"The Narrow Road": Blogs By Shane Kastler

A Review of "Logic On Fire: The Life & Legacy of Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones"

By Shane Kastler

Few preachers had a greater impact on the 20^th century world than Martyn Lloyd-Jones (MLJ). A native of Wales, Lloyd-Jones initially achieved acclaim as one of the most promising young doctors in London. A protege of the Royal Physician “Lord Horder” MLJ was well on his way to a level of fame, fortune, and status that view could have dreamed of. Yet something was missing. MLJ looked around himself and saw people with problems that no doctor could fix; and doctors who lived hollow lives, in spite of their worldly success. By God's grace MLJ was born again, left a career in medicine, and set off to be a preacher of the gospel. Starting in the small, poverty-stricken Welsh town of Aberavon; he would eventually receive worldwide acclaim (and criticism) as the pastor of Westminster Chapel in London for over thirty years. Serving as a model of faithful, expository preaching; MLJ spent three decades combing over the Scriptures and proclaiming them with “a demonstration of the Spirit and power” until his retirement in 1968. He would eventually leave this world for the next in 1981, after a bout with cancer. Being a faithful witness unto the end, and exhorting his loved ones NOT to pray for his healing and thus “try to hold me back from the glory.” MLJ's life was an incredible testimony of God's grace and God's power through a faithful servant. And this is the subject of a new documentary directed by Matthew Robinson and produced by Media Gratiae Productions entitled, “Logic On Fire: The Life & Legacy of Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones.”

MLJ grew up the middle of three sons in the small town of Llangeitho, Wales. While the city had a strong spiritual heritage dating back to the 18^th century preaching of Daniel Rowland; by the time of MLJ's childhood there was very little (if any) gospel being preached. Most the preaching was either presented as though all of the hearers were believers in Christ; or that there was no need for Christ at all. Consequently, most didn't even know the true gospel, much less embrace it. This included the Lloyd-Jones family, as MLJ once sadly testified that his father died having probably never even heard the gospel. This might have been true of MLJ also, if not for God's providence and a move to London.

Entering medical school at the age of 16, MLJ studied for several years at St. Bartholomew's Hospital, a world renowned institution of medicine and learning. Having become a church member at age 14; MLJ still saw religion as a “Sunday” matter with no real effect on his life. But indeed, life was empty. Something was missing. And in accordance with an ironic providence, MLJ eventually made his way to Westminster Chapel where he heard John Hutton preach a message with more gospel content than he was accustomed to. Who could have known that the unregenerate young man who sat and listened in the gallery of Westminster would one day pastor the church? Yet this would eventually come to fruition.

Longtime associate and well-known biographer of MLJ; Iain Murray stated that the effects of MLJ's conversion were more gradual than instantaneous. He began to see, by grace, that the answer to life's problems were not found in any worldly solutions, but in knowing Christ Jesus as Lord. Soon he would marry Bethan Philips and surrender his life to preaching by becoming pastor of the Bethlehem Forward Movement Church in Aberavon, Wales. Better known as Sandfields Chapel. This church, part of the Calvinistic Methodist tradition, was in decline when MLJ came on the scene. They sought to attract people, as many church's of the day did, by producing dramas and various “programs” to draw the people. MLJ sought another method all together. He determined to know nothing except “Jesus Christ and Him crucified” and to preach this message as the means of growing the church. And this he did, with the effects being spiritually volcanic.

Though MLJ hesitated to describe what happened in Aberavon as “revivial” it was clear that God was at work in an extraordinary way. Many conversions came about in the small town; and MLJ amassed quite a collection of whiskey bottles as newly regenerate drunks would bring the bottles to him in spiritual brokenness. The fellowship at the church was sweet and the people were close. Not surprisingly they were devastated when he unexpectedly announced his resignation eleven years later.

Many struggled to understand why MLJ would leave a successful ministry at Sandfields Chapel; but he declared quite simply “my ministry had come to an end.” Though he loved his native Wales and enjoyed unusual blessings there, he felt deep within that it was time for him to move on. Meanwhile in London, G. Campbell Morgan had embarked on his second stint as pastor of Westminster Chapel and longed to find the man who would eventually become his replacement. This, he believed, was MLJ and in 1939 he was called to be the Associate Pastor there. Soon, Campbell would retire and MLJ would settle in as the permanent Pastor; just as World War II was reaching it's crescendo in England.

The documentary does an excellent job of keeping interest by interviewing numerous people who knew MLJ during this time. Not the least of which was his two daughters, Elizabeth Catherwood and Ann Beatt, who tell countless fascinating stories of his life and his ministry. On one occasion during the war, MLJ was at the pulpit praying when the congregation heard the familiar hum of a Nazi bomb flying over the building. Striking just blocks away and shaking the church building, MLJ continued to pray until the congregation opened their eyes to find him covered in white dust that had fallen from the roof.

During these war years, many came and heard him preach; but not all of them would survive the war. This created a special sense of urgency that caused the hearers to consider eternal matters more than usual. The result, as in Aberavon, was numerous conversions.

Much of the documentary centers on MLJ's preaching, from whence comes the title “Logic On Fire.” This phrase was used by MLJ in a series of lectures presented to Westminster Seminary on preaching and thus contained his definition of what preaching should be, “logic on fire.” Not surprisingly, this is exactly how many would describe his preaching, as he presented a text then sought to apply it in exegetical, theological, and diagnostic fashion. He analyzed the Scriptures in submission to them as the very Word of God. Having been converted himself in adulthood; saved out of the rational world of medicine, he understood how the unconverted man thought. And was thus able to anticipate many arguments against the faith and answer them through the preaching. Sunday after Sunday, MLJ would present passages in verse-by-verse exposition. Visitors were plentiful and welcome, with many intellectuals of the day mixing with common folks to hear the glorious gospel heralded. At the end of the evening service, those who sought counsel would line up at his vestry door as he would try to speak with all who sought him, often staying until after 10 PM.

Throughout the documentary, MLJ's ministry is remembered by those who knew him and those who studied him. The aforementioned Murray provides deep and rich remembrances of life at Westminster. As do Andrew Davies, Geoff Thomas, Vernon Higham, and Eifion Evans, just to name a few. Add to this, the unique family perspective provided by his daughters, grandchildren, and others and the narrative rolls seamlessly.

In addition to the first hand accounts of Lloyd-Jones, we hear from several others who didn't necessarily know the man but who studied his ministry such as Justin Taylor, Paul Washer, Ben Bailie , Conrad Mbewe, Kevin DeYoung, Jason Meyer, Donald S. Whitney, and Ligon Duncan. Not to mention well-known Christian leaders such as John Macarthur, R.C. Sproul, and Sinclair Ferguson. All of these names come together to tell a rich and moving story of a life wholly devoted to God and His word.

In addition to the feature documentary film which spans almost two hours, the set comes with two other DVDs that contain several hours of additional interviews, not included in the main film. As well as a small, cloth-bound book, and five postcard sized pictures. Some of the most interesting stories in the additional disks involved MLJ's grandchildren as they talk of knowing the man as he was at home. A grandfather who was warm and loving, who loved to play and be silly with the kids, and who exhibited an extraordinarily kind heart to those in need. Grandson Jonathan Catherwood recounts how, as a young man, he toyed with atheism, agnosticism, and transcendental meditation. While many in the family were aghast, his grandfather calmly conversed about his interest and asked if he could read a book that Catherwood was studying. Later he visited with him and politely pointed out the errors in the book, as Catherwood eventually discovered for himself (by the grace of God). This kindness and patience from MLJ had a lasting effect on his grandson. And as another grandson, Adam Desmond remembered: “If you ever asked him for 'one' of something, he would give you 'three' instead.”

