Just Do Something by Kevin DeYoung

(Many thanks to my friend and sister Marie for loaning me her copy)

The subject of decision-making and knowing the will of God is a contentious one in our day. The rise of hyper-charismatic theology has meant that most Christians are of the conviction that God’s will is discernible through dreams, visions,  prophecies, words of knowledge, etc. The problems with such an approach are, I trust, self-evident. (If you’d like to know more about the Bible’s teaching on the spiritual gifts and the work of the Spirit , may I recommend Satisfied by the Promise of the Spirit by Thomas Edgar for a good Biblical treatment of this subject)

On the other extreme, some have proposed a scheme where, while eschewing the idea of special revelation in making decision, the aim subtly becomes the reading of providence and ultimately one’s ability to make decisions effectively is dependent on whether they can follow these few steps accurately.

Either way, the problem becomes:  “How can I know what the will of God is for me in making decisions?” I will admit that for a long time, I just figured that the safest (and ‘safe’ is seriously top of the reference list) thing was to guarantee in my mind that everything would work out and then make a move (my way, of course). In the likely event it didn’t work, it was a dumb idea to begin with and next time, I won’t even think twice about making a decision, should I be in the same place somewhere down the road. In short – I did something and it didn’t work…so we won’t be doing that or anything next time.

Enter Just Do Something by Kevin DeYoung. Prior to having read this book, I had heard some negative things about this book and others like it. For the most part, I heard two basic criticisms: (1) “He’s saying God doesn’t have a specific will for your life” and (2) “He’s saying just do whatever you want – where’s the careful thought and discernment in that?” Well, I read it – and neither objection I had heard rings true. If anything, this book lays out a liberating, common-sense and empowering view of guidance which I have been personally encouraged by it.

Pastor DeYoung begins with a “State of the World” review, putting the facts on the table and showing that the majority of Christians deeply struggle with “getting on with it” ever chasing after the seemingly elusive “will of God”. Having basically said, “Why aren’t we doing anything?”, the following chapters are very much like Rev. DeYoung putting the kettle on, opening up a Bible and having a chat about what the will of God looks like and how we “find it”.  Chapter two deals with the three ways in which the will of God is discussed: (1) God’s will of decree, (2) God’s will of desire and (3) God’s will of direction. DeYoung, in an insightful manner, deals with the relevant texts and then comes to the following staggering conclusion (which I think is right):

This conventional understanding [that there is a  specific will of God for every believer and anything less is a fail] is the wrong way to think of God’s will. In fact, expecting God to reveal some hidden way of direction is an invitation to disappointment and indecision.  Trusting in God’s will of decree is good.  Following His will of desire is obedient. Waiting for God’s will of direction is dangerous.

Dangerous? Seems a little irreverent to say that waiting for God’s will is dangerous – but then that assumes the existence of a “will of God” for every individual believer, anything  (I will save that for a future blog post.) With a unique mixture of sarcasm, wit and pastoral concern, DeYoung then lays out an uncomplicated scheme for knowing the will of God. God wants you saved, sanctified, Spirit-led and growing in faith – that’s His will as we find in the Bible. For everything, apply some sanctified common sense and just do something. If it works out, praise the Lord and  keep it moving. If not, learn from it, praise the Lord and keep it moving. DeYoung also dedicates a chapter to the big questions which most – if not, all – young people wrestle through – “What about marriage?” and “What should I do after studying (or should I study at all?)”

I honestly enjoyed this book, even though at points, it was painful and felt like my non-risk-taking, safety-loving heart was being dragged through a briar patch. But then, that was the greatest part – stripping back the tradition and letting the Word be the governing principle. You may not agree with his conclusions initially (and judging by its reviews, neither does half of the Internet) but do the spade-work and test what he is saying. I can definitely say you’ll be glad you did.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Who you associate with says a lot about you. I’m honoured to say that if you met my friends, you’d get an accurate picture of what I am like, what I believe and what drives me. As the old proverb goes, “Show me your friends and I will show you your character”.

Greater than any proverb, however, is the Word of God which tells us

Do not be deceived: “Bad company ruins good morals.” (1 Cor 15:33)

In the last post, I talked about the lack of solid confessional commitment in much of the New Calvinist movement – the reality that while there is a strong commitment to the ‘five points of Calvinism’ and the five solas of the Reformation, in many circles, much of the reformation theologically and ecclesiologically is yet to begin.

