Blogroll - some of the sites I read regularly

You may notice that I've updated my "links" tab on the far right side of the page. These links are blogs that I read consistently and are of great interest. Some of these people probably do not even know who I am but I'll briefly give a description of each to those who may want to venture to their sites. The first one is Adrian Warnock's blog. He has an excellent blog and and is located in the UK. The next blog is Tim Challies.' This is also a very good blog that is pretty popular. Doxoblogy is written by a guy in Tennessee and is very worship-centered and uplifting. The next blog is written by another Brit who is a ph.d. student who unfortunately has Dyspraxia, as his blog says. Despite this illness he writes a lot and has many interesting opinions and is also one of the nicest guys on the blogosphere. The Indigent Intern is my good friend and co-worker, Drew Jones, who writes mainly to let off some steam. He has a very good sense of humor. Joshua Harris' blog is the next listed, who is an author (I Kissed Dating Goodbye) and pastor. Pastor Steve Weaver's blog is a great source for seeing how expository preaching is done well. His outlines are usually published and are very theological and thorough. Philip Johnson's blog, Pyromaniac, is another wide-read blog. He is an associate of John MacArthur. And finally, the Sheep's Crib is written by a Southern Baptist pastor in California who has four different blogs.

As you may notice, all of these bloggers come from different backgrounds. Some are Presbyterians, some are Dispensationalists, some are Reformed Charismatics, while some are Calvinistic Baptists. However, despite their differences, they all keep the main thing, the main thing and are excellent writers.

Does Christianity Squash Women?

A review of the new book from Rebecca Jones, author and former missionary to France with the PCA.

Press Here

Friends Don't Let Friends Go to Hell

I've been teaching through Romans lately and this week I'm in Romans 4 where Paul writes that it is not works, signs (ordinances or sacraments) or the law that saves but it is faith in Christ's redeeming work. James Montgomery Boice has an excellent, but extremely thorough, commentary on Romans that is 4 volumes. The first volume covers chapters 1-4 and is 59 chapters and 500 pages long. Therefore, I do not read every word of the commentary but I certainly flip through it and read parts. The following is an exceptional quote by Boice on the "exclusion" of non-Christians from Christ's saving work:

"I can say the door is open for you, regardless of who you are or whatever you may have done or not done. If you are Jew, the gospel is for you. If you are a Gentile, it is for you. It is for those who are good and those who are bad. It is for scholars as well as for the uneducated. It is for religious people and for those who have no religious background whatsoever. None of these things enter into the picture, because we are all reduced to the same level. Salvation is by the grace of God through faith.

If you are excluded, it is only because you have refused to walk through that open door. It is because you prefer your own sullied morality to God's grace. Do not let that be true of you. Instead of refusing grace, accept it and enter into the full joy of God's salvation. That salvation is for you, whoever you may be - if you will have it."

Friend, if you're reading this, please accept the grace of Christ. You are a sinner, I am a sinner and unless we accept Christ's substitution for our sins we will not be in Heaven. Why? Because sin cannot exist in Heaven where a perfect God resides. This is impossible. Therefore, we need Christ. Turn to Him. Hell is no place to be for eternity. It is a place of crying, eternal torment, and unimaginable pain. This is what this blog is for: I love everyone who reads this and I desperately want you to live with Christ in Heaven for eternity.

Merry Christmas

Not 'happy holidays,' but a very merry Christmas to all of you. After all, Jesus is the reason for the Season. Christmas, which is the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ, is the reason for all of the hoopla and commercialization of what our holiday season has become. But if you think about it, Christmas is a very peculiar holiday. How? Let's see:

1) We are not completely sure that December 25 is the day that Christ was born, but we choose to celebrate it on this day, and this is fine.

2) We give each other gifts. I wonder how this transpired? I'm sure some of you theologians and historians have an answer to this question. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the magi brought gifts to Christ. If this is so, how did that event get turned into giving gifts to each other?

3) Just how in the world did Santa Claus some into the picture? I'm talking about Santa, the reindeer, his sleigh, the North Pole, the whole nine yards. I know there are a multitude of stories about white-bearded fellows bringing gifts to children but where and why did these stories develop and how did they get assimilated into the celebration of our Savior's birth?

