Somebody's gotta keep his eye on the ball.

Today is the 65th birthday of Christopher Walken (bio - quotes).

For many years he was an actor I found rather creepy, but he's REALLY grown on me.

To celebrate his day, I submit to you some of his best--his best movies and his best roles.

(You could make a case that he plays the same role in every movie, but they do at least give him a different name in each one.)

His best movies:

1. The Dead Zone
2. The Deer Hunter
3. Batman Returns
4. The Rundown
5. Wedding Crashers

His best roles:

1. The Bruce Dickinson, the needer of more cowbell
2. Hatcher in The Rundown
3. Caesar the exterminator in Mousehunt

Any other suggestions?

Here's Edgar Allen Poe's "The Raven," read by Christopher Walken.

Watch your mouth, kid, or you're gonna find yourself floating home.

Recently I've seen 2 little boys in public in need of a trip to the woodshed. One was rock throwing boy who wouldn't heed my admonitions and his parents were surprisingly apathetic.

Today there was a similar sort--the pusher, the taker of toys ... you know, the bully that every parent dreads seeing on the playground.

His mom finally made an attempt by sternly saying, "Sit here, 2 minutes." He defiantly said, "No!" and proceed to get up. This cycle was comical to watch on one hand, but a pathetic display of a child in need of discipline.

It reminded me of Douglas Wilson's 7 “musts” about discipline, though I can't recall where I found them.

1. Discipline must be confident. (Prov 22:15) “…The word confident literally means ‘with faith.’ Your children must be disciplined in faith, through faith, and from faith…”

2. Discipline must be affectionate. (Heb. 12:5-6) “A man who refuses to discipline his son is, in effect, disinheriting him. This rejection, or hatred, is utterly contrary to the attitude Christian parents are to have toward their children. Affectionate discipline gives the children something to return to after repentance.”

3. Discipline must be judicial. (Gal. 1:6) “Discipline must begin with self-discipline.”

4. Discipline must be swift. (Gal. 6:7) “… a godly father should remember he is not just exercising the principle, he is teaching the principle to young minds. Consequently, the time between sowing and reaping should be as short as possible. Even the youngest infant understands causation at some level, but the younger the child the more immediately he should be disciplined.”

5. Discipline must be painful. (Heb 12:11) “If the discipline is not painful, then it does not qualify as discipline…The pain involved in godly discipline is both positive and negative. Swift, painful discipline does not mean the father is to be an ogre but just the reverse…A man who is incapable of lovingly encouraging his children after discipline in not qualified to exercise any discipline at all. The encouragement must include follow up instruction… It should also include prayer. God is present and working through discipline, and His presence should be acknowledged. The child should be assured of forgiveness. The breach of fellowship is now gone. As a result, there has been restoration of fellowship. A father should take special care to be warm and cheerful after discipline.”
6. Discipline must be effective. (Heb. 12:11b)

7. Discipline must reflect biblical standards. “(a father) must not confuse house rules with God’s rules… God does not require that little kids keep their feet off the couch. This is a house rule. God does require that children obey their parents. This is God’s rule. And that is why they must keep their feet off the couch.”

There are no friendly civilians!

About a year ago, in a sermon on Hebrews 13:17, Lance Ward gave some myths regarding submission:

Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.
-Hebrews 13:17, ESV (emphasis mine)

1. Submission is the absence of disagreement.
"It is never wrong to disagree with people in the church. It is always wrong to be disagreeable."

2. Submission is the absence of accountability.
Leaders can still be and should be held accountable. A lack of submission is instead talking about the leader behind his back. Submission will still confront out of love.

3. Submission is not the squelching of non-leader leaders.
Natural leaders are needed, though they may not have a leadership position. But, such leaders need to be careful not to clash or openly rebel against the leadership, who may not embrace the agenda of the non-leader leaders.


Let me add a few thoughts of my own regarding submission in church ...

1. Submission is a tough pill to swallow, whether it's a wife to a husband (Eph 5:22-24), a child to a parent (Eph 6:1-3), or a sheep to an undershepherd (Heb 13:17). Any leader, especially in a church, worth his salt understands that. He prefers to have enthusiastic and devoted followers, not just those who grudgingly follow. (This ties into the 2nd part of Heb 13:17 - "Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.")