Throw in a beautiful soundtrack of Welsh hymns and rare home video footage of “The Doctor” and one can see the meticulous work put into the production of this great film about an even greater man. With all of that said I would heartily recommend the viewing and the purchase of “Logic on Fire” to watch for inspiration, edification, and encouragement. I sat down and watched it with my wife and children, frequently pausing to discuss MLJ's life and ministry. We laughed as we listened to MLJ's family tell stories, we marveled to hear the accounts of his ministry, we were awestruck to listen eagerly as his recorded voice reverberated the preached Word, and we cried when we witnessed the effect of his life and ministry on so many people. MLJ was a rare gift to the Lord's church. A chosen instrument, used of God to awake slumbering souls and enliven the spiritually dead. Rest assured that “Logic On Fire” will not disappoint.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shane Kastler serves as Pastor of Heritage Baptist Church in Lake Charles, Louisiana. He is also the co-host of "Church and State" heard each Thursday on Eternal Life Broadcasting (KELB 100.5 FM and KEBL 105.5 FM radio). He teaches Logic at Covenant Grace Academy and writes a weekly religion column for the Linn County News (KS). He has contributed articles to Economic Policy Journal, TargetLiberty.com, Lew Rockwell.com, Sword & Trowel, and ReformedLibertarian.com.

Christianity In Two Words: Believers Believe

By Shane Kastler

“We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.” - John 6:69
In our world today there is much confusion as to what a “Christian” is.  Some equate Christianity with membership in a particular church.  While it is certainly true that Christians should belong to a local church body and should be active participants in regular corporate worship; mere membership does not necessarily equate to true Christianity. Membership rolls are frequently overstocked with “members” who show no real evidence of being a Christian.  Their mouths might profess faith, but their life professes something much different.
    The profession of faith itself is another incorrect way to define “Christian.”  Some will say that if you have professed faith in Christ at any point in your life then you are a Christian.  But “professing” faith and actually “possessing” faith are two different matters.  The one who truly “possesses” faith will indeed “profess” it.  But the opposite isn't necessarily true.  Many people “profess” a faith that they don't actually “possess.”  Jesus spoke of this in Matthew 7:22-23 where He proclaims that many will profess “Lordship” to Him even though He doesn't actually know them in a saving way.  And they don't know Him.
    Strangely enough, in our world today, some even equate Christianity with one's country.  For example, some say that since America is a “Christian” nation, then Americans who claim no other religion must be “Christian” by default.  This is a very odd and unbiblical means of defining a Christian.
    True Christianity is nothing like what I've described above.  And at the risk of over simplifying things, let me boil Christianity down to two words:  “Believers Believe.”  What is a true Christian?  A true Christian is someone who “believes” in Jesus Christ.  They believe He is who He claimed to be.  The perfect, sinless, eternal Son of God.  The “Word” who became flesh and dwelt among us. (John 1:14)  The Savior of His sheep who was slain to pay for the sins of His people.  The Lord of Glory who arose from the grave and ascended on high.  The reigning King who sits enthroned and will one day come again.
    Do you believe these things?  And what's more, is your life governed and dominated by the Lordship and the truth of who Jesus is?  For true believers do more than simply believe facts in an intellectual way.  True believers have a heart on fire for God.  By God's grace they have experienced a new, spiritual birth (John 3:3) and they are not in love with the world.  Rather their greatest love is Jesus.
    Believers believe.  Are you a believer?  Do you believe?  Repent and trust in Christ today.  Don't define Christianity by unbiblical means.  Define Christianity the way the Bible defines it.  Then examine yourself to see if you really ARE what you CLAIM to be.

--------------------

(NOTE:  This article is scheduled to appear in the April 27 edition of the Linn County News).

Using Logic To Refute Gay Marriage - An Example From Ryan T. Anderson

By Shane Kastler

Recently, after a speech defending the traditional view of marriage as being between man and woman, Ryan T. Anderson took questions from the audience on the issue. A homosexual man stood up and asked why Anderson thought it was acceptable to “discriminate” against him and his “partner” by not granting them the legal right to marry. The question was posed under the guise of the federal income tax code. The homosexual man wanted the right to file his taxes “jointly” with his “husband” and thus receive the same potential tax break as a heterosexual married couple that files jointly. (Scroll to the bottom of this article to see the video).

As a Christian, as a Pastor, and as a Logic teacher I appreciated the way Anderson answered the question. Let me explain what I mean, from all three perspectives. First of all, from the standpoint of logic.

Anderson employs two different logical tools in his argument. First he points out the potential fallacy of “special pleading” that the homosexual man is engaging in. The man wants to re-define marriage to benefit himself and his partner. Anderson asks him, if he would also like to extend marital benefits to the “throuple” (group of 3) or the “heterosexual quartet.” Or does he only want to re-define marriage to the extent that it benefits him and go no further than that? The homosexual man has no answer for this and was clearly unprepared for Anderson's line of argumentation. Of course if the homosexual had stated the obvious, that “throuples” and “quartets” are not really “marriages” then he would have also refuted his own argument. Homosexual couples are not “marriages” either. If, on the other hand, the homosexual had embraced the absurd argument Anderson was presenting and said in essence, “Sure, let's grant throuples and quartets the legal right of marriage!” Then he would have been exposed as one who basically wants to do away with marriage all together. This is the very point that Anderson fleshes out in his answer. He tells the man that it doesn't sound like he is really interested in marriage at all. But rather is interested in abolishing marriage all together.

Again, from the standpoint of logic, Anderson presents what is known as a “Reductio Ad Absurdum” (Reduction to Absurdity) argument when he asks about granting marriage rights to “throuples” and “quartets.” Actually, you could press the absurdity beyond that. What about those who desire to enter a marriage relationship with their pets? What about pedophiles who would desire a relationship with children? Truly when you seek to redefine anything in accordance with your own desires, the absurdity knows no bounds.

What is exhibited in this exchange is one man (Anderson) using simple rules of logic to prove a point; and another man (the homosexual) resorting to left-wing, talking point cliches. He continues to throw out words like “discrimination” and “civil rights” and “minority” rather than answer Anderson's counter questions. The reason for this, of course, is that he has no answer.

Anderson's conclusion and ultimate answer for the man as to why he is “discriminated” against is that he is not discriminated against at all. He should be legally allowed to marry..... a woman. Because that's what “marriage” is. The true issue at stake here, as Anderson points out, is that this man isn't really interested in marriage at all. He is interested in a homosexual, romantic relationship with another man. Call that whatever you will; but it isn't “marriage.” Because “marriage” involves two “complementary” parties. Male and female. Husband and wife. And potentially at least, father and mother. And therein lies one of the greatest arguments against so-called “gay marriage.” Regardless of one's religious views (or total lack thereof), nature itself cries out against the same-sex relationship in the complete inability, even theoretically, for two members of the same sex to reproduce. Even an atheist would be forced to admit, based on nature itself, that if homosexuality were normal, then society would soon cease to exist because no reproduction would take place.

This leads to my second reason for appreciating Anderson's argument. I appreciate it from a Christian perspective. While myriads of bizarre beliefs get pawned off as “Christian” these days; the Bible is clear on homosexuality. The fact that it is sinful in the eyes of God. The fact that it is clear evidence of human depravity. And the fact that it will lead to the Lord's judgment. The first chapter of Romans says: “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.” (Romans 1:26-27 NASB) The sinfulness of homosexual behavior is clear in Scripture. Of course the sinfulness of all sexual behavior outside the context of monogamous, heterosexual marriage is clear as well. The Greek word used in the New Testament that we commonly translate as “immorality” or “sexual immorality” is the word “porneia” from whence comes the English word “pornography.” It is a term to describe sexual sin in general, both homosexual and heterosexual in nature.

As it pertains to relationships, my views are probably more accepting than many Christian ministers I know. Because of my “libertarian” political leanings I have no desire to grant the government the legal right to kick down the door of homosexuals and cart them off to prison for their sinful behavior. No more than I would wish to grant government the right to kick down the door of a man and woman living in sin and cart them off to prison. Both situations involve sin. But there is a big difference between a “sin” and a “crime.” While many Christians fail to see this nuance, it would be the height of folly to grant a secular government the power to punish spiritual sins. Some acts are BOTH sinful and illegal; as they should be. Murder and rape for example. These are both violent crimes committed against another individual. Sins between consensual adults are another matter. I have no desire to criminalize such behavior, but I have no desire for the government to endorse and “bless” such behavior either. This is really what the argument for gay marriage is. A desire to grant privilege to a couple that should not have such privileges. A desire to redefine marriage in terms of what it isn't and in essence abolishing marriage all together.

