CHRISTIANS CONDUCT IN POLITICS

One of the ways we display the glory of God is through the unity of the church in both its breath & depth of commitment. Through the supernatural outworking power of God, He has and continues to redeem people throughout the world from every race, nation, tribe, culture, class, etc. to become one people. As a church, we work together to display God’s perfect character as imperfect people. Its only in the context of the church where all these diverse people are able to make manifold the riches of God’s glory to a watching world. In Christ, we’ve been united in spite of coming from different backgrounds. Though we’ve been joined together in this unity through Christ, sometimes, the display of God’s glory by us as believers is impaired by differences betwixt the diverse people in the body of Christ.

Though we are saved and are already in Christ, and we’re still continually admonished to be like-minded and of one accord as believers; however, as long as we are still with our present unredeemed flesh, we’re prone to stumble wonder and fall down. Not only that, because we’ve got liberty to choose and make present earthly decisions on the issues of life, this freedom can likewise impair and bring about discordance to Christ’s body which is the Church – both universally, & locally and in the end, it may hinder our fellowship as brethren – just ask Euodias & Syntyche.

Because of these differences that might crop up within the body, apart from the aforementioned unity & fellowship, other two tasks are at stake on our conduct as believers;

Evangelism: This has to do with how we relate with the outside world. It is both active and passive. Active is whereby we share the truths of Christ Gospel to the world (Matt 28:18-20), and passive is when the world watches our conduct (John 13:35).

As I said previously, even though we as believers have been given imperatives to be of one accord, at the same time, we’ve been given liberty on some of the decisions we make and an example of this is in the area of political thought and ideology. In some advanced democracies, we can see this ideology to the extent that it has literally created two camps; i.e. the right & left; however, in the case of our Kenyan context, unfortunately we don’t have any guiding ideology but our political worldview is still being dictated by our tribal leanings and this is where the trouble comes and thus making our ministry of evangelism to be at stake.

Let me use our social media conversation as an example.

According to the last population census in the country which took place in 2009, it was revealed that approximately 90% of the people who live in this geographical location of the world that was formerly founded by Imperial British East Africa Company are self-confessed Christians. Typically, most of these people in cucu (pun deliberately intended) media call themselves with terms such as ‘child of God,’ ‘daughter of Sarah,’ ‘Christ’s believer,’ ‘unmerited favour,’ amongst other clichés connected to Christianity. Unfortunately, our timelines usually digress from our confession as they are filled un-Christ-like clutter and especially at around this time with clutter dealing with very immature political thought. Out of the 168 hours we have in a week, almost 160 hours of our social media posts are things that bash our political opponents, deify our preferred tribal candidates, name-calling or talking ill/negatively of other the other camp, passing lies, amongst other ills. However, come Sunday between 6 am to 2 pm, have you ever noticed that our timeline posts usually shift a 180 degree turn and we start posting ‘spiritual’ things? How hypocritical!
In lieu of that, when you as a professed believer, how can you truly unbelievers that Christ’s not only saves but changes people while it appears that you yourself as an individual you are still not regenerate? How can you muster the strength to tell others the gospel if it has no effect upon you? How can unbelievers be won over to Christ by your conduct when you are mess in your own personal walk? If your speech & life isn’t filled & seasoned with grace, there is absolutely no way you can perform your duty of evangelism.

Discipleship: This has to do with how we relate with one another as believers.
So, you know the imperatives ‘one another’ that we’re to do; exhort, love, encourage, showing kindly affection, submitting, forgiving, admonish, comfort, etc. Looking at this list, how are you able to do any of them when there’s tension, infighting & disharmony amongst us as believers? Because of this, there will be a wall of separation between the various political factions in the church and in the end it’s the church which will suffer loss as there won’t be any real discipling taking place and our spiritual growth will stagnate.

Remember, it’s the role of every member to foster unity, and it’s when there’s real unity that we are able to do our work of ministry for the benefit of our own spiritual growth in the context of discipleship but also in the context of evangelism.

If we have to politic, let’s engage in a biblical, sober & mature manner. Let’s exchange ideas in order to build each other up, not the way the world does, but in a way that will truly show that our voting decisions are wise inferences – not tribal ones. Therefore, as James admonishes us, if we lack wisdom, let’s pray that God will grant us so that we may walk rightly as we politic and that no matter the outcome, God will be glorified.

I would have love to add other factors that are at stake such as where our trust lies, our real citizenship, God’s sovereignty, amongst others but that we can look at another time if the Lord wills.

WHEN THE FOUNDATIONS ARE DESTROYED - PSALM 11

By Pastor Ray Pritchard
Keep Believing Ministries

“When the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?” Psalm 11:3
 
We don’t know exactly when David wrote this psalm. Many writers connect it to the time when Saul chased David in the wilderness (1 Samuel 23:13-14), but we can't be sure. We know the psalm comes at a desperate moment when his enemies seemed to be closing in on him and his friends encouraged him to run away.
 
The psalm breaks naturally into two parts. The first three verses describe David’s predicament, and the last four verses reveal his deep faith in God despite his circumstances.
 
This psalm is best known for the question in verse 3:“When the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?” Many preachers have taken this text and used it to show that when the foundations are destroyed, there is nothing the righteous can do. They are left in a hopeless situation.
 
But that is not what David says.
 
When the foundations are destroyed, there are many things the righteous can do, but above everything else, they must first get a right view of God. 
 
It happens that I am writing this sermon in light of the recent Supreme Court ruling that legalized gay marriage in all 50 states. It’s not that we didn’t see it coming. The larger culture has been trending that way for years. Perhaps the shock is the speed of the change. Many believers feel that this decision is a decisive attack on the very foundations of society itself.

I happen to agree with that assessment and believe that hard times are upon us. When a nation celebrates what God condemns, judgment from on high must eventually come. No one can say how or when or where that judgment will come. But as certainly as God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, as certainly as the great empires of history have fallen, even so no nation is promised exemption from judgment.
 
I. Our Commitment
 
As we look at the first three verses that describe David’s predicament, let’s consider the commitment we must make as we face an uncertain future.
 
We Will Not Flee
 
“I have taken refuge in the Lord. How can you say to me, ‘Escape to the mountain like a bird!’” (v. 1)
 
It is not wrong to flee persecution. Jesus told his disciples, “When they persecute you in one town, escape to another” (Matthew 10:23). The brave Christians in the Middle East who face beheading by ISIS are not wrong to flee. But sometimes you can’t escape, and sometimes the Lord calls you to stand and face whatever comes. God’s people are not required to prove their faith by staying in one place when they could save their lives by fleeing to the countryside. After all, David hid from Saul for years until the time came for him to become king.
 
But there are times when we must not flee. Sometimes you have to stand and fight. This is one of those moments. When David’s friends encouraged him to flee the country, he replied, “I have taken refuge in the Lord.” If God cannot protect him, then running to Egypt won’t keep him safe. I apply that same principle to the current moral crisis in America. I have no doubt that things will get worse in the near future. Open hostility toward Christians will increase. Some will lose their jobs because of their convictions. Others will find their careers stymied because of overt anti-Christian hatred. Some will face huge fines (like Aaron and Melissa Klein, the bakers in Oregon who refused to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding) for standing up for their convictions. Churches will face the loss of tax exemption. Increasingly believers will be marginalized and ridiculed. Christians who dare to speak out against the prevailing tide will be vilified on social media. Some will receive threatening phone calls. They will discover that other Christians don’t want to be around them.
 
We will no doubt be disappointed by evangelical leaders who cave to the gay marriage position. Suddenly they will discover biblical support for two men getting married that no Bible scholar had discovered in the previous 2000 years. Their itching ears will lead them away from the Bible into the depths of moral compromise. Professing themselves to be wise, they will become fools.
 
All of this was foretold in the New Testament. Truly the “perilous times” of 2 Timothy 3 are upon us.
 
How will we respond?
Will we run and hide?
Will we flee from the battle?
 
Elizabeth Rundle Charles put the matter this way:

 
“If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christianity.  Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battlefield besides is mere flight and disgrace to him, if he flinches at that one point.”

 
Sometimes you have to stand and fight.
You may lose the battle.
You may be wounded.
You may not survive.
 
We have to stand and fight for what we believe.
We leave the results in God’s hands.’
As they say in the Coast Guard, “You have to go out. You don’t have to come back.”
 
This is no time to flee, and there is no place to go anyway.
 
 We Will Not Fear 
 
“For look, the wicked string the bow; they put the arrow on the bowstring to shoot from the shadows at the upright in heart” (v. 2).
 
