A PLAN for Giving Generously


Wise words from Kevin DeYoung at the Gospel Coalition:

P – Pray for a generous heart.  Make people a priority over prosperity.  Don’t think: “How much do I have to give away in order to be obedient?”  Ask: “Give me opportunities to sow.”

L – Lifestyle cap.  As we earn more, we should give more. If you are wealthier than you used to be, have you done more to increase your standard of living or your standard of giving?

A – Accountability.  Set goals and find someone you can trust who won’t be threatened by talking frankly about finances. Sex and money–we don’t talk about them nearly as much as Jesus did.

N – No less than a tithe. Whether the Old Testament requirement is a binding prescription or not, I find it hard to imagine that Western Christians who have seen the glory of God in the face of Christ and enjoy great prosperity, would want to give less than was required of the poorest Israelite.  Statistics consistently show that Protestants give less than 3% of their income to their churches. A tithe, for most churchgoers, would be a huge step in the right direction.

Mormonism 101


I thought this was a fair assessment of the Mormon Religion. Below, Kevin DeYoung, lays out the main tenets of Mormonism. He does not aim to destroy the arguments proposed by Mormonism, but just simply states what they believe. I hope, by reading this primer on Mormonism, that you’ll be able to see how the religion, in the essential ways, strays from the Christian faith.

DeYoung sums up his article in this fashion: “I encourage you to study Mormonism for yourself if you have more questions. I think you’ll find that though the language sounds similar at times, the beliefs are quite distinctive. Mormons do not understand history, God, man, salvation, heaven, hell, the cross, Jesus, or the Trinity as the canonical Scriptures teach, nor do they agree with the doctrine taught by the holy, catholic, apostolic church over two millennia.”

Here is the rest of the post:

 

Mormonism is back in the news. And with two Mormon presidential candidates, including Mitt Romney (the front runner for the Republican nomination), there’s a good chance we will be hearing much more about Mormonism for the next twelve months. Denny Burk has a very helpful piece on whether Mormonism is a cult, and Albert Mohler has written a thoughtful article on “Mormonism, Democracy, and the Urgent Need for Evangelical Thinking.” I won’t repeat their arguments, except to reiterate Mohler’s reminder that voting for a president should include examining the candidate’s religious beliefs, but should include other considerations as well.

Presidential elections are important. But believing the truth is even more important. With that in mind, I thought it might be helpful to provide a brief overview of Mormon history and theology. I won’t try to debunk Mormonism or prove Christianity. But I hope this quick survey will show that the two are not the same.

A quick note on secondary sources: Christian materials do not always treat Mormonism fairly or go the extra mile to present Mormon ideas as a Mormon would recognize it. One book that does is Andrew Jackson’s Mormonism Explained: What Latter-day Saints Teach and Practice. I also recommend A Different Jesus? The Christ of the Latter-Day Saints by BYU professor Robert Millet. Richard Mouw concedes too much in his Foreword and Afterword, but it’s still helpful to get Mormon Christology from a Mormon himself.

Mormon History

Joseph Smith was born in rural Vermont in 1805, the fourth of nine children. With little success farming in Vermont, the Smith family moved west to Palmyra, New York.  There Joseph Smith was exposed to different revival movements, and most of his family became Presbyterians, though Smith later said he leaned toward Methodism.

The presence of so many variations of Christianity bothered Smith. Which one was right? How could he choose?  At one revival meetings, a preacher quoted from James 1:5 “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him” (KJV).  Smith, 14 years old at the time, went home, reflected on these words, and went into the woods to pray.

According to Mormon tradition, this is when Joseph Smith had his first vision. In this visions, which is foundational to the Mormon faith, Smith claimed to see two “personages.” The one-God the Father-pointed to the other and said “This is My Beloved Son.  Hear Him!”  Smith asked them what sect he should join.  They answered that he should join none of them.  They were all wrong.  All their creeds were an abomination and their believers corrupt.