2. Far too many people leave churches rather than be submissive. Most people don't leave their churches because their churches have theological flaws that the leadership won't address, and perhaps they should. It's one thing to leave a church because the doctrine and practice is incongruent with biblical teaching. It's another to leave because your feelings got hurt or because a vote didn't go your way.

3. Submission is good for sanctification. Sanctification is our growing in grace, maturing as Christians. That happens best when we are put in situations that enable growth, situations that provide a fertile seedbed for the Fruit of the Spirit. When things don't go my way at church or I'm wronged, it's then that I get to display Christlike character (e.g., love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control). Immaturity pouts, complains, gossips, criticizes, and/or leaves.

4. Submission may be un-American, but it's biblical. Try in vain will you to find biblical verbiage such as "no taxation without representation," but even church folk can be prone to the mindset that they don't have to do or support anything or anyone they personally didn't vote for. It's trendy to be anti-Clinton or anti-Bush or anti-the next president and demonstrate that with a "he/she's not my president" bumper sticker. But church isn't a democracy; it's a theocracy. God is in charge and He's given particular leaders to shepherd His flock and they are due honor as such (1 Tim 5:17).

5. Christians are slaves/servants of Christ, which will often mean submitting to those we deem unworthy, whether that be in the church or in the world (Rom 13:1-7). You won't truly ever have worthy leaders, nor will you ever be a worthy follower. But unworthy followers follow unworthy leaders because Christ is worthy and His church and reputation are worthwhile.

Cinderella story. Outta nowhere. A former greenskeeper, now, about to become the Masters champion.

Check out Tony Kummer's March Madness ... blog-wise, that is.

He's seeded SBC blogs according to his 3 criteria and arranged them by division.

I am honored that SEMPER REFORMANDA has been invited to the tournament AND to have garnered an 8-seed in the Midwest Division.

I'm up against some big boys including my good brother Rev, so I'm clinging to the aspirations of another Cinderella story.

(I'm thinking I should have mucked it up a bit more on the SBC slooge to have received a higher seed. Lord willing, I'll know better for next year.)

Should you be so inclined to vote, click here to vote for your favorites of the field. In and of itself, it's a good collection of links for your viewing pleasure.

My Aggies were a #9 seed and within a whisker of upsetting UCLA on Saturday, a #1 seed. I hope I don't let them down and I hope to make the Sweet 16.

I also commit to represent the Lone Star State well.

Voting ends Sunday night (3/30).

*I'm Gunny, and I approved this message.*

If the witch understood the true meaning of sacrifice, she would have interpreted the deep magic differently.

Each year Providence Church holds a Good Friday service where we spend time in prayer and focus our thoughts on the cross with 7 devotional meditations on Christ’s 7 sayings on the cross.

I spoke to the 7th saying, the final recorded words of our Savior prior to His death.

The final saying of Jesus on the cross is recorded in Luke 23:46:
Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!” And having said this he breathed his last.

The preceding context has the temple curtain torn in two (23:45), signifying access to God through Christ.

As I pondered the words of Jesus, I wondered why Jesus felt the need to say them out loud. Surely, the text could have said something to the effect of, “Jesus committed His spirit to His Father.” Why did He need or want to call out with a loud voice? Surely, it wasn’t for God’s benefit.

I think it was not even primarily for our benefit that those words had to be spoken, but for the benefit of those eye witnesses.

“He spoke that all might hear, and that His enemies who judged Him destitute and forsaken of God might know it was not so any longer, but instead, that He was dear to His Father still, and could put His Spirit confidently into His Father’s hands.”
-Arthur Pink, The Seven Sayings of the Saviour on the Cross, 127

Jesus made it clear to them that He was not beaten and that things were once again right with Him and His Father.

What about the words themselves? What can be gleaned from Christ’s words?

First, they are a recitation of Psalm 31:5. Psalm 31 is David’s call to God to be saved from his enemies.

