Happy Reformation Day!!

"In the late afternoon of April 18, 1521, in the city of Worms, Germany, Martin Luther, a 37 year-old Catholic monk was called to defend himself before Charles the Fifth, the Holy Roman Emperor. The speech he delivered that day, Here I Stand, marked the beginning of the Reformation, a critical turning point in Christian history, that decisively altered the spiritual map of the world."

This Wednesday Night at ASU

Resolved Conference

Free Download for Reformation Day from Max Mclean

Copy this link below and go get your free download!

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fbit.ly%2F3O0zO4&h=f8e1ae2467c2f8f4a7d3426147abc35e

Sola Gratia

The Sufficiency of Grace

by R.C. Sproul

The following is an excerpt from R.C. Sproul's book, Willing to Believe

The classic issue between Augustinian theology and all forms of semi-Pelagianism focuses on one aspect of the order of salvation (ordo salutis): What is the relationship between regeneration and faith? Is regeneration a monergistic or synergistic work? Must a person first exercise faith in order to be born again? Or must rebirth occur before a person is able to exercise faith? Another way to state the question is this: Is the grace of regeneration operative or cooperative?

Monergistic regeneration means that regeneration is accomplished by a single actor, God. It means literally a “one-working.” Synergism, on the other hand, refers to a work that involves the action of two or more parties. It is a co-working. All forms of semi-Pelagianism assert some sort of synergism in the work of regeneration. Usually God’s assisting grace is seen as a necessary ingredient, but it is dependent on human cooperation for its efficacy.

The Reformers taught not only that regeneration does precede faith but also that it must precede faith. Because of the moral bondage of the unregenerate sinner, he cannot have faith until he is changed internally by the operative, monergistic work of the Holy Spirit. Faith is regeneration’s fruit, not its cause.

According to semi-Pelagianism regeneration is wrought by God, but only in those who have first responded in faith to him. Faith is seen not as the fruit of regeneration, but as an act of the will cooperating with God’s offer of grace.

Evangelicals are so called because of their commitment to the biblical and historical doctrine of justification by faith alone. Because the Reformers saw sola fide as central and essential to the biblical gospel, the term evangelical was applied to them. Modern evangelicals in great numbers embrace the sola fide of the Reformation, but have jettisoned the sola gratia that undergirded it. Packer and Johnston assert:

“Justification by faith only” is a truth that needs interpretation. The principle of sola fide is not rightly understood till it is seen as anchored in the broader principle of sola gratia. What is the source and status of faith? Is it the God-given means whereby the God-given justification is received, or is it a condition of justification which is left to man to fulfill? Is it a part of God’s gift of salvation, or is it man’s own contribution to salvation? Is our salvation wholly of God, or does it ultimately depend on something that we do for ourselves? Those who say the latter (as the Arminians later did) thereby deny man’s utter helplessness in sin, and affirm that a form of semi-Pelagianism is true after all. It is no wonder, then, that later Reformed theology condemned Arminianism as being in principle a return to Rome (because in effect it turned faith into a meritorious work) and a betrayal of the Reformation (because it denied the sovereignty of God in saving sinners, which was the deepest religious and theological principle of the Reformers’ thought). Arminianism was, indeed, in Reformed eyes a renunciation of New Testament Christianity in favour of New Testament Judaism; for to rely on oneself for faith is no different in principle from relying on oneself for works, and the one is as un-Christian and anti-Christian as the other. In the light of what Luther says to Erasmus, there is no doubt that he would have endorsed this judgment."

I must confess that the first time I read this paragraph, I blinked. On the surface it seems to be a severe indictment of Arminianism. Indeed it could hardly be more severe than to speak of it as “un-Christian” or “anti-Christian.” Does this mean that Packer and Johnston believe Arminians are not Christians? Not necessarily. Every Christian has errors of some sort in his thinking. Our theological views are fallible. Any distortion in our thought, any deviation from pure, biblical categories may be loosely deemed “un-Christian” or “anti-Christian.” The fact that our thought contains un-Christian elements does not demand the inference that we are therefore not Christians at all.

