Archive for November, 2011


¿Qué Hace que funcione el evangelio?

We have just published ¿Qué Hace que funcione el evangelio?  por Randy Seiver. (paperback 76 pages).  This is the Spanish translation of What Makes the Gospel Work?  The blurb on the back cover reads, “The Bible says that the gospel is good news for the world because it is the power of God for salvation.  It is more important than ever that the chruch of Jesus Christ speak to the world with perfect clarity about the most important message of life.

“This book explains why the gospel is good news for some while for others it continues to be nothing more than a fairy tale.  It seeks to answer the question, do some believe because they are better than, more spiritual than or naturally more receptive than others. or should we attribute this to the grace of God alone?  What Makes the Gospel Work? is a worthwhile study concerning the work of salvation that is all of God and not of ourselves.”

“La Biblia dice que el evangelio es buenas nuevas para el mundo, porque es el poder de Dios para salvación.  Es más importante  que nunca que la iglesia de Jesucristo hable con perfecta claridad sobre el mensaje más importante de la vida.

Este libro explica por qué el evangelio es pare algunos buenas nuevas y para otros , sigue siendo mada más que un cuento de hadas.  Intenta contestar la pregunta; ¿Creen algunos porque son mejores que otros o más espirituales o más naturalmente receptivos? o ¿Se le debe más bien a la gracia de Dios sola?  ¿Qué hace que funcione le evangelio?  es un estudio valioso sobre la obra de la salvación, la cual es de Dios solo y no de nosotros.”

We have published What Makes the Gospel Work?  in English at  If you would like to purchase copies of it in Spanish, we are making them available for $3.95+shipping. We will offer a discount for quanties of 10 or more.  All the money received from the sale of this book will be used for the translation and publication of other materials in Spanish.  You may order by email at rseiver1@hotmail. com.


Is Truth Knowable?

Is it possible for us to know biblical and theological truth, or must we wonder with Pilate, “What is truth?”  Perhaps those who were tortured and killed during the inquisition by the “Holy Roman Catholic Church” should have been a bit less dogmatic about their views and  the Protestant Reformers a little more reticent to speak out against the “Mother Church.”  Apparently, the current theological mood is one of reconciliation with those who believe Roman Catholic teaching because, after all, who are we to claim we have the truth?  These people are our brothers in Christ and we must not offend them by telling them the truth.  Apparently, this is what Luther should have done when called on to recant.  He should have said, “You know what guys, I know I wrote this stuff that puts Roman Catholicism in a really bad light, but who am I to challenge the Holy Roman Empire?  I know I thought I was convinced by the Word of God and by conscience and that I could do nothing other than stand on the truths I have been taught from Scripture, but shucks, I guess I was wrong.”  What a difference that would have made in the course of history.  What a shame Luther was not more in touch with our modern spirit of toleration.

I just spent much more time than I should have [Clearly, this statement is not true in light of the eternal decree of God, but is true in terms of human responsibility] in a forum on Reformed Theology at “Christian Classics Ethereal Library” sponsored by Calvin College.   In answer to one of the posters who wanted to argue that the Scriptures are not our only authority in matters of faith and practice, I asked if we should find our authority in the “authoritative statements” that some of the wicked Popes in the Church of Rome have made.  All one must do is read the history of the Church to discover that some of these “Holy Fathers” were not all that holy.  They certainly had no right to be called the “Vicars of Christ.”  It was a simple question based on historical reality.  My question was censured by a Roman Catholic moderator.  The sad part is I was told he was acting “neutrally;” he was only enforcing the rules that had previously been established for the forum.

It was my impression that this site was sanctioned by Calvin College in Grand Rapids, MI.  I wrote to the school to ask if this was truly their policy. To date, I have received no answer.  I suspect that if John Calvin had not passed into a realm in which it is impossible for anything to disturb his felicity, he would be turning over in his grave to think that his name was being associated with such a bunch of theological wimps.  Can you imagine Calvin saying, “Let’s all just play nice and accept these nice Roman Catholics as brothers in Christ.  Don’t rock the boat?”

