John MacArthur: The Rapture Of The Church

The Lordship Salvation Controversy Jim McClarty of GCA

Prophecy and God’s Promises Jim McClarty of GCA

Why Evangelize If God Has Already Chosen Who Will Be Saved?

This engaging question has prompted many discussions and debates over God’s sovereignty and man’s free will. In answering the question, I am aware of the stricter judgment that awaits me if I mishandle the word of God (Jas. 3:1). My passion is to always honor and glorify God and never misrepresent His character. Scripture reveals that our sovereign Lord not only chose to save certain sinners, but He also ordained the means by which He will convert them. God established His eternal decree to save His people when they hear and believe His Word (Rom. 10:13-17). It is for this reason the Lord of the Harvest commissioned His church to proclaim His Gospel. Every Christian has been given the awesome responsibility and highest privilege to call people to repent and trust Jesus Christ alone for salvation. God Promises Success in Evangelism As an evangelist, I have come to love the doctrine of election. There is a sense of relief knowing, that when I evangelize, the eternal destinies of souls are not dependent upon my persuasive ability to convert them. God guarantees success whenever His elect hear His Gospel. Jesus promised, “All that the Father gives me shall come to me” (John 6:37, 65). Not some, not most, but all. This sovereign act of God will eventually result in the conversion of those He has given to the Son. This occurred when Paul proclaimed the Gospel to the Gentiles in Antioch – “as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed” (Acts 13:48). The elect will come to Jesus as Christians proclaim the voice of the Good Shepherd. He promised that when His sheep hear His voice, they will follow Him (John 10:27).  Whenever Christians sow the imperishable seed of God’s living Word, He promises to bring forth life when the seeds fall on fertile soil (1 Cor. 3:7; 1 Pet. 1:23). Success in evangelism is therefore guaranteed by God’s sovereign decree. What an encouragement it is to know that God causes those whom He has chosen to come to Him (Psalm 65:4). Man can never thwart God’s predetermined plan and purpose. Doctrine of Election Election, as defined in Scripture, tells us that God, in eternity past, before all things were created, chose specific individuals to be saved by His unmerited grace. He chose them according to the sovereign good pleasure of His own will. Paul wrote, “God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth” (2 Thes. 2:13). In another epistle Paul said, “He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1:4). The Father chose His elect to be justified and totally glorified (Rom. 8:29-30). In a general sense God desires all men to be saved  (1 Tim. 2:4). However, He decreed to save only some, and then He wrote their names in the Lamb’s Book of Life (Rev. 17:8). If the choice were left up to man, no one would choose God. Paul makes this clear without exception, “There is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God” (Rom. 3:11; Ps. 14:2-3). Clearly, rebellious sinners could never choose Christ on their own free will; they choose Christ because He first chose them (John 15:16). Why does God choose some and pass over others? His purpose is hidden in the secret counsel of His will (Eph. 1:11). God’s purpose has been established, and He will accomplish it all for His good pleasure (Isa. 46:10). Man’s Inability to Choose God Scripture presents a clear contrast between God who is able to save and man who is unable. Man’s inability is due to the corruption of his nature and his rebellion and hatred of God (Heb. 7:25; Rom. 8:7; Eph. 2:1-7). God includes everyone in His invitations, but sinners exclude themselves because of their enslavement to sin. Their bondage to sin keeps them from coming to God. The Bible teaches that we are all born spiritually dead with a sin nature that corrupts our senses and limits our “free will.” Opponents of divine election deny this and teach that man has the free will to choose God and come to Him for salvation. However, Scripture proves this is humanly impossible. We cannot know God (Mat. 11:27); we cannot please God (Rom. 8:8); we cannot see the light of the Gospel (2 Cor. 4:4); we cannot understand spiritual truths (1 Cor. 2:14); we cannot hear the Words of Christ (John 8:43); and we cannot come to Jesus (John 6:44). The unregenerate man lives in the lusts of his flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and are by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:3). Only when God causes the spiritually dead to come alive in Christ can they see, hear, know and understand the Gospel, and thus, come to Jesus in faith (Col. 2:13). No one can become a child of God by their own will or by the will of their flesh (John 1:13). There is nothing man can do on his own to be adopted into God’s family. Only by God’s will can anyone be brought forth through the word of truth (Jas 1:18). “So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy” (Rom. 9:16). Sovereign