In this case David is being quite literal. At one point Saul tried to kill David with a spear. Later he sent his army after him. The arrows they were shooting were not metaphorical. When those arrows hit, they drew blood.
 
It’s always good to know what you are up against. That way you won’t be surprised when trouble comes.
 
We Will Not Fret
 
“When the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (v. 3)
 
The word translated “foundations” refers to the moral and spiritual underpinnings of any society. What can the righteous do when the foundations crumble beneath them?

Do they quit?
Do they despair?
Do they run away?
Do they become bitter?
Do they resort to violence?

For Christians in the Middle East, this is not a rhetorical question. What do you do when your community is destroyed by ISIS?
 
Christians in America now face that question in a completely different way.  The foundations are being destroyed before our eyes. When you see the White House lit up in rainbow colors, you know we are seeing Romans 1 come true in our day.
 
What will the righteous do?
What can we do?
 
What do you do when the foundations are destroyed? Answer: It all depends on how big your God is.

If you’ve got a small God, you’ve got a big problem.
If you’ve got a big God, you'll okay even when the bad guys seem to be winning.
 
II. Our Confidence
 
Notice what David doesn’tsay. He doesn’t call for the army to mount an offensive. He doesn’t say, “Let’s run for the hills.” He doesn’t raise money for a big political campaign. In modern terms, he doesn’t organize a social media campaign.
 
For David (and for us) it’s not about the what; it’s about thewho. To be sure, tactics matter. There is certainly a time to go to war to protect your nation. And we’ve seen clearly that it matters greatly who occupies the White House. There can be no doubt that social media played a big part in the recent changes in American attitudes about gay marriage.
 
But in times like these, we need God first and foremost. When the foundations are being hacked away, we’ve got to go back to the First Principles. That’s what David does in verses 4-7.
 
God’s Presence
 
“The Lord is in His holy temple; the Lord’s throne is in heaven” (v. 4).
 
This is David’s way of saying God is everywhere. He’s on the earth (in his holy temple), but his throne is in heaven. I admit that it doesn’t always look that way. When you read the headlines, it can seem as if the whole world is spinning out of control. Lately we’ve been reminded that ISIS is planning attacks on America. With the rising spiral of violence in our world and our own slippery slide into the pit of moral corruption, it’s easy to conclude that God either is not on his throne or he doesn’t care what happens on the earth or perhaps there is no God at all.
 
But right at this point we see the fundamental difference between a believer and an unbeliever. We believe there is a God who sits on the throne of the universe, a God who is absolutely sovereign, a God whose ways are far above our ways, a God to whom the whole human race must someday give account.
 
Was God shocked by the murders in Charleston?
Was God caught by surprise by the crisis in Greece?
Was God unprepared for the Supreme Court decision?
 
The answer to all such questions is a resounding no. Our God is never surprised, never asleep, never startled by evil, never shocked by natural disasters, and never astonished by Supreme Court decisions.
 
I have been thinking lately of what one of my Greek teachers in seminary liked to say. Dr. S. Lewis Johnson remarked that the hardest verse in the Bible to believe is Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” “If you can believe that,” Dr. Johnson said, “you won’t have any trouble with the rest of the Bible.” For a long time the truth of that statement eluded me. I couldn’t get it because I had never really thought about Genesis 1:1 in its larger context. But it is hugely important that the Bible begins with a declaration, not an argument. The Bible simply declares that God is, and that he created all things. Twenty years ago E. V. Hill preached a powerful sermon at a Promise Keepers gathering in Chicago. In his own unforgettable style, he preached for 40 minutes on just two words: “God is.” He said it over and over again. He whispered it and he shouted it. He illustrated it, declared it, proclaimed it, and dared anyone to deny it. You wouldn’t think you could preach that long on just two words but he did, and when you think about it, you could preach a lot longer when your topic is as profound as “God is.” Once you get it settled in your heart that “God is,” a lot of other problems will be solved as well.
 
Perhaps we should keep Isaiah 6 in mind. That magnificent passage begins with the words “In the year that King Uzziah died.” That note is important because Uzziah was one of the best kings Judah ever had. When he died, the nation was plunged into turmoil. A golden age in Israel’s history was drawing to a close. Would the people continue to walk with God or would they return to idolatry? In that fateful moment, Isaiah came face to face with the living God. He says it this way: “I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of his robe filled the temple” (Isaiah 6:1).
 
Where is God? He’s not nervously pacing heaven wondering, “Who will I get to replace Uzziah?” Not at all. At that critical moment, God is where he has always been. Seated on his throne.
 
God’s Judgment
 
“His eyes watch; He examines everyone.The Lord examines the righteous and the wicked. He hates the lover of violence. He will rain burning coals and sulfur on the wicked; a scorching wind will be their portion”(vv. 4-6).
 
No one gets away with anything.
 
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said it this way: “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” Though the wheels of God grind slowly, they grind exceeding small. Be sure your sin will find you out.
 
These words of David remind us that there is a solemn and eternal difference between the righteous and the wicked. That difference is sometimes easy to see in this life, sometimes not so easy. Suppose you go to a football game and look up in the stands. It’s easy to tell who is rooting for the Bears and who is rooting for the Packers. The fans let you know which side they are on. But spiritual allegiance isn’t always easy to determine. Suppose you go to a cemetery and walk around. In that quiet, peaceful setting, saints and sinners rest side by side, six feet under the green grass. You can’t tell the righteous from the wicked simply by reading the gravestones.
 
But God knows.
That’s the whole point of these verses.
 
God sees everything.
He reads every heart.
He knows every thought.
He hears the words whispered in the darkness.
He knows us better than we know ourselves.
 
A day of judgment is coming for those who mock God and reject his Word. In an image that reminds us of Sodom and Gomorrah, God promises to rain burning coals and sulfur on the wicked. The scorching wind of judgment will wipe the smile off their faces.
 
We dare not water down these solemn words.
 
On June 26, the day the Supreme Court handed down its verdict, Chuck Swindolltweeted these words:
 

Disobedience to God’s commands always results in serious consequences—eventually.

 
God’s Deliverance
 
“For the Lord is righteous; He loves righteous deeds. The upright will see His face” (v. 7).
 
The Lord stands up for those who stand up for him.
He takes the side of those who side with him.
 
David stands on the peak of faith and says, “Though the battle may be hot and we may be surrounded, God will win in the end.” This is the true position of those who believe God and his Word. I have told and retold the story of Richard John Neuhaus, founder of First Thingsmagazine, and a great defender of the moral and spiritual values of the Christian faith. At one point he was on his way to a speaking engagement. When he arrived at the airport, the man who picked him up was bemoaning the sorry state of affairs in American culture and how bad the times were. After listening for a while, Father Neuhaus finally replied:

“These may be bad times, but they are the only times we are given. And despair is a mortal sin.”

 
He’s right on all counts. These are bad times because our leaders are spiritually corrupt and morally blind. But why should we despair? If God is on the throne, then we should rejoice because these are our times. We don’t have to ask, “What will America be like in a hundred years?” The great good news is, I don’t have to stay alive for another hundred years because I serve a God who is eternal. He will still be on the job long after I go down to the grave.That’s David’s final answer to the many perplexing problems of this life. Those who know and love the Lord will see his face. We will behold the Lord in the most personal way possible.

Today we walk by faith.
Today we stumble along through this life.
Today we struggle.
 
But today is not the last day.There is a better day coming for the people of God when all will be made right. Between now and then we will have many days when the foundations seem to be crumbling around us and the wicked rise up and threaten us.
 
But the wicked will not have the last word. Those who scoff at the Lord and his Word will be consumed with the fire of God’s judgment. Between now and then we move forward by faith, believing that out trials are sent by God to improve us, not to destroy us.
 
Take the long view because we’re in this for the long haul.Let’s go back to that question in verse 3 for a moment:
 

“When the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?”

 
Make no mistake. The foundations are being destroyed right in front of our very eyes. Long-held moral values are being jettisoned in favor of a new morality that is really no morality at all.
 
What can the righteous do?
 
I have no political advice to offer even though I’m in favor of political action. Christians need to take their convictions with them into the voting booth. We ought to write letters, speak out, refuse to be intimidated, support good candidates and run for office ourselves. I’m not in the “roll over and play dead” category.
 
But I’m not going to end on that note because David doesn’t speak of  political solutions in Psalm 11. When the foundations are being destroyed, we need a fresh view of God and a long view of history. God who sees all things will judge the wicked and bring them down in the end, and the righteous will see God’s face.
 
