On The Manhattan Declaration

As I mentioned after my Thanksgiving day wishes, there has a been a lot of buzz about the Manhattan Declaration. To me, this is something which is far too important to ignore.

For those who may not know, let me start by explaining what the Manhattan Declaration is. I will not be posting the Declaration itself here on my blog, but please feel free to go to www.manhattandeclartion.org to check it out for yourself, and see if you think that my characterization is accurate. It is certainly not my intention to, in any way, or at any time, mislead anyone, or misrepresent what this is all about.

The Manhattan Declaration, according the declaration itself, is "A Call Of Christian Conscience." It was originally drafted on October 20th of 2009, and released to the public on November 20th of 2009.

The document addresses three main issues, abortion, same-sex marriage, and religious liberty. It purports to be a document which unites differing Christian groups around these very important issues. It lays out a case for the pro-life position, and against Abortion. It lays out a case in favor of preserving marriage as a sacred institution, and why we should strive against allowing same-sex marriages to be recognized. It also outlines the dangers faced by religious groups in the present age, where there is much animosity directed at anyone who dares to so much as disapprove of nearly anything.

To the extent that it does these things I would support it as a statement of position, and as a place for people of conscience to rally, and say, OK, we have differences, but we all agree that these things are important, so let's stand together on them. But that is not all that the document says. And it going farther, it leaves a lot to be desired.

Clearly, I am pro-life. If you wish to call me anti-abortion, that's fine, I'm not going to fight you on it, I am anti-abortion, because I'm pro-life. As far as it goes, I think that the declaration does a pretty good job of laying out some good arguments and points for a pro-life position, however, for something that supposes to be a Christian document, it spends far too much time expounding secular arguments instead, and virtually no time on Biblical arguments, save a couple of verses of Scripture which are never explained or defended in any way. Also, I do believe that marriage is only possible, in a very real sense, between one man and one woman, and again, the declaration does a very good job of laying out a secular case for traditional marriage, but again, is staggeringly weak when it comes to a Biblical basis, which is especially important on this issue, because, if the Bible didn't speak to this issue I personally wouldn't really care about it at all. I also understand the importance of religious liberty, but again, it is defended and explained entirely with secular arguments. So, while I can affirm the positions taken by the declaration, I think that they could have done a better job laying them out and defending them, and the fact that they didn't defend them from the Bible is a serious problem for me.

All that being said, let me get on to the main problem that I have with the Manhattan Declaration.

The document makes a big deal about Christians, and where they stand on important issues. But what is meant by "Christian"? Well, to quote from the declaration; "We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians..." This should be another problem for Bible believing Christians. The fact that this document lumps Evangelical Christians in with Catholics, as well as, so-called, Orthodox, sounds huge warning bells in my mind, as the beliefs of these groups are wildly different. This brings me back to how the Manhattan Declaration came to my attention. Initially I had heard Chuck Colson talk about some, which is not surprising since he is one of the people who wrote it, but I hadn't had time to check it out. Then a friend asked me if I had signed it yet, and I could only respond that, up to that point, I hadn't had time to check it out yet. So, when I had time, I went to the website, www.manhattandeclaration.org, and checked it out.

The first that I saw when I got to the website was the very brief summary that is there, and I decided to look and see who had signed the declaration. While there are some very well known Christian leaders on the list, you can't help but notice more than a few Roman Catholic Archbishops on the list. For any Bible believing Christian, this has to give you pause when considering something like this. So I knew I was going to have to look very closely at the declaration before I could make up my mind, so I pulled up the full declaration and read the entire thing.

If you should read the declaration you will find that only scant lip service is given to the Gospel, and even then it is not defined or explained in any way shape or form, yet we know for sure that a Roman Catholic Archbishop would mean something very different by Gospel than I do. Given that this document was written with the idea in mind that it was for the approval of Catholics and Christians, it seems clear that the true Gospel of Jesus Christ is not what's in view even the one time that it is mentioned. And no, in a pure sense, Catholics are not Christians. At it's best Catholicism is an apostate form of Christianity, but not true Biblical Christianity. That is not to say that no Catholics are truly redeemed, but given what is taught in most Catholic Churches and circles, I would venture to say that they are a rare breed.

Having established that the purposes of this document are not to further the Gospel, what then could they be? Well, it must have to do with propagating morality, but if that's all they are concerned with, why mention Christianity at all? Simply to have a grounding for the morality they are seeking? Perhaps, but if so, that does not do justice to the purpose of Christianity. The purpose of Christianity is to share the Gospel with the entire world. That's it, that's the core, it's why the Church exists. Our mission to spread the Gospel, to preach the Gospel, is the reason the Church is in the world, it's the reason God doesn't rapture (sorry, it's the best word I can think of for this) us out of the world the instant we come to faith in Him. And that is the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, that we are sinners in a fallen world, in danger of eternal judgment from a righteous and Holy and Just God, and can be redeemed out of this world and saved from that damnation only by grace and through faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ, which is something that could not be affirmed by many of the signers and endorsers of the declaration.

Now, from the Catholic perspective, there is a certain logic to this declaration. Being that Catholicism, as it is practiced, and as it is taught in most local Parishes and such, is a very legalistic religion, believing in a works based righteousness (often you will hear that the works must be coupled with faith, but even that is a gross bastardization of the Gospel) and that being good at least gets you closer to Heaven, no matter why you are good, it would make sense to force people, through political action or whatever, to be better, and thus put them closer to God, even if you have to drag them, kicking and screaming, to it. But this is not something that is compatible with Biblical Christianity. If a person rejects the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that is the true Gospel, then they are damned and destined for Hell, and just how good or bad they are is of little consequence to them.

So, if I were to sum up the Manhattan Declaration, I would have to put it something like this: "We, under the guise of Christianity, demand adherence to our moral standards. We stand up, shake our fist at the culture and say, you will submit to us, we will see to it. We couldn't care less if you go to hell for all eternity, we will have our moralistic domain here and now! We don't care if you believe, only that you submit!"

But wait, there's something familiar about that sentiment, it's Islam! That's right, Islam doesn't require an affirmation of faith, only submission to it's laws and teachings. That's what's going on with the Manhattan Declaration, it's declaring that we don't care what you believe, only that people submit to the moral standards that it puts forth. This is all too common amongst people who wish to claim Christianity. It is what Dr. Michael Horton calls Moralistic, Therapeutic Deism. That is, we try to be moral, and it makes us feel better, and oh yeah, as an afterthought, there is a god, but that doesn't really affect us.

For me to affirm the Manhattan Declaration would be to say, if you are homosexual, you can go to hell, as long as you go without a marriage license. If you are woman, you can go to hell, as long as you go without having had an abortion. And I will fight for religious liberty, and disregard laws that I think conflict with that, while also refusing to submit to the consequences of such action. That is something that I absolutely cannot affirm. No matter who you are, or what your sin, I want you to learn about Jesus, repent of your sins, and be redeemed. If you are going to hell anyway, it doesn't matter what sin you committed, it will separate you from God.