If we cannot understand the Bible sufficiently to determine what is truth and what is error, we may as well just throw it away and believe whatever we like.  What good is it if God was so unclear in his revelation of himself that we can not understand the message he intended to convey?

In reality, we believe in the perspicuity of the Scriptures.  That means the Bible wasn’t written using words like “perspicuity.”  The Scriptures are clear in their meaning and were written so that the plow boy and the shepherd could understand them.  The truth is, people fail to understand the Scriptures because they don’t want to understand their message.  Can we know the truth?  Of course we can if we are willing to engage in the hard work of biblical exegesis in dependence on the Holy Spirit.

What we need today are godly men with spiritual and theological backbone who will be willing to repeat the following:

“Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. May God help me. Amen.”

Martin Luther


The Sign and Seal of the New Covenant–Luke 22:20

There are many reasons we Baptists do not sprinkle our infants.  The most obvious reason is that we find no biblical warrant to do so. There is neither a command to “baptize” infants  nor an example of an infant “baptism” in the entire New Testament.  I know, I know, there were those infants in the household of the Philippian jailor who were awakened in the wee hours of the morning so Paul could speak the word of the Lord to them and then baptize them (Acts 16:32-33).  Now, if you believe that, I have some ocean front property in Kansas I would like to sell you.   In the first place, the passage says absolutely nothing about infants.  If there were infants in the house, why would Paul need to speak the word of the Lord to them?  They would not have understood it anyway. Additionally, could this not have waited until morning so that the little darlings would not keep the rest of the household up all night?  I do not honestly think anyone believes this argument.

The real reason for infant “baptism” is the Paedobaptist belief in the unity of the covenants, or the unity of the different administrations of an overarching covenant of grace. They argue, Abraham’s physical offspring were circumcised because they were heirs of the covenant, therefore we must sprinkle our physical offspring because they too, by virtue of their physical relationship with their believing parents, are heirs of the covenant.

First, it is important to remember the covenant God made with Abraham contained both physical/material promises and spiritual promises.  Not a single physical heir of Abraham received spiritual blessings by virtue of his physical birth.  Paul wrote, “That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.” (Romans 9:8).  The apostle wrote this in regard to Isaac who was the promised seed.  It was not all Abraham’s offspring who were to be blessed but “in Isaac your seed will be called” (v.7).  He further narrows the scope by showing that God rejected Esau and choose Jacob [Israel] (see- Rom 9:10-13). Additionally, we must keep in mind his caveat in verse six, “they are not all Israel who are of Israel.”  Not every member of the nation of Israel was destined to receive the spiritual inheritance promised to Abraham and his Seed.  In Galatians 3:16, the apostle identifies this “Seed” as Christ.  His argument in that passage runs like this:

1.    Abraham’s seed will be blessed (3:8).

2.    Christ is Abraham’s seed. (3:16).

3.     You are in Christ (3:26-27)..

4.    You are Abraham’s seed. (3:29a).

5.    You are blessed by receiving the blessing of Abraham (3:29b; see also 3:14).

Central to the apostle’s argument is the believer’s  union with Christ.  We are united to him by faith.  He wrote in Galatians 3:7, “therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham.”  We become heirs to the spiritual promise of the Abrahamic covenant only by being united to Christ.  We are not born to those blessings; we receive them by being reborn.  God has many spiritual children, but not a single grandchild.  That is to say, spiritual blessings are not conveyed by physical generation but by spiritual regeneration.

Baptism serves as an outward sign of the inward grace of regeneration and union with Christ.  It is less than meaningless if there is no inward grace to reflect.

Now, if infant sprinkling is not the sign of the covenant, is there a sign of the new covenant and, if so, what is it?

In the institution of the Lord’s Supper, as he offered the cup of wine to his disciples, Jesus said, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood” (Luke 22:20).  Now, we can dismiss out of hand any suggestion that this cup is the new covenant.  This is no more true than the Roman Catholic superstition of transubstantiation.  There is no indication that the bread Jesus blessed actually became his body or the wine he blessed actually became his blood.  This is no more true than that he actually was the rock that Moses struck in the desert.  In all these cases, the speaker or writer clearly means these objects represent Jesus’ body, blood, covenant etc.

