Church These Days

The role of the modern pastor is a sham. If he is a decent pastor, his church will measure in the hundreds, at a minimum, but then he will no longer be a decent pastor.

Every church I have ever attended on a regular basis has been a “megachurch”, meaning a church whose regular attendance numbered at least 500 people. In these churches, I learned a lot about God and about the Bible, but not until I began attending a recovery group for a pornography addiction, did I finally come to know God. The model of the modern church is ineffective.

Ask any pastor how well he knows the members of his church. He may know their names, where the children go to school, whether or not they play baseball or volleyball, but does he know them? Can he tell you what upsets them? Can he tell you their temptations? Does he know what makes them angry, or sad, or afraid? What makes his flock happy? What gives them joy? These things reveal who we are to others. Does he know every member of his church in this way? These are the things that a shepherd knows.

There are two problems that work together to destroy any pastor that is worth his faith: (1) the time that he steals from his family to care for his flock, and (2) the selfishness of people in large groups.

As I write this, I am contemplating a future for my children who desire to be useful to Christ. I desperately urge my son to avoid any kind of pastoring ministry. Either you have a family, or you have a church. You can’t effectively do both. The problem is people.

We Christians, as a group, do not embrace growth. Sure, we embrace bible study, and worship, and even church attendance and service, but genuine growth is not on this list. We know, either at a conscious level, like my father, who refused to ask for patience because he knew God would put in situations that required patience, or at some deeper subconscious level, that true growth requires pain. The Bible tells us “Those whom he loves, he disciplines” and “He disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness”. Don’t confuse discipline with punishment; these two are not the same. Punishment is for the sinner; discipline is for the children. The purpose of punishment is the punishment itself; the purpose of discipline is holiness.

We are too happy to attend church, to sing, to read of His glory, to accept his temporary blessing, yet how many of us honestly and sincerely ask for the character of Christ? How many of us declare that we are his, that we will follow him anywhere, that we will do and say anything he commands? There is not one child of God in Scripture that did not suffer, either from failure or tragedy or both, on the path of knowing who God is.

We are selfish as a group because while we seek the peace and joy that come from church attendance, from prayer, from worship, and study, we at the same time neglect the true pursuit of God that requires stillness, solitude, sacrifice, patience, and humility (often with much humiliation). Like a swarm of leeches, we molest those in service to us until they have nothing to give to their own families. We do this because in our need, we only think of ourselves, and we decline to seek God on our own, unable to trust that while God gives us a pastor who cares for us, he is more willing to give himself. God is willing to give this trust, if we are willing to endure his discipline.

Facebook Crap

"Soteriology 101" is a Facebook page that relentlessly promotes arminianism. Dr Flowers proclaims himself a former calvinist who has "seen the light" of free will. I responded to a post about how God does not determine our actions, and that we do indeed have free will.

logically, all you need is one example.

if you say, all men have free will all the time, then one example will refute this. then you have to say, "all men have free will some of the time", or "some men have free will all of the time". then where are you? how do you know who has free will? why do some men have free will all of the time? Is it because some men have some hidden ability that others lack? why would this be? are we not created equally? why would all men have free will some of the time? because of God. God has to be the determining factor. then ultimately we are subject to his will. bam: calvinism.

Response

Alejandro Roberto Gonzaga My problem is the examples I see aren’t actually destroying the free will of the person in question. And by the same token- all you need is one example of one person having free will in one instance to show it exists. — Manipulation is also not the same as determination or humans could be said to have the same power as God

My response
The will is not "destroyed" as if we're mere machines. Calvinists do not believe this. The will is _subject_ to a greater will, God's. "The kings heart is like channels of water in the hand of God". "He leads the nations as with a hook in the mouth". "He raises up and he brings down". True, one person having free will should conclude all do. But what does scripture say is universally true? We are sinners. We are slaves to sin. We are dead in sin. This description is the opposite of someone who trusts, loves, or hopes in God. Sinners by definition do not trust in God. They have a will, no doubt. But it is not free to love God. "Every perfect gift is above". "None are good but God alone". Any example of a man who loves God and turns to faith is an example of a man whose sinful nature has been redeemed, whose heart of stone has been replaced. The scripture does not say we are good at our core, but that we are evil. "Traditionalism" is humanism.

But God does determine. This is the problem we all have with calvinism initially. Self determination is a western ideal. It is not a scriptural one. Yes we are commanded to live responsibly and we are held accountable for our actions, but we are vessels in his hands, for his purposes, for him to do as _He_ pleases, for either wrath or mercy. This is why Paul answers the question "why does he still find fault?" Because he knew the idea is baffling to our proud hearts. He answers, "who are you to answer back to God?" Why do you think we have nothing to boast of? Because every good thing we do is from him, and every evil thing is from us. The question is not why does he do these things and allow these other things, but will we trust him?

