Monday, October 1, 2018

Why Hermeneutics Is Essential For The Pastor

2018 FIRSTLOVE BIBLE CONFERENCE
September 29, 2018
CONFERENCE THEME: “Rightly Dividing The Word Of Truth”

“WHY HERMENEUTICS IS ESSENTIAL FOR THE PASTOR”


My assignment is to effectively bridge the work of hermeneutics to the end of hermeneutics, which is somewhat more than Grant Osborne identifies it to be in The Hermeneutical Spiral.[1] More than the pastor’s sermon, I would suggest that the end of Biblical hermeneutics should also include Bible lessons, formulating plans for witnessing to the lost, and personal life applications. I think it unlikely anyone will disagree with me about that. I presume that we are agreed that hermeneutics ought to be seen as broader in scope than many believers grant it to be, certainly more important than it is recognized by most to be. Therefore, perhaps I might be given a bit of leeway in my introductory remarks to suggest common ground concerning something that is in one respect preliminary to hermeneutics.
Granted, one aspect of the goal of hermeneutics is personal growth and development as God’s truth in His Word is first unearthed, is then situated in (so as to refine) one’s broader system of theology, and is finally applied to the living of the Christian life. But the other aspect of the goal of hermeneutics is communicating not only the discovered truth but also the application of the discovered truth to others. For now, let me refer to them, to our audience (be they auditors or readers), as learners. To that end, on my way to addressing why hermeneutics is essential for pastors, I would like to briefly mention some simple tools that enable the students of God’s Word to effectively communicate what has been learned with those to whom it is to be imparted, the learners. Those tools were clarified by a Baptist preacher named John Milton Gregory in the 19th century in a work titled The Seven Laws of Teaching.[2]
Have you ever sat under a teacher at a university or in seminary or, heaven forbid, in a church service who was as dry as dust? I think with each one of us someone’s name immediately comes to mind in that regard. Forever in your memory is how tragically boring that one person was to not only you but to everyone else in the class. To be generous, it must be admitted that some topics and courses of study are so ponderous that it is incredibly challenging to acquire and then maintain the interest and attention of the learner. That said, it is generally true that boring anyone with the truth is a sin that ought to be repented of and corrected by not only a greater mastery of the subject matter but also a more insightful consideration of the nature of those who are to be learners.
One particular fellow comes to mind who delivered a message from God’s Word to our congregation many years ago, who I then determined would never again be given an opportunity to so bore people with the truth. Though standing upright and seeming to look at those of us sitting in front of him, it was very clear to us all that he took no note of the physical signs that should have provided important feedback information to him to adjust his presentation somehow so the time he had would not be completely wasted. He was a lovely Christian man. I enjoyed his social company and counted him a faithful brother. But what he had acquired from God’s Word via his hermeneutics he simply could not pass on to others.
I am thrilled this conference topic is about hermeneutics. Truth be told, more such conferences on this topic are warranted. However, of what benefit to the learner is the teacher’s mastery of Bible truths gained through hermeneutics unless he can effectively convey those truths to those we identify as learners? This is the pastor’s question, and I am of the opinion that far too many pastors these days do not resolve the issue in a manner that honors God, but rather resort to manipulative methods to hold an audience’s attention.
How can pastors engage the weapons of our warfare that are mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds? How do pastors succeed in casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God? To what degree can pastors, by God’s grace, bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ, if we only succeed in creating disinterest or distraction in our topic by failing to reach learners with the truth?[3] A disinterested learner or one distracted by manipulation contrived to hold his attention using entertainment, is not a learner at all, is he? The result is a skirmish in the spiritual warfare that is a loss and not a gain for the cause of Christ. Thus, the reason Paul reminded Timothy of the need to be apt to teach.
Biblical hermeneutics is profoundly important, wonderfully useful, opening up the mine of God’s treasure house to the discovery through hard work of truth. But we must have a cart at our disposal to transport the ore from the mine where God has stored it to the smelter, so to speak, of the learner’s mind. We must cultivate the skill of imparting what we learn to those we seek to teach, so learners might want to grasp the doctrine, embrace the application, and then respond with obedience to the revealed will of God. Psalm 119.11 reads, “Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.” I reckon this verse suggests more than someone hearing with understanding. But for the learner to hide God’s Word in his heart, the process must at least begin with understanding, which is connected to the learner’s interest.
So, allow me to quickly rehearse the seven laws of teaching that the pastor or Bible teacher can ignore at his peril, having become a veritable storehouse of Bible truth through study, that he cannot successfully convey to learners because he violates well-established principles of communication between teachers and learners. I will paraphrase the seven laws with comment but without explanation:[4]
(1)    The teacher must be the one who knows what is to be taught. I suspect this is the most common deficiency of the 21st-century pastor.
(2)    The learner is one whose attention must be acquired and held to learn what is taught. Perhaps this is the most common deficiency in connection with the 21st-century learner.
(3)    The language employed between teacher and learner must be common to both. Is the language common to teacher and learner if what is being said focuses on the fact that the verb is Aorist Middle Imperative?
