A Critique of David O. Beale's In Pursuit of Purity

David Beale wrote In Pursuit of Purity in order to provide an historical record of American Fundamentalism since the 1850's (p. xi), but in doing so, fails to see major problems within the movement and gives praise to a movement that in many ways does not deserve it. He defines the ideal Christian Fundamentalist as one who, “desires to reach out in love and compassion to people, believes and defends the whole Bible as the absolute, inerrant, and authoritative Word of God, and stands committed to the doctrine and practice of holiness” (p. 3). The roots of Fundamentalism, Beale claims, run deep, and among these roots are Moses and the prophets, along with Christ and the apostles and many of the early church fathers as well as more modern church leaders such as Wesley and Spurgeon (p. 3). All of these are claimed to have striven for “biblical purity” (p. 5).

Fundamentalism has never been a denomination but rather it “has always been interdenominational in character and fellowship” (p. 6). According to Beale, Fundamentalists are constantly either separating liberals from the church or separating from liberal churches, in order that they might pursue “their foremost concern” of ecclesiastical purity and therefore unite around “the whole counsel of God” (pp. 7-8). The birth of American Fundamentalism, Beale claims, came from the Prayer Meeting Revivals and the great revival in Ireland that occurred in the years around 1860 (p. 13). Conferences were key to the movement, and really were a major focal point of the movement since it was not connected with one local church or denomination. From the Old Niagara Bible Conference to the World's Christian Fundamentals Association, Fundamentalism saw itself to be a lifeline for the preservation of truth in a world of falsehood. They fought “militantly” for such doctrines as the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, the virgin birth of Jesus, the substitutionary death of Christ, and the premillennial return of Christ.

One of the main problems I had with Beale's book is that he basically goes so far as to claim the Bible to have Fundamentalist leanings, and Biblical characters and Church fathers to be Fundamentalists (p. 3). This “freedom” of association seems to characterize Beale's work and puts doubt into the reader's mind to whether or not Beale can really be believed. Claiming J. Gresham Machen for the Fundamentalists does not seem to be fair, especially since Machen greatly disliked the term (pp. 316-317). Basically, Beale is claiming that all “true” Christians are really Fundamentalists, and if that's true, then really there is no need for the extra-biblical term “Fundamentalist” rather, the word “Christian” would do just fine. Beale's over-reaching only does his work a disservice.

Also, because of Beale's obvious love for Fundamentalism, he fails to have a clear view to their faults. No movement is as pure as Beale makes Fundamentalism out to be, and while this truth is apparent from the content of his book, he fails to take a critical look into some of the problems that have occurred over the history of the movement. An example of this is in Beale's recounting of T. T. Shield's purchase of the Des Moines University (pp. 237-241). It seems from what Beale states that Shield had major problems. The first of which is that his church was known for its music not for its Bible teaching. He also seemed to have a fascination with the dangerous rise of modernism in the Northern Baptist Convention, and constantly reported it in his periodical The Gospel Witness. He established a seminary and led two organizations and when his church was kicked out of one organization, five days later he started a new one. Then when Shields organized the purchase of Des Moines University he left it in the hands of a woman because he was too busy with other things. And while Beale claims Shields attempted to reform the university from its liberal past, the only controversies that seemed to come up had to do with national background. It ended with the students revolting, not because they were having trouble being “Fundamentalists” but because Shields had created anti-Canadian sentiment on the campus by making fun of Americans. Beale's response to all of this is weak: “The Des Moines University debacle should not overshadow the positive contributions that T. T. Shields made to classical Fundamentalism...It could have happened to any number of great men” (p. 241). Maybe Shields should have paid more attention to his own church, so that rather than the music be praised, it would have been a place known for the accurate preaching of the Word of God.

Shields' seeming neglect of his church and militancy in regards to his own nationalistic tendencies brings me to a final critique of Beale's work. Rather than call this movement Fundamentalism as it has been in the past, I submit a new term, “Conferencism”. It seems that Fundamentalists were consumed with conferences and institutions and Beale even admits these to be the “most important” bases of Fundamentalism (p. 251). But that does not seem to bother Beale. Nothing is really ever said of the local churches in his work, and many of those involved in the Fundamentalist movement seemed to be more concerned about having a conference than taking care of and shepherding their own people. Beale says they were seeking ecclesiastical purity at conferences, but ecclesiology has nothing to do with conferences, rather it has to do with the church (p. 7).

Machen had it right, “the term fundamentalism is distasteful...It seems to suggest that we are adherents of some strange new sect, whereas in point of fact we are conscious simply of maintaining the historic Christian faith and of moving in the great central current of Christian life” (pp. 316-317). And while Beale claims Machen for his Fundamentalists – Machen was not a Fundamentalist, but rather, he was a Christian, pursuing Christ, not purity.

Read More......

Seeing Jesus in Mark 9

A few days ago, I wrote this entry in my journal. It led to the poem that I posted yesterday.

I have to confess: sometimes I don’t see Christ as glorious. This morning I listened to a snippet of Piper’s message at SBTS from a few weeks ago. He was proclaiming the gospel as “the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of the invisible God.” And I really want to see this and believe this.

Driscoll says he himself needs time with Jesus.
I want to spend some time with Jesus.

I want to love Jesus and see his glory, like the disciples on the Mount.

I read Mark 9 just a few minutes ago, but I couldn’t see it.
It was, honestly, not all that thrilling. The Transfiguration, healing the boy with an unclean spirit, prophecy, arguments among the disciples. All of it, familiar; the same. I didn’t pray, either. To see, I mean. I can hear Piper’s voice in my head, “Oh, God, just let me see!”

So, I’m praying it: LET ME SEE! Christ’s words rebuke me, his incredulous response to the boy’s father: “If you can?!?” And the boy’s father cries out, “I believe! Help my unbelief!”

So do I. I know the blindness is in me. The complacency. The apathy. How sinful it is. How easily I can feel godly sorrow for lust. The sin of blindness and not caring, though, just sits there. I feel nothing. I’m sure that if, right now, I heard that someone or something I love was lost, or my stock went up double-digit percentage, I’m sure that I’d feel something then. Seeing Jesus, though, is another thing, and I don’t see him, I don’t love him, and his glory isn’t exciting. His blood covers it, though! The apathy, the complacency, the blindness!