How then should we live? As I ponder that question, I keep coming back to the same conclusion. I can summarize it in three words. We need .  . .
 
Tenacious winsome courage.
 
Tenacious means we don’t give up. 
Winsome means we face life with a smile, not a scowl.
Courage means we do what needs to be done.
 
Tenacious means we keep on keeping on.
Winsome means we don’t lose our temper and say something stupid.
Courage means we take our stand for the truth.
 
Tenacious means we keep on praying.
Winsome means we are cheerful when others attack us.
Courage means we do hard things without complaining.
 
Tenacious means we love people anyway.
Winsome means we display grace under pressure.
Courage means we speak up instead of wimping out.
 
We need all three qualities together to face what life throws at us. So let's wrap up this message with a good prayer for all of us: 
 
“Lord, grant me tenacious winsome courage as I go through this day. When I am tempted to give up, help me to keep going. Grant me a cheerful spirit when things don’t go my way. And give me courage to do whatever needs to be done. In Jesus’ name, Amen.

DATING: WHEN WORDS AND CHOICES CLASH

by Dan Phillips

Note: Recently, I linked to this nearly four-year-old post in the body of another. Many had not seen it first time 'round, though it kicked off some waves in other bloggy locations at the time. The subject remains current, and I need to dip into the well once and maybe twice this week here. So here 'tis once again, lightly edited.

[This is yet another one of my occasional serieses. In this, I write for our readers who are yoots, for their own benefit; or for parents, to share with their yoots. It'll also work for pastors, especially yoot pastors. Previous examples include A word to Christian yoots, and Why God gave you parents, etc.]

Coarse but pointed joke-that-you've-all-heard-anyway alert in 3... 2... 1....

So this iconic guy's talking with an iconic girl, and asks whether she'd be willing to engage in carnal acts for $1 million.

She considers, shrugs, says, "For a million dollars? I guess."

"Would you do it for $5?" he follows up.

She is shocked, and deeply offended. "What do you think I am?" she rages.

His classic retort: "Oh, we've already established what you are. Now we're just haggling over price."

And now, a moment's pause while Pyro readers wonder where this could possibly be going. Play the overture from Handel's Messiah in your head. Daaaa.... da-daaaa....

Now, why is that joke funny to most folks? It's funny because of the surprising clash. In the punch-line, the woman is deeply offended, because she wants to say that her virtue is precious, and he's cheapening it with his $5 suggestion. But the man counters that he already knows her virtue not to be beyond price to her. She can be bought. What she says now is one thing; what she has already said, another.

So you, unmarried Christian reader, start dating an unbeliever. What are you saying?

"What?!" you splutter. "We haven't had sex!"

This isn't about sex. I'm asking what you're saying, what message your choice is communicating.

To whatever degree you're concerned at all about this person's soul, you're trying to tell her/him about Christ, right? You're trying to tell this person that Christ is the One in whom all things hold together (Colossians 1:17), the source and reason for all the universe (Colossians 1:16), the most important celebrity anywhere, ever (Philippians 2:9-11). You want to persuade him that Christ is Lord of all. And you want him/her to believe that Jesus is all these things, and that He is all these things to you.

But you've already told him that Christ isn't all that. You're just haggling over price.

(Or am I assuming too much? Are there some who are not even concerned whether the people they date are or are not saved? In such cases, the kindest I can say is that such are clueless, loveless, and faithless, and they really need to reconsider the big question, for themselves.)

Let me approach the issue another way.

Would you date a child molestor? Oh, of course not. Instant deal-breaker. Thief, murderer? No and no. Rapist? Never. Those are really bad things.

But not as bad as being an enemy of God (Proverbs 15:9; Ephesians 2:3)? I think we have some seriously skewed priorities.

See, if you are in a dating relationship with someone who doesn't love Christ, you've already said the Christ-issue isn't the issue to you. Her looks, his job, the way she treats you, his sense of humor — whatever; these things matter more to you than Christ does.

You want this person to believe that he is a sinner, under God's wrath, and deserving His judgment. You want him to know that his righteous deeds are as filthy rags, that everything he can produce is not enough for God.

But you've already communicated, by your choice, that what he has is enough for you. That you and he share enough values, goals, aspirations, and affections to create (or even consider) an exclusive and intimate relationship.

See? You've already dealt a death-blow to your own credibility. You really might as well stop talking. Your priorities, your choices, have drowned out your words (cf. the principle of Titus 1:16).

I would think this would be clear-cut to any Biblically-instructed Christian, and am constantly surprised to find that it apparently isn't. But let's extend it a bit.

If someone can credibly check the "Christian"-box, are you all-done? All that remains is attractiveness and basic compatibility, then go buy the dress and rent the tux, chapel, preacherguy?

Well, yes and no. As far as a moral issue, yes. Since the Bible doesn't teach a third "will" of God, by which we (for instance) must discern mystically and ookily what one girl/guy in all the world is The Chosen One for us, basically we may morally marry any (A) available and (B) willing (C) Christian (D) of the opposite sex (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:39). (Sad I have to add all those qualifiers, but here we are.)

But what of wisdom? I heard somewhere it was the principle thing (Proverbs 4:7, CSB).

Here is where churches often depress me. I know of a ladies' group that considered studying The Excellent Wife, by Martha Peace. The idea was rejected, because they didn't want single women to "feel excluded."

My wife and I both thought, "Huh? They're exactly who should be studying this!" The single man/woman is exactly the person who should be looking long and hard at all that marriage entails, before making that next-to-unconditional commitment.

Consider this illustration:

What would you think of a man who spends his free time going from car dealer to car dealer, checking out luxury cars that he will never buy?

He takes them out on a long "test" drive. He floors the accelerator, he jams down the brakes. He swerves around sharp turns, cranks the stereo, kicks the tires, slams the doors, asks question after question about the engine, the wiring, the electronics. He talks to the mechanic. He makes the salesman invest much of his day, and then goes through the whole process of credit checks and dickering about price and bargaining...

...then airily says "Wow, that was fun! Thanks!"

And leaves.

Next day: rinse, and repeat. Another dealer, another car. Another hapless sales staff.

What would you think of a guy like that? Selfish lout, right? Cruel? Jerk? Immature, thoughtless, loveless, graceless, without compassion? World revolves around him? Other people are his toys?

I totally agree.

So what of the person who's dating someone (s)he knows (s)he has no business considering as a spouse?

Brother, you know Ephesians 5:25-33, 1 Peter 3:7, all that? You know that God will call you to love, cherish, serve, protect, and lead your wife. You know you will need to provide for her, honor her exclusively from your heart, and with your body. You will be obliged to lead her in holiness, guard her, lay down your very life for her. You know that a bad choice will have very rough consequences (Proverbs 12:4b; 21:9; 25:24; 27:15-16).

But what if the girl you're dating is vastly more mature than you, or vastly less? What if she is disrespectful, rebellious, and sees no need of a leader? What if she particularly does not respect you, is constantly correcting and bossing you? What if you absolutely dread the very thought of having to cross her will, to any degree? What if disagreements invariably become arguments, and go on and on? How could you put on her a yoke she so obviously is not ready to take? How could you subject your future children to such a household?

What, you never thought of that? Then what have you been thinking about?

Sister, stop nodding for a second. What of you? You know Ephesians 5:22-24, 1 Peter 3:1-7, and all that? You know, do you, that God calls you to respect your husband from your very heart, in the way you think and act? You know that, under God, your husband will be the human authority in your life? That you will be obliged before God to love him, respect him, subordinate yourself to him? That you will be his helper, called to aid him in fulfilling what God has called him to?

So what if the man you're dating does not have what it takes to lead you? What if you find yourself constantly telling him what to do? What if he knows God less well than you, because he knows the Bible less than you? What if he is not prepared to lead you on, because he hasn't even caught up with you yet? What if your spirit is independent, and the thought of subordinating yourself to this man is either unthinkable (because he is so unready), or barely tolerable (because he is so passive and pliable)?

In either case, how can you be so cruel as to lead this woman or man on, letting him or her give this portion of his life to you in exclusion to others, when you know you have no business considering a future with him or her?

Is that loving (Matthew 7:12)?

"But he's started reading his Bible now!" "She's started going to Bible Study!" Great. But know this: what is most telling about another person is what he or she is before taking any interest in you. That indicates her or his heart.

If deathbed conversions are "iffy," dating conversions are doubly so.

This long post could be even longer, but I'll (almost) close with a few summary questions.