Perhaps a better position to take would be for government to get out of the marriage business all together. While this argument strikes many people as absurd when they first hear it; I think it makes more sense when one ponders on it. Have you ever wondered why you should need the government's permission to get married in the first place? When my wife and I married those many years ago, why did we have to apply for a government license? If we had a church and a pastor who recognized our union as holy in the eyes of the Lord, then what business is that of the State's anyway? Of course I know part of the answer to this is that there are certain benefits, legally speaking, to being married. Certain “tax breaks” if you will. But rather than redefining marriage, perhaps we should just abolish the income tax. Of course, THAT is not a direction the government will ever seek to go in. But re-defining marriage because it “discriminates” will most likely be done eventually.

My final reason for appreciating Ryan T. Anderson's argument is pastoral in nature. To be perfectly honest, I believe he made a complete fool out of the homosexual man who was asking the question. Or rather, I believe the man made a fool out of himself. Yet Anderson's tone was kind and courteous through the entire exchange. From a Christian perspective, I believe there needs to be more of this type of tone. Anderson was adamant about why the man was wrong. He never back-pedaled and he was very clear as to what marriage is and is not. But Anderson was never rude to the man. He commended him for asking a “fair question” then pointed out graciously why the man's position was so dreadfully wrong. He used clear laws of logic to present his case and to discount his opponent. And he did so in a kind and gracious manner. As a pastor, I appreciated that.

Let me close with some words that the Apostle Paul wrote to Timothy: “The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.” (2 Timothy 2:24-26 NASB) This passage, I believe, sums up the tone of Anderson's exchange. I know nothing about Anderson's spiritual condition, and I know very little about the homosexual man who he was debating. But I do know this, everything about the homosexual man screamed confusion. He looked confused. His argument was illogical. And he had no answer when counter arguments were presented. He looked confused, but indeed it is worse than that. He is more than just confused, he is lost. Spiritually speaking, he is “dead in his trespasses and sins,” (Ephesians 2:1) But than again, according to the Bible, “we all also formerly walked according to the course of this world” (Ephesians 2:2) As the passage from 2 Timothy 2 states he is “ensnared by the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.” This man needs salvation. This man needs deliverance. This man needs to be born again. He doesn't need a legal right to marry. He needs new spiritual eyes to truly understand what marriage is. And he needs so much more. He needs to know the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ. And he needs the grace of God to show him this truth and change his heart. This won't come about by encouraging him to embrace his sin. Nor will it come by shouting him down and calling him names. To the contrary, we are called to “speak the truth in love.” (Ephesians 4:15) Ryan Anderson did a good job of answering this man. My complements to him for his honesty and grace in how he handled this controversial question.

 

Comparing the Confessions (Part 4) – Refuting the Covenant of Works. The 1646 vs. 1689 London Baptist Confessions

By Shane Kastler

The Bible speaks of God relating to man by way of two primary covenants. The Old Covenant (also known as the Mosaic Covenant), made with the nation of Israel and the New Covenant, made with God's elect from every tongue, tribe, people, and nation, administered through Jesus Christ. The Prophet Jeremiah foretold of a new covenant that would be unlike the Mosaic one. “Behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the LORD.” (Jeremiah 31:31-32 NASB) Jeremiah tells us that the covenant would be “new” and that it would be “not like the covenant I made with their fathers.” It's not the same covenant, merely administered in a new and fresh way. Rather it is a “new” covenant. Furthermore it's not even like the old covenant; being much different in nature and in scope.

A covenant itself is an agreement between two parties, whereby both sides agree to certain terms. Typically there are rewards for compliance to the terms; and consequences for non-compliance. A covenant also frequently has a “sign” that goes along with it.

The Apostle Paul wrote of being ministers of a new covenant saying that God “who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.” (2 Corinthians 3:6) Indeed Paul had much to say about the Old Covenant and it's Law; which could not grant life to it's adherents. Paul describes the Old Covenant and it's Law as “having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made.” (Galatians 3:19) And that this Covenant is no more. It is no longer in existence since Christ has now come in total fulfillment of the old letter which has passed away. Righteousness does not come by the Law, but rather through Christ and Christ alone. “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” (Romans 10:4)

The New Testament further contrasts the Old vs. New Covenant in the book of Hebrews where we read of Christ: “But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second.” (Hebrews 8:6-7) The Old Covenant was inadequate. And it was inadequate by Divine design. God never intended for man to be justified by the law. Man would be justified ONLY by the finished work of Christ. Seeking to be justified by the law was a fool's errand that many Jews ran after. The Law, which Paul says was “added because of transgressions until the promised seed (Jesus) came” would not justify. Could not justify. And wasn't intended to justify. Only Christ would justify. Only Christ could justify. And ultimately, only Christ DID justify those who have faith in Him. God did not make a “Covenant of Works” with man whereby man might justify himself by his deeds. God did not do this in giving the Law to Moses. Nor did God do this when he created Adam and placed him in the garden. Covenant Theology says otherwise. And the purpose of this essay is to refute this notion.

The Westminster Confession of Faith states: “The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.” (VII.2) While this section is omitted from the 1689 London Baptist Confession it becomes clear later in the document that the 1689 is in agreement with a “Covenant of Works.” Section twenty of the 1689 London states: “The covenant of works being broken by sin, and made unprofitable unto life, God was pleased to give forth the promise of Christ, the seed of the woman, as the means of calling the elect, and begetting in them faith and repentance; in this promise the gospel, as to the substance of it, was revealed, and [is] therein effectual for the conversion and salvation of sinners.” While we might give the purveyors of the 1689 Confession the benefit of the doubt rather than claim they were trying to sneak in a “Covenant of Works” - I do think it odd that they mention it in passing without defining specifically what it means. Perhaps it was assumed that all of their readers would know what is meant by “Covenant of Works.” Yet such theological neglicence seldom leads to profitable spiritual fruit. The definion was already stated in the Westminster Confession, which the 1689 parroted, word-for-word, repeatedly. Why omit the Westminster definion of “Covenant of Works” then mention the “Covenant of Works” in passing several sections later, leaving it undefinded. Was this sinister? Sneaky? Or just sloppy? For the most part the 1689 Confessions is a carbon copy of the Westminster Confession; with a handful of tweaks to make it a “Baptist” document. It would appear that clearly spelling out a pre-fall “Covenant of Works” with Adam was somewhat uncomfortable to the 1689 drafters. Nevertheless, they held to a “Covenant of Works” as evidenced by Section twenty above.

So, did God make a “Covenant of Works” with Adam before the fall of man occurred? Or did He not? While granting that there might have been some “covenantal” aspects to what transpired between God and Adam in the Garden of Eden; can we rightly describe this as a “Covenant of Works?” Was this truly a two-party agreement where something is required of both sides? When God made a covenant with Abraham, there were two parties. God Himself giving the provision for both. The Bible says: “It came about when the sun had set, that it was very dark, and behold, there appeared a smoking oven and a flaming torch which passed between these pieces. On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram.” (Genesis 15:17-18) For this reason, as the covenant was being ratified by God, Abraham slept. Indeed God made a promise to Abraham that would be fulfilled by God Himself. As for the children of Israel, one can clearly see the covenant made with them through Moses because God sets out the terms of the covenant. And Israel totally (and rashly) agreed to it. “Then he took the book of the covenant and read it in the hearing of the people; and they said, “All that the LORD has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient!” So Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people, and said, “Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words.” (Exodus 24:7-8) They promised obedience, but they did not obey. The Bible makes clear that they broke this covenant (see Jer. 31:32 above). Nevertheless, clearly it was a “covenant” established between God and Israel. Was such a covenant established with Adam?

When examining the texts from Genesis, it seems that what transpired with Adam was not a covenantal agreement between God and Adam, but rather a COMMANDMENT directed by God to Adam. A “covenant” and a “commandment” while similar; are not nearly the same thing. Here is what the text from Genesis says: “And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou may freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eat thereof thou shalt surely die.” (Genesis 2:16-17)

Several things should be considered when differentiating between a covenant and a commandment. First of all, just because God threatened death for disobedience, does this mean he promised eternal life for obedience? It seems that many too readily assume this to be the case when the text doesn't say that. Theologian Wayne Grudem, for example, states: “In the promise of punishment for disobedience there is implicit a promise of blessing for obedience.” (Systematic Theology, pg. 516) In other words, since the text doesn't actually promise reward, we should assume it. Although one might think that rather than God implying, He might have instead been explicit. R.C. Sproul believes the promise for obedience was explicitly given by God, stating: “The original covenant between God and humankind was a covenant of works. In this covenant, God required perfect and total obedience to His rule. He promised eternal life as the blessing of obedience, but threatened mankind with death for disobeying God’s law.” (Essential Truths of the Christian Faith, pg. 73) Yet Sproul cites no verse to prove this promise of “eternal life” for obedience. Because the Bible itself provides no verse that states this. Once again implication rather than exegesis rules the day.