It creeps in, then, the vision. In snippets. Like glancing over to the Bible next to me, seeing Christ ask, perfectly timed and worded, “What were you discussing on the way?”

He had things to teach them, lessons the crowds weren’t privy to.

I am servant.
Receive a child like this one. That’s how I receive you.
Be like me.

The lowliness of earth surrounds me, and I will die.
I became a man.
I am a man.
I’ll be delivered to death.
The glory of heaven surrounds me, and I will rise.
I am God.
I am God.
I’ll be delivered from death.

And God is faithful, because the glory of his Son trumps hazy apathy, if only I’ll take the time to sit and sup with him awhile.

So I praise him:
Thank you for your faithfulness.

Read More......

His Prophecy

The lowliness of earth surrounds me, and I’ll be delivered to death.
I became a man.
I am a man.
I will die.
The glory of heaven surrounds me, and I'll be delivered from death.
I was God.
I am God.
I will rise.

Read More......

Seventh Principle Drawn From God's Sovereignty in Relation to Prayer

1. Prayer is a Profound Privilege

   1. With Respect to Who God Is
      As one ponders all these truths about prayer and who God is, one cannot but fall down in worship. God, the Unsearchable (Job 11:7), the Incorruptible (Rom. 1:23), the Eternal (Ps. 90:2), the Only-wise (Rom. 16:27), the Most High (Ps. 83:18), the Holy One (Rev. 16:5), can be approached, and conversed with in prayer! How is it, that the Lord who does all things after the counsel of his will (Eph. 1:11) interact with our own desires that we express in prayer – what is the relationship between the ultimate purpose of God, and our human desires? I do not know. And even beyond this mystery, how can it be, that the Lord of the universe would incline his ear toward men? This is the true mystery of prayer – for there is absolutely no reason in us that God should chose to hear us. Yet he does. What an awesome privilege!

   2. With Respect to Who We Are
      As sinners, we are separated from God, and deserve nothing but eternal death (Rom. 3:23; 6:23), and yet as Edward Bickerateth so rightly put it that prayer gives us, “every day, yes, every hour, this great privilege of access to the King of kings and the Lord of lords, to the Most High and the Most Holy, and this with the utmost freedom and confidence; the access not merely of a servant to a master, or a subject to a king, but of a child to a tender parent” (Edward Bickersteth, A Treatise On Prayer, p. 8). Though our sins were as scarlet, by the blood of Christ we are washed clean – through his great gift, we have this profound privilege. Let us now pray all the more fervently, for God is sovereign, and through Christ, we have access to the throne room of grace (Heb. 4:16).

Read More......

How about this?

The LORD said to Moses, "I have seen this people, and behold, they are an obstinate people.

"Now then let Me alone, that My anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them; and I will make of you a great nation."

Then Moses entreated the LORD his God, and said, "O LORD, why does Your anger burn against Your people whom You have brought out from the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand?

"Why should the Egyptians speak, saying, 'With evil intent He brought them out to kill them in the mountains and to destroy them from the face of the earth'? Turn from Your burning anger and change Your mind about doing harm to Your people.

"Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants to whom You swore by Yourself, and said to them, 'I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heavens, and all this land of which I have spoken I will give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever.'"

So the LORD changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people.

How does that factor in?

Read More......

Sixth Principle Drawn From God's Sovereignty in Relation to Prayer

1. Prayer is Beneficial Because it Changes Us

   1. Abiding in Christ
      In John 15:7 Jesus says, “If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.” This principle that Jesus laid out is key to our understanding of the relationship God's sovereignty has with our prayers. When we abide in Christ, and his words abide in us, we can ask God for whatever we want and it will be done! When Jesus says this, he speaks of our conforming to himself. God does not change when we ask him for things, rather, we change as we grow in our abiding, and as his words grow in us. “Only prayer according to God's will is granted” (Hunter, p. 60), our own wills must move to match his if our requests are to be granted.

   2. An Example from Scripture Showing How Prayer Changes Us
      When Paul entreated the Lord three times that the thorn in his flesh to be removed (2 Cor. 12:7-9), God did not remove the thorn. Rather the Lord replied, “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness” (2 Cor. 12:9). But rather than cause Paul to be angry, it caused him to change, and align himself with what God wanted and gladly boast about his weaknesses so that the power of Christ might dwell in him (2 Cor. 12:9).
      While at first Paul did not understand that God desired the thorn in the flesh to torment Paul for his own benifit, Paul learned through prayer that God allowed the thorn in the flesh to torment him so that the Lord would be glorified through Paul's weakness. Originally, Paul did not want the thorn in the flesh, but through prayer, he came to realize that it was for his own benefit, keeping him from pride (2 Cor. 12:7) and allowing him to display the power of Christ (2 Cor. 12:9).
      Paul knew that what God had planned was better than anything he could have thought of himself. Therefore he was more than willing to submit himself to the sovereign plan of God. Paul understood that God knows best and is working all things for good to those who love him and are called according to his purpose as clearly shown in his letter to the Romans which he penned by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:28).

Read More......

Fifth Principle Drawn From God's Sovereignty in Relation to Prayer

1. Prayer is Beneficial Because God's Sovereign Plan is Good
   It would not do us much good if God was sovereign but was not good. Though he would have the capability to answer our prayers, there would be little to look forward to in asking God for something or even in praising his name (Hunter, p. 49). In fact, we might actually get what we ask for when in fact it would not be best for us! The Bible clearly states that God is good (Ps 25:8, Nah. 1:7), and so in God's sovereign response to prayer, all that he does will be good. As a parent desires to give good things to his or her children, so much more, the Bible says, does God, our heavenly Father, desire to give what is good to those that ask (Matt. 7:9-11).

Read More......

