| DOCTRINES OR
ARTICLES OF INTEREST
(To see our "Doctrinal Statement"
click here.)
"Ordained to Eternal Life?"
by Adam Clark
Article on Adam Clarke
The Ignorant Thinking of Bush & Blair on
the Middle East" by Pas. Merrill
"Is the Qur'an Really a Book of Peace?" by Pas. Merrill
"Speaking in Tongues" by Ian Boyne
The (non-Calvinistic) Doctrine of Election
Implanted Chips in
Our Troops? (Precursor to the mark of the beast!)
Sharon Clearwater's
first soulwinning experience!
My Reasoning Why not to be Associated with the Lawndale-Hawthorne
Ministerial Association.
by Pastor Greg Merrill
Church Attendance. By Pas. Merrill
Blessing of the Animals. Pas. Merrill
|
"Ordained to eternal
life?" Acts 13:48, by Adam Clarke,
regarding being "appointed" or ordained to eternal life.
Verse 48. As many as were "ordained" to eternal life believed.
This text has been most pitifully misunderstood. Many suppose that it
simply means that those in that assembly who were fore-ordained; or
predestinated by God's decree, to eternal life, believed under the
influence of that decree. Now, we should be careful to examine what a
word means, before we attempt to fix its meaning. Whatever tetagmenoi
may mean, which is the word we translate ordained, it is neither
protetagmenoi nor proorismenoi which the apostle uses, but simply
tetagmenoi, which includes no idea of pre-ordination or pre-destination
of any kind. And if it even did, it would be rather hazardous to say
that all those who believed at this time were such as actually
persevered unto the end, and were saved unto eternal life. But, leaving
all these precarious matters, what does the word tetagmenov mean? The
verb tattw or tassw signifies to place, set, order, appoint, dispose;
hence it has been considered here as implying the disposition or
readiness of mind of several persons in the congregation, such as the
religious proselytes mentioned Ac 13:43, who possessed the reverse of
the disposition of those Jews who spake against those things,
contradicting and blaspheming, Ac 13:45. Though the word in this place
has been variously translated, yet, of all the meanings ever put on it,
none agrees worse with its nature and known signification than that
which represents it as intending those who were predestinated to eternal
life: this is no meaning of the term, and should never be applied to it.
Let us, without prejudice, consider the scope of the place: the Jews
contradicted and blasphemed; the religious proselytes heard attentively,
and received the word of life: the one party were utterly indisposed,
through their own stubbornness, to receive the Gospel; the others,
destitute of prejudice and prepossession, were glad to hear that, in the
order of God, the Gentiles were included in the covenant of salvation
through Christ Jesus; they, therefore, in this good state and order of
mind, believed. Those who seek for the plain meaning of the word will
find it here: those who wish to make out a sense, not from the Greek
word, its use among the best Greek writers, and the obvious sense of the
evangelist, but from their own creed, may continue to puzzle themselves
and others; kindle their own fire, compass themselves with sparks, and
walk in the light of their own fire, and of the sparks which they have
kindled; and, in consequence, lie down in sorrow, having bidden adieu to
the true meaning of a passage so very simple, taken in its connection,
that one must wonder how it ever came to be misunderstood and
misapplied. Those who wish to see more on this verse may consult
Hammond, Whitby, Schoettgen, Rosenmuller, Pearce, Sir Norton Knatchbull,
and Dodd.
|
Adam Clarke
1762-1832
Adam Clarke was born in Ireland in 1762.
Clarke became a Methodist in 1778, and was in a succession an
exhorter, local preacher, and regular preacher. His first
circuit was that of Bradford, Wiltshire, to which he was
appointed in 1782. He served in various places and traveled
throughout Great Britain, achieving fame as a preacher, and
being president of the British Conference in 1806, 1814, and
1822.
After 1805 he held an appointment in London, where he was a
member of the committee of the British and Foreign Bible Society
for several years, and one of the advisers of its Oriental
publications. He resigned from this task in 1819, having retired
four years previously, due to his impaired health, to Millbrook,
Lancashire, where he resided until his return to the vicinity of
London in 1823. He was also active in the service of the
Wesleyan Missionary Society from its inception in 1814, making
two missionary journeys in 1826 and 1828 to the Shetland
Islands.
The most important of his numerous works was his
Commentary on the Bible (originally published in
eight volumes, 1810-26), which had a long and extensive
circulation and took Clarke over four decades to produce. He
also published a Biographical Dictionary (1802) and its
supplement, The Biographical Miscellany (1806). His
Miscellaneous Works were edited in thirteen volumes by J.
Everett (1836-37).
Adam Clarke died in London on Aug. 28, 1832. He is perhaps
the most famous Methodist/Wesleyan commentator to date.
Comment by Pas. Merrill:
Clarke lived during the time when the Methodists preached the
gospel, and were basically sound in the teaching of other
doctrines.
|
|
"The Ignorant Thinking of Bush & Blair on
the Middle East" by Pas.
Merrill 7-27-06 After listening to President Bush, and then
the Prime Minister of Britain, Tony Blair, today, from their words,
neither has a clue of what is really behind the lack of peace in the
Middle East. As the terrorist group, Hezbollah, has kidnapped two
Israeli soldiers from off of Israel's land, and the terrorist group that
is ruling the people in the land that call themselves "Palestinians", Hamas, had already kidnapped an Israeli soldier from the Gaza strip,
Israel has been attacking Lebanon to get at Hezbollah, and Hezbollah has
been launching rockets continually into Israel. Bush and
Blair seem to think producing a lasting peace in the region is as
simple as returning those kidnapped, ceasing the Israeli attack and the
terrorist's attack, and coming up with some type of a guarantee that
Israel can live in peace as President Bush and others bring about the
establishment of a Palestinian State, coexisting side by side with
Israel. Simple? No! Impossible for the likes of
man. You might
as well try to get a pack of coyotes, that have lived long on living off
raiding chicken coops, to become vegetarians. Feed these
coyotes cat food, then see if they remain vegetarians after you move
them into a coop full of live chickens. Can't
people get it through their heads that as long as Islam exists and
Muslims
follow the Qur'an (Koran), as long as there continues to be faithful,
zealous Muslims of the Middle East, that have been raised and groomed to
hate & destroy Israel, with the promise of receiving eternal acceptance
and blessing from Allah, there will be no real peace in the Middle East!
Only the literal return of Jesus Christ, who alone has the power to
change the hearts and minds of such a large number of people so that
they will love their former enemies, can bring lasting peace in the
Middle East. But the Scriptures say that the world will even
rebel against Christ at His return, and instead of their willingness to
change, many will have to be destroyed. Peace in the Middle East
will only come after the return of the Prince of Peace, and then still
only after the world fights against Him.
Pastor Merrill |
|
"Is the Qur'an Really a
Book of Peace?" Listen to what the Qur'an says:
"And make ready for them whatever force you can...to frighten
(terrorize) the enemy of Allah...And whatever you spend in Allah's way,
it will be paid back to you fully and you will not be wronged."
pps. 377,378, v. 60
"Fight those who believe not in Allah,..nor forbid that which Allah
and His Messenger have forbidden, nor follow the Religion of
Truth,..until...they are in a state of subjection." Ch 9 Al-Bara'at
The Immunity p.390, v.29
"...slay the idolaters, wherever you find them,...lie in wait for them
in every ambush." p. 384 v. 5
"...so make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the
hearts of those who disbelieve. So smite above the necks and smite
every finger-tip of them. This is because they opposed Allah and
His Messenger. And whoever opposes Allah and His Messenger --
then surely Allah is Severe in requiting." Ch 8
Al Anfal The Battle of Badr p. 367, vs. 12,13.
"The only punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His
Messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is that they should be
murdered, or crucified, or their hands and their feet should be cut off
on opposite sides, or they should be imprisoned." Ch 5 Al-Ma'idah
The Food p. 250
Allah will afflict you with chastisement from Himself or by our
hands. Ch 9 Al-Bara'at The Immunity p.398, v.52
Fight them; Allah will chastise them at your hands...and
assist you against them..." p. 387 v.14
O Prophet, urge the believers to fight." p.378, v.65
The Qu'ran is where the Islamic terrorist finds their justification
to carry out their terror. |
Speaking in Tongues
Ian Boyne
The
issue of speaking in tongues has divided many Churches. Is there a
biblical basis for tongue speaking as commonly practiced in the
Churches? Does God want us to talk in tongues? By tongues, I mean
unknown languages, or ecstatic speech. Is tongues a kind of prayer
language?
