Rivers of Joy Baptist Church Sunday November 27 2011

To preach the word, therefore, and not to follow it with constant and fervent prayer for its success, is to disbelieve its use, neglect its end, and to cast away the seed of the gospel at random.

— John Owen, Works, Vol 16, page 78

 

A sign you’re growing in grace: You realize, more than ever, you simply cannot & MUST NOT do the Christian life alone.

A sign you’re growing in grace: Your friends hooked into pornography know they can come to you for care, grace and strength.

A sign you’re growing in grace: You don’t fall into gifts, smarts or looks envy as much as you used to.

A sign you’re growing in grace: The collective stories and wisdom of older friends has become a most sweet gospel nectar.

A sign you’re growing in grace: You not only treasure the riches of the gospel you obey the implications of the gospel.

It is a false dichotomy to say that we must choose between the moving of the Spirit OR the preached word of God. If I lived in the time of the early Church and lets say that the Apostle Paul came to my home church, I for one would not want to run around the building, dance, or sing a song 100 times, thinking we were all being “Spirit led.” I would want to sit quietly, reverently, listening to every word to hear the Spirit anointed word of God proclaimed, correctly and with power… and, I would want the exact same thing next time too, and the next. That IS the moving of the Spirit.

We miss the supernatural often times because we look only for the spectacular, and we dont realize what God does through the normal means of grace.

Charles e Whisnant speaking Sunday Morning

Romans 8:3 Notes: Why Mankind Do Not Want to Know God

Romans 8 3 outline 1 FOR WHAT THE LAW COULD NOT DO

The above link will give you the notes from Sunday Message, well the first part anyway

I am sure most of you have had friends whom you wish were Christians say to you, “I just want to let you know that I do not want this Jesus you are talking about.” And they are telling you the truth. They are very honest in telling you this.  So don’t get too upset, because that is their real feeling.  You might say. “Okay I understand that viewpoint, I had it once, and I am going to ask Christ to touch your heart so you will want too.”

Charles Whisnant preaching Sunday Novwember 28 2011

 

 

 

 

Rivers of Joy Baptist Church November 28 2011

FOR WHAT THE LAW COULD NOT DO, IN THAT IT WAS WEAK THROUGH THE FLESH, GOD SENDING HIS OWN SON, IN THE LIKENESS OF SINFUL FLESH, AND FOR SIN: CONDEMNED SIN IN THE FLESH.

CHARLES e. WHISNANT PASTOR-TEACHER
NOVEMBER 26, 2011
ROMANS CHAPTER EIGHT VERSE EIGHT
HOW GOD CONDEMNED SIN

Men since the Fall of Adam have had two problems they may wish to be able to work out: One: That he should be directed to know how to hate the sin into which he has fallen and then secondly: To love the purity and holiness from which he has become separated or is at odds with.

And in both cases both must be removed. Both are major disabilities that must be removed. And from God’s point of view both purposes of Divine mercy must be accomplished together.

Both must be equally and simultaneously realized before mankind could really be happy. In other words if his sins were forgiven, and yet he still loved sin, that would not be good at all. If he could quit sinning and yet he still felt guilty of it that would also make him miserable rather than happy.

So then by what process can the two requirements be met or both disabilities be achieved? That is: How can a man be both JUSTIFIED and SANCTIFIED.

That is how can man obtain approval from his guilt in the sight of God, and then be made holy, and ready in the present of God?

One might say or even suggest that mankind could be given a LAW which if he could keep then he could be justified.

Well God gave the PERFECT LAW. This law of God came from God Himself, herefore was perfect in every detail. As we are going to see, the there was nothing wrong with the Law, but the problem was in the flesh of mankind. They could not keep the law. The flesh, the very person of who we are, has a tendency to sin, that is do just the opposite of what the Law says we are to do.
Well the purpose of the Law was never design by God to forgive sin or make man feel good about himself.

What the Law said, “The soul that sins, it shall die” It can execute the sentence, but it can do no more. The Law then must do exactly what the penalty is: Death to those who break it.

Well if some would argue, the Law could made mankind to love holiness? I mean if you experience and observe the goodness of the Law maybe you would learn to love it. NO. But what happens even if you know it is SIN, and you have knowledge that it is sin, what happens, You love it more.

