1. EVANGELISM TIP <from guest Mike Turner>

One of those telephone solicitors called me yesterday and started his sales pitch, which was for aluminum siding. I stated that I already had that on my house and that I did not want the windows. He stated that they must have already called here before, and I stated that they had (but did not include, "probably at least a hundred times").

There was a pause, and then I asked him if he had ever heard the Gospel message, to which he said nothing. I went on to ask if he knew Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, to which he stated, "Sure, I am also a follower of the belief of yin, yang and even wear a pendant of Mary around my neck." I answered that there is but one way to Heaven and that it was a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. He in turn responded: "You have to cover all of the bases."

I told him that in Jesus all bases are covered and that there was no other way. He then in turn stated, "Oh, with 'yin and yang' you reach a level of good and evil that cleanses you and brings you to a true level of consciousness," adding that I needed to try it. With that I said that I have found the real truth Who is "The Way, the Truth and the Life" through Jesus Christ. After stating again that I needed to look at his way, he then hung up.

It is funny, but just the day before I had a conversation with a solicitor and did NOT do this. But after the above incident I made a choice to start giving the message of Jesus Christ to ALL of the solicitors who call on us. I began immediately with another solicitor who called right after the one mentioned above, and she did know Jesus as Lord and Savior. I only pray that a seed, the real seed, was planted with the gentleman above.

This brings to mind through that we ALWAYS need to be prepared. I have decided that - starting today - there will be a Gospel tract by the phone always and that I will stop being in a hurry when a solicitor calls and instead take the time to give the Word of God.

2. "HATE CRIMES" - ENOUGH IS ENOUGH <a guest piece by Dan Betzer>

The question that puzzles me - perhaps more than any other - is this: Why do people hate?

Do you know that every hour, someone commits a hate crime in this country? This past year, the FBI reported 8,000 hate-related incidents ranging from harassment, assaults, and murders, to vandalism and property crimes.

Jim Carrier is a journalist who researched and wrote a new manual called "Ten Ways to Fight Hate." He writes of uniting with people different from you. Of supporting victims of hate. Of creating alternatives to hatred. Speaking out against it. Teaching your children tolerance.

I was raised in a home where your color of skin meant absolutely nothing. My father never cared if you were white or black or any other color. It was what you are inside that mattered to my Dad. Same with Mom. I am the product of that environment.

Carrier is right on when he says, "Teach your children tolerance!" He adds, "Fighting hate is actually a form of civil defense. Sitting home with your virtue does no good."

Someone has said that all that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing.

Don't sit idly by while "white supremacists" spread their poison. Don't just nod nonchalantly when someone in your office rips those of other races.

Jesus taught His followers that their identifying uniform would be love.

One of my parishioners asked me, "What do you think of Christians who hate other races?" I replied, "There is no such thing as a Christian who hates other races."

The Church is to reflect its Head, its Leader, who is Christ Himself. My goodness, Jesus Himself was Jewish, not a white Anglo-Saxon.

What if all the good people of the world just decided that we would not put up with those who spread hate? What if we just declared, "Enough is enough!" Oh, we could make a huge difference in this battered old world!

Dan Betzer here and that's BYLINE.

<From ByLine OnLine, a ministry of the Media Ministries of the Assemblies of God. Copyright © 1999 Media Ministries of the Assemblies of God.>

3. QUOTATION WORTH CONTEMPLATION

"Few preachers of religion do believe thoroughly the doctrine of the fall, or else they think that when Adam fell down he broke his little finger, and did not break his neck and ruin his race." -- Charles Spurgeon (New Park Street Pulpit, 1855, p. 401).

* The Openness of God (Paperback, 202 pp.; InterVarsity Press, 1994) -

This book includes contributions from Clark Pinnock, Richard Rice, John Sanders, William Hasker, and David Basinger. Each author contributes a chapter from his own perspective (i.e., Rice = Biblical; Sanders = Historical; Pinnock = Theological; Hasker = Philosophical; and Basinger = Practical) which contributes to what Rice calls (in chapter one) "a new perspective." What is meant by this? The subtitle says it all - "A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God" - although I disagree strongly with the "Biblical" part.

First, allow me to point out a very important point made in this book - one that is right on target. These guys have come to understand that classical Arminianism (= the view that all men possess "free will" and are equally able to come to Christ for salvation) is no good answer to Calvinism (= the theology of the Reformers; i.e., that man is depraved and entirely unable to come to Christ and that God has chosen those who do come). Their reasoning is that Arminianism simply pays lip service to "free will" by continuing to affirm God's omniscience (= God knows all things - past, present, and future). Their claim is that the Arminian is still stuck with a FIXED future, and thus no "free will" for man. THEY ARE CORRECT, and I do commend them for their consistency.

HOWEVER, they then proceed NOT to affirm the Calvinistic view, but rather to attempt a systematic dismantling and reconstruction of the orthodox doctrine of God that has been tenaciously held to for untold centuries by Christians of every stripe (both Calvinist AND Arminian!). Here I must commend the classic Arminian for holding tenaciously to orthodoxy, despite what I consider to be inconsistencies in their theology.

