facebook pixel

BOOK HIGHLIGHT – Giving Up Gimmicks by Brian Cosby

Posted on by Kim

Giving Up Gimmicks: Reclaiming Youth Ministry from an Entertainment Culture by Brian H. Cosby

160 pages | Direct Price: $12.99 $10.00 | Published in 2012

Summary: The lights dim . . . the smoke rises . . . the band starts playing. It’s a familiar scene, as youth ministries everywhere use entertaining and trendy approaches to draw in teens. But when the lights come on and the fog clears, what do we find?

Far too many teenagers raised in Christian homes drift away from the church after high school. Why is this true? Could it be because youth groups, in seeking to elevate experience over truth, have left teens dissatisfied and hungry for that truth?

Brian Cosby demonstrates a ministry approach that nurtures teens and brings them back for more—one solidly grounded in Christ and patterned after the means of grace: the Word, sacraments, prayer, service, and community. Learn how much teenagers not only need a deeper ministry, but want one too.

 

 About the Author:

Cosby_BrianBrian Cosby is senior pastor of Wayside Presbyterian Church (PCA) on Signal Mountain, Tennessee, and visiting professor at Reformed Theological Seminary, Atlanta.

 

 

 What Others Say About This Book:

“If you want true success in your ministry, here is the thought-through operational blueprint.”

—R. Kent Hughes, Senior Pastor Emeritus, College Church, Wheaton, Illinois

“Many youth ministry books are outdated almost as soon as they are published. . . . This book is different, grounding a vision of gospel-focused youth ministry in the permanent things of apostolic Christianity.”

—Russell D. Moore, Dean, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

“Brian Cosby steps forward . . . and does something that has been unheard of: marrying solid biblical theology to youth ministry methodology. If you are concerned on any level about seeing young people in your church build a faith that will last, then I highly recommend this book to you.”

—Danny Mitchell, Coordinator of Youth and Family Ministries, Presbyterian Church in America

 

Christianity without Hate

Posted on by Admin

By Starr Meade

GTT_Blog

Biblical Christians do not want to be hateful.

They want to be loving, kind, and forgiving. Our Lord calls us to this. We must be careful, though, not to let the world define “loving, kind, and forgiving” for us. The world would tell us that, if we say certain behaviors are morally unacceptable when everyone else says they are not, we are harsh, judgmental, and hateful. The world would tell us that if we openly proclaim our faith as the only true faith, we are rude, unloving and—criticism of criticisms—intolerant.

In Christian Smith’s interviews with teens, he discovered that American teens feel strongly that public discourse must be civil, and they detest “faith talk” that is rude and offensive. Teens, like all of us, have witnessed people claiming to hold the truths they cherish while speaking in obnoxious, insulting, and honestly hateful terms. Most of us want to distance ourselves from such people. But in their concern for showing respect for others, Smith writes in Soul Searching,

“Teens have come to think that the only stance of civility is the one conceding that all religions are basically the same. They think that good manners prohibit anyone from claiming his faith tradition has something that others lack.”

What teens don’t seem to realize, Smith points out, is that one can clearly articulate a well-thought-out faith with confidence without being rude and offensive. One can give reasons why another’s position is wrong and demonstrate gracious courtesy to the person who holds it at the same time. D. A. Carson agrees. He writes that Christians should be able to live and work and interact with people of all different persuasions, fighting for their freedom to believe according to their conscience and to express the opinions they hold. At the same time, as Christians called to proclaim the truth of God to all people, we must refuse to be silenced out of fear that if we say a religion is wrong or a behavior is immoral, we are using “hate speech.”

We allow for bad beliefs and for bad actions, and we speak out boldly about why they’re bad; at the same time, we accept the people who hold or do them without hesitation, hoping and working toward their coming to faith and repentance.

Biblical Christians must be willing to love those who believe differently, and speak the truth about the differences.

If one day soon Christians, even in our country, will face some measure of persecution because of their beliefs, will our children be ready? Will they know the solid truth of the Bible and of orthodox Christian doctrine so well that the smooth reasoning and the angry accusations of the world will stand out to them as obviously, clearly wrong?

Christianity is a revealed religion, and its revelation comes to us in the Bible’s historical narrative and doctrinal teaching. Yes, Christian truth must be applied and personally experienced. But Christianity is, first of all, God’s revelation of truth. Christianity states that truth in propositions, creeds, and catechisms; there is substance to it. This substance is either true or false. And this truth, this substance, is found in a systematic study of Scripture.

Our children will not be able to even hold to Christianity if they don’t know it, let alone stand firm for it in the face of determined opposition. In the New Testament epistle bearing his name, Jude appealed to his readers “to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). This presupposes heads filled with the knowledge of the truths, the propositions, the doctrines, and the facts of that faith. Now, in the window of opportunity that we have, home and church together must teach our children the substance of Christianity. We do this when we provide for them a consistent, systematic study of doctrine and of Scripture. We want them to learn it well now, as children, so they will have it to hold to and to defend as adults.