If you had lived in the city all your life, and in all that time you had every been on the other side of the flood walls of Portsmouth Ohio. It even occurred to you to go on the other side of the flood walls. Well the City passed a law that said, “Do one can go on the other side of the flood walls.” Until the law was passed, you had been perfectly happy and at easy not to go on the other side. But as soon as you read in the Portsmouth times, this new law, and it was forbidden to do it, All of a sudden you became ill and hated the restriction.

If a man sees a LAW the first thing he wants to do is break it. Our nature (who we really are on the inside) is so bad that when you are told not to do something that is the very thing you really want to do.

Whereas the LAW was set forth for the right reason and for the safety of the people and the Law was good. And the Laws of God was set forth for our good and holiness and was telling him what was right and wrong. And all the wisdom and counsel of God Himself was given.

There was only one problem, man need to be given a heart to choose the right and a heart to love the true. Unless he has a heart to want to obey the law, he want.

Have you notices that man is rather obstinate, and quite rebellious in his attitude toward the very Law that is meant for his happiness and holiness

Have you notices that in general man either defy God as being God, or they just flat out want to deny the very existence of God in the first place.

And in spite of all he hears about God’s Word, he set himself more deeply in his rebellion. And in fact he takes pleasure in those very things he has been told would bring about his destruction.

This week a man in WV was driving on the back roads, and he swerved into the other lane, and hit a car head on, and killed the people in the car, and kill his daughter as well. He was driving on a suspended lisceon for drunk driving, but he was still driving. He wasn’t going to let an law tell him not to drive, nor to drink and drive. He had a weak flesh level to do right.

Over the years there was a time I believe if I preached hard enough on SIN. Preach on morality that there would be less done in the church. But what I found out, the more I preached on morality it seemed to lead to immorality.

I have found that the very things I taught you should not do are the very things they do.
Something more is needed than just telling someone that they could not do those things that are going to hurt him. There is something more that need to happen that is going to change the heart and move him to spring into action to do what is good.

SO IF MAN WAS NOT GOING TO KEEP THE PERFECT LAW OF GOD, NOR COULD HE BECAUSE HE HAD A WEAK, EVIL, BAD NATURE, AND JUST WAS MORE REBELIOUS AND OBSTINATED

SO PLEASE TELL ME WHAT GOD WAS GOING TO DO THAT HE LAW COULD NOT DO?

How was God going to intervene by His grace what His Law could not do. Note again Romans 8:3

• “For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh.”Romans 8:3.

So I want to look at the law, and the weakness of the flesh and then I want you to see two other things:So there are two things here then.

First, what God did? He sent His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh for sin:
Secondly, then, what was the immediate result of this? – He condemned sin in the flesh.
Then I will try to point out how this bears upon the two desirable things I have set forth. That is the forgiving of the lawbreaker and the making the wrongdoer desire after holiness and purity.

I would say, that you would love to know how God can get your husband, son or daughter, or close friend to change their attitude toward the Law of God.

Thanksgiving 2011

Our two granddaughter Briley and Abby

“‘The riches of God’s grace.’ (Ephesians 1:7)

How blessed is the thought that God is rich in grace! His throne is a throne of grace. His scepter is a scepter of grace. His covenant is a covenant of grace. His thoughts are thoughts of grace. His ways are ways of grace. His word is the word of grace. His treasure house is stored with grace.

Hence all His gifts and manifestations to His people are results of grace. Grace called Jesus to His work. Grace found the ransom. Grace accepted it. Grace determined who would be redeemed. Grace made them willing in the day of power. Grace keeps them through faith unto salvation.

Oh! the riches of the grace of our God! While we have breath let us extol and magnify it.”

 

“Therefore I will give thanks to You, O LORD, among the Gentiles, And sing praises to Your name.” 2 Samuel 22:50

 

“Avoid a sugared Gospel as you would shun sugar of lead! Seek that Gospel which rips up, tears, cuts, wounds, hacks and even kills for that is the Gospel that makes alive again! And when you have found it, give good heed to it. Let it enter into your inmost being. As the rain soaks into the ground, so pray the Lord to let His Gospel soak into your soul. . .