I agree with Packer and Johnston that Arminianism contains un-Christian elements in it and that their view of the relationship between faith and regeneration is fundamentally un-Christian. Is this error so egregious that it is fatal to salvation? People often ask if I believe Arminians are Christians? I usually answer, “Yes, barely.” They are Christians by what we call a felicitous inconsistency.

What is this inconsistency? Arminians affirm the doctrine of justification by faith alone. They agree that we have no meritorious work that counts toward our justification, that our justification rests solely on the righteousness and merit of Christ, that sola fide means justification is by Christ alone, and that we must trust not in our own works, but in Christ’s work for our salvation. In all this they differ from Rome on crucial points.

Packer and Johnston note that later Reformed theology, however, condemned Arminianism as a betrayal of the Reformation and in principle as a return to Rome. They point out that Arminianism “in effect turned faith into a meritorious work.”

We notice that this charge is qualified by the words in effect. Usually Arminians deny that their faith is a meritorious work. If they were to insist that faith is a meritorious work, they would be explicitly denying justification by faith alone. The Arminian acknowledges that faith is something a person does. It is a work, though not a meritorious one. Is it a good work? Certainly it is not a bad work. It is good for a person to trust in Christ and in Christ alone for his or her salvation. Since God commands us to trust in Christ, when we do so we are obeying this command. But all Christians agree that faith is something we do. God does not do the believing for us. We also agree that our justification is by faith insofar as faith is the instrumental cause of our justification. All the Arminian wants and intends to assert is that man has the ability to exercise the instrumental cause of faith without first being regenerated. This position clearly negates sola gratia, but not necessarily sola fide.

Then why say that Arminianism “in effect” makes faith a meritorious work? Because the good response people make to the gospel becomes the ultimate determining factor in salvation. I often ask my Arminian friends why they are Christians and other people are not. They say it is because they believe in Christ while others do not. Then I inquire why they believe and others do not? “Is it because you are more righteous than the person who abides in unbelief?” They are quick to say no. “Is it because you are more intelligent?” Again the reply is negative. They say that God is gracious enough to offer salvation to all who believe and that one cannot be saved without that grace. But this grace is cooperative grace. Man in his fallen state must reach out and grasp this grace by an act of the will, which is free to accept or reject this grace. Some exercise the will rightly (or righteously), while others do not. When pressed on this point, the Arminian finds it difficult to escape the conclusion that ultimately his salvation rests on some righteous act of the will he has performed. He has “in effect” merited the merit of Christ, which differs only slightly from the view of Rome.

The Sufficiency Of Grace

"Sing amazing grace all you want. If the grace you're singing about is insufficient to save, if it's not powerful enough to save without additions... I'm not sure how amazing it really is. And the amazing grace of The Reformation was a grace that saved completely."

MODALISM

At various times people have taught that God is not really three distinct persons, but only one person who appears to people in different "modes" at different times. For example, in the Old Testament God appeared as "Father." Throughout the Gospels, this same divine person appeared as "the Son" as seen in the human life and ministry of Jesus. After Pentecost, this same person then revealed himself as the "Spirit" active in the church.

This teaching is also referred to by two other names. Sometimes it is called Sabellianism, after a teacher named Sabellius who lived in Rome in the early third century A.D. Another term for modalism is "modalistic monarchianism," because this teaching not only says that God revealed himself in different "modes" but it also says that there is only one supreme ruler ("monarch") in the universe and that is God himself, who consists of only one person.

Modalism gains its attractiveness from the desire to emphasize clearly the fact that there is only one God. It may claim support not only from the passages talking about one God, but also from passages such as John 10:30 ("I and the Father are one") and simply mean that Jesus fully reveals the character of God the Father, and the former passage (John 10:30), in a context in which Jesus affirms that he will accomplish all that the Father has given him to do and save all whom the Father has given to him, seems to mean that Jesus and the Father are one in purpose (though it may also imply oneness of essence).

The fatal shortcoming of modalism is the fact that it must deny the personal relationships within the Trinity that appear in so many places in Scripture (or it must affirm that these were simply an illusion and not real). Thus, it must deny three separate persons at the baptism of Jesus, where the Father speaks from heaven and the Spirit descends on Jesus like a dove. And it must say that all those instances where Jesus is praying to the Father are an illusion or a charade. The idea of the Son or the Holy Spirit interceding for us before God the Father is lost. Finally, modalism ultimately loses the heart of the doctrine of the atonement-that is, the idea that God sent his Son as a substitutionary sacrifice, and that the Son bore the wrath of God in our place, and that the Father, representing the interests of the Trinity, saw the suffering of Christ and was satisfied (Isaiah 53:11)

Moreover, modalism denies the independence of God, for if God is only one person, then he has no ability to love and to communicate without other persons in his creation. Therefore it was necessary for God to create the world, and God would no longer be independent of creation.

One present denomination within Protestantism, the United Pentecostal Church, is modalistic in its doctrinal position.

From Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine

Go to challies.com to enter

The mission of DG “is to produce and distribute resources that spread a passion for the supremacy of God in all things for the joy of all peoples through Jesus Christ.”
And today they want to distribute some of those resources to you! They are offering five great prize packages, each of which will contain the following items:
When I Don’t Desire God DVD
God is the Gospel DVD
Don’t Waste Your Life book
The Complete Romans Series audio DVD
Desiring God

Counterfeit Gods: The Empty Promises of Money, Sex, and Power, and the Only Hope that Matters

Publisher: Penguin Group
Author: Keller, Timothy
ISBN-10: 0525951369 | ISBN-13: 9780525951360
Binding: Hardcover
List Price: $19.95
Westminster Bookstore: $11.97 - 40% Off

BlueBehemoth.com Turns “1” — Celebrate with a Free Movie!

Last week we celebrated our first birthday here at BlueBehemoth.com! It was a big first year for us, and we are so grateful for your business and support these past twelve months that allowed us to reach this landmark anniversary.

We now have almost 100,000 audio and video tracks available for download on our site, a huge victory from the Lord. This means that we are able to provide you and your family with a massive selection of trustworthy downloadable media that encourages and appropriately entertains, and we are continuing to add new resources for you every day.

To celebrate our first birthday, we are offering The League of Grateful Sons as a free movie download for one week only.* Just enter coupon 1STBIRTHDAY into the “Redeem a Coupon” field on your shopping cart page, and the movie will appear in your cart as a free download.

Thanks for a great first year, and please keep telling your friends about BlueBehemoth.com. Enjoy your movie!



What is the godly legacy of the fathers of World War II? Their story has not been told — until now!

More than 406,000 American soldiers died during the Second World War, leaving an estimated 183,000 children fatherless. Hundreds of thousands of other U.S. troops did return, but many never connected with their children. However, within the ranks of these survivors was a remarkable collection of men who made it their life mission to speak the providences of God and the meaning of manhood to the boys who would one day fill their shoes. Through wartime letters and present-day pilgrimages to the bloody battlefields of their youth, the ancient warriors have spoken. Their thankful children rise to honor and surpass their legacy. They are “The League of Grateful Sons.”

Meet tough-as-nails Marine “Colonel” Bill Henderson. He survived thirty-six days of brutal fighting on Iwo Jima and maintained moral purity, while in the midst of immoral wartime circumstances, because of the influence of his manly Christian father. Meet P-51 Mustang flyboy Bill Brown. He was shot down over Japan, but survived to train generations to sing praises to God. Now in their eighties, these ancient warriors return to the black sand of Iwo Jima to disciple a new generation in the art of Christian manhood.

Joining them are sons whose fathers never returned — the Isacks brothers and “Johnny Boy” Butler — all heirs to a treasure trove of fatherly wisdom penned from the battlefield.

Shot on location on Iwo Jima, Guam, Hawaii, and in Texas, and directed by veteran filmmaker, Geoff Botkin, The League of Grateful Sons will leave you grateful for America’s heroic fathers and motivated to surpass their legacy.

ROMANS 6:23

This is a song from my favorite album called Killing Sin by Timothy Brindle

Verse 1:I’ve got a whole lot to say about time/So now I’m a shout mine because it’s about time/God created time so He’s able to end it/Plus He entered time and came and descended/But He’s not ever bound by time/He’s eternally perfect so He’s never out His prime/God always existed even with no time/Then He spoke things into existence in no time/In His divine mind He decreed a time line/To display His glory to creatures and said, “Time’s mine.”/So time or fate is not the sovereign/In fact time is ruled by God the Father/Some say time will tell but actually it can’t/Because He’s already said what will happen in advance/He’s the Lord of time-this rhymes is worshiping/He ain’t serving time- time is serving Him/See time is a space given by God in His kindness and grace/As He’s shining His face/Yet it’s kind of funny-some say time is money/But time’s more precious than money, wine, or honey/Because we’re spending time- there’s no refunds/We’ll never see it again- there’s no reruns/If you lost your hummer it’s possible to cop another/But time is something we cannot recover/Yet I’m baffled/How some think they can preserve time inside of a time capsule/But since the fall of man/The sands of time are turning us all back into salty sand/But our souls have an eternal destination/So use your time to make sure the best is taken/It’s either in preparation to better praise Him/Or further steps toward eternal separation.Verse 2:On Wall Street a rich dude snorts lines/His morning devotion is the New York Times/And Time magazine at times it seems/Time flies as if time had some wings/But this is irony right/While most spend the time of their life trying to have the time of their life/Thinking lies are really true/If you’re busy killing time the truth is time is killing you/But you’re too cool- you love to take your time/You fool- God can come and take your time/Then He’ll search your mind and surely find your works are slime/Once sin’s an eternal prime it takes eternity to serve the time/Reject Him and regret how your spurned this rhyme/You offended the Divine/In hell, like Michael Jackson, You’ll remember the time/Once your time is up you blasphemer/You can’t travel back with a flux capacitor/It’s such a massacre when Christ’s popping the sky/You’ll want to go back in time like Marty McFly/But you sharply despised Christ kindness my friend/And He gave you a lifetime to repent/So next time you’re asking what time is it/Know Christ can come to give times final tick/Your eternity hangs on what you do with time/So use it to trust the Savior of human kind/Whose more than somebody/And at the right time Jesus Christ died for the ungodly/So when the fullness of time came the Ruler of time came/To pull us from prides chain/The time is fulfilled- His kingdom is at hand/So repent and believe and come cling onto the Lamb.Verse 3:If you live to be 90 there’s an absurdity/Even that’s a blink compared to eternity/Christians most of the time we don’t make the most of our time/So let’s refocus on Jehovah’s design/Yet I’m convicted/By how much of my time’s been wicked even since I’ve been Christian/But time is ticking and life is a vapor/So delight and then savor Christ who is our Savior/Please read Ephesians 5: 16 and you’ll find we need to be redeeming the time/Because we’ll give an account of what we did or didn’t do with our time/Don’t just sit in the house/Yeah Christ blood assures securely/But our use of time affects our rewards and glory/To the vine we’re attached/So let’s bear fruit and work overtime like making time and a half/Excuse me teens-it’s useless to be glued as fiends/To the TV and computer screen/No time for folly and gossip and small is the profit/If spending all day at the malls we are shopping/No time to waste playing playstation or taking vacations/Today is the day of salvation/For unsaved pagans don’t waste a moment/Please take time to share the great atonement/Don’t spend it sinning-you’ll dead that syndrome/Instead invest time in how to spread the kingdom/Instead of serving time/Let’s spend time serving the needs of others- and His worth will shine/And since we can’t rewind a minute/Be careful to kill sin because there’s no time for sinning/So avoid sins poison and disaster/And in the end we’ll enter in the joy of our master.

Warnings and Prayers for the Lost

"If sinners will be damned, at least let them leap to Hell over our bodies. And if they will perish, let them perish with our arms about their knees, imploring them to stay. If Hell must be filled, at least let it be filled in the teeth of our exertions, and let not one go there unwarned and unprayed for."

-Spurgeon

RESOURCE OF THE MONTH ~ PURITAN PICKS

A World of Lies (This was a blog by Leon Brown)

For about 15 minutes yesterday, I had one of those "pull your hair out moments." Since Evangelism Team is not a large organization, it's not often that I receive calls whereby people want to argue about the "proof" of the Bible or the validity of "God." That typically happens on the streets, but never over the phone. I'll leave that up to James White.

Yesterday, as stated above, was different. This gentleman from New York called. When I answered the phone, he said, "I was wondering why you use the 10 Commandments when talking to people?"

Once that question was asked, I responded (and rightly so), "Why are you asking this? In other what is your motive for calling?"

Immediately, his true colors came forth. He began to rant and rave about how the Christian God is just like all the other gods, and how we, as Christians, cannot prove God exists, nor can we prove the validity of the Bible.

His comments, and by the way he was quite angry, were typical. I told him what I tell most others. "It's obvious you have not taken the time to look these things up." After I made this comment, he insisted that I "prove" to Him God exists.

That didn't get too far because he would not allow me to say much. When he would speak, I would interject occasionally. When I would speak, on the hand, he would not allow me to complete a thought. Well actually, my first thought he allowed me to complete, but after that, I could not say much.

With the opportunities I did have to say something, however, I conveyed to him several things.

1. He logic and rationale were inconsistent.

--He claimed that because I did not have the original manuscripts, I cannot trust the Bible. I showed him, in brief, the ways in which we know we can trust certain manuscript data. He rejected that notion. So, I told him that he's just rejected all of scholarship that had absolutely nothing to do with the Bible.

2. The historicity of Jesus was valid.

--He claimed that because no writings were written at the time of Jesus, my argument is not valid. I refuted that, yet again, with secular, or in most cases scholarly data on how we validate something in antiquity. He rejected that notion as well, and thus, rejected all scholarly application. And remember, the scholarship I am referring to has nothing to do with the Bible. You learn this information at university (e.g. Graduate training or Post-Graduate training).

3. He borrows from the Christian worldview.

--I told him that his life is based around the God (the only God) of Christianity. I demonstrated this, somewhat, and he rejected this notion stating that there is no proof for God and therefore this cannot be true. From there, I attempted to describe to him a basic philosophical argument with an "if/then clause," and he would not let me finish this portion of the conversation. He said, "See, you have to say, 'if God exists...' I tried to explain to him I was merely using a philosophical argument to illustrate a point and he would not receive that either. By rejecting this, he's just rejected all of philosophy. How many scholars are able to use 'if/then clauses' to illustrate a point? This is freshman year college information.

4. His anger and frustration prove my point.

--I told him that his anger and frustration prove my point that, if nothing else, God exists. I explained to him that I don't get frustrated over disproving the Easter bunny or Santa Clause. Why is he so frustrated with disproving God? I explained to him that I don't waste my time with such silly notions; if you're so sure God does not exist, why are you so angry and determined to prove He does not exist. To this, he had no answer.

5. He was at war with God.

--I left him with his state before God. I told him that his sin has blinded him and that he needed eyes to see. He said that my notion of sin does not exist, and as a matter of fact, "sin does not exist."

Eventually, I had to get off the phone because I had plans. This was a "hair pulling" situation because the man would not argue rationally. It was clear that he had not done his homework, rather he probably does all his research on the internet looking for ways to disprove God. This method would not be accepted in any peer review journals (Christian or not). So, why should we accept this level of argumentation. Truly, it was pathetic!

Quite honestly, I have not had one of these conversations in some time, much less have this conversation over the phone. He must have received one of our gospel tracts and took it upon himself to call and assert himself. Maybe this conversation was to prepare me for what is to come. After all, I am going to an outreach event today and Monday. Please keep that in your prayers.

Lastly, during the conversation I believed I heard him talking to a young girl (probably his daughter). My heart hurts for that young lady that she would have a father who would raise her in such ignorance. May God cause him to believe, and if not, may the Holy Spirit open that young girl's eyes so that she may know the Risen Lord.

Truly, we live in a world of lies.

An Evening of Eschatology

Two Quick Apologetic Tips on the Trinity

The two most frequent objections to the Trinity can be illuminated with two simple, but effective, illustrations.

First, "How can there be three and one at the same time"? This question conflates two categories into one. But Christians understand that there are two categories involved. There is one "What" (Being/Deity) and three "Who's" (Persons/Father-Son-Holy Spirit).

Here is the best illustration that I think brings out this fundamental difference in these two categories that unbelievers can immediately relate to: There is only one humanity (Being) but many individuals (persons). Individuals share in the Being of humanity, and that does not mean that I am you, and you are me — we are different persons with the same single Being.

This illustration is not intended to exhaust or explain all the elements of the Trinity; instead, it serves to illustrate this single categorical difference between Being and persons. Someone may object by saying, "Does not this analogy support polytheism, since there are billions of individuals, there can be billions of Gods or divine persons?" Let me be clear: this illustration is intended to show a single distinction between two categories — Being and persons; the point is not intended to show how many persons there are. Only Scripture can provide us this latter truth.

Next, believers are often not as aware of this second most frequent assumption that unbelievers have about the Trinity. But if you are aware of this deep assumption by those who deny the deity of Christ, you can disarm them, aiding them to the vista of Trinitarianism.

Memorize and internalize the following Trinitarian truth:

Difference in function does not indicate inferiority of nature.

That is James White's statement and it will go a very long way in your Trinitarian apologetics.

There is a built-in assumption for many that if Jesus has a lesser role than the Father, he must therefore have a lesser nature. This is an illogical inference. Those who oppose the deity of Christ point to Jesus' submissive remarks about doing the will of his Father. For example, Jesus says, "the Father is greater than I am." They infer from this that Jesus does not share the same nature with the Father (this ignores that the context is talking about their relational roles, not their nature, John 14). Jesus also calls the Father, "My God." Yet those who oppose the deity of Christ ignore that this is a humble acknowledgment of the Incarnate Jesus, modeling for us humility and submissiveness (John 20:17). This exalting affirmation is exactly what we would expect from the Son of God.

Similarly, since Jesus is the agent of the Father in many respects such as the Creation, therefore Jesus cannot be fully God. And regarding the Spirit, they will make the similar false assumption: Since the Spirit is sent by the Father, the Spirit cannot have the same divine nature as the Father. Again, they will look at these statements and make the fallacious leap that difference in function indicates inferiority of nature.

By doing so, they also deny the freedom of the Divine persons to choose their roles. Or to put it another way: they assume that to be truly God, the Son and the Spirit must have the exact same roles as the Father. Do not allow them to accept this assumption. Probe them to ensure they see this point.

So a simple, but effective, illustration will show that difference in function does not indicate inferiority of nature: A husband and wife will have different roles in a marriage. Wives are to take on the submissive role, but this does not indicate that difference in function requires inferiority of nature. Does the wife have a lesser nature than that of the husband? Of course not. They both are fully human.

I hope these two simple illustrations will be staples when you come across these frequent assumptions. The former illustration depicts the difference between Being and persons; the latter illustration depicts the difference between Being and functions.

Let's praise God for the Incarnation, which itself presupposes a submissive role that brought about our salvation. We do not worship a unipersonal-Unitarian God, but instead a complementary-Trinitarian God.

Calvinism = "Christianity without Jesus?"

This was encouraging

Reformed Theology

"At the heart of Reformed Theology, at the heart of Luther and Calvin’s struggle, and in Knox and Jonathan Edwards, were men who were awakened to the greatness, to the majesty, to the holiness, and the sovereignty of God. By contemplating the holiness and sovereignty of God, they were driven to develop their doctrines of the grace of God. Because until you meet a God who is holy and is sovereign, you don’t know what grace means. I don’t think we are ever going to see a healthy evangelical church until the evangelical church is solidly Reformed, where it takes biblical Christianity seriously with a right concept of a sovereign God.

That’s because unreformed Christianity has failed in our culture. It has been pervasively antinomian (no law, no Lordship), and has been pervasively liberal in it’s trends and tendencies away from Scripture, because there’s been no real basis in the sovereignty of God.

Today’s evangelicals are never amazed by grace, because they don’t understand sovereignty. They don’t understand God. The evangelical church today is sick, more sick than it ever has been. We need a style and a variety of Christianity that is not a religion, but is a life and a worldview, where at the heart and foundational structure of it is a sound and deep biblical concept of the character of God."
-Dr. R.C. Sproul, A Blueprint for Thinking

The Doctrines of Grace DEFINED

What is it to know God?

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Chapter 2 | “…it will not be sufficient simply to hold that [God] is the only being whom all ought to worship and adore, unless we are also persuaded that he is the fountain of all goodness, and that we must seek everything in him, and in none but him. My meaning is: we must be persuaded not only that as he once formed the world, so he sustains it by his boundless power, governs it by his wisdom, preserves it by his goodness, in particular, rules the human race with justice and judgment, bears with them in mercy, shields them by his protection; but also that not a particle of light, or wisdom, or justice, or power, or rectitude, or genuine truth, will anywhere be found, which does not flow from him, and of which he is not the cause; in this way we must learn to expect and ask all things from him, and thankfully ascribe to him whatever we receive… For, until men feel that they owe everything to God, that they are cherished by his paternal care, and that he is the author of all their blessings, so that naught is to be looked for away from him, they will never submit to him in voluntary obedience; no, unless they place their entire happiness in him, they will never yield up their whole selves to him in truth and sincerity.”

Free-will doctrine – what does it?

Charles Spurgeon | “Free-will doctrine – what does it? It magnifies man into God; it declares God’s purposes a nullity, since they cannot be carried out unless men are willing. It makes God’s will a waiting servant to the will of man, and the whole covenant of grace dependent upon human action. Denying election on the ground of injustice it holds God to be a debtor to sinners so that if He gives grace to one He is bound to do so to all. It teaches that the blood of Christ was shed equally for all men and since some are lost, this doctrine ascribes the difference to man’s own will, thus making the atonement itself a powerless thing until the will of man gives it efficacy. Those sentiments dilute the scriptural description of man’s depravity, and by imputing strength to fallen humanity, rob the Spirit of the glory of His effectual grace: this theory says in effect that it is of him that willeth, and of him that runneth, and not of God that showeth mercy.”

Verse 1: Tim Brindle

This sermon’s from 1 Peter 2/
But don’t take my word it please first read it dude/
And search-See, it’s true/
We destroy deceit we find/
So hypocrisy we put away like toys at clean up time/
Cause sin is wack-Now Evangel, Tim, and Ack/
Feed the milk of the Word to those fed up with smilax/
Though cats keep laughing that we’re corny/
We can’t stop cause God’s given us a passion for His glory/
And though they reject us by the Father we’re chosen and precious/
Like costly stones on a necklace/
We once was tasteless but since the Son has saved us/
We’re convinced of us this from the taste test
We behold that He’s good/
So if He’s holy, let’s be holy as His holy priesthood/
But not to add to Christ’s death-That was priceless/
But to offer up praises of spiritual sacrifices
And though filthy and wretched/
Since he took our guilt we’re accepted/
Through the cornerstone the builder’s rejected/
He died for his bride-He’s marrying her/
We’re a chosen race like Hitler thought the Aryans were/
But not based on pigment or skin color/
We’ll be placed in Christ to be saved from sin’s cellar
We was living in madness-but since Jehovah saved us/
We approach his greatness with unlimited access/
Saved for this reason alone to fall on our face/
And holler His praise at the scene of His throne/
Til then we’ll make sure that his shine’s seen/
As we fervently offer up worship with rhymes schemes/
Instead of spitting secular garbage/
We proclaim His excellencies on 52nd and Market/
To the living God, it’s vital we give props/
And never offer up rhymes to the idols of hip hop.

Verse 2: Evangel
Truly unworthy/
Now I present my whole body as a sacrifice in view of His mercy
To clear up the debt of sin we’ve cashed in the act of Christ/
And lashing his back with stripes with spiritual medicine/
Renewed through the bible I fight my truest rival/
Trying to kill myself like I’m suicidal/
Tongue once a militant shank, unwilling to thank/
Lewd aggression fill in the blank/
Now it’s used for blessing/
Used to talk in pride and falsified/
And lied while my law-defying feet walked in stride/
I used my head for a crowd of cheers and styles appear/
Now it’s loud and clear it should be bowed in prayer.
They were once grips for looting and fists for duking/
Now my hands I throw up like my wrists were puking/
In praise, not loving the carnal/
Sin amassed back then, past acting like Governor Arnold.
My eyes were disgusting with the crust of lusting/
Peerin at the whoas-Now I’m crosseyed like I’m staring at my nose/

Don’t walk in the flesh like Pro Keds/
One Left Eye sins, get rid of the Lisa Lopez/
I make them an offer/
Ring to the king as their placed on the altar/
By faith-there you’re altered/
And that’s my life of service avail to live godly/
Cause daily my body’s a sacrifice of worship.

Verse 3: Ackdavis
Holy, holy holy is the lamb in which we direct their attention/
He switched us and now directs our affection and senses/
Hence this rap is written with excellence and given/
To the God who manifested himself to this vessel He lives in/
He’s risen, so forever we’ll praise his name/
I’m through with the monkey business-no more signing contracts with orangutangs.
I’ve changed lanes and I claimed the slain/
Son who hangs on the cross-And now me and his DNA remains the same/
To Christ I’ll write rhymes divine pipe bombs/
Delight psalms to put Christ in the light as an icon/
I con–struct hype lines that lift his name on the mic/
In the world that puts the Son down like it’s night time/
I often stand in awe of the flawless author of life/
Who’s awesome and altered my life-Now I’m caught up/
So now all that I offer is my life/
As a living sacrifice without crawling up off the altar/
I’m not moving-It’s yours Lord cause you’re Lord/
Please pour more of yourself inside of this poor cords/
Of course with my sword I’m determined with more force/
To build my house on the Rock, which your Word is the floor boards/
And let myself beat the guy on the Forth Horse/
And beat my flesh to the point that I am a sore corpse/
And let my life be the kind that the Lord sports/
And outshine your shine that was shining before yours.

Hook:
Stop the music-this is my sacrifice of worship/
To my master Christ-With this rappin mic I serve this/
Glorious king before Him I bring/
The song of thanksgiving-This is the chorus I sing.

Stop the music-this is my sacrifice of worship/
To my master Christ-With this rappin mic I serve this/
Glorious king before Him I bring/
The song of thanksgiving-This is the chorus we sing.
So stop the music.