We are located at the top of the intersection of NW 185th Avenue and Germantown Road. We're the "church on the hill."
18245 NW Germantown Road
Portland OR 97231
Posted by Pastor Greg Allen on November 7, 2010 under 2010 | 
Be the First to Comment
Preached Sunday, November 7, 2010
from
Luke 4:1-13
Theme: The temptations our Lord suffered in the wilderness teach us important spiritual lessons about our own times of temptation to sin.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (32.9MB)
Posted by Pastor Greg Allen on August 30, 2009 under 2009 | Be the First to Comment
Preached August 30, 2009 from Matthew 27:45-59
Theme: The events around the cross show us how seriously God treats sin .
Posted by Pastor Greg Allen on December 3, 2007 under Ask the Pastor | Read the First Comment
A visitor to our website writes:
Question: Is it a sin to smoke?
Dear friend,
Thanks for writing and asking your question.
First of all, the Bible does not directly condemn smoking or using tobacco. And though many people don’t realize it, several great and very biblically-minded Christians from the past have, therefore, felt the liberty to smoke. Dr. D. Martin Lloyd-Jones—who was one of the top physicians of London in his day, and who later became one of the greatest preachers of the twentieth century—smoked cigarettes. Another great preacher of London—the Baptist preacher Charles Spurgeon—smoked cigars quite often. The famous Christian writer C.S. Lewis, as well as the Dutch reformed theologian (later Prime Minister of The Netherlands) Abraham Kuyper, were both often seen with pipes in their mouths. (I know of no preachers that chewed tobacco; but I’m sure there were some that did. Hopefully not while they were preaching.)
Such noted Christians should not be used as a justification for smoking, however. They smoked before the health risks associated with smoking, and the addictive characteristics of tobacco, were as well-established as they are today. The apostle Paul wrote, “All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful [or "profitable"]. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any” (1 Corinthians 6:12). Just because something may be biblically permissible, and may not be defined as a sin ‘directly’, that doesn’t mean that it’s a wise thing to do. If we are to be good stewards of the bodies that God gave us, we should think very carefully about using something that brings harm to us. Personally, I couldn’t say that an adult smoking a cigarette or two a day is much of a problem; but smoking a pack a day clearly suggests that tobacco has become a health-compromising addiction and has a greater hold on someone than it should. (As someone once said, you can smoke and still go to heaven . . . in fact, you may even get there quicker if you do!)
Another thing to consider in this would be the impact that smoking may have on other people. It may not be a sin directly for you to smoke; but it is certainly a sin to do so if constant exposure to second-hand smoke affected the health and well-being of other people in your life. What’s more, if a professing Christian smokes, and their doing so either hinders their witness to non-believers or causes a weaker Christian to struggle in their faith, then love would demand that such a Christian refrain from smoking.
I suggest that the greater question, if we are truly Christians, is not “May I smoke?”—nor is it any other such question that seeks to define the outer-limits of our liberties. Rather, it should be, “How can I please the Lord as much as possible? How can I use my liberties so that I avail myself to Him — to the greatest degree—as His bondservant?” “Therefore,” Paul writes, “whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31). If we cannot smoke to the glory of God and fully yield ourselves to Him, then the question is settled. We don’t smoke! We should seek to do whatever will honor Jesus Christ, and will best places ourselves in His complete service. We should not let anything else control us but Him.
I hope this helps. Blessings in Christ’s love.
Pastor Greg
(All Scripture quotes are taken from the New King James Version.)
Posted by Pastor Greg Allen on November 9, 2007 under Ask the Pastor | Be the First to Comment
A visitor to our website writes:
Question: Is it biblical for a Christian to get a tattoo?
Dear friend,
The Bible does have something to say about tattoos. But what it says about them directly is in the context of practices associated with paganism. Leviticus 19:26-28 includes it in a list of paganistic practices that were forbidden to the Israelites when it says, “‘You shall not eat anything with the blood, nor shall you practice divination or soothsaying. You shall not shave around the sides of your head, nor shall you disfigure the edges of your beard. You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor tattoo any marks on you: I am the LORD.’” A similar prohibition was given to the priests, primarily with regard to how they engaged in mourning; “And the LORD said to Moses, ‘Speak to the priests, the sons of Aaron, and say to them: “None shall defile himself for the dead among his people, except for his relatives who are nearest to him: his mother, his father, his son, his daughter, and his brother; also his virgin sister who is near to him, who has had no husband, for her he may defile himself. Otherwise he shall not defile himself, being a chief man among his people, to profane himself. They shall not make any bald place on their heads, nor shall they shave the edges of their beards nor make any cuttings in their flesh. They shall be holy to their God and not profane the name of their God, for they offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and the bread of their God; therefore they shall be holy”‘” (Leviticus 21:1-6; see also Deuteronomy 14:1).
There were certain practices–common to the paganistic peoples of the land of Caanan–that the people of Israel were to abstain from; and tattooing and making marks and cuts on the body were among them. That does leave us with some questions about tattooing as it is understood in our modern culture; because they aren’t really a part of a paganistic religious ritual (at least, not very often). In fact, I’ve noticed that views about tattooing have changed in our culture quite a bit from what they were twenty or thirty years ago. It has become much more common; and is a far more accepted aspect of culture. (I understand, for example, that each cast member of the Lord of The Rings trio of films got a LOR tattoo when the filming was over, as a way of commemorating their involvement.)
When it comes to tattoos as they are understood in our culture today, I don’t think that it can be argued biblically that it is a sin in and of itself to have one. But it still may not be a good and wise thing to do. “All things are lawful for me,” Paul writes; “but all things are not helpful” (1 Corinthians 6:12). A few things come to mind in considering whether or not it is right for a Christian to get a tattoo.
First, we should remember that we are to have a certain kind of regard for–and even reverence toward–our bodies as believers. We are reminded in the Bible that our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit; and that we are not our own any longer (1 Corinthians 6:19). Our bodies are the instruments through which we are to glorify God (v. 20). A tattoo that contains images or words that contradict the principle of the sacredness of our bodies as the dwelling place of Jesus Christ, or that in some way celebrates sin, would most certainly be wrong to wear. That would be like spray-painting obscene graffiti on God’s sacred temple.
There may also be, for some, a ‘vanity’ issue in all of this. A tattoo may be an expression of an inordinate emphasis on the body–not as a temple of God by which we bring Him glory; but rather in an effort to advertise our bodies and call undue and improper attention to them–using our bodies to bring glory to ourselves. Paul warned, for example, that women were to adorn themselves in a modest manner; “not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for womem professing godliness, with good works” (1 Timothy 2:9-10). Please understand; I don’t take that to mean that it is wrong for women to wear jewelry or have their hair done. Rather, I think that the principle is what’s important–that is, to express a godly modesty with our bodies. A tattoo, for either men or for women, may violate the spirit of that principle–particularly if it is worn in order to draw attention to the body; and especially to draw attention to parts of the body that it’s not very modest to draw attention to.
And along with this is just the practical problem of the permanency of a tattoo. I have heard of lots of people later in life regretting that they have a tattoo; but I don’t ever remember hearing anyone laying on their death-bed bemoaning the fact that they NEVER got one.
Now; all of that being said, I have a couple of believing friends–very strong and vocal Christians–who have tattoos. One has a portrait of Christ on one arm with a Bible verse that testifies of his faith in Jesus; and on the other arm is a crown of thorns to remind him that he is crucified with Christ. Another friend has the traditional symbol for the Trinity tattooed on the back of his neck as an expression of his faith. I find it hard to argue with tattoos like that. (But I also know a man who’s in ministry; and he has a tattoo on his forearm that he got before he became a Christian. It has a picture of the devil with the words, “Raise Some Hell!” I’m sure that he wishes that he ever got it . . . although it’s quite a conversation-starter in some witnessing situations!)
Here’s a good guiding principle to follow: “Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31). A tattoo can be like what Jesus said about words–they come out of from what’s in the heart (Matthew 15:18-20). On that principle, we should make sure that (1) what’s in the heart is right, and that (2) what’s on the body is an expression of what’s in the heart, and that (3) that expression is to the glory of God.
Blessings,
Pastor Greg
(All Scripture quotes are taken from the New King James Version.)
Posted by Pastor Greg Allen on September 7, 2007 under Ask the Pastor | Be the First to Comment
A visitor to our website asks this question about the “unforgivable sin”:
“I’ve been told by different people different things about the “unforgivable sin”. Some say that it’s the sin of rejecting Jesus Christ when the Holy Spirit reveals Him to be the Savior. Others say that it’s the sin of attributing the miracles of Jesus Christ to Satan. While the latter is really bad, is it unforgivable? What would make it unforgivable? I can see how rejecting Christ becomes unforgivable; but what about the other?”
Dear friend,
The question of the unforgivable sin comes up in Matthew 12:31-32 (also Mark 3:28-30; and Luke 12:10).
The setting is very important to notice. It was at a time when Jesus was experiencing the growing pressure of opposition against Him from the Pharisees. He had healed a man on the Sabbath day in the Synagogue; and this greatly intensified the opposition of the Pharisees to Him. He had healed many people, of course; but as far as the Pharisees were concerned, this was the last straw. Clearly, He was proving Himself to be the Son of God; but they would not believe in Him or receive Him; and so, they began to plot together how to destroy Him (Matthew 12:14).
In this particular passage from Matthew (12:22-24), Jesus healed a demon-possessed man. People were beginning to believe on Him; but the Pharisees quickly jumped in to accuse Him of being able to cast out demons “by Beelzebub, the ruler of the demons” (v. 24). In other words, they saw Him perform a miracle of healing by the power of the Holy Spirit; and they also saw that people were begining to ask, “Could this be the Son of David?”; and lest anyone should believe on Him any further, they attributed that act to the power of the devil.
It’s important to remember that this was an accusation they were making repeatedly; see Matthew 9:32-33). On this particular occasion, Jesus answered their accusation in many ways–proving that it was a ridiculous and untenable thing to say (vv. 25-30). But it was then that He lays it on the line and says; “Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come” (Matthew 12:31-32, New King James Version).
How should we understand this? I tend to see it within the whole context of Matthew’s Gospel. He wrote this Gospel for Jewish people; and he intended in it to show them that Jesus was their long-awaited King (1 Samuel 7:12-16). But, as it says of Jesus in John 1:11, “He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him.” The religious leaders saw Him; but did not receive Him. They rejected Him as their Messiah, and would eventually crucify Him.
Given that this was the response of the Jewish leaders to Him as their Messiah, Jesus was then offered instead to the Gentiles (see Acts 26:15-18). In this case, the opposition of the religious leaders had finally brought them to a point of no return. Their opportunity to receive their King was, in that respect, now lost. But even then, we should see the grace of God at work in that their rejection resulted in salvation being offered to all people–Jews and Gentiles; whoever would receive Him (Romans 11:11-32).
My point, then, is that whatever this sin was, it must be understood in that particular context–that is, in the context of the religious leaders of the Jewish people seeing the work of the Holy Spirit being exhibited through the bodily presence of Jesus; but then, after being an eyewitness to that work, attributing that power to the devil. If we understand the “unforgivable sin” in any other way than that, we’re understanding it out of its context.
So, what about us today? In my opinion, the sin being described in this passage was a unique sin, committed at a unique time, by a unique people–which was why it received such a unique condemnation The leaders of that day rejected their King; which, of course, was terrible. But these particular Pharisees did even worse than that alone. They rejected Him AND blasphemed the Holy Spirit who was revealing Him.
We should remember that it’s the Holy Spirit’s ministry to shine the spotlight on Jesus (John 16:14); and if these Pharisees were to have simply spoken against Jesus in His humanity alone, that could have been a forgivable matter of spiritual blindness and ignorance (see Acts 2:36-39). But these Pharisees not only rejected the One on whom the spotlight shined, but also cursed and blasphemed the spotlight for having revealed Him to them. In doing so, they were displaying a hardness of heart that knowingly and deliberately shut the grace of God out of their lives. They refused to even receive the witness of Christ from the Holy Spirit; and they even sought to prevent others of their own people from receiving the witness of the Spirit through the miracles that Jesus performed before them. (In fact, I believe Jesus spoke later of them when He said, “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in” [Matthew 23:13].) That’s far beyond just the usual ‘hardness of heart’! What hope was there for those who would so uniquely resist the grace of God?
Personally, then, I don’t believe this passage is describing a sin that can be committed today–certainly not, at least, in the same way. Many people have become very distraught and fearful over this matter–worrying about whether or not they have said some certain set of words at some time in their life that constituted “blasphemy against the Spirit”, and thus committed the unforgivable sin. But the issue is not the saying of a set of words. The issue is that of a persistent, unrepentant attitude of heart toward the divine revelation of Christ. It was, strictly speaking, a sin that was committed when Jewish religious leaders continually witnessed the actual work of Jesus Christ in performing miracles through the power of the Holy Spirit in an undeniable way over and over again–and yet, out of hatred for Him, persistently attributed those miracles to the power and working of the devil. (See also Mark 3:30–where it says that Jesus spoke these words to the Pharisees “because they said, ‘He has an unclean spirit’”. The verb there translated “they said” is in the imperfect tense; which suggests an ongoing practice. It can be translated as it is in the New American Standard version: “. . . because they were saying, ‘He has an unclean spirit’.”)
When you really think about it, people who are fearful that they may have committed this sin, and worry that they will now never be forgiven, actually prove that they haven’t committed it at all! A man or woman who has such a fear about that sin–or any other sin, for that matter–is experiencing the gracious work of God the Holy Spirit; because apart from the grace of the Holy Spirit, we wouldn’t even feel the conviction of sin at all (John 16:8). This, it seems to me, proves that their heart is not hardened against God, and that they are open to the Spirit’s revelation of Christ.
As you suggest, some people have said that the “unforgivable sin” is that of rejecting Jesus; and that so long as someone continues to reject Jesus, they cannot be forgiven. There’s certainly a sense in which this is true. I can be forgiven of any sin; but NOT so long as I persist in rejecting the only Savior from sin! If I reject Him; what hope of forgiveness can I possibly have? But I don’t believe that that’s what this passage is talking about. Jesus was quite clear–He was talking about a sin that can never be forgiven, “either in this age or in the age to come”. I myself lived for many years as a young man who rejected Jesus. But I repented and believed; and I was forgiven for that sin. I am forgiven today!
Truly, any sin can be forgiven if we will turn to Jesus and believe on Him.
Blessings in Christ’s amazing and gracious love,
Pastor Greg
Bethany Bible Church
(All Scripture quotes are taken from the New King James Version.)
Posted by Pastor Greg Allen on March 24, 2006 under Ask the Pastor | Be the First to Comment
Lynn, a visitor to our website, writes:
“Some people make comments about ‘playing cards’ as something that’s ‘not Christian’. What does the Bible say about this?”
Dear Lynn,
Thanks for writing. First of all, we’d have to say that there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with a deck of cards. They’re simply pieces of paper with images on them; and are not evil in and of themselves. The morality of playing cards has to do with the way they are used rather than with the cards themselves.
What’s more, we’d also have to say that there are lots of ways that cards can be used that are not, in and of themselves evil at all. There are lots of card games that are simply innocent pass-times; and there are lots of slight-of-hand tricks done with cards that are innocent amusements. (I used to enjoy building card-castles when I was a kid – although I was never much good at it. And almost all kids have ruined perfectly good decks of their parents cards by clothes-pinning them to the spokes of their bikes.) The rightness or wrongness of cards is determined in areas that are secondary to the cards themselves – specifically, what they’re used for.
For example, a deck of cards may be used in a sinful way when they are used for gambling or games of chance. And even then, the Bible doesn’t address gambling directly. We have to determine the morality of gambling – and subsequently, the use of cards themselves for gambling – by looking at what the Bible says about other applicable principles.
“Games of chance” is really a misnomer; because “chance” as a word is used (in such cases) to mean that which happens in an absolutely spontaneous way and apart from any cause. But the Bible tells us – even with reference to so-called “games of chance” – “The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD” (Prov. 16:33). There really is no such thing in God’s universe as something that happens apart from a cause – and hence, there is no such thing as “chance” (in that sense). “Games of chance”, however, operate as if this were not the case – as if God were not in control of His universe. It wouldn’t be wrong, I believe, to play such games for pure entertainment – with the understanding that that’s all they are. But when we gamble against “chance” in order to make money, or when we bet our own resources against “chance”, then we’re really placing our trust and our resources in something other than God’s providential care, and are actually putting God to the test. This is a very wrong thing to do.
Gambling – including gambling through the use of cards – is also wrong because it is wasteful; and because it foolishly places the resources God has given us at the risk of loss. (And besides; such card games are, very often, not games of “chance” at all. Those skilled in the use of cards know how to manipulate them in such a way as to victimize other players.)
Those who seek to “get rich quick” through the card table sin by coveting; and the vast majority of those who have tried it only succeeded in making their families suffer, and rendered themselves incapable of meeting their financial obligations in the way God intended. Jesus leads us away from such “get-rich-quick” (that is to say, “get-poor-quicker”) schemes when He says, “But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you” (Matthew 6:33).
What’s more, gambling and card games for money are built on the goal of defrauding someone else of what rightfully belongs to them. It encourages your opponent to put what belongs to them at risk for your sake; and this is wrong to do, because Jesus has taught us that we are to love our neighbor as ourselves (Luke 10:27). And what’s more, if such games are played in such a way as to deliberately deceive, we are actually stealing what belongs to someone else. The Bible says, “Let him who stole steal no longer, but rather let him labor, working with his hands what is good, that he may have something to give to him who has need” (Eph. 4:28).
As I’ve suggested, those arguments for the immorality of cards are based on “motives” and “goals” – not on the card games themselves. But sometimes, card games can be played with no intention to gamble, and no intention to gain, and no intention to deceive – and even still be wrong.
Suppose someone lived a life of chronic and addictive gambling; but then became convicted and deeply sorry for their sin, and repented of it having their faith in Jesus Christ. Suppose they then join a church, and begin to grow in the faith. Suppose such a person – a relatively new believer – goes to the home of another believer in the church for dinner. And suppose that, after dinner, their host (innocently) pulls out a deck of cards and asks if their guests would like to play a little game for fun. And suppose that, as a result, the new believer is outraged! “How can you play cards?!! Don’t you know that the deck of cards is the devil’s own prayer-book?!! How can you call yourself a Christian and even OWN a deck of cards?!!”
Now, a mature believer would recognize that a deck of cards, in and of itself, is amoral; and that this new believer has simply not yet matured in understanding. But if that deck of cards causes the younger believer to stumble and struggle – and even play in contradiction to the impulse of their weak conscience, then it would be unloving and insensitive to then proceed to play. It would, in fact, be a sin to do so. A different moral principle would be involved in such a case – that of refraining, because of the motive of love, from doing anything that would cause our brother to stumble.
Paul dealt with this matter in the Scriptures. In that case, he was dealing with the matter of eating certain foods that might be offensive to a new believer – a believer for whom such foods involved paganism, and are still considered offensive to him; but the principle is basically the same as it would be for cards. He wrote, “I am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him is is unclean. Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food [and here, you could also insert "cards"], you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food [or "cards] the one for whom Christ died. Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil …” (Rom. 14:14-16). If it comes down to the choice of loving our brother or exercising our freedom to play an innocent game of cards, we’re to forgo our freedom and show loving care for the spiritual nurture of our brother instead.
In summary, “cards” falls into a particular category that the Bible calls “doubtful things” (Rom. 14:1). The deck of cards is not immoral in and of itself; other considerations – such as motives and goals, and the whole question of love for others – has to be looked to in order to determine when cards are right or wrong to play.
Thank you for your good question; and I do hope this helps.
In Christ’s love,
Greg Allen
Pastor
(All Scripture quotes are taken from the New King James Version.)
