Slave Master: How Pornography Drugs & Changes Your Brain

Salvo Magazine: Slave Master: How Pornography Drugs & Changes Your Brain - Salvo 13

This is a very interesting article on the topic of pornography and addiction. Though I am careful and reluctant to say that pornography is merely a physical addiction; I do agree with the studies which show that it does affect the brain in physical ways.

Drugs are coping mechanisms we use to fill a need only Christ can meet.

Porn is devastating to say the least. There are many who hate it, but can't seem to stay away from it. It imposes itself on our families - even our children. And to be rid of it takes more power and work than a simple, "Stop that!"

We must know the gospel. We must preach and share the gospel of Christ. There is simply no other remedy. And we must be there, with imposing lives, embracing broken us-like sinners, bearing with them, with forgiveness, patience and love.

Pornography provides a far inferior pleasure to knowing Christ our Lord.

Chickens, Sex and the Second Grade

I was speaking with a guy the other day who was telling me about his chickens.  "I got them to teach my children responsibility," he said with a grin.  Chickens have to be cared for, protected [from hawks!], and eventually plucked.  But his children have grown such an attachment to them that "frying them up" would cause more tragedy than traction in the parenting process.  They have therefore, decided to eat the eggs instead of the chickens themselves.

I asked how he liked the eggs.  He said he loved them, they tasted great and they give great opportunities to talk to his little boy about "the birds and the bees."  You see, when his boy asked him if the eggs that they harvested would eventually hatch, he was locked into the discussion about fertilization.  And to a second grader, a simple, "Well son...the mommy chicken just needs a daddy chicken to fertilize the egg..." just doesn't cut it.  You can see the puzzled little lad...and you can hear him too, "Why daddy?"

The guy then proceeded to tell me about how he started saying the word "sex" around his children in normal conversation.  He didn't want the newness of the word to spark their interest elsewhere.  Then he told the story.

His boy came home one day from school (2nd grade).  He walked over to his dad and said, "Hey dad, lets get on the computer and look at playboy.com.  In shock, he said something like, "Why do you want to go there?  Where did you hear about that?"  The boy replied, "My friends at school were talking about it today.  They said we could go there and see naked girls."  My friend was obviously startled by his son's interest, but he was also grateful that his son came to him first.  I would be too.

Used to, a person had to go find some pornography and then sneak it back to the house.  Now, pornography finds you.  Even in the second grade...even from second graders!

Here is a good article to read/watch about how to start talking to our children about sex.

Here is a reality check for every parent with an internet connection and kids.  I may have posted this before...not sure.


Would you buy your son a stack of pornographic magazines? from Randy Alcorn on Vimeo.

Knowing God Rightly Leads to Knowing Everything Else Rightly

I am taking the advise of one of my seminary professors and continuing my study in the “old books.”  Currently I am working through Richard Baxter’s, The Reformed Pastor.  I must say that I am more filled now by it than when I read it a few years ago.  I’m not sure why, but I praise God for it.

In today’s section, Baxter is writing about how we cannot detach our study of theology from our study of philosophy.  To put it more plainly, if we do not first know God [rightly], we cannot know anything rightly.  It is important to note that he wrote this book in 1656, at a time when human reason was presupposed to be dependent on God and not independent of Him.  These men followed in the footsteps of the church fathers; more particularly, Augustine, who wrote that one must first believe before he/she could ever understand.   Faith precedes understanding, not vise versa.

Enlightenment thinkers of the 18^th century abandoned this order.  As far as they were concerned, God was placed in the dock, while man (with his independent reason) was seated on the judicial bench.  They thought understanding preceded belief.  Their anthem, “Let us first understand the universe, and then we will believe in a god (or not).”  Little did they know that in claiming rationality, they became irrational.  In “claiming to be wise, they became fools…” (Rom 1:22).  And we are still drunk with this poison.

Baxter saw the danger in this and was not afraid to speak on the matter.  He writes, “A world of business they make themselves about nothing, while they are willful strangers to the primitive, independent, necessary Being, who is all in all.  Nothing can be rightly known, if God be not known; nor is any study well managed, nor to any great purpose, if God is not studied.  We know little of the creature, till we know it as it stands related to the Creator: single letters, and syllables uncomposed, are no better than nonsense.  He who overlooketh Him, who is the ‘Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending,’ and seeth not Him in all who is the All of all, doth see nothing at all.  All creatures, as such, are broken syllables; they signify nothing as separated from God.  Were they separated actually, they would cease to be, and the separation would be an annihilation; and when we separate them in our fancies, we make nothing of them to ourselves.  It is one thing to know the creatures as Aristotle, and another thing to know them as a Christian.  None but a Christian can read one line of his Physics so as to understand it rightly.  It is a high and excellent study, and of greater use than many apprehend; but it is the smallest part of it that Aristotle can teach us.”