Fourth Principle Drawn From God's Sovereignty in Relation to Prayer

1. Prayer is Effective Because It is a Part of God's Sovereign Plan

   1. Prayer as a Means
      Many people assume that if in fact, God is sovereign, and everything in life has been “scripted” by God in eternity past, there is no reason to pray. But in fact, this should give us even more incentive to pray! God has sovereignly ordained prayer as a means to accomplish his will and he says that “The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much” (Jam. 5:16, John MacArthur, Lord, Teach Me to Pray, p. 29). The only reason prayer is effective in accomplishing the will of God, is because God sovereignly planned it that way.

   2. Prayer as a Means Exemplified in Scripture
      The prayer of King Hezekiah is a wonderful example of how the prayers of men work in the sovereign plan of God (2 Kgs. 20:1-11, 2 Chr. 32:24, Isa. 38:1-8). When Hezekiah became mortally ill (2 Kgs. 20:1, 2 Chr. 32:24, Isa. 38:1-3), he prayed to the Lord for healing (2 Kgs. 20:2-3, 2 Chr. 32:24, Isa. 38:2-3) and God extended his life by fifteen years. God's plan regarding the length of Hezekiah's life had not changed (Ps. 139:16, William D. Barrick, “The Openness of God: Does Prayer Change God?”, The Master's Seminary Journal, 12 (fall 2001), 156) yet, because God sovereignly uses prayer as a means to accomplish his plan, Hezekiah's prayer for healing was granted, not for Hezekiah's sake, but for the sake of the Lord and his promise to David (2 Kgs. 20:6, Isa. 38:6, Barrick, p. 156).

Read More......

Third Principle Drawn From God's Sovereignty in Relation to Prayer

1. Prayer is Effective Because God Commands It

   1. A Simple Command
      In both the New and the Old Testament God commands his people to pray (Isa. 55:6, Matt. 7:7, Phil. 4:6, Eph. 6:18, 1 Thes. 5:17). Though people desired to pray, if God had not commanded it, there would be no way that it would be of any effect. If fact, if God had not commanded us to pray, it would be sin to do so. Because God is sovereign, he has the authority to command us to pray. A person would be foolish to think that God would respond in a positive way to them if they approached him in a way that he had not ascribed; far from being beneficial, it would be deadly (Lev. 10:1-2).
      Prayer is commanded by God, and therefore is effective as a means for such things as to ask for temporal blessing (Gen. 28:20), to ask for spiritual blessing (Matt. 6:33), to ask for help in time of need (Heb. 4:16), to repent (1 Kgs. 8:33), and to praise God (Ps. 66:17). All these things we can do with confidence, knowing that God has commanded us to do them according to his sovereign plan and has provided us a way to approach him (Heb. 4:16).

   2. A Command from a Sovereign God
      Rather than speak to the question of how God, being sovereign can be influenced by the prayers of his people, if in fact he is influenced at all, there is a positive way to look at the fact that a sovereign God commands his people to pray. God is sovereign, and therefore because he commands his people to pray we can know that regardless of how, prayer is a means for God's will to be accomplished on earth as it is in heaven (Matt. 6:10). Therefore, because the sovereign God of the whole universe, who is able to do all that we ask and abundantly more (Eph. 3:10), has commanded us to pray; let us pray all the more and with boldness!

Read More......

Second Principle Drawn From God's Sovereignty in Relation to Prayer

1. Prayer is Effective Because God's Will is Not Influenced by Humans

   1. God is Not Divided
      When a person prays and asks God for something, that prayer does not alter the will of God. If it did, God would not longer be sovereign, because his will would no longer be supreme, but rather, God would be doing the bidding of a mere human. It is foolish to think that prayer changes the will of God, for people have many different and conflicting wills. One person may pray for rain, another sun and therefore if God's will was affected by humans, he would be a walking contradiction (Hunter, p. 61). As Jesus said, “If a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand” (Mark 3:25). When talking about God's sovereignty, no one would claim that if there is a conflict of interests between his or her will and God's that his or her own will would prevail. (Robert C. Sproul, "Does Prayer Change Things?", Tenth: An Evangelical Quarterly, 6 (July, 1976), 53). God is God and therefore is not influenced by human will.

   2. A Never Changing Sovereign God
      In addition, if God's will was influenced by human prayers, then he could not be working “all things after the counsel of His will” (Eph. 1:11). There can be no changing the purposes of God, for his purposes are “eternal” (Eph. 3:11). What chaos there would be if God's will changed to match the will of humans, having one mind yesterday and another today (Pink, p. 207). God never changes (Jam. 1:17) and therefore his will is not changed by men, but rather he is constant, immovable. This truth builds trust towards God and to pray because God's will does not bend to the suggestions of mere men but the Lord does as he pleases and will accomplish everything that he desires.

Read More......