1 In you, O Lord, do I take refuge; let me never be put to shame; in your righteousness deliver me! 2 Incline your ear to me; rescue me speedily! Be a rock of refuge for me, a strong fortress to save me!
3 For you are my rock and my fortress; and for your name's sake you lead me and guide me;
4 you take me out of the net they have hidden for me, for you are my refuge.
5 Into your hand I commit my spirit; you have redeemed me, O Lord, faithful God. (ESV)

It wasn’t that Jesus couldn’t think of anything original to say, but here He identified with David’s sentiment and confidence that God would deliver Him.

Second, these words show us how important Scripture was to Christ.

We have seen the importance of Scripture in the life of Christ as He fulfilled it. But we also see the importance of Scripture by His use of it.

For example, during His time of testing, the devil's 3 propositions were met with 3 responses from Scripture.

1. His challenged with a test to turn stones into bread, but He quotes Deut 8:3, saying, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone.’” (Luke 4:4)
2. He is offered all the kingdoms of the world if He would bow down to the devil, but He quotes Deuteronomy 6:13, saying, “It is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve.’” (Luke 4:8)
3. He is tested by Satan’s use of Scripture to cast Himself down from a lofty place since God will send His angels to protect Him, but Jesus quotes Deuteronomy 6:16, saying, “It is said, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’” (Luke 4:12)

In Luke 23:46, we see the last words on His lips prior to His death were Scripture.

Third, we see in the words, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!” the contentment of Christ.

“These words set before us the last act of the Saviour ere He expired. It was an act of contentment, of faith, of confidence, and of love.”
-Arthur Pink, The Seven Sayings of the Saviour on the Cross, 127

I appreciate the HCSB’s translation of “entrust” (παρατίθημι). Christ’s commitment of His immaterial part to the Father is an act of faith and trust. Moments before Jesus had cried out asking why His God had forsaken Him (Matt 27:46), but after the wrath has been absorbed, He expresses great confidence in Him who had been His tormentor.

I find in that thought great comfort and conviction.

“We must show that we are freely willing to die, that we firmly believe in another life after this, and are desirous of it, by saying, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.”
- Matthew Henry

We often pray for sick people to get well, but without a realization of how to pray should God not be so inclined. We forget to pray for “dying grace.”

We want our lives to be an expression of our faith, but our deaths should do that as well.

We recently had a family member die of cancer. She was doing rather well at Thanksgiving, but then took a dramatic turn for the worse shortly after Christmas. She was being kept alive artificially and was asked by her family if she was ready to go.

With great confidence in Christ to save, she said she was. After the disconnection, she was dead within minutes.

Paul says the last enemy to be destroyed is death. (1 Cor 15:26) Because Christ has conquered it in His resurrection, we can face it as well. When we face death in the face, will we be able to confidently say, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit”?

Scripture often speaks of the hand of God with regard to power, but also with regard to security. Jesus tells us in John 10:29 that, “My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.”

There is security and contentment being in the hand of God for the believer. Christ has absorbed the wrath that was due us, for it is finished.

However, the same is not true for those who are not Christ’s. In fact, “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. (Heb 10:31)

Fourth, in Christ’s words we are reminded of the voluntary and authoritative nature of His death.

Jesus had said in John 10:14-18

14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. 17 For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.”

In Christ's words, He initiates the separation of His material and immaterial parts. Christ had been given into the hands of the Gentiles, and they would still have His body for a few days. However, His spirit they will not have, nor did they break.

His material and immaterial parts will be joined again at His resurrection and in the same way, our bodies await redemption in the grave until they are reunited with our immaterial part.

Jesus said, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!”

If we are in Christ, we commit ourselves, our lives, and our deaths into the hands of our Father, longing for the day of our final redemption.

Oh! Youth is wasted on the wrong people!

As you (and I) get another day older, it's time for a whimsical look at the aging process. I got this in an email ... uh ... some time ago from ... some human.


