A minister decided that a visual demonstration would
add emphasis to his Sunday sermon.
Four worms were placed in four separate jars.
The first worm was put in a container of alcohol.
The second worm was put in a container of cigarette smoke.
The third worm was put into a container of chocolate syrup.
The fourth worm was put into a container of good clean soil.
At the conclusion of the sermon, the Minister reported the
following results :
The first worm in alcohol -- Dead.
The second worm in cigarette smoke -- Dead
The third worm in chocolate syrup -- Dead.
Fourth worm in good clean soil -- Alive.
So the Minister asked the congregation - - -
What can you learn from this demonstration?
Maxine was sitting in the back, quickly raised her hand
and said,
"As long as you drink, smoke and eat chocolate, you
won't have worms."
That pretty much ended the service. . . . . . .
13 comments:
I was expecting someone in the congregation to say something about staying dirty!
I heard RC Sproul tell this one the other day:
There was a man who was mountain climbing and had lost his footing and was left holding onto nothing except a small branch. It was all he could do to hold on, and he knew he would fall unless he could get someone to help him, but there was no-one around. Desperate, he cried out to heaven and said "IS THERE ANYONE OUT THERE WHO CAN HELP ME!" Amazingly, a voice boomed back from heaven and said, "I WILL HELP YOU. JUST LET GO AND FALL AND I WILL CATCH YOU IN MY ARMS." The man thought a minute, looked down at the rocky gorge below him, and then cried out again, "IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO CAN HELP ME!"
I remember you saying you are able to here his radio program where you live, Luke. I really enjoy listening to him teach and his writing style is very easy to read. Much of what Dawn and I have read over the past couple of years ,since our church did a study group using his material,has been by him. Just curious of what your overall take on him is.
I like him, mostly. The radio show is great but I haven't read any of his books. He's doing a series on the life of David right now, and it is superb.
As far as criticism, I can think of at least four areas where I tend to be frustrated with him.
The first is that I think he makes too much of the reformation and the reformers. I like reformed doctrine, and I think the Church needed to be reformed, and still does, but I no longer think that the protestant reformation was of God, at least in sense that God took sides, or endorsed it, because it was a bloody reformation. The only faithful element that I can see in the reformation were the ana-baptists. They were wrong about baptism, but right about almost everything else, and of course they were persecuted and killed by both reformers and catholics.
The second is that he always fails it seems to me to understand the political dimensions of the gospel. He once told about speaking at an election ceremony for a local official who happened to be a Christian, and he quoted himself as saying, "you know, this is just like an ordination in the Church." I have a problem with that. The new testament tells Christians that if they seek an office in the Church they seek a good work. It never says that Christians ought to seek civil or state offices or that somehow that is also a good work for a Christian.
Another time, he spoke of filling out conscientous objector cards for his students during the Vietnam war and he said, "now I don't know if we should have fought in vietnam or not." How could he not know if it was appropriate or not for a Christian to take up a weapon and travel half-way around the world to kill people? RC Sproul will argue seemingly obscure doctrinal minutia to death and treat it with the greatest importance, but he does not know the answer to such a simple question as whether or not a Christian should kill his enemies? Does he not think that when Jesus said to love your enemies he probably meant not to kill them? Very frustrating.
The third area I tend to disagree with him is on the issue of heaven and hell especially as referenced in the gospel narratives. This is a very complex biblical issue and he takes a very simple evangelical approach here that I find rather irritating.
The fourth area is with his lectures on tithing. He mutilated the gospel stories in those lectures to prop up what is not a biblical practice.
Don't mean to be too hard on him though. I think he's got the best Christian program on the radio bar none. And disagreements aside, I keep listening.
Luke,
I do not want to start a lengthy debate over this, but was just curious about your statement regarding "Thou shalt not kill." Are you of the opinion that it is never justified for a Christian to take another person's life? I do not know enough about Vietnam to say whether we were justified in being there or not so I am not really taking up the Vietnam issue, but just, on a simple note, is it ever ok for a Christian to kill. What about self defense? If a man walked up and shot one of your children, would you attempt to shoot him? What if he shot another one of your kids. Do you just let him continue on and eventually kill you? Again...just curious.
I do not listen to RC Sproul regularly so I do not automatically know his views on various things, but I was curious what your disagreement was with the ana-baptists views on baptism. My very basic understanding is that "ana" is the same as "re". The were known as the re-baptizers because many members of other denominations had already been baptized as infants or were baptized without receiving Christ first. The anabaptists taught that baptism was simply an outward sign and testimony to others of what had already taken place inside (salvation). Your comments?