Would you consider marrying someone who never, ever washed his body? Yuck! No way, right? What if (s)he never, ever had his heart and conscience washed (Hebrews 9:14; 10:22)? Evidently yes? Hmm.

Would you consider marrying someone who never listened to a word you said? No way. What if (s)he never listened to a word God said (Proverbs 28:4, 9; Romans 10:17)? Evidently yes? Hmm.

Would you let someone drive who didn't care much for traffic laws or signs? Not likely. But you'd consider marrying a man who has no Christian walk, or had none before he got interested in you? Or a woman who hasn't yet taken to heart what God says about her and her role? Evidently yes? Hmm.

And in neither case, if you'd not consider marrying, why date? Just a harmless test-drive?

REAL-LIVE FINAL THOUGHT: I know exactly what some readers will think. They will think, "Well, my (friend/relative) married an unbeliever, and later the Lord saved him, and that worked out great! So I'm just trusting God to save/mature/sanctify my unsaved/immature/rebellious little dew-drop!"

To that, two responses:

First, so if someone sins or does something stupid, and it works out all right, you should do the same? Dude. Seriously. Grow up.

Second, as long as we're trading stories, I've heard stories about people who've pointed real, live, actual, loaded guns straight at other people and pulled the trigger, and the gun jammed. Neat, huh? So if God wants someone to live, he can jam a gun, right?

And if you loaded a pistol and went out to see who God wants to live, and who He wants to die... would that be a good thing?

Or stupid, bad, reckless, insane, and sinful?

Kid, life's not a game. Hasty decisions cast long shadows.

For every reason in this world and the next, wise up.

SHOULD I START A RELATIONSHIP WITH A NON-CHRISTIAN?

Written by  Warren Peel in Answers, Christian Living, Marriage 

Mum’s Dead

Mercy and the Westminster Publick Directory of Worship

Last night I was speaking to a Christian Union meeting at our local university about dating and marriage. One of the perennial problems that many young people fall into is getting into relationships with non-Christians. I was exhorting these students to realise that going out with a non-Christian is not an option for the believer. Because dating is a stepping stone to marriage, what the Bible says about whom we may marry applies to whom we may date as well. 1 Corinthians 7.39: A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. But even if someone refuses to accept that this command applies to pre-marriage relationships, at best it is incredibly foolish and unloving for a Christian to date a non-Christian. Here are a few points to reinforce this…

1. Dating a non-Christian is incredibly short-sighted. What happens if he doesn’t become a Christian? Even if you can persuade yourself that it is somehow OK to date an unbeliever, you can’t kid yourself that’s it’s OK to marry him/her unless you rip 1 Corinthians 7.39 out of the Bible. So at what point will you pull the plug on the relationship if the boyfriend or girlfriend doesn’t become a Christian? After a month? After a year? When he proposes but still hasn’t become a Christian? You’re only storing up hurt for both of you. It’s an incredibly unloving, unkind thing to. What if he says, ‘OK then, I’ll become a Christian.’ How do you know he means it? How does he know he means it? It’s really tantamount to emotional blackmail, because what you’re saying at the end of the day is, ‘If you don’t become a Christian, this relationship will have to end.’

2. Many young people fool themselves into thinking they will be a good witness to the one they’re dating, but if you are truly serious about seeing that person come to Christ, then going out with them is probably about the worst thing you can possibly do. For one thing, you’re teaching them that obeying God’s word carefully and comprehensively isn’t all that important if it gets in the way of something you want to do. But inevitably it is going to confuse their motives—it’s going to be hard for them to separate their interest in the gospel from their interest in you. In most cases this is just a pious-sounding excuse Christians use to ease their conscience as they do what they want to do. God may graciously bring that unbeliever to himself, but it will be in spite of your presumption rather than because of it.

3. Almost invariably what happens in practice is that the Christian is led astray by the relationship. Their zeal and enthusiasm evaporate. It’s hard enough for our young people to keep themselves sexually pure while going out with another Christian who is committed to honouring God with their body before marriage; with a non-Christian this is going to be much more difficult.

4. Beginning a relationship with a non-Christian betrays a failure to realise how utterly different a Christian is from a non-Christian. When two people decide to start a relationship, it’s normally because they share the same values and worldview. But you can’t get two more profoundly different people than a believer and an unbeliever (2 Corinthians 6.14-7.1). All the things you have in common are purely superficial and can’t possibly compensate for the huge gulf between you spiritually. Think about it like this. Could you go out with someone who really doesn’t like your family? (This illustration assumes that you like your family!). They might be very polite about it—it’s not that they go around cursing your family up and down, they just don’t want anything to do with them. They don’t ever want to meet them or spend time with them. They don’t really like you seeing them. They don’t want you to talk about them (‘Look, if you want to like your family that’s OK for you, but don’t try to shove them down my throat!’). Could you ever realistically consider marrying someone who thought like that? Why would you even start a relationship with someone who thought like that—who despises these people who are so precious and important to you? Would all the other things you have in common with this person outweigh the fact that they hate your family? Well, if you wouldn’t consider dating someone who didn’t like your earthly family, how much less should you think of dating someone who despises your heavenly Father who matters far more to you even than your family here?

WHY GOD DOESN'T REMOVE OUR SINFUL CRAVINGS IMMEDIATELY

 Posted by Pastor J.D. on March 17, 2015. Original post is here

Every Christian I know has had the experience of coming up against the same sin—again—and wondering, “Will this struggle ever end? Why doesn’t God just remove this?” (If you haven’t had that experience, just give it time.) This seems to be a frustration common to all believers, and not just with sin, either. When we experience any prolonged suffering or pain or discomfort, we have to ask, Why?

This isn’t the question of a skeptic trying to prove that God doesn’t exist—the famous apologetic “problem of evil.” No, this is the personal question of a believer trying to discern what in the world God is doing with the continued struggles in his life. It is the question of someone who reads, “For those who love God, all things work together for good,” and trying to reconcile that theological truth with her present circumstances.

One of the most surprising insights into this question comes from Judges 3. Tucked in between the stories of Othniel and Ehud is a statement that most Christians skip right over. But if we took this truth to heart, we’d have a renewed courage to face our struggles: “Now these are the nations that the LORD left, to test Israel by them, that is, all in Israel who had not experienced all the wars in Canaan. It was in order that the generations of the people of Israel might know war, to teach war to those who had not known it before.” (Judges 3:1-2)

Why did God leave struggles for his people, Israel? Israel’s struggle was tangible and obvious: it came in the form of enemy nations and their armies. So why didn’t God drive them out?
In one sense, as the book of Judges pounds into our heads over and over, the enemy nations are there because Israel didn’t believe God enough to drive them out. But that’s not what Judges 3 says. No, here we see that God left them there to test Israel so that they might learn to fight wars.

God wanted to give Israel the land of Canaan. But apparently, he wanted to do it through struggle. So he continued to test them, to see if they would believe him, to teach them to trust him in their fight. He does the same with us, though (as Paul reminds us) our battle isn’t against flesh and blood, but against spiritual powers. Why doesn’t God remove our struggles when we become Christians? Because he wants us to keep relying on his grace, not on our flesh. As Paul said, some of the weaknesses and trials in our lives are there—by design—to keep us humble.

What this means is that sometimes God allows us to struggle with a lesser sin to keep us from a greater one—pride. Because if you or I were immediately cured from certain sins, we’d become insufferably proud. I know that God has done that with me, specifically in my marriage. The first couple years of my marriage were a struggle for both my wife and me. We had a lot of junk that needed to be exposed. But when I look back, I’m thankful for that time, because it keeps me from becoming self-righteous when I look at problems other people have in their marriages. Struggle is a constant way of driving the proverb, “There, but for the grace of God, go I,” into our hearts.

John Newton, the author of “Amazing Grace,” understood this from experience as well. He grew frustrated by the continued sin in his life, until it dawned on him that any remaining sin kept him in desperate need of grace: “The riches of his mercy,” he said, “are more illustrated by the multiplied pardons he bestows upon me, than if I needed no forgiveness at all.”

The persistence of pain in our lives—especially the pain of battling against sin—shouldn’t make us complacent. God didn’t leave the Canaanites so that Israel would eventually get comfortable with them being around. It was just the opposite: he left the Canaanites so that Israel would learn to fight.

So when you are tempted to despair because you continue to struggle, remember what God is doing through your circumstances. Look to Christ, whose resurrection guarantees victory. Look to Christ, who fought for you when you were his enemy. Look to Christ, the only Savior who can give you the strength to stand, and who will pick you up every time you fall. Look to Christ, and fight.

For more on this, be sure to listen to the entire message here.