It is beyond dispute that God laid out the consequences for disobedience. But no where does God promise Adam eternal life for perfect obedience. God does not make a covenant with Adam, He issues a commandment to Adam. Perhaps an example from the government will help. The state you live in probably has a law against murder. And there are consequences for the breaking of that law. If you murder and are found guilty you are liable to execution, or perhaps life in prison. Would this then be described as a “covenant”? No. If it's a covenant, then what are the terms for obedience unto it? What if you DON'T murder anyone. What will the government give you then? The answer, as you well know, is nothing. You don't get a reward for doing your duty. If the government said, “Every citizen who managed to NOT murder anyone in the past year will receive $10,000.” Now THAT might be considered a covenant. For the government to simply say, “If you do not murder, then we will leave you alone.” That's not a reward. That is government staying out of your life; as they are largely supposed to do. The state's law against murder is a commandment, not a covenant. Much like God's decree to Adam in the Garden was a commandment and not a covenant. The promised eternal life that Covenant Theologians speak of is deduced. It is produced out of thin air because the text doesn't state that at all. The Covenant Theologian might respond to me with a question: “So what do you think would have happened if Adam had never sinned?” I might speculate on this all day long; but at the end of that long day I would be forced to admit that my speculations were nothing more than that: speculations. Since the text itself doesn't tell us what would have happened if Adam had perfectly obeyed. A much more comfortable theological position to take on matters where Scripture is silent is to remain silent. This is a far wiser course of action than deducing a “Covenant of Works” and enshrining it in a Confessional statement for generations and generations of believers to be confused by.

One of the most hotly debated theological questions for eons has been: “What if Adam had never sinned?” Of course such a question is purely hypothetical; and while man often deal with hypotheticals because of his limited knowledge, God NEVER deals with hypotheticals. He who “ordains all things after the counsel of His will” (Eph. 1:11) is not in the dark on any issue. Therefore He knows what will come to pass because the Bible tells us that ultimately he ordains what comes to pass. I have written previously about Adam's fall being ordained by God for His greater glory, so I won't repeat that here. But suffice it to say, God KNEW Adam would disobey. And while Adam is responsible for his disobedience; and Adam's posterity is affected by his disobedience; none of this takes place outside the sovereign ordination of God. Perhaps at this point we should pause and admit we are treading in some deep, deep waters regarding the nature of God. But these deep waters are TRUE, regardless of how DEEP they are.

So what would have happened if Adam had never sinned? We don't know. But it would be extremely presumptuous to assume that a lack of sin would lead to eternal life. After all, later in Genesis God equates eternal life NOT with perfect obedience but with “eating of the tree of life.” As recorded: “Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever” (Genesis 3:26) Hypothetically speaking, what if man had NOT eaten of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; but had also NOT EATEN of the tree of life? The logical assumption is that he would have enjoyed sweet fellowship with God while he lived, YET NOT lived forever. God equates eternal life with eating of the tree of life. Eternal life is not equated with perfect obedience. Whereas a lack of obedience DOES lead to death. A perfect obedience DOES NOT lead to eternal life. Eating of the tree of life does.

The point of all of this is to say that God did not make a “Covenant of Works” with Adam whereby he promised eternal life for obedience. This is an assumption made by Covenant Theologians, who all too often make assumptions based on inference, when the text doesn't say what they assume. (Infant baptism and 'Sunday as the Christian Sabbath' would be other examples). While there may be covenantal aspects to the exchange between God and Adam, it would be going too far to say that God made a “Covenant of Works” with Adam before the fall. What God did do, as clearly seen in the text, is issue a command to Adam and promise punishment based on disobedience. But this is not a covenant. Do we consider every command in Scripture to be a separate covenant? Do we consider the 2,000 imperatives of the New Testament to each be individual “covenants” that God makes with man? Do we consider each commandment of the Law of Moses to be a separate “covenant” that God made with Israel? Or do we consider all of these commandments to be under the one Mosaic covenant? And if that's the case (and it is) then why do we set this one incident with Adam apart and deem it a “covenant” when God himself never calls it that? This leads me to the second point.

The word “covenant” is never used, nor implied to describe the arrangement between God and Adam. Some would counter argue that just because a word isn't used doesn't mean the concept isn't taught. With this I would be in total agreement. For example, the word “Trinity” is never used in Scripture; but the concept of the Trinity is clearly taught in repeated places. Just because the word “covenant” isn't used in the creation account doesn't mean a covenant was not issued. A covenant might have taken place in principle without the word being specifically used. But, again I ask, is this the case? Is a “Covenant of Works” implied in Genesis 3? If so, I readily accept it. I just don't see it implied. I see a commandment with a threat of punishment. And obviously a lack of punishment, and even “blessing” for obedience. But eternal life is not promised based upon adherence to the commandment. God doesn't say “do this and live” but rather he says “if you do this you will die.” Those are NOT the same things.

Third, to imply a pre-fall “Covenant of Works” is to imply that it would be possible for man (even one man) to obtain eternal life based on his own merit. When the Bible teaches that salvation is always a matter of being attained by God's grace. Some might ask, “Was salvation necessary before the fall?” How could man be in need of salvation when sin had not yet entered the world? The answer to this is that even though sin had not entered the world, man was still dependent upon God for his life and the sustaining of it. Man needed to eat. Where would he get the food? Man need to breathe. Where would he get the air? Man needed a helper. Who would provide this? Time and time again, we see that Adam; even in his pre-fall condition, was overwhelmingly dependent on the grace of God to provide for him. Sin or not sin, man NEEDS God and cannot survive for one second apart from God' sustaining grace. To use the phrase “Covenant of Works” when the Bible doesn't use such a phrase, runs the risk of implying that man could have been saved by his deeds. And this notion in and of itself is an affront to God. We should never forget, that even apart from sin, there is still the “Creator vs. Creation” distinction whereas man is wholly dependent upon God because man is a created being. Even when sin is hypothetically taken off the table, man still needs God and cannot attain eternal life by his works. God never made a “Covenant of Works” with Adam whereby he promised eternal life for obedience. This is an unbiblical inference forced upon the text by those who seek to cling to a system of theology rather than let the Bible speak for itself. With that said, it is interesting to note that most Covenant Theologians who hold to a “Covenant of Works” would never teach salvation by works. To the contrary they are almost exclusively Calvinistic in their soteriology (doctrine of salvation) and would attribute salvation to being completely a work of God's grace. At least POST-FALL. Yet, their slavish adherence to Covenant Theology forces them to embrace a subtle form of hypothetical “works salvation” for Adam PRE-FALL. This is a glaring inconsistency in their soteriology that is routinely ignored; or simply overlooked in their mind. If salvation is truly by grace; then it had to be “by grace” for all men (including Adam) at all times (including before the Fall). Our theology should SCREAM GRACE and not works. Instead of SCREAMING Works and whispering grace. To imply Adam could have saved himself; but failed. So Jesus had to come in from the bench and go with “Plan B” is to distort God's perfect plan of redemption and to elevate the hypothetical notion of Adam's potential obedience.

Contrast all of this with what the 1646 London Confession of Faith says regarding the “Covenant of Works.” Here's what the 1646 says: ________________________. Nothing. The 1646 Confession makes no reference to a “Covenant of Works” since no “Covenant of Works” ever existed. It does state: “Jesus Christ is made the mediator of the new and everlasting covenant of grace between God and man, ever to be perfectly and fully the prophet, priest, and king of the Church of God for evermore.” (Section X) This statement exalts Christ as the mediator of a “new” covenant. A covenant that Hebrews also tells us is a “better” covenant, enacted upon “better promises.” (Hebrew 8:6) The 1646 Confession describes this as a “Covenant of Grace” and rightly so. For it is a gracious covenant. Of course the 1689 Confession also speaks of a Covenant of Grace; though it doesn't point to Christ, initially as being the mediator of this covenant. Covenant Theology and the 1689 London Confession pushes this “Covenant of Grace” back to the Garden in God's post-fall actions with Adam and his posterity. While it is clear that the grace of God is at work in the Garden of Eden, is this the same thing as a “gracious covenant” otherwise known as a “Covenant of Grace?” Hardly.