And later he adds, “…that to see God in His creatures, and to love Him, and converse with Him, was the employment of man in his upright state…and therefore the most holy men are the most excellent students of God’s works, and none but the holy can rightly study them or know them…Your study of physics and other sciences is not worth a rush, if it be not God that you seek after in them.  To see and admire, to reverence and adore, to love and delight in God, as exhibited in His works – this is the true philosophy; the contrary is mere foolery, and is so called again and again by God Himself…they [fools] study the creature before the Redeemer, and set themselves to physics, and metaphysics, and mathematics, before they set themselves to theology; whereas, no man that hath not the vitals of theology, is capable of going beyond a fool in philosophy.  Theology must lay the foundation, and lead the way of all our studies.  If God must be searched after, in our search of the creature, (and we must affect no separated knowledge of them) then tutors must read God to their pupils in all; and divinity must be the beginning, the middle, the end, the life, the all, of their studies.  Our physics and metaphysics must be reduced to theology; and nature must be read as one of God’s books, which is purposely written for the revelation of Himself.”

Every human being was created for the glorification and enjoyment of God.  The mind was not and is not excluded from this marvelous purpose.  Therefore, to reject the Creator in order to embrace the creature (whatever creature that may be – mind, math, science, dogs, cats, jelly beans, or whatever) is the height of irrationality.  And when I say the height, that is what I mean.  There is no greater contradiction in human experience than to say and believe that there is no Triune God.  And to function in every day life with any sort of consistency is not indicative of man’s rationality (while holding this position), but every indication of God’s common grace.  

I say this to confront those who say that because an atheist can conduct physics correctly - that is, work the problem so that the right answer is produced - this is indicative that they can know the creature rightly without faith in God.  Again, I answer that just because the answer to the problem is correct, does not mean he is doing his physics correctly.  If it is not done unto the glory of God, it is not rightly done.  

We must all be diligent to guard ourselves from the “empty and deceitful philosophy of this age” (Col 2), and run to Christ, our Lord and our Master – the One in whom all things hold together, are consistent, orderly and rational.  God is best known, and the creation is best studied while we stand upon the Rock.  All other ground is sinking sand.  Reasoning while sinking is clumsy, hurried, polluted with fretting and riddled with fear.  When it is conducted on the Rock however, it is so under the umbrella of sovereign protection, divine instruction, with all knowledge at its disposal, and with glory as its goal.

Question 4: Does the Bible Contain Error?

A person does not have to be a Christian very long before they encounter the view that the Bible is ridden with error.  From college campuses to the Discovery Channel, we live in a modern world where Christians are constantly assaulted on every side by such assertions. Many walk away wrestling with tough questions, clouded by an inability to find immediate answers, while some walk away from the faith itself.[1]  Therefore, I feel that the answer to this question is essential for every Christian’s understanding.  We, as Christians, must know and understand why our answer is a confident, “No!”

The Vocabulary of Inerrancy.  Plummer begins by stating the fact that before the Enlightenment of the 18^th century, essentially all persons who claimed the name of Christian accepted that the Bible was completely truthful in all matters that it asserted.  But with the elevation of human reason (which is at least understandable given the condition of the Church at the time), more people became skeptical of “previously sacrosanct texts.”  Plummer writes, “People started to judge revelation (that is, the Bible) on the basis of their own human reason, rejecting and criticizing various portions, based on what seemed reasonable or probable to them…Of course, the historic witness of the church to the complete truthfulness of Scripture has continued in spite of challenges, but the critics of it also have continued until this day.”

Before proceeding further, Plummer clarifies some terms that have developed during the centuries of debate over the topic:

·      Inerrant/Inerrancy.  This means that the Bible is completely truthful in all things that the biblical authors assert – whether in geographic, chronological, or theological details. Every word of Scripture were divinely guarded from all error.  Plummer finds help from Grudem, “The inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact.”

·      Infallible/Infallibility.  To claim the Scriptures are infallible is to assert that they are error-free in matters of theology or faith.  The word is weaker in connotation and does not include within it the claim that the Bible is free from all error (intentional or unintentional, theological or nontheological).

·      Inspired/Inspiration.  See my post on Question 3: Who Wrote the Bible – Humans or God?

·      For the sake of brevity, I am leaving out Plummer’s definitions of Neo-Orthodoxy and Trustworthy/True/Authoritative. If you have an interest in these, please email me.