4) Christmas trees: What do they have to do with Christ? I'm sure there is a logical explanation and no true Christian would claim that Christmas trees are a necessity for the holiday but can you imagine Christmas without one? I cannot. My family and friends would think that Emily and I had flipped if we all of a sudden announced we were not going to have a Christmas tree. Is there something inherently wrong with having a Christmas tree? I don'think so but there is nothing 'right' about it either.

I write this to prove a point about how much tradition factors into every day life. "Tradition" has more influence on our lives then I think most people would be willing to admit. How you celebrate Christmas, where you celebrate Christmas, and who you celebrate it with are all very much influenced by tradition. Tradition also influences decisions we make about churches we attend (or if we are pastors, how we "do church,") or if we do not attend church at all. For instance, if we grow up with atheist parents, our tradition will be vastly different from that of Christian "culture."

I write all of this for one reason: All of these traditions that we have for the Christmas season are not inherently wrong, but, oh, how Satan is smiling at how what should be the most important holiday of the year, (outside of Easter Sunday), has been tainted and polluted to take the glory off of God and impute it, if you will, to man. As my father says, "Man always finds a way to screw things up." Amen to that, dad.

So in the remainder of "holiday season," let's try to keep in mind just where all of this celebration and family time came from: the birth of a little baby boy who was both man and God and who came to the world, humbly and humilated, to save His fallen creatures from His wrath.

Anonymous Comments

Lately my blog has been receiving a good many comments. This is good, of course, because the goal of any blog is to gain readership. However, I have been noticing a disturbing trend that I am going to have to take care of and that is of posting comments anonymously. Most comments that are in favor or agreement of what I write, leave a link to their site, an email or some sort of identification. However, it seems that the comments that are in stark disagreement of matters written about on this blog, sign in anonymously and do a 'hit and run' type of commenting. Not only is this type of practice annoying (because I have no idea who is writing this, what background they come from, what their platform is, etc.) it is also one of displaying cowardice. I now turn my attention to these people: I love that you are reading my blog, but if you are going to comment, do it intelligently (not just using words like "stupid," etc.") and respectfully as I would do if I were to visit your blog. To post a comment anonymously, especially one that is anti-post, is to be nothing but a coward and makes your opinion null and void. Please forgive me for what may seem as harsh words, but I feel they are needed in this instance. From now on, take time to register yourself and then comment away!

In Christ who saves us by His loving grace,

Charlie

The Promises of Jesus (Isaiah 9:6-7)

6 For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of His government and peace There will be no end, Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom, To order it and establish it with judgment and justice From that time forward, even forever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this. Isaiah 9:6-7 (NKJV)

This passage of Scripture promises us five truths that we can appreciate. The prophet Isaiah and the Old Testament saints had to have faith that these things would come true. Fortunately, for us, they already have become true. All we have to do is accept them and believe and be thankful to God for what He has done for us.

1. The promise of Jesus includes his birth (v.6) – God has sent us his Son, Jesus Christ to take away the sins of the world. Isaiah knew it would come about and waited patiently for it. He has been born and we should thank God for our Savior so that we can have our sins cleared and have eternal life with the Father.

2.The promise of Jesus includes his rule (v.6) – Make no mistake about, this little baby that was born in a manger rules the world. God has given him all authority over all things and he will judge the living and the dead. And if he judges us sinful, we deserve Hell. But if he judges us and sees God’s righteousness then we will have eternal life.

3. The promise of Jesus includes his work (v.6) – He is wonderful. Only a wonderful God could save sinners like us. He is a counselor because no one teaches and shows us the correct way except Him. He is a mighty God because he is the only God who created the heavens and the earth. He is the Everlasting Father because Jesus says that if you’ve seen him you’ve seen the Father. And he is the Prince of Peace because indeed, only through Jesus will we truly ever have peace in our hearts.

4. The promise of Jesus includes his eternity (v.7) – There will never be an end to Jesus’ rule and the peace that he gives. When we get to heaven he will wipe away every tear from every eye.

5. The promise of Jesus includes his justice (v.7) ­– His kingdom will be one of justice. We will be judged sinless and perfect if we accept what Jesus has done for us

Jesus really is the reason for the season. Ever since Genesis 3:15, Jesus has been promised and He is the only way to salvation. The Old Testament saints were saved by believing in the savior who would come and we are now saved by believing that he has come and by Christ imputing his righteousness to us so that God sees perfection through Jesus, while we imputed our sins onto him. It was not a fair trade, but in God's eyes it was. During this season, remember what Jesus has done for you and take comfort in the promises that Jesus brought.