My second big concern is one that even back in 2010, I couldn’t have fully anticipated and it is deeply worrying – the reality that the New Calvinists seem all to ready to work with anyone and everyone. Now, I will acknowledge that what I am about to say doesn’t apply to each and every person who would identify as a New Calvinist (more on that towards the end) but there has been a trend of co-operation with folks that defies logical explanation.

The most baffling was Round 2 of the Elephant Room, which happened this past January. If you are unfamiliar with the Elephant Room idea, it is a meeting of pastors from various ‘megachurches’ to discuss controversial ministry-related issues. The first round had problems of its own (such as Perry Noble’s disturbing double-speak regarding performing Highway to Hell in church), but they paled into insignificance when it was announced that one of the guests at Round 2 would be Bishop T.D. Jakes. Aside from his horrendous ‘gospel‘ which is no Gospel at all, Jakes has been known, at best, to be fuzzy on the essential doctrine of the Trinity. And yet he was there, even getting a nice green card to the party from none other than Mark Driscoll, pastor at Mars Hill Church, a church which professes to be reformed in their theology.

Trends like this both disturb and annoy me. I am a firm believer that if you are in ministry and have theological convictions, they are not the same as personal preferences. They are convictions which ought to affect every area of your ministry. So, I’m a Calvinist  and I believe that affects the manner in which I present the Gospel, what I believe the purpose of the Church is – I would even argue that affects how we even use music in church on a Sunday. Why? Because ideas have implications – far-reaching, world-tilting (shout-out to Dan Philips) implications and it seems to this observer that those implications are seriously lost on you when you can have a heretic at your table, baptise him a brother (metaphorically speaking) and even have the gall to say that he has stuff to teach you about money. (Next, you’ll be telling me that John Crowder and Ben Dunn can teach me something about sanity)

NI am not calling for a inward-looking, ‘we are the sole believers’ kind of separation from anyone and everyone. I am simply saying that the lack of boundaries – clear, conscientious and Scriptural boundaries – makes for a disturbing future if the movement doesn’t gird itself up and realise some things, and frankly some people, need to be left outside until they repent and return to the truth.

To be continued…

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

I recently purchased an Android tablet (that’s the subject of another blog post aside to say that I am now sold on using this thing in teaching and study) and have been loading up on resources. Even if you don’t own an iPad or Android tablet, I hope these will be of some benefits

MP3s:

You can get an MP3 recording of the entire Catechism courtesy of Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary.

You can also get Pastor Malcolm Watts of Emmanuel Church, Salisbury teaching through the Catechism in quite a lot of detail.

Websites:

There are a number of websites which are pretty good for working through the Catechism. Many thanks to Peter Gordon on Twitter who recommended the Westminster Shorter Catechism Projectfrom the Bible Presbyterian Church which features the entire Catechism as well as links to online books expounding the various themes of the Catechism.

Some friends of mine are working through the Westminster Shorter Catechism as part of their Young People’s Fellowship at church and since I’ll be going along (after all, it’s 25 mins from my house), I’ve decided to get studied up for each week’s sessions.

I recently purchased an Android tablet (that’s the subject of another blog post aside to say that I am now sold on using this thing in teaching and study) and have been loading up on resources. Even if you don’t own an iPad or Android tablet, I hope these will be of some benefits

MP3s:

You can get an MP3 recording of the entire Catechism courtesy of Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary.

You can also get Pastor Malcolm Watts of Emmanuel Church, Salisbury teaching through the Catechism in quite a lot of detail.

Websites:

There are a number of websites which are pretty good for working through the Catechism. Many thanks to Peter Gordon on Twitter who recommended the Westminster Shorter Catechism Project from the Bible Presbyterian Church which features the entire Catechism as well as links to online books expounding the various themes of the Catechism.

There’s also WestminsterShorterCatechism.net which features the Catechism as well as links to other online resources.

eBooks

I’m still figuring the world of eBooks out, but many thanks to Pastor Nicholas Batzig, pastor at New Covenant Presbyterian Church and blogger at Feeding on Christ, for recommending Ashbel Green’s Lectures on the Catechism in two volumes available here and here.