election underscores not only the inability of man but also the freedom of God to save sinners according to His own purpose and grace (Titus 3:5; 2 Tim. 1:9). Those who are not recipients of His grace will remain in bondage to sin, captive to their own fleshly desires and hostile towards God (Rom. 8:7). A Doctrine Hotly Contested Although divine election is clearly presented throughout Scripture, it remains one of the most hotly debated doctrines in church history. Christians who reject the biblical doctrine of election do so for one of the following reasons: 1) pride – they believe man has the free will to release himself  from the bondage and power of sin, and then come to Jesus; 2) man-centered evangelism – they enjoy taking credit for persuading people to “accept” Jesus; 3) fear – they refuse to accept that their loved ones may not belong to the elect; and 4) a distorted view of God – they say God is unjust by choosing to save some while passing over others. Paul anticipated these objections when he wrote, “Who are you, O man, who answers back to God…Does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use, and another for common use?” (Rom. 9:19-23). Is man so prideful that, as a depraved sinner, he has a  better plan than an infinitely holy and eternally righteous God? Scripture soundly rebukes this foolish idea! “‘For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways,” declares the Lord. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts’” (Isa. 55:8-9). Those who deny election are usurping God of His absolute control over His creation and the right to choose His own family. They wittingly or unwittingly rob God of His glory, which is a dangerous position to take. God does not treat everyone the same, but He does treat everyone justly. Some receive justice, which they deserve, and some receive mercy, which they don’t deserve (Rom. 9:15). Election does not mean that God chose some for heaven and some for hell. Every passage of the Bible that reveals divine election deals with it in the context of salvation, not damnation. Nowhere is anyone elected for hell. The only support for such a view is human logic, not Scripture. Clearly, all of us deserve the eternal fires of hell as the just punishment for our sin. People end up in hell because they rebelled against their Holy God and Creator. It is not man’s love for God that is the motivating factor behind anyone being saved but God’s amazing, unfathomable love for fallen man (Rom. 5:8; 1 John 3:1). We must never forget that God is glorified both when His righteous justice is executed on sinners as well as when His mercy is graciously bestowed on the elect. “Who will not fear, O Lord, and glorify Thy name? For Thou alone art holy…for Thy righteous acts have been revealed” (Rev. 15:4). Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility God is sovereign, but He made man responsible for his actions. To some, this appears to be a paradox. The two subjects are often set in opposition to each other rather than harmonized together. Both are true and both are found in the Word of God. We see that all men are held responsible for what they believe. “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life…He who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God” (John 3:16, 18). Yet we also hear Jesus saying, “You do not believe because you are not my sheep” (John 10:26). The harmony of these two subjects are hidden somewhere in the infinite mind of God. They stretch man’s ability to comprehend the perfect purpose of God (Ecc. 11:5). This is good, since it gives us a greater desire to know Him and, in turn, it causes us to dig deeper into His Word.  We must praise God for who He is and honor Him for His sovereign grace.    Motivations to Proclaim the Gospel We must be diligent in proclaiming the Gospel because God is pleased to save those who believe it as His Spirit works in their hearts. The faithful Christian knows that God is in control and He moves us to do the work He has prepared for us. We evangelize because we are sent by God to reconcile the world to Himself through Christ. What a royal privilege it is to represent the King of kings as His ambassadors to a lost and dying world. Like Paul, we must “endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory” (2 Tim. 2:10). It is true we do not know who the chosen ones are, but we do know this: “Whoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved” (Rom. 10:13). We also know that people will believe the Gospel as the Spirit of Truth reveals it’s glory and illuminates the Word to them.  The answer to “why evangelize?” is very simple – obedience! God has commissioned His saints to call the lost sheep to the Shepherd. No longer thundering from the mountain or from the burning bush, He uses Christians to accomplish His task of getting His Word to the elect. In closing, let us be motivated with this encouraging thought: Divine election is like a net cast into the sea – it does not drive the fish away, but draws them in. This should inspire us all to cast out the Gospel net more faithfully for God’s glory!