Three years later, Mormons believe Smith received another vision. In this vision the angel Moroni told Smith of golden plates buried under a hill near Palmyra.  The plates were revealed in 1827 when Smith was provided with two reading crystals–urim and thummim–by which he could translate the writing (Smith claimed the plates were written in hieroglyphics).  In 1830 Smith published The Book of Mormon, which contains the story of the lost Israelites who migrated to America in the sixth century BC but were killed in battle in AD 428.  Smith later received another vision from John the Baptist giving him the Aaronic Priesthood.

That same year (1830) Smith founded the “Church of Christ.”  In 1838 he changed the name to “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.”

Smith continued to receive revelations telling him to move from New York to Ohio to Missouri and eventually to Illinois where he and his followers built a town called Nauvoo.  There Smith and his followers tried to live out an utopian vision of society.  They also instituted polygyny as early Mormon leaders argued that Jesus had had many wives.  Smith and his brother were arrested in 1844. Later a mob stormed the jail and killed them both.  Mormons consider Smith a martyr.  Others say he died in a violent shoot-out.

Following Smith’s death there was a schism.  A small group called the Josephites became the Reorganized Church with headquarters in Missouri.  Most followed Brigham Young, who became their First President and prophet.  In 1847, Young took the followers to Utah and built Salt Lake City.

Today there are more than ten million Mormons worldwide-about half in the United States.  Mormonism is the largest new religious movement from the West since Christianity (which really came from the Near East).  It is also the first homegrown American religion.  Mormonism continues to grow because of it missionary impulse and its commitment to doctrinal and ethical distinctives.

Mormon Theology

Let me highlight seven areas of Mormon doctrine. Again, I won’t try to refute the Mormon position, but I hope you will see the explicit deviation from the historic Christian faith.

1. View of history. In Mormon thinking, the rise of Mormonism was not merely a reformation or renewal of the church. It was a complete restoration. Following the death of Christ’s apostles, the church fell into complete apostasy.  The church lost divine authority and true doctrine. There is no unbroken continuity from the early church to the present. Christianity, for almost all of its history, was false and without the truth—until Joseph Smith and his revelation. As Mohler points out, Mormonism not only rejects historic orthodox Christianity, their whole religion is based on the need for such repudiation.

2. View of revelation. Mormons believe the Bible (the KJV version), but do not consider it inerrant. Neither do they consider the Bible complete. What makes Mormonism unique is their belief in continuing revelation sustained through prophets, seers, and revelators. So while Mormons affirm the Bible, they also affirm the inspiration of the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. Through an elaborate hierarchy of President, First Presidency, Twelve Apostles, First Quorum of the Seventy, and Second Quorum of the Seventy, Mormons can receive authoritative interpretations and new authoritative revelations.

3. View of man. According to Mormon theology, men and women are the spirit sons and daughters of God.  We lived in a premortal spirit existence before birth. In this first estate we grew and developed in preparation for the second estate. In this second estate we walk by faith in this second state.  A veil of forgetfulness has been placed over our minds so we don’t remember what we did and who we used to be in our premortal existence. Our purpose in this life is to grow and mature in a physical body to prepare us for our final eternal state.

Mormons do not believe in human depravity. We are not implicated in Adam’s fall. We are basically good in our eternal nature, but prone to error in our mortal nature. The human is a being in conflict, but also a being with infinite potential.

4. View of God. In Mormon thought, God has a physical body. According to Doctrine and Covenants, “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also;” but “The Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit.”

Whether God the Father is self-existent is unclear. There was a long procession of gods and fathers leading up to our Heavenly Father.  Brigham Young once remarked, “How many Gods there are, I do not know.  But there never was a time when there were not Gods and worlds.” What is clearer is that the Mormon God is not a higher order or a different species than man. God is a man with a body of flesh and bones like us.