What Jesus is saying is that this cup of wine represents the new covenant he is going to ratify by shedding his blood.  This cup becomes the sign of that covenant.  Every time we take communion we should rejoice that we are heirs of the new and better covenant that was ratified by his blood.

Consider the signs of three important covenants and how they relate to one another.  The three covenants I am talking about are the Abrahamic Covenant, the Sinaitic or Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant.

The Sign of the Abrahamic Covenant

The sign of the Abrahamic Covenant was physical circumcision. The apostle Paul wrote, “. . . he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, . . .”(Romans 4:11).  This pulling back and cutting away of the flesh finds its spiritual counterpart in regeneration, the pulling back and cutting away of the fleshly sinful heart.  Paul wrote, “For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God” (Romans 2:28-29).

Remember that one promise of the New Covenant was that God would remove the heart of stone and replace it with a heart of flesh.  It was this act of God the sign of circumcision anticipated.

The Sign of the Mosaic Covenant

Sabbath observance was to be the ceremonial sign of the Mosaic Covenant.

Therefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant.‘It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed” (Exo. 32:16-17).

God gave two reasons why the Israelites should observe this sign of the covenant.  Remember, to break the sign of the covenant is to break the covenant itself.  The first reason recalls God’s completion of and resting from his creation activity.  The second recalls Israel’s physical deliverance from Egyptian bondage.

And remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out from there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the Lord your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day. (Deut. 5:15).

This covenant sign finds its fulfillment in Christ, the believer’s Sabbath rest.  The Book of Hebrews tells us,

For if Joshua had given them rest, then He would not afterward have spoken of another day. There remains therefore a rest for the people of God. For he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His.  Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall according to the same example of disobedience (Heb. 4:8-11).

The Sign of the New Covenant

A New Creation

In identifying the communion cup as the sign of the New Covenant, Jesus was teaching that the sign of the New Covenant corresponds to and fulfills the sign of the Old Covenant.  The blood of the cross, Jesus’ redemptive work signified by this cup, finished the work of establishing the new creation just as the Old Covenant Sabbath observance recalled Jehovah’s completion of the old creation.  Every time we partake of this ordinance, we are to remember that his sacrificial work is finished.  “He once offered himself to God as a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice and reconcile us to God.” (See the Westminster Shorter Catechism).  The new creation has been established. If any man is in Christ, he belongs to that new creation that Jesus established on the cross.

An Eternal Rest

Secondly, in identifying  the cup of blessing which we bless as the sign of the New Covenant, Jesus  points to our spiritual deliverance from sin’s bondage, typified by Egyptian bondage, and our entrance into spiritual rest, typified by Israel’s Canaan rest.  The second reason for Sabbath observance was that God had delivered the Israelites from Egypt.  We celebrate the Lord’s Table because we have been delivered from sin and entered into God’s eternal rest in Christ.

Jesus  has accomplished the rest and redemption foreshadowed by the Sabbath, the sign of the Old Covenant.   That covenant could provide neither everlasting rest nor spiritual redemption. Jesus has accomplished both by his redemptive work and offers us the communion cup to remind  us of his work and of our great privileges in him.


Justification, obtained by works or by the work of Christ?

Is there a difference between “obtain[ing] the joy of heaven, as God’s eternal reward for the good works accomplished with the grace of Christ” and “being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus?”

The differences between these two statements should be obvious to anyone.  The first talks about “obtaining the joy of heaven, as God’s eternal reward for good works.”  The second talks about the joy of heaven having been obtained for the believer through the redemptive work of Christ.

The first of these statements is taken from the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church # 1821, “We can therefore hope in the glory of heaven promised by God to those who love him and do his will. In every circumstance, each one of us should hope, with the grace of God, to persevere “to the end” and to obtain the joy of heaven, as God’s eternal reward for the good works accomplished with the grace of Christ. In hope, the Church prays for “all men to be saved.” She longs to be united with Christ, her Bridegroom, in the glory of heaven:”

The second is from Romans 3:24, “being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.”