What is important is a love of the Truth. The Holy Scriptures
represent Truth. We must anchor our faith on the Scripture. If
there are experiences from God, they should be validated by the
Scripture. We should at least see some teaching that validates speaking
in tongues. If we find that the scriptures cannot back that up, then we
are in difficulty.
Experience is not the ground of Truth. The scripture
is. No Church has any authority over the scriptures. Every Church
must be guided by the scriptures.
Two or Three, with Interpreter
I would like to point out that the way tongues are practiced in some
Churches is not the way that the apostle Paul recommends the use of
tongues. Here are some example from scripture.
Paul states that he who speaks in an unknown tongue edifies
himself, but only prophesy (preaching) edifies the Church
(1 Corinthians 14:4). Tongue speaking is not something that edifies the
Church! He states that if any man speaks in an unknown tongue, that it
must be by two or three at the most, and each in turn,
one at a time (verse 27). In these Churches today, a lot of people
babble and speak in tongues at the same time, and Paul says this
should not be. Paul also says that there must be an
interpreter (verse 27). But you never hear, in your own language,
the interpretation of these tongues in these Churches. That is a direct
contradiction of this scripture. Paul says if there is no interpreter,
then the tongues must not be spoken in church! 1 Corinthians
14:28, "...let him keep silence in the
church; and let him speak to himself, and to God." If a
man feels moved to speak in tongues, and there's no interpreter, then he
should speak to himself and to God. Therefore, if a man feels moved to
pray in tongues, by himself, then that is scripturally based.
In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul is elevating teaching and
preaching over tongue speaking. In fact, Paul says that tongues
are not a sign for believers, but for unbelievers
(verse 22), while prophesy (preaching) is not for unbelievers, but
for believers. So if people want to edify the Church, it is
done through prophesy and teaching, and not through tongue
speaking, according to scripture.
This is one thing you must judge your Church
by; if people start speaking in tongues, and there’s no interpreter to
tell you what they’re saying. Why? Is that for show? Is that
just a display to show that they are so spiritual and righteous? And is
that a practice for a humble servant of God?
Is Tongues a Sign of a Believer?
Now, there are those that say tongues are the initial evidence of the
Holy Spirit. That when you get the Holy Spirit, the sign that you got
the Holy Spirit is tongue speaking. Some believe it is a sign of a
second blessing, that tongues represent a further anointing. They’ll
quote Acts 8:17-19; 10:44; and Acts 19 to show when believers were
baptized with the Holy Spirit, they spoke in tongues. But there are an
equal amount of verses that show believers did not talk in tongues when
they were baptized (Acts 8:38-40; 9:17-20; 16:15,32-34).
Tongues cannot be the initial evidence of the Holy Spirit,
because it is not a sign of believers, but of unbelievers (1
Corinthians 14:22)! Also, read 1 Corinthians 12:27-30 where the apostle
Paul asks rhetorical questions. He asks, 'are all apostles?' No is the
obvious answer. 'Are all prophets?' No. 'Are all teachers?' No. 'Are all
workers of miracles?' No. 'Do all have the gifts of healing?' No. 'Do
all speak with tongues?' NO! This means that not all believers
speak in tongues. Therefore, tongues could not be a sign of the receipt
of the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit is given to everyone
who sincerely repents and is baptized, but not everyone has the gift of
tongues. So this one text alone rebukes the teaching that it is a sign
of the receipt of the Holy Spirit.
Tongues in the Book of Acts
The first recorded instance where tongues were spoken is in Acts 2.
Here, the term 'tongues' means "a known language". Tongues here
is not unknown tongues, or ecstatic speech. Why? Because
everybody understood what was being said in their own language
(Acts 2:6-11). This was a sign to the unbelievers; that God
accepted these nations’ languages. God used the medium of language to
say it is not just Hebrew alone which is the language with which the
righteous can communicate. I am going to let the gospel be preached to
them as a sign of the fact that the gospel would reach all four corners
of the earth. Tongues here were for communication, but also for a sign
to those who did not believe. The languages of these people were
accepted.
Tongues, in the book of Acts, functions as a sign of the acceptance
of the gentiles, and to authenticate the ministry of the early Church.
Miracles were done to prove the authenticity and truthfulness of
Christianity. Tongues were not used as a means
to build up the spiritual life of the believer, but as a sign to the
unbeliever.
Look at Acts 10:44-46, where it says the circumcised (Jews) were
amazed that the Gentiles received the Holy Spirit. Why were they amazed?
If there was no sign, if there was nothing visible that occurred, if
there was no manifestation, how would the skeptical believers know that
the Holy Spirit had come into them? There had to be a sign! Why? Because
the Jewish believers in Christ had a hard time understanding that God
had moved beyond their narrow confines. That their little game was over.
God was embracing all people. God had called other nations to be on
equal footing, and not strangers; to be members under a new covenant.
Unlike the old covenant which had gentiles accepted under it but were
not accepted with the same kind of status as the native born Jews. It
was still a covenant made with Israel, through which the gentiles had
access, but the new covenant is made with believers in all nations.
The Jews could not believe that the gentiles were given the gift of
the Holy Spirit, because they felt that they were to be the only
recipients of this great gift. So the tongues were given as a sign to
let the Jews know the gentiles were accepted. The Jewish believers felt
that God was exclusively theirs, that they were the special people of
God, and they were seeing now that this special gift of the Holy Spirit
was manifested by speaking in tongues. They now see that these despised
Gentiles have the same gift.
In Acts 19:1-6, the Holy Spirit entered certain people, then those
people "spake with tongues, and prophesied."
Why? In this case, the primary sign was that the ministry of Jesus is
superior to the ministry of John. There were still disciples of John
even after Christ’s ministry had come to an end.
You might ask, "Don’t we need that sign today? Don’t we need to get
the gospel out?" Well, the purpose was not just a matter of getting the
gospel out, it was a matter of proving Christianity to the skeptics.
Matthew 12:39, "...An evil and adulterous
generation seeketh after a sign;" The greatest sign those who are
converted can have is the life of Christ lived through the Holy Spirit
and through the fruits of the Holy Spirit.
Speaking in tongues was necessary to establish the Church in the
first century. God established Christianity through signs and wonders
and miracles (Hebrews 2:3-4). That was how Christianity was spread
rapidly. That was one of the reasons why it gave the early believers
such a zeal that they were able to withstand the greatest of
persecutions. Signs.
When John the Baptist was in prison, he had doubts that Jesus was the
Messiah. He sent two of his disciples to ask Jesus if he were really the
Messiah. "Jesus answered and said unto them, Go
and shew John again those things which ye do hear and see: The blind
receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are
cleansed, and the
deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached
to them"
(Matthew 11:4-5). All of these miracles Jesus pointed to as signs
that he was the Messiah. And when Christianity was to be established,
those signs were given.
Tongues represent a sign. Tongues are not given for the believers
edification. In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul admonishes teaching
and preaching instead over speaking in tongues.
"For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue
speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man
understandeth him" (1 Corinthians 14:2). Is Paul saying here that
the use of tongues must be just devotional? No. Paul states that he who
speaks in tongues is not really speaking for communication, he is
not really speaking to edify. He is speaking to God, because only
God understands what he is saying. This is sarcastic speech. Paul was
saying to keep quiet. Speak to God, then, but leave it out of the
Church.
There are varieties of gifts, but they are from the same Spirit (1
Corinthians 12:4), the same God inspires them all. Each is given the
manifestation of the Spirit for the common good (verse 7). There is no
example in the Scripture where a gift of the Holy Spirit is given for a
personal benefit or personal edification. A gift is for the service of
the Church. Therefore, the view that tongue speaking represents a
special anointing, a second blessing, is not supported in the Word of
God.
Does Tongues profit the Church?
Paul asks, "Now, brethren, if I come unto you
speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I
shall speak to you either by revelation, or by
knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?"