Mormons do not believe in the Trinity. They will talk about the unity of three personages, but the unity is a relational unity in purpose and mind, not a unity of essence. The three separate beings of the Godhead are three distinct Gods.

5. View of Christ. Mormons believe Jesus is Redeemer, God, and Savior. He is endless and eternal, the only begotten son of the Father. Through Jesus, the Heavenly Father has provided a way for people to be like him and to live with him forever.

But this familiar language does not mean the same thing to Mormons as it does to Christians. Jesus was born of the Father just like all spirit children. God is his Father in the same way he is Father to all. Whatever immortality or Godhood Jesus possesses, they are inherited attributes and powers. He does not share the same eternal nature as the Father. Jesus may be divine, but his is a derivative divinity. As one Mormon theologian puts it, Jesus “is God the Second, the Redeemer.”

6. View of the Atonement. Mormons believe Jesus died for sins and rose again from the dead. The atonement is the central event in history and essential to their theology. And yet, Mormons do not have a precise doctrine of the atonement. They do not emphasize Christ as wrath-bearing substitute, but emphasize simply that Christ somehow mysteriously remits our sins through his suffering.

While the atonement itself is not overly defined, the way in which the atonement is made efficacious is much more carefully delineated. Salvation is available because of the atoning blood of Christ, but this salvation is only received upon four conditions: faith, repentance, baptism, and enduring to the end by keeping the commandments of God (which include various Mormon rituals).

Finally, it should be noted Mormon theology stresses the suffering the garden rather than the suffering on the cross. Atonement may have been completed on Golgotha, but is was made efficacious in Gethsemane.

7. View of salvation. The goal of Mormon salvation is not about escaping wrath as much as it is about maximizing our growth and insuring our happiness. Salvation is finding our way back to God the Father and recalling our forgotten first estate as his premortal spirit children.

Mormon theology teaches that we cannot receive eternal reward by our own unaided efforts. In some respects, salvation is based on what we have earn, but what we earn is by grace. How this plays out in Mormon life may differ from person to person, but they stress that the gift of the Holy Ghost is conditional upon continued obedience. Mormons must keep the First Principles and Ordinances, which consists of the Ten Commandments, tithing, chastity, and the “Word of Wisdom” which prohibits tobacco, coffee tea, alcohol and illegal narcotics.

Temples are also important in Mormon doctrine and practice. Couples must be married in a Mormon temple to have eternal marriage, and every Mormon must be baptized in one of their 135 (and counting) authorized Temples. Because of the importance of baptism in the Temple, baptisms for the dead are extremely common. Mormons keep detailed genealogical records so that their ancestors can be properly baptized. By one estimate more than 100 million deceased persons have been baptized by proxy baptism in Mormon temples. Those who received this baptism are free in the afterlife to reject or accept what has been done on their behalf.

Death in Mormon thinking is seen as another beginning, complete with opportunities to respond to postmortem preaching in the world to come. We will live in the spirit world, and at some point our spirit and body will be reunited forever.

There are four divisions in the afterlife. The Lake of Fire is reserved for the Devil, his demons, and those who commit the unpardonable sin. The Telestial Kingdom is where the wicked go. It is a place of suffering but not like the Lake of Fire. Most people go to the Telestial Kingdom where they are offered salvation again. The lukewarm-not quite good, not quite evil-go to the Terrestrial Kingdom when they die. This Kingdom is located on a distant planet in the universe. The Celestial Kindgom is for the righteous. Here God’s people live forever in God’s presence. We will live as gods and live with our spouses and continue to procreate. This the aim and the end of Mormon salvation.

How Justification and Sanctification Differ


From Kevin DeYoung:

Is sanctification by faith alone?

The short answer is no. Though it sounds very Protestant, it is not correct to say “sanctification is by faith alone.”

That requires some explanation.