< Prev		Next >

This article courtesy of Mike Gendron , evangelist and author — see blogroll ‘ Proclaiming the Gospel ‘  

163

“Help Lord!” –Psalm 12:1

The prayer itself is remarkable, for it is short, but seasonable, pointed, and suggestive. David mourned the fewness of faithful men, and therefore lifted up his heart in supplication – when the creature failed, he flew to the Creator.

There is much of directness, clearness of perception, and distinctness of utterance in this petition of two words – much more, indeed, than in the long rambling outpourings of certain professors.

The Psalmist runs straight forward to his God, with a well-considered prayer – he knows what
he is seeking, and where to seek it.

Lord, teach us to pray in the same blessed manner.

The occasions for the use of this prayer are frequent – In providential afflictions how suitable it is for tried believers who find all helpers failing them.

Students, in doctrinal difficulties, may often obtain aid by lifting up this cry of “Help, Lord,” to the Holy Spirit, the great Teacher.

Spiritual warriors in inward conflicts may send to the throne for reinforcements, and this will be a model for their request.

Workers in heavenly labor may thus obtain grace in time of need.

Seeking sinners, in doubts and alarms, may offer up the same weighty supplication.

In fact, in all these cases, times, and places, this will serve the turn of needy souls.

“Help, Lord” will suit us living and dying, suffering or laboring, rejoicing or sorrowing.

In Him our help is found, let us not be slack to cry to Him.

The answer to the prayer is certain, if it be sincerely offered through Jesus. The Lord’s character assures us that He will not leave His people; His relationship as Father and Husband guarantee us His aid; His gift of Jesus is a pledge of every good thing; and His sure promise stands – “Fear not, I WILL HELP YOU.”

Today, let us ask that the Scripture we have read, and our devotional exercises, may not be an empty formality, but a channel of grace to our souls.

The following “Question” was asked by a member of the congregation at Grace Community Church in Panorama City, California, and “Answered” by their pastor, John MacArthur Jr. It was transcribed from the tape, GC 70-16, titled “Bible Questions and Answers.”  A copy of the tape can be obtained by writing, Word of Grace, P.O. Box 4000, Panorama City, CA 91412 or by dialing toll free 1-800-55-GRACE.  Copyright John MacArthur Jr., All Rights Reserved.

Question

What is dispensationalism?  And what is your position, from Scripture, on the subject?

Answer

I will try to condense this because I don’t want to get too bogged down.  Dispensationalism is a system.  It is a system that got, sort of, out of control.  I think it started out with a right understanding.  The earliest and most foundational and helpful comprehension of dispensationalism was:     

“That the Bible taught a unique place for Israel and that the Church could not fulfill God’s promises to Israel, therefore, there is a still a future and a kingdom involving the salvation and the restoration and the reign of the nation Israel (historical Jews).”

Dispensationalism at that level, (if we just take that much of it, and that’s all I want to take of it, that’s where I am on that), dispensationalism became the term for something that grew out of that and got carried away because it got more, and more, and more compounded.  Not only was there a distinction between the Church and Israel, but there was a distinction between the new covenant for the Church, and the new covenant for Israel.  And then there could become a distinction between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven; and there could become a distinction in the teaching of Jesus, between what He said for this age and what He said for the Millennial Age; and they started to even go beyond that; and then there were some books in the New Testament for the Church and some books in the New Testament for the Jews, and it just kept going and going and going until it became this very confounded kind of system.  You see it, for example, in a Scofield Bible and other places.  If you want to see it in graphic form . . . in a book by Clarence Larkin . . . and all kinds of charts and all kinds of things that try to explain this very complex system.

I really believe that they got carried away and started imposing on Scripture things that aren’t in Scripture.  For example, traditionally, dispensationalism says, “The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) has nothing to do with us, so we don’t need to worry about it.”  When I went through the Sermon on the Mount in writing my commentary, as well, I pointed out how foolish that is.  

So let me tell you, I have been accused through the years of being a “leaky dispensationalist” and I suppose I am.  So let me take you down to where I believe dispensationalism (I don’t use that term because it carries too much baggage), but let me take you down to what part of dispensationalism I affirm with all my heart–it is this: “That there is a real future for Israel,” and that has nothing to do with some kind of extrabiblical system.  That has nothing to do with some developed sort of grid placed over Scripture.  The reason that I believe you have to have a future for Israel is because that is what God promised.  And you see it in Jeremiah, in Jeremiah, chapter 30, right on to the 33rd chapter, there is a future for Israel–there is a new covenant.  Ezekiel, chapter 37, the Valley of Dry Bones is going to come alive–right? God’s going to raise them back up; God’s going to put a heart of flesh in and take the stony heart out and give them His Spirit.  And you have the promise of a kingdom to Israel; you have the promise of a king; a David’s line; a Messiah; a throne in Jerusalem.  You have the promise that there is going to be a real kingdom.  

