DOCTRINES OR ARTICLES OF INTEREST

        (To see our "Doctrinal Statement" click here.)

"Ordained to Eternal Life?"  by Adam Clark

Article on Adam Clarke

The Ignorant Thinking of Bush & Blair on the Middle East" by Pas. Merrill

"Is the Qur'an Really a Book of Peace?"  by Pas. Merrill

"Speaking in Tongues"  by Ian Boyne

The (non-Calvinistic) Doctrine of Election

Implanted Chips in Our Troops?  (Precursor to the mark of the beast!)

Sharon Clearwater's first soulwinning experience!

My Reasoning Why not to be Associated with the Lawndale-Hawthorne Ministerial Association.
by Pastor Greg Merrill

Church Attendance.   By Pas. Merrill

Blessing of the Animals.  Pas. Merrill

 

"Ordained to eternal life?"                                                                                                                                                                                     Acts 13:48, by Adam Clarke, regarding being "appointed" or ordained to eternal life.

Verse 48. As many as were "ordained" to eternal life believed.  This text has been most pitifully misunderstood. Many suppose that it simply means that those in that assembly who were fore-ordained; or predestinated by God's decree, to eternal life, believed under the influence of that decree. Now, we should be careful to examine what a word means, before we attempt to fix its meaning. Whatever tetagmenoi may mean, which is the word we translate ordained, it is neither protetagmenoi nor proorismenoi which the apostle uses, but simply tetagmenoi, which includes no idea of pre-ordination or pre-destination of any kind. And if it even did, it would be rather hazardous to say that all those who believed at this time were such as actually persevered unto the end, and were saved unto eternal life. But, leaving all these precarious matters, what does the word tetagmenov mean? The verb tattw or tassw signifies to place, set, order, appoint, dispose; hence it has been considered here as implying the disposition or readiness of mind of several persons in the congregation, such as the religious proselytes mentioned Ac 13:43, who possessed the reverse of the disposition of those Jews who spake against those things, contradicting and blaspheming, Ac 13:45. Though the word in this place has been variously translated, yet, of all the meanings ever put on it, none agrees worse with its nature and known signification than that which represents it as intending those who were predestinated to eternal life: this is no meaning of the term, and should never be applied to it. Let us, without prejudice, consider the scope of the place: the Jews contradicted and blasphemed; the religious proselytes heard attentively, and received the word of life: the one party were utterly indisposed, through their own stubbornness, to receive the Gospel; the others, destitute of prejudice and prepossession, were glad to hear that, in the order of God, the Gentiles were included in the covenant of salvation through Christ Jesus; they, therefore, in this good state and order of mind, believed. Those who seek for the plain meaning of the word will find it here: those who wish to make out a sense, not from the Greek word, its use among the best Greek writers, and the obvious sense of the evangelist, but from their own creed, may continue to puzzle themselves and others; kindle their own fire, compass themselves with sparks, and walk in the light of their own fire, and of the sparks which they have kindled; and, in consequence, lie down in sorrow, having bidden adieu to the true meaning of a passage so very simple, taken in its connection, that one must wonder how it ever came to be misunderstood and misapplied. Those who wish to see more on this verse may consult Hammond, Whitby, Schoettgen, Rosenmuller, Pearce, Sir Norton Knatchbull, and Dodd.
 

Adam Clarke
1762-1832

Adam Clarke was born in Ireland in 1762.

Clarke became a Methodist in 1778, and was in a succession an exhorter, local preacher, and regular preacher. His first circuit was that of Bradford, Wiltshire, to which he was appointed in 1782. He served in various places and traveled throughout Great Britain, achieving fame as a preacher, and being president of the British Conference in 1806, 1814, and 1822.

After 1805 he held an appointment in London, where he was a member of the committee of the British and Foreign Bible Society for several years, and one of the advisers of its Oriental publications. He resigned from this task in 1819, having retired four years previously, due to his impaired health, to Millbrook, Lancashire, where he resided until his return to the vicinity of London in 1823. He was also active in the service of the Wesleyan Missionary Society from its inception in 1814, making two missionary journeys in 1826 and 1828 to the Shetland Islands.

The most important of his numerous works was his Commentary on the Bible (originally published in eight volumes, 1810-26), which had a long and extensive circulation and took Clarke over four decades to produce. He also published a Biographical Dictionary (1802) and its supplement, The Biographical Miscellany (1806). His Miscellaneous Works were edited in thirteen volumes by J. Everett (1836-37).

Adam Clarke died in London on Aug. 28, 1832. He is perhaps the most famous Methodist/Wesleyan commentator to date.

Comment by Pas. Merrill:   Clarke lived during the time when the Methodists preached the gospel, and were basically sound in the teaching of other doctrines.

 

"The Ignorant Thinking of Bush & Blair on the Middle East"  by Pas. Merrill 7-27-06                               After listening to President Bush, and then the Prime Minister of Britain, Tony Blair, today, from their words, neither has a clue of what is really behind the lack of peace in the Middle East.  As the terrorist group, Hezbollah, has kidnapped two Israeli soldiers from off of Israel's land, and the terrorist group that is ruling the people in the land that call themselves "Palestinians", Hamas, had already kidnapped an Israeli soldier from the Gaza strip, Israel has been attacking Lebanon to get at Hezbollah, and Hezbollah has been launching rockets continually into Israel.   Bush and Blair seem to think producing a lasting peace in the region is as simple as returning those kidnapped, ceasing the Israeli attack and the terrorist's attack, and coming up with some type of a guarantee that Israel can live in peace as President Bush and others bring about the establishment of a Palestinian State, coexisting side by side with Israel.   Simple?  No!  Impossible for the likes of man.  You might as well try to get a pack of coyotes, that have lived long on living off raiding chicken coops, to become vegetarians.   Feed these coyotes cat food, then see if they remain vegetarians after you move them into a coop full of live chickens.  Can't people get it through their heads that as long as Islam exists and Muslims follow the Qur'an (Koran), as long as there continues to be faithful, zealous Muslims of the Middle East, that have been raised and groomed to hate & destroy Israel, with the promise of receiving eternal acceptance and blessing from Allah, there will be no real peace in the Middle East!  Only the literal return of Jesus Christ, who alone has the power to change the hearts and minds of such a large number of people so that they will love their former enemies, can bring lasting peace in the Middle East.   But the Scriptures say that the world will even rebel against Christ at His return, and instead of their willingness to change, many will have to be destroyed.  Peace in the Middle East will only come after the return of the Prince of Peace, and then still only after the world fights against Him.           Pastor Merrill

"Is the Qur'an Really a Book of Peace?"                                                                                                          Listen to what the Qur'an says:

"And make ready for them whatever force you can...to frighten (terrorize) the enemy of Allah...And whatever you spend in Allah's way, it will be paid back to you fully and you will not be wronged."  pps. 377,378, v. 60

"Fight those who believe not in Allah,..nor forbid that which Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, nor follow the Religion of Truth,..until...they are in a state of subjection."  Ch 9 Al-Bara'at The Immunity p.390, v.29                                                                                                                                                                                     "...slay the idolaters, wherever you find them,...lie in wait for them in every ambush."  p. 384 v. 5

"...so make firm those who believe.  I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve.  So smite above the necks and smite every finger-tip of them.  This is because they opposed Allah and His Messenger.  And whoever opposes Allah and His Messenger -- then surely Allah is Severe in requiting."    Ch 8  Al Anfal  The Battle of Badr p. 367, vs. 12,13.