In saying sanctification is not by faith alone, I’m not saying the work we do is somehow owing to us and not to God. He works in and we work out. But if we say sanctification is by faith alone, aren’t we severely reducing what we mean by saying justification is by faith alone? It was the mistake of Catholics to inadequately distinguish between justification and sanctification. If in trying to honor justification by faith alone we provide the same formula for sanctification, we are destroying the former as much as the latter.

Faith that Worketh

It’s true that we are sanctified by faith–both by believing in Christ’s complete work on our behalf and by trusting in future grace. Faith continues to play a crucial role in sanctification, but not in the exact way it does for justification.

Listen to J.C. Ryle:

Moreover, the Scriptures nowhere teach us that faith sanctifies us in the same sense and in the same manner that faith justifies us! Justifying faith is a grace that “worketh not,” but simply trusts, rests, and leans on Christ (Rom. 4:5). Sanctifying faith is a grace of which the very life is action: it “worketh by love,” and, like a mainspring, moves the whole inward man (Gal. 5:6). (Holiness, xviii).

Sanctification is a gift just as justification is (a double grace, or duplex gratia, as Calvin called it). Both are the gift of God, ours by virtue of union with Christ. Both are found in Christ alone. Both are necessary for salvation–justification being the root and sanctification being the fruit. As is often said: faith alone justifies, but the faith that justifies is never alone.

So we must never separate justification and sanctification. The former can’t help but produce the latter, and the latter must flow from the former. And yet we should not be afraid to talk about justification in a different way than we talk about sanctification. One calls us to rest; the other to fight. One reckons us righteous; the other makes us righteous. One allows for no increase or degrees; the other expects progress and growth. One is a declaration of God about us, the other a work of God in us.

Consider this paragraph from the Westminster Confession of Faith:

Their ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but wholly from the Spirit of Christ. And that they may be enabled thereunto, beside the graces they have already received, there is required an actual influence of the same Holy Spirit, to work in them to will and to do, of His good pleasure: yet are they not hereupon to grow negligent, as if they were not bound to perform any duty unless upon a special motion of the Spirit; but they ought to be diligent in stirring up the grace of God that is in them. (16.3)

This paragraph summarizes what I’ve been trying to say in this series of posts and what I find some Christians reticent to say. We don’t just fight to believe in sanctification (though everything flows from faith). We actually will and do.  We don’t just dive deeper into our justification, we perform a duty. We must be diligent to stir up the grace of God that is in us. This sort of language—willing, doing, perform, diligence—has no place in talking about justification. But if we do not use this language in talking about sanctification we have missed the language of the Bible.

If the words mean all that we want them to mean with regard to justification, then “faith alone” is not the right phrase for sanctification.

One Final Thought

The Bible is a big book with a lot in it. As such, the Christian has a lot of tools in his sanctification tool belt. Are we sanctified by remembering our justification? Yes. But God also motivates us by a sense of duty, by gratitude, by threats, by promises, and by the fear of the Lord. We are told to follow the Lord’s example and to live out our union with Christ. We’re also exhorted to make our calling and election sure. So while we never move past justification. We can do more than revisit our justification to grow in our sanctification.

 

Osama bin Laden and the Value of Justice


From Kevin DeYoung:

There are really two questions to answer: 1) Did Osama bin Laden deserve to die? 2) Did those who killed him have authority to do so? I believe the answer to both those questions is yes. Consequently, his death was a matter of justice for which we can be grateful.

1. Did Osama bin Laden deserve to die? Genesis 9:6 suggests he did: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.” Capital punishment for murder is not an assault on the image of God, but a defense of it.  It is because human life is so precious, that the taking of human life needs to be punished so severely. The principle of “eye for eye, tooth for tooth, wound for wound” (Exod. 21:23-25) was not a matter cruel and unusual punishment, but of controlled retribution as a means of protecting the community and valuing the dignity of human life.

Read the rest here.