Scripture’s Claims About Itself.  I personally love the fact that Plummer includes this section.  Being a presuppositionalist, I firmly believe that the argument is not merely about facts, but about one’s interpretation of the facts.  We must be careful not to commit the errors aforementioned concerning the Enlightenment.  The Scriptures are not inerrant primarily because we have searched them and found no error in them (e.g. logical contradiction or whatever), but primarily because they themselves claim their own truthfulness and inerrancy.[2]  Here are some passages that attest to this fact (I will cite only 2 for brevity):

·      Numbers 23:19.  “God is not a man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind.  Does he speak and then not act?  Does he promise and not fulfill?” Plummer comments, “If God is completely truthful and the Bible is God’s communication to humanity (Heb 1:1-3), then it follows that the Bible, as God’s Word, is completely truthful.”

·      Psalm 12:6.  “And the words of the Lord are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times.”  Plummer: “Psalms and Proverbs are filled with repeated praises of the perfections of God’s Word (esp. Ps 19 and 119).”

Qualifications of Inerrancy.  Plummer writes, “The doctrine of inerrancy must be properly explained and qualified to prevent misunderstanding.  A number of important qualifications are listed below”:

·      Inerrancy applies only to the autographs (original copies of Scripture).[3]  In other words, a person cannot come to us with a KJV Bible, point out a numerical error and say, “See, the Bible has errors!”  There are also copying errors in every Hebrew and Greek manuscript of the Bible.  However, our Lord, in His providence, has supplied us with such a vast number of Greek and Hebrew manuscripts and their careful transmission, we are able to reconstruct, with extreme accuracy, the original wording of the Old and New Testaments.  There will be more on this next week when we answer the question,  “Were the ancient manuscripts of the Bible transmitted accurately?

·      Inerrancy respects the authorial intent of the passage and the literary conventions under which the author wrote.  Plummer comments, If the author intended an assertion literally, we should understand it so…” and likewise figuratively.  We must also respect the level of precision intended.  For example:  When someone asks us what time it is and we say, “Five after,” is it exactly five minutes after?  Or, is it four minutes after and we simply round up?  Even if we do round up, no one would say we were in error.

·      We must not impose chronological accuracy/order where it is not intended (this is my summary of what Plummer is saying on this point).  The best place this is found is in the Gospel of John.  John is piecing together events from Christ’s life to get his intended point across.  The Apostle is not giving a chronological account of Jesus’ life.

·      Inerrancy allows for partial reporting, paraphrasing, and summarizing.  Watch the news and you will see reporters doing this all of the time.  All of reported history is biased in some way – that is, it has an agenda and reports accordingly.  It is simply impossible to report all of history at any given moment.

·      Inerrancy allows for phenomenological language (that is, the description of phenomena as they are observed and experienced).  For example, we do not charge the biblical author with error when speaking of the sun rising (Ps 19:6) any more than we would the meteorologist on channel four when he speaks of the time of tomorrow’s sunrise.  In other words, we all know that the sun itself does not rise, but we do not say someone is in error for saying “sunrise.”

·      Inerrancy allows for the reporting of speech without the endorsement of the truthfulness of that speech (or the implication that everything else said by that person is truthful – e.g. Ps 14:1). 

·      Inerrancy does not mean that the Bible provides definitive or exhaustive information on every topic.  Plummer writes, “No author in the Bible, for example, attempts a classification of mollusks or lessons in subatomic physics.  The Bible tangentially touches on these subjects in asserting that God is the creator of all things, marine and subatomic, but one must not press the Scriptures to say more than they offer.

·      Inerrancy is not invalidated by colloquial or nonstandard grammar or spelling.  This is an academic way of saying that just because a person may not be as learned as another does not mean that person is not as honest.  And when honest people communicate, we would be well served to listen, even if their grammar is bad.  There are a few statements in Scripture that are ungrammatical (according to current standards of proper grammar at that time) but still inerrant because they are completely true.

Recommendations for Dealing with Difficult Texts. 

·      Be sure that you are interacting with real texts. Plummer asserts, “Do not allow another person’s uninformed skepticism to poison your own intellect.”  I usually like to ask for a specific reference when someone tells me that the Scriptures are filled with errors.  Christians should not be disturbed by arbitrary arguments – especially ones that stem from ignorant conjecture.

·      Approach the text in trust, not as a skeptic.  We should be diligent to investigate the truthfulness of Christianity.  Christianity has nothing to fear.  See my post on "What to do with Doubt".

·      Pray about a difficult text.  Plummer writes, “God is a loving Father who cares for His children.”  The Puritans used to call difficult texts “Scripture knots.”  Prayer is a great way to untie them!