I feel like my body has gotten totally out of shape, so I got my doctor's permission to join a fitness club and start exercising. I decided to take an aerobics class for seniors. I bent, twisted, gyrated, jumped up and down, and perspired for an hour. But, by the time I got my leotard on, the class was over.
**********
Reporters interviewing a 104-year-old woman: "And what do you think is the best thing about being 104?" the reporter asked. She simply replied, "No peer pressure."
**********
The nice thing about being senile is you can hide your own Christmas presents.
**********
Just before the funeral services, the undertaker came up to the very elderly widow and asked, "How old was your husband?" "98," she replied. "Two years older than me."
"So you're 96," the undertaker commented. She responded, "Hardly worth going home is
it?"
**********
I've sure gotten old. I've had two bypass surgeries, a hip replacement, new knees. Fought prostate cancer and diabetes. I'm half blind, can't hear anything quieter than a jet engine, take 40 different medications that make me dizzy, winded, and subject to blackouts. Have bouts with dementia. Have poor circulation; hardly feel my hands and feet anymore. Can't remember if I'm 85 or 92. Have lost all my friends. But, thankfully, I still have my driver's license.
**********
My memory's not as sharp as it used to be. Also, my memory's not as sharp as it used to be.
**********
Know how to prevent sagging? Just eat till the wrinkles fill out.
**********
I've still got it, but nobody wants to see it.
**********
I'm getting into swing dancing. Not on purpose. Some parts of my body are just prone to swinging .
**********
It's scary when you start making the same noises as your coffeemaker.
**********
These days about half the stuff in my shopping cart says, "For fast relief."
**********
Don't think of it as getting hot flashes. Think of it as your inner child playing with matches.
**********
Don't let aging get you down. It's too hard to get back up.
**********
Remember: You don't stop laughing because you grow old, You grow old because you stop laughing.
**********
THE SENILITY PRAYER
Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
**********

Now, I think you're supposed to send this to 5 or 6, maybe 10 ... Uh, just send it to a bunch of your friends if you can remember who they are....

You're just banging 2 coconuts together.

On Sunday I preached on depravity, that inherited tendency and inclination toward sin, using Jeremiah 17:5-10, with an emphasis on 17:9.

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?

Driving through town on Monday something caught my eye. There's a church looking to sell its building and there were 2 men doing some improvements, one of which was painting.

I noticed they were merely painting over the terribly rusted wrought iron fence. That reminded me of Mark 7:14-23, which I shared on Sunday morning. Jesus is rebuking the Pharisees for a bogus understanding of practical holiness.

Contrasting the popular notion that a person was defiled by what went in to the body, Jesus explained that a person is defiled by what comes out. (Mark 7:20)

We have to let that sink in just a bit because we live in a time where folks are still prone to think that smoking or drinking or eating certain foods makes a person "unclean" or "defiled" or "unholy" or "sinful."

How easily we forget that defilement comes from our own depravity ("heart") and is manifest in various forms (cf. Mark 7:21-23; Luke 6:45).

Abstaining from irrelevant social "sins" is just one aspect of creating a false holiness, but there's also the "external only" holiness that misses the point. It's actually rather easy to cease doing some of the "big" sins, but never really address the "heart" of the matter, our own depravity.

It's not that hard to clean the outside of the cup or whitewash the tomb. True Christianity seeks transformation from the inside out as the Spirit works within in the renewing of the mind (Rom 12:2).

Someday somebody will realize they bought a rusted fence. People will eventually find out if you're not really riding on a horse, but just banging 2 coconuts together.

Just as African swallows are non-migratory, so will the veneer of Christianity prove problematic.

One of the great fears I have for my kids is that they will establish an external morality (only), without experiencing inward renewal through the regenerating Holy Spirit as they realize they need Christ not merely to clean up their act.

To use the words of Augustus Toplady, we need Christ to "be of sin the double cure, save from wrath and make me pure."

You've got mail. Yes. Three very powerful words.

For your edification/enjoyment, I share with you an email discussion I had over 5 years ago. It was initiated by a man who received our "Come visit our church" flyer.

I've labeled the sequence of the emails as well as color coded them. I've also changed the man's name to "Sir" to prevent any potential for embarrassing a brother. (So, if the conversation seems too formal at times, remember we are actually addressing each other on a first name basis throughout, instead of actually using the more formal, "Sir.")