(4)    The lesson to be taught must be explained regarding truth already known by the learner. Was it Dwight L. Moody who spoke of cookies being placed on the low shelf?
(5)    Teaching occurs when the learner’s mind is aroused to grasp the truth being taught. Interest is crucial, but so many speakers resort to entertainment when they notice their audience is inattentive.
(6)    Learning occurs with an understanding of the new idea or truth to affect future conduct. Application of the truth taught is paramount.
(7)    The test and proof of teaching and learning come with reviewing, rethinking, reknowing, reproducing, and then applying what has been taught. I have heard it said by old southern preachers many times that you must tell them what you are going to tell them, tell them, and then tell them what you told them.
Forty years of teaching, preaching on average four times each week, explaining, discipling, and counseling have more than persuaded me that these seven laws form an intellectual chain of principles, with the absence of a single one guaranteeing that actual learning will not occur, meaning actual teaching has not been accomplished, with the goal of hermeneutics then being unrealized in anyone’s life but one’s own. How very sad that such egregious failures occur so often. Of what use is the pastor’s diligent study to his congregation if he speaks to them in the unknown tongue of the sophisticated scholar and fails to recognize the importance of attracting and then holding the attention of auditors as Whitefield, Edwards, and Spurgeon were so careful to do? Let us redeem the time on the platform and not just in one’s library, by implementing tried and proven tools for communicating divine truth to both the learned and the unlearned who have come to hear us.
How important it is for the preacher to develop such intimacy with his audience that he becomes familiar with their level of knowledge, so his message from God’s Word does not exceed their grasp from the outset? Should he be like a thoroughbred eager to run like the wind who bolts from the starting gate while leaving his audience behind? Folks may have arrived for worship eager to learn. They may sing energetically and then sit ready. But then the preacher leaves them behind.
The cessationist pastor may one day give an accounting to the Savior and there learn that he unwittingly spoke to audiences in an unknown tongue and there was not one present to interpret.[5] As Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.”[6] Granted, Paul refers to the gift of tongues, while I speak of language that is just as unintelligible to the first-time visitor.
In the end, it doesn’t nearly as much matter what the teacher says to the learner as what the learner thinks the teacher has said, which was why Asahel Nettleton[7] and Charles Spurgeon[8] carefully interviewed individuals after preaching to them. It was not physicists and electrical engineers who developed the concept of feedback, but men of God. This is verified by Solomon Stoddard’s A Guide To Christ,[9] which was a handbook to teach preachers how to discover from those who heard them what listeners thought they had said in the sermon. This is far more useful to maintaining a preacher’s relevancy than conducting ministry by market research.[10]
As well, one might ask if the product of hermeneutics demands a rehearsal of the process of hermeneutics. Does every Greek word need pronouncing and explaining? Does every Hebrew word need pronouncing and explaining? Did da Vinci or Rembrandt insist on describing to their patrons the process of mixing the pigments in the paints used in their portraits? Did Michelangelo demand that his patrons accompany him to the quarry to select his raw materials for sculpting? Does the visitor to a worship service or a Bible study need to be shown that the methods used to arrive at the truth are so far out of his present reach that there is a risk he will be discouraged by the gulf you have spanned rather than him being edified by what you have privately learned in your labors?
A personal illustration might serve us at this point. Almost forty years ago I took a young Christian with me to visit someone in his home. Though I had reason to expect the person we were visiting to be somewhat receptive, it turned out that he was very combative, throwing at me Jehovah’s Witness arguments, Adventist arguments, and some Mormonism for good measure. He had a smorgasbord theology that proved useful to his pride as an effective barrier to him receiving the truth.
Here was my terrible error. I felt at the time I had dealt with each argument thrown at me expertly. I parried and thrust with precision and skill. There was not a single objection that I did not meet with Scripture, leaving the man silent in the end, but unmoved and still unyielding. The visit drew to a close, and my young companion and I thanked him for his hospitality, and we parted company after shaking hands. It was when I dropped off my young companion that I came to realize my terrible blunder. Unrecognized by me was the fact that my audience numbered two individuals and not one. And the only thing I accomplished during that visit, besides shutting the mouth of the unconverted man we visited, was to discourage my companion so that he concluded he would never be able to deal with individuals the way I had and therefore he would never engage in such an activity again. I dominated the meeting with my superior learning and thereby lost on two fronts.
What should I have done instead of what I did? I should have known my audience better than I did. I should have considered the unintended consequences of the approach I used. On that occasion, I should have recognized that less might have proven to be more. And I should have demonstrated considerably more humility by displaying markedly less learning. Perhaps a somewhat different approach might have been less challenging to our host while being an encouragement to a young Christian rather than sending him into a pit of despondency.
Having rehearsed (by way of introduction) some of the cautions to be exercised with the product of our hermeneutics, I now move to address why hermeneutics is so important a matter for pastors, under three very broad headings:

First, HERMENEUTICS IS ESSENTIAL FOR THE PASTOR BECAUSE THE PASTOR IS A CHRISTIAN

At least that is the assumption for my consideration, though I am quite sure there are many occupying the pulpits of America in our day who do not fit that description. Why is hermeneutics important for me as a believer in Jesus Christ, as a disciple of Jesus Christ, and as a child of God? You mean besides corroborating my understanding of the Gospel when I was converted to Christ?
I well remember reviewing my understanding of the Gospel again, and again, verifying that my experience was in agreement with what the Bible declares to be so about the salvation of a sinner. Every Gospel sermon I heard during those first months of my new life in Christ drove me to an investigation of what I had recently heard preached, what I had learned from my study of God’s Word, and upon reflection of my own response to the Gospel brought home to me in a powerful way by the Spirit of God after reading the Word of God.
How thankful I was that the conflict I faced when confronted by Charismatic Bible studies at work and solid Gospel preaching at a small Baptist Church on Sunday was rather easily resolved in my thinking by a member of that Church. It was when he responded to a question about his opinion by saying to me, “My opinion is unimportant. Let’s turn to God’s Word to see what the Bible has to say.” Then and there it was crystallized in my thinking that I was exposed to two opposed approaches to discovering the truth. Do I examine the Bible in light of my own experience? Or do I examine my experience in light of God’s Word? That was the first hermeneutical decision I consciously remember making. My experience is not the final authority. God’s Word is the final authority.
There are three reasons that I want to set before you in as simple a fashion as possible why hermeneutics is essential for the believer in Jesus Christ. The reason for stressing simplicity is my past experiences with some extremely bright men and women. Though I am not an exceptional man by any means, God has providentially given me opportunities to observe people of real brilliance in the political realm, in the legal arena, in the scientific realm, in the business world, in the engineering profession, and in broadcasting. My observations of some individuals who were very prominent in their fields have surprised no one more than me. I have been astonished at such people’s return, whenever practical, to the basics, to the simple things. I seek to emulate them now.
First, to know God’s will, one must know God’s Word. This might seem to be so basic a concept that it does not need to be stated. But there are many in our day who have such a view of divine inspiration, revelation, and illumination, coupled with their wildly inaccurate view of their capacities, that they feel very confident that they know God’s will without paying much attention to God’s Word. One man, who was for a year my pastor when I was very young in the Lord, frequently told those who would listen that the most beneficial course of study he ever pursued was when he obtained permission to enroll in the General Motors Corporation management training course. It was only later that I realized that he looked upon ministry and the pastorate as a business enterprise, so of course business practices would be of more value to him than the study of God’s Word. He is by no means an isolated example of this approach. Sadly, it has proved to be the case for him, and for so many others including those who are not pastors, that the Christian life is not intuitive as they had presumed, and implementing best business or marketing practices is not always the way to proceed. Solomon warns in Proverbs 3.5, where he cautions, “lean not unto thine own understanding.” Cleverness and reliance on intuition invariably lead to catastrophe in the Christian life. How many times in Scripture does God make mention of His “ways” in contrast to men’s ways? Where else will someone learn God’s will but in God’s Word? Unless, of course, you are a mystic or a continuationist.[11] Do I repeat myself?
But to know God’s Word one must study God’s Word. Of course, there is a place for the reading and rereading of Scripture. I seem to remember Graham Scroggie’s pattern of reading a book of the Bible straight through without interruption no less than fifty times before he would embark upon a careful study in preparation for expository sermons through that book. There is great value in reading God’s Word, for devotional purposes as well as to gain familiarity with the ebb and flow of Scripture. That said, I remember hearing a pastor who had read God’s Word so many times that he had committed major portions of Scripture to memory, which resulted in him citing long passages throughout his time on the platform. He thought what he was doing was preaching. He was not preaching, which must involve explaining the text. Rather, he would instead quote a chapter here and then a lengthy passage there, and on he would go until time had run out. His practice showed that he did not know how to study God’s Word. How does one study God’s Word? That is the question Dr. Downing wonderfully addresses in his book, is it not? That is the question Milton Terry and Patrick Fairbairn also address, is it not?[12] The answer to that question is outside the scope of my assigned topic this morning, though it is an answer which must be sought and grasped by the faithful expositor.
The study of God’s Word requires a sound hermeneutic. Has it not always been God’s will that His own honor Him by seeking a right understanding of the truth He has entrusted us with? How else are we to know so that we might obey Him? Every child of God must be brought to realize God’s plan for learning to become a more proficient student of God’s Word. And what are those certainties upon which we must agree so as not to diverge from the straight path? God is. God has communicated to us. God’s Word is true. And facts are things. Psalm 119.105 reads, “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.” One might imagine the nighttime never being completely dark in the psalmist’s part of the world. But my experience in that region is that sometimes “the dust before the wind” lingers after the gale has died down, leaving you in utter pitch blackness after sundown, with no moonlight and no starlight piercing the still dust.[13]
How important it is, then, to employ a sound hermeneutic to make your way through such spiritual darkness by the light of God’s Word correctly understood. Therefore, for our spiritual well-being, we must work to have a sound hermeneutic. To give one illustration, we live in a world in which a great political clash pits the individualists against the collectivists. Some might think they are apolitical, but there is no escaping something when it is in the air we breathe. And since where two or three are gathered together, you have politics, the child of God finds himself immersed in a political environment whenever he is not isolated. It is one’s sound hermeneutic that enables the believer to know God’s will. What must I do when I am in isolation? When I am in a group setting? When I am with the congregation during worship? And when I am with the congregation engaged in service and ministry? And to what extent have I and others around me been influenced by the prevailing trends of our culture?
Because of such influences, we so often see those professing to know Christ who seems to get everything backward. They envision something akin to group conversion followed by a solitary Christian life because their hermeneutic does not correct their warped notions about such things as individualism and collectivism and the rest. Too many people once obtained their views on how to live from billboards showing the Marlboro Man. Secular politics exert influence on all to some degree, but poor hermeneutic leaves so many susceptible to such influences that are uncorrected by God’s Word. I think we would agree that the views of many these days about their commitment to and involvement in their church congregation is appalling, leaving them deprived of the encouragement that God provides for us in no other circumstance. This applies to pastors as much as it does to any other believer. How we should benefit from a sound hermeneutic so that we prepare for and expect from God’s Word, God’s people, and God’s church, the grace that is ministered to us as needy children by these various means.

Then, HERMENEUTICS IS ESSENTIAL FOR THE PASTOR BECAUSE THE PASTOR IS A TEACHER, A GUIDE, AND AN EXAMPLE

It is not necessary to take you to God’s Word to relate to you what you already know as well as I do. Therefore, I would like to present to you three real-life examples of godly pastors of formidable reputation whose surprising (to me at least) deviation from Scriptural truth despite their orthodoxy serves as an example to each of us why a sound, Biblical hermeneutic is so crucial:
The first example is Solomon Stoddard. I read John Gerstner’s introductory remarks from Stoddard’s A Guide to Christ:[14]

Solomon Stoddard (1643-1729), called the “pope of western Massachusetts” in his own day, is usually known today only as the grandparent of his assistant pastor, Jonathan Edwards. Moreover, it is his unique and original ecclesiastical ideas, that deviated drastically from traditional reformed patterns, that were to cause Edwards’ dismissal after twenty-three years of remarkable ministry in Northampton.
Because “Stoddardianism” was so famous historically, let me detail the steps of his theological thinking.
1.   In 1679, the Reforming Synod was shocked to hear Stoddard not only defend “Half-Way Covenant” thinking, but advocate what came to be called “Converting Ordinances.”
2.   This doctrine stated that persons who confessed faith in Christ and were free of scandalous living (without necessarily relating their “experiences”) were to be admitted to communion. Those who could not confidently relate their experiences had previously been denied communicant membership, though their children could receive baptism. Stoddard would admit their parents to the Lord’s Supper.
3.   Though the Synod was shocked, it went reluctantly along, Increase Mather dissenting.
4.   In 1700, Stoddard’s Instituted Churches spelled out the “Converting Ordinances” doctrine. By 1704, Stoddard was avowing it fully to his congregation; and by 1709 he explained things to Increase Mather’s satisfaction.
5.   Later works solidified Stoddardianism. In 1729, his The Safety of Appearing in the Righteousness of Christ at the Day of Judgment was his final statement before his own appearing before his Lord at death.
6.   In July, 1750, Jonathan Edwards preached his farewell sermon at Northampton, dismissed because of his break withStoddardianism.”
7.   By the end of the century, “Converting Ordinances” became virtually extinct.
This Guide to Christ shows Solomon Stoddard at his very best. He may have been in error on “Converting Ordinances,” but this little book is a guide to the finest Reformed theology. He may have been wrong in guiding to the Lord’s Table, but not in guiding to the Lord Himself.
The only trouble with this Guide is that it is too good! Our century is not worthy of it or its author. Even in its advanced day (nearly 300 years ago), it was written for “young ministers,” and not for those they guided. Today, even our ministers are hardly equal to it. Yet they and we all must become so. It is a classic.
If “young ministers” (and old) are Christ’s appointed guides to Christ, they would do well to take and master this seminary course by Professor Stoddard. If they do so, multitudes of their parishioners are going to find it “SERVICEABLE TO PRIVATE CHRISTIANS WHO ARE ENQUIRING THE WAY TO ZION.”