So my dispensationalism, if you want to use that term, is only that which can be defended exegetically or expositionally out of the Scripture, and by a simple clear interpretation of the Old Testament–it is obvious God promised a future kingdom to Israel.  And when somebody comes along and says all the promises of the kingdom to Israel are fulfilled in the Church, the burden of proof is not on me, it’s on them.  The simplest way that I would answer someone, who is what is called an “amillennialist,” or a “Covenant Theologian” that is, believing that there is one covenant and the Church is the new Israel, and Israel is gone, and there is no future for Israel–an amillennialism, meaning there is no kingdom for Israel; there is no future Millennial kingdom.  

My answer to them is simply this, “You show me in that verse, in the Old Testament, which promises a kingdom to Israel, where it says that it really means the Church–show me!”  Where does it say that?  On what exegetical basis, what historical, grammatical, literal, interpretative basis of the Scripture can you tell me that when God says “Israel” He means the “Church”?  Where does it say that?  That’s where the burden of proof really lies.  A straightforward understanding of the Old Testament leads to only one conclusion and that is that there is a kingdom for Israel.  One way to understand that is to ask yourself a question.  In the Old Testament . . . and if you wanted to get sort of a general sense of what the Old Testament is about, it’s simply about this–it reveals God and His Law, and it tells what’s going to happen to you if you obey it, and what’s going to happen to you if you don’t–and then it gives you a whole lot of illustrations of that–right?  It reveals God and His Law and it tells you what’s going to happen to you if you obey it, and if you don’t–blessings and cursing.

Now, when Israel sinned, disobeyed God–what happened?  Judgment, chastening, cursing, slaughter–was it literal?  Yes.  Was it Israel?  Yes.  So if Israel received all of the promised curses–literally–why would we assumed they would not receive the promised blessings literally, because some of those are in the same passages?  And how can you say in this passage the cursing means literal Israel, but the blessings means the Church?  There is no exegetical basis for that and you now have arbitrarily split the verse in half–you’ve given all the curses to Israel and all the blessing to the Church–on what basis exegetically? 

I remember when I was in Jerusalem one time and we were in the convention center, right near the Knesset in Jerusalem, and I was there with Dr. Charles Feinberg, who was the keynote speaker, and David Ben-Gurion was there, who was the Premier of the Land of Israel at that time, and Teddy Kalik (sp.) who was the mayor of Jerusalem.  We were sitting on the platform and an amillennialist had come to speak, it was the Jerusalem conference on prophecy, it was a tremendous event, and it was an amillennialist who got up to speak and he made the great announcement to David Ben-Gurion and to some of the Knesset members, and the mayor of Jerusalem, and all these Jewish dignitaries as well as the three thousand people that were there, that the promises to Israel in the Old Testament were being fulfilled in the Church.  Now it is one thing to say that, but you don’t need to take a trip to Jerusalem to say that.  There would be no kingdom . . . he preached on Isaiah 9:6, “The government will be upon His shoulders” (9:6ff), and he said that means the government of your life, and he’s talking about personal conversion here and so on and so forth.  Well, I remember when that message was done, and I sat through it with Dr. Feinberg–Dr. Feinberg was, to put it mildly, “upset.”  And his opening line, because he gave the next address, was, “So we have come all the way to Jerusalem to tell you that you get all the curses but the Gentile Church gets all the blessings.”  And then he launched into a message about the promises of God.

If you take a literal approach to Scripture, then you cannot conclude anything other than that God has a future for Israel.  What that means is that the Church is distinct from Israel, and when God is through with the Church, and takes the church to glory then He brings that time of Jacob’s distress, that we read about earlier, purges, redeems Israel, and the kingdom comes. 

I don’t want to say any more than that about dispensationalism.  I don’t believe there are two different kinds of salvation.  I don’t believe there are two different covenants.  I don’t believe there is a difference between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven.  I don’t believe the Sermon of the Mount is for some future age.  I don’t believe that you can hack up New Testament books–some for the Jews and some for the Church.  I think that the only thing the Bible really holds up in that kind of system is that there is a future for Israel, and that’s an exegetical issue.