The free will camps

Let me give you free will-ians some additional information.
You are in the same camp as the Catholics. You sit beside every charismatic denomination, every prosperity teacher, every charlatan, and every false teacher of the gospel. Why do I say this? Because free will is attractive. It delights the fleshly  carnal human soul.
"I am free. I am not a slave to sin. Not really. I have the will to conquer my sin and reach for the garments of Christ on my own. I possess a core of invincible, immutable righteousness in my own self and there is a part of me, however small, that is able to defy the God of the universe and emerge victorious."
Why do you think the Catholics believe the church has authority over scripture, rather than scripture over the church? Why do you think the false teachers believer they can add to scripture whatever whim enters their deluded minds? Why do you think men believe they have authority (at their command, not that of the Holy Spirit) over poisonous snakes, over diseases, over the weather, and everything else they desire? They believe this because they believe the spark of their original righteousness is equal to God's.

logic can't help us

I'm an atheist by logic.

It may surprise you to hear that logic is not a religious system. Logic has nothing to say about religion, one way or another. Logic is a system for evaluating the truth of a statement.
"God exists" is a logical statement, but logic does not tell you whether the statement is true or not.

If the sky is blue, then the sun is out.

This is a logical statement, because it has an antecedent (condition) and a consequence. It is also a true statement.

If the sky is blue, then we will cry.

This is another logical statement, but we do not know if it is a true statement.

If the sky is filled with diamonds, then cows are green.

This statement is logical, but we do not know if it is true unless we know more about the sky, diamonds, and cows. On this planet, and in English, the statement is most likely false.

If green, then run.

Finally we have an illogical statement. The antecedent is not clear. If what is green? Neither is the consequence. Who should run? This statement cannot be evaluated even though we know what green is and what running is.
The statement "Water exists" is logically true because we know what water is. The complete statement would be

If water is a clear, liquid substance that exists in three states and is necessary for life, then water exists.

Science is what helps us to logically deduce that this statement is true. Science cannot help us with the statement that God exists, however.
Science tells us about nature, and God does not exist in nature. To put it another way, the existence of God does not logically follow from what science tells us about nature. If we define nature, or the natural world, as that which can be observed by the human senses (sight, taste, touch, smell, hearing, assisted or not), then science will never tell us about God. Note that science also does not tell us about what isn't in nature. Science cannot say for sure that unicorns or fairies do not exist. All a scientist can say is "I have never observed a unicorn or a fairy in nature". Also, the most a scientist can truthfully say against the existence of God is, "I have never observed God in nature". Logically, this is not equivalent to "God does not exist".
Science can say, "This is a natural process" or "This entity is found in nature" but in order for science to say "God does not exist", it has to change what it examines. Science does not observe, examine, or investigate entities outside of nature, so it can have make no definitive conclusion about God.

Introduction to the Institutes of the Christian Religion, Updated for Modern Readers

I am not a professional theologian. Not yet. Currently I am studying for my Masters in Theological Studies, but I am not a professional theologian yet. However, I am a theologian. We are all theologians.

All of us have a working theology. It begins when we are born and we experience God in the form of our parents. Did they love us? Did they care for us? Did they defend us or neglect us? Did they abandon us? In particular, these questions are answered through our relationship with our fathers. It is no accident that the Bible emphasizes primarily a male gender for God. Our first experience with God comes through our fathers. This is not always a beneficial experience.

As we grow older, we experience God in other ways. We experience the wonders of the natural world. We go to church or we do not. We learn about religion or we do not. We learn to enjoy the existence of God, to deny it, or to hate it. In every case, we form ideas about God. The ideas settle in our hearts and they shape our worldview, our behavior, and our relationships. This is our theology and this is why we are all theologians.

John Calvin was a human like any of us, but with a singular passion for Biblical truth. These kinds of passions are not haphazard but they are given to us by God. In the 16^th century, he published an enormous book and titled it, The Institutes of the Christian Religion. This book was written for men and women to possess a true theology, one not marred by the weakness of our world or the sinfulness of mankind. This book attempts to take the ideas in the Bible and place them in a logical, congruous system. It is not the Bible, but it is a wonderful work nevertheless.

The Institutes was written in French about 500 years ago, then it was translated into English by Henry Beveridge sometime later. The sentence structure is awkward, exhausting, and roundabout and much of the vocabulary is terribly out of date. Calvin’s passion is readily apparent in it, to relate Scriptural truth but also to defend it against long-forgotten naysayers. My goal in this revision is primarily to make Calvin’s meaning clear. I have made every attempt to leave his style intact, but where it conflicts with clarity, I have rewritten. I have also removed a lot of his railing against ancient falsehoods. Well, these kinds of falsehoods rarely die out completely, but I feel now that we need to focus on the truth, and not get bogged down by extraneous 500 year-old controversies that may or may not have much relevance today.

Please continue reading. This book will change your life. Read Scripture and compare what you learn here. Let it reshape your theology as you find out who God truly is and how much he has already done to show you how much he loves you.