John H. Gerstner
Ligonier, PA
November 1992

I suggest the cause of Solomon Stoddard’s error by acknowledging that he was a godly man, with a Biblical hermeneutic over most of his ministry, until he faced a prolonged dry spell in which he saw very few conversions. Abandoning the Scriptural assertions that there are “out of season” periods of every ministry, Stoddard contrived an approach to evangelism that he hoped would produce fruit that remained. It did not. I may be wrong about the reason for Stoddard’s departure from the straight and narrow, but I am not mistaken about the fact that he did depart. His grandson, Jonathan Edwards, lost his pastorate at the same church attempting to correct his grandfather’s error, even after the great revival God sent during his tenure. Stoddard’s is an error that each of us must strive to avoid in our own ministries.
The second example is Roger R. Nicole. The late Roger Nicole seems to have been a theologian of a long-standing good reputation as a Reformed theologian and credibility as a godly man. Clearly an inerrantist, he was remembered with fondness after passing by such notables as D. A. Carson and Mark Dever.[15] That said, he was an egalitarian, which is to say that he stood with evangelical feminists against the functional hierarchy in the home and in the church that I am persuaded is so undeniably advocated in Scripture. Of course, the theological implications of such a view of the roles of men and women in marriage and the church are incredible. On what basis did Dr. Nicole adopt his egalitarian stance? I do not know. Was he influenced by feminist ideology in the culture at large? I am not sure. However, I am not persuaded that Biblical manhood and womanhood is well-served by egalitarian notions.[16] By way of honoring our departed brother, I have prepared an eighteen-page handout that he wrote titled “Polemic Theology: How To Deal With Those Who Differ From Us.”[17] I hope you will take a copy, read it, embrace what Dr. Nicole advances in his article, and be warned that the very best among us, but for God’s wonderful grace, cannot only fall into grievous sins, but can also commit tragic hermeneutical errors that result in harm to those we intend to bless.
The third example will remain nameless because he is still my friend and he is still with us. A well-trained man who I am confident Dr. Downing either knows or would recognize from years gone by, he was successful as a church pastor and as a gifted communicator of God’s truth. Interesting, accurate, persuasive, and memorable in his very appropriate delivery style, he was wonderfully blessed of God. He preached for our church many years ago, and the people were informed and spiritually lifted by his preaching and teaching ministry. Living in a different part of the country, to begin with, he then accepted the call to a congregation even farther away, resulting in even less contact with him. However, after three years he did speak once more at our church.
Surprising to me, not only was his approach to preaching markedly different in both content and delivery style, he was so different that I was alone in the congregation who realized he had preached for us before. Our deacons did not recognize him. The man in our church who is the best at listening and following sermons I have ever known did not recognize him. My wife did not recognize him. After the service, as we dined together, I remarked that his current preaching bore no resemblance to the preaching he had employed for more than thirty years. He acknowledged that to be true. And when I asked him how that came to be, he said: “My wife didn’t like the way I preached before.” I was stunned into silence. He was not in any way rude before. He was not at all loud and boisterous before. He was not a brutish fellow before. But he did exhibit a spiritual manliness in his demeanor before, without any wanting of humility. Our conversation led me to conclude that over the years his wife’s views had so changed, and she, in turn, had so influenced him, that he had transformed into a perfectly metrosexual man. That belies a deeply flawed hermeneutic. I have no issue with a godly wife having a profoundly influential and beneficial role in a man’s development as a Gospel minister. However, there is a difference between the godly influence a wife ought to rightly have and a flawed hermeneutic that allows for the influences of feminism to seep into one’s ministry through the spouse one is supposed to lead rather than follow.

Third, A CAUTION FOR THE DILIGENT STUDENT OF GOD’S WORD

We must be careful. We must ever strive to stay on the straight and narrow path of God’s will and God’s way. That can only be done with any certainty if we are diligent to attend to the hermeneutic we employ to discover and then to implement God’s will and way. A good hermeneutic should lead to an even better hermeneutic over time.
Solomon Stoddard was a towering figure in his day. Imagine New England Puritans of that day nicknaming him the pope of New England. Such was their regard and admiration for him. Roger Nicole had a significant influence on many of our contemporaries, particularly on the Eastern seaboard. Both of those men left behind what I would characterize as egregious errors, perhaps brought on by a flawed hermeneutic.
Perhaps Stoddard’s notion of “Converting Ordinances” has gone out of fashion, but his practice of admitting to the Lord’s Supper those with no credible testimony of a conversion experience has won the day in evangelical circles. And the tragic consequences of evangelical feminism’s egalitarianism can be seen all around us.

Pastor, your ministry is incredibly important. Not only are you set aside for the diligent study of God’s Word, but you are also the primary individual responsible for setting the doctrinal course for your congregation and providing the most significant preaching and teaching leadership.
The example you are called upon to set. The instruction you are called upon to provide. The role in evangelism in listening to inquirers, evaluating conversion testimonies, and establishing the approach your congregation uses to authorize the baptism of believers, demands your hermeneutic be Biblical and mature.
Can anyone doubt that when Paul spoke to the Ephesian elders for the last time, telling them to “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers,” included in the application of his instruction would be a concern to maintain a good hermeneutic?