Appreciate your input,Luke. Obviously You have Listened to him speak more than I have read what he has wrote. Or maybe ,as is probably the case, you just pay better attention then I do.
As for making to much of the reformation I have a hard time being critical of. Many of todays professing christians know nothing of it and hardly even know that it took place. While I believe all things are ordained and purposed by God I am firmly of the stance that christains are not to force their hand on anyone.
Often I hear the argument of the bloody battles in the old-testament. God commanded his people to do violence in his name.
Jesus was in essence Gods "last word" to his people. He was the final prophet, priest and king.
His words to the christain should trump any preconcieved notion about what God expects of us. Christ does command us to love our enemies and those who persecute us. This goes totally against what we as creatures feel is right. We are always being told that we have the "right" to defend ourselves but nowhere did Jesus ever say that. To quote John Calvin " So great is the influence of preconceived opinion, that it brings darkness over the mind in the midst of the clearest light". I got that quote from Sprouls tabletalk devotional the other day, sorry. I saw written in big letters on the back of a tractor trailer comming back from tennessee in Feruary "Win The War-No Aid or Comfort to The Enemy...Never! How can a christain agree with this in light of what Jesus taught and Paul reiterated? It is actually a crime in america to comfort our enemies...sickning!
The issue of heaven and hell I am unaware of his teachings on. Certainly it is a complex issue beacause what information we are given on it is often very cryptic and illustrative. On the other hand though the reality of both is a simple issue.
I tried to research his lectures on thithing on the internet but came up short. I am quite discouraged by my lack of understanding on the subject as well. A "tithe" is ten percent but this was a requirement of old israel along with many other taxes.
I believe it is Gods will that his kingdom be finaced by us, the new Israel, but as to the same stipulations I am not convinced. I do know that we are to give generously and with joy, perhaps it is that simple.
Hey Justin,
I guess it depends on what you mean by "justfied." In one sense, I think we can see from the OT law that God probably holds guiltless people who kill in absolute self defense. But as a Christian, I don't see my highest priority as self defense, or national defense, of even defense of family, but as self sacrifice. The Christian calling as I see it is to be Jesus for the world - to give ourselves for them. This is the example set by Jesus and the early Church martyrs. Your dilemma about protecting my children is certainly a difficult one. I do want to protect my children. But the way that I do so is by being faithful to Jesus, who said "For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it." And again the One who said, ""But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. .."
Interestingly, the ana-baptists would agree with everything I've said so far about defense but would disagree with me about baptism. I'm guessing the opposite would be true for you.
But I've got to get back to work. I'll get back to you later on the baptism thing.
I really appreciate the way that you and Jake are able to debate without losing your cool. It is so enjoyable to me to discuss things with those who may or may not share my own viewpoints. I always seem to learn so much. I hope that I will never be so proud to think I couldn't be wrong about something.
I really don't know any more about the ana-baptists than what I already stated. I am looking forward to your take on the subject of baptism.
Hey Justin,
I appreciate the same about you. I've changed my mind enough times about enough things to not judge anyone for where they're at. All I can do is try to explain where I'm at now, and I'll be the last one to be surprised if I find that I'm wrong on this or that.
I like the ana-baptists a lot. Particularly the Mennonites. I have often fantasized about joining them. These guys, many of them, in the old days at least, were serious martyrs, and took their faith very seriously. I don't mean at all to belittle their contributions to the Church by saying that in their dire historical milieu they made the wrong decision when it came to the issue of re baptism.
But all of that aside, I don't think the Church should re-baptize. Paul says that there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism. Why does he say, one baptism? There is something significant and sacred about it, and at least I think it shows we should have a lot of caution about re-baptizing. In my judgment the proper pastoral approach to someone who was baptized in a questionable church or under questionable circumstances is to challenge them to live up to and to live out their baptism, not to get baptized again.
You asked about someone who is baptized without Christ, but I would suggest that the biblical language more frequently suggests that we are baptized into Christ, so that a baptism without Christ is rather hard to envision. The baptist viewpoint just doesn't seem to me to do the wide range of biblical references to baptism justice. The bible says we are baptized into Christ, that we are buried with him in baptism, that baptism saves us, that we are baptized into His death, that baptism is the washing of regeneration, etc, etc, and I'm sure I'm leaving out many important references. I can't look at this wide range of pregnant theological language used about baptism and say that it is just an outward sign. The bible says a lot about baptism, but nowhere does it seem to me to suggest that it is just a sign.