But hearing the Gospel is not enough; the plain command is, ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved.’ Now, to believe is to trust—it is the practical proof that we have rightly heard the Gospel if we believe it. This is the Gospel in brief. Christ died for sinners. He stood as the Substitute for all who trust Him. I trust Him and so I know Him to be my Substitute. God has punished Him instead of me and, therefore, He cannot also punish me, for that would be punishing the same offense twice, which the righteous God will never do. Christ has paid all the debts of all Believers. Whoever trusts Christ is a Believer, so his debts are paid, he is free from liability on account of them and, therefore, he may well rejoice. The essence of obedience to the Gospel lies in giving up all self-confidence, all attempts to save yourself by your own merit and a simple reliance upon Jesus Christ to save you. When you go to your banker, you take your gold and give it into his charge—and he takes care of it for you. You do not go to him, five minutes afterwards and say, ‘If you please, Sir, I should like to see my money, to make sure that it is safe.’ If you did so, the banker would advise you to take it away and not bother him anymore! But you do not act so foolishly, for you have confidence that the banker will keep your money safely. And so you must act in the same way with your soul. Come, now, may the Spirit of God help you to do so—and make Christ your Banker! Deposit your soul with Him and then say, with the Apostle Paul, ‘I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him against that day.’” (2 Timothy 1:12)

– Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892)
taken from: Disobedience to the Gospel, Sermon No. 2804, January 14, 1877.

See also:

 
— Henry Law

How To Preach The Old Testament

For years 60 years I have heard preaching. Most of the preaching was salvation sermons. Every sermon every passages of scripture was about Christ and how to get saved.

Well except those I heard on the radio. Oliver B Greene was really good to teach the bible as it was written.

I have tried for years to explain why I preach from the New Testament primary.

Some say you need to preach Christ in every passage of the Bible. I do not agree.  While I totally agree that the Bible was written from a redemptive-historical point of view. But where the text in the Old Testament does not directly talk about Christ, I believe you do harm to the text to force Christ into the text.

Well Walter C. Kaiser Jr. has said what I wanted to say:

Must Every Sermon Focus on Jesus?
Walter C. Kaiser, Jr.
Preaching.com
http://www.christianity.com/pastors/11596060/

My friend Bryan Chapell, in his fine book Christ-Centered Preaching,1 has argued that [all?] preaching is really about getting Jesus across to an audience as a worldview. If Christ is not preached, Chapell writes, it may be seriously questioned whether what we have heard is a Christian sermon or lesson. Chapell’s thesis agrees with a similar thought in the writings of another friend, Sidney Greidanus.2

Both Chapell and Greidanus allow that this does not mean that every verse or passage directly reveals Jesus Christ, but they do argue that every passage in the Bible has as its larger context the person, work and necessity of Christ.

In like manner, Calvin Miller wants to know this about ever sermon: “Is the sermon about Christ?”3

So how shall we respond if the following 10 messages focus in their entirety on God the Father and not specifically on God the Son? Bryan Chapell does admit that there are thousands of passages that contain no direct reference to Christ. If that is so, then how is the teacher or preacher to remain Christ-centered in these texts that are silent on His person and work?

• Chapell replies that when neither the scriptural text nor scriptural typology presents us with the Savior, the teacher or pastor must rely on the greater context of the Bible in order to bring out the redemption focus of that message.4

Usually this is done by appealing to the progressive nature of biblical revelation as it comes to full flower in the New Testament.

• But this is neither the theocentric method of teaching and preaching advocated by John Calvin nor the Christological method used by Luther. Instead, it is a redemptive-historical-christocentric method of preaching that views the “whole counsel of God” in light of Jesus Christ.5

Greidanus correctly noted that it is improper to read Christ back into the Old Testament, for that would be eisegesis, or reading meanings from the New Testament into the Old Testament text.

• That, of course, is the real issue that presents itself here, and that calls for great caution. So how does Greidanus propose to remedy this situation? He would have us “look for legitimate ways of preaching Christ from the Old Testament in the context of the New.”6
But what has happened to expository preaching in that case?