(1 Corinthians 14:6). Paul says tongue speaking does not profit the
Church! Why then are people speaking with tongues in Church? Why this
practice? Why this noise when Paul is saying there should be no place
for that if there is no interpreter?
You might ask, "Does the fact that Paul says there should be an
interpreter mean that he acknowledges the use of tongues, and what he is
merely doing is regulating tongues?" Well, Paul knows that this ecstatic
speech is not authentic, and by calling for people to speak in turn and
to have interpreters, he was actually showing the inauthenticity
of tongues. How so? Paul knew that this manifestation of tongue speaking
was not genuine, and he knew that believers could not interpret. So when
he would have had a few instances of people speaking, and nobody being
able to honestly interpret, then that should take care of the practice.
Paul was saying you don’t need to speak in tongues. Paul was simply
saying, "Why not be like me and speak five words to edify the Church
instead of ten thousand words in an unknown tongue? Hey, the way you are
doing it is wrong. If you insist on doing it, then find an interpreter!"
If somebody starts to go into ecstatic speech, others would not be able
to interpret. Why? Because it would not be a genuine language. Paul was
saying something which was foolproof to show that the practice was not
of God.
You might say, "That’s speculation!" But I say, if that’s not the
correct interpretation, then your interpretation of these tongues are to
benefit individuals spiritually, which is not supported by the
scriptures. If God has a message for the Church, would it make sense for
God to give that message to us in French, just to have someone else
interpret that for us in English for the rest of us? Why didn’t God in
the first instance give us the message in English? You might say,
"That’s human reasoning." But do you believe God gives it in French to
impress others?
When Paul said, "I thank my God, I speak with
tongues more than ye all" (1 Corinthians 14:18), was he
authenticating tongue speaking? No. In the next verse, Paul himself said
that, in Church, he would rather speak five
words in his own tongue than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue
in order that he could teach others (verse 19). Paul
was belittling tongues! Paul, as an educated person, was very likely
multi-lingual. Not many Corinthians were wise by human standards,
nor influential, nor of noble birth (1 Corinthians 1:26), they were
ordinary people. When he told the Corinthians he spoke with tongues more
than them, Paul spoke more genuine languages than they did! But
Paul was telling them to follow his example, and to not speak with
tongues in the Church. Paul is elevating the use of the native language
over languages which were not known or speech which could not
communicate fruits.
If people are speaking in tongues, and others do not know what
they are saying, how does that benefit them? Will speaking in
tongues today really convert an unbeliever? How could anyone say,
"Amen" when he does not know what they are saying? When you go to
Church, and people are speaking in tongues, and you are saying, "Amen",
how do you know that they’re not cursing God? Yet, this is done
every day in some Churches. If the whole Church began to speak in
tongues, as happens many times in these Churches, and outsiders or
unbelievers enter, will they not say that they are all mad?
When Paul wrote to the Christians in Corinth, who were mistaking
speaking in tongues for the power of the Holy Spirit, he said, "When I
come into your midst, I am not just going to listen to your testimonies
or to your speech (whether in a known language or an unknown), but I am
going to see whether there is any power in your lives. For the kingdom
of God and the Holy Spirit is manifested not in mere words but in power"
(1 Corinthians 4:19-20-Paraphrase).
We, the followers of Christ, profess to be indwelt by the Spirit of God.
But let us not forget that He Who indwells us is called the Holy Spirit,
and that His primary function is not to give us gifts but
to make us holy. May God give you the strength, dear reader, to
live a Holy Life. Amen. |
THE DOCTRINE OF ELECTION
Unconditional Election is also known as "Calvinistic
Predestination." The scripture teaches predestination, but not
Calvinistic Predestination. Scripture predestination is where
God pre-determined, not the identity of the saved, but
the character of the saved. We are not opposed to
predestination, for the scripture teaches it. However, Calvin's
view of predestination is entirely unbiblical and therefore a
false doctrine. Calvinistic predestination means that the future
is already determined (predestined). The implication is that it
doesn't matter what you do, it has already happened. You have no
free will.
By unconditional election, then, Calvinists mean:
- Out of fallen humanity God chose certain people unto
salvation. God elects people.
- The number of God's elect is fixed.
- God does not elect individuals based on foreseen merit
of any kind, including faith. Election is an act of God's
sovereign choice.
- God's election and calling are invincible.
- The purpose and motive of God's election are His glory,
"To the praise of His glorious grace!"
Identity or Character?
What is foreknown by God in these verses? Personal identity?
Or Character, purpose & plan?
Romans 8:29-30, "For whom he did
foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the
image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn
among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them
he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified:
and whom he justified, them he also glorified."
1 Corinthians 2:7, "But we speak
the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the
hidden wisdom, which God ordained before
the world unto our glory:"
Ephesians 1:3-4, "Blessed be the
God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us
with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
According as he hath chosen us in him before the
foundation of the world, that we should be holy
and without blame before him in love:"
Remember, God is not a respecter of persons (Acts 10:34;
Romans 2:11-12; 1 Peter 1:17). Unconditional Election makes the
Devil no enemy for the saved to worry about, so if predestined,
why beware? (1 Peter 5:8).
Bible Texts Calvinists
misuse to prove "Calvinistic Predestination"
-
Acts 4:28, "For to do whatsoever
thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be
done."
What was "determined before?"
The death of Jesus! This death had been prophesied as a part
of God's plan (Luke 22:21-22; Acts 2:22-23). The Jews did
not realize that they were fulfilling God's plan and He did
not force them to kill His Son; they were accountable for
their own actions.
-
1 Corinthians 2:7, "But we speak
the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom,
which God ordained before the world unto our glory:"
- The context shows clearly that it is God's plan of
redemption that was foreordained. In verse 5, the power
of God is in the gospel (Romans 1:16).
- In times past, it had been a mystery, not fully
revealed.
- Even the prophets did not understand completely
about Christ.
- But now this plan is revealed as the wisdom of God
(Ephesians 3:3,5; 1 Peter 1:10,12).
- This sacrifice was for our salvation. It was a part
of God's eternal purpose (Ephesians 3:8,11).
-
Romans 8:28-30, "And we know that
all things work together for good to them that love
God, to them who are the called according to his
purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did
predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son,
that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called:
and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he
justified, them he also glorified."
- Who is under consideration here?
"Them that love God" not
a few whom God loves
- "The called according to His
purpose," we are not called by a still,
mysterious voice or by a direct operation of the Holy
Spirit or by God Himself, but by the gospel (2
Thessalonians 2:14).
- Those who hear, believe and respond in obedience are
referred to as "the called"
(Galatians 1:6; 1 Peter 2:9).
- In Romans 8:28-30, we can see the unfolding of God's
plan. God determined to send mankind a Savior to die for
all men.
- He foreordained all of the events before they
actually took place.
- In that sense, God predestinated our salvation. It
was not that He selected us individually to be saved or
lost, but that those who accepted the gospel call would
be saved.
- Those who answer that call are justified and
glorified.
What was predestined in Romans 8:28-30? That we should
"be conformed to the image of his
Son." Thus, as in the next passage (Ephesians 1), it
was God's eternal plan that we become His children through
Christ.
We are God's chosen people, not individually selected,
but as a whole. Just as the nation of Israel was at
one time God's chosen people (Deuteronomy 7:6), so likewise
we are now such. 1 Peter 1:1-2 talks about Christians being
"elect according to the foreknowledge
of God the Father." But it is clear Peter is
referring to the Christ's assembly, not selected
individuals, in 1 Peter 2:9, when he says,
"But ye are a chosen generation,
a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar
people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him
who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous
light:"
-
Ephesians 1:4-5,11 "According as
he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of
the world, that we should be holy and without blame
before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the
adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself,
according to the good pleasure of his will...In whom
also we have obtained an inheritance, being
predestinated according to the purpose of him who
worketh all things after the counsel of his own will."
- God has had an eternal plan in mind; a scheme of
redemption for those who will accept it.
- Those who are chosen are those who are
"in Him" (Christ).
- We become God's children by our faith in and
obedience to Christ's Will (verse 5). God adopts us into
His family upon our obedience (Romans 8:15; Galatians
4:4,6).
- The counsel of God's will (verse 11) refers to His
decision to send Jesus to redeem the obedient.