Summarizing the Rob Bell Fallout


So, March 15 has come and passed. Rob Bell’s book is out in stores and will undoubtedly do very well in the marketplace. If you’ve kept up at all with the book reviews, blog articles, videos, and interviews, Rob Bell is certainly not telling us something different than what we viewed in his promotional video. There are 3 sad, overarching truths that stand out to me in this whole debate: 1) the gospel – the good news of Jesus Christ coming to earth to live and die to rescue his covenant people from the wrath to come – has been watered down and even blasphemed, 2) many will read Bell’s book and will be led astray from the Christian faith, and 3) Rob Bell, if he truly believes these things, worships an entirely different god than the God of the Bible.

There have been many pastors who have commented already. I’ll yield to them to give appropriate feedback on the book. Hopefully you find the resources below helpful. If you read any, hone in on Kevin DeYoung‘s review. I’ve taken some excerpts from that review and posted them below:

On Bell’s view of penal substitution:

“Bell categorically rejects any notion of penal substitution. It simply does not work in his system or with his view of God. ‘Let’s be very clear, then,’ Bell states, ‘we do not need to be rescued from God. God is the one who rescues us from death, sin, and destruction. God is the rescuer’ (182). I see no place in Bell’s theology for Christ the curse-bearer (Gal. 3:13), or Christ wounded for our transgressions and crushed by God for our iniquities (Isa. 53:510), no place for the Son of Man who gave his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45), no place for the Savior who was made sin for us (2 Cor. 5:21), no place for the sorrowful suffering Servant who drank the bitter cup of God’s wrath for our sake (Mark 14:36).” – Kevin DeYoung

On Bell’s view of postmortem salvation:

“What’s wrong with this theology is, of course, what’s wrong with the whole book. Bell assumes all sorts of things that can’t be shown from Scripture. For example, Bell figures God won’t say ‘sorry, too late’ to those in hell who are humble and broken for their sins. But where does the Bible teach the damned are truly humble or penitent? For that matter, where does the Bible talk about growing and maturing in the afterlife or getting a second chance after death? Why does the Bible make such a big deal about repenting ‘today’ (Heb. 3:13), about being found blameless on the day of Christ (2 Pet. 3:14), about not neglecting such a great salvation (Heb. 2:3) if we have all sorts of time to figure things out in the next life? Why warn about not inheriting the kingdom (1 Cor. 6:9–10), about what a fearful thing it is to fall into the hands of the living God (Heb. 10:31), or about the vengeance of our coming King (2 Thess. 1:5–12) if hell is just what we make of heaven? Bell does nothing to answer these questions, or even ask them in the first place.” – Kevin DeYoung

Other sources:

Denny Burk’s Review

Russell Moore’s Article

Jeremy Grinnell’s parody of Bell’s video

Mark Driscoll’s Article

Martin Bashir’s Interview with Bell

Rob Bell and Universalism


Undoubtedly, many of you have heard about the recent Rob Bell hoopla; whether in the New York Times, Good Morning America, or the blogosphere. The stirring is related to his upcoming book “Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived” due out on March 15. The debate has raged on for a week now, with social media blowing up because of the issue Bell’s addressing. That issue, of course, is universalism – the belief that no person is damned to hell when he or she dies. Liberal Christians have argued that a loving God could never do such a thing. The terrors of hell are no place for people to go because, after all, aren’t most people “good”? The Bible has something entirely different to say. The reality is that hell exists and that real people will go there for eternity. God is loving, but also infinitely holy and dwells in unsearchable light.

There are three men in particular who have solid responses to Rob Bell’s video: Justin Taylor, Kevin DeYoung and Al Mohler. Below are their responses to the video and the upcoming book. Click the links to see their entire responses:

1. Justin Taylor – “If Bell is teaching that hell is empty and that you can reject Jesus and still be saved, he is opposing the gospel and the biblical teaching of Jesus Christ. You may think that’s judgmental to say that; I think it’s being faithful. I would encourage a careful study of 1 Timothy to see what Paul says about false teaching and teachers.”