Books

Technology or no technology, nothing will ever beat an old-fashioned book. Some of my favourite Catechism resources are in classic book form such as:

• A Body of Divinity by Thomas Watson – Classic Puritan preaching from Thomas Watson with two follow-up volumes.
• The Lord’s Prayer by Thomas Watson
• The Ten Commandments by Thomas Watson
• The Westminster Shorter Catechism for Study Classes by G.I. Williamson – Dr Williamson has a knack for simplifying big ideas and he does masterfully well

——

There’s also WestminsterShorterCatechism.net which features the Catechism as well as links to other online resources.

eBooks

I’m still figuring the world of eBooks out, but many thanks to Pastor Nicholas Batzig, pastor at New Covenant Presbyterian Church and blogger at Feeding on Christ, for recommending Ashbel Green’s Lectures on the Catechism in two volumes available here and here.

——

And that’s the run-down right now. If you know of any other resources, feel free to leave a comment and we’ll add it up!

Related posts:

1. “If You Love Me: Keep My Commandments” (And He Didn’t Stutter When He Said That!!!) As a confessing Reformed Baptist, I fully affirm its teaching...
2. On Being Black and Reformed (1): Do I Have to Choose?: An Introductory Word As you may gather when you read this blog, I...
3. On Being Black and Reformed (3): Why Don’t We “Do Theology?” (Part 1) Theology has fallen on bad times. In one sense, it...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

…is just not appealing to us. It’s too cerebral, too based on the brain, too intellectual. “Christianity is not intellectual, it’s faith, the heart, the soul” – according to a preacher friend of my dad’s. That attitude is pervasive in evangelical Christianity in general, but I seem to encounter it a lot in black churches.

For instance, I recently went with my Dad to go and visit a church. Now, whenever I go somewhere with Dad and people see this burly (well, kinda) guy right next to him, they usually think I’m one of his elders and so my Dad will point out that I’m actually his son. (I look more like Mum than Dad, so folks don’t make the connection that quickly). After the service, the pastor of the church, who used to pastor in the same denomination as my Dad when we lived in Germany, came and sat with Dad and myself and asked me what I was studying. Before I could even muster up an answer, my Dad mentioned what my degree is in and then (incorrectly) said I was also studying theology. Aside from the fact I was mildly annoyed – I am 20 and rather capable of answering direct questions, the pastor’s response was telling. The pastor immediately said, “Why?”, followed by a comment to my dad about how theologically-minded people are always the first to criticise his ministry. I said nothing – after all, I’m smart enough not to challenge someone in their own house, especially when I didn’t particularly want to be there. I kindly corrected my dad in the car home, reminding him that I don’t formally study theology and that he really didn’t need to mention that in the first place.

To be honest, the experience of a mild telling-off for no real reason had gotten to me, but it got me thinking. Why is it that the pastor in question, my dad (himself a pastor of many years’ experience), other pastors I’ve had the opportunity to come in contact with and loads of “lay people” have this aversion for the theological? What is it about theology makes Christians -  and especially black Christians, I would argue – so frightened of doctrine?

In his fantastic work Essential Truths of the Christian Faith, Dr R.C. Sproul lists ten reasons why Christians in general tend to have an aversion to doctrine and theology – ten reasons I find all too easily in much of the black church as I get to see it.

1. The “Childlike Faith” Error

Time would fail me to deal with just how prevalent this idea is. Basically it goes a little like this: in places like Mark 10:15, Jesus says: “Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.” Receiving the kingdom of God like a child is then taken to mean that like children don’t have all the knowledge in the world but just believe, so we should adopt that kind of attitude.

Now my gripe isn’t so much with Mark 10:15 – Scripture is Scripture. My gripe is with a reading of this text which equates to childish, not childlike faith. Dr Sproul explains:

There is a vast difference, however, between a childlike faith and a childish faith, though the two are often confused. A childish faith balks at learning the things of God in depth. It refuses the meat of the gospel while clinging to a diet of milk. For this, the childish Christian receives an admonition:

For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food. For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. (Hebrews 5:12-14)

A refusal to go deeper into the name of maintaining a misguided innocence is childish. In fact the Bible expressly commands us to grow up in terms of understanding:

[14] so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.