How does God decide who will be His children? The scripture
says, "...through Jesus Christ;"
"...through His blood;" and,
"...according to the riches of His grace." The focus of
being "predestined" is more on "through
Jesus Christ" than it is on us as individuals. It was
God's eternal plan that Christ would give His life so that He
could have children. Christ coming and dying was predestined.
Therefore, our acceptance of that and our ultimate salvation in
Him is also predestined (the culmination of God's eternal plan).
Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I
hated
The writing of the apostle Paul in Romans 9:8-16 is one of
the most avoided and unread passages of scripture. Those who
believe in Calvinistic Predestination say this verse proves that
God elects certain individuals, because this verse says, before
they were born, God loved Jacob but hated Esau.
Theologians try to position themselves so as to avoid giving
a strait answer. The evangelicals will not talk about it. The
reformed church apologizes for it. And the majority of
Christian's today have not heard about it. This passage, on its
face, does seem to speak of predestined individuals, but in
truth, it is not speaking of individuals, but nations.
Let us first quote this passage, then we'll use scripture to
interpret this passage.
Romans 9:8, "That is, They which are
the children of the flesh, these are not the children of
God: but the children of the promise are counted for the
seed."
Romans 9:9, "For this is the word
of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall
have a son."
Romans 9:10, "And not only this; but
when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father
Isaac;"
Romans 9:11, "(For the children
being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil,
that the purpose of God according to election might stand,
not of works, but of him that calleth)"
Romans 9:12, "It was said unto her,
The elder shall serve the younger."
Romans 9:13, "As it is written,
Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."
Romans 9:14, "What shall we say then?
Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid."
Romans 9:15, "For he saith to Moses, I
will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have
compassion on whom I will have compassion."
Romans 9:16, "So then it is not of him
that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that
sheweth mercy."
Now, let's break this passage down verse by verse:
Verse 8: Not the children who descend from
Abraham’s loins, nor those who were circumcised as he (Paul)
was, are the people of God; but those who are made children by
the good pleasure and promise of God, as Isaac was, are alone to
be accounted for the seed with whom the covenant was
established.
Verse 9: "The word of
promise" refers to the promise recorded in Genesis 18,10,
"...Sarah thy wife shall have a son...".
This is made clear by the fact that verse 9 repeats some
of this promise recorded in Genesis 18:10. This shows that it is
the sovereign will and act of God alone, which singles out and
constitutes the peculiar seed that was to inherit the promise
made to Abraham.
Verse 10: A Jew might object by saying,
“Ishmael was rejected, not by the sovereign will of God, but
because he was the son of the handmaid, or bond-woman, and
therefore unworthy to be the peculiar seed;" but observe, this
was not the only limitation of the seed of Abraham with regard
to inheriting the promise. When Rebecca was with child by that
one person of Abraham’s seed to whom the promise was made
(Isaac), she went to inquire of the Lord:
Genesis 25:22-23, "...And she went to
enquire of the LORD. And the LORD said unto her, Two
nations are in thy womb, and two manner of
people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the
one people shall be stronger than the other people;
and the elder shall serve the younger."
That is, the posterity of the younger shall be a nation much
more prosperous and happy than the posterity of the elder. This
is speaking about two different nations, two manner of
people, and not two individuals (Jacob and Esau). Jacob and
Esau represent these two nations.
Verse 11: As the word
"children" is not in the text, but added by bible
translators, the word "nations" would be more proper; for it is
of nations that the apostle speaks, as Genesis 25:22-23
(from the above comment) shows, and as the following verses
show, as well as the history to which he refers.
Verses 12-13: "The elder
shall serve the younger." These words, with those of
Malachi, "I loved Jacob, And I hated Esau"
(Malachi 1:2-3), are cited to show that these words are
used in a national and not in a personal sense.
This is evident from this fact: that, taken in the latter sense
they are not true, for Jacob never did exercise any power over
Esau, nor was Esau ever subject to him. Jacob, on the contrary,
was rather subject to Esau, and was sorely afraid of him; and,
first, by his messengers, and afterwards personally,
acknowledged his brother to be his lord, and himself to be his
servant (see Genesis 32:4; 33:8, 13). However, in the former
sense, it is true, because the far greatest part of Jacob’s
posterity were wicked, and rejected by God; and Esau’s posterity
were partakers of the faith of their father Abraham.
From these premises the true sense of the words immediately
following, "Jacob have I loved, and Esau
have I hated" (Malachi 1:2-3, Romans 9:13), fully
appears; that is, that what he had already cited from Genesis
25:22-23 concerning the two nations, styled by the names of
their respective heads, Jacob and Esau, was but the same in
substance with what was spoken many years after by the Prophet
Malachi. The unthankful Jews had, in Malachi’s time, either in
words or in their heart, expostulated with God, and demanded of
him wherein he had loved them? "I have
loved you, saith the Lord: yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved
us?" (Malachi 1:2). To this the Lord answers,
"Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? Yet I
loved Jacob and hated Esau, and laid his mountains
and his heritage waste for the dragons of the
wilderness. Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished, but we
will return and build the desolate places; thus saith the
Lord of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down;
and they shall call them, The border of wickedness, and, The
people against whom the Lord hath indignation for ever. And your
eyes shall see, and ye shall say, The Lord will be magnified
from the border of Israel" (Malachi 1:2-5).
It incontestably appears from these passages that the prophet
Malachi does not speak at all of the person of Jacob or
Esau, but of their respective posterities. For it was not
Esau in person that said, "We are impoverished; neither were his
mountains nor heritage laid waste." Now, if the prophet
Malachi
speaks neither of the person of the one nor of the person of the
other, but of their posterity only, then it is evident that the
apostle Paul speaks of them in the same way.
Neither is there here any Scriptural or rational ground for
the decree of unconditional personal election and reprobation,
which, comparatively, modern times have endeavored to build on
these scriptures, because:
- It is here proved that Esau is not mentioned under any
personal consideration, but only as the head of his
posterity.
- The testimony of Scripture amply proves that all Esau’s
posterity were not, even in this sense, reprobated; nor all
Jacob’s posterity elected.
- Neither does that service, or subjugation to Jacob,
which the Divine oracle imposed on Esau, import any such
reprobation as some contend for; as the servant may be
elected, while the master himself is in a state of
reprobation.
- Were it even granted that servitude did import such a
reprobation, yet it is certain that Esau, in person, never
did serve Jacob.
- Nor does the hatred of God against Esau import any such
reprobation of the person of Esau, because it is
demonstrable that it related, not to Esau personally, but to
his posterity.
- The scope of the apostle’s reasoning is to show that God
is the sovereign of his own ways, has a right to dispense
his blessings as he chooses, and to give salvation to
mankind, not in the ways of their devising, but in that way
that is most suitable to his infinite wisdom and goodness.
Therefore:
- He chose the Jewish people from all others, and revealed
himself to them. Thus they were the elect, and all the
nations of mankind reprobate.
- When the fullness of the time came he revealed himself
also to the Gentiles, who gladly received the Gospel: and
the Jews rejecting it, were cast off. Thus the elect became
reprobate, and the reprobate, elect.
- The Jews, the descendants of Jacob, who rejected the
salvation of Christ, became precisely like the Edomites, the
descendants of Esau; they builded, but God pulled down;
their mountains and heritage are now laid
waste for the dragons of the wilderness; and they properly
may now be called the border of wickedness, a people against
whom the Lord hath indignation for ever: they have rejected
the Lord that bought them, and so have brought upon
themselves swift destruction.
That no personal, absolute, eternal reprobation of Esau can
have been intended, we learn from this; that he was most amply
reconciled to his brother, who had so deeply wronged and
offended him, by depriving him of his birthright and his
blessing: and his having forgiven his brother his trespasses is
proof that God had forgiven him:
Matthew 6:14, "For if ye forgive men
their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive
you."
Therefore there can be assigned no competent ground of his
damnation, much less of his personal reprobation from all
eternity. And were such a personal reprobation intended, is it
not shocking to suppose that the God of endless mercy, in whose
sight his pious parents had found favor, should inform them,
even before their child was born, that he had absolutely
consigned him, by an irrevocable decree to eternal damnation? A
message of such horrid import coming immediately from the mouth
of God, to a tender, weak, and delicate woman, whose hour of
travail with two children was just at hand, could not have
failed to produce abortion, and destroy her life. But the
parents perfectly understood their God, and saw no decree of
reprobation in his message; "two manner of
nations are in thy womb-and the elder shall serve the younger."