Therefore, it is my belief that we could most adequately understand the Scriptures; and specifically God's dealings with man by using the language and the concepts that Scripture itself uses. The two main covenants described in Scripture being the Old (Mosaic) Covenant and the New Covenant based on the blood of Christ. The pre-fall “Covenant of Works” is an invention of theologians that does a good job of defending their system of doctrine, but a bad job of explaining the actual text of Scripture. While there is some truth in what the Covenant Theologian states regarding Adam's pre-fall condition, this truth is inexplicably muddied by the insistence upon using unbiblical terminology to explain unbiblical concepts. The 1646 Confession more clearly states how God works in covenantal relations in its avoidance of adding phrases that do nothing but add confusion. Man, at no time, could have been saved by his works and it is misleading to imply otherwise. Man might have been blessed. Man might have avoided punishment. But man could only be saved by the grace of God. Man could only attain eternal life by the grace of God. And while man should absolutely and always obey God; this he simply will not do unless God so enables him. That is true of every man today. That was true of Adam in the Garden. “Works” do not save. They never have and never will. “Grace” saves. And grace alone saves. Let us rejoice in this grace. Let us refrain from muddying the theological waters with unbiblical notions. And let us unite in celebrating a God who commands us to obey. Then gives us the power BY GRACE, to do so.

 (NOTE:  This is part 4 of an ongoing series on the 1646 London Baptist Confession of Faith's superiority over the 1689 London Baptist Confession.  You can also read Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3 , For an audio sermon I recently preached called "Refuting the Covenant of Works" click here).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shane Kastler serves as Pastor of Heritage Baptist Church in Lake Charles, LA. He is also the co-host of "Church and State" on Eternal Life Broadcasting (KELB 100.5 FM and KEBL 105.5 FM radio) each Thursday. He teaches Logic at Covenant Grace Academy and writes a weekly religious column for the Linn County News (KS). He has contributed articles to Economic Policy Journal, Target Liberty, Lew Rockwell.com, Sword & Trowel, and Reformed Libertarian.com.

Peter, Paul, and the 'So-Called' Moral Law: How the Jerusalem Council Destroys Covenant Theology

By Shane Kastler

Can you imagine going to a church dinner where both Peter AND Paul were in attendance? And then can you imagine Peter and Paul having a public confrontation over theology? You might say, “I'd have liked to been a fly on the wall for that!” Almost as good..... you can read about it in the Bible.

In Galatians 2, Paul tells the story of a time when Peter came to Antioch to fellowship with the Christians there. Most of them were of a Gentile persuasion; and of course Peter and Paul were of a Jewish persuasion. Yet they all had come to know, by God's grace, that God is not one to show partiality. We are all sinners before God and can only be saved by an act of His sovereign grace. But what about the Jewish Law? What about Moses? How were Gentiles supposed to relate to that? For that matter, how were Jewish Christians supposed to relate to it? This was what caused the strife between Peter and Paul at Antioch. But be forewarned, this was not a mammoth clash of the theological titans, if you will. This was not a debate between Peter and Paul. This was a rebuke. One of them was CLEARLY in the wrong. And one of them was CLEARLY in the right. Here's what happened, by Paul's own reckoning:

“But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?” (Galatians 2:11-14 NASB)

Before I point out Peter's fault, let me cushion the blow by praising him a little. Peter was clearly used of God in a unique and powerful way. As one of the twelve disciples he was one of the “chosen of the chosen” if you will. And within the twelve, Peter was a part of a trio that Jesus seemed to have an extra closeness with (Peter, James, and John). And even within the trio, Peter was the undisputed leader. He frequently speaks boldly on behalf of the other twelve. Sometimes he speaks too boldly and puts his foot in his mouth. But he clearly loves Jesus and was probably the most prominent leader in the early church. Which is why it was so surprising what he did at Antioch. And it was why Paul had no choice but to rebuke him publicly for it. The truth of the gospel was at stake, and no man is bigger than the gospel. Not even Peter. Not even Paul. Earlier in Galatians Paul wrote that even if he himself came back later and preached a different gospel, “let him be accursed.” (Gal. 1:8) The truth of the gospel was absolutely vital to Paul. Which is why he had to rebuke Peter.

As the text tells us, Peter was fellowshipping quite freely with the Gentile Christians before the Judaizers arrived. Bear in mind that Peter had already had this issue settled quite profoundly in his mind. In Acts 10 it was Peter who had the vision regarding eating things which were “unclean.” Peter, being a loyal Jew declared that he had never eaten anything ceremonially unclean! But God reveals deeper truth to Peter, declaring: “Arise, Peter, kill and eat!......What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.” (Acts 10:13, 15) A short time later Peter is instructed to go and share the gospel with Cornelius. And when he does he tells Cornelius: “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean. That is why I came without even raising any objection when I was sent for. So I ask for what reason you have sent for me.” Acts 10:28-29)

A few chapters later, we are told of a council that convenes in Jerusalem to deal with how Gentile Christians were supposed to relate to the Law of Moses. It starts when “some men from James” come to Paul and Barnabas insisting that the Gentile believers must be circumcised and observe the Law of Moses. Paul and Barnabas vehemently disagree and they all head to Jerusalem to meet with the elders and apostles. While there, some of the Pharisees who had believed also clung to the Law saying that circumcision and observing the Law of Moses was vital. After much debate, it was Peter who arose and gave the rousing defense of justification by grace through faith in Christ alone. Read his words: “After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, 'Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.'” (Acts 15:7-11)

With all that said, let us not miss what the judgment of the Jerusalem council was. And let us not miss how it pertains to the so-called “Moral Law” of the Ten Commandments as a rule of life for the Christian. James' judgment was this: “Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.” (Acts 15:19-20 NASB)

That's it? This is all the Jerusalem council has to say regarding Gentiles observing the Law of Moses? Let us not forget that this was what the debate was about. It wasn't JUST circumcision; but also “observing the Law of Moses” according to Acts 15:5. And the Jerusalem council concludes four things. Avoid things contaminated by idols. Avoid fornication. Avoid things that are strangled and blood. Why didn't James instruct the Gentiles to keep the eternal, unchanging, moral law of God contained in the Ten Commandments? Maybe that is because the Ten Commandments are not the eternal, unchanging, moral law of God. And never once in the Bible were presented as such.

This account certainly sounds the “death knell” to Covenant Theology's insistence on the Ten Commandments being the unchanging, eternal, moral law of God. Why on earth would James mention NOTHING about it in this passage and in this context? The Pharisees who believe said the Gentile Christians were to “observe the Law of Moses.” Why didn't James divide the Law into three sections and say, “Well they need to observe the moral law, but not the ceremonial or civil?” James' actions and his words utterly destroy Covenant Theology's “moral law” theory. And it seems the early church leaders were in adamant agreement that Christians were not “under the Law” in any way, shape, form, or fashion. Peter, James, John, Barnabas, Titus, and others were present. And they all agreed with James' judgment. Many decades later, Thomas Aquinas might have presented a different view by dividing the Mosaic Law into categories. The Apostles never do such a thing. So whom will you choose to follow? Aquinas or the Apostles?

Furthermore, James makes no mention of the Law as a means of "salvation" NOR of "sanctification."  Again, a common notion in Covenant Theology circles is that Moses will drive you to Christ for salvation; then Christ will drive you back to Moses for sanctification.  Apparently, if this is true, someone forget to tell James and the Apostles.  There is no mention of sanctification by the Law.

It is quite telling what James fails to mention in this text. And while some might see this as an argument from “silence” it is actually an argument made quite loud and clearly by our Lord's brother. He doesn't mention the Decalogue and even uses the phrase “not to trouble” the Gentiles with Mosaic issues (Acts 15:19). Even the four things James mentions aren't so much commands as they are ways in which the Gentiles can live “free from the Law” while not needlessly offending Jews whom they seek to evangelize. Paul makes this clear in 1 Corinthians 8 when he unpacks the idea of eating meat sacrificed to idols. Paul declares that it is NOT sinful to do so. Meat is neither holy nor profane. It is lifeless meat. But if a weaker brother sees you and is caused to stumble, then refrain for his sake.