I remember discussing baptism with you a few years ago and I know you find it rather shocking that I believe in infant baptism. I guess that makes me the devil in some peoples eyes. But infant baptism is the historic practice of most of the Church, and not without good biblical reason in my opinion. So I can't appeal to a belief that infant baptisms are automatically invalid to support the idea of re-baptism either. If you're interested in hearing about my argument for infant baptism again, I'll be glad to do a post on it some time.
Hey Jacob,
I couldn't agree more with your comments here. Even the constitution is anti-Christian. Article 3 section 3 prohibits precisely that which Jesus commanded!
And I have basically the same approach to understanding the Old Covenant. Jesus initiated a new covenant and the terms of the covenant are the things he commanded, like, love your enemies, forgive your debtors, don't return evil for evil, all of that and more. That doesn't mean the Old Covenant saints were evil, they just didn't have the same obligations that we do.
Tithing is a subject I could talk about for a long time. There is so much biblical material on this. Did you know that tithes in the Old Testament were always food? Sometimes the food was converted to money for traveling, but money itself, though widely circulated in the ancient world, was never tithed. Did you know that unless you were a farmer you had no tithe? If you earned your living by some other trade the tithe did not apply. This was why the pharisees whom Jesus criticized raised tiny gardens of herbs. It was so they could "keep the tithe." Anyway, like I said, I could go on and on here.
Mom will probably never post a joke again!
Luke, thanks for your clear and straightforward answer. This has been really good. I sure miss you guys. It would be so great to get together somewhere for more than a day or two, but I can't imagine how right now.
I believe that alot of the Old-testament law still stands though it was never a method of salvation which has always been through faith. I used to be the same mindset as Rushdooney,and the rest of the christain-reconstructionists,that government ought to be christainized and carry out Gods law, but I have moved away from that idea. It really is impossible to enforce the old covenant in light of what Jesus taught,especially in his sermon on the mount (Matt. 5-8 I believe?). It is difficult to sqaure Jesus' words here against His words that the law shall not pass until heaven and earth pass and that he came not to abolish but to fulfill the law. My approach to it,and I'm not saying this is correct, is that the old law pointed towards Christ and kept Gods people on track so to speak. But now we have seen and heard the fulfillment, we no longer need something to to make us look toward a future messiah. We can read his words and know exactly what is expected of us without having a penal system to force us into serving God.
Jacob, we are sooooooo on the same page with this. It is clear that the animal sacrifices did not wash away any sin, but they did appease God's wrath and point toward the perfect Sacrifice to come.
You mentioned about the government being Christianized. This is something that has really irked me for years. I hear preachers all the time who get all over politicians for saying or doing something that is clearly anti-christian, BUT just because it is anti-christian does not always mean it is anti-America. Let me explain what I mean. Our leaders have a responsibility to uphold America's laws even above God's laws. They are sworn in on a Bible (at least usually) for honesty's sake, not because they swear to uphold every law in the Bible. They swear to uphold the civil laws concerning their office. I Peter 2:13-17 tells us to obey the laws of the land for the Lord's sake. Even if they counter God's laws, we are instructed to follow them. Because, in honouring the human laws we give honor to God. So, am I saying que sera sera (whatever will be will be). No. Thank God we are privileged to live in a country that allows us the freedom to voice our opposition to bad laws and freely attempt to get them changed. I believe it would be wrong to continue to obey a law that dishonours God and all the while making no effort to get it changed. While it would probably be best if all of America's laws fell perfectly in line with God's laws, I also understand that that is not how this country was ever intended to operate. We are not a Theocracy and many people (Christians) need to remember that. I do believe that America was founded on Christian principles, but one of the most important reasons America came to be was for religious freedom. Even God believes in religious freedom. Otherwise he would force everybody to follow Him. Christianity (in a broad sense) may have been the most common faith at the time of our country's founding, but I do not believe our founding fathers ever wanted Christianity to be the "official" religion of America. They were fleeing England and the religious oppression of it's official state sponsored church, The Church of England. America has its flaws as all nations in our era do. It is flawed because it is governed by flawed people. We can never expect America to be perfect, however, Jesus did command us to be the light of this world. That most certainly means friends, neighbors, enemies, elected officials, anyone within our sphere of influence. Politics is secondary to the destiny of their eternal soul, of course, and we should be primarily concerned with the condition of their heart rather than the issues of the day. Jesus was our example while on this earth. His ministry did not include getting involved in politics in an official sense, but he did rub elbows with the political and religious big-wigs of that day quite a bit. In these "elbow rubs" he always directed their attention to their own hearts and identified that as the problem. We must remember that the only perfect kingdom on this earth will be when Jesus sets up His millenial reign. Then it will be governed by One who is not flawed.
Post a Comment