The blessing of justification is granted to the believer without any reason in him for the declaration and without any cost to him.  He does not “obtain” the joy of heaven by persevering to the end.  He is justified “freely” by God’s grace, i.e., his unmerited favor granted to those who have merited his wrath and curse.  The word translated “freely” is the same word translated “without a cause” in John 15:25.  There is absolutely no cause in the sinner for God to declare him righteous.  In fact, there is every reason for God to condemn him.  The believing sinner is not declared righteous in God’s sight because he has accomplished good works, even if those good works are “accomplished with the grace of Christ.”

It is at this point, among others,  that Evangelical Christians must part company with the Roman system.  The Bible teaches that the believer stands justified in God’s presence because he is united to Christ, who is the justified one.  Jesus was born under the law and obeyed it perfectly, forging a human  righteousness the law could not condemn.  Through his human obedience, he stands declared righteous before the law.  Paul wrote, “. . .for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified” (Romans2:13).  Jesus is the only man who ever lived who could be justified by keeping the law.   He, then, died under the penalty of that broken law and satisfied its rigorous and righteous penal demands.  Because the believer is united to Christ through faith, God accounts the righteousness of Christ, the representative of all in him, to be his righteousness.

The Roman system teaches that believers could never achieve justification before God apart from his grace that is imparted to them as a result of Christ’s death.  Here is the phrase again.  “. . .to obtain the joy of heaven, as God’s eternal reward for the good works accomplished with the grace of Christ. . . .” [italics mine].  It is for this reason that the Canons of Trent state, “If any one says, that by Faith Alone the sinner is Justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema” (Canon 9).  “If any one says that justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through Good Works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema” (Canon 24).

The Papacy has never rescinded these statements.  In fact, in January of 1996, Pope John Paul II stated, the declarations of the Council of Trent “maintain all their value.”

Both these teachings cannot be true.  There is no way any clear minded person can synthesize these two teachings.  They are absolutely contradictory.  One is gospel truth; the other is damning heresy.

There are only two religions in the world.  One is a religion of works, emphasizing what sinners must do for God.  The other is a religion of grace, emphasizing what God has done for sinners.  Any mixture of grace and works means that grace is no longer grace and works are no longer works (See Romans 11:6).  The New Testament Scriptures leave no doubt about which method God uses to save sinners.  The apostle Paul wrote, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9).  “. . .not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, . . .” (Titus 3:5).

He does not say we are not saved by works that are not enabled by the grace of Christ infused into us.  He simply say, “You have been saved by grace and not by works.”  The contrast could not be more clear.


The Good Son Is Going to Perish

 Interpreting Parables

Jesus used parables to teach one primary lesson for each parable. Those who teach principles of interpretation rightly caution us against trying to make parables walk on all fours. If we try to press all the details of a parable, we are destined to teach doctrines that are contrary to the plain teaching of Scripture. This is an important rule of biblical interpretation concerning parables of which many seem to be unaware and many others simply choose to ignore. If we find teachings clearly delineated in didactic, theological, passages, there is nothing wrong with recognizing allusions to those teachings in the parables. Still, those doctrines must first be established by didactic passages. Like all illustrations, parables break down in points of detail. Our task is to discern the primary lesson Jesus intended to teach in each parable. This is more difficult to discern with some parables than with others.

The Parables of Luke Fifteen

In the case of the parables of Luke fifteen, the primary lesson Jesus is teaching is easy discover. Jesus spoke the trilogy of parables we find in this chapter in response to a charge made by the Pharisees and scribes. “Then all the tax collectors and the sinners drew near to Him to hear Him. And the Pharisees and scribes complained, saying, “This Man welcomes sinners and eats with them.” So He spoke this parable to them, . . .” (Luke 15:1-3). Jesus was always approachable. Sinners did not shy away from him but felt comfortable in his presence. He received them and ate with them. From the perspective of the Pharisees and Scribes, this complaint was perhaps the worst insult they could have hurled at Jesus. In reality, their complaint is the best news we sinners could receive. This man receives sinners. He does not wait to receive us until the grace he infuses as the result of his redemptive work produces obedience to his commands. He receives us as sinners with no righteousness of our own. The main point of the parable is that Jesus is interested in seeking and saving the lost. In all three of these parables [or all three parts of the parable], Jesus speaks of lost things. The first is a lost sheep, the second a lost coin, the third is a lost son. It is important that we understand that the distinction Jesus draws between the righteous and sinners in the Gospels is not one of reality but one of perception. In reality, there is no one who is righteous, not even one. Jesus speaks of those who perceive themselves to be righteous and those who understand themselves to be sinners. Those who perceive themselves to be righteous are without hope. Jesus only came to redeem the lost.