There is no reason, worthy the most wise and gracious God,
why he should make known to the world such a thing concerning
Esau, who was yet unborn, that he had reprobated him from all
eternity. Such a revelation could be of no spiritual advantage
or edification to mankind, but rather of a malignant influence,
as directly occasioning men to judge hardly of their Maker, and
to conceive of him as no faithful Creator; as having no care, no
love, no bowels of compassion towards the workmanship of his own
hands.
Verse 16: "So then it is
not of him that willeth." The making or continuing any
body of men the peculiar people of God, is righteously
determined; not by the judgment, hopes, or wishes of men, but by
the will and wisdom of God alone. For Abraham judged that the
blessing ought, and he willed, desired, that it might be given
to Ishmael; and Isaac also willed, designed, it for his
first-born, Esau: and Esau, wishing and hoping that it might be
his, readily went, ran a hunting for venison, that he might have
the blessing regularly conveyed to him: but they were all
disappointed-Abraham and Isaac, who willed, and Esau who ran:
for God had originally intended that the blessing of being a
great nation and distinguished people should, of his mere good
pleasure, be given to Isaac and Jacob, and be confirmed in their
posterity; and to them it was given. And when by their apostasy
they had forfeited this privilege, it was not Moses’ willing,
nor any prior obligation God was under, but his own sovereign
mercy, which continued it to them.
Impossible not to Believe if
God Wills?
The doctrine of Irresistible Grace states that God wills a
person who is elect to believe, and that it is therefore
impossible for that person not to believe. This too contradicts
the Bible, for there are many examples of those who indeed
resisted. In John 5:39-40, Jesus said that the Scriptures bear
witness of Him. But, He says, "You are
unwilling to come to Me, that you may have life." In
Matthew 23:37, Jesus laments over Jerusalem. He was certainly
willing for them to be saved, but they were not. In Acts 6:8-10,
Stephen was "full of grace and power . . .
and the Spirit," and yet those who heard his preaching
resisted. In Acts 7:51, before Stephen is put to death, he said,
"You men who are stiff-necked and
uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy
Spirit."
Conclusion
The Bible does teach predestination, but not the kind that
Calvinists teach. The Bible does not teach that God has decided
ahead of time who will be saved and who will be lost. We are
free, moral agents with the capacity to accept or reject God's
commandments.
Predestination or fore-ordination is what God did before the
world began, as He determined to save man from sin through the
sacrifice of His own Son. Those who answer His call through the
gospel experience the blessings of that plan now in Christ
Jesus. (Romans 2:3,11)
|
Implanted Chips in
Our Troops? (Precursor
to the mark of the beast! Pas. Merrill)
A Florida company wants to get under the
skin of 1.4 million U.S. servicemen and women. VeriChip Corp, based in
Delray Beach, Fla., and described by the D.C. Examiner as "one of the
most aggressive marketers of radio frequency identification chips," is
hoping to convince the Pentagon to allow them to insert the chips, known
as RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) chips under the skin of the
right arms of U.S. servicemen
and servicewomen to enable them to scan an arm and obtain that person’s
identity and medical history. The chips would replace the legendary
metal dog tags that have been worn by U.S. military personnel since
1906.
The device is usually implanted above the triceps area of an
individual’s right arm, but can also by implanted in the
hand if scanned at the proper
frequency. The VeriChip responds with a unique
16-digit number, which can correlate the user to information
stored on a database for identity verification, medical records access
and other uses. The insertion procedure is performed under local
anesthetic, and once inserted it is invisible to the naked eye.
The company, which the Examiner notes has powerful political
connections, is "in discussions” with the Pentagon, VeriChip spokeswoman
Nicole Philbin told the Examiner. "The potential for this technology
doesn’t just stop at the civilian level,” Philbin said. Company
officials have touted the chips as versatile, able to be used in a
variety of situations such as helping track illegal immigrants or giving
doctors immediate access to patient’s medical records.
On Monday the Department of State started to issue electronic passports
(e-passports) equipped with RFID chips. According to reports the U.S.
government has placed an order with a California company, Infineon
Technologies North America, for smart chip-embedded passports.
The Associated Press said the new U.S. passports include an electronic
chip that contains all the data contained in the paper version name,
birth date, gender, for example and can be read by digital scanners at
equipped airports. They cost 14 percent more than their predecessors but
the State Department said they will speed up going through Customs and
help enhance border security.
The company's hefty political clout is typified by having former
secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Tommy
Thompson, on its board of directors.
Thompson assured the Examiner that the chip is safe and that no one —
not even military personnel, who are required by law to follow orders —
will be forced to accept an implant against his or her will. He has also
promised to have a chip implanted in himself but could not tell the
Examiner when.
"I’m extremely busy and I’m waiting until my hospitals and doctors are
able to run some screens," he told the newspaper.
Not everybody agrees with Thompson, the Examiner reported, noting that
the idea of implanting the chips in live bodies has some veterans’
groups and privacy advocates worried.
"It needs further study,” Joe Davis, a retired Air Force major and a
spokesman for the D.C. office of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, told the
Examiner.
And Liz McIntyre, co-author with Katherine Albrecht of "Spychips: How
Major Corporations and Government Plan to Track your Every Move
with RFID," said that VeriChip is "a huge threat” to public privacy.
"They’re circling like vultures for any opportunity to get into our
flesh,” McIntyre told the Examiner. "They’ll start with people who can’t
say no, like the elderly, sex offenders, immigrants and the military.
Then they’ll come knocking on our doors.”
In an e-mail to the Examiner, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., wrote: "If that
is what the Defense Department has in mind for our troops in Iraq, there
are many questions that need answers. "What checks and balances,
safeguards and congressional oversight would there be?” Leahy asked.
"What less-invasive alternatives are there? What information would be
entered on the chips, and could it endanger our soldiers or be
intercepted by the enemy?”
The company, the Examiner wrote, is also unsure about the technology.
According to company documents, radio frequencies in ambulances and
helicopters could disrupt the chips’ transmissions. In a filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, VeriChip also said it was unsure
whether the chip would dislodge and move through a person’s body. It
could also cause infections and "adverse tissue reactions,” the SEC
filing states.
But Philbin downplayed the danger of the chips.
"It’s the size of a grain of rice,” she said. "It’s like getting a shot
of penicillin.”
Note from Pastor
Merrill "How interesting to see the technology come
about that makes Biblical prophecy understandable."
Rev 13:16 "And he (the Antichrist)
causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to
receive a mark in their right
hand, or in their foreheads; and
that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of
the beast, or the number of his
name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count
the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number
is six hundred threescore and six (666).
|
Sharon
Clearwater's first soulwinning experience!
8-20-06 I asked Sharon Clearwater to put into
writing how she recently led her first soul to Christ.
The Lord would love to see many more stories like this from you
readers. Below is Sharon's story re: Francine
Schultz. She would tell me bits and pieces of her life, and I
would interrupt her and pray a few seconds about what she was
sharing with me at work. Praying surprised her. I
did this on two or three different occasions, over a period of
two weeks. She said she's never been around a person so
"spiritual" is the term she used. She said "You must be an
angel." I said "I'm no angel. That's the Holy Spirit in me
you see. He lives in those who are saved." I don't think
she quite understood that. After that, I gave her the
tract " May I Ask You a Question". She read it, and also
for a few days carried it around with her in her pocket at work
for good luck. I think she was feeling the Holy Spirit wooing
her, and thought it good luck. When she told me that, I
said "There's no such thing as good luck," that "it was the Holy
Spirit wooing you." I called her that night and asked if
she had any questions. She said "No", so I asked if she would
be willing to pray the prayer in it with me and she said "Yes".
So we said it together over the phone. She's very open to it.
Spiritual things are very foreign to her. She has a bible (Good
News for Modern Man) and
she's reading some of the Psalms in it. I've been giving her
scripture verses, and she really was impressed and blessed with
Phil. 4:6-8. I asked her to look it up in her bible.