It is probably more than you wanted to know, but it is very, very important, because it preserves the literal interpretation of Scripture.  Listen folks, once you’re not literal, then who’s to say?  Right?  I mean, then why not just say, “Well, Israel really means ‘left-handed Texans’–if it’s not exegetical–if it’s not in the text, it could mean ‘Canadians’”  How can you say, if you can’t say what’s literally there?

Added to Bible Bulletin Board’s “MacArthur’s Questions and Answers” by:

Tony Capoccia
Bible Bulletin Board
Box 119
Columbus, New Jersey, USA, 08022
Websites: www.biblebb.com and www.gospelgems.com
Email: tony@biblebb.com
Online since 1986

 

 

Dr. John MacArthur Calls Obama A “Non-Christian”

Listen to the President , then listen to MacArthur. He’s never petty, never emotional, he just tells it like it is.

‘Decisions For Christ’ – The Measure of Success?

15 January, 2006   comments: (1)

Today’s Synergism

This is a 2006 post from the  ” Old Truth ” website and Jim Bublitz. The issues are still the same and , unfortunately not a lot has changed. Trophies for “decisions” are imaginative to say the least, but they would be iconic of the popular mindset in evangelism. Churches and ministries today are doing outreach differently than in the past, and they are looking for validation of their new techniques. Decision-counts have become the standard unit of measure for quantifying God’s blessing on: evangelism techniques, leadership methods, and sermon content. In this posting, we’ll explore the claims, concept, and counting of “decisions for Christ“. Within a few days of the annual Christmas musicals this last year, church-blogs everywhere began to light-up with claims of success. So often however, I noticed that “success” was being defined mathematically; here’s an example of one church who reported 72 decisions for Christ that night. But it’s not just a Christmas phenomenon; these conversion-reports are wide-spread in evangelicalism today. Here are some more examples: A pastor of one seeker sensitive church claimed 1,879 decisions in a single year. Being enamored with these ‘results’, he declared: “There have not been in all of church history that many churches that have touched as many lives“, unquote. Another pastor preached a sermon on “Your Best Life Now“ (apparently based on Joel Osteen’s book), and said afterwards - this produced many decisions for Christ. One pragmatic pastor who offers input on my blog occasionally, insists that all of this represents a great modern revival. Here are some more examples: A basketball ministry that claims 6,000 decisions in one year. There’s a Superbowl outreach that produced 1,200 decisions. A movie that led to 2,300 decisions in one weekend. The Power Team even makes conversion predictions ahead of time. The most dramatic example I’ve seen, is the account of one man, who was said to have influenced over one million decisions for Christ in his lifetime. That’s Bill Bright. And we are told that a movie that he created lead to more than 200 million decisions. Let’s bring an historical element into this discussion. I’m amazed at how long some of history’s greatest missionaries waited before seeing their very first convert. Why didn’t they quit in discouragement, and how many of today’s pragmatic pastors would have been willing to wait this long?: William Carey was in India for seven years before he baptized his first convert. David Livingstone served eight years in Africa before seeing anyone converted. Adoniram Judson in Burma, six years. Hudson Taylor in China, waited ten years! Now with that bit of information from church history in mind, consider some of these claims: A group of students on one recent missionary excursion in Buenos Aires claimed 1,477 decisions in a single day. Another missionary trip saw thousands of decisions for Christ in a single week. How can we explain the fact that a group of students ended up being radically more effective in initial outreach than the most well-known missionaries in church history? Were the missionaries of the past simply not smart enough to come up with innovative and culturally relevant outreach techniques? Could it be that there is really some massive revival going on today, that wasn’t going on during the greatest century of missions? The more likely explanation is that Christian ministers of past centuries looked at lasting conversions, where as today – the short-sighted focus is on counting immediate “decisions”. Going back in church history, we see a more discerning attitude, that resisted making immediate conversion claims. George Whitefield, who was a leader in the 18th century Great Awakening, made it a practice to delay judgment until months or years down the road. Whitefield’s reasoning for this was, you simply can’t know right away. He said: “There are so many stony ground hearers, who receive the Word with joy, that I have determined to suspend my judgment till I know the tree by its fruits. I cannot believe they are converts till I see fruit brought back; it will never do a sincere soul any harm“. A century later, Charles Spurgeon was also very outspoken against potentially boastful and self-validating conversion claims, saying: “Do not, therefore, consider that soul-winning is or can be secured by the multiplication of baptisms, and the swelling of the size of your church. What mean these dispatches from the battle-field? “Last night, 14 souls were under conviction, 15 were justified, and 8 received full sanctification”. I am weary of this public bragging, this counting of unhatched chickens, this exhibition of doubtful spoils. Lay aside such numberings of the people, such idle pretence of certifying in half a minute that which will need the testing of a lifetime“. [read more] He had the same common-sense that Whitefield had a century earlier. It’s a common-sense that seems to be very much lacking today: “It very often happens that the converts that are born in excitement die when the excitement is over”. Today, we see examples of what Spurgeon referred to as conversions based on emotional ‘excitements’, not only in churches, but also in concerts: Tony Nolan of the LifeSong Christian concert tour was said to have: “shared the gospel with humor and truth and over 1/4th of the audience made first-time decisions for Christ! Yes, that’s right 765 people changed their eternal destiny“. Another series of concerts (Winter Jam) generated 35,000 decisions Christian heavy metal rock group Stryper (pictured) is said to be responsible for decisions and healings Rebecca St. James’ recent concert tour created 15,000 decisions. The singer Carman joins Bill Bright as another human attributed with one million decisions I have no doubt that amongst the multitudes of “decisions” today, there are some that God has truly saved in the midst of it all, but as Michael Penfold explains, the vast majority of “decisions” simply end up “backsliding“. Ernest Reisinger was right when he said: “Too often modern evangelicalism has substituted a ‘decision’ in the place of repentance and saving faith. Forgiveness is preached without the equally important truth that the Spirit of God must change the heart. As a result decisions are treated as conversions even though there is no evidence of a supernatural work of God in the life.” The question I get inevitably asked is, “if SOME true converts are coming out of modern evangelistic methods – some is better than none, right?“. But we need only look to the lessons learned from the Burned-Over District to realize that more harm can be done than good. Like others in that time period, Spurgeon actually saw danger in the new revivalism that was coming on the scene in his day (and is still with us today), saying: “Sometimes we are inclined to think that a very great portion of modern revivalism has been more a curse than a blessing, because it has led thousands to a kind of peace before they have known their misery; restoring the prodigal to the Father’s house, and never making him say, ‘Father, I have sinned’.” At the root of all of this is a common error in modern times, known as “Decisional Regeneration“. It teaches that man essentially has the power to cause himself to become born again by making a “decision”. We saw this misunderstanding in the Christian concert description above, where it said “765 people changed their eternal destiny“. The Purpose Driven Life book teaches it, encouraging the reader to pray a simple life changing prayer. Though they usually don’t think of it in these terms, so many church leaders today believe they are getting man to save himself by making a “decision”. But Decisional Regeneration is simply not biblical, nor does it have historical precedent prior the the 19th century.

