No Power Behind Greg's Word

I'm really sorry to have left you hanging with my previous post!  I really did preach that day, and I really do have the video to prove it, but not only have I been having issues editing videos lately, but I don't feel the video is up to snuff for public viewing.  Good thing we have a really small congregation, and nearly everyone was absent that day!  I hope to provide some detailed notes or video highlights sometime in the future, but for now, I would like to simply move on to other topics.

The Power Behind the Word (Sneak Preview)

William Tyndale (c. 1494 – 1536) was a Protestant Reformer, who was the first to translate a large portion of the Bible into English, against the will of the established church and king. For his loyal defiance, he was strangled to death and burned at the stake. But his martyrdom bore much fruit, because the same king who ordered his execution (Henry VIII) commissioned the publishing of English Bibles. This eventually led to the Authorized King James version, more than three quarters of which is estimated to be Tyndale's work. You can read more about this powerful instrument of God at Wikipedia.

But what did Tyndale and so many others sacrifice their very lives for? "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God" (1 Cor. 1:18). He died because he believed in the transforming power of God, and in His Holy Word, which he wanted everyone to be able to read for themselves. Until Tyndale's time, the church leadership believed that the Bible could only be translated into Latin and that only clergy had the right to read it. But this led to horrendous abuses of power and gross misinterpretations. How quickly man put himself in God's place! But if Jesus Christ bought each one of us all-access backstage passes to the Holy of Holies – to God Himself – then it stands to reason that He gave us all the right to read His precious Word for ourselves.

But why is that important? What am I getting at? "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Peter 1:16-21).

The Bible is not just another book, but the inspired Word of God, our Lord and Creator. Its contents come with a surety and factuality unmatched in any other written work today. Scoffers may scoff, but that does not diminish its credibility. Is the sky any less blue, if I rant and rave 24/7 about how green it is??

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart" (Heb. 4:12).

In old English, "quick" meant "alive." The Word of God, whether spoken or written, is unique in the world and even has supernatural properties. So how do we unlock its power? By faith and by "eating" the Word, internalizing it, until we understand what it means and can apply it in our lives.

So how do we apply it? For that, you'll have to wait a little longer.... You see, this is my topic for a message I am giving Sunday, Sep. 26, at the new church that we have recently started to fellowship at. Video is on the way....

P.S. Yes, I am back to blogging, for at least a while! I've been very blessed with a new job and plenty of things to keep me busy, which is why I've been away. I will try to keep this and my other blogs fresher, as well as stop by your blogs and comment.

The Abortion Debate (Part 5)

We wrap up this series with some common arguments you’ll hear in abortion debates and how to totally discredit them.

“If you force women to have their babies, their children will be unloved and abused.”

There are abused and unloved children all over the world; ending abortions would not contribute much to that number. Besides, the decisions to abort are usually emotion-based (whatever the reason, the woman doesn’t WANT the baby), and emotions can greatly change over time. Again, we can trot out the toddler and ask, “If you decide you no longer love your 2-year-old (I can’t imagine why!), is that justification to kill it?”

“If you don’t want me to have an abortion, then adopt my child!”

This is like saying, “If you want me to lose weight, you have to eat my food.” Or, “If you don’t want me to kill my no-good husband, you have to marry him.” This is another tactic to change the venue and shut down the pro-lifers, but it’s only a red herring. The morality of a given action does not depend on outside conditions.

“Of course YOU are against abortion; you’re a MAN and will never have to make that choice!”

This is similar to the “adopt my child” ruse. Even if you’ve never been robbed, you still have the authority to say theft is immoral. There are many insensitive things a man can say to a woman, just because he doesn’t have her feminine insights, but this is not one of them.

“It would be unfair or discrimination for women to not be allowed to have a medical procedure, when men are allowed to have ANY medical procedure!”

I’ve actually read Senator Barbara Boxer say something very close to this, recently. She is reducing the ending of a life to a simple medical procedure. Again, that’s just another attempt to change the venue of the debate, maybe by rolling it into the floundering healthcare reform negotiations. Pregnancy, by its very nature, is a very unique physical process, by which a new life is preparing to enter this world. This puts it in a class by itself, in the medical field. It’s “unfortunate” for Senator “Don’t call me Ma’am” Boxer that (as of yet) only women can suffer from this particular medical condition, but that’s life. No pun intended.

“I’m personally against abortion, but I think it should be legal.”

President Obama and other politicians have used this phrase more times that anybody can count, especially if you count their positions on other ethical issue of the day (same-sex marriage, marihuana, euthanasia, etc…). These kinds of statements confuse a moral dilemma with a personal preference. “I’m personally against going 100 MPH on the interstate, but I think it should be legal.” In fact, the implication to the listener (whether it’s true or not) is that you believe the issue to be objectively morally acceptable. This is what concerned us about most of 2008’s presidential candidates.

“If you outlaw abortion again, there will be an increase in back-alley abortions, which will greatly endanger the health of countless women.”

Now that abortion is legal, there are FAR more fetuses being killed and mothers suffering from the physical and psychological repercussions. For most, the simple illegality of an act will prevent it from being committed, and will encourage alternatives (such as adoption). Besides, there are consequences to every action; we cannot legalize something, just because there are those who refuse to consider the potential effects. If we repeal speed limits, and no longer require motorists to wear seat belts or helmets, would traffic fatalities increase or decrease?

“Abortions should be allowed, in the case where the mother’s life is in danger.”

Mr. Klunsendorf points out that the only case where a mother’s life is truly endangered by a pregnancy is when the fetus implants itself in the fallopian tube. This is called an ectopic pregnancy and, if allowed to continue, results in the death of both mother and baby. In this one case, the only way to prevent two persons from dying is to remove the fetus. Either way, the fetus is doomed (at least with current medical science), and it makes sense to at least save the mother. Most, if not all, other medical complications occur late enough in the pregnancy, that a C-section will give both mother and child terrific chances of survival.

I’m not necessarily promoting open protest, but I hope this series has opened some eyes and/or equipped you to defend your pro-life position. Thank you for reading!