Who's Bad?

From Pastor Rob Davis's sermon this past Sunday in Colossians 3:1-4...(full sermon available from our church audio page or at Sermon Audio.

This is important now. Movies are not bad--in and of themselves. Music, is not bad it's a gift from God. Food--not bad. Work, jobs, cars, houses, beaches, not bad. All of those things are good--they're gifts from God.

Can I tell you what's bad? Put your hand up. You're bad! I'm bad! We are sinful. We take good gifts from God and we make them sinful because we make them our god.

...If what you do with God's gifts cause[es] you to sin, then it's not by faith, is it. So what is it? Sin. So you get rid of it. You cut off your hand, you pluck out your eye. That's what we have to do.

But it's not because they're bad it's because you're bad, and if we don't get that, what we'll do is we'll go out of this place, and we'll start living and walking and we'll start doing certain things and think we're good, instead of doing what we're supposed to do and realizing we're bad, and God is good in us through Christ.

P.S. Bonus! The John Piper "Bad" video.

Jesus Interprets Paul?

On another blog, someone made this comment, and it's been bugging me.

Jesus interprets Paul. Not the other way around. Everything Paul writes should gain it's context and tone through the filter of Jesus. Paul (along with the other writers in NT) was inspired by the Holy Spirit. So if there are things Paul writes or implies that doesn't SEEM to jive with the person of Jesus as seen in the Gospel...it's just a matter of deferring to Jesus until one gets a better understanding of Paul's intent through study or simply the Holy Ghost.

Is this just a matter of "tie goes to the runner," or is there more at work here? It seems to stem from the notion that the "words in red" should be given more weight than the rest of Scripture. But are Jesus' words more important or more inspired than Paul's, or John's, or David's? I don't think so.

This notion seems to contravene the idea of progressive revelation. God's plan becomes more clear as we move throughout the Bible because He has revealed more of it as we move throughout the ages. So it would seem that, all things being equal, it would be Paul interpreting Jesus, not the other way around. And in general, I think Paul's writing is much more fleshed out in his theology than the Gospels.

I also see the potential for abuse with this. For example, someone could claim that Jesus takes no position on homosexuality, but Paul does. You could potentially have someone who waffles on homosexuality (or worse), and uses Jesus as their basis for doing so.

Bottom line - it bothers me because it goes against what I've learned about Scripture. But I could always be wrong.

So I'm looking for input.

Weeping with those who weep

Great post by John Piper on the tragedy in Minneapolis.

Here's just a single paragraph from it.

The meaning of the collapse of this bridge is that John Piper is a sinner and should repent or forfeit his life forever. That means I should turn from the silly preoccupations of my life and focus my mind’s attention and my heart’s affection on God and embrace Jesus Christ as my only hope for the forgiveness of my sins and for the hope of eternal life. That is God’s message in the collapse of this bridge. That is his most merciful message: there is still time to turn from sin and unbelief and destruction for those of us who live. If we could see the eternal calamity from which he is offering escape we would hear this as the most precious message in the world.

HT: Challies.

Update: Phil @ Team Pyro has an outstanding post on God's Divine Providence in Disaster, which apparently has been labeled as "too God-centered" in some parts of the blogosphere. Yeah, right. That ranks right up there with preaching that's too Bible-centered, and or a Gospel that's too Christ-centered.

God is the God of big things, and little things, too.

Why God Isn't A Risk Taker

Here's a great quote from Risk and the Cause of God, by John Piper, which explains the concept of risk, and why God can't take them.

The whole thing is worth reading.

Why is there such a thing as risk? The reason there is such a thing as risk is that there is such a thing as ignorance. If there were no ignorance, there would be no risk. Risk is possible because we don't know how things will turn out.

This means that God can take no risks. He knows the outcome of all his choices before they happen. And since he knows the outcome of all his actions before they happen, he plans accordingly. His omniscience rules out the very possibility of taking risks.

True Freedom

I was working on a big long discourse about the meaning of true freedom for the recent holiday past. But then I read this, and I thought,"Why not quote someone who speaks from experience?" As believers, we should all speak from this experience, though I know in my own life the passion and vitality I should have as a result of being set free is sadly lacking.

In any case, I'll let an inspired expert speak on the subject.

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. (Ephesians 2:1-2, ESV)

Keeping The Law

So here's a question for anyone who cares to answer.

The Bible is clear that man because of his sin can't be made righteous by the law.

But why? Is it because man is incapable of keeping the law, or is it because the law doesn't make anyone righteous, it just recognizes righteousness or unrighteousness?

One of the Best Bands You've Never Heard Of

To help Kim out in her search for good music

I'm referring to Eden's Edge. They're a local talent--Arkies--and their music is a mix of folk, bluegrass, and southern gospel.

If you'd like to take a listen, you can listen to 2 minute samples of the latest album here (or dial-up here). You can also hear full versions of select songs from their web page. Let me warn you--once you've heard the appetizer, you'll want the main course.

Your Holiness and In Christ Alone are worth the price of the album. Beats secular pomo-istic schlock and most "mainstream" Christian music by a country mile.

Here's a line from In Christ Alone

Don't measure me by battles won
Or some good deed that I have done
In Christ alone will I be found
Worthy of that golden crown

I only have Lights of Home, but their first album is available as well, and you can buy both for a "special internet deal" from their website.