She's such a "babe" in Christ that she didn't know how to do
it. I'm trying to explain to her how. When I talk with her,
I'm not sure she understands what it means to be lost, what sin
is, and that we need a Savior. It's hard for her to
believe Jesus was raised from the dead, but she's processing it,
and is very open to a spiritual discussion. She can't believe
I'm praying for her, and that some in our church are praying for
her. I think she's being very trusting right now in her belief
in trying to understand, like a little child. It's amazing how
precious the Lord is showing me she is, in her becoming a child
of our Lord in her inner being. I can't believe this writing is
so long, but I think the Holy Spirit is keeping me rolling with
it, and giving me the words to share this. Any how, every day I
see her at work I try to share something scriptural with her.
This is a real blessing to both of us. Keep on praying for her
(I know you will) and that I keep on with her too. Thanks for
asking me to making the commitment to share this with you.
Sharon
|
My Reasoning Why not to be Associated
with the Lawndale-Hawthorne Ministerial Association.
by Pastor Greg Merrill
As I write, it is 8:15 a.m., Wed, May 9th, 2007 and the
Lawndale-Hawthorne Ministerial Association is holding their monthly
meeting this month at CBC. I am not present, and have thought long and
hard on whether to attend this particular meeting or not, because it is
at CBC.
Probably being groomed in this direction from my first days of going to
church as an adult, I had no desire to be involved with Ministerial
Associations of this nature. When I first came to CBC as pastor, seeing
an elder was encouraging me to go, along with the husband of a long time
member, whose father had one time been Mayor of Hawthorne, I decided to
attend these meeting for a time (just less than a year I believe) to
give them a chance. After some time, and after the Catholic priest
walked out on the meeting where our elder & I were presenting a Peter
Lowe Business Seminar (that would include the sharing of the gospel at
the Forum in Inglewood) I stopped going.
As I considered going to this meeting today, and at one point decided I
should (because I wouldn't get any bad feedback if I did), I considered
why I am not a part of this group. It is by my conviction of not wanting
to be involved in a supposed godly ministry with people that, one,
either do not hold to the authority of God's Word, or two, don't rightly
understand God's Word. Five words came to my mind to help me finalize my
decision not to go to this meeting, and to continue not having anything
to do with this type of group: Ecumenicalism, socialism, Pentecostal,
Catholic, and political.
Ecumenicalism is seen in this group in that they are a combination of
differing religious groups; Methodist, Lutheran, Baptist, Charismatic,
Pentecostal, Catholic etc., that all supposedly want to put their
differences aside to work for the spiritual and social good of the
community. Associating with groups that hold to false doctrines, in
order to do social good, is not a right option for me.
Socialism is a word that comes to mind when I think of how some of these
churches put more of an emphasis on meeting the earthly needs of mankind
than the spiritual needs of man. Christ taught just the opposite, and I
am following Christ, not the thinking of these kind of men and women,
("Women being pastors" being one of the number of false teachings within
this group).
"Pentecostal" brings to mind churches that have ministers that accept
the practice of speaking in tongues, whether it may only be privately,
or whether they incorporate it into their services. Included would be
the teaching that all the spiritual gifts of the infant church
(including healing and prophecy) are still in effect today. I do not
want to be working with, or associated with groups that are leading
people into false doctrine.
Catholic doctrine teaches salvation by works, and operates with
unscriptural practices such as the RCC priesthood, confessional booths,
and transubstantiation, to name a few.
Unlike the others in the Association, their should be little question
that the Catholic members of this group aren't even real Christians at
all. I do not want to be working in ministry with those that say they
are Christians, and are really not.
Political close association with this particular group is something I
don't want to have, but I will refrain
from giving the particular reason why here, though I shared them with
the church elders when I had them approve this article.
So much for me personally, but if I hold this conviction, and am pastor
of CBC, why haven't I communicated this to the church? Why would I not
object to this Association meeting on our facilities, and being provided
our resources for a time, to plan a work that I don't support
personally, or as the pastor of CBC?
I will now answer my own question. First, I believe I am greatly at
fault in this area, not purposefully, but for not thinking this whole
subject through, and being a responsible pastor in this area. I judge
myself as being irresponsible in this area. With this meeting that has
taken place this morning, I have been faced with having to think it
through. From reading this, I would trust that the reader can now see
that I have thought it through, and have come to the conclusion that I
do not believe it is right for a God honoring, Bible believing Christian
to be involved with this Association. My point now is to judge myself,
and be on public record of how I would led CBC not to host these
meetings in the future. I do not point any fingers at our people that
have participated in working for, or with, this Association in the past.
I will leave them to the Holy Spirit in how they want to proceed in the
future, and how they want to view the past. In my non-attendance of
these meetings, I have led by example. In the writing of this article I
am also leading by word. Whether someone follows the example and
teaching of their pastor is something that they will give account to
God. If their pastor is wrong, and they can justify themselves before
God, then the problem is only with the pastor in this particular area.
As for myself, having prayed with God about this subject, I now feel I
am moving in a more responsible way before God in this area.
In conclusion, and in regards to this article, I would like to close
with 1 Th 5:21 which says "Prove all things, and hold fast to that which
is good." Consider before God what I have written, and make your own
choice whether to agree or disagree on these things, whether to act as I
would, or not.
May God be glorified,
Pastor Greg Merrill After
reading this article, the Elders of CBC, without any coercion from
myself, voted to no longer have the church host meetings of the
Lawndale-Hawthorne Ministerial Association. They too harbor
nothing negative to any individuals that want to associate with that
group on their own, but feel that for the church to do so, puts it in a
position of compromise we do not want to be in. |
|
Church Attendance As part of my Father's Day message for 2007, when we
had a record low attendance, I shared an article from the Daily Breeze
newspaper of 6-2-07. The article's title was "Dad's sins of
not going to church visited on Kids", and was written by Terry
Mattingly. Here are some things I learned. Men
religiously avoid church; three times as many avoiding it, as attending
it. One of the biggest reasons men are not in church is because
their fathers were not in church. In 1992 church attendance among
men had fallen to 43%. In 1996 it went down to 28%. The
Swiss did a study which showed:
If a father and mother were both faithful churchgoers, 33% of their
children would become faithful adults as well.
If the father was semi-active, and the mother was faithful, only 3%
of their children would become active in church.
If the father never went to church and the mother was faithful,
only 2% of their children would do likewise.
If the father didn't go to church, only 1 in 50 became faithful
churchgoers, no matter how strong Mom's faith.
If a man became a Christian, 93% of the time his whole family under
him would too.
I would hope more men would become aware of this (than did at CBC on
Father's Day) and decide to be in church more for their kid's sake.
|
My Justification of Using the Blessing of the Animals as an Opportunity
of Outreach.
In answer to at least three people voicing their objection against
having a "blessing of the animals" at Centinela Bible Church, I have
looked into the matter further, and thought it a good idea to write this
paper to try to explain why I thought it was a good idea, and share it
with you.
As I was contemplating on working with others to put together the
Centinela Bible Church calendar for 2008, I was thinking of different
ways we could reach out to our community. Because there is such a
dominant manifestation of Latinos in our community, and knowing that
from their background many would be familiar with the "Catholic"
practice of "The Blessing of the Animals," the idea came to me to do our
own "God honoring - plan of salvation sharing" version of "The blessing
of the animals." This would be in order to attract some of our Latino
community to come to our church and hear a clear presentation of the
gospel, without any mention or attack against the Catholic Church. Our
"blessing of the animals" would be free from any of the doctrinal errors
the Catholic Church might teach or practice, but even more important
than that, would include a clear presentation of the true plan of
salvation.
In conjunction with the blessing of the animals that we put on the
church calendar for April 13th, there will be a dramatic presentation
centered around the story of Noah's ark. What a dramatic illustration
the story of Noah's ark has been regarding the condition of the world,
the judgment upon sin, the plan of salvation, the majority of the world
rejecting God's plan, and only a few that would believe and obey God,
trusting in His provision, being saved.