• It appears to begin with the text of the Old Testament, but it appears to rely on the New Testament for the real solid stuff, that is, the theology and principles we can apply directly to our lives. Even if this is not what is intended, this is what often results in the hands of many Christian teachers and preachers.

But how can we do such jumping from the Old Testament text to the New Testament without committing the methodological faux pas of eisegesis?

• Greidanus’ solution is that we must never take “an Old Testament text in isolation, but [we] must always understand [read: exegete?] the text in the contexts of the whole Bible and redemptive history.”7

Simply to take an Old Testament text and preach on it is to preach an Old Testament sermon, Greidanus warns. Of course, that aphorism (saying) is nothing more than a tautology: Old Testament texts yield Old Testament sermons! But who said that was bad or undesirable—as if someone other than God were the source and author of the Old Testament or that these texts had such temporality written over them that almost all of them were now passé and useful only as primers or sermon starters? And if that is true, then what of those audiences to whom these Old Testament messages were first preached who did not have a New Testament in the back of their Bibles?( An instance of redundant repetition of a meaning in a sentence, using different words (tautology) LOGIC: a proposition or statement that, in itself, is logically true.)

What exactly is meant when we use the phrase “Old Testament sermon”? Do we simply mean a sermon that is derived entirely from the Old Testament? Or do we mean a sermon that was formerly valid but is no longer kosher for believers in the post-Old Testament era? How could those who lived in the Old Testament era have done any less, or any more, than to limit their teaching and preaching to what revelation was available up to that time? It is not as if the revelation did not come from God or that it was of some inferior quality, was it? Or did those Old Testament saints get it wrong?

What makes a sermon a Christian sermon or lesson? Must all sermons and lessons based on the Old Testament move inexorably on to the New Testament if they wish to earn a “Christian sermon rating” (CSR)?

But the discussion grows even more complicated. Greidanus boldly claims that redemptive-historical preaching does not ask,

• “What was the author’s intended meaning for his original hearers? But, how does the redemptive-historical context from creation to new creation inform the contemporary significance of this text?”8

In that same context, Greidanus favorably quotes Christopher Wright:
• “We may legitimately see in the event, or in the record of it, additional levels of significance in the light of the end of the story—i.e., in the light of Christ.”9
But notice that Wright carefully uses the word “significance.”
Greidanus, however, goes on to affirm dangerously

• “That a passage understood in the contexts of the whole Bible and redemptive history may reveal more meaning than its author intended originally.”10

Such a view of the plurality of meaning that exceeds the truth-intentions or assertions of the original authors who stood in the counsel of God ultimately runs the risk of forfeiting the divine authority that is to be found in the passage; this view could be taken to imply that the human author wrote his text in a purely automatic and mechanical way, as if it were dictated or whispered word for word in his ear without the human author having a proper idea of its messianic or future redemptive meaning.

But if the meaning God intended exceeds the meaning the human authors recorded, where shall we locate this additional surplus meaning?

• If it is not in the grammar and syntax, it must be somewhere between the lines! But if it is between the lines, whatever else it is, it is not written. And if it is not written, is it inspired? The apostle Paul makes it clear that only the graphe, what is written, is inspired (2 Tim. 3:15-17). Now we are really in a jam!

All too often the depth that many search for as contemporary believers, and the depth that God intended His human writers of Scripture to get—and which they did get, for they recorded it in the text—is missed in our day.

• As a result, too frequently we feel we must run to the New Testament as quickly as possible to enhance what some wrongly regard as the minimalistic Old Testament meaning with a super-spiritual meaning infused from the New Testament, thus adding Christian values to an otherwise “Judaistic sermon” to help the church or those in our modern world. But how wrong such judgments and procedures would be!

This is not to say that, after the meaning and message of the Old Testament has been established on its own terms, we must act as if the New Testament were not available at all.

• The New Testament really does exist, and we can (and must) often use it in our summaries to our major points and/or to the whole message, pointing out how the beginning, middle and end of the unified plan and message of God in the total Bible fits so nicely with what also is taught in the Old Testament text.
•
• I have argued elsewhere for the unity of the “promise-plan” of God that encompasses the whole Bible and therefore shows one divine mind, one plan and one story of salvation in all 66 books.11

It is against this backdrop of viewing the grand plan and story of the Bible that I find agreement with my friends Chapell, Greidanus and Miller. But I must not prematurely infuse New Testament values and meanings back into the Old Testament in order to sanctify it before I independently establish, on purely Old Testament grounds, the legitimate meaning of the Old Testament text.