Review of Barbara Walters' Special on "Heaven"

After watching the Barbara Walters' special on "Heaven" last night, here are my critiques/opinions. Baptist Press has a good introduction to what the show was about:

Thomas White, director of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary’s Center for Leadership Development in Fort Worth, Texas, and an adjunct professor of Baptist history, noted in comments provided to Baptist Press:

"Although Barbara Walters’ intent should be commended, her content should not. She confused rather than clarified the issue by giving equal weight to popular authors, near-death experiences, movie stars, religious teachers and pastors. She merely surveyed various opinions in a show that should have been titled, ‘Heaven: Have It Your Way.'"

This is exactly what the show did. It seemed Walters was on a mission to find every path that could somehow lead to Heaven. Also, the show was filled with misinformation. For instance, Walters stated at the beginning of the program that the early church believed that upon death, people changed into spiritual beings, also known as angels. I am not sure what Walters means by "early church," but the New Testament church collectively did not believe this. There may have been a few sects or possibly later Catholics who believed this, but not the early church.

However, these mistakes by the secular media should not be surprising. What should be surprising, though, are the mistakes made from those people representing the Christian faith.

Walters interviewed a minister from an African-Amerian church in New York City who mentioned that Heaven existed in a "fourth dimension." I have no idea where in Scripture that idea is promulgated but I am pretty sure the biblical authors never mention anything about a "fourth dimension."

Also, the Cardinal that Walters interviewed stated that our purpose in life is to go to Heaven. He was partially right; our purpose in life is glorify God and though we sinned, starting with Adam, one day will regain that sinless perfected state and enjoy eternal fellowship with our Creator in Heaven...however, getting there is not our sole goal.

Finally, Walters interviewed Evangelical pastor Ted Haggard. White says it best about Haggard when he states, "Haggard fared better but needed stronger wording. He stated there is ‘only one guaranteed way to go to heaven and that is through Jesus Christ....If you are not born again, then you do not have the assurance of going to heaven.’ He needed to omit the qualifiers ‘guaranteed’ and ‘assurance’ while pointing to New Testament’s declaration -- Jesus is the only way to get to heaven." Exactly. Saying simply 'there is no guarantee' to Heaven if one does not go through Jesus, leaves a possibility that one may make another route to eternal life apart from Christ, which is of course, heresy.

Haggard also unfortunately stated that when he smells alcohol it makes him want to "throw up." Let's not associate abstaining from alcohol as being necessary for salvation. There are plenty of Christian brothers and sisters who drink alcohol moderately and do not sin in doing so. Haggard's comment on this issue smells of legalism.

Also, it would have been nice if Haggard could have explained what it meant to be 'born again.' This phrase has been adulterated so as to lose its meaning and many people think they are born again when they really have no idea what the phrase means.

All in all, Walters' special was what one could expect for a network television production on Heaven: political correctness at its finest by not hurting anyone's feelings (or worldview) and not coming up with any definitive answer.

Why Not One Way to Heaven? The Myth of Pluralism

Now that I am out of school for this semester, I increasingly find myself watching shows on television that I would never watch. This morning, as I was eating my cereal (albiet it was a late breakfast), ABC's show The View was on. If you've never seen this show before, basically, the premise is that 5 women from all different backgrounds sit around a table, drink coffee, and argue. Lately, their arguments have led to discussions of religion.

Tonight, Barbara Walters, one of the women on this show, is hosting a special on ABC on the topic of Heaven: what is it, how do we get there, etc. (9-11 pm est). Among others, she interviews the Dali Lama (sp?), a fundementalist Islamic male who tried to kill himself and Israelis but failed, and other "spiritual" leaders. Invariably, after showing a clip of the Muslim telling Walters that he believed that all non-Muslims will go to Hell, discussion erupted on the exclusivity of religion.

Walters advocated that when people start to say that their religion is the only way to Heaven, discontent sets in and eventually wars start. While she is partially right, the fact that "discontent" sets in should not lead to someone abandoning their beliefs. There is one view that was not voiced and I'll take time to make it known here.

Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and all religions make some kind of claim of how to get to Heaven, nirvana, etc. Islam and Christianity for instance, make definitive exclusive claims of how to get to Heaven. In fact, the two claims contradict each other. By law, a Muslim may be wrong about what he believes and a Christian may be wrong about what he believes. Also, by law, one may be wrong and the other may be right; this is of course, possible. However, by law of non-contradition, BOTH CANNOT be right. If a Muslim is right, a Christian cannot be right. If a Christian is right, a Muslim cannot be right because their religions claim exclusivities. By nature, "A" cannot equal "B." To eschew this idea, is to eschew basic logic.

My question is this: What makes this so hard for people to understand? The answer is, "Nothing." The idea of inclusivism, or pluralism (that all roads lead to Heaven), seems agreeable and likeable, therefore making people feel good about themselves and making themselves believe that no matter how they live their lives, and we all live selfish lives at some point, they will be able to somehow slide into the back door of Heaven.

Unfortunately, while this seems nice, it is wrong. All of the religions of the world make exclusive salvation claims. Therfore, only one religion is right. The quest in life is to find which one it is. I believe the evidence is overwhelmingly in the favor of Christianity and the exclusive claims that it makes.

Death of Male Friendship

The following link can be found at Dr. Al Mohler's website. It is a most interesting read about the "death of male friendship." Does it cross your mind that everytime one man touches another man that they may be gay? There's a reason you think like that and our culture is to blame:


Death of Male Friendship: Review of Brokeback Mountain

I'm 70% Calvinist apparently...which sounds about right considering I am a 3.5 pointer

I think the desciption of Calvinism is a little harsh. You scored as Calvinism. You are a Calvinist. You hate eveyone that does not believe like you, you are hateful and proud. You do not witness. God can save the world without you. Calvinism 70% Atheist 50% Arminian 35% Theology Quiz created with QuizFarm.com

What's your eschatology?

Here is a cool quiz: Discover what your views are on the Second Coming of Christ. I scored as a Pre-miller. Let me know what you are. Charlie You scored as Premillenialist. Premillenialism believes that there will be a rapture and tribulation before Jesus returns and overthrows the antichrist and establishes his Kingdom. Current events are spoken of in scripture. Premillenialist 100% Left Behind 70% Dispensationalist 65% Amillenialist 40% Postmillenialist 35% Moltmannian Eschatology 30% Preterist 25% What's your eschatology? created with QuizFarm.com

Meticulous Providence

For those who hold to meticulous providence, or that God fore-ordains every thing that will ever happen, even the fact that I am writing these words and you are reading them, how does one who holds this view explain the problem of evil? If God ordains everything, does this make him the author of evil? I know some of you 5-pointers are itching to touch this one, so go ahead. I'm not trying to pick a fight, just would like to see how the converation goes.

God Exists - But How do we Know?

The following is part one in a series I'm teaching on Sunday Nights about the doctrine of God. As always, specific comments/questions are welcome.

God Exists – But How do we Know?

We can know that God exists in three ways:

1) We know God exists by listening to our hearts.

a. Mankind has suppressed the truth by their wickedness (Rom.1:18)

b. Mankind has darkened their hearts (Rom.1: 21)

c. Mankind has exchanged God for a lie (Rom.1:25)

- Therefore we see that we know that God exists yet we try to push him out of our minds because we have all sinned. Sin is a deceiver and when we are not growing close to God and living in Him, sin becomes like living in a fog where we forget that God is even around or exists.

d. Mankind has fooled himself by his sin. (Ps. 14:1, 53:1)

e. Mankind has pushed God out of his thoughts (Ps. 10:3-4)

- Deep down, mankind knows that God exists, but over time He learns to block God out. There are no true athiests.

2) We know God exists by looking at nature.

a. God is seen clearly in creation (Rom. 1:20)

b. God is seen clearly in the sky (Ps. 19:1-2)

- Look at a wristwatch. If I told you that this watch formed by itself would you believe me?

3) We know God exists by looking at Scripture.

a. This is self-explanatory. We have been looking at Scripture the whole time.

b. 2 Tim. 3:16-17

What does this mean for me?

1. Because we are all sinners, only God can change the hearts of people. We are the messengers.

2. The world tries to push God out of the way but as Christians we are called to be ‘salt and light.’

new blog

I have a new blog. It will be mostly humorous. Laughter helps the day go by faster. Here is the link: http://charleswallace.blogspot.com/

Can Women Wear Pearls in Church (pt.2) by Emily E. Wallace

ARE COMPLEMENTARIANS GUILTY OF USING THE CULTURAL EXCUSE?