How To Use This Information on Repentance vs. Penance In A Counseling Situation

Having biblically established the Biblical mandate for repentance, we will now turn our attention to giving some practical and personal advice regarding how a person can help a fellow believer who has confessed to an immoral affair to understand biblical repentance and the dangers of penance. Because this case has to do with a person who has confessed to an immoral affair, one of the most natural places in Scripture to use to help this person understand biblical repentance is Psalm 51¹. There are five general principles that can be taken from the first twelve verses of Psalm 51 and applied to the counselee's situation. First of all, God's Word condemns the sinner (based on the title of Psalm 51). Sometimes that comes through another person, as it did with David, but other times it is through the direct reading of God's word. It is important to convey to the counselee that God is clear, the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23), and there is a choice, either to agree with God, or to rebel against His assessment of the severity of your sin. Second, we see that we should cry out to God to be gracious and cleanse us from our sin based on God's lovingkindness and great compassion (Psa 51:1-2). Remind the counselee that God's forgiveness is not based on what we do, because our works are filthy rags to Him (Isa 64:6), but rather God's forgiveness is based on God's own character (Psa 51:1-2). Christ did not die because people had worked to pay for their sin, or punished themselves for disobeying God – no, rather Christ died while we were still sinners (Rom 5:8), while we were enemies of God (Rom 5:10)! Thirdly, sin is primarily against God (Psa 51:4-6). It is essential that the counselee understand that while sin does effect others (2 Sam 24), our sin is first and foremost against God – it is breaking His standard and doing what is evil in His sight (Psa 51:4). God is blameless and just (Psa 51:4), while we are born sinners (Psa 51:5) – He is not responsible for our sin, we are! We are fallen sinners, we are not good people who sometimes do wrong things² but are, of ourselves, wicked to the very core of our hearts (Jer 17:9-10). God's standard is perfection, not only outwardly, but inwardly (Psa 51:6) and we cannot meet that standard, but fall far short (Rom 3:23). Fourthly, we should ask God to purify and renew us (Psa 51:7-9). Remind the counselee, that although on our own there is no hope of restoration of a right relationship with God, there is hope because God forgives! And when God forgives it is not some superficial band-aid on a cancer patient, but is real forgiveness that cleanses to the core! Christ is our hope, for in Him we have “the forgiveness of sins” (Col 1:13). While we may be tempted to sulk and become depressed because of our sin, this should not be our goal, rather renewal should be our desire, based on the completed work of Christ. Stress the fact that when we sin, our joy is taken away (Gen 4:6-7), but because of Christ's finished work on the cross, the crushing weight of sin is lifted – we can be restored! And finally, we must recognize our utter reliance on God for the will to please Him in the future (Psa 51:10-12). Convey to the counselee the danger of trying to work off our sin through various good deeds or self-imposed suffering, for the fruit of self-effort is death (Rom 8:13). In our own strength we cannot do what God wants, but rather we produce the exact opposite (Gal 5:19-21). We must rely on God to produce faithfulness in our hearts towards Him (Psa 51:10-12), and use the means by which He has ordained for our sanctification, walking in the Spirit (Gal 5:22-25). As believers we live by the Spirit (Gal 5:22a), therefore we must urge the counselee to walk by the Spirit, putting to death the flesh, and because of his regenerated heart, live as God would have him to live from this time forth. And when sin is again committed, confess it, turn from it to God, knowing that “He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9b).

1David Covington. "Psalm 51: Repenter's Guide" Journal of Biblical Counseling 20, no. 1 (Fall 2001): 21-39.

2Ibid., 33.

Read More......

Repentance

For what it's worth, Bruce Demarest in The Cross and Salvation says this:

True repetance possesses three essential aspects. (1) An intellectualaspect. The repentant soul must understand God's holiness, righteousness, and displeasure at sin; must be be aware of personal sin and guilt; and must be persuaded of God's readiness to forgive. (2) An emotional element, in which the penitent abhors sin and experiences godly sorrow [=penitance] and remorse, not for the pain it has caused himself, but for the gried it has caused God and others. This aspect of repentance appears in the verb naham, to "be sorry," "regret,", "repent" -- where the root idea means to breath deeply. After gaining a fuller knowledge of God and a clearer perspective on himself, Job exclaimed, "I despise myself and repent [same verb] in dust and ashes" (Job 42:6). (3) A volitional aspect, which involves determination to forsake sins and amend one's life.

Read More......

The First Major Difference Between Repentance and Penance

Corresponding with the fact that the word “penance” never appears in Scripture, the first major difference between repentance and penance is that repentance is explicitly commanded by God whereas penance is nowhere found to be required by God. Numerous times throughout Scripture God outright calls people to repent (Eze 14:6; 18:30; Matt 3:2; 4:17; Mark 1:15; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 8:22; Rev 2:5, 16; 3:3, 19). In fact, He calls all people everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30). It is a call from the highest source of authority and therefore must be obeyed or there will be dire consequences (1 Sam 2:10). When God calls Israel to repent from their idol worship in Ezekiel 14:7, He warns them that if they do not repent, He will pour out His wrath on them (Eze 14:8).

In the New Testament, when Jesus was asked why a group of people had been killed in a barbarous fashion, rather than directly answering the question, He urges them all to repent, warning that if they do not, they would perish in the same way as those who had been killed (Luke 13:3). Nowhere in Scripture is the idea of penance ever commanded by God. Actually, the idea that a person has the ability to pay for his own sins is completely foreign to Scripture.

In the Old Testament, the sacrificial system makes it clear that men cannot pay for their sins, for an animal's blood must be shed in order to cover sins – and this system is a shadow of the greater sacrifice of Christ (Heb 10:1), who came for the very reason that humans are unable to atone for their own sins. If penance was able to save, there would have been no reason for Christ to come to earth, live a perfect life, die, and be raised from the dead. Men need a savior! For no one can be justified through works of the law – man's efforts to atone for himself, to make himself righteous, are worthless before God (Gal 3:11).

The Pharisees are a perfect example of the failure of men to make themselves righteous before God through works. They forsook the commands of God for the tradition of men (Matt 15:3), and this is exactly what is involved in evangelical penance – rejecting the clear commands of God, replacing them with man's own way and ideas on the matter. Even as a believer, one who has repented of their sin as God has commanded in His Word, one can have a tendency to fall back on the traditions of men, or try to do things his own way and feel that he must gain back favour with God after he has committed a sin through inflicting suffering on himself or by doing good works. While it may seem that this Christian desires to be obedient to God, and is therefore sorrowful because of sin and the feeling that he must do something to pay for the wrong; in reality, this Christian is acting in contradiction to Scripture. For what is obedience but doing what God has commanded? God has never commanded anyone to pay for his own sin; rather, God commands all to use the means that God has ordained to pay for his sins. A person’s effort to atone for his own sin is in direct violation with the Word of God. Therefore, "Self-justification is the goal of this effort",¹ and not obedience. The Bible speaks of only one way to be saved, and that is the way that God Himself has prescribed – through Jesus Christ and through Him alone (John 14:6). Penance is clearly an idea conjured up from man's own thinking, and all those who practice it are in direct disobedience to God and His command for people everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30).

1C. John Miller. Repentance and the 20th Century Man (Fort Washington: Christian Literature Crusade, 1980), 20.

Read More......