It was announced to the church that anyone that would like to work
on the church calendar was welcomed to come the day of January 5th. When
I presented this idea of blessing the animals to those that chose to
give of their time to help plan the church calendar, it was immediately
and enthusiastically received. When it was placed on the church
calendar, and the calendar posted at the back of the church sanctuary on
January 13th, as well as on the church website, it was announced to the
church where the calendar had been posted for their perusal. Several
weeks went by where I also announced in the slide presentation (that we
regularly show for thirty minutes between Sunday School and the morning
service) where the church calendar could be reviewed. It wasn't until
March 16th, sixty-three days later, that I started to get a few people
who were rather upset with the idea of us having this blessing of the
animals, which was now scheduled to take place within the next thirty
days.
I have heard the objection that animals don't have souls, and so
can not be blessed. Webster's Seventh Collegiate Dictionary defines
"bless" as "to hallow or consecrate, to invoke divine care for, to
confer prosperity or happiness upon." One of it's definitions for
"blessed" is "bringing pleasure or contentment." With these definitions
(being the understanding that I intended from the beginning) we can ask
God's blessing on animals, on plants, on people, on houses, cars,
businesses, travel, etc. Don't we also ask God to "bless" the food that
we eat?
I have heard the objection that blessing animals is not found in
the Bible. Of course my immediate response is to list all the others
things that are not found in the Bible, like Sunday School, Vacation
Bible School, AWANA, Billy Graham type crusades, buildings dedicated
solely for church services, all our electrical devices, and some of our
modern musical instruments, just to list a few. If we are going to just
limit ourselves to what is recorded in the Bible, we would run along the
same lines as the Amish.
Of course the common objection I have heard is that "the blessing
of the animals" is associated with the Catholic Church. Of course it is.
That is why I thought to use the same name, but not done in the same
way, or for the same reason. We would do it not to in any way condone or
support the Catholic Church, but to make a connection with the Catholic
people in our community. I do not plan to support how the Catholic
Church has a "blessing of the animals," or to condemn how they practice
it, or to mention them at all. My goal is to attract people to come,
through something that would not displease God, would seem familiar to
the community, and to give them the gospel, as well as asking God to
bless their animals according to the definition I have mentioned.
I talked with an elderly Christian lady that both loves animals,
has been and is still very involved with our church, and had also gone
to Catholic schools during her childhood, to see what her opinion would
be. She was absolutely fine with the idea. She also told me what a
"blessing" animals have been to her, and what a blessing it was for a
Latino woman to put her arms around her shoulders when this lady's dog
had to be put down by the vet. She would call me the next day, say she
was 100% behind what I was trying to do, but didn't want me to get hurt.
I called my former pastor, who is a long time I.F.C.A. pastor, and
he was fine with the idea, as long as the Elders had no problem with it,
which they don't. He cautioned me to be careful with it, not to use the
word "Catholic" in advertising it, or when doing it. I asked him to ask
his congregation to keep us in prayer.
I also talked with a well known, highly respected, Latino pastor,
pastoring for some time in a highly Latino city, that has helped plant
several other churches, and who is also a professor at a well known
Bible College. Though he was not aware of any other non-Catholic
churches doing what I was speaking of, and though he said it does
"smack" of Catholicism, didn't see anything scripturally wrong with it.
He did understand how some might not agree, or be upset with doing it.
He did share that in the Catholic Church, the people see their priest as
having sacerdotal power that the lay person does not have, and so the
lay person brings animals to the priest to bless, for a greater blessing
upon them than their own prayers would bring. I asked for this pastor's
prayers and further counsel if something came to him later.
I talked with another Latino, long term I.F.C.A. pastor, and he too
said (after consulting with still another) that he found nothing
unscriptural about how I was planning to take advantage of the familiar
term "blessing of animals" and use it in a non-Catholic practice. His
concern was whether we would cause the weaker brethren with objections
to stumble. I explained that I would not consider those that I have
heard about as "weaker brethren." I also see that through
sharing this paper with them it is an opportunity to teach them
something about making judgments before you study it out for yourself
and think through one's explanation for why they are doing something. It
is also an opportunity to demonstrate "thinking outside the box" in
order to try something different to reach people for Christ. Of course
people can choose to be inflexible, unteachable, set in their ways, and
go by their own feelings, regardless if they can’t back them up with
scriptural principles.
Paul wrote "For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a
servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a
Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the
law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are
without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under
law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the
weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all
things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do
for the gospel's sake, that I may be partaker of it with you." 1 Co
9:19-23. This is my heart in doing the blessing of the animals, not to
enter an error of Catholicism, but to do it in a correct, God-honoring,
Christ proclaiming way, which attempts to connect with the surrounding,
Latino community.
Now, not only is there the controversy of whether we should bless
the animals or not, there is also in some the fear that if we do, would
people leave the church over it. I came to this church almost ten years
ago, and was told by the Elders and Trustees that it was a church in
decline. They had been reading books on how to turn a church around, and
had me read two of those books as well. George Barna said that it was
not likely to turn a church around, and unless some drastic changes took
place, usually over a period of about seven years, that church would
cease to exist. Warnings were given in the books how many people hate
change, and don't like to try things that are new. Some one wrote that
the last words of a local church that ceased to exist were "We have
never done it that way before." Our church has continued to exist, but
has also continued to decline; some passing away, some moving away to
other states, some leaving because they didn't like the changes I was
making, or the non-Calvinistic stand I took on the doctrine of
"election." It is comforting to know that Jesus experienced a similar
situation when it is said in Jn 6:66 "From that time many of His
disciples went back and walked with Him no more."
I am contemplating whether I am standing on shaky ground in doing
this blessing of the animals because it would not be right, or if God is
really behind this idea and opposing forces are stirring up opposition.
If I choose to cancel the blessing of the animals that has been
scheduled, I must choose whether it is because it is wrong, or because
it may cause a few to stumble, or if it is out of human fear of
upsetting a few people, and even losing the support of a few people.
Scriptures that keep coming to my mind all have been encouraging me
to go forward with the blessing of the animals. I am not intentionally
looking for scriptures to justify something I want to humanly do, I am
not searching the Bible, books, or other sources for them. They are just
coming to mind. I have thought about canceling blessing the animals just
out of logistical reasons. On the other hand, no passages are coming to
mind to cause me to doubt what I am doing would be displeasing to God.
One particular passage is the report of the ten spies, verses the report
of Joshua and Caleb. Of course for these two, they had God's direct and
clear word on the subject. For me, God doesn't mention pro or con in the
Bible about trying to reach out to a Latino community by doing what I
would call "a godly spin off" on something they are already familiar
with, unless it is the principle found in 1 Co 9:19-23. But Joshua and
Caleb were far in the minority, though they would not back down from
their position, and God would allow them to be the only one's from among
this generation to go forth with His plans thirty-eight years later with
the next generation.
Well, enough said. Those of you that read this, I invite you to
respond. If God does not want us to go forward with this, may He use one
of you to enlighten me. Those of you that feel you might want to
encourage me to go forward, don't be dissuaded from doing so. Time is
short, so speak quickly. Whatever view you take, may God bless you in
the study of His Word, and in your pursuit to be filled and led of His
Spirit.
Rev. Greg Merrill, 3-20-08 |
Responses received regarding the above article.
Greg
A
wise strategy to make contact
with the people in the culture
surrounding your church. The 1
Cor 9:19-23 principle "all
things to all men that I might
win some," is the strategic
foundation for cross cultural
ministry. That is what the Lord
can use to turn a church from
"decline" to contact with the
community and growth. Growth
that can be both numerical and
in maturity of your church
family as they see modeled how
to communicate with others
wisely to bring the Good News to
them.
Use of Noah's account is a wise
way to approach the animal
issue. Obviously, the Lord cared
for animals and spared them as a
species. To bless the animals is
as much a blessing to their
owners who care for them deeply
as to the animals. God loves
animals or He would not have
created them. Jesus made the
point that God knows when a
sparrow is hurt.
Your strategy is a great way to
let people know of the love of
God for them through emphasizing
His love for all His creation
including animals. God is love.
Thanks for your Spirit led
creative, out of the box
thinking on how to reach those
in your community without the
Lord. :-)
P.S. In my active duty
chaplaincy years I blessed a
basketball tournament. I think I
was asked to bless a building as
well (i.e. those who will work
in it and the purpose for the
building). There are many
opportunities to connect with
others if we have our mental
antennae up looking for the
Spirit's insight and guidance.