"The only punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is that they should be murdered, or crucified, or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides, or they should be imprisoned."  Ch 5 Al-Ma'idah  The Food  p. 250

Allah will afflict you with chastisement from Himself or by our hands.    Ch 9 Al-Bara'at The Immunity p.398, v.52          Fight them; Allah will chastise them at your hands...and assist you against them..."  p. 387 v.14

O Prophet, urge the believers to fight."   p.378, v.65

The Qu'ran is where the Islamic terrorist finds their justification to carry out their terror.

Speaking in Tongues

Ian Boyne

The issue of speaking in tongues has divided many Churches. Is there a biblical basis for tongue speaking as commonly practiced in the Churches? Does God want us to talk in tongues? By tongues, I mean unknown languages, or ecstatic speech. Is tongues a kind of prayer language? 

What is important is a love of the Truth. The Holy Scriptures represent Truth. We must anchor our faith on the Scripture. If there are experiences from God, they should be validated by the Scripture. We should at least see some teaching that validates speaking in tongues. If we find that the scriptures cannot back that up, then we are in difficulty.

Experience is not the ground of Truth. The scripture is. No Church has any authority over the scriptures. Every Church must be guided by the scriptures.

Two or Three, with Interpreter

I would like to point out that the way tongues are practiced in some Churches is not the way that the apostle Paul recommends the use of tongues. Here are some example from scripture.

Paul states that he who speaks in an unknown tongue edifies himself, but only prophesy (preaching) edifies the Church (1 Corinthians 14:4). Tongue speaking is not something that edifies the Church! He states that if any man speaks in an unknown tongue, that it must be by two or three at the most, and each in turn, one at a time (verse 27). In these Churches today, a lot of people babble and speak in tongues at the same time, and Paul says this should not be. Paul also says that there must be an interpreter (verse 27). But you never hear, in your own language, the interpretation of these tongues in these Churches. That is a direct contradiction of this scripture. Paul says if there is no interpreter, then the tongues must not be spoken in church! 1 Corinthians 14:28, "...let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God." If a man feels moved to speak in tongues, and there's no interpreter, then he should speak to himself and to God. Therefore, if a man feels moved to pray in tongues, by himself, then that is scripturally based.

In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul is elevating teaching and preaching over tongue speaking. In fact, Paul says that tongues are not a sign for believers, but for unbelievers (verse 22), while prophesy (preaching) is not for unbelievers, but for believers. So if people want to edify the Church, it is done through prophesy and teaching, and not through tongue speaking, according to scripture.

This is one thing you must judge your Church by; if people start speaking in tongues, and there’s no interpreter to tell you what they’re saying. Why? Is that for show? Is that just a display to show that they are so spiritual and righteous? And is that a practice for a humble servant of God?

Is Tongues a Sign of a Believer?

Now, there are those that say tongues are the initial evidence of the Holy Spirit. That when you get the Holy Spirit, the sign that you got the Holy Spirit is tongue speaking. Some believe it is a sign of a second blessing, that tongues represent a further anointing. They’ll quote Acts 8:17-19; 10:44; and Acts 19 to show when believers were baptized with the Holy Spirit, they spoke in tongues. But there are an equal amount of verses that show believers did not talk in tongues when they were baptized (Acts 8:38-40; 9:17-20; 16:15,32-34).

Tongues cannot be the initial evidence of the Holy Spirit, because it is not a sign of believers, but of unbelievers (1 Corinthians 14:22)! Also, read 1 Corinthians 12:27-30 where the apostle Paul asks rhetorical questions. He asks, 'are all apostles?' No is the obvious answer. 'Are all prophets?' No. 'Are all teachers?' No. 'Are all workers of miracles?' No. 'Do all have the gifts of healing?' No. 'Do all speak with tongues?' NO! This means that not all believers speak in tongues. Therefore, tongues could not be a sign of the receipt of the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit is given to everyone who sincerely repents and is baptized, but not everyone has the gift of tongues. So this one text alone rebukes the teaching that it is a sign of the receipt of the Holy Spirit.

Tongues in the Book of Acts

The first recorded instance where tongues were spoken is in Acts 2. Here, the term 'tongues' means "a known language". Tongues here is not unknown tongues, or ecstatic speech. Why? Because everybody understood what was being said in their own language (Acts 2:6-11). This was a sign to the unbelievers; that God accepted these nations’ languages. God used the medium of language to say it is not just Hebrew alone which is the language with which the righteous can communicate. I am going to let the gospel be preached to them as a sign of the fact that the gospel would reach all four corners of the earth. Tongues here were for communication, but also for a sign to those who did not believe. The languages of these people were accepted.

Tongues, in the book of Acts, functions as a sign of the acceptance of the gentiles, and to authenticate the ministry of the early Church. Miracles were done to prove the authenticity and truthfulness of Christianity. Tongues were not used as a means to build up the spiritual life of the believer, but as a sign to the unbeliever.

Look at Acts 10:44-46, where it says the circumcised (Jews) were amazed that the Gentiles received the Holy Spirit. Why were they amazed? If there was no sign, if there was nothing visible that occurred, if there was no manifestation, how would the skeptical believers know that the Holy Spirit had come into them? There had to be a sign! Why? Because the Jewish believers in Christ had a hard time understanding that God had moved beyond their narrow confines. That their little game was over. God was embracing all people. God had called other nations to be on equal footing, and not strangers; to be members under a new covenant. Unlike the old covenant which had gentiles accepted under it but were not accepted with the same kind of status as the native born Jews. It was still a covenant made with Israel, through which the gentiles had access, but the new covenant is made with believers in all nations.

The Jews could not believe that the gentiles were given the gift of the Holy Spirit, because they felt that they were to be the only recipients of this great gift. So the tongues were given as a sign to let the Jews know the gentiles were accepted. The Jewish believers felt that God was exclusively theirs, that they were the special people of God, and they were seeing now that this special gift of the Holy Spirit was manifested by speaking in tongues. They now see that these despised Gentiles have the same gift.

In Acts 19:1-6, the Holy Spirit entered certain people, then those people "spake with tongues, and prophesied." Why? In this case, the primary sign was that the ministry of Jesus is superior to the ministry of John. There were still disciples of John even after Christ’s ministry had come to an end.

You might ask, "Don’t we need that sign today? Don’t we need to get the gospel out?" Well, the purpose was not just a matter of getting the gospel out, it was a matter of proving Christianity to the skeptics. Matthew 12:39, "...An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign;" The greatest sign those who are converted can have is the life of Christ lived through the Holy Spirit and through the fruits of the Holy Spirit.

Speaking in tongues was necessary to establish the Church in the first century. God established Christianity through signs and wonders and miracles (Hebrews 2:3-4). That was how Christianity was spread rapidly. That was one of the reasons why it gave the early believers such a zeal that they were able to withstand the greatest of persecutions. Signs.

When John the Baptist was in prison, he had doubts that Jesus was the Messiah. He sent two of his disciples to ask Jesus if he were really the Messiah. "Jesus answered and said unto them, Go and shew John again those things which ye do hear and see: The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them" (Matthew 11:4-5). All of these miracles Jesus pointed to as signs that he was the Messiah. And when Christianity was to be established, those signs were given.

Tongues represent a sign. Tongues are not given for the believers edification. In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul admonishes teaching and preaching instead over speaking in tongues. "For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him" (1 Corinthians 14:2). Is Paul saying here that the use of tongues must be just devotional? No. Paul states that he who speaks in tongues is not really speaking for communication, he is not really speaking to edify. He is speaking to God, because only God understands what he is saying. This is sarcastic speech. Paul was saying to keep quiet. Speak to God, then, but leave it out of the Church.

There are varieties of gifts, but they are from the same Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:4), the same God inspires them all. Each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good (verse 7). There is no example in the Scripture where a gift of the Holy Spirit is given for a personal benefit or personal edification. A gift is for the service of the Church. Therefore, the view that tongue speaking represents a special anointing, a second blessing, is not supported in the Word of God.