2. Kevin DeYoung – “Rob Bell is right about one thing: what you believe about heaven and hell says a lot about what you believe about God. That’s why theological error of this magnitude cannot go unchecked. The God of the Vimeo clip is not a God of wrath, not a God of eternal recompense, not a God who showed us love in sending his Son to be a propitiation for our wretched sins, not a God whose will it was to crush the Suffering Servant in an exercise of divine justice and free grace.”

3. Al Mohler – “The Emerging Church movement is known for its slick and sophisticated presentation. It wears irony and condescension as normal attire. Regardless of how Rob Bell’s book turns out, its promotion is the sad equivalent of a theological striptease. The Gospel is too precious and important to be commodified in this manner. The questions he asks are too important to leave so tantalizingly unanswered. Universalism is a heresy, not a lure to use in order to sell books. This much we know, almost a month before the book is to be released.”

Kevin DeYoung on Casting Lots


Below is an article posted by Kevin DeYoung this morning. He speaks on casting lots and whether churches should adopt bylaws which incorporate casting lots in the pastoral/elder selection process. This is a topic which I was not too familiar with, but Kevin’s explanation seems grounded in Scripture and based on solid new covenant doctrine. It actually made me think about how all OT practices are fulfilled in Christ. Sabbaths, jubilees, passover, sacrificial lambs, appointing priests and kings – all of these are fulfilled in Christ.

DeYoung:

It is not uncommon to hear of churches that select their elders and deacons by casting lots. In fact, I’ve been a part of two congregations that voted to change their election process to incorporate lots. Usually this involves a double slate being chosen by some combination of the church leaders and a nominating committee and then a final selection by a “random” draw. In an effort to avoid a popularity contest and the hurt feelings that can result from winners and losers in a double slate, churches are deciding to choose their officers by pulling names out of hat.

It’s not hard to find biblical examples of decision-making by lots. The Holy Land was parceled out by sacred lots (Josh. 18:6). Saul was chosen to be king by lot (1 Sam. 10) and Jonah went overboard in the same way (Jon. 1). Most famously, Matthias was chosen by the casting of lots to replace Judas as the twelfth apostle (Acts 1:26). So there seems to be good wisdom in choosing our leaders by lots. After all, “the lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord” (Prov. 16:33).

And yet, I want to answer the question of this post with an emphatic “no.” Churches should not select their elders by casting lots. Here’s why.

1. We must be cautious in making Old Testament patterns of decision making our methods. Without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and a completed Canon God guided his old covenant people in various ways. We no longer use Urim and Thummim drawn from Aaron’s breastpiece to make decisions. So it’s not safe to assume we should use lots either.

2. Fine, you say, that was the Old Testament. But didn’t the apostles use lots in Acts 1? True, but there is good reason to think Matthias was a special case. For starters, the apostolic band was a unique group that had to be chosen directly by the Lord (e.g., Jesus handpicking the Twelve and personally calling Paul). So when the apostles needed one and only one replacement for Judas, and they had two to choose from, it made sense that lots would determine the selection. But there is no other instance of lots ever being used again to determine church leadership. As Bruce Waltke remarks, “Indeed, there is never another recorded use of anyone in Christ’s church going before the Lord to cast lots. We have been given God’s Word, and His Holy Spirit resides in us, so we do not rely on merely rolling dice” (Finding the Will of God, 48).

3. By contrast, when the New Testament speaks of elder selection it is with the word “appoint.” Paul and Barnabas appointed elders in every church (Acts 14:23). Titus was to appoint elders in Crete (Titus 1:5). We don’t know exactly how elders were chosen. In these pioneering church contexts it seems like the church planter was key in establishing the first elders. But as a general rule I believe there is freedom for congregations to use nominating committees, have a congregational vote, or leave the selection up to the elders. What seems to be excluded by the word “appoint” is a passive process where we expect the Lord, by lots, to “show which one of these two you have chosen” (Acts 1:24).