[1] Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1991), page 12.
[2] John Milton Gregory, The Seven Laws Of Teaching, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, Revised 1954), page 7.
[3] 2 Corinthians 10.4-5
[4] Gregory, pages 18-19.
[5] The cessationist does believe sign gifts such as the gift of tongues and the interpretation of tongues are operative at present.
[6] 1 Corinthians 14.9
[7] Bennet Tyler and Andrew A. Bonar, Nettleton And His Labours, (Carlisle, Pennsylvania: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1975 reprint of 1854 publication), pages 301-303.
[8] R. L. Hymers, Jr. and Christopher Cagan, Preaching To A Dying Nation, (Los Angeles, CA: Fundamentalist Baptist Tabernacle of Los Angeles, 1999), pages 201-203.
[9] Reprinted by Soli Deo Gloria Publications, Ligonier, PA in 1993.
[10] It is sad that the practice of elicitation, so the preacher might learn from the listener following the sermon, has been discarded by most preachers (or rather not taken up because of ignorance). What was a rather common 18th century ministry practice has become a 21st century rarity among gospel ministers. Presently, elicitation is widely used in many professions (law enforcement, medical professions, legal professionals, human resource specialists, engineers) to gather important information, but only rarely by ministers. This is a dramatic reversal of practice over the span of two centuries.
[11] The mystic believes he has a direct connection with God by which means he receives information and guidance apart from the revelation of God’s Word. The continuationist views all spiritual gifts as being operative, including the sign gifts.
[12] Works on hermeneutics for your consideration: W. R. Downing, An Introduction To Biblical Hermeneutics, Patrick Fairbairn, Opening Scripture, Scot McKnight, ed., Introducing New Testament Interpretation, Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral, Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics, D. A Carson and John D. Woodbridge, editors, Hermeneutics, Authority, And Canon.
[13] Psalm 18.42
[14] Solomon Stoddard, A Guide To Christ, (Ligonier, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications reprint, 1993), pages vii-viii.
[15] https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/carson-keller-and-dever-remember-roger-nicole/
[16] See John Piper and Wayne Grudem, Editors, Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood: A Response To Evangelical Feminism, (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1991) and Wayne Grudem, Evangelical Feminism & Biblical Truth: An Analysis Of More Than 100 Disputed Quotations, (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2012)
[17] Available from ClassicalBaptist.Press

Thursday, May 3, 2018

The Most Damaging Victory Of The Cultural Marxists?

     Most Americans are unaware and self-absorbed. This is a stunning vulnerability, as events throughout our culture make painfully obvious. One crucial manifestation of this vulnerability is the conspiracy to destroy our culture and way of life by a group of men known as the Frankfurt School.
     The Frankfurt School were a group of Germans in Frankfurt, Germany who realized after the close of World War One, the Great War, that workers of the world would not rise up and refuse to fight each other in their respective armies. The advance of communism had to be achieved by other means.
     With the rise of National Socialism (Nazi) and Adolf Hitler the mostly Jewish Frankfurt School saw the handwriting on the wall and for their own physical safety moved to New York City and affiliated with Columbia University, where they advanced their program of undermining the country they saw as their most resistant adversary, the United States. Once here, they advanced by all means available their tactic of cultural Marxism known as critical theory. Critical theory is the tactic of criticizing everything, at all times, and in all ways. never advance a solution, only criticize, criticize, criticize.
   One ongoing victory in the Frankfurt School's burrowing and infestation tactic has been the abortion industry. What culture would knowingly allow their most treasured resource, their own children, to be systematically destroyed? Yet the USA and West is doing precisely that.
     Want an illustration of the Frankfurt School's role in promoting abortion in the USA?  Look no further than one of their original transplants to this country, Herbert Marcuse, mentioned in the article linked below. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/28/opinion/sunday/the-forgotten-anger-of-our-bodies-ourselves.html?mc_cid=6291b68eb1&mc_eid=2b8ad1a49c

Do feminists know how much they have been played by the Frankfurt School to destroy their nation, using them as unwitting tools? Do they care?

Saturday, April 28, 2018

The Irrational And Unscientific Assumptions of Socialism

I like to read. As well, I think it is my duty as a pastor to read. Further, if Spurgeon’s example is any indication, being widely read is of benefit to the spiritual leader as a means of searching out fields of study and thought to which Bible truth and principles can be applied.
It is in that vein that I began reading “Socialism,” written by Ludwig von Mises in 1922. Needless to say, if you recognize his name at all, “Socialism” made a tremendous impact in Europe when it was published and Great Britain and the United States when it was translated into English. Having that in mind as I began to read the book, I was astonished to learn something while reading the preface to the second English edition that explains so many things that had previously puzzled me. Following are a portion of his remarks:

It was at this moment that Marx appeared. Adept as he was in Hegelian dialectic-a system easy of abuse by those who seek to dominate thought by arbitrary flights of fancy and metaphysical verbosity-he was not slow in finding a way out of the dilemma in which socialists found themselves. Since Science and Logic had argued against Socialism, it was imperative to devise a system which could be relied on to defend it against such unpalatable criticism. This was the task which Marxism undertook to perform. It had three lines of procedure. First, it denied that Logic is universally valid for all mankind and for all ages. Thought, it stated, was determined by the class of the thinkers; was in fact an "ideological superstructure" of their class interests. The type of reasoning which had refuted the socialist idea was "revealed" as "bourgeois" reasoning, an apology for Capitalism. Secondly, it laid it down that the dialectical development led of necessity to Socialism; that the aim and end of all history was the socialization of the means of production by the expropriation of the expropriators-the negation of negation. Finally, it was ruled that no one should be allowed to put forward, as the Utopians had done, any definite proposals for the construction of the Socialist Promised Land. Since the coming of Socialism was inevitable, Science would best renounce all attempt to determine its nature.
At no point in history has a doctrine found such immediate and complete acceptance as that contained in these three principles of Marxism. The magnitude and persistence of its success is commonly underestimated. This is due to the habit of applying the term Marxist exclusively to formal members of one or other of the self-styled Marxist parties, who are pledged to uphold word for word the doctrines of Marx and Engels as interpreted by their respective sects and to regard such doctrines as the unshakable foundation and ultimate source of all that is known about Society and as constituting the highest standard in political dealings. But if we include under the term "Marxist" all who have accepted the basic Marxian principles-that class conditions thought, that Socialism is inevitable, and that research into the being and working of the socialist community is unscientific-we shall find very few non-Marxists in Europe east of the Rhine, and even in Western Europe and the United States many more supporters than opponents of Marxism. Professed Christians attack the materialism of Marxists, monarchists their republicanism, nationalists their internationalism; yet they them­ selves, each in turn, wish to be known as Christian Socialists, State Socialists, National Socialists. They assert that their particular brand of Socialism is the only true one-that which "shall" come, bringing with it happiness and contentment. The Socialism of others, they say, has not the genuine class­ origin of their own. At the same time they scrupulously respect Marx’s prohibition of any inquiry into the institutions of the socialist economy of the future, and try to interpret the working of the present economic system as a development leading to Socialism in accordance with the inexorable demand of the historical process. Of course, not Marxists alone, but most of those who emphatically declare themselves anti-Marxists, think entirely on Marxist lines and have adopted Marx's arbitrary, unconfirmed and easily refutable dogmas. If and when they come into power, they govern and work entirely in the socialist spirit.[1]