16 Ways to Find a Wife According to the Bible

As a pastor, over the years I had my fair share of people approach me to find out if we were a "courtship" church or a "dating" church. The people invariably would tell me that their approach was "the biblical way." I eventually become leery of such claims given that the Bible does not say much about how to find a wife, or does it? Perhaps you've seen this list floating around the world-wide-web, but it's worth reviewing because it makes a very important point. So here it is, 16 ways to find a wife according to the Bible:

1) Find an attractive prisoner of war, bring her home, shave her head, trim her nails, and give her new clothes. Then she’s yours. (Deut. 21:11-13)
2) “Lay hold on” a virgin who is not betrothed to another man, and "know" her, but afterwards pay her father a sum of money. Then she’s yours. (Deut. 22:28-29)
3) Find a prostitute and marry her. (Hosea 1:1-3)
4) Find a man with seven daughters, and impress him by watering his flock.--Moses (Ex. 2:16-21)
5) Purchase a piece of property, and get a woman as part of the deal.--Boaz (Ruth 4:5-10)
6) Go to a party and hide. When the women come out to dance, grab one and carry her off to be your wife.--Benjaminites (Judges 21:19-25)
7) Have God create a wife for you while you sleep. Note: this will cost you a rib.--Adam (Gen. 2:19-24)
8) Agree to work seven years in exchange for a woman’s hand in marriage. Get tricked into marrying the wrong woman. Then work another seven years for the woman you wanted to marry in the first place. That’s right. Fourteen years of toil for a wife.--Jacob (Gen. 29:15-30)
9) Cut 200 foreskins off of your future father-in-law’s enemies and get his daughter for a wife.--David (1 Sam. 18:27)
10) Even if no one is out there, just wander around a bit and you’ll definitely find someone.--Cain (Gen. 4:16-17)
11) Become the emperor of a huge nation and hold a beauty contest.--Xerxes or Ahasuerus (Esther 2:3-4)
12) When you see someone you like, go home and tell your parents, “I have seen a woman; now get her for me.” If your parents question your decision, simply say, “Get her for me. She’s the one for me.”--Samson (Judges 14:1-3)
13) Kill any husband and take HIS wife. (Prepare to lose four sons though.)--David (2 Sam. 11)
14) Wait for your brother to die. Take his widow. (It’s not just a good idea, it’s the law!)--Onan and Boaz (Deut. or Lev., example in Ruth)
15) Don’t be so picky. Make up for quality with quantity.--Solomon (1 Kings 11:1-3)
16) A wife?--Paul (1st Corinthians, chapter 7)

Obviously, this list was written with humor in mind, and some of these "ways," are not prescriptive but descriptive of the sinful ways that God's people have conducted themselves in the past--they are in no way exemplary. But this does demonstrate an important point--people often want the Bible to say certain things, such as how to find a spouse and marry, but they ignore portions of Scripture that don't fit their paradigm. The Bible has more to say about arranged marriages, for example, than it does "courtship" or dating. So then, how do we proceed?
We have to realize that the Bible does not speak to every issue we will face in life. Just ask Solomon, who had to use wisdom when the two prostitutes came to him claiming to both be the mother of one child. We must follow those things that God has given us. In all of our relationships we have the obligation to exercise the fruit of the Spirit and not mistreat anyone, that is especially true for a prospective spouse. We also have the clear biblical command that a Christian is free to marry whomever he or she chooses, so long as the prospective mate is "in the Lord" (1 Cor. 7.39). But in the end, choosing a spouse calls for wisdom.
The Bible does not give us a specific means by which we can find spouses. Some might be introduced by family or friends. Some might cultivate a letter-writing relationship (or as we might more commonly find it, e-mail, or some form of social media). In some cultures the thought of dating or courting is out of the question. I once walked in on one of my office mates in grad school--he was a Christian training for the ministry in Japan. He was intently reading a file; it looked like a personnel file. Out of curiousity I asked him what he was reading. He told me it was a file on a young woman that his father had sent him. His family, sight unseen (except for a few photos in the file) was arranging his marriage. I was stunned, but nevetheless made aware that godly Christians don't all do things the same way. I.e., just because it's American and Christians do it doesn't mean its biblical or the only way.
The greater doctrinal point here is that in the pursuit of finding a spouse, we must be mindful two things: (1) that we are mindful of God's revealed will in the moral law--we should not violate it in word, thought, or deed; and (2) Christian liberty--where God has spoken, we are bound, but where he has not spoken we are free. We are not bound by the commandments of men. This means that godly Christians may differ in how they live their lives, but it doesn't mean that one is holier than another because she dates and doesn't court.
We should also note that in its collective history, the church has never addressed the issue in its creeds or confessions about how to find a spouse. Perhaps this should tell us that it is a matter of Christian liberty and that in the end, we should rely on God's grace, wisdom, prayer, and godly counsel rather than make claims that the Bible has never made.

Biological Disconnect

Biological Disconnect.

CHRISTIANS AND ALCHOHOL

By John MacArthur

SEVEN REVELATIONS OF FERGUSON

by Dan Phillips

I was just as happy to have my plans to write on this yesterday curtailed by Frank's post, as I usually am. It gave me a day more to ponder. That done — the ponderation having been ponderously pondered — I'll offer some thoughts, which in intent will be very like those I offered about "the Florida revival." That is, they will be Biblical principles whose application is I think fairly obvious.

Frank's focus was on the undeniable human tragedy. I won't reinvent that wheel, but will focus on other aspects. I hope the posts will be complementary. Don't blame his post for not being mine, nor mine for not being his. Fair enough?

To the seven revelations of Ferguson:

First: men outside of Christ are still hateful and still hate each other (Titus 3:3). Anger simmers not far below the surface. Evolution, real or imagined, biological or social, has changed none of that. No Federal program will fix it, no state or local legislation will fix it. It is a problem of the human heart, which lurks beneath every epidermal hue. Someone needs to propose a solution that transforms hearts. Anyone know of one?

Second: it still is better to gather the facts and hear an array of perspectives before coming to a conclusion (Proverbs 18:17). Some spoke awfully quickly when this situation first made the news. There seemed to be some feeling that immediate conclusions and statements should be made and issued.

One of the problems with this is that, once a public statement has been made, one is reluctant to walk it back publicly. Human nature and human pride make it very hard to retract a dogmatic stance, once publicly adopted. Better to wait longer and say less, than to jump the gun (pun unintended) and say too much.

Third: people ought to stick to what they know (cf. Proverbs 25:14). Being an expert in one area has nothing to do with expertise in others. For instance, one Christian brother who is a bookish conference speaker/author offered this:

To that, an equally-Christian brother with twenty years of actual experience in law enforcement responded:

Neither brother, probably, could do what the other does. It might have been well for the former to punt on this question, and stick with Scripture. "A man's got to know his limitations" may not be in Scripture verbatim, but it's sage advice.

As I'm trying to do. I'm a Christian, and I'm a minister of the word of God. If I have expertise, it's there. So I'll endeavor to speak as such.

Fourth: the very best thing parents of all ethnicities can do for their children is (1) repent and believe savingly in Christ (1 John 3:16), (2) advance in His Word as genuine disciples (John 8:31-32), (3) involve themselves in a faithful Gospel-proclaiming, Bible-teaching church (Hebrews 10:24-25), (4) marry before having children and honor the marital bond (Matthew 19:3-9) — and, in that overall context, (5) raise children in the fear and admonition of the Lord (Ephesians 6:4, among many others). In that context, they will teach their children many indispensable life-lessons. For instance, they will teach their children that

• The fear of Yahweh is the beginning of wisdom and knowledge (Proverbs 1:7; 9:10)
• Therefore they should seek and cultivate and embrace the fear of God from their earliest days (Proverbs 2:1ff.)
• Gangs will appeal to their most vulnerable points, but they must consider their violent end and heed the inscripturated voice of God's wisdom instead (Proverbs 1:10-32)
• Immoral people will sweet-talk them, but by Dad's instruction and God's word they should see right through it (Proverbs 2:16ff; 7:1ff.)
• They should pick godly friends who walk in the fear of God, or else they will come to harm (Proverbs 13:20; 22:24-25)
• They should avoid drunkards (and, therefore, druggies; Proverbs 23:20-21)
• They should study hard in school and learn a profitable skill while children (Proverbs 22:29)
• They should know that what will matter and will reveal their character is not how they see or feel about themselves, but what they actually produce (Proverbs 20:11)
• They should take full responsibility for their own choices and actions, and never blame others for what they choose and do (Ezekiel 18:4, 20; Romans 14:10, 12; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Galatians 6:5, 7-8, etc.).
• They should never steal, but instead should be productive and generous (cf. Ephesians 4:28)
• They should respect officers of the law as God's servants, knowing that disrespect for the office is disrespect for God which invites His judgment (Romans 13, especially vv. 1-5)
• If they defy the lawful authority, they should expect God's judgment to fall on them (Romans 13:4-5a).
• If in any of these things they choose to defy God and rebel against Him and His word, they must expect both of their parents to stand with God, and not to make excuses for, coddle, enable, or otherwise try to deodorize their sin (cf. Deuteronomy 21:18ff.)