The Second Major Difference Between Repentance and Penance

A second major difference between repentance and penance is that repentance is a work of God in the heart, while penance is a work of man in his own heart. As discussed previously, repentance is commanded of God, and anyone who repents has obeyed God and done what is right. However, it must be clarified that repentance is not a work of man, but rather a work of God. For it is impossible for men to please God, doing what He has asked of them, being that there is no one who is good and no one who does anything good on his own merit (Rom 3:10-12) except God Himself (Luke 18:19). While men might preach and instruct others to repent, “It is the Holy Spirit breathing in them that makes their words effectual” (Acts 10:44).¹

Another way to show that God is the author of repentance comes about through a careful study of Romans 12:2. As believers, Romans 12:2 states that we are not to “be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.” This transformation allows us to, “prove what the will of God is” (Rom 12:2). A link between this transformation and repentance is clearly seen,² for as was stated before, repentance is essentially “a change of mind”.³ Titus 3:5 states clearly that the Holy Spirit is the agent of this change – it is not accomplished by a person's own effort or his own righteousness. A correct understanding of the source of repentance is vital to believers who practice penance, because they are in direct violation of the truth of God's Word. They cannot do anything in and of themselves to make themselves right before God. Their work is of no avail in God's economy. And so rather than focus on their own efforts to pay for their sins, they should look to Christ as their only hope, and the one to whom they can look for the forgiveness of sin (1 Tim 1:1).

1Thomas Watson. The Doctrine of Repentance (Carlisle: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1999), 14.

2William Douglas Chamberlain. The Meaning of Repentance (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1943), 172-173.

3Bauer. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957), 513.

Read More......

First Principle Drawn From God's Sovereignty in Relation to Prayer

1. Prayer is Effective Because God is Sovereign

   1. A World Without a Sovereign God
      While the truth that God is sovereign does present problems to the human mind in regards to its interaction with prayer, before we go to far down the road of belittling God's sovereign control over all things in order to “solve” the problem, as some do (such as Gregory A. Boyd in his book, God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God), we must look at the other side of the coin. What if God was not sovereign? What if, although willing to answer prayer and desiring to provide for his children, God was unable to do so? There would be absolutely no reason to pray to God at all! Because he would be just like us, unable to do anything about it. “At its root, prayer grows from the certainty of God's omnipotence and sovereignty. Job says, 'I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted' (42:2). Obviously it would be a waste of time to pray to a wimp” (W. Bingham Hunter, The God Who Hears, p. 47). God rules over all, and therefore has the ability to do whatever He pleases, and that includes answering prayer.
      
      

   2. The Sovereignty of God Exemplified in Answered Prayers
      In our own Christian experience, this writer, as well as countless others pray to God for example, for the salvation of lost souls, that they would place their faith in Christ. And sometimes we receive answers to the positive! But if God was not sovereign over all things, these prayers would be total foolishness! Aside from our own personal experience we see in Scripture countless examples of prayers that were offered up to God that were answered – prayers that apart from God's sovereignty could not have been answered. Christ Himself prayed for Peter, that his faith would not fail and that he would be restored after his denials of Christ (Luke 22:32), and Peter was restored (John 21:15-17). Abraham's servant prayed that God would guide him in the selection of a wife for Isaac (Gen. 24:12-14), and God did (Gen. 24:15-27). When God was going to destroy the people of Israel for their disobedience (Ex. 32:10), Moses entreated God to turn from his wrath (Ex. 32:11-13), and God did. Joshua prayed that the sun and the moon would stand still (Josh. 10:12), and they did (Josh. 10:13). Hannah prayed that she would have a son (1 Sam. 1:11), and she did (1 Sam. 1:19-20). Far from being a problem, prayer only works because God is sovereign.

Read More......

Prayer and the Sovereignty of God - Introduction

Prayer and The Sovereignty of God

1. Introduction

   1. The Difficulty
      Many questions are raised when the topic of God's sovereignty and prayer are mentioned in the same sentence together. These questions are the direct result of any extended thought on the fact that God is sovereign, and yet we, as mere humans, can pray to God and be answered by him. The many broad sweeping statements in the Bible made by Jesus regarding prayer, are perhaps the most confusing at first glance, “Ask, and it will be given to you...For everyone who asks receives” (Matt. 7:7-8).
      Initially, this might not cause anyone to lose any sleep, but then the difficulties begin when a person tries to synchronize the simple truths about prayer in the Bible with the powerful, overarching statements about God's sovereignty such as found in Daniel 4:35, “All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, But He does according to His will in the host of heaven And among the inhabitants of earth; And no one can ward off His hand Or say to Him, ‘What have You done?’” One can not but help to wonder how God's sovereignty and prayer practically fit together. But we must be careful as we proceed to look into these topics for as C. S. Lewis reminds us, “Prayer is not a machine” (C. S. Lewis, The World's Last Night and Other Essays, p.10) but rather is born out of our relationship with God, not from knowing information about him, but from knowing him (C. S. Lewis, p. 7). In order to set the stage for a discussion of some practical principles about prayer that come out of the truth that God is sovereign, we will first give basic definitions of both prayer and God's sovereignty.

   2. A Basic Definition of Prayer
      Prayer is simply converse with God. Or as John Bradford expressed it, “Prayer is a simple, unfeigned, humble, and ardent opening of the heart before God; wherein we either ask things needful, or give thanks for benefits received” (John Bradford, “Godly Meditations on the Lord's Prayer, Belief, and Ten Commandments, with other Exercises”, The Writings of John Bradford, I, 111). There are many ways that prayer is referred to in the Bible. It is sometimes described as “calling on the name of the Lord” (Gen. 4:26), “entreating the Lord” (Ex. 32:11), “pouring out one's soul to the Lord” (1 Sam. 1:15), “praying and crying out to heaven” (2 Chr. 32:20), “seeking and imploring the Almighty” (Job 8:5), “bowing one's knees to God” (Eph. 3:14).

   3. A Basic Definition of God's Sovereignty
      Essentially the sovereignty of God refers to the fact that “He has absolute authority and rule over his creation” (James Montgomery Boice, “The Sovereign God”, Foundations of the Christian Faith, I, 149). In Scripture, God's sovereignty is sometimes referred to “his rule over all” (1 Chr. 29:12), “his being God” (Ps. 46:10), “his kingship over the earth” (Ps. 47:7), “his possessing all authority” (Matt. 28:18), “his having working all things after the counsel of his will” (Eph. 1:11). In order for God to be sovereign he must be all-knowing (Ps. 94:11; 139:4, 1 Jn. 3:20), all-powerful (Gen. 18:14, Heb. 1:3, Rev. 4:8), and totally free (Ex. 33:19, Rom. 9:20-24). God's sovereignty is really to speak of the “Godhood of God...to declare that God is God” (Arthur W. Pink, The Sovereignty of God, p. 23) and that there is no other (Deut. 4:35; 39, Isa. 45:5; 22, Joel 2:27).