Does Tongues profit the Church?

Paul asks, "Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?" (1 Corinthians 14:6). Paul says tongue speaking does not profit the Church! Why then are people speaking with tongues in Church? Why this practice? Why this noise when Paul is saying there should be no place for that if there is no interpreter?

You might ask, "Does the fact that Paul says there should be an interpreter mean that he acknowledges the use of tongues, and what he is merely doing is regulating tongues?" Well, Paul knows that this ecstatic speech is not authentic, and by calling for people to speak in turn and to have interpreters, he was actually showing the inauthenticity of tongues. How so? Paul knew that this manifestation of tongue speaking was not genuine, and he knew that believers could not interpret. So when he would have had a few instances of people speaking, and nobody being able to honestly interpret, then that should take care of the practice. Paul was saying you don’t need to speak in tongues. Paul was simply saying, "Why not be like me and speak five words to edify the Church instead of ten thousand words in an unknown tongue? Hey, the way you are doing it is wrong. If you insist on doing it, then find an interpreter!" If somebody starts to go into ecstatic speech, others would not be able to interpret. Why? Because it would not be a genuine language. Paul was saying something which was foolproof to show that the practice was not of God.

You might say, "That’s speculation!" But I say, if that’s not the correct interpretation, then your interpretation of these tongues are to benefit individuals spiritually, which is not supported by the scriptures. If God has a message for the Church, would it make sense for God to give that message to us in French, just to have someone else interpret that for us in English for the rest of us? Why didn’t God in the first instance give us the message in English? You might say, "That’s human reasoning." But do you believe God gives it in French to impress others?

When Paul said, "I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all" (1 Corinthians 14:18), was he authenticating tongue speaking? No. In the next verse, Paul himself said that, in Church, he would rather speak five words in his own tongue than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue in order that he could teach others (verse 19). Paul was belittling tongues! Paul, as an educated person, was very likely multi-lingual. Not many Corinthians were wise by human standards, nor influential, nor of noble birth (1 Corinthians 1:26), they were ordinary people. When he told the Corinthians he spoke with tongues more than them, Paul spoke more genuine languages than they did! But Paul was telling them to follow his example, and to not speak with tongues in the Church. Paul is elevating the use of the native language over languages which were not known or speech which could not communicate fruits.

If people are speaking in tongues, and others do not know what they are saying, how does that benefit them? Will speaking in tongues today really convert an unbeliever? How could anyone say, "Amen" when he does not know what they are saying? When you go to Church, and people are speaking in tongues, and you are saying, "Amen", how do you know that they’re not cursing God? Yet, this is done every day in some Churches. If the whole Church began to speak in tongues, as happens many times in these Churches, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that they are all mad?

When Paul wrote to the Christians in Corinth, who were mistaking speaking in tongues for the power of the Holy Spirit, he said, "When I come into your midst, I am not just going to listen to your testimonies or to your speech (whether in a known language or an unknown), but I am going to see whether there is any power in your lives. For the kingdom of God and the Holy Spirit is manifested not in mere words but in power" (1 Corinthians 4:19-20-Paraphrase).

We, the followers of Christ, profess to be indwelt by the Spirit of God. But let us not forget that He Who indwells us is called the Holy Spirit, and that His primary function is not to give us gifts but to make us holy. May God give you the strength, dear reader, to live a Holy Life. Amen.
                          THE DOCTRINE OF ELECTION

Unconditional Election is also known as "Calvinistic Predestination." The scripture teaches predestination, but not Calvinistic Predestination. Scripture predestination is where God pre-determined, not the identity of the saved, but the character of the saved. We are not opposed to predestination, for the scripture teaches it. However, Calvin's view of predestination is entirely unbiblical and therefore a false doctrine. Calvinistic predestination means that the future is already determined (predestined). The implication is that it doesn't matter what you do, it has already happened. You have no free will.

By unconditional election, then, Calvinists mean:

  1. Out of fallen humanity God chose certain people unto salvation. God elects people.
  2. The number of God's elect is fixed.
  3. God does not elect individuals based on foreseen merit of any kind, including faith. Election is an act of God's sovereign choice.
  4. God's election and calling are invincible.
  5. The purpose and motive of God's election are His glory, "To the praise of His glorious grace!"
Identity or Character?

What is foreknown by God in these verses? Personal identity? Or Character, purpose & plan?

Romans 8:29-30, "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."

1 Corinthians 2:7, "But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:"

Ephesians 1:3-4, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:"

Remember, God is not a respecter of persons (Acts 10:34; Romans 2:11-12; 1 Peter 1:17). Unconditional Election makes the Devil no enemy for the saved to worry about, so if predestined, why beware? (1 Peter 5:8).

Bible Texts Calvinists misuse to prove "Calvinistic Predestination"
  1. Acts 4:28, "For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done."

    What was "determined before?" The death of Jesus! This death had been prophesied as a part of God's plan (Luke 22:21-22; Acts 2:22-23). The Jews did not realize that they were fulfilling God's plan and He did not force them to kill His Son; they were accountable for their own actions.

  2. 1 Corinthians 2:7, "But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:"
    • The context shows clearly that it is God's plan of redemption that was foreordained. In verse 5, the power of God is in the gospel (Romans 1:16).
    • In times past, it had been a mystery, not fully revealed.
    • Even the prophets did not understand completely about Christ.
    • But now this plan is revealed as the wisdom of God (Ephesians 3:3,5; 1 Peter 1:10,12).
    • This sacrifice was for our salvation. It was a part of God's eternal purpose (Ephesians 3:8,11).
  3. Romans 8:28-30, "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."
    • Who is under consideration here? "Them that love God" ­ not a few whom God loves
    • "The called according to His purpose," we are not called by a still, mysterious voice or by a direct operation of the Holy Spirit or by God Himself, but by the gospel (2 Thessalonians 2:14).
    • Those who hear, believe and respond in obedience are referred to as "the called" (Galatians 1:6; 1 Peter 2:9).
    • In Romans 8:28-30, we can see the unfolding of God's plan. God determined to send mankind a Savior to die for all men.
    • He foreordained all of the events before they actually took place.
    • In that sense, God predestinated our salvation. It was not that He selected us individually to be saved or lost, but that those who accepted the gospel call would be saved.
    • Those who answer that call are justified and glorified.

    What was predestined in Romans 8:28-30? That we should "be conformed to the image of his Son." Thus, as in the next passage (Ephesians 1), it was God's eternal plan that we become His children through Christ.

    We are God's chosen people, not individually selected, but as a whole. Just as the nation of Israel was at one time God's chosen people (Deuteronomy 7:6), so likewise we are now such. 1 Peter 1:1-2 talks about Christians being "elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father." But it is clear Peter is referring to the Christ's assembly, not selected individuals, in 1 Peter 2:9, when he says, "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light:"

  4. Ephesians 1:4-5,11 "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will...In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will."
    • God has had an eternal plan in mind; a scheme of redemption for those who will accept it.
    • Those who are chosen are those who are "in Him" (Christ).
    • We become God's children by our faith in and obedience to Christ's Will (verse 5). God adopts us into His family upon our obedience (Romans 8:15; Galatians 4:4,6).
    • The counsel of God's will (verse 11) refers to His decision to send Jesus to redeem the obedient.
How does God decide who will be His children? The scripture says, "...through Jesus Christ;" "...through His blood;" and, "...according to the riches of His grace." The focus of being "predestined" is more on "through Jesus Christ" than it is on us as individuals. It was God's eternal plan that Christ would give His life so that He could have children. Christ coming and dying was predestined. Therefore, our acceptance of that and our ultimate salvation in Him is also predestined (the culmination of God's eternal plan).
 
Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated

The writing of the apostle Paul in Romans 9:8-16 is one of the most avoided and unread passages of scripture. Those who believe in Calvinistic Predestination say this verse proves that God elects certain individuals, because this verse says, before they were born, God loved Jacob but hated Esau.

Theologians try to position themselves so as to avoid giving a strait answer. The evangelicals will not talk about it. The reformed church apologizes for it. And the majority of Christian's today have not heard about it. This passage, on its face, does seem to speak of predestined individuals, but in truth, it is not speaking of individuals, but nations. Let us first quote this passage, then we'll use scripture to interpret this passage.

Romans 9:8, "That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed."
Romans 9:9, "For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son."
Romans 9:10, "And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;"
Romans 9:11, "(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth)"
Romans 9:12, "It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger."
Romans 9:13, "As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."
Romans 9:14, "What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid."
Romans 9:15, "For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion."
Romans 9:16, "So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy."

Now, let's break this passage down verse by verse:

Verse 8: Not the children who descend from Abraham’s loins, nor those who were circumcised as he (Paul) was, are the people of God; but those who are made children by the good pleasure and promise of God, as Isaac was, are alone to be accounted for the seed with whom the covenant was established.

Verse 9: "The word of promise" refers to the promise recorded in Genesis 18,10, "...Sarah thy wife shall have a son...". This is made clear by the fact that verse 9 repeats some of this promise recorded in Genesis 18:10. This shows that it is the sovereign will and act of God alone, which singles out and constitutes the peculiar seed that was to inherit the promise made to Abraham.

Verse 10: A Jew might object by saying, “Ishmael was rejected, not by the sovereign will of God, but because he was the son of the handmaid, or bond-woman, and therefore unworthy to be the peculiar seed;" but observe, this was not the only limitation of the seed of Abraham with regard to inheriting the promise. When Rebecca was with child by that one person of Abraham’s seed to whom the promise was made (Isaac), she went to inquire of the Lord:

Genesis 25:22-23, "...And she went to enquire of the LORD. And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger."

That is, the posterity of the younger shall be a nation much more prosperous and happy than the posterity of the elder. This is speaking about two different nations, two manner of people, and not two individuals (Jacob and Esau). Jacob and Esau represent these two nations.

Verse 11: As the word "children" is not in the text, but added by bible translators, the word "nations" would be more proper; for it is of nations that the apostle speaks, as Genesis 25:22-23 (from the above comment) shows, and as the following verses show, as well as the history to which he refers.

Verses 12-13: "The elder shall serve the younger." These words, with those of Malachi, "I loved Jacob, And I hated Esau" (Malachi 1:2-3), are cited to show that these words are used in a national and not in a personal sense. This is evident from this fact: that, taken in the latter sense they are not true, for Jacob never did exercise any power over Esau, nor was Esau ever subject to him. Jacob, on the contrary, was rather subject to Esau, and was sorely afraid of him; and, first, by his messengers, and afterwards personally, acknowledged his brother to be his lord, and himself to be his servant (see Genesis 32:4; 33:8, 13). However, in the former sense, it is true, because the far greatest part of Jacob’s posterity were wicked, and rejected by God; and Esau’s posterity were partakers of the faith of their father Abraham.

From these premises the true sense of the words immediately following, "Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated" (Malachi 1:2-3, Romans 9:13), fully appears; that is, that what he had already cited from Genesis 25:22-23 concerning the two nations, styled by the names of their respective heads, Jacob and Esau, was but the same in substance with what was spoken many years after by the Prophet Malachi. The unthankful Jews had, in Malachi’s time, either in words or in their heart, expostulated with God, and demanded of him wherein he had loved them? "I have loved you, saith the Lord: yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us?" (Malachi 1:2). To this the Lord answers, "Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? Yet I loved Jacob and hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness. Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places; thus saith the Lord of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them, The border of wickedness, and, The people against whom the Lord hath indignation for ever. And your eyes shall see, and ye shall say, The Lord will be magnified from the border of Israel" (Malachi 1:2-5).

It incontestably appears from these passages that the prophet Malachi does not speak at all of the person of Jacob or Esau, but of their respective posterities. For it was not Esau in person that said, "We are impoverished; neither were his mountains nor heritage laid waste." Now, if the prophet Malachi speaks neither of the person of the one nor of the person of the other, but of their posterity only, then it is evident that the apostle Paul speaks of them in the same way.

Neither is there here any Scriptural or rational ground for the decree of unconditional personal election and reprobation, which, comparatively, modern times have endeavored to build on these scriptures, because:

  1. It is here proved that Esau is not mentioned under any personal consideration, but only as the head of his posterity.
  2. The testimony of Scripture amply proves that all Esau’s posterity were not, even in this sense, reprobated; nor all Jacob’s posterity elected.
  3. Neither does that service, or subjugation to Jacob, which the Divine oracle imposed on Esau, import any such reprobation as some contend for; as the servant may be elected, while the master himself is in a state of reprobation.
  4. Were it even granted that servitude did import such a reprobation, yet it is certain that Esau, in person, never did serve Jacob.
  5. Nor does the hatred of God against Esau import any such reprobation of the person of Esau, because it is demonstrable that it related, not to Esau personally, but to his posterity.
  6. The scope of the apostle’s reasoning is to show that God is the sovereign of his own ways, has a right to dispense his blessings as he chooses, and to give salvation to mankind, not in the ways of their devising, but in that way that is most suitable to his infinite wisdom and goodness.

Therefore:

  1. He chose the Jewish people from all others, and revealed himself to them. Thus they were the elect, and all the nations of mankind reprobate.
  2. When the fullness of the time came he revealed himself also to the Gentiles, who gladly received the Gospel: and the Jews rejecting it, were cast off. Thus the elect became reprobate, and the reprobate, elect.
  3. The Jews, the descendants of Jacob, who rejected the salvation of Christ, became precisely like the Edomites, the descendants of Esau; they builded, but God pulled down; their mountains and heritage are now laid waste for the dragons of the wilderness; and they properly may now be called the border of wickedness, a people against whom the Lord hath indignation for ever: they have rejected the Lord that bought them, and so have brought upon themselves swift destruction.

That no personal, absolute, eternal reprobation of Esau can have been intended, we learn from this; that he was most amply reconciled to his brother, who had so deeply wronged and offended him, by depriving him of his birthright and his blessing: and his having forgiven his brother his trespasses is proof that God had forgiven him:

Matthew 6:14, "For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you."

Therefore there can be assigned no competent ground of his damnation, much less of his personal reprobation from all eternity. And were such a personal reprobation intended, is it not shocking to suppose that the God of endless mercy, in whose sight his pious parents had found favor, should inform them, even before their child was born, that he had absolutely consigned him, by an irrevocable decree to eternal damnation? A message of such horrid import coming immediately from the mouth of God, to a tender, weak, and delicate woman, whose hour of travail with two children was just at hand, could not have failed to produce abortion, and destroy her life. But the parents perfectly understood their God, and saw no decree of reprobation in his message; "two manner of nations are in thy womb-and the elder shall serve the younger."

There is no reason, worthy the most wise and gracious God, why he should make known to the world such a thing concerning Esau, who was yet unborn, that he had reprobated him from all eternity. Such a revelation could be of no spiritual advantage or edification to mankind, but rather of a malignant influence, as directly occasioning men to judge hardly of their Maker, and to conceive of him as no faithful Creator; as having no care, no love, no bowels of compassion towards the workmanship of his own hands.