Fifth: faithful pastors must prescribe and teach these things without prejudice (2 Timothy 2:14; Titus 3:1-2).  What I'm saying won't make the beautiful people love you. They won't. They won't praise you (as a Tweep did John Piper) for being "nuanced." You'll be told you're insensitive, you're ignoring the real problems, you're impractical. But as a minister of the Gospel, you know better. Sin is the problem. Sin is always the problem at some level; and there's only one solution for sin. The Son's blood buys your freedom (Ephesians 1:7), and the Son's word shows you how to live in it (John 8:31-32). 

That's what you have to give. You're not a social engineering genius. You're a servant of God who has His word. Don't set it aside. It applies here.

Sixth: if the issue of racism is ever to be resolved, people will have to stop thinking of bitterness and suspicion and resentment and prejudice as ills that other people really have to get over (cf. Romans 2:21-23; 1 Corinthians 10:12). Now, hear me: If you can read that sentence and think, "Well, he mainly means whites" or "blacks," you know something I don't. I mean people. I mean you, I mean me. I mean every color on the palette.

I've seen this in marriage. Every pastor has. The sure prescription for deadlock, for stalemate, is two people who are willing to change just as soon as the other person changes. You think that doesn't apply here? Mercy.

Seventh: the only real solution for racism is the one God instituted: the cross of Jesus Christ (Galatians 3:28-29; Ephesians 2:14-22; Colossians 3:11). Astute readers will say, "Some of those verses are about Jews and Gentiles, so they don't apply." To that, first: maybe some of those verses are, but not all; and second, they don't? You think the Cross addresses Jew-Gentile hatred and suspicion and contempt, but not black-white hatred and suspicion and contempt?

There isn't a Federal program that will fix this, or a local one. If one person says, "Let's make it harder for cops to kill people," another will say "Let's make it harder for people to menace cops." And each person will sound like he's enabling some form of sin — either a hypothetical thug's sin against a decent cop, or a hypothetical trigger-happy cop's sin against an innocent teen. You see where this goes? It's all beside the point.

The point is that only God has the answer, and it's the one we find only in His word.

MEDITATION THAT HONORS GOD

by John MacArthur The period of European history known as the Dark Ages were just that—dark. Mortality rates were exceptionally high. Medical advances could not keep up with the spread of disease. Poverty and illiteracy were pervasive. And on top of all that, the light of God’s Word was monopolized and distorted by the Roman […]

GTY Mobile

GTY Mobile.

THE CASE FOR CESSATIONISM STILL STANDS

by Tom PenningtonPastor-Teacher, Countryside Bible Church, Southlake, Texas
When Grace to You asked me to present the biblical case for cessationism at the Strange Fire conference last October, I was excited about the opportunity.  Although I am a convinced cessationist and had addressed this issue with my own congregation, I spent several months studying the Scripture and reading the relevant literature on both sides of this contentious issue.  But it wasn’t long before my initial euphoria turned to discouragement.
The problem was not (as some continuationists argue) because there is insufficient biblical evidence for cessationism to preach on for an hour.  My problem was the sheer extravagance of biblical material.  I was faced with a difficult decision between equally tempting choices:  to spend the hour I was given developing one argument or to present a brief summary of the primary arguments.  Both choices were fraught with slippery slopes and gaping chasms.  If I concentrated on one argument, the uninformed on both sides of the issue would race to the conclusion that cessationism is a tune with only one string and one note.  But if I tried to cover all the main arguments, I would have to leave crucial points and counterpoints on the cutting-room floor, appearing to leave holes in an argument that has none.  If you listened to my message at Strange Fire, you know that I eventually opted for the lesser of two evils—the second.  
In light of the difficulty of that decision, I have been fascinated by the responses to the biblical case I presented.  Cessationists have written to say that the conference strengthened their confidence in the Scripture.  I have heard from practicing charismatics who had been told there are no biblical arguments for cessationism but who were troubled by what they saw in their churches.  In God’s providence they listened to Strange Fire, the truth they heard resonated with their hearts, and they have since left the charismatic movement for good.
Frankly, much of the online opposition has been all heat and no light.  Some critiques have been so apparently self-defeating that they neither require nor deserve a reasoned response.  Among the mostly gracious and careful responses to the case for cessationism, Andrew Wilson’s critique stands out.  Several on both sides of the issue have suggested I respond to the issues he raised.  So that is what I will do here.
Surprisingly, Wilson devotes the first half of his critique to defending the common arguments for continuationism that I mentioned in passing in my introduction.  First, he quotes the arguments as Tim Challies summarized them, and then he defends them.  So I will quote Challies’s summaries and the key portions of Wilson’s critique.

(1) The New Testament doesn’t say they [miraculous gifts] have ceased. But then again, it doesn’t say that they won’t either.

Wilson responds:

The burden of proof is firmly on the shoulders of the one who would place a break at the end of the New Testament period, for the simple reason that, throughout Scripture, substantial changes in the way God communicates with people—and cessationism posits a substantial change… —are clearly communicated.

But there were, in fact, two huge changes at the end of the New Testament period—changes that even most charismatics (including Wilson) admit can be discerned from the New Testament but that are not clearly announced in one clarion passage.  Those two changes are (1) the end of the unique apostolate and (2) the end of canonical revelation.  When charismatics state their case against cessationism as Wilson does, they unintentionally also surrender the field to apostolic succession and ongoing canonical revelation.

(2) 1 Corinthians 13:10 - they [continuationists] say this means that only when Christ returns will the partial gifts of tongues and prophecies cease. This implies that the gifts continue. But this is an uncertain interpretation.

To this argument Wilson responds:

The charismatic case here [1 Corinthians 13:10] is immensely strong (and the overwhelming scholarly consensus in the commentaries would confirm this). For Paul, the imperfect (prophecy, tongues, knowledge) will cease at the arrival of the perfect (the return of Christ, when we shall see him face to face). Not much uncertainty there.

That is a case of both overstatement and misdirection.  It is overstatement because a survey of commentaries will reveal as many as ten possible interpretations of what “the perfect” is.  It is misdirection in that charismatics ignore that for most of church history this text was used primarily to argue against the continuation of the miraculous gifts.  I freely admit that some cessationists have tried to make this text bear too much weight.  But it is equally true that many charismatics, including Wilson in the quote above, try to make it bear too much weight in their defense.

(3) The New Testament speaks only of the church age, and so, [continuationists] argue, the gifts that began the church age should continue throughout it. They say we artificially divide it between apostolic and post-apostolic eras. But they do this, too, by not believing that the apostolic office still continues.

Wilson writes:

Actually, a huge number of charismatics don’t believe this at all. Many believe, for reasons outlined in my recent article in JETS, that even in the New Testament period there were eyewitness apostles (the twelve, Paul, James) and people who never witnessed the resurrection but were referred to as apostles anyway (Apollos, very likely Barnabas, Silas, possibly Timothy, and so on), and that while the eyewitness category ceased with Paul, the other category didn’t.

Here, I confess, I was personally disappointed in Wilson.  His comments reveal either that he just read the paraphrased version of my message on Tim Challies’s site or that he was careless—either of which is troubling in a person of his intelligence and education.
If he had listened to my complete message or read the transcript, he would have known that I acknowledged that most charismatics don’t believe there are eyewitness apostles today.  That was my point.  I specifically said that unless charismatics believe that there are apostles today at the same level as Peter and Paul—and most charismatics don’t—they also divide the church age.  And they relegate at least apostleship solely to the apostolic era.  They have become de facto cessationists—at least in part.
Positing a second tier of apostles as some do (which ignores any nontechnical, nontitular sense of the word apostolos in the New Testament) doesn’t change the point.  In fact, their protest proves the point.  There was a marked difference between the apostolic and postapostolic eras.  And by agreeing that the most significant mark of the age of the apostles—the men Jesus Himself appointed and called to be His official proxies—ceased, charismatics tacitly accept one of the key tenets of cessationism.