Read More......

Penitence

It is probably too late to take another tack on your paper (not that you should anyway) but I think that penance may not be a word that accurately describes what you are opposing. In fact, the word penance (in its French origin) was derived from a word similar to penitence, which in turn was derived from the same Latin word that gives us our English word repentance. In many languages they are the same word.

In many traditions, penance follows this pattern (as described below): confession, repentance, discipline. The question at hand is probably: what is the purpose of the discipline? I'm sure that many of us, as we are discipled, have confessed our sin to others, displayed that we wish to forsake our wrongdoing and to move towards God, and perhaps in turn our "spiritual mentor" has prescribed a plan of combating sin, or a particular Bible passage to study. To deny this as a valid expression of the Christian faith would be heresy, and to say it is not necessary would be foolish.

I would imagine that your problem arises from the Roman Catholic position that the "discipline" step is a sacrament, required for justification. On a side note, I may be wrong, but it occurs to me that in "Pure" Catholicism, the penance itself may not be considered to justify, but rather is required to maintain communion with the church, outside of which they believe (believed?) there can be no salvation.

Returning to the point -- I believe that in the context of sanctification, this process (confession, repentance, discipline) is not only acceptable but necessary.

Honestly, though, I went back to try and figure out what to say about that, but I can't figure out what it is that you're opposing ... it seems like each example represented a discrete idea, rather than another aspect of a single, unifying whole. Eh. Maybe I just didn't get it. :)

Shifting gears ...

"It is important to look at the original language because it is not enough to reason from one's own opinions or to argue philosophically, for the truth does not come from men, but from God."

Hm ... saying that God is the source of truth does not necessarily require that your expository style and interpretational approach are the only correct one; neither does it require that no man can, drawing from the principles laid out in the Bible, form conclusions about current issues without recourse to quoting a verse to support each and every clause of each sentence.

For one thing, if we have the Holy Spirit, certainly it (He?) would be able to lead us to truth, such that we are freed from merely parroting the phrases in the Bible, but rather understand and can explain them. Secondly, as I'm sure you know, referencing the Bible is no guarantee against error. It is easy to approach the Bible with preconceptions, and whether you realize or not, read into it only what you agree with.

Look at the epistle writers if you want a great example. They only occasionally reference other scriptures, and are usually pretty sloppy in their interpretation. Though I doubt we should claim verbal plenary inspiration for our works, shouldn't these writings be our first model for composing sermons, discussions, blog posts?

If you are merely teaching someone to understand the Bible, you can let it speak for itself (often the best course). But if you are addressing an issue whose scope is beyond a single passage, you must have a principle-based, "Bible-wide" theology. And if you are extending into the deep waters of philosophical questions, though Christ is your guide, it might perhaps be better to take the boat of Philosophy, rather than attempt to walk on water.

pen·i·tence noun
the state of being penitent; regret for one's wrongdoing or sinning; contrition; repentance.

pen·ance noun

1.	a punishment undergone in token of penitence for sin.

2.	a penitential discipline imposed by church authority.

3.	a sacrament, as in the Roman Catholic Church, consisting in a confession of sin, made with sorrow and with the intention of amendment, followed by the forgiveness of the sin.

Wikipedia article on penance: penance in the Eastern Church

... The penitent then accuses him or herself of his or her sins. The priest quietly, and patiently listens. After the confessant reveals all of his or her sins, the priest then offers advice and counsel. The priest may modify the prayer rule of the penitent, or even prescribe another rule, if needed to combat the sins that the penitent struggles most with. Penances are usually given with a therapeutic intent, so that they are opposite to the sin committed.

For a hypothetical example, if the Eighth Commandment has been broken and the person has stolen something, then it could be prescribed that the he or she should return what was stolen (if possible) and give alms to the poor on a more regular basis. Opposites are to be treated with opposites. If the penitent suffers from gluttony, the confessant’s fasting rule is reviewed and perhaps increased. The intention of Holy Confession is never to punish, but to heal and purify. Holy Confession is also seen as a "second baptism".

Read More......

Repentance vs. Penance - Introduction

Introduction

In Evangelical Christianity today, there are some believers who have a tendency to practice penance rather than repentance. Though the term penance is many times associated with Catholicism, in this context, it does not mean that large numbers of Evangelicals are turning Catholic, but simply that there are some within Evangelicalism who, after initially being converted, try to pay for their sins by their own good works and sufferings. The difference between biblical repentance and evangelical penance is vast, has significant personal ramifications, and must be addressed practically in the church today.

Biblical Definition of Repentance in the New Testament

The first word of the Gospel spoken by Christ was “Repent” (Matt 4:17).[1] In order to define what repentance is, it is This one word in the original language of Greek summarizes the difference between what the Lord called His hearers to and “evangelical” penance. It is important to look at the original languagewhat the Bible says because it is not enough to reason from one's own opinions or to argue philosophically, for the truth does not come from men, but from God. God has revealed the truth to us in His Word – the ScripturesHis Word is are truth (John 17:17). And since the Bible was not written in English, it is many times helpful to read and study it in the original languages in order to gain insight into its meaning. Therefore, to begin the search for a biblical definition of repentance, we willa student must look at the Greek terms used in the New Testament that convey the idea of repentance by first looking at Matthew 4:17. Returning to that first word of the Gospel spoken by Christ I in Matthew 4:17, we find that the word translated as “repent” is metanoeite (μετανοειτε) which comes from the root word metanoeo (μετανοέω). The word, metanoeo along with its nominal equivalent metanoia (μετάνοια) is used fifty-seven times in the New Testament and means simply to, “change one's mind.”[2] Literally, metanoeo means “to perceive afterwards” (meta means after, implying change and neoe means to perceive) therefore it, “signifies to change one's mind or purpose, always in the N.T., involving a change for the better, an amendment.”[3] There are two other words in the New Testament which convey the concept of repentance, epistrepho (ἐπιστρέφω), and metamelomai (μεταμέλομαι). The word epistrepho brings with it the idea of “to turn,” “turn around” and therefore “to return”,[4] being very similar to the meaning of metanoeo. Metamelomai, however, means “to experience remorse”[5] referring specifically to the feelings a person has towards something rather than to the fact that a person has arrived at a different position on something as metanoeo implies.