4. If double slates are the problem, change your by-laws and get ride of double slates. If you are worried about hurt feelings or popularity contests maybe that’s an indication your current elders should do more to train, evaluate, and select future leaders, without the use of an awkward double slate.

5. God is sovereign over all things. He superintends the rolling of the Scattergories dice, the shake of the Magic 8-Ball, and the falling of sparrows and hairs. But this does not mean he intends for us to employ these means in making decisions, especially on the other side of Pentecost and with the completion of Sacred Scripture.

6. If these foregoing reasons are not convincing, consider this last one: you don’t really believe in the casting of lots. Sometimes we talk like it’s especially spiritual to make decisions by providentially-random draws. But would you choose your pastor this way? If God wants us to cast lots to determine his will, why not throw darts at a a list of pastoral candidates? Why don’t you narrow down your choice of a spouse to a couple of good choices and then when you propose explain, “I flipped a coin and you came up heads. Congratulations, want to get married?” We don’t really trust lots to make wise decisions for us in other areas, so why would we use it for one of the most crucial decisions in the life of your church?

Churches, and especially the existing leaders, should do the hard work of selecting new officers. Relying on the length of straws or a random number generator to choose elders is not super-spiritual. It is imprudent and without Scriptural precedence. God will guide your selection process, but he hopes to use training, evaluation, discernment, biblical qualifications, and human brains along the way.

Can You Sum Up the Gospel in One Sentence?


Dane Ortlund posed this question to a number of pastors.  My favorite is from Kevin DeYoung:

A holy God sends his righteous Son to die for unrighteous sinners so we can be holy and live happily with God forever.

Please, if you have your own definition of the gospel in one sentence, leave a comment below.

The Hole in Our Holiness


Which does the Bible talk more about – holy living or evangelism?  This morning I read this piece by Kevin DeYoung which was very convicting as well as eye-opening.  I guess you could say it’s one of those truths I needed to hear.  His premise is that while younger evangelicals are a lot of times gung-ho about evangelism and theology, we often times neglect personal holiness.  I encourage you to read the whole thing.

How Can I Glorify God (in everyday life)?


I just came across this post by author and pastor, Kevin DeYoung:

I imagine most readers of this blog want to glorify God. The chief end of man, after all, is to glorify God and enjoy him forever. But have you ever thought about how to glorify God—I mean practically in every day life?

Here are twenty biblical ways you can.

1. Give God verbal declarations of praise (Rev. 4:8-9).

2. Live a life of noticeable piety (Matt. 5:16James 1:271 Peter 2:12).

3. Ask God for things in Jesus’ name (John 14:13).

4. Bear fruit and show yourself to be a disciple of Jesus (John 15:8).

5. Declare the truth about Jesus (John 16:14).

6. Love your life less than God (John 21:191 Peter 1:74:16).

7. Worship God as God (Rom. 1:21).

8. Live a life of sexual purity (1 Cor. 6:20).

9. Live a life of generosity (2 Cor. 9:13).

10. Rejoice in God’s glory displayed in creation (Psalm 19:1).

11. Do the works of faith (2 Thess. 1:12).

12. Use your gifts in God’s strength (1 Peter 4:11).

13. Make sure everyone knows you’re not God (Acts 12:23).

14. Live a life of gratitude (Psalm 50:232 Cor. 4:15).

15. In matters of liberty, seek the good of others (1 Cor 10:31).

16. Extend grace to sinners (2 Cor. 8:19).

17. Be a part of a local church (2 Cor. 8:23Eph. 3:20-21).

18. Tell God you are wrong and he is right (Josh. 7:19Jer. 13:16Rev. 16:9).

19. Obey God (Lev. 10:3Mal. 2:2).

20. Go from a Christ-despiser to a Christ-worshiper (Gal. 1:24).