Saturday, June 15, 2013

Year In Review and Wedding Anniversary Charles and Charity Whisnant

YES YESTERDAY WAS OUR 44TH WEDDING ANNIVERSARY

 Photo: Yep 43 years of marriage today. From Fort Worth TX to Wooster Ohio, to West Portsmouth Ohio, to Grapevine TX, to Mansfield OH, to Connersville IND., to Hammand IND, to Altoona, KS (16+ years) to Lexington KY,  now back in Portsmouth OH. And Charity has been with me all the way, what a lady!

t

In May we went to Manchester Ohio to a beautiful house where Brian had spend the last 13 years working on this house.

]
Photo 

Outside our house in JunePhoto: Bill and Jill Bill Rinehart. Thans for the wonerful visit 
Bill and Jill Reinhart visiting us in June

 On a Sunday Mark Anderson delivered a bail of hay for us at our house and Ill Temple was there and she snapped this shot. I had just taken off my neck tie and almost my shirt.

 This was in May when we had Abby with us and we had a wonderful time
Yes back in June 1969 at our wedding.
West Portsmouth, Ohio
Victory Baptist Church.






 

Photo: I can wear ties too Pop Pop!! 

Trey with neck tie
Photo: Charity is the mother to my children, Eric, Becky, Chad and Kyle. She has been a mother now for 42 years.  She has I believe bee n a Proverbs 31 Christian mother.
Love you doe.
Photo: Yep, son Chad and his son and Kyle's daughter and of course Brittney daughter who now is an RN and we are so happy to have another grand in the family. Boy are we.





Photo: Chad Whisnant and Heather Webster Whisnant
Heather Chad

 Photo: Chad Whisnant and Heather Webster Whisnant and sons

 
Charity and Trey









Photo: Aunt Bec took Little Bit shopping for her birthday
Becky and Abby
 
 
 Church in May




Lovely

 Photo: After service lunch

Lovely

 Photo


Briely

Photo: Eric and Bec celebrating our birthday w family
Eric and Becky birthday on February 10




Photo: The boys have been to this to Becky since she has been born. Becki Feiock Chad Whisnant Kyle Everette Whisnant and Eric Whisnant
Photo: Say its has been 1 month and 7 days

Travis and Becky were married in October 1012





 Brittney at PIN
Photo


Photo: While in Lexington KY we had dinner with family and friends (Travis and Becki Feiock

 

 Photo: Family again at our house

Landscapting Update



Photo


 Above: On the upper property cleaning up some

Photo 
Back in the left of the front yard, three tress I am trying to figure what to do


 
Back up top a view of the section of trees I ould like to work on


Photo 

I worked on this project above on Friday. This is in our back yard, I laid steps down from the top to about 1/4 way down, I might just go down more.
I did put mulch between the trees also.
 
The view from the top of the property and you can see our house to the far right, the middle house is Kindra's and the roof top to the left is Debbies


 
 Another view of the top of the property I cleared out the brush







 
A view of the upper property from a short distance.

 


 





 
I am clearing out between the tress on the upper property

Tuesday, June 11, 2013

Charles and Charity Whisnant,


God's Word are His Words, Man's Words about the Words Are Man's Words

The words of man and the words of God...

I want to say up front, I have enjoyed John MacArthur's preaching since 1974.

What I want to say is John's study notes are not a substitute for the Word of God. But with that said, I respect what he preaches and what he says about the bible. 

At the beginning of our initial post two weeks ago were these words: "The Words of God are gone--deleted, that is--but the words of man are intact." So, to repeat ourselves, the MacArthur NIV 2011 Study Bible is two things: the Word of God and the words of man explaining the Word of God. Which one is more important? Which one should be guarded most carefully?

Before John MacArthur made the decision to yoke his study notes with the NIV 2011, he submitted his notes to the publisher for approval and was pleased they kept his words intact. Thus this...
announcement:
We submitted to Zondervan's editors a generous sampling of notes adapted to the (NIV 2011) wording. We purposely chose notes that deal with some of the key problem passages. Zondervan and Nelson both have assured us they want to retain the full integrity of John MacArthur's explanation of the text, and the sample notes were all accepted as submitted.
It seems apparent that John's final decision hinged on his notes being kept intact. Not until they assured him they wouldn't alter his words did he agree to the new line of Bible products.

But men, think about what has just been said: "Zondervan and Nelson both have assured us they want to retain the full integrity of John MacArthur's explanation of the text."

How have we gotten to the point that the deal-breaker would have been not "retain(ing) the full integrity of John MacArthur's explanation of the text" rather than the full integrity of the text of the Holy Spirit Himself?