Honestly, the name's not that important because he's not alone. I get such random drive-by emails all the time.

#1
> > > To: "Rev. Eric "Gunny" Hartman"
> > > From: "Sir"

Pastor - I received your pamphlet by mail yesterday and have a comment or two. First, I believe I'm called as an evangelist, although I'm not presently functioning in that office. I presently attend a non-denominational church in ______ and have since 1980. Prior, as a kiddo, I attended FBC in ______ as my ancestry was Southern Baptist, founders of Southwestern Theological Seminary, presided over the Southern Baptist Convention, board chairmen of Baylor Univ. and Hospital. Of course, I've learned from the apostle Paul to count my resume dung.

I've not heard of the Cambridge Declaration. I looked it up and read through it a moment ago. I'm confused by it. It talks of ministering the Law along with the Gospel. Is the Law referring to the 10? If so, I can't believe the Holy Spirit would lead one to minister both.

Galations [sic] 3 says that the people were bewitched because they departed from the Gospel and quickly returned to the Law of Moses, which certainly implies that they are two very different doctrines. One of the old covenant and one of the new. That's serious. You must know there are countless scriptures referring to the Law as "Not of faith", and that the "Just shall live by faith."

1st Timothy 1, 9 says that we ought to know that the Law doesn't apply to righteous men. How are you righteous? Roman 1, 16 & 17 says it's revealed in the Gospel. But only if you believe it. The Gospel is the power of God. (demonstrated in the resurrection - 1st Cor 15, 1-4) That's why Jesus told us to repent and believe the Gospel, not repent and believe the Cambridge Declaration, nor the Law.

If I misread the declaration, I'm happy to be corrected.

In His service,
Sir

#2
> > > From: "Rev. Eric "Gunny" Hartman"
> > > To: "Sir"

Sir,

Thanks for your comments and I'd appreciate any others with regard to our pamphlet or anything else. I certainly appreciate a critical eye so we might improve upon that which we do, Semper Reformanda.

However, I do think you must have misread the Cambridge Declaration. You noted that "Jesus told us to repent and believe the Gospel, not repent and believe the Cambridge Declaration, nor the Law."

If the Cambridge Declaration is to be internally consistent, it cannot be advocating any such thing, for that would be inconsistent with Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus, Sola Gratia, AND Sola Fide. ; )

With regard to the use of "Law and Gospel" I'm actually a bit puzzled as to how you would miss the use of the law in evangelism, especially as an evangelist. It's the Law that brings forth knowledge of sin and is perfect toward converting the soul (Ps 19:7). Paul said he would not have known sin, but by the law (Rom 7:7). Gal 3 that you mentioned notes the proper use of the law, to be a tutor to lead us to Christ (3:24) and it's the believer who has a different relationship to the law (3:25).

The law is a mirror to show us our sin and the need for cleansing, forgiveness, etc. (i.e., the Gospel). It's like Spurgeon noted in his Lectures to My Students in the section "On Conversion As Our Aim" ... "It is of no use trying to sew with the silken thread of the gospel unless we pierce a way for it with the sharp needle of the law. The law goes first, like the needle, and draws the gospel thread after it." Clearly there is a purpose for preaching the law, if not a necessity, with regard to justification.

But what about sanctification? Is there any purpose there? Now, that being said, there is the question over the definition of "The Law," but you'll note that the Cambridge Declaration reads "if we neglect either Law or Gospel in our preaching," and not "The Law" or The 10 Commandment or the Old Testament or the Pentateuch, etc. I think there's a double meaning here.

Taking this statement in light of the totality of the Cambridge Declaration and in light of the Reformation, but mostly from my New Testament, I think there is an emphasis on justification, but sanctification as well.

Let me explain, for here it is helpful to understand law as not merely referring to the Decalogue or even the Old Covenant, which a Gentile like me was never under. That covenant is obsolete and I'm a part of the New.

However, that does not mean there is no guiding principle of "law" on how to live the Christian life. There is, of course, the "Law of Christ" (Gal 6:2) which seems to entail the standards that Christ has set for His people with regard to their behavior, for which Christians will all one day give an account (2 Cor 5:10).