Verse 16: "So then it is not of him that willeth." The making or continuing any body of men the peculiar people of God, is righteously determined; not by the judgment, hopes, or wishes of men, but by the will and wisdom of God alone. For Abraham judged that the blessing ought, and he willed, desired, that it might be given to Ishmael; and Isaac also willed, designed, it for his first-born, Esau: and Esau, wishing and hoping that it might be his, readily went, ran a hunting for venison, that he might have the blessing regularly conveyed to him: but they were all disappointed-Abraham and Isaac, who willed, and Esau who ran: for God had originally intended that the blessing of being a great nation and distinguished people should, of his mere good pleasure, be given to Isaac and Jacob, and be confirmed in their posterity; and to them it was given. And when by their apostasy they had forfeited this privilege, it was not Moses’ willing, nor any prior obligation God was under, but his own sovereign mercy, which continued it to them.

Impossible not to Believe if God Wills?

The doctrine of Irresistible Grace states that God wills a person who is elect to believe, and that it is therefore impossible for that person not to believe. This too contradicts the Bible, for there are many examples of those who indeed resisted. In John 5:39-40, Jesus said that the Scriptures bear witness of Him. But, He says, "You are unwilling to come to Me, that you may have life." In Matthew 23:37, Jesus laments over Jerusalem. He was certainly willing for them to be saved, but they were not. In Acts 6:8-10, Stephen was "full of grace and power . . . and the Spirit," and yet those who heard his preaching resisted. In Acts 7:51, before Stephen is put to death, he said, "You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit."

Conclusion

The Bible does teach predestination, but not the kind that Calvinists teach. The Bible does not teach that God has decided ahead of time who will be saved and who will be lost. We are free, moral agents with the capacity to accept or reject God's commandments.

Predestination or fore-ordination is what God did before the world began, as He determined to save man from sin through the sacrifice of His own Son. Those who answer His call through the gospel experience the blessings of that plan now in Christ Jesus. (Romans 2:3,11)

Implanted Chips in Our Troops?  (Precursor to the mark of the beast!   Pas. Merrill)

A Florida company wants to get under the skin of 1.4 million U.S. servicemen and women. VeriChip Corp, based in Delray Beach, Fla., and described by the D.C. Examiner as "one of the most aggressive marketers of radio frequency identification chips," is hoping to convince the Pentagon to allow them to insert the chips, known as RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) chips under the skin of the right arms of U.S. servicemen and servicewomen to enable them to scan an arm and obtain that person’s identity and medical history. The chips would replace the legendary metal dog tags that have been worn by U.S. military personnel since 1906.
The device is usually implanted above the triceps area of an individual’s right arm, but can also by implanted in the hand if scanned at the proper frequency. The VeriChip responds with a unique 16-digit number, which can correlate the user to information stored on a database for identity verification, medical records access and other uses. The insertion procedure is performed under local anesthetic, and once inserted it is invisible to the naked eye.

The company, which the Examiner notes has powerful political connections, is "in discussions” with the Pentagon, VeriChip spokeswoman Nicole Philbin told the Examiner. "The potential for this technology doesn’t just stop at the civilian level,” Philbin said. Company officials have touted the chips as versatile, able to be used in a variety of situations such as helping track illegal immigrants or giving doctors immediate access to patient’s medical records.

On Monday the Department of State started to issue electronic passports (e-passports) equipped with RFID chips. According to reports the U.S. government has placed an order with a California company, Infineon Technologies North America, for smart chip-embedded passports.

The Associated Press said the new U.S. passports include an electronic chip that contains all the data contained in the paper version name, birth date, gender, for example and can be read by digital scanners at equipped airports. They cost 14 percent more than their predecessors but the State Department said they will speed up going through Customs and help enhance border security.

The company's hefty political clout is typified by having former secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson, on its board of directors.

Thompson assured the Examiner that the chip is safe and that no one — not even military personnel, who are required by law to follow orders — will be forced to accept an implant against his or her will. He has also promised to have a chip implanted in himself but could not tell the Examiner when.

"I’m extremely busy and I’m waiting until my hospitals and doctors are able to run some screens," he told the newspaper.

Not everybody agrees with Thompson, the Examiner reported, noting that the idea of implanting the chips in live bodies has some veterans’ groups and privacy advocates worried.

"It needs further study,” Joe Davis, a retired Air Force major and a spokesman for the D.C. office of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, told the Examiner.

And Liz McIntyre, co-author with Katherine Albrecht of "Spychips: How Major Corporations and Government Plan to Track your Every Move with RFID," said that VeriChip is "a huge threat” to public privacy.

"They’re circling like vultures for any opportunity to get into our flesh,” McIntyre told the Examiner. "They’ll start with people who can’t say no, like the elderly, sex offenders, immigrants and the military. Then they’ll come knocking on our doors.”

In an e-mail to the Examiner, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., wrote: "If that is what the Defense Department has in mind for our troops in Iraq, there are many questions that need answers. "What checks and balances, safeguards and congressional oversight would there be?” Leahy asked. "What less-invasive alternatives are there? What information would be entered on the chips, and could it endanger our soldiers or be intercepted by the enemy?”

The company, the Examiner wrote, is also unsure about the technology. According to company documents, radio frequencies in ambulances and helicopters could disrupt the chips’ transmissions. In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, VeriChip also said it was unsure whether the chip would dislodge and move through a person’s body. It could also cause infections and "adverse tissue reactions,” the SEC filing states.

But Philbin downplayed the danger of the chips.

"It’s the size of a grain of rice,” she said. "It’s like getting a shot of penicillin.”

Note from Pastor Merrill  "How interesting to see the technology come about that makes Biblical prophecy understandable."

Rev 13:16  "And he (the Antichrist) causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads; and that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.  Here is wisdom.  Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is six hundred threescore and six (666).
 

Sharon Clearwater's first soulwinning experience!     8-20-06 I asked Sharon Clearwater to put into writing how she recently led her first soul to Christ.   The Lord would love to see many more stories like this from you readers.    Below is Sharon's story re: Francine Schultz.

She would tell me bits and pieces of her life, and I would interrupt her and pray a few seconds about what she was sharing with me at work.  Praying surprised her.  I did this on two or three different occasions, over a period of two weeks.  She said she's never been around a person so "spiritual" is the term she used.  She said "You must be an angel."  I said "I'm no angel. That's the Holy Spirit in me you see.  He lives in those who are saved." I don't think she quite understood that.  After that, I gave her the tract " May I Ask You a Question".  She read it, and also for a few days carried it around with her in her pocket at work for good luck. I think she was feeling the Holy Spirit wooing her, and thought it good luck.  When she told me that, I said "There's no such thing as good luck," that "it was the Holy Spirit wooing you."  I called her that night and asked if she had any questions.  She said "No", so I asked if she would be willing to pray the prayer in it with me and she said "Yes".  So we said it together over the phone.  She's very open to it.  Spiritual things are very foreign to her.  She has a bible (Good News for Modern Man) and she's reading some of the Psalms in it.  I've been giving her scripture verses, and she really was impressed and blessed with Phil. 4:6-8.  I asked her to look it up in her bible.  She's such a "babe" in Christ that she didn't know how to do it.  I'm trying to explain to her how.  When I talk with her, I'm not sure she understands what it means to be lost, what sin is, and that we need a Savior.  It's hard for her to believe Jesus was raised from the dead, but she's processing it, and is very open to a spiritual discussion.  She can't believe I'm praying for her, and that some in our church are praying for her.  I think she's being very trusting right now in her belief in trying to understand, like a little child.  It's amazing how precious the Lord is showing me she is, in her becoming a child of our Lord in her inner being.  I can't believe this writing is so long, but I think the Holy Spirit is keeping me rolling with it, and giving me the words to share this.  Any how, every day I see her at work I try to share something scriptural with her.  This is a real blessing to both of us.  Keep on praying for her (I know you will) and that I keep on with her too.  Thanks for asking me to making the commitment to share this with you.