The first passage in question is 1 Timothy 2:9-10, “In like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing” (NKJV). To interpret this passage correctly the reader must apply two basic principles of hermeneutics. The reader must look at the passage in its context of the chapter and book, and the reader must let Scripture interpret Scripture. [1]

First Timothy is a pastoral epistle which deals mostly with the “ecclesiastical affairs and operate on a practical level.”[2] This certain passage occurs in a section (2:1-15) dealing with public worship.[3] Two main areas that concern women are addressed in this passage: appearance and actual conduct. In verses 9-10, Paul addresses modest dress and good deeds. According to John MacArthur, a godly woman should be mortified if she distracts someone from worshiping God. [4] Women need to dress modestly in the worship service. When a woman dresses for worshiping God to attract attention to herself, she has violated the purpose of worship (1 Peter 3:3-4). [5]

Women in the worship service should not dress in extreme fashion with braided hair, gold, pearls or costly clothing. The reader can be aware of the fact that women, back in the time that Paul was writing, only had three dresses and often wore gold and pearls in their hair to draw attention to themselves (like many pagan women).[6] However, the point Paul is making is in contrast to “moderation.” Paul says to dress in moderation or hidden truth, not in contrast to out of control fashion. If a woman comes to a worship service with jewelry to flaunt her wealth or draw attention to herself, then she is not honoring God. Women should be more concerned with her good works instead of her apparel.

First Peter 3:3-5 speaks in the context of marriage and how to live within the covenant of marriage. In verse three, Peter moves to the wife’s beauty, which is not just on the outward appearance of the woman, but the inner spiritual beauty which is eternal. The word "adorning" used in this passage focuses on the attention for attractiveness to others. Christian wives should not rely on their own attractiveness by focusing on “arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel”(1 Peter 3:3). Instead, a Christian wife should focus on her heart and striving for a gentle and quiet spirit “which is very precious in the sight of God” (1 Peter 3:4). Wayne Grudem asserts that the Greek text does not include an adjective for modifying clothing; therefore, the literal translation is “putting on clothing.”[7] Therefore, “it is incorrect, therefore, to use this text to prohibit women from braiding their hair and wearing of gold jewelry, for by the same reasoning one would have to prohibit ‘putting on of clothing.’”[8] Peter is not prohibiting women from wearing any of these; rather he is saying that “adorning” should not be her source of beauty.[9] This is an important point: no where in the text does Peter prohibit wearing braided hair, gold jewelry or fine clothing, but rather states that these should not be a Christian wif'e’s focus. Any act that draws attention to a wife is contrary to what is very pleasing to God - a gentle and quite spirit.

In this verse, Peter is contrasting the outward adornments with good deeds, in the same ways of 1 Tim. 2:9-10.[10] The historical-critical method of interpreting Scripture understands that the reader needs to look at the historical context of the passage. Nonetheless, the reader needs to look at the context of what the author is stating, and if the author is forbidding an act. Complementarians ethically and hermetically, are not guilty of using the culture excuse, because, unlike submitting, outward adornments were not forbidden by Paul or Peter. Furthermore, outward appearances in both passages are not the principle (or focus) of the passage. Women submitting to their husbands, good works, and having a gentle and quite spirit are the keys to both passages (also see 1 Cor. 11: 2-16, 1 Cor. 14:33-36, Eph. 5:21-33, Col. 3:18-19). It would be wrong to say that these instructions by Paul and Peter are no long relevant today (and complementarians assert this statement). [11]

---

[1]James E. Rosscup, “Hermeneutics and Expository Preaching,” in John MacArthur, Jr., Rediscovering Expository Preaching (Dallas:Word 1992): 123-24,132-33.

[2] Grant R. Osborne, “Hermeneutics and Women in the Church,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 20 (1977): 346.

[3] Ibid.

[4] John MacArthur, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary:1 Timothy (Chicago: Moody Press1995).

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Wayne Grudem, The First Epistle of Peter: An Introduction and Commentary (Leicester, England: Intervarsity Press, and Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans 1988), 140.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ramsey J. Micheals,, ed., 1 Peter: The World Biblical Commentary: 1 Peter vol. 49 (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1988), 159.

[11] John Piper and Wayne Grudem, “An Overview of Central Concerns: Questions and Answers,” in John Piper and Wayne Grudem, eds. Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism (Wheaton: Crossway, 1991), 74.