To be fair, the standards of that judgment are clearly displayed in the teachings of Christ (Matt 5-7, etc.) and the imperatives in the epistles of Paul, John, Peter, etc. Even the authoritative "Great Commission" entails teaching them to obey all that Christ commanded (Matt 28:18-20).

Thus, in the life of the believer one needs to hear the standards of God preached so that he/she can be conformed to the image of His Son, confessing sin when appropriate, etc. So, perhaps another rendering of law in this sense would be obligation so that one is exhorted to preach duty
(Law) and God's grace (Gospel) for forgiveness when we fall short.

I think perhaps that your initial confusion had to do with justification, but salvation is and has always been by grace alone through faith alone, never through the law (Gal 2:21; Rom 4). That has not changed, but the rule or obligation for one of God's people is dramatically different in
the Old Covenant vs. the New, as is the empowering of the Holy Spirit, etc.

In short, the Law is useful in evangelism so people will know they have a disease (sin), else they would never want the cure (justification). The Law (in the sense of the standards of God) are useful and necessary for believer to know and do that which is pleasing in His sight, in becoming holy (sanctification).

I hope this helps, but please let me know if not.

By His grace and for His glory,
Rev. Eric "Gunny" Hartman, pastor

#3
> > From: "Sir"
> > To: "Rev. Eric "Gunny" Hartman"

Eric- It is plain that the writers of the declaration wish for the church to repent and believe it. But it's the power of God (the Gospel) that converts one to the image of Jesus, not the declaration, nor the law, is what I meant.

Gal 3:2 asks if they received the Spirit by the works of the law or by the hearing of faith? You said they should hear the preaching of the law in order to be converted. But Galations [sic] says they were foolish and bewitched for listening.

1st Timothy 1 says if you desire to teach the law, not only do you not know what you're saying, nor whereof you affirm, but he calls you a vain jangler. I'm not going to be a vain jangler. I'm going to preach the Gospel!

Sir

#4
> From: "Rev. Eric "Gunny" Hartman"
> To: "Sir"

Sir,

Although I'm enjoying the discussion, I'm just a little confused. Are you insinuating that the Cambridge Declaration is setting itself up as a replacement of the Gospel?

Also, are you seriously denouncing the use of the law in evangelism? Clearly the Gospel is the medicine for what ails, but it's the law that diagnoses it. What about the verses I noted about the use of the law therein?

I'd be curious as to how you could preach the Gospel properly or effectively without mentioning the standards of God that have not been met (i.e., the law).

Lastly, it seems to me, Sir, that you have developed a false dichotomy, as though one preaches either the law OR the Gospel. The law is no substitute, but the forerunner of sorts (cf. the ministry of John the Baptist prior to Christ - he called attention to their sin, calling them to repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is near (Matt 3:2), the exact same message of Christ (Matt 4:17)).

With regard to the Galatians, I did not say that they should hear the preaching of the law in order to be converted, for that would be redundant. The Galatians had already heard the law and it had done its job (Gal 3:24-25).

With regard to 1 Timothy 1 that you noted, in v.8 it notes "But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully." Clearly, Paul is not saying, "Never use the law," but on the contrary he's saying that the law must be used properly.

I guess my questions for you would be 3-fold:
1. What does Paul mean in 1 Tim 1:8; how should one use the law properly?
2. How do you define the Gospel? and
3. How does one preach the imperatives of the Bible (OT & NT) apart from those calling one to faith in Christ?

Sola gratia,
Gunny

#5
From: "Sir"
To: "Rev. Eric "Gunny" Hartman"

Let's take the Cambridge Declaration for what it is. It's the opinions of some folks that got together and said, the scripture is not enough, we must have churches adopt this as part of their doctrine - when we've already been told to simply preach the Gospel to every creature.

Would you agree that Philip - the evangelist -preached an effective Gospel? There's no evidence of him teaching the law. It says he preached Christ unto them and miracles took place afterward, which is a scriptural result of preaching the Gospel. Philip then went to the eunuch, who was reading about Jesus in Isaiah, and he preached Jesus to him as well, baptized him and didn't bother teaching him the 10.