·      Keep in mind the qualifications of inerrancy when dealing with a difficult text (See above).  Don’t demand that ancient writers conform to your expected standards.

·      Seek counsel when dealing with difficult texts.  That is what the Body of Christ is for.  Read good books and commentaries.  Talk to good Christian friends and pastors. 

·      Be willing to set a text aside for further consideration rather than force harmonization.  Plummer quotes Augustine:  “I have learned to yield this respect and honor only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error.  And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the [manuscript] is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it.” 

Questions for Reflection.  1)  Has anyone ever presented you with an alleged error in the Bible as an argument as to why it is not true?  What was your response?  2)  Is there a puzzling text that you are dealing with now?  What methods are you employing to “untie” such a Scripture knot?

Due to the importance (and size) of this study, not to mention the trying week I am experiencing, we will forgo our study of specific Biblical texts.  Lord willing, we will resume next week!  Have a great day!

---

[1] I’d like to clarify this statement.  I do not believe a believer can fall away from a genuine faith in Christ.  However, I have personally encountered and conversed with those who (from a human perspective) have walked away from Christianity – and this because they could not reconcile what they thought to be errors in the Bible.

[2] I understand this may be a bit tricky; but it is true nonetheless.  A person does not understand and then proceed to belief.  Rather, a person must believe and then proceed to understand (Augustine).  We believe that the Scriptures are inerrant (b/c they say so), and then we can further understand them and their inerrancy.  But a person who believes that they are errant, will not be able (without belief/faith) to search them and then find reason to believe because he has found no error.  An unbeliever may perceive error in the Scriptures even though they are innocent of such claims.  The problem is with the person’s understanding, not with the Scriptures.

[3] For a greater explanation of this statement see the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy: Article X.

Daddy! Is That God???

My little girl, now five years old, was sitting with me when I started watching this video this morning.  I'm not sure who the guy is speaking in the video, but the gospel he brings is powerful to say the least.  Of course, we would expect nothing less from the preacher who brings Good News.

About a minute into the video, when Emma finally understood what the video was about, she started screaming, "Daddy!  Daddy!"  I put my index finger to my lips and said, "Shhh! Emma...I'm trying to listen."  But she kept on, this time shaking my shoulder, "Daddy!  Daddy!"  I said again, "Emma, be quiet. Daddy is trying to watch and hear this video."

Then, building with so much energy and excitement that almost shook the computer out of my lap, she screamed, "Daddy! Daddy! It's that God?!  Is that Jesus?  Is that really Him??!!!"

I had to pause for a second.  First, I had to sort through my unresolved (but reserved) beliefs on images of Jesus - just like any good Presbyterian would do... right?!  But then, I was immediately confounded, humbled, and touched when I took the time to see the excitement on my little girls face.  She thought she just saw God; and she was so excited about that.

With emotions already flowing from the video, this sent me over the edge.  I looked at her, trying to hold back my tears and said, "No sweetie, that's not Jesus, but an actor in a movie about Jesus.  One Day, Emma, we will see Him; and I imagine that all of God's people will be saying things like this man is saying.  Won't it be great?"  She agreed.

Oh! to have a child like faith.  I pray that as I grow in Christ I'd become as excited to see my Lord as she was today.

Enjoy the video.

Mixture of Grief and Wonder

I wasn’t prepared for the email I received this morning.  I’m not sure there is any way to prepare.  All I could do was read it to my wife, sit, and weep.  When a friend looses a child, the range of emotions is indescribable, uncomfortable, and unsettling; all while delivering a pain that screams for some type of escape…some type of future hope. 

The little girl, who tossed about in her mommy’s belly for nine months, didn’t take a single breath of this world’s air.  Our Lord saw fit to take her before that happened.  And we all fall back into the reality of depravity, this-world’s-fallenness, our finiteness, and our longing for redemption.  A day that began with so many going their own separate ways, ended with so many focused on a common mission of tangible faith, hope and love.  The Body of Christ is together through thick and thin – through life and death.

I was asked what I (as a minister) am to say to those who have lost a child.  I really didn’t have an answer.  Seminary cannot give such lessons.  My pastor gave me the greatest advice, undoubtedly from decades of experience.  He said, “You just have to be there.”  I believe the Spirit of Christ carries us during times like this.  He makes us feel our need of Him.  Yes, He makes us all feel our need of Him.

I do believe we are all jars of clay.  This is what Paul teaches the church in Corinth (2 Cor 4).  For some reason, God chooses to store His treasure there.  Having preached this passage a few times, I knew (intellectually) why.  But today I experienced it.  When you break clay jars, the Treasure falls out.  And that is why broken people make the best Christians. 