(4) 500 million professing Christians who claim charismatic experiences can’t all be wrong.  But if we accept this, then logically we should accept the miracles attested to by one billion Catholics in the world.  The truth is that 500 million-plus people can be wrong.

Wilson responds:

This is not really a fair representation of any responsible charismatic argument. Of course billions of people can be wrong: billions of people do not believe the gospel, and virtually no charismatic would contest that. A fairer representation would be to say that, in order to explain the enormous number of miraculous experiences testified to by charismatics . . . a cessationist has to resort to an awful lot of accusations of fraud, deliberate deceit and delusion amongst some extremely level-headed, critical and theologically informed individuals.

My statement is not only a fair representation of responsible charismatic argument, it is a very common—albeit informal—argument of reputable charismatic authors and scholars, as well as laymen.  To appeal as Wilson does to what he calls the “enormous number of miraculous experiences testified to by charismatics” only reinforces my point.  We have to accuse more than a billion Roman Catholics of “fraud, deliberate deceit and delusion” to reject their “miracles,” yet that is exactly what the church has always done—and what I suspect Wilson himself does.  If charismatics want to argue that sheer numbers lend credibility to their “miracles,” they have to own the weakness that comes with this argument.
After spending half of his critique on the arguments continuationists use to defend their position, to which I devoted less than five minutes, Wilson comes to the primary arguments I presented.
I began by defining cessationism.  Cessationists believe it is neither the Spirit’s plan nor His normal pattern to distribute miraculous spiritual gifts to Christians and churches today as He did in the time of the apostles.  Those gifts ceased being normative with the apostles.  In Scripture we find at least seven arguments that the miraculous gifts have ceased.  Again, since Wilson quotes Challies’s summary of my points, I will as well.

(1) The unique role of miracles.  There were only three primary periods in which God worked miracles through unique men. The first was with Moses; the second was during the ministries of Elijah and Elisha; the third was with Christ and his apostles.  The primary purpose of miracles has always been to establish the credibility of one who speaks the word of God—not just any teacher, but those who had been given direct words by God.

Wilson writes:

The crucial word here, which appears twice and is somewhat mysterious on both occasions, is “primary.”  Where in the Bible does it say that the miracles of Moses, Elijah or Elisha are more “primary” than those of Joshua (opening the Jordan and stopping the sun in its tracks isn’t bad), or Samuel (who had the odd prophecy), or David or Solomon, or Isaiah, or Daniel, or for that matter any of the canonical prophets (who, by Pennington’s definition, are exercising miraculous gifts)?

First of all, the point is not about God’s working miracles directly—something He did as He chose in both Old and New Testament history.  Instead, the focus was on those epochs in redemptive history when God chose to give men the capacity to work miracles.  There is a difference between God’s giving Moses the capacity to perform miracles and God’s directly giving Samson superhuman strength.  Samson used the strength God gave him, but he never performed a miracle.  And prophecy is a miraculous gift because God miraculously reveals His truth to a man.  But the prophet is not performing a miracle.
When you examine the biblical record, it is clear that there were three main time periods when there were miracle-working men.  Again, Wilson apparently didn’t listen to my message or read the transcript, because the first period I mentioned was not that of Moses but that of “Moses and Joshua.”  And although God performed miracles directly during the ministries of Samuel, David, Isaiah, and Daniel, where is the biblical evidence that they were given miracle-working power in the way Moses and Joshua or Elijah and Elisha were?  Create a comprehensive list of miracles performed by men in Scripture—not those performed by God directly—and the resulting list will support the point.  In thousands of years of human history, there were only about two hundred years in which God empowered men to work miracles.  And even during those years, miracles were not common, everyday events.
Wilson adds:

Where does it say that the “primary” purpose of a miracle is always to establish the credibility of the one who speaks the word of God?  One might have thought the primary purpose of the exodus was to lead Israel out of slavery, and the primary purpose of the fall of Jericho was to defeat God’s enemies, and the primary purpose of the destruction of the Assyrians was to preserve Jerusalem, and so on. And even if the “primary” purpose of all miracles was authenticating a preacher, which cannot be shown, it would by no means indicate that this was the only purpose.

When God granted Moses—the first human miracle worker—the power to work miracles, He gave Moses only one reason:  “that they may believe that the Lord, the God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has appeared to you” (Exodus 4:5).  I provided a number of other examples throughout the Scripture to demonstrate that God’s primary purpose in giving men power to work miracles was to validate them as His messengers.  Of course, God used Moses’ miracles to free Israel from Egyptian bondage.  But why did God give miracle-working capacity to Moses, rather than simply free the Israelites Himself?  According to God’s own statement, it was to validate His messenger.  At Sinai, no one doubted that Moses spoke for God.  Look up the other references I cited and you will find exactly the same pattern.

(2) The end of the gift of apostleship. In two places in the New Testament Paul refers to the apostles as one of the gifts Christ gave his church (1 Corinthians 12:28; Ephesians 4).

Most Christians, including most evangelical charismatics, agree that there are no more apostles like the twelve or like Paul.  So at least one New Testament gift—the gift of apostleship—has ceased.  That means there is a significant difference in the work of the Spirit between the time of the apostles and today, because one of the most miraculous displays of the Spirit disappeared with the passing of the apostolic age. Once you agree that there are no apostles today at the same level with Peter and Paul, you have admitted there was a major change in the gifting of the Spirit between the Apostolic Age and the post-apostolic age.  The one New Testament gift most frequently associated with miracles—the gift of apostleship—ceased.
Wilson responds:

This argument takes us nowhere: all agree that the eyewitness apostles have ceased, and all agree that (say) pastors and teachers have not ceased.  Only if we can show that all New Testament miracles, prophecies, tongues and healings came via apostles—which is patently not the case—would this hold any water at all.

Here, Wilson’s argument isn’t clear, but he seems to be relying on an article he wrote for the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (JETS) in which he argues for a two-tier approach to apostleship.  He maintains that the Twelve, Paul, and several others were “eyewitness apostles,” and those have ceased.  But there are lower level apostles who are the Spirit’s ongoing gift to the church.
Wilson concludes his JETS article with this:

Within conservative evangelicalism, it has become commonplace to divide the apostolate into two, neat types.  There are the Apostles (capital “A”) of Jesus Christ, comprising the twelve, James, Barnabas, possibly Silas, and then finally Paul: eyewitnesses of the resurrection, officers of the church, personally commissioned by Jesus, and with the capacity to write or authorise the scriptures, pioneer into new areas, lay foundations in churches, and exercise authority over them.  Then there are the apostles (lower case “a”) of the churches, including Andronicus, Junia, Epaphroditus, the brothers of 2 Cor 8:23, and possibly Timothy: messengers that were sent out among the churches, but with no eyewitness appearances or commission from Jesus, and without the capacity to write Scripture, pioneer, lay foundations or exercise authority over churches.  On this view, although there is occasional debate (as to which category, say, Eph 4:11 should correspond to), it is theoretically possible to dig up every occurrence of the word apostolos and put it squarely into one of these two categories.

The view that Wilson rejects above is not merely the common view of “conservative evangelicalism.”  It is the understanding of historic Christianity and even of many charismatic theologians.  Wilson finishes his JETS article by saying that a possible reference to Apollos as an apostle in 1 Corinthians 4:9 (which the entire article argues for but never proves) “may . . . suggest that, according to Paul, although the appearances of the risen Jesus ceased with Paul’s encounter on the Damascus road, the apostoloi did not” (emphasis added).  In other words, maybe there is another office in the church—Apostle, Second-Class—that continued after the death of the Paul and the twelve.
The weight of proving this novel idea falls on charismatics.  Wilson’s conclusion that the best evidence he can muster “may suggest” a two-tiered apostolate is hardly enough to overturn two millennia of Spirit-enabled interpretation.  The argument for cessationism based on the end of the gift of apostleship stands.

(3) The foundational nature of the New Testament apostles and prophets.  The New Testament identifies the apostles and prophets as the foundation of the church (Ephesians 2:20-22). In the context, it is clear that Paul is referring here not to Old Testament prophets but to New Testament prophets.  Once the apostles and prophets finished their role in laying the foundation of the church, their gifts were completed.

Wilson:

This [argument] runs aground on the sandbanks of Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12-14 in particular, in which it is assumed that local churches experience prophecy in their meetings, yet without such prophecy serving as foundational for the church for all time, or being written down in the canon.  Clearly, there is a foundational role for the apostles and prophets of whom Paul speaks in Ephesians (2:20; 3:6), but this in no way implies either that all prophecy has now ceased, or (obviously) that tongues or healings have now ceased.