Biblical Definition of Repentance in the Old Testament

Continuing the search for a biblical definition of repentance, a student discovers that in the Old Testament, there are primarily two Hebrew terms that are used to denote the idea of repentance. The first term is sub (שׁוּב) which means “to turn back, return”[6] and many times expresses a person's change of attitude toward God and sin (Dt 4:30; Neh 1:9; Psa 7:12; 85:4; Jer 3:14),[7] denoting “a conscious, moral separation and a personal decision for forsake sin and enter into fellowship with God”.[8] The second Hebrew term used to denote repentance is naham (נחם) which means “to be sorry, rue, repent,”[9] and many times refers to a change in God's dealings with humans as required by His justice (1 Sam. 15:29; Psa 110:4; Jer 4:28).[10]

Repentance as Defined by the Whole of Scripture

Looking throughout the whole of Scripture, a picture of what biblical repentance is begins to be seen clearly. There are rituals of repentance such as the tearing of one's clothing, fasting, sitting in sackcloth, sitting in ashes, (2 Kings 22:11; Jonah 3:6; Dan. 9:3); in addition, repentance is related to baptism as the start of a person's life in Christ (Acts 2:38; 13:24; 19:4). It is connected with faith (Acts 20:21; 26:18; Heb 6:1), with forgiveness (Luke 24:47; Acts 3:19; 8:22; 2 Cor. 12:21; Heb 6:1; Rev. 2:22; 9:20), and with a return to God (Acts 20:21; 26:20; 1 Pet 2:25; Rev. 16:9) that is based on the righteousness of Christ alone (Acts 3:19; 5:31; 17:30).[11] It is essential to note that throughout the Scriptures, “Repentance and faith are two side of the same coin”.[12] Biblically it is “repent” or “perish” (Luke 13:3, 5), “repent” or go to “hades” and “torment” (Luke 16:23, 28, 30). But for those who do repent, there is “joy in heaven” (Luke 15:7, 10), and so it can be concluded, that repentance is representative of the “entire response bringing about eternal life, including faith when it is not stated...Repentance must not be separated from its flip side of faith (Mark 1:15; Acts 20:21), or from the realization that it sometimes stands for the package of human response to the good new of Jesus Christ.”[13] In summary, repentance is simply a change of mind that implies a conscious personal decision to forsake sin and turn to God.

Definition of Penance

Contrary to the wealth of information in the Bible regarding the word “repentance” and its derivatives, the word “penance” never appears in any major English version of the Bible. The concept of penance, however, is not foreign to the Bible. Simply stated, penance is "a religious attitude deeply rooted in the human heart which prompts men to attempt to pay for their own sins by their good works and sufferings."[14] Several examples of biblical penance will be discussed in the midst of looking at three major differences between biblical repentance and “evangelical” penance.

Read More......

The ThirdMajor Difference Between Repentance and Penance

(this is one portion of a paper written on the difference between repentance and penance. Simply stated, penance is "a religious attitude deeply rooted in the human heart which prompts men to attempt to pay for their own sins by their good works and sufferings."¹

1C. John Miller. Repentance and the 20th Century Man (Fort Washington: Christian Literature Crusade, 1980), 19-20).

One of the major differences between repentance and penance is that repentance flows out of a godly sorrow, while penance flows out of a worldly sorrow. The Apostle Paul plainly states this truth in 2 Corinthians 7:10: “For the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation, but the sorrow of the world produces death.” Two types of sorrow are mentioned, and the fruit of each is a world apart.

Godly sorrow produces repentance, and this repentance is “without regret” (2 Cor 7:10). The phrase, “without regret” does not mean that the person is not sorry for having sinned against a holy God, for it is in fact godly sorrow in that it is primarily a sorrow towards God (Ps 51:4, 2 Cor 7:11), but rather, this phrase means that the repentant sinner has no regret for leaving the sin that before he had loved.

On the other hand, while there is also real sorry in worldly sorrow, it is not primarily due to sorrow over having sinned against God but is due to the negative consequences for the person’s sin. This worldly sorrow is many times heightened by going to great lengths to pay for one’s own sin to the point of believing that “if there is any forgiving to do he must forgive God for making him such a rotten sinner.”¹ Worldly sorrow results in people placing the blame for their sin on their surroundings rather than where the blame rightly falls, on their own heads. On the other hand, godly sorrow leads sinners to take full responsibility for their sin and results in fear to God (2 Cor 7:11). This fear then causes them to cry out for mercy to a God who is fully justified in damning them (Psa 51:1-4), whereas worldly sorrow involves a fear of the consequences of sin, and not of the Judge Himself.

While those who experience worldly sorrow may have a excruciating sense of approaching doom and be conscious of the fact that they are not prepared for life hereafter, they cling to the sinful pleasures of this world and are grieved because they cannot have both the pleasures of God and the pleasures of this world. They have no real fear of God in them (Psa 36:1). King Saul is a perfect example of this “worldly sorrow,” for when he was confronted by Samuel over his disobedience against God's command to completely wipe out the Amalekites, he first masked his sin by claiming to have done what God had asked of him. Finally, when Samuel pushes him on the issue, Saul declares, “I have sinned; I have indeed transgressed the command of the Lord and your words, because I feared the people and listened to their voice.” (1 Sam 15:24). Saul's sorrow did not flow out of his having sinned against God; rather, he only confessed to having sinned once Samuel told him of the consequences that he would face because of his disobedience. Saul was sorrowful because of the consequences of his sin, not because he had transgressed against a holy and righteous God. The motive behind Saul's confession is clearly seen in his reply to Samuel after Samuel declared the Lord would remove him from being king, “I have sinned; but please honor me now before the elders of my people and before Israel, and go back with me, that I may worship the Lord your God” (1 Sam 15:30). Saul was primarily concerned with his standing before men, and only cared of his standing before God because it affected how other people thought of him. Restoration to a right relationship with God and therefore the ability to worship was only a side note to Saul; his primary goal was to look good in the eyes of men. He did not ask God to pardon him, but again, because he feared man more than he feared God, he asked for Samuel's pardon. Saul's worldly sorrow lead to death.