Likewise fornication. The Decalogue forbid adultery. And while adultery is certainly a form of fornication; it is not quite the same thing. Marriage vows must be broken for adultery to take place. Not so with fornication. Most likely James is making a reference to the common pagan practice of temple prostitutes who were such an avid part of pagan worship services. Christians, obviously, should abstain from such things in all forms. As for the avoidance of things strangled and blood; again we see something that is “dietary” in nature and not sinful in and of itself. Peter's dream in Acts 10 made that clear. Nevertheless for the sake of the weak brother or the unregenerate Jew, James tells them to abstain from such things.

In many ways, what James tells the Gentile Christians to do in Acts 15 is very similar to what Paul said he himself did in 1 Corinthians 9 in his famous “all things to all people” passage. “For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more. To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some. I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it.” (1 Corinthians 9:19-23 NASB)

Of course it is vital to note that Paul declares he is “not under the Law” in this passage. Yet at times he does things and abstains from things that will keep him from needlessly offending, so that he will have an open door to present Christ. As the new believers mature Paul will have opportunity to bring them along, by God's grace, into a proper understanding of being “free from the Law.” But initially, he needs to share the gospel with them. Paul had a sacrificial heart to share the truth and to make disciples and was willing to suffer and give up freedoms to see it happen. All the while, teaching the truth about his freedom from the Law and his freedom in Christ. He would not let the gospel be tainted by legalists. Nor would he let it be tainted by the actions of an intimidated Christian such as Peter. Which brings us back to Galatians 2.

Why does Peter “hold himself aloof” from the Gentiles; after the “certain men from James” came? Verse 13 tells us that he “feared the party of the circumcision.” While it might be hard for you to believe.....Peter was intimidated. So he hung out with the Jews and shunned the Gentiles so the Jews would accept him. But this was more than a mere social issue. The truth of the gospel was at stake. If Peter, the most prominent leader in the church, was shunning Gentiles then this could have brought massive confusion to the Gentiles, indeed the entire church. Were they wrong about being “free from the Law?” Were the Judaizers right about the necessity of circumcision? And the requirement to keep the Law of Moses? With Peter's public actions the truth of the gospel was in serious jeopardy. But Paul, thankfully, would not stand for it. He rebukes Peter and I suspect Peter quickly repented. There is no record of him arguing with Paul about the matter. Acts 10 and 15 show us that Peter knew full well the truth. Galatians 2 just shows us that he was intimated and ignored the truth.

Christians are not under the Law. But rather being free from the Law, we look to Christ and His law to lead and govern our lives. With the Spirit indwelling us, we live our lives out of love for our Lord. Far from a dutiful drudgery of keeping lists; we joyfully submit and follow our King! Paul knew this was the case. So did Peter and all the other apostles for they were in hearty agreement with the Jerusalem Council's conclusion.

And in case you wonder what became of Paul and Peter and their relationship with each other. Go and read the words of Peter. In fact the FINAL WORDS of Peter ever recorded in Scripture, shortly before his death. And you will see exactly what Peter thought of Paul. Even after Paul publicly rebuked him and probably royally embarrassed him. Here is Peter's last words: “Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness, but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.” (2 Peter 3:14-18 NASB)

Peter did not resent Paul for correcting him. Peter loved Paul all the more for it. “Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but deceitful are the kisses of an enemy.” (Proverbs 27:6) Paul wasn't Peter's enemy. He was his friend. And what's more he was his brother in Christ. And Paul simply could not stand idly by and watch Peter, his beloved brother, get buffaloed into confusing the gospel. Paul rebuked. Peter repented. And all of us are the better for it.

___________________________________________________________

Shane Kastler serves as Pastor of Heritage Baptist Church in Lake Charles, LA. He is also the co-host of "Church and State" on Eternal Life Broadcasting (KELB 100.5 FM and KEBL 105.5 FM radio) each Thursday. He teaches Logic at Covenant Grace Academy and writes a weekly religious column for the Linn County News (KS). He has contributed articles to Economic Policy Journal, Target Liberty, Lew Rockwell.com, Sword & Trowel, and Reformed Libertarian.com.

You Are God's Enemy

By Shane Kastler

What is your status in relationship to God? Are you a friend or an enemy? It might surprise you to know that by nature you are an enemy. It's only by grace that you can be considered a friend. The Bible teaches that in our natural condition we are ALL sinners against God. While you might do a lot of nice things (at least from your perspective); you aren't necessarily doing those things for God's glory. And this is why you and I were created. God made us and all things for His glory. Yet we don't seek to glorify Him by nature. We rebel against Him and are His enemies. Which is why we should weep tears of joy because of His grace.

The Bible says, “For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.” Romans 5:10 (NASB) Do you know the Lord in a saving way? Have you turned from your sin in repentance and believed on the Lord Jesus by faith? If so, it was because God changed your heart and gave you the desire to come to Him. God, and not man, is the initiator in salvation. It is He who “reconciles” us to Him and not the other way around. This is what grace is all about. The fact that God has every right to incinerate a rebellious people. And yet He chooses to save some of them. He doesn't save all of them. And He doesn't have to save any of them. But He saves some of them. Has He saved you?

God dealt with His enmity against us at the cross. For it was there that the righteous wrath of the Father was poured out upon the Son who hung in the place of sinners. Christ absorbed the wrath of those who believe in Him. Then God also deals with our enmity against Him. Even though we have no right or reason to have enmity against God, we do nonetheless. In those who believe, God changes their enmity through an action of the Holy Spirit called “regeneration.” Jesus called it being “born again” (John 3:3) and it is the act of being changed from an enemy of God to a friend. From a hater of God to a lover of God.

If you know Jesus as Lord of your life, then thank God today for saving you from your sins. If you don't know Jesus, then repent and believe upon Him. Commit your life to loving, knowing, and following Him. Forsake the camp of the enemy and surrender to the King of Kings! And in so doing, you will find a joy and peace that you never even knew existed.

(NOTE: This article is schedule to appear in the April 15 edition of the Linn County News).

Dear Hillary: Please Don't Run Again!....PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE!

Dear Hillary,

I couldn't believe it when I heard. Hillary Clinton is running for president.....again. And right on cue, my foot is starting to itch again. I think there is a connection. Hillary, I have often said that you and Billy were like a bad case of foot fungus that never really goes away. You think its gone. You have a few days, or weeks of comfort. Then WHAM!.... The rash is back with a vengeance. So here we go again.

Hillary, get a clue. What should have been your 15 minutes of fame has extended into 3 decades. The dolts in the press core would fawn over you if you just called it quits now. You were a first lady and a very controversial one at that. Everyone knew you; and on the White House staff, everyone feared you. I know, President Bubba embarrassed you a couple times. He always has and always will. But even in the whole Lewinsky affair saga you came out looking like a strong, victimized spouse. We all know that perception and reality are two different things. Most of us would be shocked if you said that was the first time Bill wandered. Or that you even cared that much. It's always seemed like a political arrangement more than love. If you'd have just stopped in 2000 you would have been a respected elder statesman in the Democrat Party and lived out your days in peace and tranquility. But no. The intoxication of power was too much: Enter Senator Clinton.

Your ultimate goal was always the oval office. You could govern circles around Billy Bob and yet HE gets elected while you have to take the back seat. All the while he is taking the back seat with every bimbo Little Rock could produce. I know it galled you. And who could blame you. So you embark on a political career in your own right. “Senator from New York” looks pretty good on a resume and it easily became your destiny. Short lived one though it was. While you didn't do a whole lot in the Senate, it didn't really matter. You were the presumed Presidential front runner when the time came. You had the name, you had the title, and you had that sense of entitlement on your side. Can't miss right? Wrong. Here comes that skinny, black guy with the funny name again. What was it Brock? Barraak? Oh yea! Barack! That was it. And what was that last name again. Sounded a lot like Osama? Oh Yea! Obama! Barack Obama came along and stole your crown right before the coronation. Of course the dirty little secret was that many of your own party feared that you didn't have the ability to win a general election. Too much vitriol toward you. Sorry Ma'am. That's just the way it works when you rub folks the wrong way. My abrasiveness gets me in trouble sometimes too.