Starr Meade

Starr Meade served for ten years as the director of children’s ministries in a local church and has taught Bible and Latin classes in Christian Schools. She lives in Mesa, Arizona, where she is currently teaching classes to homeschoolers.

This article is adapted from Give Them Truth Teaching Eternal Truths to Young Minds

A Tale of Three Runners

Posted on by Admin

By Daniel M. Doriani

New-Man-2_Blog

When I was a new Christian, my teachers clearly taught that I owed the Lord my obedience in all of life. Yet I was a bit muddled as to why I obeyed. If asked to explain, I answered three ways, which we can call the way of wisdom, the way of trust, and the way of gratitude.

The way of wisdom says, “It is only reasonable to obey God’s law. After all, he created all things, so he knows how they work. Therefore, we expect his commands to be effective, to bring us good.” As Moses said, God gave Israel his commands “for your own good” (Deut. 10:13).

The way of trust says, “God loves us and would never mislead us.” We should behave as he directs and trust him to make it work. If we do what is right for him, he will do right for us.

The way of gratitude judges that it is fitting for us to obey God without reserve because God first gave himself without reserve to us when he redeemed us. Because he has done so much for us, we should be willing to do much for him.

The Problem with All Three: Reward Based Obedience

These perspectives contain profound truth. They are certainly superior to the way of merit, where people obey God to earn or retain his favor. And they surpass the way of fear, where people obey God to avert punishment. It is always good to obey God’s law, yet he cannot be pleased with anyone who obeys him strictly to merit rewards or avoid penalties. Such obedience is selfish, even manipulative.

Yet, if we pause, we see that the ways of wisdom, trust, and gratitude partially obey for God’s sake and partially for selfish reasons. There is trust and gratitude toward the Lord, but there is also a desire to gain benefits and to relieve debts. Thus they fall short of the noblest motive for obedience, the desire to obey God for his sake, out of love for him.

A Tale of Three Runners

Suppose that three men go running five days each week. Suppose, further, that we ask each one why he dedicates himself to running.

  • The first answers, “I run because my father died of a heart attack at fifty-four and I want to live long enough to retire and to see my grandchildren grow up.”
  • The second replies, “I run because I can eat anything I want when I run and I still don’t gain weight. Running also makes me nice and tired, so I sleep soundly at night.”
  • The third says, “When I run, my legs soar over the ground; the wind brushes my face; my heart beats like slow, heavy thunder in my chest; and I feel alive.”

The first man runs out of fear; he is worried about the consequences if he stops. The second runs for its benefits; he eats and sleeps better when he runs. But for the third man, running is its own reward. The first and second men love health, food, and sleep. Running is an instrument they use to gain what they desire. Only the third man loves running as an end in itself.

The obedience of many Christians resembles the first two runners. We obey to avoid what we fear or to get what we want. How many serve God and seek no reward other than God himself? Ideally, the man after God’s heart loves the Lord for his sake. Yet we love God as he reveals himself in history and in the Bible. We love God for his grace and his gospel. The idea of loving God for his own sake is daunting. But he does not leave us to “work up” love for him. Rather, he draws us to himself.

Daniel M. Doriani

Daniel M. Doriani is vice president of strategic academic projects and professor of theology at Covenant Theological Seminary. Previously he was senior pastor of Central Presbyterian Church in Clayton, Missouri.

This article is adapted from The New Man: Becoming a Man After God’s Heart

Nothing More Nothing Less

Posted on by Admin

By Philip Graham Ryken

Galations-REC-Blog

 

Throughout the book of Galatians Paul reveals the teachings of the Judaizers. They taught that Paul’s gospel was all right as far as it went; it just didn’t go far enough. They wanted to add law to faith as the basis for salvation. But the apostles understood that nothing should or even could  be added to Paul’s gospel (Gal. 2:6).

They knew that it is impossible to refinish the finished work of Christ. The gospel says that through his death and resurrection, Jesus Christ has done everything  that needs to be done for our salvation. If we were to try to add anything to that free and gracious gospel, it would be like taking an Olympic gold medal and having it bronzed!

The good news of the cross and the empty tomb cannot be improved; it can only be destroyed.

This is a perennial danger for the church. Christians are always trying to add something to the gospel. They elevate some aspect of Christianity to a place of supreme importance, so that the good news becomes faith in Christ plus something else.

Usually what gets added to the gospel is something good in itself:

  • Some particular experience of the Holy Spirit, perhaps.
  • Some special ministry (usually the ministry we are involved with).
  • Some methodology for having devotions, growing a church,or raising a family.
  • Some distinctive doctrine or style of worship.
  • Some political or social cause.
  • Some way of doing, or of not doing, what the world does.