What does this passage teach me? First, I had not known that socialism was a thoroughly refuted economic and philosophical system, that it had been shown to be scientifically and logically unworkable. Second, I had not known that Karl Marx’s sleight of hand to justify socialism and advance his ideas of communism was to merely deny that logic was universally valid for all mankind and all ages. Brilliant. Diabolical. Secondly, it was ruled (by what authority I do not know) that no one should be allowed to put forward any definite proposals for what socialism would inevitably lead to. Of course, this disconnects activity from future consequences and even the consideration of future consequences.
I have long been of the persuasion that socialism and communism are attempts to create heaven on earth, but I had never before been made aware of the complete disconnect from rational thought that is fundamentally required to be a socialist. I now understand Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Diane Feinstein, and others so much better than I did a few hours ago.



[1] Ludwig von Mises, Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis, (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, Second English Edition), pages 6-7.

Friday, April 20, 2018

Moral Agnosticism

I recently came across this excerpt from the fine book I read some years back and thought others might enjoy reading it.

Excerpt from “The Church Effeminate”
by John W. Robbins, pages 654-657, published by The Trinity Foundation

Now this is a very important matter. The lack of discernment in today's churches, the reluctance to make distinctions, the antipathy to rendering moral judgments — all of this means that proper distinctions are not being made and righteous judgments are not being rendered. It does not mean that distinctions and judgments are not being made at all. Insofar as anyone thinks at all, he must make distinctions and render judgments. Just as the irrationalist is fatally ignorant of the fact that he must use rationality to propound irrationalism, so the moral agnostic — the man who is opposed to making judgments — is fatally ignorant of the fact that he must make moral judgments in order to state his position. The judgment the moral agnostic unwittingly makes is this: “Judging others is wrong.” But the moral agnostic does not stop with that judgment; he eagerly adds another: “Those who judge others are wrong.” And in these two moral judgments we can see clearly the self-stultifying, self-contradictory nature of the notion that one ought not to make moral judgments. If those who judge others are wrong, as the moral agnostic asserts, then moral agnostics are wrong, for they judge those who make judgments. That is why the Bible neither condemns nor commends those who make no judgments — for there are no such people — but instead condemns those who make false judgments, who call good, evil, and evil, good:

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil, who put darkness for light, and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter. Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight.” (Isaiah 5:20-21)

By refusing to distinguish good from evil, right from wrong, true from false — that is, by attempting to abandon logic and rationality — a person merely succeeds in making evil judgments. He calls good, evil, and evil, good. It is the man who makes perverse judgments that the Bible condemns. Ironically, the most censorious men are those who condemn anyone who makes a moral judgment.

Scripture repeatedly commands Christians to “test,” to “try,” to “judge,” and to “prove” all things. For example, in 1 Thessalonians 5:21, Paul commands us to “test all things; hold fast what is good.” Isaiah commands us in these words:

And when they say to you, “Seek those who are mediums and wizards, who whisper and mutter,” should not a people seek their God? Should they seek the dead on behalf of the living? To the Law and to the Testimony! If they do not speak according to this Word, it is because there is no light in them.” (Isaiah 8:19-20)

John tells us, “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” (1 John 4:1) And in his Gospel, “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.” (John 7:24) In Proverbs we are commanded: “Open you mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy.” (Proverbs 31:9) Paul, giving instructions for church meetings, says, “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge.” (1 Corinthians 14:29) Scripture commands us to be skeptical of everything except the written Word of God, and to judge all things by that Word. The Bereans were commended for testing even an apostle’s preaching by the written Word.

In all this, Christians are exercising their rationality. In his letters, Paul repeatedly makes moral judgments. For example, in Romans I Paul writes: “professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.” In 1 Corinthians 5 he writes, “And you are puffed up.” In verses 11 through 13 he gives further instructions:

But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner – not even to eat with such a person. For what have I to do with judging those who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? But those who are outside God judges. Therefore, “put away from yourselves that wicked person.”

Here Paul’s command to judge – to distinguish and evaluate certain persons in the church as fornicators, covetous, idolaters, revilers, drunkards, and extortioners – is followed by a command to separate from such men. It is a command to exercise church discipline. But the moral agnostics in the churches, because they are opposed to rendering moral judgments, are opposed to discipline and to separation as well, a point to which we shall return shortly.

Paul continues his discussion of judging:

Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters [now]? Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more [then], things that pertain to this life?” (1 Corinthians 6:2-3)

Here Paul expects Christians to judge; he demands that they judge. Paul himself calls men “foolish,” (Galatians 3:1) “dogs,” (Philippians 3:2) and “evil workers,” (Philippians 3:2) as well as “saints.”