So Bubba steals the show first. You get a nice second prize as New York Senator. Then Barry Obama steals your SECOND show. But he was nice enough to throw you a bone too. “Secretary of State” looks REALLY GOOD on a resume. If you can only endure Barry for a while; then run again when it's your time. Your accomplishments as Secretary were basically nil. Unless you count the numerous scandals that took place under your watch. But who cares about those! Typically a compliant press looks past most of the really damning facts. You come out somewhat clean. Private emails? Who cares it's Hillary after all! Bengazhi? “At this point, what difference does it make?!?” I believe those were your famous words when being questioned. Just keep rolling Hillary. People die? Who cares. Happens every day. Back room deals? No biggie. Your people will stay quiet. Bubba? God only knows what he'll do next. But you've handled his shenanigans for years.

And now, here we go again. Third times a charm, right Hillary? Wrong. I hate to be the one to break this to you, but there's almost no way this goes well for you. Let me be blunt. There's a lot of people in America (and really the world) who don't like you. Maybe its because they don't know you well enough. I'm sure it would be lovely to have tea with you and discuss the events of the day. But your abrasive nature. Your nasily, loud speeches that sound so shrill! It turns people off. And even though many won't admit it, it turns Democrats off. That's why Bill has been Presidential and Barack has been President and you haven't.

The Dems will launch a full scale effort to keep you out. There may not be another Obama, but there will be someone. Someone with more charisma than you, a smoother voice than you, and way, way, way less baggage than you. This “mystery” candidate will likely win the nod. And even if he doesn't and you're the nominee; the Republicans will go out full bore against you and let's be honest, you've given them ample firepower to work with over the years. In all likelihood you would lose the election and be branded as the gal who couldn't get it done. Forever in Bill and Barry's shadows.

And even if you win; you'll be forever compared to Bill and Barry and, unfortunately for you, its a no-win situation. Even if you attain the oval office, there's always shadows that lurk. Like the shadow of Monica Lewinsky that was so subtly painted into that recent paining of your husband. Forget about her, right? Easier said than done. She's always there. She's a part of Bill's legacy. Which means she's apart of your legacy. And think about it for a second. Do you really want to occupy the oval office when you (and the entire country) knows what they were doing in that office a few years back? Do you really need this headache Hillary? Can't you do something better for your golden years?

Hillary, there is no way this ends good for you. The intoxication of power is overwhelming I know. Its not the money. You've got plenty of that. Its not the political connections you can make. Gosh, you're Hillary Clinton. You know everyone! Its not about “serving the people of this great country!” Ha Ha Ha. I know that's what all you politicians say, really loud, at the end of the speech and your sheep suck it up and bark like seals because they're duped. My sides hurt from laughing every time I hear this cliched mantra. But you and I know better Hillary. Politicians care not for “the people.” Politicians care for the power. They yearn for it. They'll do anything for it. To be at the top. To call the shots. To have minions grovel to you. Eight years of that sounds so intoxicating. And it is. Look at the Bush gang Hillary. They're just as bad you Clintons are. You all just can't let it go. But Hillary, it will never happen for you. And you shouldn't even want it to.

Do yourself a favor. Do me a favor. Do us all a favor. Retire to some nice, big city high rise where you can sip wine and read books and eat out at any nice restaurant you want. Spend time with Chelsea and the grandkids. Let "Wild Bill" go and do his thing, since he's going to anyway. Enjoy some peace and quiet in your golden years. And let us do the same. My foot is starting to itch again. The rash is coming back. Please, Mrs. Clinton! Help me! Please, do an about face and say your White House dreams are over and you are moving to Manhattan. Trust me, you'll be happier. I'll be happier. America will be happier. The world will be happier. And you will have adequately “served the people” with the only thing they ever really wanted from you to begin with. That you would quietly, just go away. You wanna be loved? America will love you for it! Including me. Make this happen Hillary. Or rather, make this to NOT happen. Forget Washington. Find a nice place to retire. And let's all have a wonderful summer!

Warmest Regards,

Shane Kastler

___________________________________________________________

Shane Kastler serves as Pastor of Heritage Baptist Church in Lake Charles, LA. He is also the co-host of "Church and State" on Eternal Life Broadcasting (KELB 100.5 FM and KEBL 105.5 FM radio) each Thursday. He teaches Logic at Covenant Grace Academy and writes a weekly religious column for the Linn County News (KS). He has contributed articles to Economic Policy Journal, Target Liberty, Lew Rockwell.com, Sword & Trowel, and Reformed Libertarian.com.

Obama's Ban on Gay Conversion Therapy Is Latest Attack on Religious Liberty

By Shane Kastler

Dictators come in all shapes and sizes.....and political parties. Dictators are marked by many things, but chiefly a desire to tell you how to run your life. To tell you what you can and cannot do. And what you can and cannot THINK. Then apprehend political power in such a way that they can make laws to punish any who disagree with them. This is a dictator and both Republicans and Democrats have them in spades.

Barack Obama, for all of his feel-good, hope and change, mantra is a classic dictator. Forcing his will on the unwilling; issuing executive orders at a blinding clip; and calling for government intervention and take over regarding a plethora of issues both big and small. The latest stunt by King Obama comes with calling for a nationwide BAN on “gay conversion therapy.” If you are gay then you probably applaud the ban; but you shouldn't. No government should have the right to tell a counselor, psychiatrist, pastor, or any other citizen for that matter, what they are legally required to believe about homosexuality. Even gays should be leery of the government desiring to punish those you oppose today. Because a different government with a different dictator might pass laws to punish you tomorrow.

Obama's plan is a clear violation of religious liberty, because many religious people believe homosexuality is abnormal and counseling can be productive. Obama says these religious people are homophobic bigots who should be outlawed for trying to help someone struggling with gayness. Obama says he has scientific evidence to prove he is right. Therefore, none should be allowed to question him. This is a scary, power grab attack on anyone who loves liberty. What if I have scientific evidence to prove government BANS themselves are counter-productive? Can I get my law passed? What if I have scientific evidence to prove politicians make things worse instead of better? Can I ban politicians?

Should you be allowed to have your own opinions on homosexuality? Should others who oppose you be allowed to have their opinions too? Should either side be “BANNED”? Not in a free society where opposing views can co-exist. But America is clearly not a free society; it is a dictatorship. Where too many people say, “if you disagree with my view then your views should be BANNED!” Which is really saying, “if you disagree with my views then your THOUGHTS should be BANNED!” The thought police are here in force ready to punish any who even THINK differently from what Obama decrees. He says “gay is good” and by gosh you better believe “gay is good” or face prosecution. Seig Heil Barack!

Obama is also shamelessly playing upon the emotions of a suicide victim to win public support for his proposed decree. Leelah Alcorn, a 17 year old “transgender” youth threw himself/herself into the path of a semi truck after writing a suicide note decrying his/her parents (and a Christian counselor's) attempts to get him/her to go back to being a male. Which, by the way, he was. Let me be frank; this suicide is a tragedy as all suicides are. I mourn anytime I hear of a person taking their life. There are other options and people who wish to help. In fact I suspect the parents and the religious counselor wanted to help. But sadly, a life was lost. And now, all other Christians who seek to help a homosexual should be BANNED by the government?!?! That is a preposterous thought, but it appears to be Obama's position.  This is a scary country you live in people. Because many of you reading this will immediately agree with the BAN because of this genuinely sad story of an obviously confused young person taking his/her life.

I wonder if Obama has ever considered the myriads of homosexuals who have never had “gay conversion therapy” yet still took their life? Maybe we should ban homosexuality instead. Maybe the poor victims are actually riddled with guilt by taking their bodies and doing things that the human body clearly wasn't designed to do. Mixing reproductive organs with digestive organs can destroy a human body. But the sodomist will hear nothing of it and if you try to warn them you might get arrested. Your helpful counsel might be seen as “gay conversion therapy” and an Obama goon might soon knock on your door.

Obviously as a Bible-believing Christian I have strong views on homosexuality and don't blush in the least when pointing out that it is not only physically destructive behavior, but spiritually sinful behavior as well. But my point in this article is not to convince the world of this, but rather to simply defend my right to believe whatever I want on this issue and all others. AND, defend the right of the homosexual to vociferously disagree with me. Neither the homosexual nor I need the government to step in and BAN the other's view.