Sharon

My Reasoning Why not to be Associated with the Lawndale-Hawthorne Ministerial Association.
by Pastor Greg Merrill

As I write, it is 8:15 a.m., Wed, May 9th, 2007 and the Lawndale-Hawthorne Ministerial Association is holding their monthly meeting this month at CBC. I am not present, and have thought long and hard on whether to attend this particular meeting or not, because it is at CBC.

Probably being groomed in this direction from my first days of going to church as an adult, I had no desire to be involved with Ministerial Associations of this nature. When I first came to CBC as pastor, seeing an elder was encouraging me to go, along with the husband of a long time member, whose father had one time been Mayor of Hawthorne, I decided to attend these meeting for a time (just less than a year I believe) to give them a chance. After some time, and after the Catholic priest walked out on the meeting where our elder & I were presenting a Peter Lowe Business Seminar (that would include the sharing of the gospel at the Forum in Inglewood) I stopped going.

As I considered going to this meeting today, and at one point decided I should (because I wouldn't get any bad feedback if I did), I considered why I am not a part of this group. It is by my conviction of not wanting to be involved in a supposed godly ministry with people that, one, either do not hold to the authority of God's Word, or two, don't rightly understand God's Word. Five words came to my mind to help me finalize my decision not to go to this meeting, and to continue not having anything to do with this type of group: Ecumenicalism, socialism, Pentecostal, Catholic, and political.

Ecumenicalism is seen in this group in that they are a combination of differing religious groups; Methodist, Lutheran, Baptist, Charismatic, Pentecostal, Catholic etc., that all supposedly want to put their differences aside to work for the spiritual and social good of the community. Associating with groups that hold to false doctrines, in order to do social good, is not a right option for me.

Socialism is a word that comes to mind when I think of how some of these churches put more of an emphasis on meeting the earthly needs of mankind than the spiritual needs of man. Christ taught just the opposite, and I am following Christ, not the thinking of these kind of men and women, ("Women being pastors" being one of the number of false teachings within this group).

"Pentecostal" brings to mind churches that have ministers that accept the practice of speaking in tongues, whether it may only be privately, or whether they incorporate it into their services. Included would be the teaching that all the spiritual gifts of the infant church (including healing and prophecy) are still in effect today. I do not want to be working with, or associated with groups that are leading people into false doctrine.

Catholic doctrine teaches salvation by works, and operates with unscriptural practices such as the RCC priesthood, confessional booths, and transubstantiation, to name a few.
Unlike the others in the Association, their should be little question that the Catholic members of this group aren't even real Christians at all. I do not want to be working in ministry with those that say they are Christians, and are really not.

Political close association with this particular group is something I don't want to have, but I will refrain
from giving the particular reason why here, though I shared them with the church elders when I had them approve this article.

So much for me personally, but if I hold this conviction, and am pastor of CBC, why haven't I communicated this to the church? Why would I not object to this Association meeting on our facilities, and being provided our resources for a time, to plan a work that I don't support personally, or as the pastor of CBC?

I will now answer my own question. First, I believe I am greatly at fault in this area, not purposefully, but for not thinking this whole subject through, and being a responsible pastor in this area. I judge myself as being irresponsible in this area. With this meeting that has taken place this morning, I have been faced with having to think it through. From reading this, I would trust that the reader can now see that I have thought it through, and have come to the conclusion that I do not believe it is right for a God honoring, Bible believing Christian to be involved with this Association. My point now is to judge myself, and be on public record of how I would led CBC not to host these meetings in the future. I do not point any fingers at our people that have participated in working for, or with, this Association in the past. I will leave them to the Holy Spirit in how they want to proceed in the future, and how they want to view the past. In my non-attendance of these meetings, I have led by example. In the writing of this article I am also leading by word. Whether someone follows the example and teaching of their pastor is something that they will give account to God. If their pastor is wrong, and they can justify themselves before God, then the problem is only with the pastor in this particular area. As for myself, having prayed with God about this subject, I now feel I am moving in a more responsible way before God in this area.

In conclusion, and in regards to this article, I would like to close with 1 Th 5:21 which says "Prove all things, and hold fast to that which is good." Consider before God what I have written, and make your own choice whether to agree or disagree on these things, whether to act as I would, or not.

May God be glorified,
Pastor Greg Merrill

        After reading this article, the Elders of CBC, without any coercion from myself, voted to no longer have the church host meetings of the Lawndale-Hawthorne Ministerial Association.  They too harbor nothing negative to any individuals that want to associate with that group on their own, but feel that for the church to do so, puts it in a position of compromise we do not want to be in.

Church Attendance

   As part of my Father's Day message for 2007, when we had a record low attendance, I shared an article from the Daily Breeze newspaper of 6-2-07.   The article's title was "Dad's sins of not going to church visited on Kids", and was written by Terry Mattingly.   Here are some things I learned.  Men religiously avoid church; three times as many avoiding it, as attending it.  One of the biggest reasons men are not in church is because their fathers were not in church.  In 1992 church attendance among men had fallen to 43%.  In 1996 it went down to 28%.  The Swiss did a study which showed:

If a father and mother were both faithful churchgoers, 33% of their children would become faithful adults as well.

If the father was semi-active, and the mother was faithful, only 3% of their children would become active in church.

If the father never went to church and the mother was faithful,  only 2% of their children would do likewise.

If the father didn't go to church, only 1 in 50 became faithful churchgoers, no matter how strong Mom's faith.

If a man became a Christian, 93% of the time his whole family under him would too.

I would hope more men would become aware of this (than did at CBC on Father's Day) and decide to be in church more for their kid's sake.

 

My Justification of Using the Blessing of the Animals as an Opportunity of Outreach.

   In answer to at least three people voicing their objection against having a "blessing of the animals" at Centinela Bible Church, I have looked into the matter further, and thought it a good idea to write this paper to try to explain why I thought it was a good idea, and share it with you.

   As I was contemplating on working with others to put together the Centinela Bible Church calendar for 2008, I was thinking of different ways we could reach out to our community. Because there is such a dominant manifestation of Latinos in our community, and knowing that from their background many would be familiar with the "Catholic" practice of "The Blessing of the Animals," the idea came to me to do our own "God honoring - plan of salvation sharing" version of "The blessing of the animals." This would be in order to attract some of our Latino community to come to our church and hear a clear presentation of the gospel, without any mention or attack against the Catholic Church. Our "blessing of the animals" would be free from any of the doctrinal errors the Catholic Church might teach or practice, but even more important than that, would include a clear presentation of the true plan of salvation.

   In conjunction with the blessing of the animals that we put on the church calendar for April 13th, there will be a dramatic presentation centered around the story of Noah's ark. What a dramatic illustration the story of Noah's ark has been regarding the condition of the world, the judgment upon sin, the plan of salvation, the majority of the world rejecting God's plan, and only a few that would believe and obey God, trusting in His provision, being saved.

   It was announced to the church that anyone that would like to work on the church calendar was welcomed to come the day of January 5th. When I presented this idea of blessing the animals to those that chose to give of their time to help plan the church calendar, it was immediately and enthusiastically received. When it was placed on the church calendar, and the calendar posted at the back of the church sanctuary on January 13th, as well as on the church website, it was announced to the church where the calendar had been posted for their perusal. Several weeks went by where I also announced in the slide presentation (that we regularly show for thirty minutes between Sunday School and the morning service) where the church calendar could be reviewed. It wasn't until March 16th, sixty-three days later, that I started to get a few people who were rather upset with the idea of us having this blessing of the animals, which was now scheduled to take place within the next thirty days.