The "open God" view goes like this. It seems that orthodoxy has been mistaken, and that God really does NOT know all things after all. Rather, He simply knows "all that is knowable." Since the future "hasn't happened yet," the future is therefore UNKNOWABLE - even for God. God can sort of "guess" what men will do in given circumstances, but cannot really know. Thus, the Divine attribute of OMNISCIENCE is radically redefined. From here, our authors go on to build the obvious - namely, that we serve an "open" God. This is really just another way of saying that God is "in process" - He learns, grows, and changes. Furthermore, His OMNIPOTENCE and SOVEREIGNTY go out the "open" window as we are told that man's freedom is such that God "cannot" exercise total control over it (p. 156).

In this way, Pinnock & co. are able to reach their fundamental goal - man remains absolutely "free" in all particulars. In other words, they achieve the preservation of man's "freedom" by watering down Almighty God. This is an unfortunate teaching which ALL believers should be gravely concerned about - whether Arminian, Calvinist, or in-between. Orthodox Christianity, on the basis of multiple Scripture passages, has ALWAYS maintained that God knows past, present, and FUTURE.

Pinnock started down this road some time ago (as early as 1990, and probably even earlier) with his contribution to the book, The Grace of God, the Will of Man: A Case for Arminianism, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990). On pages 25-26 of this book, Pinnock states:

"Decisions not yet made do not exist anywhere to be known even by God. They are potential - yet to be realized but not yet actual. God can predict a great deal of what we will choose to do, but not all of it, because some of it remains hidden in the mystery of human freedom ... God too faces possibilities in the future, and not only certainties. God too moves into a future not wholly known ... "

It is this same thought that finds elaboration from Pinnock and his allies in The Openness of God.

This is certainly not meant to be the sort of in-depth review that is really needed - others have done this (see the online BIBLIOGRAPHY for many sources, both online and offline). Suffice it to say that I find Pinnock & co.'s arguments in this book entirely unconvincing - and an convincing argument we must have to even consider dumping 2,000 years of orthodoxy! The authors are all guided by the presupposition-turned-agenda that man MUST be ABSOLUTELY "free" - apparently whatever the cost. This idea guides their exegesis and reasoning into dangerous waters.

However, I would urge all of my readers to become familiar with this teaching; a teaching which has been promoted for years under the "Moral Government" banner (Winkie Pratney, Gordon Olson, Loren Cunningham, and others) and is currently being promoted by such prominent teachers as Gregory Boyd, a professor within the Baptist General Conference.

"Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment." -- JOHN 7:24 (KJV)

On the SCRIPTURE THOUGHTS website, my friend Ken Mansfield has dealt with the too often misinterpreted Matthew 7:1 in his article "Judge Not, That Ye Be Not Judged." The usual misapplication of this verse is to set forth the idea that Christians should check their brain at the door and not question anything lest they be guilty of "judging."

Recently, I engaged a brother on the OPPOSITE error - that is, that John 7:24 grants believers a license to judge ANYTHING, including the salvation of other professing Christians.

Now, I firmly believe that even my eight year old daughter could read our verse and realize that the context surrounding it has absolutely *nothing* to do with determining someone's state of salvation - ESPECIALLY a professing believer with a clear understanding of the Gospel (whatever other error the professor may be involved in).

In fact, Jesus is simply telling His accusers (accusing Him of violating the Sabbath) that if they are going to make such judgments, then they need to understand what they are talking about. They need to have a correct understanding of the Scriptures.

The fact that this passage cannot possibly back up the idea of being granted a "license to condemn" is evident in the verse itself. Such misinterpreters would be judging "by appearance" in condemning professing believers - in fact, that is the ONLY basis on which anyone could be making such judgments. Why? Because GOD reads hearts - not us (1 Sam. 16:7; 1 Kings 8:39; 1 Chron. 28:9; Psalm 139:2; Proverbs 15:11; 16:2; Jer. 17:10; Luke 16:15; Acts 1:24; Heb. 4:13; Rev. 2:23).

Now, if there is a plain SCRIPTURAL reason to pronounce that someone is lost, that is a different matter as God has given us His mind in such circumstances. There are Biblical reasons to question a profession of faith, and in such cases we would be making "a right judgment" by simply repeating what God has already declared.

Those spoken to in our verse failed to make a "right judgment" because they hated Christ; they failed to correctly assess the situation with a true understanding of the Scriptures because they were PREDISPOSED against Jesus -

"Why do they not arrive at the same conclusion as to the work of Christ, but because their minds are preoccupied by a prejudice which they have formed against his person? Judgment, therefore, will never be right, unless it be regulated by the truth of the fact; for as soon as persons appear in public, they turn their eyes and senses on them, so that the truth immediately vanishes." <John Calvin, Commentary on John>

Jesus was saying in effect, "If you are going to judge Me, then judge me with a correct understanding of the Word of God and of what I am doing."

John 7:24 has NOTHING to do with those who would presumptiously judge the state of another's heart who professes Christ. Such are twisting the Scriptures to justify usurping God's position (in their own mind) as the sole Judge of the human heart. If one professes Christ, clearly comprehends the Gospel, and is not excluded on one of the few BIBLICAL grounds - treat them as a fellow believer. Correct their error? Absolutely. But do not pretend to know their hearts and condemn them to hell - that sphere of knowledge and judgment is God's Alone.