If I perform such an infusion, I only pretend that I am accurately giving the Word of God exactly as He wanted it taught and preached from the Old Testament passage. So let us first do our work of true exegesis on the Old Testament text. Then, having gotten the meaning God revealed at that point in time, let us see how our Lord developed that same word, if there is further development on into the rest of the Bible.

1. Bryan Chapell, Christ-Centered Preaching: Redeeming the Expository Sermon, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005).
2. Sidney Greidanus, Preaching Christ from the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999).
3. Calvin Miller, Preaching: The Art of Narrative Exposition (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2006), 62-65.
4. Chapell, Christ-Centered Preaching, 281-88.
5. Greidanus, Preaching Christ from the Old Testament, 227-29.
6. Ibid., 228.
7. Ibid., 230.
8. Ibid., 232.
9. Christopher J.H. Wright, Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament: Rediscovering the Roots of Our Faith (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 28.
10. Greidanus, Preaching Christ from the Old Testament, 233.
11.Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Toward an Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), and Kaiser, The Christian and the “Old” Testament (Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 1998).
From The Majesty of God in the Old Testament, by Walter C. Kaiser Jr. Copyright © 2007, Walter C. Kaiser Jr. Published by Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Preaching Magazine brings you insightful interviews with today’s top ministers, quality sermon ideas and sermon illustrations, reviews on all the latest resources, books and commentaries, plus humor and encouragement. Subscribe to Preaching Magazine here.
This article originally appeared at Preaching.com. Used with Permission.

Romans 8:2 The Indwelling Spirit of Christ

ROMANS CHAPTER EIGHT AND VERSE TWO

Charles e Whisnant, Pastor-Teacher

“THE LAW OF THE SPIRIT OF LIFE IN CHRIST JESUS HATH MADE YOU FREE FROM THE LAW OF SIN AND DEATH”

SOUND DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION AND THE SPIRIT OF LIFE

“For the law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.”—Romans 8:2               

  November 20 2011    Charles e Whisnant  Romans Series # 97

‘The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.’—ROMANS 8 :2.

Romans 8:1 speaks of being free from the Guilt of sin

Romans 8:2 speaks of being free from the Power of sin

• That communicated power must impart life. Nothing short of a Spirit of life, quick and powerful, with an immortal and intense energy will avail to meet the need. Such a Spirit must give the life which it possesses, must quicken and bring into action dormant powers in the spirit that it would free. It must implant new energies and directions, new motives, desires, tastes, and tendencies. It must bring into play mightier attractions to neutralize and deaden existing ones; as when to some chemical compound a substance is added which has a stronger likeness for one of the elements, a new thing is made.

 

The contrasting principle or “law” is that of “SIN & OF DEATH” which “pulls us” downward into death, whereas the Spirit of Christ works to pull us upward toward God.

When we were in Adam we had no choice but to be pulled by the “law of sin and of death”. Now that we are in Christ this “law” has no control over a believer unless we foolishly fall into the trap of performance under the Law which creates the “beachhead” from which SIN is able to operate in our mortal bodies (see Romans 7:8–note “Sin”… takes… “OPPORTUNITY through the commandment” where “opportunity” was a Greek military term describing the base camp, in this case, the base camp from which sin launches its deadly assaults.).

So there is a law or principle working (like gravity) and if I choose to ever try to live by the flesh again, this “law” is going to pull me downward and away from the “Godward” life that the Spirit is seeking to pull me toward. The law of the Spirit is higher and more powerful than the law of sin and of death and it has set your free.

“Set you free” is the verb free – The “-oo” means it not just simply gives you freedom but proves you to be free (it puts your freedom on display). Jesus used eleutheroo in  John 8:32

“you shall know the truth, and the truth shall MAKE YOU FREE.”