But what is the motivation of the moral agnostic who urges us not to judge others and who condemns us for doing so? It is not benevolence or tolerance. One motivation is quite clear: The moral agnostic wants to escape judgment himself. He thinks that if no one is permitted to judge others, then he himself will escape judgment. Paul explains in Romans 1 that sinful men suppress the truth (which they know innately) in unrighteousness, for they do not like to retain God in their knowledge, because the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness. Men, “knowing the righteous judg­ment of God, that they who practice such things are worthy of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.” The proscription of moral judgment is a futile attempt by sinners to escape judgment. Paul says that moral agnosticism is futile, whether one condemns or approves the sinful practices of others:

Therefore, you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge, practice the same things. But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things. And do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God?” (Romans 2:1-3)

One motivation that lies behind moral agnosticism is the desire to escape the judgment of God for one’s own beloved sins. Its purpose is to allow the unrepentant sinner to escape uncondemned and unpun­ished. When a moral agnostic argues that we must not judge between good and evil, his advice, when followed, benefits only the evil and harms only the good. To refuse to judge righteous judgment is not neutrality or tolerance; it is an attack on the good and a sanction to the evil.

There is a related but slightly different motivation as well: Whenever a person makes a judgment, that judgment discloses his own values, his own standard, and opens him to judgment by others. If a man would not judge, the moral agnostic believes, then he would not reveal his own values, and he would escape the judgment of others in this way as well. The Bible's statement of the principle that in judging one discloses one's own values is found in the Gospel of Matthew:

“A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good things, and an evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth evil things. But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the Day of Judgment. For by your words you will be justified and by your words you will be condemned.” (Matthew 12:35-37)


Once again Scripture teaches that the moral agnostic cannot escape judgment by refusing to judge, for he cannot refuse to judge. Rational creatures must judge, and we will all be held accountable for the judg­ments we make, the words we speak, the thoughts we think. The moral agnostic condemns moral judgment because he hopes to avoid responsibility for his own sins. He does not want to be held accountable by God or by anyone else. He desires to be a law unto himself, a completely irresponsible, a completely lawless, being.

Tuesday, April 17, 2018

The Plague-Abettors

This will be the first of my blog entries that I have not authored. The reason for posting someone else's work is three-fold: First, what follows illustrates the mainstream media's complicity in a great tragedy. Second, what follows is a catastrophe that most have become so used to as to ignore.  Third, real history is our friend and what follows is a report from a writer who was there, David Horowitz, in his book "The Black Book of the American Left" Volume V: Culture Wars, pages 221-226:

 The Plague-Abettors

        As countless news stories, articles and editorials have reminded us, this is the 20th anniversary of the onset of the AIDS epidemic in America. It is a grim anniversary. More than 450000 Americans, mostly young, are dead. After years of so-called public education efforts, and billions of dollars in AIDS-related government programs, the infection rates for new HIV cases are rising back to their peak 1980s levels. The new infection rates are highest among blacks and Hispanics, who now make up more than half the dead but who were hardly affected in the first years of the epidemic. In those years, when the number of infections was small, and effective public-health methods might have contained their spread, more than 90 percent of those affected were white homosexuals living in New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco, intravenous drug users in the same locations and a tiny cohort of hemophiliacs and immigrants from Haiti.
On this anniversary, you will read many stories about the medical research on AIDS which, however remarkable in itself, has failed to produce an effective vaccine, let alone a cure for the disease. This failure was predicted at the very outset of the epidemic, a fact I wrote about at the time. The leading experts on the AIDS virus warned then that the only way to stem the tide of the epidemic was through proven public health methods. You will read many stories about the heroic efforts of activists in the gay community to lobby the government for more AIDS money, and to care for the sick and dying.[1] None of these efforts should be confused with public­health methods, which were the only means of containing the epidemic.
What you will not read is a single story about those methods, or how epidemics were combated-often successfully-for a hundred years before gay activists inserted their views into public health policy. What you will not read is how the proven public-health methods were opposed by AIDS activists, and how public health officials surrendered to the activists’ demands for veto control over what methods were acceptable and what were not; in other words, how they colluded in subverting the system that had proved so successful in combating public health threats in the past.
What you will not read is any evaluation of the government-financed AIDS campaigns-mainly in public “education”-that the activists demanded in place of the proven methods. Yet the harrowing figures released on this anniversary show these politically correct billion-dollar education campaigns have failed to contain the epidemic or to prevent it from spreading into other communities, particularly the African-American and Hispanic communities.
As a result of the obstruction of testing, reporting, contact tracing and infection-site closing by gay leaders and their allies in the Democratic Party that controlled the major urban centers, public health officials were unable to warn the specifically gay communities in the path of the epidemic. In fact, because there were politically inspired bans on testing, reporting and contact tracing, they were not able to find out what that path was. As a result, while by the end of the first decade of AIDS Hispanics were 14 percent of those infected and blacks 26 percent, a decade later Hispanics were 19 percent of those infected and blacks an astounding 45 percent.
What you will not read in the 20th-anniversary coverage of the epidemic is any story pointing out that today-as we move into the third decade of the epidemic with infection rates rising and the death toll climbing-the subverted public-health system still does not require reporting of individual cases, testing of at-risk communities, contact tracing to warn individuals of possible infection or the closing of sex clubs and other potential sites of infection.
Thus, in addition to being a grim anniversary from the vantage of the dead and those who loved them, this is a disheartening occasion for those of us who have watched in disbelief the criminally ineffectual efforts that have been deployed in the name of political correctness, and have tried in vain to draw attention to a dereliction that has caused so many needless deaths. This anniversary also makes it clear that, as a nation, we have learned nothing from the follies of the past, and are headed into the next decade still prisoners of orchestrated ignorance and still relying on the remedies that failed.
Typical of the media reports on this anniversary is the lead story in the health section of the Los Angeles Times, written by “health writer” Linda Marsa, which rehashes the party line on AIDS and thus conveys information that is brazenly ignorant and entirely false. In perfect self-parody, the article is titled “A Legacy of Change”:

It was a sheer accident that AIDS first struck a relatively cohesive group: young homosexuals in cities such as New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco, many of whom had honed their organizational and political skills during the gay rights movements of the 1970s. This was extraordinary: Terminal illnesses don’t discriminate, hitting rich and poor alike without regard to ethnicity, geography or sexual orientation.

