Today in Blogworld 05.26.15

Mike Leake

10 Hidden Traps that Trip Pastors Up

Yep! I’ve stumbled on a couple of these myself.

Martin Luther 16th Century Notes Found

This is legit. Any idea where we can see these notes?

How to Be a Puritan Husband

When some hear the phrase Puritan husband they’ll throw up in their mouth a little. But I think in so many areas the Puritans should be emulated. This is one of them.

Why I am No Longer a Dispensationalist

I’m not sure I was ever knowingly a dispensationalist, but much like the author, it was just the assumed theology I held. But unlike the author I’m not a progressive dispensationalist. But my friends who are, should consider his words here.

Yeah…but can he play Stairway?

In Defense of Purity Rings

Mike Leake 2 Comments

Last week, Stephen Altrogge wrote a post on the problem with purity rings. I linked to it this morning because I actually agree with much of what Stephen is saying. But I also think there is another side to this and so I wanted to give a defense for purity rings.

After rightly explaining the weirdness of an individual Christian being married to Jesus, Altrogge shares his most significant problem with purity rings:

But the second, more significant problem, is that the purity ring thrives on the premise of denial of desire. Those who slip the silver ring on their finger are making a pledge of sexual denial and abstinence, which is a good thing. The only problem is that the desire for abstinence can’t hold up in the face of the relentless onslaught of sexual temptation. In other words, it’s not enough to just pledge not to do something.

I agree with him that “if we only tell people to subtract sinful desires, we are setting them up for abject failure”. So if all purity rings did was tell you not to have sex then I think I’d agree. What he is arguing for is that purity rings are not enough to keep one from having sex. And this I agree with.

But I think purity rings—in their best form—are much more than just a reminder to not have sex. For full disclosure my wedding ring, and my wife’s wedding ring, is a combination of her purity ring, and two “pray hard” rings that we bought when we started dating. That “pray hard” was a purity ring of sorts for me—one that reminded me constantly that my relationship with my wife was in the Lord’s hand and that it was my job to reflect Jesus in my love for her.

When I looked down at that ring it wasn’t just a symbol of “don’t have sex” it was a symbol that we truly belonged to another. Purity rings in their best form are simple reminders of that fact. Furthermore, it was something that sparked in me a desire to actively pursue purity—not merely by not doing something but also to be the man God called me to be.

Purity rings and pledge cards can be no different than the Just Say No to Drugs stuff I signed off on when I was in sixth grade. Meaningless. But they can also mean something much more if they are symbol and a reminder of our commitment to Jesus.

So, I say, don’t throw out purity rings just because their often hijacked with legalism. I say preach Jesus, proclaim holiness and righteousness, connect it with the shed blood of Jesus—and then offer a purity ring as a reminder that your body isn’t your own. But it belongs to the One who gives far more joy than the fleeting pleasures of forbidden sex.

Today in Blogworld 05.25.15

Mike Leake 1 Comment

10 Unforgettable Lessons on Fatherhood

I love simple little lessons like this.

Don’t Chase Gurus. Chase Jesus.

Great advice.

The Problem with Purity Rings

I only partially agree with Stephen here. I think it’d be better if he said, Why Purity Rings Aren’t Enough.

I’m Divorced: How Does God See Me Now?

I appreciate J.D. Greear’s counsel here. Pastors need to courageously speak to these issues.

This is impressive. Sorry, Hannah, daddy can barely make toast:

Preaching and the Invincible Grace of God

Mike Leake


I rather choose to term grace invincible, than irresistible. –John Newton

John Newton is not alone in his desire to retitle the doctrine of irresistible grace. Many after Newton have preferred the phrase “effectual calling” simply because calling grace “irresistible” is confusing. It’s confusing because Scripture makes clear that people refuse God’s grace all the time. As Newton wrote “it is too often resisted, even by those who believe”.

Secondly, the term “irresistible” is confusing because it causes many to assume that what is being claimed is that  God “effects faith and conversion without the sinner’s own hearty consent and concurrence”. And that simply is not true. In researching for this article I stumbled upon one of those 15-reasons-Calvinism-is-the-devil type of sites. The author’s summary of irresistible grace is shared by many. He summed it up this way: “By irresistible grace, John Calvin meant that God simply forces people to be saved.”

This same charge seems to be laid at the feet of John Newton. And he response by explaining that the gospel that is preached to men can be rejected—in fact apart from the work of the Holy Spirit it will be rejected. Newton also rightly believed that God will not save people kicking and screaming against their wills.

And so you see the problem. “No sinner is converted without his own hearty will and concurrence” but in his natural state man will never give his heart to Christ. The only hope sinful humanity has is if God does something in the heart. This is what Newton referred to as invincible grace. God’s free bestowal of grace to make the heart willing and their eyes able to see the beauty of Jesus.

Far from inspiring Newton to give passionless appeals from the pulpit this doctrine is what actually motivated him to share the gospel with others. He rightly believed that God’s general call (Come to me, all you who are weary and heavy laden) could be rejected by sinners. But he also believed that God was able to overcome this obstinacy with his invincible grace.

Newton once quipped, “As to myself, if I was not a Calvinist, I think I should have no more hope of success in preaching to men, than to horses or cows”. (Letters, 116)

What Newton is saying is that apart from the Spirit’s work of grace men are no more fit to see the beauty of Christ than a horse or a cow. Given the obstinacy of sinful man to the gospel, a horse or a cow might give a bit more prospect of conversion. But Newton believed that God was able to take a heart of stone and make it a heart of flesh. God is able to change the leopards spots. And because of this he boldly and winsomely preached the gospel of Jesus.

May this doctrine stir up confidence and not complacency in proclaiming the gospel. And may it drive us to our knees, praying that God would see fit to use our feeble words to bring glory to Jesus in the salvation of lost sinners.

—

Photo source: here