The Spirit works according to law,–“the taw of the Spirit of Life.” Do not grieve Him by any act of insincerity or hatred. If you are aware of the subsidence of His energy, go back till you have discovered where you dropped the thread of obedience to His gentle promptings. Pick it up by confession and restitution, and again you will become conscious of His mediation to you of a Law of Life that laughs at sin and death! Yours will be the wings of an eagle’s flight, the soaring of a lark, sunward, heavenward, Godward! But you must take time to be holy–in meditation, in prayer, and especially in the use of the Bible.

 

We have to distinguish two meanings of law. In the stricter sense, it signifies the authoritative expressions of the will of a ruler proposed for the obedience of man; in the wider, almost figurative sense, it means nothing more than the generalised expression of constant similar facts. For instance, objects attract one another in certain circumstances with a force which in the same circumstances is always the same. When that fact is stated generally, we get the law of gravitation. Thus the word comes to mean little more than a regular process. In our text the word is used in a sense much nearer the latter than the former of these two. ‘The law of sin and of death’ cannot mean a series of commandments; it certainly does not mean the Mosaic law. It must either be entirely figurative, taking sin and death as two great tyrants who domineer over men; or it must mean the continuous action of these powers, the process by which they work. These two come substantially to the same idea. The law of sin and of death describes a certain constancy of operation, uniform and fixed, under the dominion of which men are struggling. But there is another constancy of operation, uniform and fixed too, a mighty antagonistic power, which frees from the dominion of the former: it is ‘the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus.

 

We are often told that Paul was the true author of Christian doctrine, and are bidden to go back from him to Jesus. If we do so, we hear His grave sweet voice uttering in the upper-room the deep words, ‘I am the Vine, ye are the branches’; and, surely, Paul is but repeating, without metaphor, what Christ, once for all, set forth in that lovely emblem, when he says that ‘the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus made me free from the law of sin and of death.’ The branches in their multitude make the Vine in its unity, and the sap which rises from the deep root through the brown stem, passes to every tremulous leaf, and brings bloom and savour into every cluster. Jesus drew His emblem from the noblest form of vegetative life; Paul, in other places, draws his from the highest form of bodily life, when he points to the many members in one body, and the Head which governs all, and says, ‘So also is Christ.’ In another place he points to the noblest form of earthly love and unity. The blessed fellowship and sacred oneness of husband and wife are an emblem sweet, though inadequate, of the fellowship in love and unity of spirit between Christ and His Church.

Doctrine of Justification

The doctrine of justification by faith declares that God makes available as a gift a new mode of existence, a new lifestyle, and enables believers to act in such a way that their actions correspond to those of Jesus.”⁶ This does not mean that Christian ethics is justification. The only means by which the sinner is justified before God rests solely upon the imputation of the activity obedience and passive obidence of Jesus Christ to a sinner, and subsequently God’s just declaration of the sinner’s soteriological state based on the work of Christ. It is this justification that makes Christian ethics possible.

Justification is the work of God where the righteousness of Jesus is reckoned to the sinner so the sinner is declared by God as being righteous under the Law (Romans 4:3; 5:19; Galatians 2:16; 3:11)This righteousness is not earned or retained by any effort of the saved.  Justification is an instantaneous occurrence with the result being eternal life.  It is based completely and solely upon Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross 1 Peter 2:24 and is received by faith alone Ephesians 2:8-9  No works are necessary whatsoever to obtain justification.  Otherwise, it is not a gift  Romans 6:23. Therefore, we are justified by faith (Romans 5:1).

Sanctification is the processes of set apart for God’s work and being conformed to the image of Christ.  This conforming to Christ involves the work of the person.  But it is still God working in the believer to produce more of a godly character and life in the person who has already been justified (Philippians 2:13.  Sanctification is not instantaneous because it is not the work of God alone. The justified person is actively involved in submitting to God’s will, resisting sin, seeking holiness, and working to be more godly  Galatians 5:22-23  Significantly, sanctification has no bearing on justification.  That is, even if we don’t live a perfect life, we are still justified.

The righteousness, on the basis of which sinners are declared righteous before God is alien to them and proper to Christ: it is nothing but his obedience for his people imputed to sinners and received through faith that trusts in Christ and his finished work.

Teaching Sound Doctrine in the Church

THE TEACHING OF SOUND DOCTRINE IN THE LOCAL CHURCH PULPIT TODAY IS RARE.