It seems clear John MacArthur believes that, in the final analysis, his own words matter more than the words of God. The words of God can be altered as long as the words of John MacArthur are kept intact to clean things up.

Or are we missing something, here?

Sunday, June 09, 2013

Regeneration How and When


SALVATION: REGENERATION: THE NEW BIRTH: CONVERSION; EFFECTUAL CALLING
THE CHRISTIAN IS BORN AGAIN
Romans 9 and Selected Verses
Charles e Whisnant, Pastor/Teacher/Theologian,


Reading Abraham Kuyper this morning he gives a description of salvation: He said a child knows nothing of his own existences, as a child, nor of the first period of his life, from his own observation. If he were to tell you his history from his own recollections, he would began with the time he could remember. ( My own first recollection)I was walking with my dad to the church holding his hand when I was about 5 years old.) ) But being informed by others of his early life he can go back of his recollections and speak of his parents, family, time, and place, how he grew up, etc. So there is a differences between the two accounts. 
 
So there is a difference between what I believed happen when I was saved and what really did happen. When I was saved (as I have dated) I was personally ignorant of the implanting of the new life, I only remember that I needed to be saved, which I believe led me to faith and repentance as far as I knew those terms back in 1954 when I was seven. Well as I was getting order I was not satisfied with this, I wanted to know just how did I become saved. Was it that I raised my hands? Was it that I went to the alter? Was it that I prayed and quoted John 3:16? Was I just persuaded by the preaching? Where was the starting point of my salvation I wondered as I got older.. So I have spend a life time just learning what really happen when I was saved.,

I must say then that the first act of salvation for me was wholly passive and unconscious. Generally that is the case with those who are children, and in most cases adults as well. 
 
So the question ask is this: “WHAT HAD GOD WROUGHT IN THE SOUL THAT BRINGS ABOUT SALVATION TO HIM? I am not sure that I knew that for years after I went forward at Williamsroad Baptist Church in Roanoke Virginia the same time that Winston Hall did.

Quoting Kuyper: 
 
But this subjective representation, more or less incomplete, can not satisfy us now. It was to be expected that the supporters of "free will" would abuse it, by inferring that the origin and first activities of the work of salvation spring from man himself. A sinner, hearing the Word, is deeply impressed; persuaded by its threats and promises, he repents, arises, and accepts the Savior. Hence there is nothing more than a mere moral persuasion, obscuring the glorious origin of the new life. To resist this repulsive deforming of the truth, Maccovius, already in the days of the Synod of Dort, abandoned this more or less critical method to make regeneration the starting-point. He followed this order: 

"Knowledge of sin, redemption in Christ, regeneration, and only then faith." And this was consistent with the development of the Reformed doctrine. For as soon as the subjective method was abandoned, it became necessary in answer to the question, "What has God wrought in the soul?" to return to the first implanting of life. And then it became evident that God did not begin by leading the sinner to repentance, for repentance must be preceded by conviction of sin; nor by bringing him under the hearing of the word, for this requires an opened ear. Hence the first conscious and comparatively cooperative act of man is always preceded by the original act of God, planting in him the first principle of a new life, under which act man is wholly passive and unconscious.
 
Thus God worked in my heart, spirit, soul , as a child creating a new life without my knowledge, while later the work God brought into my heart the knowledge of regeneration with my full knowledge and consent.

REGENERATION, THE NEW BIRTH:

.the first effect of the power of God in the heart in regeneration is to give the heart a Divine or sense; to cause it to have a relish of the loveliness and sweetness of the supreme excellency of the Divine nature. Said Jonathan Edwards

In reply Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.” JOHN 3:3 
 
Regeneration is a New Testament concept that grew, it seems, out of a parabolic picture-phrase that Jesus used to show Nicodemus the inwardness and depth of the change that even religious Jews must undergo if they were ever to see and enter the kingdom of God, and so have eternal life (John 3:3-15). Jesus pictured the change as being “born again.”

The concept is of God renovating the heart, the core of a person’s being, by implanting a new principle of desire, purpose, and action, a dispositional dynamic that finds expression in positive response to the gospel and its Christ. Jesus’ phrase “born of water and the Spirit” (John 3:5) harks back to Ezekiel 36:25-27, where God is pictured as symbolically cleansing persons from sin’s pollution (by water) and bestowing a “new heart” by putting his Spirit within them. Because this is so explicit, Jesus chides Nicodemus, “Israel’s teacher,” for not understanding how new birth happens (John 3:9-10). Jesus’ point throughout is that there is no exercise of faith in himself as the supernatural Savior, no repentance, and no true discipleship apart from this new birth.

Elsewhere John teaches that belief in the Incarnation and Atonement, with faith and love, holiness and righteousness, is the fruit and proof that one is born of God (1 John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4). It thus appears that as there is no conversion without new birth, so there is no new birth without conversion.
Though infant regeneration can be a reality when God so purposes (Luke 1:15, 41-44), the ordinary context of new birth is one of effectual calling—that is, confrontation with the gospel and illumination as to its truth and significance as a message from God to oneself. Regeneration is always the decisive element in effectual calling.

Regeneration is monergistic: that is, entirely the work of God the Holy Spirit. It raises the elect among the spiritually dead to new life in Christ (Eph. 2:1-10). Regeneration is a transition from spiritual death to spiritual life, and conscious, intentional, active faith in Christ is its immediate fruit, not its immediate cause. Regeneration is the work of what Augustine called “prevenient” grace, the grace that precedes our outgoings of heart toward God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thursday, June 06, 2013

Saturday, June 01, 2013

The Bible-Oriented Teacher

                THE BIBLE EXERTS US TO REALITY.


What does that mean?


The preacher is limited as to his own resources what he  bring  to bear on  the message he wants to present.  You should not try to sell the bearskin before you catch the bear.  Especially in trying to exert the message forcefully and effectively on those who hear you speak. 

The Bible-expositor is not an entertainer -oriented preacher.  Whereas the entertainment -oriented speaker has a strong and continued inclination  for adding decorative touches to his  ideas with some Bible, but mostly he fills his talking with what he thinks would be more effective and forceful to those who hear him speak.

Whereas the Bible -expositor  is tied to the Bible.  He
is not free to think and speak whatever might enter his mind or what might be pleasing to any given audience- except God. 

The Bible-expositor is not the focus point of the sermon, the audience does not come away from the sermon and say "He said more about himself than anything else." 




What the Bible-expositor is not:


  • The Bible-expositor does not give the impression that what HE says has  any significances.

  • The Bible-expositor is not have the freedom to talk with his charm and ease of manner to get across his message.

  • The Bible-expositor is not one who is more at ease speaking  about things that are not drdawn out of the Bible.

  • The Bible-expositor is not one who is  enteraining with his jokes, and who tries to frame his words and manner of speaking that are fun to listen to.


 John Piper


M. Lloyd-Jones
John MaArthur
Charles H. Spurgeon




HERE IS WHAT A BIBLE-EXPOSITOR IS:

  • The Bible-expositor sees himself as God's representative  to God's people to deliver a message from God.  

  • The Bible-expositor understands that that he is under the authority of the Bible and his position is as a servant.
  •  The Bible-expositor understands that the only way he can deliver God's message to God's people is by getting to the meaning of God's Word. Saturating the message, to fill  the sermon competely with scripture, as to show its God's revelation to them.
  • The Bible-expositor wants the audience to realize that his words, if there is any value in them that will permeate the heart to make change of life, mind and thinking  are in accord with God's word. He does not want the audience to come away with "That was a good idea that the pastor had." But rather "That is what the Bible has said."
  • The Bible-expositor tries not to go beyond the bounds of the Scriptures. If the Bible text cannot demonstrate the points presented he says away from it.
  • The Bible-expositor  has an hesitancy, or reluctance, and unwillingness to give  stories and illustrations and jokes and comments that are not restricted to, and are not forced into the message in an unnatural or strained manner that is not based on and expressive of what the Bible says.
At the end of the sermon, People sit for a moment and say of a Bible-oriented preacher  "the teaching today gave me a sense that the Bible is supremely authoritative and important and wonderfully good news." They feel less entertained, but are in awe at the greatness of God and the considerable amount of power of His Word.

 The power is found not in the preacher but in the Word of God. As MacArthur brings the Word, the message is not Whisnant's or MacArthur’s  or Piper's wisdom but God’s. As we preach, we need to stick to the text.

FOOTNOTE:

On Friday I was reading a number of articles on preaching.  And the above material was formed  from those articles that I have read.

Even after 48 years of preaching and teaching , and 65 years old, I am still seeking to preach and teach the Word of God  that is God's honoring and bring people to the sense that the authority whereby I preach is God's authority.



What was neat  I used the internet website: 
to get a better understanding of terms.  What I did was from the word I would have used, I put the meaning in the sentence.   And this article was adopted from articles I read on preaching, and Bible-expositor vs. an entertainment-oriented preacher. 



Featured Post

Did Jesus Die For All Men

Did Christ Die for all Men or Only His elect?   The following is a written response to a brother with the following question about l...