Obama is a dictator and religious liberty means nothing to one who feels he has public opinion, moral superiority, and bogus science in his corner. Throw in a sad story of a martyr or two for the cause and King Obama feels empowered to issue any decree he wishes. And if not him, then count on a nice “conservative” Republican like Chris Christie to squelch you as well. I recently wrote in opposition to the New Jersey Governor's BANNING of “gay conversion therapy” in his state. The left cheered, the right snoozed, the lovers of liberty warned, the masses politely applauded. This, my friends, is why America is doomed.

Obama hopes that “gay conversion therapy” will be BANNED in all 50 states. Apparently its akin to murder in his book. He has spoken. We're to submit. But I'm not submitting. His next step will be to deny a state license to any psychologist or psychiatrist who believes homosexuality is abnormal. Which is a clear example of the government persecuting a professional for their belief; some of whom are religious professionals. Which means you have American citizens being persecuted by state and federal governments for their religious beliefs. Think about it. You can't make a living as a Christian counselor in New Jersey unless you jettison what you believe about God and embrace what the state tells you! Does that sound like a free country to you?

As a Christian I bemoan this because it is just another rock Obama has thrown at that “wall of separation” between church and state. Though many on the right don't realize the importance of it; we really do WANT a wall of protection from the state. The state should not be allowed to tell the church what they can and can't believe. But they do. All the time. As a Christian I would politely encourage the President to keep his nose out of the counselor's office and let the people who are actually involved in the situation decide what they want to do. As a Christian I see this as a blatant attack on religious liberty.

But even more than this, as a lover of liberty I see this as yet another power grab where a government hack deems himself allowed to BAN what others think, believe, and do. You don't have to be religious to oppose such dictatorial practices. You must simply love freedom. NOT JUST FOR YOURSELF! But for all. Even for those who disagree with you. Live and let live. Or maybe, to Obama, I should say Live and LET US LIVE as we please. If you want to BAN something so bad, maybe you should issue an executive order that BANS all government officials from ever BANNING anything again. Just leave us alone and let us live. And though tragedies will still happen and disagreements will always exist. At least we can work these out in freedom without government goons telling us all what we can do; how we can think; and what we can believe. How about a BAN on BANNING! Now that's a thought that might excite me.

____________________________________________________________

Shane Kastler serves as Pastor of Heritage Baptist Church in Lake Charles, LA. He is also the co-host of "Church and State" on Eternal Life Broadcasting (KELB 100.5 FM and KEBL 105.5 FM radio) each Thursday. He teaches Logic at Covenant Grace Academy and writes a weekly religious column for the Linn County News (KS). He has contributed articles to Economic Policy Journal, Target Liberty, Lew Rockwell.com, Sword & Trowel, and Reformed Libertarian.com.

 

Why We Sing In Church

By Shane Kastler

Recently, I asked a group of children why they thought we should sing in church.  They gave a myriad of answers, all of which were good.  They said we sing to worship God; and that we sing because we love Jesus.  They said we sing because it sounds pretty; and that we sing because we're happy.  Certainly we hope this is the case for all who lift their voices in a worship service.  But there is another, often neglected aspect of singing in church.  The Bible says:  “Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God.” (Colossians 3:16 NASB)
    Part of the reason we sing in church is to teach and encourage both ourselves and each other.  Every song we sing in church should contain within it Biblical truth that will strengthen the people of God.  Think about this as you sing.  What Bible passage might this song be teaching?  And if the song is simply a “feel good” number that doesn't teach anything Biblical; it should be tossed aside for something that edifies.  In our world today, feelings and emotions often trump truth and accuracy.  In all honesty these things should not be pitted against one another.  For the Christian, truth should touch the heart in such a way that joyful feelings and emotions are the result.  We should sing about doctrinal truths.  And we should rejoice in the reality of them.
    So next time you sing in church; think about what you are singing.  Is it Biblical?  And if it is, do you really mean it?  Are the lyrics to the song edifying you and others who hear?  Because this is one of the Biblical reasons for singing in a church service.
    Those who have had their hearts changed by the grace of God through faith in Christ Jesus have reason to sing.  They have reason to rejoice.  And they have a Biblical command to “teach and admonish” one another in song.  Lift up your voice and glorify God this Sunday.  And help your brothers and sisters in Christ to glorify God as well.  Maybe even sing in such a way that an unbeliever in your presence would be intrigued as to why you have such joy.  Then “give a reason for the hope that is within you.” (1 Peter 3:15)  Singing is much more than just making a joyful noise.  It is also about proclaiming the truth of God.  Commit yourself to doing this each and every time you sing a song unto the Lord.

Will The Canadian-Born Ted Cruz Face “Birther” Scrutiny?

By Shane Kastler

The tea party darling and Texas Senator Ted Cruz has announced he is running for President. Like most political opportunists he's been positioning himself for this for some time. Those who would delve into politics typically have much ambition and even more ego. So it's no surprise that he's running. While I offer this article with no comment as to whether or not he's qualified per se; I do wonder if those on the political right will hold him to the same scrutiny they did Barack Obama regarding the birth issue.

There was (and is) much mystery surrounding the birthplace of the President. Many, who opposed his candidacy, declared that there was ample evidence to show that he was actually born in Kenya (rather than Hawaii) and was thus Constitutionally disqualified to serve as President. These opponents, who came to be known as “birthers” brought forth numerous pieces of “evidence” to show his Kenyan origin. And they might well have been right. But at this point, seven years into his administration, it is largely a moot point. Nevertheless I do wonder if the same people who are so high and hot about the Constitution will show equal consternation toward Cruz. It is no secret that Cruz was born in Calgary, Canada where his Cuban-born father was working in the oil industry. Cruz doesn't deny this, so it's not a “conspiracy theory” as is the case with Obama. I just wonder where all the outcry is from those on the right? If Obama was constitutionally disqualified for "allegedly" being born in a different country, then shouldn't Cruz be disqualified for "unambiguously" being born in a different country?

Cruz has addressed the issue and believes himself to be Constitutionally qualified. Since the written requirement is that the president be a “natural born citizen” Cruz has stated that his American born mother makes him “natural born.” In other words, he was an American citizen at birth and thus did not need to go through a “naturalization” process. Of course the same would be true for Obama since his mother was born in Kansas. (Woops!)

My point is not to criticize Cruz, nor to defend Obama. While I have more in common with the former (Cruz), I am no fan of either. But I find the double standard to be glaring and think it should be pointed out for the hypocrisy that it is. In truth, whether or not the Presidency should require a “natural born citizen” could easily be debated; but it's not a debate I care to enter in this article. In the end, birthplace matters little; who can work the system seems to matter most. Obama, with a questionable and mysterious background, managed to slide into the White House fairly easily. Cruz will have a much tougher time; but you never know. What I do know is that he was born in Canada. And some of the loudest voices who blasted Obama as a “foreigner” are now strangely silent when the candidate in question is one that they like. The old expression certainly rings true in this case, “It all depends on whose ox is getting gored.”

To be honest, something about Cruz gives me the “creeps.” A recent television ad of his looked like a stereo typical ad straight out of propaganda central casting: complete with staged family prayers, waving American flags, soldiers in uniform, awkward slow-motion hugs, and the candidate invoking the name “Jesus” for good measure. A blatant appeal to the “Christian” right; that sadly most on the “Christian” right will blindly fall for. In thirty seconds he managed to portray all the things that makes many on the right salivate. Even the most ardent supporters should have seen the ad as corny, if not worse. Maybe he's as genuine as the day is long. But I'm skeptical. Too much ambition. Too little true accomplishments. And a general appearance of political sleaziness makes Cruz hard to swallow in my opinion. For all his attacks on Obama he actually has a lot in common with him. Including the question of his birthplace. Much remains unknown about Cruz. This much we do know. He was born in Canada. Will the “birthers” who were livid at the idea of a socialist Kenyan in the oval office have a problem with a “conservative” (so called) Canadian? If not, then the hypocrisy will ring loud and clear. And the credibility of the Cruz crowd will rightly be called into question. Stay tuned.

P.S. --- Here is the syrupy Cruz ad.....