Most charismatics admit that the New Testament “prophets of whom Paul speaks in Ephesians (2:20; 3:6)” play “a foundational role.”  But then without any clear scriptural support, they assume that the prophecy mentioned in Romans and 1 Corinthians must be lower level prophecies.  However, if there are not two levels of prophecy—which remains unproven—then Ephesians 2 is definitive.  Both the apostles and prophets were the foundation of the church, and their roles were never intended to last.

(4) The nature of the New Testament miraculous gifts. If the Spirit was still moving as he was in the first century, then you would expect that the gifts would be of the same type. Consider the speaking of tongues. At Pentecost, the languages spoken were already existing, understandable languages. The New Testament gift was speaking in a known language and dialect, not an ecstatic language like you see people speaking in today. Prophecies (which were then infallible) and healings are also different in character today from the NT period.

Wilson writes:

Again, this hits serious problems when it comes to 1 Corinthians 12-14, which scholars widely agree refers to ecstatic speech rather than known earthly languages, and to prophetic revelation which needs to be weighed or judged, rather than instantly being added to the infallible canon of scripture.

Contrary to what Wilson implies, there are many scholarly works and commentaries that do not support the view that 1 Corinthians 14 refers to ecstatic speech.  But even more important is the analogy of Scripture.  When Luke wrote the book of Acts, he knew what Paul had written six or seven years earlier in 1 Corinthians 14.  Moreover, Luke knew what was actually happening in the church in Corinth.  Yet without any caveat, Luke defines speaking in tongues as “we hear them speak in our own language” or our own dialect (Acts 2:7-8).
Wilson:

To say, further, that healings are different in character is to beg the question: there are numerous testimonies out there (I have heard many personally) of blind eyes seeing, deaf ears opening, the lame walking and even the dead being raised, unless one prejudges the veracity of such testimonies by assuming cessationism (or, of course, naturalism).

It is important to remember that all Christians believe God can cause blind eyes to see, open deaf ears, and even cause the lame to walk again.  But the key issue is whether God still distributes to people the miraculous ability to heal others.  When it comes to the supposed modern miraculous gift of healing, there are always “testimonies out there” and those who believe them “have heard many personally.”  But there are rarely firsthand accounts, and there is never verifiable evidence of the miraculous gift of healing—much less of the ability to raise the dead!

(5) The testimony of church history. The practice of apostolic gifts declines even during the lifetimes of the apostles. Even in the written books of the New Testament, the miraculous gifts are mentioned less as the date of their writing gets later. After the New Testament era, we see the miraculous gifts cease. John Chrysostom and Augustine speak of their ceasing.

Wilson:

There are two errors here. The first is that miracles are mentioned less in New Testament books that are written later; the book of Acts is certainly written after the books of 1 Thessalonians and James, and very probably after the other Paulines and Petrines, yet contains far more miracles (and John, among the latest books, has one or two miracles in it as well!).

I was not speaking of the working of miracles by the apostles (2 Corinthians 12:12) as Wilson seems to imply, but rather of the miraculous gifts given to individual Christians other than the apostles. When you trace the practice of the miraculous gifts by those other than the apostles against a time line of New Testament history and its letters, you will find that the miraculous gifts decline in their mention and use even during the apostolic period.
Wilson continues:

The second [error] is that we see the miraculous gifts cease after the New Testament; again, this begs the question by assuming that subsequent accounts of and responses to miraculous or prophetic activity, from the Didache and the Montanists onwards, are inaccurate or exaggerated. . . .  In any case, this sort of argument—that, since something gradually disappeared from the church over the course of the first two or three centuries, it must therefore be invalid—should strike any five sola Protestant as providing several hostages to fortune.”

Many scholars believe the original version of the Didache was probably written during the apostolic age, so it proves nothing about the continuation of the miraculous gifts after the time of the apostles.  There are scattered reports of the miraculous throughout church history, but many of them are connected to groups and leaders whose doctrine was seriously aberrant in some way.  And in spite of Tertullian’s connection to the Montanists, the church eventually spoke with one voice against them.
The consistent testimony of the church’s key leaders is that the miraculous and revelatory spiritual gifts ended with the Apostolic Age—they didn’t “gradually disappear” over several centuries.  I provided a sampling of quotes from across church history as proof.  John MacArthur cites many others in his book Strange Fire.  The consistent testimony of the Christian church’s key leaders across church history poses a huge problem for our continuationist friends.  As Sinclair Ferguson expressed it, continuationism provides no convincing theological explanation for the disappearance of certain gifts during most of church history.

(6) The sufficiency of Scripture. The Spirit speaks only in and through the inspired Word. He doesn’t call and direct his people through subjective messages and modern day bestsellers. His word is external to us and objective.

Wilson responds:

This is not so much an argument for cessationism as a restatement of it. Suffice it to say that James and Paul, to mention just two apostles, envisage Christians being given wisdom by God, experiencing the Spirit crying out “Abba!” in their hearts, and being given spontaneous revelation during church meetings, none of which conflict with their high view of the scriptures.”

I intentionally did not develop this point, because I knew Steve Lawson planned to address this issue in his message on sola Scriptura.  You can listen to or read Steve’s excellent defense here.

 (7) The New Testament governed the miraculous gifts. Whenever the New Testament gift of tongues was to be practiced, there were specific rules that were to be followed. There was to be order and structure, as well as an interpreter. Paul also lays down rules for prophets and prophecy. Tragically most charismatic practice today clearly disregards these commands. The result is not a work of the spirit but of the flesh.

Wilson writes:

I’m not qualified to comment on whether this is true of “most” charismatics, rather than “some,” but to the extent that this is true, I wholeheartedly agree with Pennington that miraculous gifts need to be governed and practiced wisely, in line with the New Testament.  Clearly, however, this is not an argument against using charismatic gifts—it is an argument against using charismatic gifts badly.

To his credit, Wilson decries the unbiblical practice of the charismatic gifts.  And I would agree that there are a few charismatic churches making valiant efforts at following Paul’s directives.  But he is too well read and informed not to know that charismatics claim to be 500 million strong.  Of that number, more than 125 million are Roman Catholics who have embraced a false gospel.  And of the remaining number, even charismatic writers estimate that close to 40 percent of the 500 million are involved with the prosperity gospel (other estimates have the percentage as high as 90 percent).  Add in the huge audiences watching charismatic television programs and services where the biblical directives are not followed, and far more than 50 percent of a movement that claims to be a work of the Spirit is either preaching a damning gospel or completely disregarding the Spirit’s clear New Testament commands regarding practice of the gifts.  That is more than a few charismatics behaving badly.  Instead, it demonstrates that the movement as a whole can claim neither the Scripture nor the Spirit.
Wilson concludes his critique:  “I think that the cessationist position is biblically distorted, theologically confused and historically exaggerated.” Sadly, it is the charismatic position that is out of step with the Scripture, with historic theology, and with the key figures of evangelical church history.  The biblical case for cessationism still stands.
If you want to read more on charismatic issues, see the brief bibliography below.
A Brief Bibliography of Books Arguing for Cessationism

• John MacArthur, Charismatic Chaos.
• John MacArthur, Strange Fire.
• Samuel Waldron, To Be Continued?.
  [Best brief work on the issue for laymen]
• Sinclair Ferguson, The Holy Spirit.
  [Best work on the role of the Holy Spirit, and a helpful defense of cessationism]
• Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.  Perspectives on Pentecost.
  [Recommended]
• B.B. Warfield, Counterfeit Miracles.
  [Classic historical defense of the end of the miraculous but not a biblical defense; recommended]
• Robert Reymond, What About Continuing Revelations and Miracles in the Presbyterian Church Today?[Recommended; deals primarily with the gift of tongues but also addresses the issue of cessation; out of print]
• Larry Pettigrew, The New Covenant Ministry of the Holy Spirit.[Helpful work on the roles of the Spirit in the Old Testament & New Testament; section on cessation and tongues is helpful]
• Walter Chantry, Signs of the Apostles.
  [Helpful but a bit dated]
• Robert Thomas, Understanding Spiritual Gifts.
  [Great exposition of 1 Corinthians 12-14]
• Robert Gromacki, The Modern Tongues Movement.
• R.C. Sproul, The Mystery of the Holy Spirit.
• Arthur Johnson, Faith Misguided: Exposing the Dangers of Mysticism.
• Graham Cole, He Who Gives Life: the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit.