What is the difference of the word Church and church? As the blog above is written with John MacArthur’s point of contention being the point of reference, one denotes the different denominations of Christian religions and the other denotes to the entire world of people who believe and call themselves Christian. This article is trying to establish a link that a person who associates their Christianity inside their Church (big “C”) is somehow inferior to an individual that associates their Christianity outside of any organized church; but instead associates with the mystical body of Christ that calls itself “the church” (little “C” ).

The only part I culled from MacArthur’s post was the quoted text, for clarification. MacArthur even states that the man’s point contains too much truth to be dismissed lightly. I was approaching it from my own perspective, wherein I have met and seen far too many people who associate their faith with a brick and mortar structure. Faith comes from the heart and is exercised from the heart. Where it is exercised is a moot point, and that was what I meant to convey.

So what is the subject? The subject matter is does somebody who attends a Church (building) and allows that Church’s Denomination to interpret Scripture to them is in someway different or an inferior form of Christianity (if not Christianity at all) to an individual that somehow feels that because he has a relationship with Christ on a personal level is capable by themselves of reading the Scripture and interpreting Scripture for themselves, with the belief that the Holy Spirit will guide them from error on their understanding of the Word of God.

There are those whose theology states that the Holy Spirit guides us to understand the word of God, and there are those whose theology is that there is an authoritative source which interprets the word of God. I fall into the former group. The problem with the latter group’s position is that if you proclaim that individual interpretation of scripture is a flawed process because it requires individual discernment, your argument fails by the same method of judgment. After all, you are individually discerning that…
A) There is an authoritative source, and
B) Others who discern differently than you are wrong because you discern them to be

There is no perfection here on earth. Believers interpret the Bible differently and this has led to strife amongst the faithful throughout our history. That’s just the way it is. We remain flawed, despite being redeemed, so there will always be disagreements, and this can be about Scripture as well as politics, morals, social norms and so on. One of my largest disagreements with the Catholic Church is their teaching in a universal agreement amongst the early fathers on certain doctrinal issues. I have read many early fathers and one thing is clear: there is no universal agreement on any topic. Catholic theologians will cite, for example, Aquinas, Cyrus and Basil on one matter, but omit those same men on another matter. If one takes the time to read the works of many of the early fathers one finds that some of the same men who are cited as supporters of one matter of dogma were not in agreement on another matter of dogma. One man has taken pains to make a list of what early fathers stated on a host of positions, and the list makes it clear that there is no universal agreement.

Scripture shows us a completely different point of view on this matter with great clarity. From the beginning of the ministry of Christ, Christ chose 12 Apostles to continue the spreading of His Gospel after His death and resurrection. And the Apostles were promised the Holy Spirit by Christ after His death to guide them in the truth (Acts 1:1-5). When you look into Scripture you see from the beginning that after Christ elected the 12 Apostles (which were hand picked by Christ) he clearly put Peter in charge of what would become the church (body of Christ) (Matthew 16:13-20). And in John Chapter 21 verse 15-17 we see that Christ put Peter in charge of the deposit of knowledge that would be Christ’s Gospel when he told Peter to Feed Christ’s Sheep and tend Christ’s Lambs (which the difference in the sheep and lambs was that one was the people who would accept Christ’s message and the other were those that would accept Christ’s message; but would also preach and lead the brick and mortar churches and the congregation with in those churches). We also see that the apostles after His death and resurrection also put great importance to the authority of those individuals who would interpret and spread Christ’s Gospel when they chose Judas’s replacement by only those individual disciples that had walked and talked and were taught by Christ (Acts 1:15-26) ,this is evident of the importance that the Apostles placed on the churches and those leading and interpreting Scripture in those churches that within contained the Body of Christ. In Acts 1:17 we see that Scripture was fulfilled and that their was a ministry to which to be elected to.

I do not agree with the belief of Petrine primacy. In fact, no less than Augustine said this about Peter’s confession:

“In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built.’…But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable.” (The Retractions, 1:20:1)

Origen, in his commentary on Matthew, said this:

But if you suppose that upon that one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, ‘The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,’ hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, ‘Upon this rock I will build My church’? Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ be common to the others, how shall not all the things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them? For in this place these words seem to be addressed as to Peter only, ‘Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,’ etc; but in the Gospel of John the Saviour having given the Holy Spirit unto the disciples by breathing upon them said, ‘Receive ye the Holy Spirit,’ etc….And if any one says this to Him, not by flesh and blood revealing it unto Him but through the Father in heaven, he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches, to every one who becomes such as that Peter was.” (Commentary on Matthew, 12:10-11)

And Cyprian stated:

“For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there.” – The Seventh Council of Carthage.

The Catholic Church teaches that its authoritative position is based upon scripture, sacred tradition and the Magisterium. It is within sacred tradition that the universal agreement of church fathers is claimed. While I have only chosen to quote three, there are many other sources which dispute Petrine primacy. Thus, there is not universal agreement amongst the fathers and a supportive leg of the Church’s claim of authority is lost. If the early fathers did not all agree that the church was founded upon Peter, and that Peter had primacy over the other apostles, then there is no traditional support for such a position. The Magisterium can rule that Petrine primacy is true, but that body’s claim to its own authority rests in sacred tradition and the scriptures, and if there is no universal traditional support for Petrine primacy then the Magisterium itself loses half of its supportive claim to exist as an authoritative voice. Thus we are left with scripture, and I interpret the proof texts used to illustrate Petrine primacy as Augustine and Origen did, and a host of others as well.

Another matter to consider is that it was vital that replacements of the apostles had actually heard the living Christ speak, and followed him, and only those who had done alike were in a position to select said replacements. Further, Paul was not selected by the apostles to become an apostle; Paul was selected by Christ Himself. And the other apostles viewed Paul as being one of their own. In fact, in the second chapter of Galatians Paul even rebuked Peter for being in error.

While reading Sacred Scripture you can see that there is further evidence that a church was needed with duly elect Elders and Presbyters to correctly interpret Scripture for the “masses of people” in Acts 8:26-40 when Phillip meets a Eunuch who is reading Sacred Scripture (apparently saved because he was reading the word of God); but could not understand what The Word meant. When asked by Phillip if he understood, the Eunuch replied “how can I unless some one instructs me?”

The eunuch was Egyptian and was reading a portion of the book of Isaiah. That he was merely reading the oracles of God doesn’t mean he was saved. Any single portion of scripture can only be understood in its immediate context, without the whole of scripture to illustrate it. For example, Isaiah gave a prophecy that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem and to a virgin. It is only once Jesus is born that we find that prophecy fulfilled. If the eunuch had been reading that portion of Isaiah he would not immediately know that Jesus fulfilled that prophecy, and as the New Testament had not yet been written at that moment, it was required that someone like Phillip explain it to him.

There are many other passages in Scripture that point to the leadership role of Peter and his Apostles to the Presbyters and Elders on down to the Church (as in brick and mortar buildings )and it’s authority to lead it’s flock to Christ and to teach Christ that it would take a book of it’s own to list them all here. If a brick and mortar church is truly being lead by a person dully elected by Christ and the doctrines of that particular church hold firm and true to the Scripture, then a person was to believe in the saving power of that church would indeed find his salvation inside of that church as that church would teach and lead that person to Christ.

If early fathers, councils or other such sources disputed that an institutional Church was to select the leaders of every brick and mortar Church, then once again a supportive authority cannot be claimed. The Council of Trent condemned any who would say that Church leaders were to be appointed by laymen, yet Trent would be condemning The Didache, which states:

“Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful and proved; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers. Despise them not therefore, for they are your honoured ones, together with the prophets and teachers.” (15)

Trent would also condemn Cyprian:

“On which account a people obedient to the Lord’s precepts, and fearing God, ought to separate themselves from a sinful prelate, and not to associate themselves with the sacrifices of a sacrilegious priest, especially since they themselves have the power either of choosing worthy priests, or of rejecting unworthy ones….” (67:3, 67:5)

And Trent would condemn Clement of Rome:

“Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect foreknowledge of this, they appointed those ministers already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry.” (First Clement, 44)

I do not place my faith in the building where I worship, my pastor or the deacons who oversee the business of the congregation. My faith is in Christ, for it is Him Who saved me, not my Church. Even the apostles erred, so if their errors condemned people to hell then the gates of Hell did indeed prevail against the Church, for Satan stole souls away from the Christ. This is why I believe that it was Peter’s confession of faith that is the founding principle of the universal church; which is the variety of people who profess the same faith across the globe. Against that faith Hell shall not prevail, for Jesus will not allow any who belong to Him to be stolen away (John 6:36-40).

PS. You have a wonderful website and a gift to us all of the insight you have on a great variety of subjects. Once again an awesome place you have here. We agree on much that I find here in the site and I’m sure I’ll be posting again on another topic.

God Bless again….

Warner, thank you so much for the kind words. I do count you as a brother and I love you in Christ. I hope, therefore, that what I have written here is not received harshly by you. The written medium cannot convey a softly spoken word, or a smile. None of what I have written is offered in any stern way. It is too bad we live so far apart because this could be an earnest conversation shared on a porch, over tall glasses of lemonade. We disagree on certain matters, but that is okay. We agree that Jesus is Lord, that He lives in our hearts and as I once said to you before, if your heart beats for Jesus then you are my brother. I try to avoid conflicts in matters of faith because they tend mostly to be unfruitful. That is often because one of the parties involved, or both, are striving to win the argument. That is not my intention here, nor do I believe it is yours. Please come back and comment anywhere here. I welcome your insight as well. And God bless you as well.

John MacArthur writes in Pulpit magazine about a man who was considering conversion to the Catholic Church. In the man’s words…

Protestants don’t seem to appreciate the Church. The Bible describes the Church as an institution Christ founded and loves. The Church is everything to Catholics; it is nothing to most of my Protestant friends.

This man is confused. He believes that the structure he enters on Sunday morning is the church, but it is not. If your Christian identity is wrapped up in the building you worship in then the problem isn’t with the Church (or the church), the problem lies with you. The mode of worship that you participate in is not what Jesus founded. The “institution” Jesus founded (and I could even debate that is not what He did) is not a brick building, wherein people sing hymns, burn incense and hear a sermon.

The man may be amongst believers who do not outwardly practice their faith, but I would bet he is also confused about what that means as well. What Jesus founded as a church–a body of believers to be unified with Him in service. Practicing one’s faith is more about the life you live than going to Church services on Sunday. This man’s problem seems to be that doxology is more important to him than doctrine, worship and a right understanding of what Jesus founded.

In his explanation of why we are not to approach obedience, and all that glorifies God, as a obligatory duty, Piper cites scriptural texts and offers insight to why this is wrong. He points out that throughout the history of the universal church there has been a tendency to state that we are duty-bound to obey God, and any joy that might accompany that is frosting on the cake. Piper used another analogy: joy accompanying your duty is like the head on a beer–it can be blown off and what remains is just the beer. Thus, duty is an obligation on our part, but God is not required to offer us joy in return. Does that sound correct to you? It did to me, and always has. And, frankly, it has made long-term obedience difficult for me.

In approaching our faith in that way we behave like the Pharisees. Worse, we dishonor God. The key points of what Piper is teaching are these:
1. God’s glory is the single most important factor in anything and everything. God is gravely serious about His glory.
2. God demands obedience, but He also rewards obedience. Both the obedience and the reward give Him glory! And they work together. The reward is not something that may or may not happen, and which should be viewed as the head on a beer or frosting on a cake.
3. God does not just want us to obey for the reward; He demands that we do so. For all aspects of obedience, which include the reward, bring glory to God.

“But,” you ask, “isn’t it wrong to seek the reward? Isn’t that too much like the false prosperity gospel?” No. The reward here is not earthly riches but peace, joy, contentment and a stronger spirit. Are we not to seek such things?

3seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence.

4For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust.

5Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge,

6and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness,

7and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love.

8For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. {2 Peter 1:3-8}

I will honestly admit here that this passage has always been something of a stumbling block for me. How many Christians do you know who have attained these goals? And are they constants in their lives? I saw this as impossible for me, and it made me feel awful that I could not achieve that which God told me to achieve. Finding yourself in this position can lead to daily wrestling with yourself and left feeling quite down. When I find myself in that place how capable am I of serving Jesus Christ? Truth be told, if I seek to serve Him from that place it is a flawed service. And don’t be expecting your reward in that case either, because you are not going to receive it. If we approach obedience as the legal means by which we can overcome our faults and grow nearer to God then we will spend our lives failing to reach our goal.

But some will say, “No, no. These texts only describe what reward will result if you act disinterestedly. They do not teach us to actually seek the reward.”

Two answers to this objection:

1) It would be foolish to say, “If you take this pill, I’ll give you a nickel,” if you expect the desire for the nickel to ruin the pill. But Jesus was not foolish. He would not offer blessing to those who obey him and then hold it against us if these blessings motivated our obedience.

2) Even more importantly, there are texts that not only commend that we do good in the hope of future blessing, but command it.

Luke 12:33 says, “Sell your possessions, and give alms; provide yourselves with purses that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail.” The connection here between alms and having eternal treasure in heaven is not a chance result—it is the explicit purpose: “Make it your aim to have treasure in heaven, and the way to do this is to sell your possessions and give alms.”

And again, Luke 16:9 says, “Make friends for yourselves by means of unrighteous mammon, so that when it fails they may receive you into eternal habitations.” Luke does not say that the result of using possessions properly is to receive eternal habitations. He says, “Make it your aim to secure an eternal habitation by the way you use your possessions.”

Therefore, a resounding NO to the belief that morality should be inspired more by duty than delight. {John Piper on Christian Hedonism}

Here’s another point: how many among the lost will look at us and our duty-bound drudgery and find it appealing? How many will say, “Giving up all joy to obediently serve God sure sounds good to me”? But, how many of this world will see a believer who possesses joy, peace, contentment to be appealing? And when those worldly folks not only see that, but see you joyfully serving your Lord in obedience what will they say? They cannot call you a hypocrite, a favorite argument against believers (and rightfully so, unfortunately). They cannot attempt to portray God as some heartless beast who demands that His minions serve him and give up all joy in their lives. You are not only reflecting the light of Christ, you are radiating it!

Hebrews 11:6 teaches, “Without faith it is impossible to please [God]. For whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.” You cannot please God if you do not come to him looking for reward. Therefore, faith that pleases God is the hedonistic pursuit of God.

As Christian Hedonists we know that everyone longs for happiness. And we will never tell them to deny or repress that desire. It is never a problem to want to be satisfied. The problem is being satisfied too easily. We believe that everyone who longs for satisfaction should no longer seek it from money or power or lust, but should come glut their soul-hunger on the grace of God. We will bend all our effort, by the Holy Spirit, to persuade people

* that they can be happier in giving than receiving (Acts 20:35);

* that they should count everything as loss for the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus their Lord (Philippians 3:8);

* that the aim of all of Jesus’ commandments is that their joy be full (John 15:11);

* that if they delight themselves in the Lord he will give them the desire of their heart (Psalm 37:4);

* that there is great gain in godliness with contentment (1 Timothy 6:6);

* and that the joy of the Lord is their strength (Nehemiah 8:10).

We will not try to motivate anyone with appeals to mere duty. We will tell them that in God’s presence is full and lasting joy (Psalm 16:11).and our only duty is to come to him, seeking this pleasure.

Why is it so hard to give up those worldly things which bring us pleasure? Because we want to be happy. We want to enjoy life. What the believer learns, through the Spirit’s revelation, is that the things of the world are fleeting, empty and do not bring true happiness. So are we to stop seeking happiness once we receive Jesus Christ in faith? No! It is in our nature to seek out happiness. The difference is where we seek and from whence we obtain it. Ours is to be a lasting happiness, not a fleeting one. We are to seek it at the bosom of Jesus Christ, not in the sinful offerings of Satan that are found in this world. Hedonism is merely seeing after satisfaction, and it is viewed negatively because it is always coupled with worldly things. John Piper wants us to be Christian Hedonists because God instructs us to be, and because it is the source of so many rewards/blessings. If you seek out your satisfaction from God then you will have it, and you will have it in spades. Obedience and servitude become the source of your satisfaction. Rather than finding satisfaction with worldly hedonism, you find it in Christian Hedonism. The rewards of serving Him are that you will obey, you will find deeper peace, you will find deeper contentment and you will want to do it always. This is not a route to perfection on earth, for there is no such way. But it is a better way that what I have known before.
I have always believed that we have to obey and serve. Period. Sure, God said we would be rewarded, but Jesus died for me, and if I live Him I should give up everything and serve him as my obligatory duty. Doesn’t sound very rewarding, does it. And it doesn’t sound like a recipe for happiness either. This approach can be backed up with scripture, but it’s not the whole story. I see this approach as something akin to laboring in a salt mine for the rest of my life. “Read your Bible daily, because it’s the law! Stop doing what you enjoy and serve Christ, because you must. Don’t you worry about being happy because He will take care of you. Just do your work, and that work will set you free.” Goodness, that sounds like a Communist state, not the Kingdom of God!
Instead of giving up the search for happiness, simply turn it from worldly things to God. If God IS the source of your joy then of course you should continue seeking happiness and satisfaction. In fact, God tells you to do so. And if this pattern leads to my happiness then bully for me, but more importantly it glorifies God Almighty!

About 65% of households with incomes less than $100,000 give to charity, the report showed.

Care to guess where the largest chunk of that amount goes?

The biggest chunk of the donations, $96.82 billion or 32.8%, went to religious organizations.

Of course, this overall group would include such undesirables as Benny Hinn’s ministry, but I’m still not surprised that the largest chunk is donated to religious groups.

The report also proves that we are a deluded people.

The second largest slice, $40.98 billion or 13.9%, went to education, including gifts to colleges, universities and libraries

Actually, donating to libraries is good. However, we have huge amounts of donations being given to educational institutions atop the public monies already funding them. And we continually bemoan the state of education in this country. Clearly, throwing money at it doesn’t help. In fact, education (as an entity) simply becomes more and more bloated, constantly hungry for more and more money. It models the government that has created this monster. All the while the entity does not improve; it simply becomes more rich.

Gaudiani said Americans give twice as much as the next most charitable country, according to a November 2006 comparison done by the Charities Aid Foundation. In philanthropic giving as a percentage of gross domestic product, the U.S. ranked first at 1.7%. No. 2 Britain gave 0.73%, while France, with a 0.14% rate, trailed such countries as South Africa, Singapore, Turkey and Germany.

Where are the fabulously rich Arab nations? Where are Islamic nations to be found? They must be too busy giving all of their money to terrorist organizations. I bet all of the haters of the U.S. hate this report. It shows flaws, but it shows that we seem to have a kind heart nationally.

What Is Christian Hedonism?

My shortest summary of Christian Hedonism is: God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him.

We all make a god out of what we take the most pleasure in. Christian Hedonists want to make God their God by seeking after the greatest pleasure—pleasure in him.

By Christian Hedonism, we do not mean that our happiness is the highest good. We mean that pursuing the highest good will always result in our greatest happiness in the end. We should pursue this happiness, and pursue it with all our might. The desire to be happy is a proper motive for every good deed, and if you abandon the pursuit of your own joy you cannot love man or please God.

The Difference Between Worldly and Christian Hedonism

Some people are inclined to believe that Christians are supposed to seek God’s will as opposed to pursuing their own pleasure. But what makes Biblical morality different than worldly hedonism is not that Biblical morality is disinterested and duty-driven, but that it is interested in vastly greater and purer things. Christian Hedonism is Biblical morality because it recognizes that obeying God is the only route to final and lasting happiness. Here are some examples of this from the Bible:

Luke 6:35 says, “Love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great.” It is clear when Jesus says “expect nothing in return” that we should not be motivated by worldly aggrandizement, but we are given strength to suffer loss by the promise of a future reward.

Again, in Luke 14:12-14: “When you give a dinner or a banquet, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your kinsmen or rich neighbors, lest they also invite you in return, and you be repaid. But when you give a feast, invite the poor . . . and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just.” That is, don’t do good deeds for worldly advantage; rather, do them for spiritual, heavenly benefits.

Should Duty Be Our Main Motivation?

But some will say, “No, no. These texts only describe what reward will result if you act disinterestedly. They do not teach us to actually seek the reward.”

Two answers to this objection:

1) It would be foolish to say, “If you take this pill, I’ll give you a nickel,” if you expect the desire for the nickel to ruin the pill. But Jesus was not foolish. He would not offer blessing to those who obey him and then hold it against us if these blessings motivated our obedience.

2) Even more importantly, there are texts that not only commend that we do good in the hope of future blessing, but command it.

Luke 12:33 says, “Sell your possessions, and give alms; provide yourselves with purses that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail.” The connection here between alms and having eternal treasure in heaven is not a chance result—it is the explicit purpose: “Make it your aim to have treasure in heaven, and the way to do this is to sell your possessions and give alms.”

And again, Luke 16:9 says, “Make friends for yourselves by means of unrighteous mammon, so that when it fails they may receive you into eternal habitations.” Luke does not say that the result of using possessions properly is to receive eternal habitations. He says, “Make it your aim to secure an eternal habitation by the way you use your possessions.”

Therefore, a resounding NO to the belief that morality should be inspired more by duty than delight.

Don’t Be Too Easily Satisfied

Hebrews 11:6 teaches, “Without faith it is impossible to please [God]. For whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.” You cannot please God if you do not come to him looking for reward. Therefore, faith that pleases God is the hedonistic pursuit of God.

As Christian Hedonists we know that everyone longs for happiness. And we will never tell them to deny or repress that desire. It is never a problem to want to be satisfied. The problem is being satisfied too easily. We believe that everyone who longs for satisfaction should no longer seek it from money or power or lust, but should come glut their soul-hunger on the grace of God. We will bend all our effort, by the Holy Spirit, to persuade people

• that they can be happier in giving than receiving (Acts 20:35);

• that they should count everything as loss for the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus their Lord (Philippians 3:8);

• that the aim of all of Jesus’ commandments is that their joy be full (John 15:11);

• that if they delight themselves in the Lord he will give them the desire of their heart (Psalm 37:4);

• that there is great gain in godliness with contentment (1 Timothy 6:6);

• and that the joy of the Lord is their strength (Nehemiah 8:10).

We will not try to motivate anyone with appeals to mere duty. We will tell them that in God’s presence is full and lasting joy (Psalm 16:11).and our only duty is to come to him, seeking this pleasure.

(Adapted from John Piper’s article, Christian Hedonism: Forgive the Label, but Don’t Miss the Truth.)

21″I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.” {Galatians 2:21}

9So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.

10For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THEM.”

11Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.”

12However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “HE WHO PRACTICES THEM SHALL LIVE BY THEM.”

21Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law.

22But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

23But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. {Galatians 3:9-12, 21-23}

So the law was applicable only to Israel, it was meant to show them their transgressions, could not bring about righteousness and was the precursor to the righteousness that would be obtained by faith through the shed blood of Jesus Christ. No such other law was ever imposed upon Gentiles by God, so from our vantage point we look back on the law as a lesson, and as something that has never applied to anyone but those Jews who lived at the time it was used. This begs the question of why anyone would feel it is required to perform any other sacrifices; there is no other law that has been imposed upon us. The only answer I can come up with is either a flawed understanding of the scriptures or agreement with early church fathers who themselves had a flawed understanding of the scriptures. For the scriptures are clear about this, and God was even saying it when the law still existed.

Sacrifice and meal offering You have not desired;
My ears You have opened;
Burnt offering and sin offering You have not required. {Psalm 40:6}

For You do not delight in sacrifice, otherwise I would give it;
You are not pleased with burnt offering.
The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;
A broken and a contrite heart, O God, You will not despise. {Psalm 51:16-17}

With what shall I come to the LORD
And bow myself before the God on high?
Shall I come to Him with burnt offerings,
With yearling calves?
Does the LORD take delight in thousands of rams,
In ten thousand rivers of oil?
Shall I present my firstborn for my rebellious acts,
The fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?
He has told you, O man, what is good;
And what does the LORD require of you
But to do justice, to love kindness,
And to walk humbly with your God? {Micah 6:6-8}

Through Him then, let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that give thanks to His name.

And do not neglect doing good and sharing, for with such sacrifices God is pleased. {Hebrews 13:15-16}

There was only one sacrifice that could result in righteousness, and it had to be a sinless one. That sacrifice was Jesus Christ, and we are instructed to never forget how sacred it was and is.

If you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each one’s work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay on earth;

knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers,

but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ. {1 Peter 1:17-19}

God still receives sacrifices that are offered in faith, and by a pure heart, but these are sacrifices of praise. They do not result in our justification or our righteousness. God cares about what is in your heart. Offering sacrifices or other works that are done through a belief that they are necessary for salvation not only is wrong, it does nothing to please God. There are a variety of Churches and denominations who do such things and they would do well to heed what happened when Israel did that very thing:

Then the Lord said,
“Because this people draw near with their words
And honor Me with their lip service,
But they remove their hearts far from Me,
And their reverence for Me consists of tradition learned by rote,
Therefore behold, I will once again deal marvelously with this people, wondrously marvelous;
And the wisdom of their wise men will perish,
And the discernment of their discerning men will be concealed.” {Isaiah 29:13-14}

There was a time when I made initial judgments of people who professed to be Christians by what Church they attended. I no longer do that, because I have met some who defied my stereotypes of them and demonstrated true faith in Jesus Christ. Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of Churches who err in regard to a host of matters, and I disagree strongly with them. And while it is true that the stereotypes of folks who attend certain Churches is largely accurate, it is not fair to throw a blanket over the whole bunch and label them all to be wrong. If even one of them has a heart that beats for Jesus then I have besmirched a member of the brethren, and in so doing I sin against them and God.

Do you trust in Jesus Christ as your Savior? Then offer sacrifices of praise to God, do good to others and share the blessings you have, for with those He is well pleased.

Millions upon millions of unwanted, inconvenient babies are being murdered in this country each year, let alone around the globe. Why isn’t the church speaking out about this more? Dr. Mohler’s post is titled “Why is Hollywood Afraid of Abortion?”. Perhaps we should ask why the church is afraid of abortion.

There are certain truths—fundamental doctrines—that every true church is committed to. These doctrines are unalterable; they cannot be compromised in any way. They are non-negotiable. Yield on any one point, and the church ceases to be a church. Here are five foundational truths that distinguish all authentic churches.

I agree with each of his five points, and that they are all non-negotiable. There are just some things that a Christian Church cannot compromise on. If God has absolute truths, and He does, then the church will be required to agree with those. How can you have a Christian Church that does not agree with its Founder?