   I have heard the objection that animals don't have souls, and so can not be blessed. Webster's Seventh Collegiate Dictionary defines "bless" as "to hallow or consecrate, to invoke divine care for, to confer prosperity or happiness upon." One of it's definitions for "blessed" is "bringing pleasure or contentment." With these definitions (being the understanding that I intended from the beginning) we can ask God's blessing on animals, on plants, on people, on houses, cars, businesses, travel, etc. Don't we also ask God to "bless" the food that we eat?

   I have heard the objection that blessing animals is not found in the Bible. Of course my immediate response is to list all the others things that are not found in the Bible, like Sunday School, Vacation Bible School, AWANA, Billy Graham type crusades, buildings dedicated solely for church services, all our electrical devices, and some of our modern musical instruments, just to list a few. If we are going to just limit ourselves to what is recorded in the Bible, we would run along the same lines as the Amish.

   Of course the common objection I have heard is that "the blessing of the animals" is associated with the Catholic Church. Of course it is. That is why I thought to use the same name, but not done in the same way, or for the same reason. We would do it not to in any way condone or support the Catholic Church, but to make a connection with the Catholic people in our community. I do not plan to support how the Catholic Church has a "blessing of the animals," or to condemn how they practice it, or to mention them at all. My goal is to attract people to come, through something that would not displease God, would seem familiar to the community, and to give them the gospel, as well as asking God to bless their animals according to the definition I have mentioned.

   I talked with an elderly Christian lady that both loves animals, has been and is still very involved with our church, and had also gone to Catholic schools during her childhood, to see what her opinion would be. She was absolutely fine with the idea. She also told me what a "blessing" animals have been to her, and what a blessing it was for a Latino woman to put her arms around her shoulders when this lady's dog had to be put down by the vet. She would call me the next day, say she was 100% behind what I was trying to do, but didn't want me to get hurt.

   I called my former pastor, who is a long time I.F.C.A. pastor, and he was fine with the idea, as long as the Elders had no problem with it, which they don't. He cautioned me to be careful with it, not to use the word "Catholic" in advertising it, or when doing it. I asked him to ask his congregation to keep us in prayer.

   I also talked with a well known, highly respected, Latino pastor, pastoring for some time in a highly Latino city, that has helped plant several other churches, and who is also a professor at a well known Bible College. Though he was not aware of any other non-Catholic churches doing what I was speaking of, and though he said it does "smack" of Catholicism, didn't see anything scripturally wrong with it. He did understand how some might not agree, or be upset with doing it. He did share that in the Catholic Church, the people see their priest as having sacerdotal power that the lay person does not have, and so the lay person brings animals to the priest to bless, for a greater blessing upon them than their own prayers would bring. I asked for this pastor's prayers and further counsel if something came to him later.

   I talked with another Latino, long term I.F.C.A. pastor, and he too said (after consulting with still another) that he found nothing unscriptural about how I was planning to take advantage of the familiar term "blessing of animals" and use it in a non-Catholic practice. His concern was whether we would cause the weaker brethren with objections to stumble. I explained that I would not consider those that I have heard about as "weaker brethren." I also see that through   sharing this paper with them it is an opportunity to teach them something about making judgments before you study it out for yourself and think through one's explanation for why they are doing something. It is also an opportunity to demonstrate "thinking outside the box" in order to try something different to reach people for Christ. Of course people can choose to be inflexible, unteachable, set in their ways, and go by their own feelings, regardless if they can’t back them up with scriptural principles.

   Paul wrote "For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the gospel's sake, that I may be partaker of it with you." 1 Co 9:19-23. This is my heart in doing the blessing of the animals, not to enter an error of Catholicism, but to do it in a correct, God-honoring, Christ proclaiming way, which attempts to connect with the surrounding, Latino community.

   Now, not only is there the controversy of whether we should bless the animals or not, there is also in some the fear that if we do, would people leave the church over it. I came to this church almost ten years ago, and was told by the Elders and Trustees that it was a church in decline. They had been reading books on how to turn a church around, and had me read two of those books as well. George Barna said that it was not likely to turn a church around, and unless some drastic changes took place, usually over a period of about seven years, that church would cease to exist. Warnings were given in the books how many people hate change, and don't like to try things that are new. Some one wrote that the last words of a local church that ceased to exist were "We have never done it that way before." Our church has continued to exist, but has also continued to decline; some passing away, some moving away to other states, some leaving because they didn't like the changes I was making, or the non-Calvinistic stand I took on the doctrine of "election." It is comforting to know that Jesus experienced a similar situation when it is said in Jn 6:66 "From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more."

   I am contemplating whether I am standing on shaky ground in doing this blessing of the animals because it would not be right, or if God is really behind this idea and opposing forces are stirring up opposition. If I choose to cancel the blessing of the animals that has been scheduled, I must choose whether it is because it is wrong, or because it may cause a few to stumble, or if it is out of human fear of upsetting a few people, and even losing the support of a few people.

   Scriptures that keep coming to my mind all have been encouraging me to go forward with the blessing of the animals. I am not intentionally looking for scriptures to justify something I want to humanly do, I am not searching the Bible, books, or other sources for them. They are just coming to mind. I have thought about canceling blessing the animals just out of logistical reasons. On the other hand, no passages are coming to mind to cause me to doubt what I am doing would be displeasing to God. One particular passage is the report of the ten spies, verses the report of Joshua and Caleb. Of course for these two, they had God's direct and clear word on the subject. For me, God doesn't mention pro or con in the Bible about trying to reach out to a Latino community by doing what I would call "a godly spin off" on something they are already familiar with, unless it is the principle found in 1 Co 9:19-23. But Joshua and Caleb were far in the minority, though they would not back down from their position, and God would allow them to be the only one's from among this generation to go forth with His plans thirty-eight years later with the next generation.

   Well, enough said. Those of you that read this, I invite you to respond. If God does not want us to go forward with this, may He use one of you to enlighten me. Those of you that feel you might want to encourage me to go forward, don't be dissuaded from doing so. Time is short, so speak quickly. Whatever view you take, may God bless you in the study of His Word, and in your pursuit to be filled and led of His Spirit.

Rev. Greg Merrill, 3-20-08
                                            Responses received regarding the above article.
Greg
A wise strategy to make contact with the people in the culture surrounding your church. The 1 Cor 9:19-23 principle "all things to all men that I might win some," is the strategic foundation for cross cultural ministry. That is what the Lord can use to turn a church from "decline" to contact with the community and growth. Growth that can be both numerical and in maturity of your church family as they see modeled how to communicate with others wisely to bring the Good News to them.
 
Use of Noah's account is a wise way to approach the animal issue. Obviously, the Lord cared for animals and spared them as a species. To bless the animals is as much a blessing to their owners who care for them deeply as to the animals. God loves animals or He would not have created them. Jesus made the point that God knows when a sparrow is hurt.
 
Your strategy is a great way to let people know of the love of God for them through emphasizing His love for all His creation including animals. God is love.
 
Thanks for your Spirit led creative, out of the box thinking on how to reach those in your community without the Lord. :-)
 
P.S. In my active duty chaplaincy years I blessed a basketball tournament. I think I was asked to bless a building as well (i.e. those who will work in it and the purpose for the building). There are many opportunities to connect with others if we have our mental antennae up looking for the Spirit's insight and guidance. We live in a growing mission field in So. Calif. We should think like missionaries.
 
Don't give up!
 