In fact, the AIDS epidemic is more accurately described as a product of the gay rights movement of the 1970s, inevitably concentrated in the very centers of gay life in America-San Francisco, New York and Los Angeles-and impossible to conceive without the presence and agitations of the radical gay movements that directly preceded it. It was the gay left that defined promiscuous anal sex with strangers in public  environments-the  primary cause of the AIDS epidemic-as “gay liberation.”
It was the gay liberation movement that thought nothing of the massive epidemics of amoebiasis, rectal gonorrhea, syphilis and hepatitis B that swept through gay communities in the decades preceding AIDS, producing astronomical infection rates and depleted immune systems in the process. It was the gay movement that regarded any intrusion by public health authorities to close the public sexual gymnasia called “bathhouses” as a threat to gay liberation, both before and after the onset of AIDS. It was the gay left that successfully prevented the reporting, testing, contact tracing and other public health methods that had been proven effective in combating epidemic diseases in the past. It was the gay left that blocked government prevention programs from targeting at-risk communities, using the same lie as the Times writer, that “AIDS is an equal opportunity disease;” and it was the gay left that persuaded government officials instead to put all the anti­AIDS eggs in the basket of incredibly expensive and-as everyone can now see-completely ineffective “education” campaigns. These campaigns were ineffective because, out of considerations of political correctness, they did not specify anal sex as the primary sexual transmission route and were addressed not to those who were specifically at risk, but to “everyone,” and thus in effect to no one.
The late Michael Callen, creator of the organization People With AIDS and a pioneer of candor in the midst of these lies, described how he had come to New York as a young man from the sticks and heard gay radicals like the writer Edmund White address audiences in the gay community on the subject of sexual liberation. White told one such audience including Callen that “gay men should wear their sexually transmitted diseases like red badges of courage in a war against a sex-negative society.”[2] The ever-courageous Camille Paglia pointed out some years ago the obvious truth: “Everyone who preached free love in the Sixties is responsible for AIDS. This idea that it was somehow an accident, a microbe that sort of fell from heaven-absurd. We must face what we did.”
Callen explained exactly what that meant. “Some of us believed we could change the world through sexual liberation and that we were taking part in a noble experiment. Unfortunately, as a function of a microbiological ... certainty, this level of sexual activity resulted in concurrent epidemics of syphilis, gonorrhea, hepatitis, amoebiasis, venereal warts and, we discovered too late, other pathogens. Unwittingly, and with the best of revolutionary intentions, a small subset of gay men managed to create disease settings equivalent to those of poor Third World nations in one of the richest nations on earth.”
It was a tragedy that those who pioneered the cause of gay rights should have been swept up in a radical illusion that they could also change the world, including the laws of nature. But that is what happened. This left successfully demanded political control of the battle against AIDS, which sabotaged it from the start, and has been directly responsible for the killing fields left in its wake. This includes especially the spread of AIDS into the black and Hispanic communities, which could have been prevented if traditional public health methods had been aggressively deployed. The Hispanic and black communities are for the most part separated from the gay communities where the epidemic first took hold. If there had been testing and tracing of those infected, and focused warnings to those in their path, who knows how many lives could have been saved?
I offer these observations with no hope that they will have an effect. I have written about this radical holocaust for nearly the entire duration of the epidemic. Many others have since raised their voices as well. Michael Fumento’s The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS, and Gabriel Rotello’s Sexual Ecology are two of the books that have made the case for ending the political obstruction of the war against AIDS and for a more scientifically sound approach. Early ACT-UP radicals like Larry Kramer, Michelangelo Signorile and Rotella have had second thoughts about their former attitudes, faced what they did, and tried to turn the tide. But to no avail.
The chief obstacle to any change in this tragic story lies with the media. AIDS is without question the worst-reported story in the history of American journalism. From the press coverage of this anniversary, no one can take any hope that the next 10 years will show any improvement in the mortality statistics, unless there is a medical breakthrough. Without accurate information about this politically induced nightmare, there is no chance that the American public will wake up and finally decide that enough is enough.

June 11, 2001, http://www.salon.com/2001/06/11/aids_9/; http://www.salon.com/news/col/horo/2001/06/11/aids/indel.html


[1] http://salon.com/2001/05/01/aids_8/
[2] Charles Silverstein and Edmund White, The Joy of Gay Sex, Outlet Books, 1977

Thursday, March 8, 2018

Slain By The Evidence

     As part of my morning devotional reading, I like to work my way through different kinds of devotional material. One of the books I am reading at a very leisurely pace was written by David Limbaugh, the brother of the well-known talk show host Rush Limbaugh, and a practicing attorney. The book is interesting. The title is Jesus On Trial: A Lawyer Affirms The Truth Of The Gospel.
     I thought I might pass along an offering from this morning's helping:


SLAIN BY THE EVIDENCE
Some particularly intelligent people use their God-given intellect to argue against the existence of their Maker. Two men in eighteenth­ century England set out to do just that. Lord Lyttelton and Gilbert West were lawyers and committed nonbelievers. One day one of them said to the other, "Christianity stands upon a very unstable foundation. There are only two things that actually support it: the alleged resurrection of Jesus Christ and the alleged conversion of Saul of Tarsus. If we can disprove those stories, which should be rather easy to do, Christianity will collapse like a house of cards." Gilbert West agreed to write a book on the "alleged resurrection of Jesus Christ and disprove it." Lord Lyttelton vowed, in turn, to write a book to refute Saul's conversion.
Sometime later they met again and one of them told the other, "I'm afraid I have a confession to make. I have been looking into the evidence for this story, and I have begun to think that maybe there is something to it after all." The other said, "The same thing has happened to me. But let's keep on investigating these stories and see where we come out." By the time they had completed their books they had become believers, and their tomes, West's The Resurrection of Jesus Christ and Lyttelton's The Conversion of St. Paul, reflected their newfound, evidence-based beliefs.
Sometimes when we are certain we are on our own, completely independent, utterly self-sufficient, and without need of a savior, God actively intervenes with a gracious and timely lesson in humility. We sometimes fail to appreciate that our God is an infinitely loving God, Who pursues us not for His benefit, but for ours. Whether off the coast of Thailand with Vietcong sailors, on the road to Egypt with treacherous brothers, or wandering in the wilderness just outside the Promised Land, God can find us.