Most of the 21st century church despises doctrine. They simply hate to learn. They would much rather “feel” their way through a church service than listen to sound preaching.

It may not necessarily be that they hate to learn, as if everyone hated such a thing (something they engage in every moment of every day) but surely their disability to think properly lends to their incapability to sit through a preaching service of two hours.

 I suppose that it would be politically correct to say they are “mentally challenged.” We often use this phrase as a joke, but when it concerns the everlasting abode of the never dying soul and the theology they believe, then it is no laughing matter

This is not something profound or new. Far be it for a modern congregation to heartily cling to sound doctrine and teaching in this day and age of relative thought and its strategy towards the dissolution of absolute truth.

If you are among the remnant of God who has been so blessed to find a biblically sound church, peace be unto to, and happiness be granted to your soul by the Lord Jesus!

 

 

But for the rest of the church, they are steeped in false doctrine taught by false “prophets.” Ignorance is not bliss here. Most of the time the church has lent itself to this rejection of truth because they have not learned how to think. People simply do not have the skills to think rightly. Ask them what the law of non-contradiction is and they could not tell you, though they follow it all day long. But their long settled ignorance affords no excuse to beginning anew even now. The saying “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks” is not true for the Christian walk. The Christian should be learning about the Lord Jesus and the doctrines of the Bible every day.

Rivers of Joy Baptist Church Recording Equipment

HAVING A GREAT TIME IN MAKING THE VIDEOS FOR THE MESSAGES FROM PASTOR-TEACHER CHARLES e. WHISNANT

My objective has always been, do the best you can with what you have available to you to work with.  When I became the pastor-teacher of Rivers of Joy Baptist Church in July 2008 I had never  video a sermon that I had preached.  Then I discovered that Kodak had a cam that would record. Well I also discovered the Kodak software that I could down load the videos on. Then I discovered Vimeo and of course YouTube which should produce the video on the website.

So with a 9 pic Kodak I recorded the sermons I teach on Sunday and Wednesday.  For just the cost of the cam, and batteries. Amazing I will say.

I have been in the larger churches with all the high tech equipment and that is so wonderful.  But with a very small group of people and little money, I made the best of what we have.  I can’t say I am at all disappointed at the quality that we have in our videos.

Daniel 8 The Ram, The Goat and The Horn

Daniel chapter 8 is a preacher’s nightmare. Even noted scholars hesitate to be dogmatic in their interpretation of this chapter. Daniel himself has not the foggiest notion of the vision’s meaning, even after the angel Gabriel has interpreted the vision for him.

Daniel had a reputation for being able to understand and interpret all kinds of visions and dreams (1:17; 5:11-12). He had already demonstrated his God-given skill in interpreting the two visions of Nebuchadnezzar. Yet, the vision he receives in chapter 8 leaves him physically ill. He simply cannot grasp its meaning:

The Structure of the Text

Verses 1 and 2 are the introduction to the vision Daniel received; verses 3-8 describe Daniel’s vision of the ram and the goat. The rising up and reign of the “little horn” are recorded in verses 9-14. Verses 15-19 introduce the angel, Gabriel, who is instructed to convey the meaning of the vision to Daniel. Verses 20 and 21 are the interpretation of the vision of verses 3-8, and verses 22-26 are the interpretation of verses 9-14. An account of Daniel’s response to the vision in verse 27 concludes the chapter. The chapter may be outlined as follows:

(1) Revelation of Daniel’s Vision Verses 1-14

• Introduction Verses 1-2
• The Ram and the Goat Verses 3-8
• The “Little Horn” Verses 9-14

(2) Interpretation of Daniel’s Vision Verses 15-27

• Introducing Gabriel Verses 15-19
• Meaning of the Ram and Goat Verses 20-21
• Meaning of the “Little Horn” Verses 22-26
• Daniel’s Response Verse 27

• Daniel had a purpose for including this information in his introduction. He wants his readers to know that the prophecy of chapter 8 must be understood in the context of the reign of Belshazzar, and particularly in light of the events described in chapter 5. Further, the prophecy of chapter 8 should be understood in relationship to the prophecy of chapter 7. Even though the prophecy of chapter 7 is written in Aramaic and chapter 8 in Hebrew, these two prophecies cannot be understood in isolation; they must be understood in relationship to each other.

A RAM WHICH HAD TWO HORNS:

It wasn’t a stretch to use a ram to represent the Medo-Persian Empire. “Ammianus Marcellinus, a fourth century historian, states that the Persian ruler bore the head of a ram as he stood at the head of his army.” (Wood) “The ram was the national emblem of Persia, a ram being stamped on Persian coins as well as on the headdress of Persian emperors.” (Strauss)

• The ram, later identified as representing the kings of Medo-Persia (verse 20), has two horns. The first horn would be Media and the second Persia, coming later than the first and being more powerful. The directions in which these kings extend their dominion is revealed in verse 4 and confirmed by history.

Verse 4 describes the power given to the ram, enabling him to dominate the nations.

• No beasts could withstand the ram, and no one was able to rescue peoples from him. He could do as he pleased.
• In the process, the kings became arrogant, magnifying themselves. These same characteristics apply both to the goat and to the horn.

From the first five chapters of Daniel, we see some of the same characteristics in Nebuchadnezzar and in Belshazzar

The Goat that Wasn’t Kidding

(8:5-8)

• This male goatis clearly identified with Greece and its horns with the rulers of the Greek Empire.
  • From ancient history we know this isn’t a strange symbol. The goat was a common representation of the Greek Empire. “Newton very properly observes that, two hundred years before the time of Daniel, they were called, the goats’ people.” (Clarke)
• The ram had its day in the sun. There was a time when it could do as it wished, when no one could be rescued from his power. When the Medo-Persian kingdom had served its purpose, it was overcome by Greece, represented in Daniel’s vision by the male goat (see verse 21).
• This goat had only one horn rather than two. It is generally agreed that this horn represented Alexander the Great. Coming from the west with a vengeance, he attacked the ram (Medo-Persia), striking a death-blow to this kingdom which had been instrumental in the return of the Jews to their land and in the rebuilding of the temple.
• The goat(Greece) is now the dominant world power from whose grasp none can be delivered. Like the ram (Persa) before him, he magnified himself exceedingly, and with power came pride and oppression. Coming to an early demise at the pinnacle of his power, his “horn was broken” (verse 8).⁸⁶ Although it took a number of years, eventually four kings rose to take control of his empire.⁸⁷

 

• Across the surface of the whole earth, without touching the ground:

 7 And I saw him come beside the ram, and he was enraged at him; and he struck the ram and shattered his two horns, and the ram had no strength to withstand him. So he hurled him to the ground and trampled on him, and there was none to rescue the ram from his power.

1. The Greek Empire rose from the west of previous empires
2. The Greek Empire rose with great speed (suddenly . . . without touching the ground)
3. The Greek Empire had a notable ruler, Alexander the Great (a notable horn)
4. The Greek Empire had a famous war with the Medo-Persian Empire (I saw him confronting the ram)
5. The Greek Empire and the Medo-Persian Empire greatly hated each other (with furious power . . . moved with rage). Some of the greatest, fiercest battles of ancient history were fought between the Greeks and the Persians
6. The Greek Empire conquered the Medo-Persian Empire (no one that could deliver the ram from his hand)
7. The reign of the notable leader of the Greek Empire was suddenly cut short (the large horn was broken)
8. After the end of Alexander the Great’s reign, the Greek Empire was divided among four rulers (in place of it four notable ones came up)
9. The four rulers of the Greek Empire after Alexander ruled their own dominions, not the entire empire together (came up toward the four winds of heaven)

Alexander did not divide the empire among his four generals himself. His four leading generals divided it among themselves by force after his death.

1. Cassander, ruling over Greece and its region
2. Lysimachus, ruling over Asia Minor
3. Seleucus, ruling over Syria and Israel’s land
4. Ptolemy, ruling over Egypt.

Rivers of Joy Baptist Church on Sunday November 13, 2011 at

Rivers of Joy Baptist Church has some good singing and playing each week.

November 13, 2011 there was a good group who provided a great dinner following the service.

Charity’s class of of young kids.  One 5th grader Shyann brought six of her friends to church.