Jesus discussed the law in Matthew for sure. He said it's not even adequate. And I know he came to fulfill the law. What do you do when you fulfill a jail sentence for instance, you walk away from it.

Answers to your questions - 1st Corinthians 15:1-4 defines the Gospel as the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus - and wherein we stand. But the Gospel is more than words, as Romans 1:16 says the Gospel is the power (or ability) of God to those who believe (hence the things that took place after Philip spoke, and they believed).

As far as using the law lawfully, I won't say I have a revelation of that verse because I don't. But Timothy is clear about folks that desire to preach it. I agree that the law applies to a certain group, but the people who preached it were bewitching the body of Christ, shutting up their faith and putting them in bondage. And, I didn't say to omit the OT in your teaching, those passages are there for our learning, as stated by Jesus.

One can surely preach the law along with the Gospel. It's done every Easter by teachers of the law. But the ones [sic] who attempts to combine the 2 is in the flesh, and obviously doesn't have a revelation of the Gospel. It will change the heart of a man by the power of God and you won't have to point out his sin! It's amazing.

Sir

#6
> From: "Rev. Eric "Gunny" Hartman"
> To: "Sir"

Sir,

You brought up a great many issues and I think it would be easier for my small brain to deal with them in multiple emails.

I'll try to give your comments a more fair treatment shortly, but this part most puzzled me.

"... It will change the heart of a man by the power of God and you won't have to point out his sin! It's amazing."

When you preach the Gospel, with a goal toward salvation I assume, what do you tell people they must be saved from?

Even the 1 Cor 15 you noted says that He died .... for our sins.

What is the Gospel you’re preaching saving from, if not sin?

Gunny


#7
> From: "Rev. Eric "Gunny" Hartman"
> To: "Sir"

You wrote: "Jesus discussed the law in Matthew for sure. He said it's not even
adequate. And I know he came to fulfill the law. What do you do when you fulfill a jail sentence for instance, you walk away from it."

I assume you're speaking of Matt 5 of the Sermon on the Mount. My question for you would be your exegesis of Matt 5:17-20:
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these
least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

In particular, to what is Jesus referring in v.19? It seems as though He's castigating breakers of the commandments of the law and at the same time heralding those who do AND teach them.

Is that not how you see what Christ is saying?

Thanks,
Gunny


#8
> From: "Rev. Eric "Gunny" Hartman"
> To: "Sir"

Sir,

One other quickie ...

You wrote: "Let's take the Cambridge Declaration for what it is. It's the opinions of some folks that got together and said, the scripture is not enough, we must have churches adopt this as part of their doctrine - when we've already been told to simply preach the Gospel to every creature."

Actually, that's not true, Sir. We're not told to "simply preach the Gospel to every creature."

For example, Christ commanded (i.e., not an optional activity) that His followers teach all that He had commanded in the Great Commission (Matt 28:19-20). Paul proclaimed "all the counsel of God" (Acts 20:27).

I feel almost silly telling you this, for I assume you know it, but The Cambridge Declaration is like a "Creed," coming for the Latin "creedo" which simply means "I believe." It's not uncommon for churches to have statements of faith historically, in fact it's odd when they don't. If you look at the early church's conciliar proclamations you see creeds of what is orthodoxy (i.e., not heresy).

For example, a heretic would be one who denies the trinity. Now, "trinity" is not a word found in the Bible, but it is a label for a biblical concept. I'm not aware of what church you presently attend, but I'm sure they have some sort of notion of commonly held beliefs, whether explicit or not. I doubt they would allow a Jehovah's Witness or a Mormon to teach a Sunday school class since they believe differently. A formal, written creed is not necessary to decipher that, but it can be a useful means of such.

Your SBC ancestors would not have been in opposition to a statement of faith. For example, many Baptists held to the London Baptist Confession of Faith (1644 or 1689) until we had the first SBC creed in 1858 (The Abstract of Principles). In 1925 the SBC Baptist Faith & Message was produced, being revised in 1963, 1998, and 2000.