So do I support the Manhattan Declaration? Will I be signing it? No. Unreservedly, and emphatically, NO!

There is more to be said, and I know that some will raise objections to what I've written, but I'll have to deal with those as they arise, because this long enough already.

Happy Thanksgiving!

I know that I haven't been doing a lot of blogging lately, but I did want to take a moment and wish everyone a very happy Thanksgiving!

Also, I know that many Christian leaders have been spending a lot of time talking about, and spreading hype about the Manhattan Declaration, it is my full intention to do a post taking a hard look at this document within the next few days or so.

To Whom Are We Preaching?

Acts 2:14 [ESV] "But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them: "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words."

In Acts Chapter 2 the Apostle Peter was preaching to Jews. This is very important, as we will see after we look at little bit more of his Sermon.

Acts 2:22-41 [ESV]

²²"Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know— ²³ this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. ²⁴ God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it. ²⁵ For David says concerning him,

"'I saw the Lord always before me,
for he is at my right hand that I may not be shaken;
²⁶ therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced;
my flesh also will dwell in hope.
²⁷ For you will not abandon my soul to Hades,
or let your Holy One see corruption.
²⁸ You have made known to me the paths of life;
you will make me full of gladness with your presence.'

²⁹ "Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. ³⁰ Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, ³¹ he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. ³² This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. ³³ Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. ³⁴ For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says,

"'The Lord said to my Lord,Sit at my right hand,
³⁵ until I make your enemies your footstool.'

³⁶ Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified."

³⁷ Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" ³⁸ And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. ³⁹ For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself." ⁴⁰ And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, "Save yourselves from this crooked generation." ⁴¹ So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

As we read this, it can be clearly seen that Peter preached to these people, these Jews, as he called them "men of Israel" in verse 22, and "men of Judah" in verse 14. This is critically important to the style and substance of his sermon. It is crystal clear that Peter was building on a base of knowledge that these people already possessed. He had no need to define his terms, or to explain who God was, or what sin was. His audience knew and understood completely that men are sinful by nature, and required a sacrifice for that sin. He also speaks of David, whom the Jews would know well, as a major figure in the history of Israel.

Also, we will notice that those who responded to Peters preaching already understood that something was required of them, for they asked what they must do. Please note that Peter did not say, "With every head bowed and every eye closed, repeat after me..." He said, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Because of the knowledge that these Jews already possessed, it was a relatively simple task for Peter to show them the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, especially after he told them of the magnitude of their guilt before God, whom they knew a great deal about from their own history as a nation.

Contrast this now with the Apostle Paul, proclaiming the same Gospel, but to Greeks, who did not have the same background as the Jews that Peter was speaking to.

Acts 17:22-23: [ESV]

²² So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: "Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. ²³ For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, 'To the unknown god.' What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you."

And he goes on the explain who God is, and what that means to these people who do not have a background in Old Testament Theology. And farther along in this Chapter, after explaining some of the prerequisite knowledge Luke (the writer of Acts) tells us, "³² Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked. But others said, "We will hear you again about this." ³³ So Paul went out from their midst. ³⁴But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them."

As you read through the New Testament you will notice that the Jews do not mock when told of the resurrection of the dead, because they believed in resurrection, though not all of them believed that Jesus had risen, but they certainly believed that there would be a resurrection. It was the Greeks (or any non Jews) who would mock at the thought. As Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 1:23 [NASB]" but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness..."

Now, the question is, why is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that he was Crucified, buried, and then rose again, a stumbling block to the Jews? Quite simply because that means that His claims are true, that he is the Christ (Greek for Messiah) and that they must embrace Him. This is very hard for them for a few reasons. You see, most Jews at that time, and throughout all of the time since then, even up until today, held to a very legalistic form of Judaism, failing to understand that from the very beginning Salvation was by the Grace of God and not by works. So these very religious people would have to admit that they are apostates, that is that they did not believe the true tenets of their own religion, that they had failed, and needed a Savior. Further, the Messiah that most Jews were (and mistakenly still are) looking for, was one who would conquer their enemies, and free them from oppression. Of course Jesus is the one who will do those things, but it was not in the Divine plan for Him to accomplish them at His first coming. Jesus being the Christ was a stumbling block because it forced them to turn away from so much of what they held to be true, not that the Old Testament is wrong or somehow invalid, but because they so grossly misunderstood it.

As to the Gospel being foolishness to the Gentiles, that is pretty easy to understand. They simply had no basis in their beliefs for the one true God, or their sin, or their need for repentance and Salvation. Besides, they had no expectation of resurrection, and the idea of coming back from the dead just seemed downright silly to them. That kind of thing just doesn't happen. And of course, on a natural level, they would be correct, but Jesus death, burial and resurrection, as well as the resurrection that we who are in Christ look forward to is Supernatural, and not natural. So the Jews have a hard time with the implications, but if they can overcome that, they are right there, ready to receive the salvation of Christ, while the gentiles must have it all laid out before they can even understand it, and even then, much of it just sounds silly.

This is also why in Acts 2, as a result of Peters preaching there was a huge response, with some 3,000 people being redeemed, while in Acts 17 the response seems to be quite minimal. This is not to say that Peter's approach was better, or that Paul did something wrong (some have suggested this nonsense) but rather that Peter was spreading the seed (to borrow from the parable of the soils in Mark 4) on well prepared, good soil, while most of the seed that Paul was spreading fell on the hard packed road, and what good soil there was the Lord had used Paul to plow and get ready by explaining the basics of what he was talking about.

I think that this is part of our problem today. Look at the world around us. Even for us in the United States, and even more in Europe and many other places, we are not living in an Acts 2 world! This is an Acts 17 culture! Even those who are active in Evangelism must understand that they are not Peter preaching to Jews, but rather Paul preaching to Greeks! This is the problem as I see it. Most evangelism classes try to teach a trite and quick way to deliver the Gospel message and move on. Maybe this worked back in the 50's and even to some extent in the 60's, when exposure to the Bible and the basics of it's truths were difficult to avoid. But back in the 60's or so the USA began a massive shift away from such basic ideas, and anyone born since then is progressively less and less likely to have the basic understanding for a quick message, which assumes a knowledge of sin and it's consequences, to be effective.

This is also why I have problems with simply leading people through "the sinners prayer." Most of the time, and more and more as we move forward, these are Acts 17 people who don't even know what it is they are doing. To them it's just a religious exercise that someone is telling them will save their Soul (whatever that means to them, if anything at all) or get them in the group (and they don't know why, but it seems like being in the group is a good thing). Then they are told, write down this date, now you are saved, and if you ever doubt it, just remember that on this date you chanted this incantation... ummm, I mean, prayed this prayer, so you know for sure that you "got saved." If you should in fact run across an Acts 2 person, you might find the simple and straightforward approach to be valid, but Acts 2 people are exceedingly rare these days.

This is why we must be prepared in several ways. We must be prepared to engage in much longer conversations and discourses. With most people in today's world you simply cannot effectively share the Gospel in five minutes and move on. We must be prepared to define our terms. Too often these days if you are in a room with 20 other people and say something about God, you may well have 21 different definitions, so, like Paul, we need to be ready to explain who God is, and what we are talking about. We need to be prepared to present the Gospel beginning with the fall and sin, rather than the Cross. Of course the destination is the same, but getting there will take longer. We must also understand be prepared for multiple conversations if that is possible, or be ready to direct someone to where they can get good Biblical answers if we don't have a reasonable expectation of seeing them again.

The work is still there to be done, but we're going to have to work a lot harder to accomplish it.

******************
For those of you who listen to Ken Ham of Answers In Genesis, you may find this familiar, yes, I was influenced by him, but did not simply copy him.

I Find This Funny

I am one of those who has been online since the mid 90's. For any who might not have been around so long, let me assure you, all those email forwards that never seem to end, well, they've been running through email boxes ever since email first began, and along with forwarded jokes and such, hoaxes started running rampant too. This gave rise to websites such as www.snopes.com (and a few that came before it, but don't seem to be around anymore) which checks these things out and let's you know that they are in fact hoaxes. Admittedly they do lean a little to the left on Political things, but they're quite good if you're just looking to check on a basic factual issue. Quite often you'll get one of these hoax emails and just know that whatever it's claiming to offer is just too good to be true, and therefore you can just delete it and laugh at the friend who sent it to you, but sometimes one might seem like it could be legitimate and so you could head on over to snopes.com to check it out. Then some people thought it would be helpful to let people know that they had checked something out and it was, in fact, true, so you started seeing emails where people had typed notes on the bottom to let you know that Snopes had verified the information. Now, this is what I find funny, there is a trend that has started where the hoax emails have notes on the bottom saying that Snopes.com has verified the information in the email. Of course, if you go to www.snopes.com you will find that they say that the email is not true. What is really funny is that sometimes, you'll even find a link right to the correct page at snopes.com, that you can click right on and find out that it's a hoax... and yet, for all of that, people still forward them. Isn't email a hoot?

Salvation Is Not A Magic Spell

I want us to stop and think about how we share the Gospel with people, and what we tell them when they question if they really have been redeemed.  Primarily I'm thinking about what is often known as "the Sinners Prayer."  That is, the words that we quite often try to get people to say in order to be saved.  We find ourselves telling people, ok, just repeat after me... or, say something like this, but, you know, in your own words.  Then we tell them, ok, you said those words, now you're in, no matter what, and we treat Salvation as if it happens as the result of simply saying some magic words, reducing the Glorious Gospel of Christ to nothing more than some sort of magic spell.  Chant these words, or utter this "prayer" and you'll be good to go.  I'm not saying that it's always wrong to lead someone in a prayer when they are ready to come to Christ, and maybe they just don't really know what to do.  What I am saying is that we cannot just toss these things around thoughtlessly. 

 

I think we need to make sure of some things first.  For one thing, have we actually shared the Gospel with them?  Do we know that they understand that they are sinners and in need of a Savior?  Do they actually understand what Jesus is offering them, and why it is that they need to cry out to Him?  Or have we told them, if you have struggles, if you're sick, if you're poor and needy, well, Jesus can fix that for you?  Are we pitching them a utilitarian Jesus to fix all their problems, if only they'll say these simple little words?  Who wouldn't?  But are those people saved?  If in fact they do not know at least the basics of the Gospel, and don't repent of their sins and ask for forgiveness, then the answer is no.  We must be certain that we are always sharing the Gospel before we ask someone to respond to it.

 

Further, when someone asks how they can know that they are really saved, what answer should they be given?  I think that too often they are asked if they have ever "prayed the prayer," and if they say that they have, then they are told to stop doubting and wondering because they are fine.  Is this how a person knows that they are truly redeemed?  Because they chanted this magic spell?  As I just said, a person can say some form of "sinners prayer" and not actually be saved, so is remembering a moment of saying those words good enough for assurance of Salvation?  Obviously not.  The evidence of true Salvation is a transformed heart and a transformed life. Not that someone must be sinless and perfect, but when there is true Salvation, there will be a transformation of the heart, and a notable change in the life.  The New Testament is chock full of passages that help us to understand how to have assurance of Salvation, and what it means, and what it looks like, to have true Salvation.

 

I hope over the coming months to flesh these thoughts out a lot more and get deeper into these issues, but for today I just wanted to get people thinking about these things, so that we might start to understand where we might be going wrong. 

Abandoning The Language

^{Acts 11:19-26 [ESV] "19} Now those who were scattered because of the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to no one except Jews. ²⁰ But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who on coming to Antioch spoke to the Hellenists also, preaching the Lord Jesus. ²¹ And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number who believed turned to the Lord. ²² The report of this came to the ears of the church in Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch. ²³ When he came and saw the grace of God, he was glad, and he exhorted them all to remain faithful to the Lord with steadfast purpose, ²⁴ for he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. And a great many people were added to the Lord. ²⁵ So Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, ²⁶ and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church and taught a great many people. And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians."

From www.dictionary.com:

Chris⋅tian

–adjective

1.	of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith.

2.	of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ: Spain is a Christian country.

3.	of or pertaining to Christians: many Christian deaths in the Crusades.

4.	exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike: She displayed true Christian charity.

5.	decent; respectable: They gave him a good Christian burial.

6.	human; not brutal; humane: Such behavior isn't Christian.

–noun

7.	a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.

8.	a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ: He died like a true Christian.

9.	a member of any of certain Protestant churches, as the Disciples of Christ and the Plymouth Brethren.

10.	the hero of Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress.

11.	a male given name.

---

Origin:
1250–1300; < class="ital-inline">Chrīstiānus < class="ital-inline">Chrīstiānós, equiv. to Chrīst(ós) Christ + -iānos < class="ital-inline">-iānus -ian; r. ME, OE cristen < class="luna-Img" src="http://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png" alt="" border="0">

*****************************
It seems to me that pretty much everywhere we look today we are likely to see Christians flat out running from that name. First they started running from specific denomination names, not wanting to be called Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist or any other, saying that it's really that we believe the Bible that matters and not what we call our Church. OK, there is some truth to that, we don't want to be divided by the name on the building, but on the other hand, denominations are supposed to be a sort of shorthand to help you see at a glance what general positions a certain fellowship holds on a multitude of issues, and as such, aren't a bad thing, as long as denominational identity is not taken too far, which I understand was often the case.

Next we saw people not wanting to be called Protestant, because we believe the Bible, and don't want to make it sound like we're against something, or that we're embracing something new instead of Historic Christianity as taught by the Apostles and Early Church Fathers and Christ Himself, and of course the Bible in general. Again, there is some truth in this, but also again, there is nothing harmful in identifying with Protestantism, which was born out of the Protestant Reformation of the 1500's. By accepting the title of Protestant you are saying that whenever Doctrine and Teaching of any Church moves away from Biblical Truth you will stand up and say, "NO!" You will take a stand for what is right and present the Bible as the Authority, no matter what human reason has to say about it. By calling oneself a Protestant, or even Reformed (although that carries a much more specific meaning) one is not saying that they affirm every word or teaching uttered by Martin Luther or John Calvin, or any of the other Reformers, but rather that one will stand up for the Bible, and uphold it as the Authority. That is the true spirit of the Reformation, a turning away from fallible human reason and a return to, and embracing of, Biblical Authority. (And I'm not addressing here the pure poppycock that Baptists are not Protestant, but rather members of some Church begun by John The Baptist and is somehow separate from the rest of Christianity. If you've been taught this, just know that it's pure nonsense with no Historical accuracy whatsoever.)

This brings me to my main point, the rampant tendency today to abandon the word "Christian" to define oneself before the world and the culture. All over the place today you will find Christians refusing to use that word. Most often they call themselves "Followers of Christ." Now, I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with saying that you are a follower of Christ, I am one myself. Being a follower of Jesus Christ is a good thing, and all true Christians are followers of Christ, just as all true followers of Christ are Christians. So I do not object to calling oneself a "Follower of Christ" but I do object to abandoning the word "Christian." Saying that one is a Christian carries a lot more meaning with it, and I'm not talking about baggage, which is the reason why so many wish to abandon it today. To simply say that one is a Follower of Christ is a weaker statement in many regards. You could easily infer from the phrase "follower of Christ" that a person looks at Jesus and generally likes what they see, and wants to go along down that path. By this could simply mean living a good moral life, or feeding the hungry, or helping the poor and impoverished. None of these are bad things, but if you stop there then they are not enough. To use the phrase "follower of Christ" in such a manner is not deceptive. It is incomplete, but not deceptive on it's face, because in a general sense, that could be the full meaning of the phrase.

However, the word Christian is different. Now I understand that some people use it in the same way that I just described "follower of Christ" but just because it is used that way does not make it actually mean the same thing. Calling oneself a Christian fully identifies oneself with Christ. It says, "I am striving to be more like Christ, in all that it entails, and in all that He is. I am willing to not only follow Him, but to suffer with Him, and place Him at the very center of my very identity." To use the term "Christian" in the same way as I described "follower of Christ" in the last paragraph would be deceptive on it's face. If you simply follow Christ, in some indefinite or undetermined way, you could simply fall away when the going gets tough, so someone who is simply a "follower of Christ" could cease to be a "follower of Christ" without actually having to say (if they are being honest) that they never followed Him at all. On the other hand, if you are a Christian, in truth, you are taking the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ as the central piece of your very own identity, and would be willing to suffer, or even die, rather than to give that up. Perhaps I'm splitting hairs here, because a true and real follower of Christ will do the same, as I said before, in the truest meanings, these two things are the same, but they do not seem the same, and I guess therein lies my problem.

Some of the reasons given for abandoning the word "Christian" are that many people throughout history have called themselves Christians while doing terrible and horrible things, but if we replace "Christian" with "Christ Follower" or "Follower of Christ" do you think people will not take on that title and still do the same terrible things? The word Christian is not sullied because true Christians have done these terrible acts, but because the name Christian has too often been claimed by those who had no right or allegiance to it. So how would you defend the phrase "follower of Christ" so that the same thing doesn't happen to it? You can't. Besides, many times horrendous acts have been committed simply in the name of Christ, without ever using the term "Christian." Should we abandon the name of Christ? Certainly NOT!!! And yet, refusing to call ourselves Christians would be a step in that direction.

I would actually encourage Christians to use both, thinking carefully about when either would be most appropriate. I'll close with an excellent example of this from Matthew Henry (1662-1714) in his Concise Commentary: "Act 11:25-30 Hitherto the followers of Christ were called disciples, that is, learners, scholars; but from that time they were called Christians. The proper meaning of this name is, a follower of Christ; it denotes one who, from serious thought, embraces the religion of Christ, believes his promises, and makes it his chief care to shape his life by Christ's precepts and example. Hence it is plain that multitudes take the name of Christian to whom it does not rightly belong. But the name without the reality will only add to our guilt. While the bare profession will bestow neither profit nor delight, the possession of it will give both the promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come. Grant, Lord, that Christians may forget other names and distinctions, and love one another as the followers of Christ ought to do. True Christians will feel for their brethren under afflictions. Thus will fruit be brought forth to the praise and glory of God. If all mankind were true Christians, how cheerfully would they help one another! The whole earth would be like one large family, every member of which would strive to be dutiful and kind."

Does the number of people praying for something make God more likely to do it? :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library

Does the number of people praying for something make God more likely to do it? :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library

Paul Washer - Total Depravity/Gospel Sermon Jam

TRUTH About Speaking In Tongues

Is The New Testament Text Reliable? Part 7

Is the New Testament Text Reliable?

The phrase, "The Bible's been translated and recopied so many times..." introduces one of the most frequent canards tossed at Christians quoting the Bible. Can we know for certain that the New Testament has been handed down accurately? Yes, we can.

By: Gregory Koukl

The Verdict

What can we conclude from this evidence? New Testament specialist Daniel Wallace notes that although there are about 300,000 individual variations of the text of the New Testament, this number is very misleading. Most of the differences are completely inconsequential--spelling errors, inverted phrases and the like. A side by side comparison between the two main text families (the Majority Text and the modern critical text) shows agreement a full 98% of the time.

Of the remaining differences, virtually all yield to vigorous textual criticism. This means that our New Testament is 99.5% textually pure. In the entire text of 20,000 lines, only 40 lines are in doubt (about 400 words), and none affects any significant doctrine.

Greek scholar D.A. Carson sums up this way: "The purity of text is of such a substantial nature that nothing we believe to be true, and nothing we are commanded to do, is in any way jeopardized by the variants."

This issue is no longer contested by non-Christian scholars, and for good reason. Simply put, if we reject the authenticity of the New Testament on textual grounds we'd have to reject every ancient work of antiquity and declare null and void every piece of historical information from written sources prior to the beginning of the second millennium A.D.

Has the New Testament been altered? Critical, academic analysis says it has not.

Is The New Testament Text Reliable? Part 6

Is the New Testament Text Reliable?

The phrase, "The Bible's been translated and recopied so many times..." introduces one of the most frequent canards tossed at Christians quoting the Bible. Can we know for certain that the New Testament has been handed down accurately? Yes, we can.

By: Gregory Koukl

Ancient Versions and Patristic Quotations

Two other cross checks on the accuracy of the manuscripts remain: ancient versions and citations by the early church Fathers known as "patristic quotations."

Early in the history of the Church Greek documents, including the Scriptures, were translated into Latin. By the 3rd and 4th Centuries the New Testament was translated into Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Georgian, etc. These texts helped missionaries reach new cultures in their own language as the Gospel spread and the Church grew. Translations of the Greek manuscripts (called "versions") help modern-day textual critics answer questions about the underlying Greek manuscripts.

In addition, there are ancient extra-biblical sources--characteristically catechisms, lectionaries, and quotes from the church fathers--that record the Scriptures. Paul Barnett says that the "Scriptures...gave rise to an immense output of early Christian literature which quoted them at length and, in effect, preserved them." Metzger notes the amazing fact that "if all other sources for our knowledge of the text of the New Testament were destroyed, [the patristic quotations] would be sufficient alone for the reconstruction of practically the entire New Testament."

Is The New Testament Text Reliable? Part 5

Is the New Testament Text Reliable?

The phrase, "The Bible's been translated and recopied so many times..." introduces one of the most frequent canards tossed at Christians quoting the Bible. Can we know for certain that the New Testament has been handed down accurately? Yes, we can.

By: Gregory Koukl

The Biblical Manuscript Evidence

By comparison with secular texts, the manuscript evidence for the New Testament is stunning. The most recent count (1980) shows 5,366 separate Greek manuscripts represented by early fragments, uncial codices (manuscripts in capital Greek letters bound together in book form), and minuscules (small Greek letters in cursive style)!

Among the nearly 3,000 minuscule fragments are 34 complete New Testaments dating from the 9th to the 15th Centuries.

Uncial manuscripts provide virtually complete codices (multiple books of the New Testament bound together into one volume) back to the 4th Century, though some are a bit younger. Codex Sinaiticus, purchased by the British government from the Soviet government at Christmas, 1933, for £100,000, is dated c. 340. The nearly complete Codex Vaticanus is the oldest uncial, dated c. 325-350. Codex Alexandrinus contains the whole Old Testament and a nearly complete New Testament and dates from the late 4th Century to the early 5th Century.

The most fascinating evidence comes from the fragments (as opposed to the codices). The Chester Beatty Papyri contains most of the New Testament and is dated mid-3rd Century. The Bodmer Papyri II collection, whose discovery was announced in 1956, includes the first fourteen chapters of the Gospel of John and much of the last seven chapters. It dates from A.D. 200 or earlier.

The most amazing find of all, however, is a small portion of John 18:31-33, discovered in Egypt known as the John Rylands Papyri. Barely three inches square, it represents the earliest known copy of any part of the New Testament. The papyri is dated on paleographical grounds at around A.D. 117-138 (though it may even be earlier), showing that the Gospel of John was circulated as far away as Egypt within 30 years of its composition.

Keep in mind that most of the papyri are fragmentary. Only about 50 manuscripts contain the entire New Testament, though most of the other manuscripts contain the four Gospels. Even so, the manuscript textual evidence is exceedingly rich, especially when compared to other works of antiquity.

Is The New Testament Text Reliable? Part 4

Is the New Testament Text Reliable?

The phrase, "The Bible's been translated and recopied so many times..." introduces one of the most frequent canards tossed at Christians quoting the Bible. Can we know for certain that the New Testament has been handed down accurately? Yes, we can.

By: Gregory Koukl

How Many and How Old?

The ability of any scholar to do effective textual criticism depends on two factors. First, how many existing copies are there to examine and compare? Are there two copies, ten, a hundred? The more copies there are, the easier it is to make meaningful comparisons. Second, how close in time are the oldest existing documents to the original?

If the numbers are few and the time gap is wide, the original is harder to reconstruct with confidence. However, if there are many copies and the oldest existing copies are reasonably close in time to the original, the textual critic can be more confident he's pinpointed the exact wording of the autograph.

To get an idea of the significance of the New Testament manuscript evidence, note for a moment the record for non-biblical texts. These are secular texts from antiquity that have been reconstructed with a high degree of certainty based on the available textual evidence.

The important First Century document The Jewish War, by Jewish aristocrat and historian Josephus, survives in only nine complete manuscripts dating from the 5th Century--four centuries after they were written. Tacitus' Annals of Imperial Rome is one of the chief historical sources for the Roman world of New Testament times, yet, surprisingly, it survives in partial form in only two manuscripts dating from the Middle Ages. Thucydides' History survives in eight copies. There are 10 copies of Caesar's Gallic Wars, eight copies of Herodotus' History, and seven copies of Plato, all dated over a millennium from the original. Homer's Iliad has the most impressive manuscript evidence for any secular work with 647 existing copies.

Bruce's comments put the discussion in perspective: "No classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest manuscripts of their works which are of any use to us are over 1300 years later than the originals."

For most documents of antiquity only a handful of manuscripts exist, some facing a time gap of 800-2000 years or more. Yet scholars are confident of reconstructing the originals with some significant degree of accuracy. In fact, virtually all of our knowledge of ancient history depends on documents like these.

Is The New Testament Text Reliable? Part 3

Is the New Testament Text Reliable?

The phrase, "The Bible's been translated and recopied so many times..." introduces one of the most frequent canards tossed at Christians quoting the Bible. Can we know for certain that the New Testament has been handed down accurately? Yes, we can.

By: Gregory Koukl

Reconstructing Aunt Sally's Letter

Let me illustrate how such a test can be made. It will help you to see how scholars can confidently reconstruct the text from existing manuscript copies even though the copies themselves have differences and are much older than the autograph (i.e., the original).

Pretend your Aunt Sally has a dream in which she learns the recipe for an elixir that would continuously maintain her youth. When she wakes up, she scribbles the directions on a scrap of paper, then runs into the kitchen to make up her first glass. In a few days her appearance is transformed. Sally is a picture of radiant youth because of her daily dose of what comes to be known as "Aunt Sally's Secret Sauce."

Sally is so excited she sends hand-written instructions to her three bridge partners (Aunt Sally is still in the technological dark ages--no photocopier) giving detailed instructions on how to make the sauce. They, in turn, make copies which each sends to ten of her own friends.

All is going well until one day Aunt Sally's pet schnauzer eats the original copy of the recipe. Sally is beside herself. In a panic she contacts her three friends who have mysteriously suffered similar mishaps. Their copies are gone, too, so the alarm goes out to their friends in attempt to recover the original wording.

They finally round up all the surviving hand-written copies, twenty-six in all. When they spread them out on the kitchen table, they immediately notice some differences. Twenty-three of the copies are exactly the same. One has a misspelled word, though, one has two phrases inverted ("mix then chop" instead of "chop then mix") and one includes an ingredient that none of the others has on its list.

Here is the critical question: Do you think Aunt Sally can accurately reconstruct her original recipe? Of course she could. The misspelled words can easily be corrected, the single inverted phrase can be repaired, and the extra ingredient can be ignored.

Even with more numerous or more diverse variations, the original can still be reconstructed with a high level of confidence given the right textual evidence. The misspellings would be obvious errors, the inversions would stand out and easily be restored, and the conclusion drawn that it's more plausible that one word or sentence be accidentally added to a single copy than omitted from many.

This, in simplified form, is how the science of textual criticism works. Textual critics are academics who reconstruct a missing original from existing manuscripts that are generations removed from the autograph. According to New Testament scholar F.F. Bruce, "Its object [is] to determine as exactly as possible from the available evidence the original words of the documents in question."

The science of textual criticism is used to test all documents of antiquity--not just religious texts--including historical and literary writings. It's not a theological enterprise based on haphazard hopes and guesses; it's a linguistic exercise that follows a set of established rules. Textual criticism allows an alert critic to determine the extent of possible corruption of any work.

Is The New Testament Text Reliable? Part 2

Is the New Testament Text Reliable?

The phrase, "The Bible's been translated and recopied so many times..." introduces one of the most frequent canards tossed at Christians quoting the Bible. Can we know for certain that the New Testament has been handed down accurately? Yes, we can.

By: Gregory Koukl

Just the Facts, Ma'am

The question of authenticity is not really a religious concern at all; it's an academic one. It can be answered in an academic way totally unrelated to spiritual convictions by a simple appeal to facts, an apologetic technique I call "Just the Facts, Ma'am."

The objection at first glance is compelling. When we try to conceptualize how to reconstruct an original after 2000 years of copying, translating, and copying some more, the task appears impossible. The skepticism, though, is based on two misconceptions about the transmission of ancient documents like the New Testament.

The first assumption is that the transmission is more or less linear, as in the telephone example--one person communicating to a second who communicates with a third, etc. In a linear paradigm people are left with one message and many generations between it and the original. Second, the telephone game example depends on oral transmission which is more easily distorted and misconstrued than something written.

Neither assumption applies to the written text of the New Testament. First, the transmission was not linear but geometric--e.g., one letter birthed five copies which became 25 which became 200 and so on. Secondly, the transmission in question was done in writing, and written manuscripts can be tested in a way that oral communications cannot be.

Is The New Testament Text Reliable? Part 1

This is a fairly long article from Greg Koukl, so I have split it up into multiple parts. I hope everyone finds it helpful.

Is the New Testament Text Reliable?

The phrase, "The Bible's been translated and recopied so many times..." introduces one of the most frequent canards tossed at Christians quoting the Bible. Can we know for certain that the New Testament has been handed down accurately? Yes, we can.

By: Gregory Koukl

In the spring of 1989 syndicated talk show host Larry King interviewed Shirley MacLaine on the New Age. When a Christian caller contested her view with an appeal to the New Testament, MacLaine brushed him off with the objection that the Bible has been changed and translated so many times over the last 2000 years that it's impossible to have any confidence in its accuracy. King was quick to endorse her "facts." "Everyone knows that," he grunted.[1]

This appeal to common knowledge is enough to satisfy the ordinary, man-on-the-street critic of the New Testament. An appeal to the game "telephone" to demonstrate how reasonable this objection is. Whisper a message to one person and transfer it from person to person, ear to ear, in a circle. Then compare the message's final form with the original. The radical transformation of the original phrase in so short a period of time is always good for a few laughs. This comparison is enough to convince the casual skeptic that the New Testament documents are equally unreliable.

The argument against the reliability of the New Testament texts can be stated very simply. How can we know that the documents we have in our possession accurately reflect originals destroyed almost two millennia ago? Communication is never perfect; people make mistakes. Errors are compounded with each successive generation, just like the message in the telephone game. By the time 2000 years pass, it's anyone's guess what the original said.

It's easy to state the problem, and some may think merely raising the objection makes the argument itself compelling. Yet offering evidence on its behalf is a bit more difficult.

Usually the complaint is raised by people who have little understanding of the real issues. In cases like this, an appeal to common knowledge is more often than not an appeal to common ignorance. Like many questions about Christianity, this objection is voiced by people who haven't been given reliable information.

A Fundamentalist Nation?

A Fundamentalist Nation?

Gregory Koukl

A poll of readers of the L.A. Times once showed that, in the area of abortion, prayer, in school, homosexuality and traditional family values, the majority of Americans agree with so-called “extreme fundamentalists.” 70% of Americans believe that the traditional family structure is always best; 76% favor prayer in public schools; 55% are against legalized abortion; 61% think that homosexual relations are always wrong. These are the views of the “radical right,” but these are also the views of a majority of rank and file Americans.

Let that bolster your confidence, the next time you’re being marginalized for your conservative moral values. The “radical right” isn’t so radical. It’s actually mainstream.

©1999 Gregory Koukl. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only.
For more information, contact Stand to Reason at 1438 East 33rd St., Signal Hill, CA 90755
(800) 2-REASON (562) 5

Today's "Ask Pastor John"

God Is Real

^{Romans 1:18-23 [ESV] "18} For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. ¹⁹ For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. ²⁰ For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. ²¹ For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. ²² Claiming to be wise, they became fools, ²³ and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things."

There are many logical arguments for the existence of God. Many careful thinkers have done a lot of very good work to show logical and philosophical proofs for the existence for God. I am familiar with many of these, and maybe someday I'll explore some of them, but today I want to ask, are these arguments critical? I would answer no.

One of the aspects of God's creation is that it makes it clear that God is real, and that God did create everything. As we see in the Romans passage above, God has made Himself known in Creation. In fact, He has made it so clear that people who do not believe are without excuse.

The problem is that people do not want to believe in God as He is, yet they know that He is real, and so, thinking themselves to be wise, they conjure up all kinds of bizarre ideas of what God is like, or invest what can be clearly seen of God into silly objects that they make with their own hands, or worship the moon, or the sun, or trees, and so on.

While creation is sufficient to let people know that God is real, and shows enough for us to know much about Him, it certainly doesn't tell us all we need to know. Fortunately, God did not leave us hanging when it comes to what we need to know. He has spoken through His Word, the Bible.

Of all the religious ideas and books in the world, only the Bible is compatible with what we clearly seen in His creation. The problem is not that God has been ambiguous about what He has revealed about Himself, in fact, it is perfectly clear, and can be seen all around us, but people don't want to believe because they do not want to be responsible to Him, and do not want to give up their own unrighteousness, and so they suppress the truth, and either outright deny the existence of God at all, thereby attempting to make themselves into some form of god, or choose to worship some object or person instead of the one true God.

I'm not saying anything bad about those who have spent time thinking about all of the proofs that creation does offer of the reality of God. In fact, so many people are so deceived in this day and age that they often do not see the clear reality of God, and it may well help to have someone come along side and show it to them. What I am saying is that God is real, and that a person can know this very well and truly without ever hearing one of those arguments because the reality of God is clearly seen in His creation.

Here's The Thing

Acts 17:11 [ESV] ^"11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so."

2 Timothy 3:16-17 [ESV] "¹⁶ All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, ¹⁷ that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work."

I think that too often when we search for truth, we allow our own conceits to color our conclusions. I can't tell you how many times I've talked to people who hold to one view or another, and the reason that they give for why they believe what they are putting forth is that it is what they were taught as a child, or it's what their Pastor says, or it's what thus and such a Bible teacher on the radio says. I'm not even getting into when those ideas are wrong at this point, but all of the reasons listed above are not valid reasons to accept something as Biblical truth. What we must do is study the Bible and see what it has to say, and that is the reason that we should always give for why we hold to what we believe. Even in a conversation with my wife the other night on a topic of Doctrine she said to me, "I know what you're saying is right, but it just seems strange and hard to understand because it's not what we were taught as kids growing up." So I don't dismiss the power of such things in our lives, believe me, in my own life and study of Scripture this has been a huge hurdle to overcome, which is why I thought it would be important to spend some time thinking about it today.

To begin with, let me say, my dad was a man who knew a lot about the Bible. He spent many hours reading it, and studying it, and had been to Bible school. He taught me many things, and most of them were true things, but even those things I must not simply accept because my dad taught them to me, rather I must search the Scriptures to see if these things are so. As I read and study the Word of God I have found that my dad certainly had much of his beliefs and teachings straight, but I have also found a few that do not line up with what the Scriptures actually have to say, therefore, in those areas, I must depart from what my dad taught me and go with the Bible, and I think he would wholeheartedly agree with that.

The same thing goes for Pastors. Any Pastor that I have sat under has taught the Truth of the Word of God, otherwise I would not have stayed under his preaching. Still, men are fallible, and so, as with my dad, I must study the Bible on my own to make sure I am learning Truth, and not just taking the word of the Pastor for it. If you look at the context of Acts 17:11, which I placed at the beginning of this post, you will see that these Jews were being taught by the Apostle Paul, and being an Apostle of Jesus Christ, he taught with the authority granted to him by Christ, and yet these Jews are lauded for being diligent and checking the Scriptures to see if the things that Paul taught them were indeed true.

Now, I'm certainly not saying that you shouldn't listen to your Pastor, or a Bible teacher on the radio. I listen to my Pastor, and I listen to some other Bible teachers, and I do find great value in that, but it is the Word of God that matters, and if the teaching of any of these teachers strays away from the Bible, it is the Bible we must follow, and not the teacher. Two Pastor/Teachers that I personally like are John Piper and John MacArthur, though there are many other very good ones, I can't go into a list here, so let me just say what I like best about these two, and ask that you make sure it applies to any that you listen to. Both of these men are very upfront about the fact that their opinions do not matter, but that what matters is what the Bible says. While they both work very hard and are very diligent to explain the Bible correctly, they also understand themselves to be fallible men, and strongly encourage people to study on their own to make sure that they are being fed the Truth, and are not in error.

In fact, the same goes for the writings of the Reformers, or the early Church Fathers, and Theologians down through the years, much of what they have written has great value and can aide our understanding greatly, yet still we must measure their words against the plum line of Scripture so that we only affirm what is Biblical, and reject anything that is not.

In short, we must see that what we have been taught in the past, what has been held by the Churches, even beliefs going back many years, or what current teachers and preachers say is of no consequence if it doesn't stand up to the light of Scripture.

We must read the Bible. All Christians should be engaged in structured daily Bible reading. By this I do not mean that you must be on one of those "Read the Bible through in a year" daily reading schedules, though there is absolutely nothing wrong with them, they are not required. Structured Bible reading can be as simple as picking up your Bible and starting to read in Genesis, and reading every day until you hit the end of Revelation, and then start over back in Genesis. I personally like this method, but I'm fine with schedules if that's what it takes to get you to read every single page of Scripture in a reasonable amount of time. The key is DAILY Bible reading, not hit or miss. For many years I was just hit or miss myself, so I certainly don't condemn anyone, I know it can be hard, but it's more than worth it, and besides, if we truly love God, should we not want to read every single word of His revelation to us (over and over again)?

Second, we must Study the Bible. Reading through the Bible is the basis, and can be considered studying up to a point, but we must take extra time to dig deeper. This is where we spend some time reading passages repeatedly, and cross referencing with other related passages to draw out a fuller understanding of Doctrines and other Bible teachings. This is also where reading the writings of other teachers comes in, or listening to their teaching, once you have established a teacher as trustworthy, you can see what you can gain from their teaching, while still keeping in mind that it is the Bible, and not that teacher, that has the final say.

And finally, we must pray. Now, I know that some people, and some false religions, would misunderstand this point, thinking that they need only to pray that God will implant the knowledge directly into them, with no effort on their own. This is not something that God has promised us, and it is not what I am advocating here. What I am saying is to pray for Wisdom (See James 1:5). Pray that God will help you to have discernment, and will reward your diligent, and yes sometimes strenuous, effort with actual and true understanding and knowledge. And, lest I forget, we must pray also that God will help us to live what we learn, with love, so that we won't become simply a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal (1 Cor 13).

2 Timothy 2:15 [NASB] "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth."

MacArthur on Babies Who Die

Does Ecclesiastes Endorse Abortion?

Medical Community Shuns Swine Flu Vaccine?

A Note To Commenters

While it has always been, and still continues to be, my policy to allow comments, and engage people in discussion if they wish, I do have a few rules. Of course, you must be civil, no bad language and such. While it's not a hard and fast rule, I'd appreciate it if you'd get to the point. And most importantly right now, don't try to hock some book you've written or advertise your own blog (unless you are a personal friend and know that I endorse your blog) or I will reject your comment. So to the person who left a comment about my post a few days ago, I rejected your comment because you were trying to hock your book. I will be happy to engage you if you can follow my few simple rules. And yes, these rules are mine, I make them and I run the blog, so they are subject to change without notice, and I could have forgotten to mention something, but I don't think that I did.

Thanks.

Another Clip Of Piper On The Prosperity Gospel

The Paradox Of The Protestant Work Ethic--John Piper

Self Esteem: The Anti-Gospel

Romans 3:9-19 [ESV]
⁹ What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, ¹⁰ as it is written:

"None is righteous, no, not one;
¹¹ no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
¹² All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one."
¹³ "Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive."
"The venom of asps is under their lips."
¹⁴ "Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness."
¹⁵ "Their feet are swift to shed blood;
¹⁶ in their paths are ruin and misery,
¹⁷ and the way of peace they have not known."
¹⁸ "There is no fear of God before their eyes."

¹⁹ Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. ²⁰ For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

***********************************

This is the description of unredeemed humanity. Every one of us either falls into this category now, or if we are counted among the redeemed, we were in this category until such a time as we joined the ranks of the redeemed. However, this is not the message you would get in today's world. Even some of our Churches have become bastions of Self Esteem, telling everyone that they are good just the way they are.

Pretty much everywhere you look people are pushing the Self Esteem message. And people are buying it. How many times have we seen interviews with people where they are asked about their religious views, or if they go to Church, and the answer that they come up with is something along the lines of, well, I don't worry about all of that stuff, I'm basically a good person. The question is, are you good enough?

If you look at verse 20 above, you will see that they answer is clearly no. "For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin." This means that we cannot be good enough. God's standard is absolute perfection, something that we can never attain. Since no human can be justified by the works of the law, then why did God give the law in the first place? It was to let us know what sin is, and to give us an understanding that we cannot be good enough to rescue ourselves from sin's condemnation.

Romans 3:23 [ESV] tells us, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," while Romans 6:23 tells us what that means, "For the wages of sin is death." This does not leave us without hope, as Romans 6:23 ends, "but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." [ESV] But only through Jesus Christ can we be saved from death. Of course, in this instance death refers to eternal separation from God in Hell, not immediate physical death, otherwise the human race would have ended in the Garden of Eden when Adam and Eve first sinned.

It was Jesus Christ, God the Son, the second person of the Trinity, that came to Earth and took on human flesh, and lived a completely perfect and sinless life, and then, on the Cross of Calvary bore the penalty for the sins of everyone who would ever believe, paying the price that we could never pay, and redeeming His sheep to himself. So, through understanding that we are sinners and deserving of eternal punishment in Hell, and having Faith in Christ alone to save us from our sins, and that He paid that price which we could never hope to pay, even in all of eternity, we can have eternal life, in Heaven, with God. This is because when we are redeemed, the perfect righteousness of Jesus is applied to us, just as our sin was applied to Him on the Cross.

The problem is that first part. You must understand that you are a sinner. If I never came to the point where I realized that I am a dirty rotten sinner, totally undeserving of Grace, and totally unable to be good enough on my own, or to redeem myself from my sin, then I would never understand that I have something to be saved from. If I have "healthy" Self Esteem, as we are constantly told that we need, I will not be able to believe this, and will be unable to trust Christ to save me, since I would think that I was "basically a good person," and that I had nothing to be saved from.

It would do us well to remember Isaiah 64:6, "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away." [KJV] And even Paul, who was an apostle of Jesus Christ, and wrote several of the books of the New Testament (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) said in Romans 7:24 [ESV] " Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?" Of course he knew exactly who would deliver him, but he was making clear that on his own he would be utterly without hope, even going so far as to call himself "wretched!" Building up our Self Esteem will blind us to this truth, and that will keep us from Salvation and doom us to eternal Hell.

Far from building Self Esteem in people, and especially children, Churches should be engaged in seeing that people have an accurate view of themselves, and understand their utter sinfulness and utter hopelessness apart from Jesus. We should be making sure we understand coming just the way you are does not mean that you are good enough, it just means that there is nothing that you need to do in order to turn to Jesus. You don't have to stop sinning before Jesus will take you. Turning from your sin is something that happens at the point of Salvation, not something that you must do in order to "qualify" for Salvation. And, even after one comes to Christ, the battle against sin is not over. Even though we must war against sin, we will not win the victory in this life. Even after redemption it is still not our own righteousness that will save us. We all need an accurate self image, and an understanding that we are dirty rotten sinners, and absolutely not able to please God on our own.

This is why I call Self Esteem the Anti-Gospel.

John Piper--Aging

The Cult Of Self Esteem

It would seem that there is nothing that we can do in this present age to escape the constant barrage of self esteem hype. We are told that the problem with our children is that they do not have enough self esteem, and that if we want them to be successful in life, we must do all we can to build their self esteem. I take the position here today that this is utter nonsense. I would say that self esteem is very natural to fallen humanity, and is something that we should endeavor to fight against, rather than foster.

Take my own children for instance, I'm not saying that they are bad kids, but I'm pretty familiar with them. It is not hard in the least to get them to tell you all about all the things that they want, at any given time. They always want something, and things are just never fair, as far as they are concerned. To them, unfair means, things didn't go how I wanted them to go. Now, lest you think I'm simply raising a couple of monsters, let me tell you, the case of my children is pretty mild by comparison to what I see when I look around me. Part of that is because I do not buy into the lies that the Cult of Self Esteem has been pushing on our culture, and instead try to give my kids a healthy and realistic self image, and understanding of their place in the world.

Don't get me wrong here, it's not just kids either. It doesn't seem to matter if you go to the store, or to work, or, very sadly, even to Church, what you hear most often from most people is "me me me me me." Again, don't misunderstand, we are in our lives, and so we can't very well act as if we aren't, and so there is no choice but to talk about ourselves and use words like "I" and "me" as we go throughout the day, but there is a way that this is done that is very self centered. Believe it or not, you can talk about yourself without making it sound like you are the center of the universe.

The fact of the matter is that our prisons are full of people with very high self esteem. Our schools are full of kids who think that they should pass on to the next grade simply because they are just as good as everyone else, no matter what their grades say. Our institutes of higher learning are full of young adults who think that they deserve a minimum of a B if they show up for class every day, no matter what their grades are like (no, you deserve a minimum of an F, you have to work to get it higher than that). Our workplaces are full of people who think that they deserve a raise just because the honor the company by being willing to work there. Our Country is full of people who think they deserve to be fed and cared for by the rest of us, just because they are there, and it doesn't matter if they simply refuse to work, doggone it, they deserve it! And our communities are full of people who think that every kid who plays a sport should get a trophy, just so their self esteem isn't damaged. As we move about in everyday life we are constantly bombarded with a never-ending stream of people who think so highly of themselves that it is absolutely staggering.

No, there is no need to work at building self esteem in people, on the contrary, we need to work to make sure that we are not full of ourselves, and not making too much of ourselves. High self esteem comes easy, and is highly destructive, an appropriate view takes work, but is well worth it. Sometimes my daughter will do something that she's not supposed to do, and I'll have to discipline her for it, and she always says, "But Daddy, I wasn't trying to disobey!" To which I always respond, "Honey, you don't have to try to disobey, that is really easy to do, it's obedience that takes work."

And this isn't just my opinion, the Apostle Paul cautions us in Romans 12:3 "For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned." (ESV) and in Philippians 2:3 he says, "Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves." (ESV)

Regardless of what we see on TV, or what so many experts want to tell us, the fact is that we don't need high self esteem, in fact, we need low self esteem, humility and a servants heart. These are the things that will allow us to live good, godly lives. High self esteem will just make us selfish jerks, which is really easy to be, in fact, you might say it comes naturally, being a humble servant takes work.