Endurance: How we remain saved – Audio.Mp3
1. A believer must endure to the end
- Matthew 24:11-13
- Revelation 3:10-12
- Ephesians 6:10-20
- 2 Timothy 4:7-8
- Philippians 2:12-13
- Ephesians 4:30-31
2. Those who fall away prove themselves to have never been converted
3. God will sustain the believer until the end
- John 10:27-30
- Romans 8:29-30
- Romans 8:31-39
- Philippians 1:6
- Jude 24
Small Group Questions:
1. Was there anything from the lesson tonight that stuck out to you in a fresh or new way?
2. In your own words, answer the question “Can a believer lose his salvation?”
3. In your own words, explain whether or not a true believer can continue to live in sin.
4. How does tonight’s lesson impact your soul? Does it make you want to persevere? Does it make you fearful of eternity? Does it comfort you?
5. What does it look like to persevere and keep the faith on a daily basis?
Stand Over – March 2014
Last night the Emmaus guys had a “Stand Over.” This is an event involving laser tag, late night stories, chips and salsa and a Bible study.
Dan Seidelman spoke on “Tough Love” from 1 Corinthians 13. Here are some tweetable lines from his challenging and convicting devotional.
- Love is not for the fainthearted. Love is willing to endure hardships done to itself without becoming bitter.
- Love covers a multitude of sins. If someone wrongs you, you don’t go on Facebook and passively aggressively reference them in your status.
- Love does not just bear all things, it endures all things. Love is taking up curses, slander and putting up with someone for their good.
- Love keeps no record of wrong. If we are loving, we are not keeping a mental record of wrong.
- If you want to be loving, you have to be tough. If you want to be tough, you have to be loving.
- We should only point out faults in others in order to cause them to love the Lord.
- Love is ruthless. Love is going to ruthlessly battle self. When we are loving, we are actively engaging our own pride.
- Love does not envy. Love is not upset when others have good done to them. Love cannot exist when everyone is concerned about themselves.
- Love does not talk about how great we are and try to grasp honor. Love is not arrogant.
- We should congratulate others.
- Love is an utter enemy to selfishness. Love does not demand preferences.
- Love is a gentlemen. Every situation has its own cultural setting and we should love those in that culture and not rebel. You need to know where you are, what is required of you and how you can serve others.
- Love searches out ways to be good to each other. Love is holding the door open for people behind you. Love is showing respect to all people. We cannot neglect the most basic things.
- Love restrains its emotions and keeps passions within its reasonable limits.
- Love believes all things and hopes all things – If we are able to interpret someone’s action sinisterly or graciously, we should always choose grace.
Emmaus is cancelled due to the weather tonight, but here is a post related to the current topic we were going to discuss. Grad some hot chocolate and check out this article from Answers in Genesis. It is always good to be prepared to give an answer to those who ask about the hope within you (1 Peter 3:15).
Below are some common questions about Noah’s ark. Check out the full article here.
- How Did Noah Fit All the Animals on the Ark?
- What About the Dinosaurs?
- What Did the Dinosaurs Eat?
- How Did the Animals Breathe?
- Were Single Pairs Sufficient?
I stumbled across this old email from Danielle Hurley in Uganda. Danielle is the wife of Shannon Hurley who is over SOS Ministries. This is the family we will be partnering with during our Emmaus Uganda trip. Although it is now February, I was encouraged by this thanksgiving post and thought I would pass it along.
Happy Thanksgiving! This Thanksgiving I have been extraordinarily thankful to be a mom in Uganda, and I’d like to share a few of the reasons with you. I am especially thankful to raise my children in a 3rd world village because:
1. Where else would I live that wouldn’t have a grocery store closer than a 2 hour drive, which forces me to stay at home and fulfill my priorities?
2. Where else would I be able to serve my church body throughout the week and visit their homes who are all within walking distance?
3. Where else would my children be exposed to poverty on such a personal level that they ask me if they can give away their clothing and shoes to their friends in need (as opposed to comparing the abundance of wealthy neighbors)?
4. Where else would my children be able to hop on boda bodas (motorcycle taxis) without me after Sunday lunch and travel together to a Muslim village to teach a children’s Bible study?
5. Where else would my kids ask to tutor their friends who are actually excited to come to our house for tutoring by kids their own age?
6. Where else would I be able to be such a close partner with my husband in serving the Lord, where our home is the headquarters for ministry?
7. Where else would I live next door to my ministry partners who are only a few steps away for a sweet hug or word of advice?
8. Where else would I live where my kids are thrilled to receive an imported treat like a couple of grapes?
Is it hard living in a 3rd world country? At times it is, but the blessings far outweigh the challenges. The little blessings are sweet gifts from God’s very hand. This year, I am acutely reminded of my Shepherd’s tender care for His sheep, in particular our family. I know that your Shepherd has poured special blessings on you in your specific location or circumstance, and if you look for them, you will find wonderful nuggets where you least expect them.
by Sean Perron
Thousands of people watched the Bill Nye and Ken Ham debate last night. Seventy news and media reporters were present at the debate and the event has brought international attention to the issues at hand. What should we make of the debate?
It is always problematic (and unnecessary) to declare a “winner” in these type of debates. Each candidate has areas he can improve arguments and oratory skill. My point with this post is not to declare a winner, but to point out some important elements of the debate. Here are some reflections for consideration:
- Regardless of what you think of Mr. Ham, I think it is fair to say he demonstrated that six-day Creationists are not just from backwaters of Louisiana. There are credible, award-winning scientists who believe that God created the world in literal 24-hour days approximately 6,000 years ago. These creationists have worked on projects such as the MRI scanner to NASA technology. Mr. Ham resounded the gong that creationism does not equal stupidity. You can be a good rocket scientist and hold to Mr. Ham’s position.
- Mr. Ham also is a very bold man. He did not shirk away from hot-topics and he stood his ground. I want to be like him and stand on the Word of God.
- Mr. Ham’s position should also be seriously considered by theologians. It is unbelievably problematic to argue that death was around before Genesis chapter three. This is the deal breaker for me in theology. If the fossils have cancer and death in them, then this is actually a theological issue. Theologians who ignore this reality are setting the church up for failure. Mr. Ham is right – the age of the earth does matter. (I am thankful Mr. Ham pointed out that although it is a significant issue, it is not directly a salvation issue).
- Mr. Nye is a good communicator and fun guy. He appears to love science and I would like to hang out with him sometime.
- It became clear that Mr. Nye has serious issues with Christianity as a whole. He was the least convincing when he journeyed into theological territory. He repeatedly brought up the issue of the Bible being translated repeatedly through generations into “American English.” It seems his knowledge of the textual criticism is deeply lacking as well as his knowledge of the Bible (he readily admitted that he was not a theologian). His statements about genre and how the New Testament relates to the Old show that theology is not his field.
- Perhaps the most unexpected moment of the debate for me was when Mr. Nye was asked two deeper philosophical questions. 1) Where did the atoms come from to start the big bang? 2) Where did the human conscience come from? Mr. Nye was unable to answer these questions and urged younger people to pursue scientific investigation to find these answers. This was the most heartbreaking point in the debate. Mr. Nye was unable to answer life’s most important theological and philosophical questions. Although he would not admit to it, science has failed him. “Science” simply cannot answer the questions he was asked. I submit that this is because Mr. Ham’s argument holds water- it is in the category of “historical science” which is determined by worldview.
- Mr. Ham starts with God’s revelation to mankind. Mr. Nye starts with man’s understanding of the world around him. This is where the action is. This is where their worldviews collide.
Unanswered questions during the debate (or questions that needed more time)
For Ham from Nye:
- Can your model predict any scientific discoveries for the future? (partially answered)
- Can you show me one fossil that is mixed with smaller organisms? (not answered)
- What about all those who disagree with you? (answered)
For Nye from Ham:
- Can you show me one instance of new information being added in a mutation? (not answered)
- Can you explain why there are natural laws that are dependable if God does not exist? (not answered)
- Why are you excited about new discoveries if there is no life after death? (partially answered)
I want to encourage you to watch the debate yourself. It will be available for a limited time on debatelive.org and is also available for purchase.
Join us on Feb 4th at 7pm (EST) at Crossing Church as we watch the debate.
Last Sunday night we talked about how it takes faith to become an atheist. A helpful blog was released this week by Dr. Albert Mohler related to this topic. Here is the opening paragraph and you can read the full post here.
One of the most misleading headlines imaginable recently appeared over an opinion column published in USA Today. Tom Krattenmaker, a member of the paper’s Board of Contributors, set out to argue that there is no essential conflict between evolution and religious belief because the two are dealing with completely separate modes of knowing. Evolution, he argued, is simply “settled science” that requires no belief. Religion, on the other hand, is a faith system that is based in a totally different way of knowing—a form of knowing that requires belief and faith…