The example of Saul is in stark contrast with that of David and the godly sorrow he exemplified after sinning by numbering the people of Israel and Judah as recorded in 2 Samuel 24. After ordering the people to be numbered, David's heart troubled him (2 Sam 24:10), and he said to the Lord, “I have sinned greatly in what I have done. But now, O Lord, please take away the iniquity of Your servant, for I have acted very foolishly” (2 Sam 24:10b). Already we see a contrast between David's response to that of Saul, for David's sorrow came before there were any consequences mentioned, and it lead him to take full responsibility for his sin and confess the sin to God and beg for God to pardon his iniquity. His sorrow stemmed primarily from having committed wrong towards a holy God, not for the negative consequences of his actions. It is also evident that David understood the gravity of the problem and did not attempt to make light of what he has done, saying, “for I have sinned greatly” (2 Sam 24:10).

When God sent the prophet Gad to ask David to choose between three penalties for his sin, either famine, defeat, or pestilence, we again see an extreme contrast between David and Saul in David’s choice of penalty. If Saul was in David's place, most likely he would have chosen to be pursued by his enemies for three months and then not left his palace for three months while his soldiers died in battle and fled. There would be no sorrow in Saul's heart, because there was no direct consequence for him. But David throws himself at the mercy of God in his reply to Gad, saying, “I am in great distress. Let us now fall into the hand of the Lord for His mercies are great, but do not let me fall into the hand of man” (2 Sam 24:14b). The sorrow of David again is revealed, and it is not primarily connected to the consequence, but rather to the fact that he sinned against God. This godly sorrow leads David to put himself at the mercy of God and align himself with God, agreeing that whatever God chooses to do would be just. David's knowledge of God proved correct, for the pestilence did not in fact last three days, but God in His mercy stopped it before the whole duration was complete.

When David saw the angel who was striking the people with pestilence, we see even more clearly his heart of true repentance reflected in these words: “Behold, it is I who have sinned, and it is I who have done wrong; but these sheep, what have they done? Please let Your hand be against me and against my father’s house” (2 Sam 24:17b). Saul would have kept silent, and comforted himself in the fact that he was not suffering for committing evil, but David could not bear the fact that he had caused so many others pain and death because of his sin against God. Because of David's godly sorrow that lead him to repentance, his relationship with God was restored and he completely turned from his sin and worshiped God (2 Sam 24:25); whereas Saul's worldly sorrow left his fellowship with God broken, never restored, ending ultimately in death (1 Sam 16:14; 31:4).

The examples of Saul and David embody the differences between a remorse that leads to repentance and a remorse that leads to penance. As believers, repentance is the only option, and if there be any tendency towards penance in us, we must return our focus away from ourselves and back on to God where it belongs. The difference between repentance and penance comes down to pride verses humility. Penance is the direct result of men paving their own way – a direct result of believing that man's way is better than God's. But repentance comes by God, through the Holy Spirit's work in the heart, causing that heart to humbly submit to God's ways and throw itself at the mercy of a holy and just God.

1 C. John Miller. Repentance and the 20th Century Man (Fort Washington: Christian Literature Crusade, 1980), 26.

Read More......

Polemic vs. Purification

"No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward."

I have on occasion been accused of being divisive, negative, and critical. This claim is far from being unjust, as I'm sure you'll attest to, but I frequently find myself in opposition to the very attributes that are ascribed to me. Is this mere hypocrisy, a double-standard formed from the sinful nature we all possess? Or, is there, in fact, a marked a priori difference between my own critical tack on discussions and the attitudes that I chiefly oppose? Rather than being an auto-hagiography or self-defensive measure, I intend in this post to ask myself this question: "Why?"

The first thing I'm against is criticizing the outside first. Whether it's gay marriage or the "Jesus Seminar", we have a tendency to attack first those things that neither the speaker nor the audience is ever likely to buy into. Though this behavior does not always venture into "strain out a gnat and let in a camel" territory, I feel that a person who can start with themselves or their own context/milieu/denomination, and in humility admit failings with the intention of setting them right, is far closer to the principles Jesus taught than someone who makes a career out of scapegoating external threats. See for instance, the parable of the publican and the pharisee, or this passage in 1 Corinthians:

I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."

Measure for measure, you'll be judged as vehemently as you judge others. In light of that, I react against a quick judgment against those outside the church. Although I can see the benefit of reinforcing that "this is not what we believe", it can quickly degenerate into self-righteous fascism.

Here's another area that galls me -- when someone will, for the sake of theological issues large or small, write off an entire block of the church. I think that any study of the gospels will reveal that knowledge about God was not the chief criterion that Christ required, but rather, repentance and mercy. To dismiss charismatics, orthodox, even many catholics out of hand without reference to the true things that Christ asks for --

Jesus declared, "Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

is to be as foolish as those who opposed Christ for healing on the Sabbath. It is easy for us to say, "big deal" about healing on the Sabbath without seeing what it represents. The Pharisees were respected leaders in the "church"; surely you can imagine a contemporary equivalent to their blindness in the face of Christ's power? It is possible to have ecumenism without compromising the essentials -- if you will refuse to let the essentials be circumvented by pet issues or even major issues. In truth, as Paul admonishes, we must accept that there are feet and hands and eyes. The charismatics and the fundamentalists need each other -- and their division undermines God's kingdom.

Am I insensitive to others? Certainly! Do I occasionally play the devil's advocate? Again, guilty. Thank God that there is grace for me as well as for others, or we would all fall equally before His wrath. What I can say is that, when I can, I try to use the strengths of being a hand, foot, nose, or whatever it is that I am to serve God's purposes in the way that I believe is in line with His plan and character. The same God calls and chooses David, Paul, John, Matthew, even Jeremiah; and today it is the same. No part of the body is indispensable.

Read More......