We live in a growing mission
field in So. Calif. We should
think like missionaries.
Don't give up!
Yours in His love & service
Warren Dane
Ch, Lt Colonel USAF (Ret)
IFCA International
So. Calif. Regional
Representative
951-247-0410
|
Greg
To avoid the
nuance that some indicated is present in the
Catholic observance - the priest is the one with
special sacerdotal gifts to bestow the blessing
- you might plan the service to make the time of
blessing one that all can share. Perhaps a
printed prayer for all to recite together after
you explanation of the reason for doing so. You
could emphasize that a printed prayer enables
all God's children to pray together for the same
purpose. It could serve as a model for those who
wish to ask God's blessing on their pets in the
future.
You might even
plan on a series of messages on prayer that
could be a follow on to this unique service. It
might attract those who have questions about
prayer. Just an additional thought.
Warren
3-21-08 Dear Pastor Merrill,
Good morning -- just want to take a minute and
respond to your 'blessings of the animals'!! I
appreciate your attempts to minister to a group of
people who may never/rarely have the opportunity to
hear about the Love of Christ. May you be blessed as
you seek to minister to others in your community.
As for blessings on animals, let me share a couple of thoughts I
have had. What was the first job Adam and Eve had in
the Garden? Name the animals. Apparently it was
important to the Lord that Animals not just be
nameless entities with no identity, but rather each
animal have a unique identity.
At the Flood, God thought it important to save animals for the
repopulation of the earth with animals. And after
the Flood, the Lord made a covenant with Noah AND
THE ANIMALS. (See Genesis 9: 8-16).
At the birth of Christ, who was with the Lord Jesus when he was
born? Animals!! I agree that the Scriptures don't
say anything specifically about 'blessing animals',
but it seems if animals were integral at the
Creation, at the Flood, and at the Birth of Christ
-- they are very important to the Lord. As you
mention we pray for a lot of things not specifically
mentioned in the Bible -- but the Lord says to bring
EVERYTHING to Him in prayer. I figure that can
include animals too.
We often pray for land, Church buildings,
ministries, etc. It seems logical and good that we
also pray for animals.
At any rate, part of our stewardship of the earth
includes the care of animals here and now. It seems
only reasonable to pray for the things that God has
entrusted to us!!
For what it is worth!!
Blessings, Mike Ray
(CBC Missionary)-- The Broom Tree Refuge
|
3-21
I feel for you in
this issue! I am so glad you wrote in depth about all the things that
you did. My heart goes out to you in the conflict, and I'll pray for
you! (John is out of town, so I speak in the singular right now.)
I approve of what you want to do, to reach out "cross culturally"
to win others to Christ. This ceremony is just typically what you have
assessed: "we never did it this way before". It is not inherently
problematic, but I can see that it has stirred a hornets' nest around
you. I am so sorry about that.
There is a lot of sentiment and importance among people who have
animal pets, and that ceremony could be a way to touch the unreachable.
If you have to cancel it, as a public event, I wonder if you
could be in touch with any individuals that expressed a desire to have
it. You could then visit in such a home and personally pray God's
blessing on the animal involved. That would give you the desired link
to someone who might not be reached any other way.
Since the animal issue is on your heart, let me tell you about a dear
friend of ours, here in the mountains of Colorado. His home and
buffalo ranch is adjacent to the church he attends and serves as
an elder in. (Swedish Baptist). There is a cemetery there, too. For
years he and his wife allowed their beautiful home to be used for small
private funerals, next to the cemetery. And he got the vision
to create a pet cemetery and conduct grief memorial meetings in his
home. This has given him amazing inroads to the unreached families of
that community. This is a very wealthy community, and the ministry he
has is unique.
I thought you'd enjoy this! :) Dotty
Davis (CBC Missionary) International House of Philoxenia
Dear Greg,
I don’t know enough of the whole background to the
blessing of animals to know if there is something
inherently contrary to our evangelical beliefs, but
if it is as it seems on the surface, that is, a
simple blessing of animals, I would support you in
doing this for these reasons (not necessarily in
order of importance):
1. I see nothing inherently heretical or unbiblical
in the act of blessing animals. There are inherent
satanic or worldly or other unbiblical attachments.
2. Animals are God’s creatures. Why not honor them
or be thankful for them in this way?
3. Just because this tradition has become a
Catholic thing doesn’t mean it is inherently
Catholic. If we were talking about doing a true
mass to help reach the Latinos in the area, that
would be wrong. But I don’t see in any inherent
wrong in blessing animals.
4. It seems to me a legitimate “all things to all
people that we might win some” action.
5. For many people animals are dear friends. To
them it would be like blessing a son or daughter.
Why not do that for them?
6. For such acts I think it is what we make it.
You can make the blessing whatever you want. For
example, when I pastored, I was asked if I could do
a funeral for a known nonbeliever. I said yes. I
don’t have to say anything about their eternal
future. I did one or two like that and celebrated
their lives and sometimes talked about life and
death without specific reference to that person’s
destiny. So, your blessing can be what you make it
without whatever objectionable traditions may be
attached to it.
7. The pastor of the Methodist church I attend does
a blessing of animals. For me personally it is
unimportant and unnecessary. But for the sake of
outreach and connecting with animal lovers, why
not? You would be doing nothing wrong, and this
could be the first step in bringing one or more to
Christ if they sense love and personal interest by
doing this.
I can’t say that I have given this deep thought.
These are mainly immediate responses, but I can’t
see anything wrong or unbiblical with it, and I see
opportunities for outreach and expressions of caring
interest.
If you know of anyone who has a serious biblical
objection, I would like to hear it. But I can’t
think of one.
Wendall Hollis
(CBC Missionary) Entrust (Formerly
"Bible Education Extension")
|
Blessing of Animals
| |
Q. I
know that Roman Catholics and
Episcopalians have an annual
"blessing of the animals." Do some
LCMS congregations do this? Is it
wrong to pray for the welfare of
beloved pets or animals by which one
earns a living? I am almost certain
that the answer the latter question
is "no," but would like
confirmation.
A. To my
knowledge a formalized "blessing of
animals" has never been a part of
the Lutheran tradition, including
certainly The Lutheran
Church--Missouri Synod. We
recognize, of course, that animals
are among the blessings for which we
thank God. In his explanation of the
First Article of the Apostles'
Creed; Martin Luther specifically
listed "animals" among the blessings
given to us by God out of His
"fatherly, divine goodness and
mercy" without any merit on our
part, and for which "it is my duty
to thank and praise, serve and obey
Him." It certainly would be
appropriate for Christians to pray
that God would help them to be wise
stewards of all of His gifts,
including animals which are given to
man for service to him and even
enjoyment.
Dear Pastor Merrill,
I have gone thru my KING
JAMES Bible and found notheing on
animals, dogs or blessing of any
kind. Have been checking the
internst and found this. I don't
see anything wrong with blessings
animals myself. will keep looking
for more info and pass it on to
you. |
--
GOD BLESS, KEEP UP the GOOD WORK.
--
Max E. Wolters
Member of CBC
|
|
Pastor,
I feel you are right and should move forward. Those that object
are doing so because of some hang up they have, and are not looking at
the big picture of what you would accomplish or lives it may touch.
I say no "pillar of salt" here-move forward and don't look back.
God Bless you in your decision.
Greg MacDowell CBC member and
Chairman of the CBC Missions Committee
Dear Pastor Merrill;
When
church attendance started its decline, I
remembered the "Jabez prayer" and asked
the Lord to also bless Pastor and
enlarge his (CBC's) territory.
I hope more will join me. I saw it work
in my life.
The Lord wants us to come
to Him for all things,
which brings me to the blessing of the
animals. I think this is an
inspirational idea. Many children have
animals and to tie it in to Noah's Ark
will definitely
get the kids attention. Then, followed
by some get acquainted activities, I
pray they will want to come back Sunday
with their parents. I think attracting
children is a great idea (thank you Holy
Spirit) for they are the Church's future
leaders.
Thank you Pastor
and Jenny for your courage and
creativity.
O' that the Lord would bless you and CBC
indeed.
Dianne Bailey
CBC Member
|
|