Yours in His love & service
Warren Dane
Ch, Lt Colonel USAF (Ret)
IFCA International
So. Calif. Regional Representative
951-247-0410
Greg
 
To avoid the nuance that some indicated is present in the Catholic observance - the priest is the one with special sacerdotal gifts to bestow the blessing - you might plan the service to make the time of blessing one that all can share. Perhaps a printed prayer for all to recite together after you explanation of the reason for doing so. You could emphasize that a printed prayer enables all God's children to pray together for the same purpose. It could serve as a model for those who wish to ask God's blessing on their pets in the future.
 
You might even plan on a series of messages on prayer that could be a follow on to this unique service. It might attract those who have questions about prayer. Just an additional thought.
 
Warren

3-21-08 Dear Pastor Merrill,

Good morning -- just want to take a minute and respond to your 'blessings of the animals'!! I appreciate your attempts to minister to a group of people who may never/rarely have the opportunity to hear about the Love of Christ. May you be blessed as you seek to minister to others in your community.
   As for blessings on animals, let me share a couple of thoughts I have had. What was the first job Adam and Eve had in the Garden? Name the animals. Apparently it was important to the Lord that Animals not just be nameless entities with no identity, but rather each animal have a unique identity.
   At the Flood, God thought it important to save animals for the repopulation of the earth with animals. And after the Flood, the Lord made a covenant with Noah AND THE ANIMALS. (See Genesis 9: 8-16).
   At the birth of Christ, who was with the Lord Jesus when he was born? Animals!! I agree that the Scriptures don't say anything specifically about 'blessing animals', but it seems if animals were integral at the Creation, at the Flood, and at the Birth of Christ -- they are very important to the Lord. As you mention we pray for a lot of things not specifically mentioned in the Bible -- but the Lord says to bring EVERYTHING to Him in prayer. I figure that can include animals too.
 
We often pray for land, Church buildings, ministries, etc. It seems logical and good that we also pray for animals.
At any rate, part of our stewardship of the earth includes the care of animals here and now. It seems only reasonable to pray for the things that God has entrusted to us!!
For what it is worth!!
Blessings, Mike Ray (CBC Missionary)-- The Broom Tree Refuge

3-21  I feel for you in this issue!   I am so glad you wrote  in depth about all the things that you did.  My heart goes out to you in the conflict, and I'll pray for you! (John is out of town, so I speak in the singular right now.)
     I approve of what you want to do, to reach out "cross culturally" to win others to Christ.  This ceremony is just typically what you have assessed: "we never did it this way before".    It is not inherently problematic, but I can see that it has stirred a hornets' nest around you.   I am so sorry about that.
     There is a lot of sentiment and importance among people who have animal pets, and that ceremony could be a way to touch the unreachable.
     If you have to cancel it,  as a public event,  I wonder if you could be in touch with any individuals that expressed a desire to have it.  You could then visit in such a home and personally pray God's blessing on the animal involved.  That would give you the desired link to someone who might not be reached any other way.        Since the animal issue is on your heart, let me tell you about a dear friend of ours, here in the mountains of Colorado.   His home and buffalo ranch is adjacent to the church he attends and serves as an elder in. (Swedish Baptist).  There is a cemetery there, too.    For years he and his wife allowed their beautiful home to be used for small private funerals, next to the cemetery.     And he got the vision to create a pet cemetery and conduct grief memorial meetings in his home. This has given him amazing inroads to the unreached families of that community.  This is a very wealthy community, and the ministry he has is unique.
I thought you'd enjoy this!   :)     Dotty Davis (CBC Missionary) International House of Philoxenia

Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:43:37 -0600

Dear Greg,

 

I don’t know enough of the whole background to the blessing of animals to know if there is something inherently contrary to our evangelical beliefs, but if it is as it seems on the surface, that is, a simple blessing of animals, I would support you in doing this for these reasons (not necessarily in order of importance):

 

1.  I see nothing inherently heretical or unbiblical in the act of blessing animals.  There are inherent satanic or worldly or other unbiblical attachments.

 

2.  Animals are God’s creatures.  Why not honor them or be thankful for them in this way?

 

3.  Just because this tradition has become a Catholic thing doesn’t mean it is inherently Catholic.  If we were talking about doing a true mass to help reach the Latinos in the area, that would be wrong.  But I don’t see in any inherent wrong in blessing animals.

 

4.  It seems to me a legitimate “all things to all people that we might win some” action.

 

5.  For many people animals are dear friends.  To them it would be like blessing a son or daughter.  Why not do that for them?

 

6.  For such acts I think it is what we make it.  You can make the blessing whatever you want.  For example, when I pastored, I was asked if I could do a funeral for a known nonbeliever.  I said yes.  I don’t have to say anything about their eternal future.  I did one or two like that and celebrated their lives and sometimes talked about life and death without specific reference to that person’s destiny.  So, your blessing can be what you make it without whatever objectionable traditions may be attached to it.

 

7.  The pastor of the Methodist church I attend does a blessing of animals.  For me personally it is unimportant and unnecessary.  But for the sake of outreach and connecting with animal lovers, why not?   You would be doing nothing wrong, and this could be the first step in bringing one or more to Christ if they sense love and personal interest by doing this.

 

I can’t say that I have given this deep thought.  These are mainly immediate responses, but I can’t see anything wrong or unbiblical with it, and I see opportunities for outreach and expressions of caring interest.

 

If you know of anyone who has a serious biblical objection, I would like to hear it.  But I can’t think of one.

 

Wendall Hollis   (CBC Missionary)  Entrust  (Formerly "Bible Education Extension")

 

Blessing of Animals

 
  Q. I know that Roman Catholics and Episcopalians have an annual "blessing of the animals."  Do some LCMS congregations do this?  Is it wrong to pray for the welfare of beloved pets or animals by which one earns a living?  I am almost certain that the answer the latter question is "no," but would like confirmation. 

 A. To my knowledge a formalized "blessing of animals" has never been a part of the Lutheran tradition, including certainly The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod. We recognize, of course, that animals are among the blessings for which we thank God. In his explanation of the First Article of the Apostles' Creed; Martin Luther specifically listed "animals" among the blessings given to us by God out of His "fatherly, divine goodness and mercy" without any merit on our part, and for which "it is my duty to thank and praise, serve and obey Him." It certainly would be appropriate for Christians to pray that God would help them to be wise stewards of all of His gifts, including animals which are given to man for service to him and even enjoyment.

Dear Pastor Merrill,

       I have gone thru my KING JAMES Bible and found notheing on animals, dogs or blessing of any kind.  Have been checking the internst and found this.  I don't see anything wrong with blessings animals myself. will keep looking for more info and pass it on to you. 

--
   GOD BLESS, KEEP UP the GOOD  WORK.
--
Max E. Wolters   Member of CBC

Pastor,

I feel you are right and should move forward.  Those that object are doing so because of some hang up they have, and are not looking at the big picture of what you would accomplish or lives it may touch.  I say no "pillar of salt" here-move forward and don't look back.
God Bless you in your decision.

Greg MacDowell   CBC member and Chairman of the CBC Missions Committee

 
Dear Pastor Merrill;

 When church attendance started its decline, I remembered the "Jabez prayer" and asked the Lord to also bless Pastor and enlarge his (CBC's)  territory.   I hope more will join me.  I saw it work in my life.

The Lord wants us to come to Him for all things, which brings me to the blessing of the animals.  I think this is an inspirational idea.  Many children have animals and to tie it in to Noah's Ark will definitely get the kids attention. Then, followed by some get acquainted activities,  I pray they will want to come back Sunday with their parents.  I think attracting children is a great idea (thank you Holy Spirit) for they are the Church's future leaders.

Thank you Pastor and Jenny for your courage and creativity.    O' that the Lord would bless you and CBC indeed.

Dianne Bailey      CBC Member