(Ephesians 4:14 ESV)

[20] Brothers, do not be children in your thinking. Be infants in evil, but in your thinking be mature.

(1 Corinthians 14:20 ESV)

Childlike faith is childlike in its dependence and trust, not in its inability to understand. The Bible calls us paradoxically to be mature yet childlike. It is foolish to pick one and reject the other.

2. Fear of Theological Skepticism

Let’s face facts – there are many unbelieving people with an interest with theology. As I write, I’m reminded of the name of Leslie Weatherhead. Weatherhead, a Methodist, was pastor of  City Temple, here in the city of London. To say he was a theological liberal would be something of an understatement. For instance, here is his take and you can read his words for yourself if you don’t believe I’m telling the truth:

The doctrine of Jesus’s “Virgin Birth” was not part of the missionary message of the early Church. As far as we know, Jesus did not mention it to His apostles. Certainly, Mark, Peter, Paul and John show no knowledge of such a miracle. And if it really had been a “Divine Conception”, surely Mary would have told her Son? If she had, then He and His apostles would undoubtedly have regarded it as highly significant, and included it in their teachings.

However, in St. Matthew’s Gospel we read that Joseph seemed shocked at Mary’s pregnancy and was “minded to put her away privily”, “not willing to make her a public example” [chapter 1, verses 18-19]. References elsewhere to his being “a righteous man” rule out premarital intimacy. Besides, if the child were his, Jewish law would have demanded his care for Mary and her unborn child. He would not have been allowed to “put her away”. Indeed, it would not have entered his head to do so.

Whence then came Mary’s pregnancy? Can we suppose that some village rascal was responsible for her condition? I hold that the beauty of the peerless story rules this out. Read again the first chapter of St. Luke’s Gospel and imagine a village maiden of sixteen or so, after some mystical experience beyond the power of any pen to describe, saying quietly, “Behold the slave-girl of the Lord; be it unto me according to Thy word!” [Luke 1, verse 38].

One explanation of Mary’s pregnancy has been put forward by Mr. C. A. Wainwright of Oxford. First, he refers to the “sacred marriage” ceremony which was an ancient and widespread custom in the Near and Middle East (including Egypt and India). The high priest played the part of a divine messenger. He was “married” to a virgin with whom he cohabited. The offspring of such a union was regarded as a son of god, or a divine personage.

Now Zacharias was the priest on duty in the temple at the relevant time. He “executed the priest’s office before God in the order of his course” (Luke 1, verse 8). We are told that, though old, Zacharias was not impotent, for he made his wife Elisabeth pregnant though she was past the normal time of child-bearing. John the Baptist was their son.

We are also told that after Mary’s visitation from the angel who told her she was to bear Jesus, Mary replied: “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?” Mary was then reassured: “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also that which is to be born shall be called holy, the Son of God” [Luke 1, verse 35].

We are then told that Mary entered the house of Zacharias [Luke 1, verses 39-40], stayed there three months, and then returned to her own house [Luke 1, verse 56].

In a “sacred marriage” of the sort described by Mr Wainwright, a stay of three months was required in the house of the priest, or in the sacred precincts, to make sure that pregnancy was established*. This would explain why Mary stayed in the home of Zacharias for that length of time before returning to her own home. Indeed, what an otherwise strange reaction to Gabriel’s message was her hurried journey into Zacharias’s house! “Mary arose, and went with haste and entered the house of Zacharias” [Luke 1, verse 39].

Now here’s a man saying that the Virgin Birth was more a lurid tale of an older man sleeping with a younger girl in some weird kind of spiritual-sexual rite. But people will read stuff like that (and sadly, there is a lot of it) and say, “See, that’s where theology will take you. I’d rather just believe it and leave it at that.”

The problem is unbelief in the name of God isn’t all that new. In the days of the New Testament, there were a group of men called the Sadducees. The Sadducees were part of the ruling religious class of the day and they had some peculiar views. They denied any sort of resurrection, didn’t believe in the afterlife or in much of the supernatural. As you can imagine, they just loved Jesus and the Apostles. No, they opposed his message with everything they had – yet they felt themselves to be true to the Law of Moses. Why expect times to change? Didn’t Paul says that the risk of believing another Jesus was always a threat (Galatians 1:6-9, 2 Cor 11:4)? The existence of the counterfeit and false doesn’t rule out the existence of the genuine and authentic. The answer to theological unbelief is not the rejection of theology – it’s the rejection of unbelief! As Christians, we are a believing people – either we believe that God has spoken and we need to listen (which is the natural orientation of Biblical Christianity) or we believe that we have spoken and God needs to listen (every other form of “Christianity”).

Rejecting theology because of aberrant forms of it is like refusing to watch an Arsenal game because Spurs are useless. (UK readers: don’t argue – just smile and accept it.) In all seriousness, it’s more akin to rejecting the use of money because counterfeits are circulating. It’s like refusing to drive because they are drunk drivers or refusing to eat because some folks cannot cook. It sounds absurd, I agree, but that is what we do if we shun all theology because of the “bad apples”.

To be continued…

Related posts:

1. On Being Black and Reformed (1): Do I Have to Choose?: An Introductory Word As you may gather when you read this blog, I...
2. On Being Black and Reformed (2): Is There Such a Thing as the ‘Black Church’? One of the integral issues relating to the issue of...
3. “If You Love Me: Keep My Commandments” (And He Didn’t Stutter When He Said That!!!) As a confessing Reformed Baptist, I fully affirm its teaching...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Often I get asked how does being black and being Reformed work out. After all, the world I grew up was dominated by the theological superstructure of Pentecostalism. Until I was 18, I knew personally of two types of African Christian – Pentecostal and Catholic. There was a Baptist church behind my house – but they were (and are still) for all intents, Pentecostal. When I came under the teaching of Reformed theology, I knew I’d encountered a worldview shift of epic proportions. I also knew that a lot of reformed teaching clashed not just because of the theology I grew up with, but also because of things considered fundamental to being a ‘black Christian’. In short, I had – or thought I had – to make a choice: either I was going down the Reformed road or going down the ‘black’ road?

Fast forward the next few years to today and I am not so convinced I needed to choose. I am convinced however that there are some issues that need to be addressed. This series isn’t 100% planned out in my mind, but here are some of the issues I want to hit:

• Is there such a thing as the black church?
• Does it need reforming?
• Does being reformed entail an identity change?
• Do I need to be ‘white’ to be reformed?
• Is there a black theology?

Related posts:

1. “If You Love Me: Keep My Commandments” (And He Didn’t Stutter When He Said That!!!) As a confessing Reformed Baptist, I fully affirm its teaching...
2. Why the Reformation Still Matters This post was written late last night in commemoration of...
3. Preaching an Untruncated Gospel If you’re familiar with the reformed blogosphere, you’ll no doubt...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

It’s 10:20pm on Reformation Day. October 31, 2011. 494 years after Martin Luther nailed 95 theses to a church door and sparked off the greatest revival of truth since the days of the early church. I struggled to think what to write for Reformation Day, even though today was my day off.

Then it hit me – times haven’t changed all that much since 1517. Luther had indulgences, promising blessing from God in return for cash and we have…well, we have this:

Click here to view the embedded video.

What was the answer in 1517? A rediscovery of the Gospel of God’s glorious grace. And in 2011, well, the answer is still the Gospel of God’s grace. Take some time and rediscover the glorious truth of salvation by the free grace of God in Christ Jesus:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Related posts:

1. “If You Love Me: Keep My Commandments” (And He Didn’t Stutter When He Said That!!!) As a confessing Reformed Baptist, I fully affirm its teaching...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The Reformer Reader explains what the three uses are:

Related posts:

1. Preaching an Untruncated Gospel If you’re familiar with the reformed blogosphere, you’ll no doubt...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

James MacDonald, founding pastor of Harvest Bible Chapel, has invited T.D. Jakes, pastor of The Potter’s House and charismatic superstar, as a guest for the second round of his Elephant Room round-table discussions.

The response has been either supportive (as of James MacDonald’s set of responses), “let’s wait for it to happen” (as per Mark Driscoll) or “this is bad” (like Carl Trueman of Ref21).

Now I’ll tell you upfront – this is in the “this is real” category. I am shocked that James MacDonald, a man I once thoroughly respected and even featured on my blog in its early days, has opened the door to a man who, in my rather frank assessment, should have the door slammed firmly in his face. Harsh assessment? Observe the following:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Yeah, that’s his game – ripping people off for their God-given, hard-earned money in the name of God – and yet he’s going to be on the show, come the 25th of January.

Enough ink has been spilled on Jakes’ vagueness on the Trinity – although this has inspired to do a Reformation II Radio show on the Trinity at some point in the next month. I want to consider the following comment MacDonald in this blog post regarding his invite of Jakes:

I am also excited to hear him state his views on money, which may be closer to Scripture than the monasticism currently touring reformed world.

This comment epitomizes an ignorance in the prosperity gospel which is actually more widespread than most would care to realize. For the record, I think MacDonald’s comment is ignorant and devoid of any Biblical basis. Jakes’ view of money is firmly rooted in the prosperity gospel. The prosperity gospel hinges on a number of factors:

1. A warped view of God

In their world, God is so good to His children, He’ll never allow them to be sick, allow them to be poor or allow them to suffer. God always blesses, provided you follow the right formula and ‘live right’. Essentially God turns into a sugar daddy. Further, God is a being who has faith – the kind of faith we ought to had. He created the world using His faith and when we become believers, He gives us the same kind of faith so we can create things (more on this later).

My Bible tells me that God has need of no-one. Read passages like Isaiah 40-55, where the Almighty basically says, “I’m God – all pretenders fall back and know your place”. Faith is dependent on something bigger than itself – if God has faith, He’s no longer God. Further, God does indeed makes “all things [to] work together for good” (Romans 8:28), but making all things work together for good and making you wildly rich, wildly healthy and super-influential are two different things. It’s not even realistic – the only ones who get rich off that scheme are the ones who teach it.

2. A warped view of salvation

Now follow me here because this can get a little confusing. To understand the prosperity Gospel – much like the Biblical Gospel – requires a proper understanding of the beginning of salvation history. In their view, God, in creating Adam, didn’t just create an image-bearer but He created a miniature of himself – a little god. This little god had all the dominion and then he gave it all to the Devil. In salvation, the born-again man regains his dominion and all its accrued benefits, including access to the blessing of Abraham, which is interpreted to mean all the blessings promised in the Old Covenant including freedom from poverty, health and unlimited blessing. By the way, he is now a little god, capable of speaking things into existence like his Father.

Again the Bible nowhere teaches that God created Adam as a little god, that Abraham’s blessing equals financial blessing in this life (if anything the Bible teaches the blessing of Abraham is salvation from sin through Christ – Galatians 3:13-14 for proof). This is foreign to the NT – and Jakes has been caught teaching this stuff over and over.

No idea lives in blissful isolation, including one’s idea of money. I’m sorry, Pastor MacDonald, but Jakes’ view is nowhere near close to Scripture – it is a view borne out of a sub-Christian reading of the Bible. Further, it is the outgrowth of a system which doesn’t have in Biblical Christianity, but out of New Thought and metaphysics.

I’m amazed that MacDonald could make just such a statement as though no-one has done the spadework to show that, in actuality, the prosperity gospel view of money is in fact a different Gospel. Then again, what does that tell you about the attachment to money and pleasure in many evangelical hearts? God help us (literally) for Christ’s sake!

Related articles

• MacDonald, Jakes & the Elephant in the Room (challies.com)
• The Elephant Room, T.D. Jakes, and our reaction (theexpositor.wordpress.com)
• The Elephant Room and T.D. Jakes (theexpositor.wordpress.com)
• Pyromaniacs: Playing nice with heretics (theexpositor.wordpress.com)

Related posts:

1. Of Preachers, Planes and Prosperity What you’re about to read has its genesis in a...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The Metropolitan Tabernacle

I’m honoured to be a member at the Metropolitan Tabernacle here in London, where Dr. Peter Masters serves as Minister. This past Wednesday, Dr. Masters taught from 1 Tim 4:13-14 in our midweek Bible study on the subject of Exercising Gifts. Particularly edifying was the defense of cessationism (the Biblical teaching that the sign gifts have ceased in operation for today). You can listen to the message at the link below:

Go get Adobe Flash Player!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.