The Bible Goes Green

Forward by Desmond Tutu and an essay by Brian McClaren. Not good signs.

 

 

 

An example of worshipping the creation rather than the Creator. The Green Bible was released in October 2008 to a consumer base described in 2 Timothy 4:3-4.

via greenletterbible.comAbout The Green Bible 

The Green Bible is the definitive movement Bible that shows that God is green and how we can care for and protect God’s creation.

Featuring:

• Green-Letter Edition: Verses and passages that speak to God’s care for creation highlighted in green
• Foreword by Archbishop Desmond Tutu
• Essays by Brian McLaren, Cal DeWitt, Barbara Brown Taylor, Pope John Paul II, Ellen Davis, N. T. Wright, Ellen Bernstein, Matthew Sleeth, James Jones, and Gordon Aeschliman
• Inspirational quotes from Christian teachings throughout the ages
• A green Bible topical index
• A personal green Bible trail study guide
• An appendix with information on further reading, how to get involved, and practical steps to take
• Recycled paper, using soy-based ink with a cotton/linen cover

Reformation Series #1- Martin Luther

The following two videos give a short biographical tribute to the two principle leaders of the Protestant Reformation. Remember that October 31st (along with whatever worldly holiday may have arisen) is Reformation Day.
We should thank Almighty God for those who labored under difficult and dangerous circumstances hundreds of years ago to fight for the Truth of God’s Word.
To God Be the Glory !