God, in His sovereign, mysterious, providence decided to break my friend and his family.  And through sorrow and grief, the Treasure flowed freely.  Here is the email that he sent just hours after his third daughter was stillborn:

It's with a mixture of great grief and awestruck wonder in the greatness of our God that I'm writing this morning to let you know that S delivered our 3rd girl during the night, but [she] was stillborn. We need your prayers, love, and support. I believe we're grieving well right now, but will obviously be faced with various challenges and opportunities in the days ahead. Feel free to check in with us as you have opportunity…

Holding my dead infant daughter was a stark reminder that we are fallen people living in a fallen world. But in experiencing that grief I am still able to praise God He has seen fit to take "our" girl to be with Him - and spare her the pain and sorrow this sin-filled world and our sin-filled hearts create. Jesus, the resurrection and the life, says whoever believes in Him, yet though he dies, will live again. Our hope is built on nothing less...

May He keep us all in the faith!

Dating or Adultery - Evangelism in Our Modern World

Do you remember the dating days?  I do.  When I was in ninth grade there was a girl that I liked very much.  I didn’t have the guts to ask her myself if she liked me, so, I did what most cowardly ninth graders do – I asked a friend to ask her for me. 

After a few days, my fried came to me with the news.  He said, “Man, she said no.”  I was devastated.  I asked, “Well, why did she say no?”  He replied something to the effect of, “She said that she didn’t really know you that well, and that she wants to keep her options open for the dance coming up.”  I walked away sulking and a little upset.  But I realized that she had every right to say no.

Over the years, I have seen and even embraced a view of evangelism that is very similar to the “dating” scene.  God wants to be in a relationship with a people.  He sends someone to tell the people.  And the people have the choice to say yes or no.  As an evangelist, we give them the facts about God and tell them that He is very much in love with them. 

The issue however, goes deeper.  We think that a person has the right to say no – and, that doing so is intelligible and reasonable.  We hear things from the unbeliever like, “I surveyed all of the religions and Christianity just didn’t cut it.”  Or, “I need to know more about this God before I make a decision.” 

Comments like this are not innocently neutral, but ethically rebellious.  

This “dating-game-evangelism” which says that a person who is single (or, without God) has every right to “play the field” or, to "choose God" like he/she chooses a partner in life, is completely foreign to the Biblical worldview.

The reality of the human condition is not that we are single until we choose a good mate; but rather, that we are married and we are presently committing adultery.  A person who is married has no right whatsoever to “play the field.”  A person who is married and who is in adultery has no grounds for “I’m trying to keep my options open” or "I need to know more" or whatever excuse they may have for not going home in repentance.

The message of the evangelist is therefore quite different.  We are not approaching an unbelieving person as someone who is “single,” but one who is married.  Every human was created by God and for God.  Every human has fallen into adultery (or, from the glorious relationship with their Maker).  Therefore, we do not say, “Hey, God loves you so much…will you consider a relationship with Him today?”  Rather, we say (in a humble, tactful, and truthful way), “Hey, you are running from your Maker.  Please repent.  He is willing to forgive your adultery, and take you back unto Himself in Christ Jesus.” 

And when the person says, “Ehhh…I need to know more about this God you speak of before I make a decision.”  We now see how sinful and unreasonable such a response really is, especially in light of the truth that every person knows God, and that they suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Rom 1:18ff).  Its like approaching a man caught in adultery, telling him to go home to his wife, and hearing him say, "tell me more about this girl (his wife!) and I might consider it."  Our response is not to tell him about her - but to point to his wedding ring!

The fact is, a person cannot suppress what they are not touching.  When you “suppress” a beach ball under the water, it may be out of sight, but you are actively applying force to it to keep it there.  There is no neutral ground.  A person either suppresses the truth or they embrace it - there is no in-between.  They are either in a right relationship with God or they are in adultery.  In essence, there are no true unbelievers - either they are believers who love God by faith in Christ, or they are believers who are in rebellion against Him.

Therefore, here is our gospel.  We all must repent and believe.  We must repent from our adultery, for we have chosen and loved other gods.  We are adulterers.  God, our Maker, because of the life, death and resurrection of Christ, is willing and ready to see us come home if we will repent of our adultery. 

In short, as evangelists, we approach our unbelieving friend not by saying, “Hey, I know this God who loves you and desires a relationship with you.”  That may be true - but, it is not the whole truth.  Rather we say, “Get your but back home.  God is waiting mercifully and with forgiveness for you.  The Gate will not be open forever.  Go now while there is still time!"