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants you become. This is the tragedy of the Garden of Eden. God said, "Thou shall not eat of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, and in the day you do, you are going to die." Satan came along and said, "You ought to try the tree in the midst of the garden, it is good. It is delicious, and you won't die. God is just trying to protect himself. He knows that that tree holds the key of the knowledge of good and evil and if you know knowledge of good and evil, you will be just like God, and He is just trying to protect Himself."

The following was once true in regard to our slavery to sin:

We were born as slaves to sin
Our will was swallowed up and captive to sin within us
Our bondage to sin was so strong that only death - spiritually dying with Jesus on the cross - could break the bondage
We were so enslaved to sin that we served it to the disregard of our own interest, even when sin destroyed us

Now the following is true in regard to our slavery to righteousness:

We are born again, now as slaves to righteousness
Our will is now swallowed up in the will of God. It is His will that matters to us, not our own
We are bound to Jesus with bonds that only death can break; but since He has triumphed over death and given us eternal life, those bonds will never be broken!
We now willingly chose serve Jesus to the disregard of our own (selfish) interests

Some of the other things discussed...

The believer under grace and the problem of occasional sin.

Shall we sin (occasionally) because we are not under law but under grace?
Is it possible for Christians to becomes slaves to sin or Satan?
Does God remove freewill from people after they are saved?
Does faith set believers free from sin?
Does faith come from the mind and the heart?
How does God mold us into His Son's image?
What does it mean to be free from sin and to become a slave of righteousness?
Examples of living as a slave to sin and a slave righteousness.
Is sinless perfection possible in this life?
The problem with choosing to live a self-willed Christian lifestyle.
Who are you going to serve: Sin or God?
 

Chaplain

Member
I uploaded a new blog on Romans 7 (Made Safe for Grace) verse 1-6: The Law in the Life of a Believer. Here are a few samples from the study:

1. It isn't that I have been freed from the law that I might live any kind of way that I might want to live after my flesh, fulfilling the desires of my flesh. That is not what he is talking about at all. I have been set free from the law because it could never make me righteous. I have been set free from the law only to be married to another, even unto Jesus Christ, to be joined unto Him. The life that I now live is a life of bearing fruit, but the fruit of the believer's life is actually in many cases living by even a stricter standard than even the law would require. "For the love of Christ constrains me," Paul said. For the love of Christ I would not do that which would cause a weaker brother to stumble. For Christ's sake, married to Christ, joined now unto Christ in this new relationship with God in the new covenant through Jesus Christ does not mean that I am free to indulge in my flesh. Far from it. It means that I am bound now by even a greater law, the law of love. The law of love for Jesus Christ.

And now my life is producing fruit for Him. Whereas, I once was under the law as a standard of my righteousness or my standing before God, which could never give me a consistent standing before God. For those that are under the law are under the works of the law, and those who are in Christ are bearing fruit unto righteousness. For the fruit of the righteous life and that fruit is the proof of my relationship with Him.

"Ye abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ye shall bring forth much fruit" (John 15:4-5). If your life isn't bringing forth fruit, then it is saying that you are not abiding in Him and His Word isn't abiding in you, because fruit is the natural consequence of relationship. Now the works could never get me a righteous standing before God. Jesus gave me a righteous standing before God, and because of that, because I am now married unto Him and have this new relationship with God through Christ, my life is bringing forth righteous fruit. Love with its characteristics of joy, and peace, and long-suffering, and gentleness, and goodness, temperance, now these things do not make me righteous, but they are the effect of my righteousness that I now have through my faith in Jesus Christ. I trust you can see the difference.

Once I was trying to do these things so I could be righteous before God. And I was struggling as I was trying to do these things. But when I came to this new relationship with God, dead to the law, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ, those things I was struggling so hard to do under the law and failing to do, I now do as just the natural consequence of my abiding in Him, and His life, His love, His fruit, coming forth from me.

2. The difference between the law and spirit:

1.jpg

Some of the other things discussed...

Dead to the Law:

Why does the law have no dominion over a believer?
Why does our death with Jesus set us free from the law?
In what way are believers through with the law?
What is the key to the entire book of Romans?
Have we been set free from the law to live self-centered lives?
What is the law of love?
Why do the unsaved produce works/deeds of death?
Why does legalism only bring death to our relationship with God?
How and why has Christ delivered us from the law?
What does it mean to serve God in the newness of the Spirit?
What is the newness of the Spirit?

New Sermons (Right Click/Save As):

3/24/15 - Genesis 19 (Men's Study)
3/24/15 - Pressing Toward Heaven (Philippians 3) (Women's Study)
3/25/15 - Proverbs 6:20-7:27
3/25/15 - Isaiah 2-4

Two short apologetics videos:

10. Is atheism a religion?
11. Do all good people go to heaven?
 

Chaplain

Member
I uploaded a new blog on Romans 7 (Exposing the Weakness of the Law) verse 7-12: God's Perfect Law. Here are a few samples from the study:

How does sin deceives us?