But for the gospel to be the gospel, it has to stand alone.

The gospel is Christ plus nothing.

The old hymn by Edward Mote (1797–1874) claims that our “hope is built on nothing less than Jesus’ blood and righteousness.” But our hope is also built on nothing more than Jesus’ blood and righteousness. Back in chapter 1, Paul told the Galatians to accept no alternatives. Here in chapter 2, he tells them to accept no additives.

Philip Graham Ryken

Philip Graham Ryken is president of Wheaton College. He is Bible teacher for the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, speaking nationally on the radio program Every Last Word. Dr. Ryken was educated at Wheaton College, Westminster Theological Seminary, and the University of Oxford, where he received his doctorate in historical theology. He and his wife, Lisa, have five children.

This article is adapted from Galatians (Reformed Expository Commentary) by Philip Graham Ryken

Why Everyone is Guilty of the Circular Argument

Posted on by Admin

By: John M. Frame

Frame-Circularity-Blog

Is everyone called to embrace circular argument?

Only in one sense.

Circularity in Presuppositional Apologetics

We are not called to use arguments such as this:

“The Bible is true; therefore, the Bible is true.”

One can certainly say that there is a kind of circularity in presuppositional apologetics, but the circularity is neither vicious nor fallacious. It sounds circular to say that our faith governs our reasoning and also that it is in turn based on rationality. But it is important to remember that the rationality of which we speak, the rationality that serves as the rational basis for faith, is God’s own rationality.

The sequence is as follows: God’s rationality → human faith → human reasoning.

(The arrows may be read “is the rational basis for.”)

God gave us rational equipment so we might gain knowledge

So in this sense, the sequence is linear, not circular. But if faith is in accord with God’s own thought, then it goes without saying that it will also be in accord with the best human reasoning, which images God’s. God gave us our rational equipment not to deceive us, but so that we might gain knowledge. Apart from sin, we may trust it to lead us into the truth; and even to sinners, the facts of God’s creation bear clear witness of him to the human mind (Rom. 1:20).

In biblical argument, therefore, there is both reasoning and evidence: the clear revelation that God has given of himself in the created world. So it is both right and proper to use evidences and human logic to confirm faith. Scripture does this very thing, frequently calling on people to look at the evidences of the truth (Ps. 19:1; Luke 1:1–4; John 20:30–31; Acts 1:1–3; 26:26; Rom. 1:19–20). Biblical religion is unique in its appeal to history as the locus of divine revelation. God has plainly revealed himself both in nature and in historical events. So it is quite legitimate, as we will see, to argue on the basis of evidence, such as the testimony of five hundred witnesses to the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:6).

“Circularity” in the Eyewitness Account

Eyewitness accounts may be used argumentatively as follows:

  • Premise 1: If Jesus’ postresurrection appearances are well attested, then the resurrection is a fact.
  • Premise 2: His postresurrection appearances are well attested.
  • Conclusion: Therefore, the resurrection is a fact.

This is not a circular argument on any reasonable definition of circularity. And yet a certain circularity becomes evident when someone asks, “What are your ultimate criteria for good attestation?” or “What broad view of human knowledge permits you to reason from eyewitness testimony to a miraculous fact?” The empiricist philosophy of David Hume, to use only one example, does not allow for that kind of argument. The fact is that the Christian here is presupposing a Christian epistemology—a view of knowledge, testimony, witness, appearance, and fact that is subject to Scripture. In other words, he is using scriptural standards to prove scriptural conclusions.

Every philosophy must use its own standards in proving its conclusions: otherwise, it is simply inconsistent

Does that procedure deserve to be condemned as circular? Everyone else reasons the same way. Every philosophy must use its own standards in proving its conclusions; otherwise, it is simply inconsistent. Those who believe that human reason is the ultimate authority (rationalists) must presuppose the authority of reason in their arguments for rationalism. Those who believe in the ultimacy of sense-experience must presuppose it in arguing for their philosophy (empiricism). And skeptics must be skeptical of their own skepticism (a fact that is, of course, the Achilles’ heel of skepticism). The point is that when one is arguing for an ultimate criterion, whether Scripture, the Qur’an, human reason, sensation, or whatever, one must use criteria compatible with that conclusion. If that is circularity, then everybody is guilty of circularity.

John M. Frame

John M. Frame (AB, Princeton University; BD, Westminster Theological Seminary; MA and MPhil, Yale University; DD, Belhaven College) holds the J. D. Trimble Chair of Systematic Theology and Philosophy at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando and is the author of many books, including the four-volume Theology of Lordship series.

Adapted from Apologetics: A Justification of Christian Belief