I find it odd that you're not on board with The Cambridge Declaration as you see it as a statement of biblical insufficiency (although the document itself attests to such sufficiency), but you've said nothing about our church affirming the Baptist Faith & Message. Would you make the same criticism of it as well (i.e., your comments I quoted above)?

Gunny

I never heard back from him after his last email, #5 above.

That's it, man. Game over, man. Game over.

In the church mail today was a tract, one of those "Good News & Bad News" types.

The cover art was attractive, so I thought I'd check it out.

Early on I read this:

"Because of our sin, we have earned eternal separation from the God who created us. This is the bad news."

I thought, "If I was a non-Christian, would I think this was bad news?"

Honestly, would a non-Christian (i.e., one who hates God) really care that he/she doesn't get to hang out with God?

"Eternal separation from God" is almost as impotent as a "Christ-less eternity."

Non-Christian, let me speak the truth in love (Eph 4:15) ...

The "Bad News" is that you stand under the wrath of a holy God because of your sin(fulness) and apart from having God's anger appeased by Christ's work on the cross for you, which happens through faith alone in Him, you will endure an eternity in hell, where God is not absent, but rather afflicts you with His wrath forever more.

Now THAT is bad news.

I appreciate this whole seduction thing you've got going on here, but let me give you a tip: I'm a sure thing.

Some things I just don't understand and this one has bugged me for years.

I can't for the life of me understand movies where the love interest is a prostitute.

4 popular (some very) movies come to mind where the main character falls in love with a prostitute and they live happily ever after:

• Julia Roberts in "Pretty Woman"
• Rebecca De Mornay in "Risky Business"
• Jamie Lee Curtis in "Trading Places"
• Dolly Parton in that one where Burt Reynolds is the sheriff and the Aggies beat the Longhorns (that I watched as a kid but would particularly recommend you don't watch)
  

The whole time I'm thinking, "She's a prostitute, brother! People give her money to fornicate with her in various and sundry ways. What, are you nuts?!"

But the movies are quite popular and the prostitution aspect seems to help, not hinder the movie.

What's the angle?

• Is it that all women see themselves as prostitutes waiting for prince charming, who is a "John," but a really nice one?
• Is it that all men want to marry prostitutes?
• To what do I attribute the success of that genre of film?

I think it's ridiculous, trivializing and/or glamorizing such a debasing embarrassment to society.

That guy treats objects like women, man.

I don't think I would ever be mistaken for a "feminist," but stories like this one get my ire and indignation up.

South African taxi drivers assaulted a woman because she was wearing a mini-skirt. Reportedly,

"Passers-by reportedly laughed and cheered when Ms Ngcukana was assaulted last month."

Even at the height of my chauvinism, I never understood the line of thinking that what a woman was doing/wearing warrants being (sexually) accosted.

I'm not saying I don't have thoughts on what women (and men, for that matter) should wear in keeping with decency and modesty, but even a woman walking naked down the street is not "asking for it" if she says she's not wanting it.

This line of thinking that contributes to the lunacy of date rape and overall brutality against women makes my blood boil.

Even before I had daughters or had been converted, I was disgusted by the lion's share of "locker room talk" and attitudes toward women that objectified them.

At this stage in my life when I hear of date rape drugs and depraved morons (particularly in foreign countries) that rape women who they think are lewdly dressed (like a woman who showed her ankles to a guy not her husband) to somehow teach them a lesson ... well, I just want to handle up on justice the old fashioned way.

Rule #1 with my son from about as early as he could understand words was "Gentle with girls." He's been taken advantage of due to that rule, but I think he's better for it.

He also knows to pound mutant boys that are picking on girls on the playground, etc., especially his sisters. His dad will probably get called to the office because he got in a fight with some coward who was trying to grope a girl on the bus, but I will stand by his side and challenge the manhood of any who wouldn't do the same.

Okay, rant over, but I can assure you that I'm not riding in a South African taxi anytime soon, unless it's to go all Charles Bronson on somebody.

(cf. Stop Violence Against Women)