Both Sons are the Focus of the Parable

The so called “parable of the prodigal son” is really as much about the older son as it is about the younger son. It is the contrast between the two that Jesus intends to grab our attention. The older son clearly believes he deserves a party thrown in his honor. In his view, the younger son deserves nothing but the Father’s disgust and rejection. In reality, he is right. What he fails to understand is that he, too, deserves the father’s rejection. We clearly cannot deduce that fact from the parable since there is nothing that would indicate that he was undeserving; we must learn it from other biblical passages. Remember, it is the sinner’s perception of himself that Jesus is talking about, not the reality of the sinner’s standing before God. In Jesus’ parable, it is the one who knows he is lost that the father receives and showers with his good things. The older brother receives nothing. In truth, he is the one who is lost. He saw no need for a Savior. In his perception, he had merited the father’s blessing since he had never left his father’s house. The Pharisees and Scribes, as religious as they were would die in their sins because they saw no need for a Savior.

An Illustration of Repentance

Our Lord’s account of the younger brother’s experience in the far country provides an excellent illustration of the nature of repentance. The younger son, in his arrogance had received his inheritance and left his father’s house. He traveled to a distant country and there threw away his inheritance with both hands, living with harlots. When he had spent all the money, a great famine began in that region and he began to be in need. He even went so far as to get a job feeding pigs and was so hungry that he would have eaten the pig food rather than return to his father’s house. Sinners will do anything to avoid returning to the Father. Then, the text tells us he came to his senses. The rest of the New Testament Scriptures teach us that sinners do not just “come to their senses” on their own. This must be God’s work. But, this is not the primary lesson taught in the parable. At this point, Jesus was not concerned with how he came to his senses. His point was that this young man began to understand that he would perish if he did not return to the father’s house. Consider what was involved in his return.

1. He decided to return to his father’s house. Someone has said, “Repentance is not something God requires us to do before we can return to him; it is returning to him.”

2. He acknowledged that he was not worthy to be called the father’s son.

3. He was willing to be treated as a hired servant in his father’s house. The passage says nothing of performing meritorious works to earn the father’s favor. It says nothing about doing penitence so that he might be freed from his post-baptismal sins. It says nothing about keeping the sacraments so that grace might be dispensed to him through them. It says nothing about making a pilgrimage to gain blessings for himself Verse twenty simply says, “So he began his journey and went to the father. He returned with empty hands. He returned without arguments as to why the father should accept him. He returned without any right to the inheritance. He returned with the purpose of serving in the father’s house as an obedient servant for the rest of his life. This is the way sinners repent. We return to the Father without any intention of offering anything as an incentive for his acceptance. We have no arguments of our own as to why he should receive us. We return understanding that we have squandered our inheritance and now deserve no inheritance at all. We return with a heart purpose to serve him for the rest of our days as obedient servants. There is one great difference here between his experience and the sinner’s return. This young man returned without any promise of acceptance. He had no reason for confidence. He returned with a fond but unfounded hope that he would be received. When, as sinners we return to God in saving faith and godly repentance, we do so with a well founded confidence based on God’s salvation promises. He has said, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” (Rom. 10:13). The heavenly Father cannot turn sinners away since to do so would make him unfaithful to his promises. The good news is that Jesus welcomes sinners and eats with them. He doesn’t ask you to change yourself; he simply commands you to return. He invites you to come just as you are so that he might cleanse you from your sins and conform you to his likeness. If you continue to insist you are worthy to receive God’s blessing and the eternal inheritance because you are worthy in yourself, you, like the good son, will perish in your sins.


God Must Soften the Sinner’s Heart

C. H. Spurgeon wrote,  “While I regarded God as a tyrant, I thought sin a trifle. But when I knew Him to be my Father, then I mourned that I could ever have kicked against Him. When I thought that God was hard, I found it easy to sin. But when I found God so kind, so good, so overflowing with compassion, I smote upon my breast to think that I could have rebelled against One who loved me so and sought my good.” What a softening effect the gospel has on the sinner’ s heart when God, in sovereign grace, breaks down his rebellion and grants him ears to hear and a heart to understand.  Otherwise, even the most eloquent proclamation, the most logical reasoning, the most moving  narratives will not produce the desired effect. Nothing is calculated to soften the rebel’s heart as effectively as the gospel of Christ.  Nothing will quell our thirst for sin, like the good news that there is a fountain open for sin and uncleanness and a powerful Savior who waits with open arms to receive repenting sinners.


Welcome to Truth Unchanging

Every generation is responsible to defend the gospel.  Today, as perhaps never before, our generation is in danger of losing its grasp on biblical truth.  I believe there are several reasons for the dangerous level of biblical illiteracy that characterizes today’s Christian community.  In the late 1800’s,  evangelical Christians began to unite against theological liberalism that was being imported from Germany.  They rightly began to defend such doctrines as the plenary, verbal inspiration of the Scriptures, Christ’s virgin birth and deity.  In the process, they neglected many of the important doctrines that affect an accurate understanding of the gospel.  As a result, many of those doctrines were relegated to the non-essential category, and anyone who wished to initiate a discussion of such teachings was accused of trying to bring division among Christians.  Most decided to remain silent to avoid being blamed for bringing disunity in the Church.

Another factor is the financial motive.  Pastors and evangelists have to eat.  If they are too honest about what the Bible teaches concerning the gospel and its surrounding doctrines, many will be offended.  The gospel is offensive to people who are in a state of sinful nature.  The more specific we become in our explication of the gospel, the more likely such people are to bolt and leave the Pastor holding the empty financial bag.  For this reason, many cowardly Pastors have opted to remain in their guilty silence, rather than acting like men and boldly proclaiming the truth.

Additionally, every Pastor and theological student has been admonished at some point to “put the cookies on the lower shelf so that everyone can reach them.”  The problem is that after a century of feeding on cookies, the church is in a state of severe malnutrition.   Most people who continue to attend some kind of “church” usually endure a “sermon” that consists of nothing but mindless drivel and funny stories.  The art of expository preaching with probing application has been lost in most quarters.  Sound, theological exposition has been replaced by textual and topical messages in which the text the preacher employs is usually, tortured, twisted and jerked from its biblical context.  Without such context, the text can be made to say anything the preacher wants it to teach.  Such preachers have trained their hearers to lust for entertainment and loath sound, biblical teaching.  Being cute is more highly esteemed than being right.  They have produced a generation of theological pygmies.

Finally, churches have redefined the  pastor’s position description.  No longer is he to give himself to prayer and the ministry of the Word.  He has now been reduced to a glorified social worker and counselor whose job it is to hold people’s hands and make them feel better about themselves.  The result is that pastors no longer have sufficient time to study sufficiently to discover the real meaning of the biblical passages they need to expound to their hearers.  They usually resort to stringing together ideas they have heard from other preachers without taking the time to search the Scriptures to find out if they are true.  Thus, they lay one faulty block  on top of another until they have constructed a defective building built on a foundation of sand.

The sad fact is that those who call themselves God’s people love to have it this way.  I am reminded of the verse in Jeremiah 5:31 that says,
”The prophets prophesy falsely,
And the priests rule by their own power;
And My people love to have it so.
But what will you do in the end?”

This blog is dedicated to the restoration of biblical truth in Christ’s church.  I am well aware that there are others online who are also concerned about this need and are working to remedy the problem.  I will be posting links to those sites from time to time.  If you believe you are a kindred spirit with us and would like to be included in our links, please give us an opportunity to consider adding you to our links.