Because sin falsely promises satisfaction
Because sin falsely claims an adequate excuse
Because sin falsely promises an escape from punishment

"The law is not sin itself. It reveals what sin is. The law is good if we understand the purpose of the law. The law is not good for what people are seeking to derive from the law. People are seeking to derive a righteous standing before God from the law. You can't do that. Obedience to the law will not give you a righteous standing before God; it will only show you where you have failed to stand before God. "By the law is the knowledge of sin" (Romans 3:20). God never intended the law to make a man righteous. "If righteousness could come by the law, then Christ died in vain" (Galatians 2:21). He wouldn't have had to die if a man could be righteous by keeping the law. So the law came to show us our bankrupt spiritual state, causing us to realize that I cannot keep the standards of the law, and thus, forcing me to cast myself upon the grace of God that He has offered to me through Jesus Christ. The law was intended by God to force me to come to Jesus Christ, and the law properly understood will do that. Now as the law is misinterpreted, as man is so capable of doing, misinterpreting God's Word. People have then taken the law and used it as a standard of righteousness and have become extremely self-righteous as they seek to obey the law, bending it wherever it doesn't fit their particular circumstance. I can interpret, then, that law so that I am under it. I'm on the good side of it. We have that tendency of taking the law and using it as a standard for holiness or righteousness, and well, I feel like I'm more righteous than you. I am not doing those things that you are doing, or I am doing things that you are not doing that make me more holy. But my righteousness before God is not predicated upon my keeping of the law. The law was to reveal what sin is. Paul said, "I had not known sin except by the law."

Some of the other things discussed...

Our problem with God's perfect law:

Is God's perfect law sinful?
Did God ever intend people to be saved by the law?
Are we holy because we obey the law?
How and why are having strong desires a sin according to the law?
Does this mean that the law is spiritual?
How does our sin-nature corrupt God's commandments (laws)?
How is sin less powerful without God's law?
Why do people think they are alive before they know they have broken God's laws?
How does the law bring death to the person that understands that they are a sinner?
How does sin use the law to deceive all people?
How does God's Word set us free from sins deception?
Is God's law to blame for our self-centered actions?

Two new sermons (Right Click/Save As):

3/25/15 - All Mill vs Post Tribulation
3/26/15 - The Gift of Salvation (Ephesians 2:8-9)
 

Chaplain

Member
A new episode of Unbelievable? has been posted:

John-Walton-Unb-main_article_image.jpg


Unbelievable? Have we misread the Adam and Eve story? John Walton vs Stephen Lloyd
Saturday 28th March 2015 - 02:30 pm


John Walton, professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College, Illinois, has authored the book The Lost World of Adam and Eve. He argues that Adam and Eve were intended as archetypes for humankind, and the story is not mean to be taken as an account of our material origins.

Stephen Lloyd, who holds to Young Earth Creation, argues that Walton undermines Christian theology as a whole with his view of Genesis.

MP3 Download

For John Walton’s The Lost World of Adam and Eve: www.ivpress.com

For Stephen Lloyd: www.biblicalcreationministries.org.uk
 

Chaplain

Member
I uploaded a new blog on Romans 7 (Exposing the Weakness of the Law) verse 13-14.

Here are two samples from the study:

Sin "becomes more sinful" in light of the law in two ways. First, sin becomes exceedingly sinful in contrast to the law. Second, sin becomes exceedingly sinful because the law provokes its evil nature.

Paul is in bondage under sin and the law can't help him out. He is like a man arrested for a crime and thrown in jail. The law will only help him if he is innocent, but Paul knows that he is guilty and that the law argues against him, not for him.

Some of the other things discussed...

The purpose and character of the law:

In what way does the law expose and magnify our sins?
The spiritual law cannot restrain a carnal man.
Did Paul struggle with sin after Jesus saved him?
What three categories of people does all humanity fall under according to the Bible?
Was Paul lost due to struggling with sin as a believer?

New sermons (right click/save as):

3/29/15 - Practical Matters Colossians 3:15-4:1
3/29/15 - Isaiah 54-56
3/29/15 - God's Love for Jews, Gentiles, and Eunuchs (Is 56:1-8)
3/29/15 - Luke 6:1-19
3/29/15 - Job 42

Two new apologetics video:

Is God Outside of Time?
Do We Have Free Will?
 

Chaplain

Member
I uploaded a new blog on Romans 7 (Exposing the Weakness of the Law) verse 15-23: The struggle of obedience in our own strength.

Here are two samples from the study:

"I found that there is a dual nature: the flesh and the spirit. These two are warring against each other (Galatians 5:16-18), and there are times when I yield to the flesh. And I hate myself for yielding to the flesh, because my spirit wants to live after God and please God. When I yield to the flesh I feel miserable. I hate myself for doing what I have done. The real me after the spirit wants to please God. There is another part of me, the flesh that wants to please the flesh. There is that sinful part of me, that fleshly part of me, that oftentimes leads me to do those things I don't want to do. If you really get down to the basic heart of the issue, I want to live to please God. I consent to the law it is good. I want to live a righteous life; I want to live the life that would be pleasing unto the Father." (Smith)

There is a debate among Christians as to if Paul was a Christian during the experience he describes. Some look at his struggle with sin and believe that it must have been before he was born again. Others believe that he is just a Christian struggling with sin. In a sense this is an irrelevant question, for this is the struggle of anyone who tries to obey God in their own strength. This experience of struggle and defeat is something that a Christian may experience, but something that a non-Christian can only experience.

Some of the other things discussed...

Why did Paul say he had problems doing the morally right thing?
Are we responsible for our actions since sin influences are actions?
What dual-nature do all Christians have?
Why do some Christians live a life of despair?
The battle between two selves that all Christians face.
Was Paul a Christian when he struggled with sin?
Is it possible that self-will can win over sin nature?

Three new sermons (right click/save as):

3/29/2015 - The Suffering Servant of Yahweh (Isaiah 52:13-53:12)
3/29/2015 - The Gifts of Faith, Miracles, & Healings (Selected Scriptures)

A new issue of Ravi Zachariah's ministry magazine is up.

Pulse Magazine – Issue 19
PDF download
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom