The Gospel – The Whole Point of Christmas

By Matt Wiser

                Roughly two thousand years ago Jesus was born in Bethlehem.  The account of that birth is quite remarkable indeed.  He was conceived in the womb of his mother Mary while she was still a virgin.  His birth was announced to both his mother Mary, and the man who would act as His earthly father, Joseph, by an angelic messenger.  Angels sang and announced His birth to shepherds, and Old Testament prophecies led wise men from afar to seek Him out and offer Him gifts.  The true richness of these events, and so much more as told in the Bible, cannot be adequately captured by this brief summary, but for the sake of space I simply remind you of them at this time.

                As beautiful and compelling as the narrative telling of the birth of Christ is, we must come to recognize that it is not the main point, even of its own telling.  The account of the birth of Christ is not a stand-alone event, it is rather the fulfillment of a promise.  When Adam sinned, and placed the whole human race under the curse of sin, and was cast out of the Garden of Eden with Eve, his wife, God promised them redemption, even then.  The Gospel is not something that God came up with along the way, after everything else He tried had failed, or even in response to Adam’s sin, as if God had expected that Adam would not fall, and was surprised and left scrambling to come up with a plan B.  No, in fact the Gospel is plan A, it has always been the plan, and it is in fact the main point of all of Creation.  The first hints of this plan are revealed to Adam and Eve in the immediate aftermath of the fall.

 

 

                In Genesis 3:16 God tells Eve, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children.  Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” And in verses 17 – 19 He tells Adam, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field.  By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”  This is the curse of sin, under which we still live even to this day, but it is in His words to the serpent where we find a most wonderful promise, in verses 14 – 15, “Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field, on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life.  I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”

               In Genesis 3:16 God tells Eve, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children.  Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” And in verses 17 – 19 He tells Adam, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field.  By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”  This is the curse of sin, under which we still live even to this day, but it is in His words to the serpent where we find a most wonderful promise, in verses 14 – 15, “Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field, on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life.  I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”

 

                In the words “He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel,” we find a prophesy of something which will happen, and a promise.  We will come to understand in time that at the very moment when it seemed that the Devil had won, that he had defeated Jesus, it was in fact tantamount to a simple wound on the heel, and in that moment what had in fact taken place was the crushing of the head of the serpent, his utter and total defeat.

                This promise is repeated time and again throughout the Old Testament.  In Genesis 22, when Abraham is called by God to sacrifice Isaac, and just as he is about to strike the death blow God intervenes and tells him to stay his hand and not to harm the boy.  Most of us who were raised in Church are quite familiar with this story, but there is something that we often miss.  While on the way to make the sacrifice Isaac says to Abraham, (in verse 7) “Behold, the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?” To which Abraham replies, (in verse 8) “God will provide for himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son.”  This seems to be a throwaway line, something a father might say to pacify his son, so as not to worry him, but it ends up being a great prophecy, that “God will provide for Himself a lamb.”  This lamb of course will be His own Son.  Isaac, as a sinner, deserved death, and was spared, but the Son of God, who was utterly without sin and the only man who ever lived who did not deserve death would become the sacrifice (the lamb) that God would provide in his place.  So we see the connection to the promise that God makes to Abraham in verses 16 – 18, “By myself I have sworn, declares the Lord, because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies, and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice.”  It is in Christ that all the nations of the Earth will be blessed, as people are redeemed by Christ from every tribe, tongue, and Nation.

                In Deuteronomy 18:15 Moses tells the people,  “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen.”  While it is true God raised up many prophets over the centuries, and the people were supposed to listen to them, this is a prophecy of the ultimate prophet, the One that we would learn is also a Priest and King.

 

 

                Perhaps the most famous prophesy comes to us from the prophet Isaiah, in Chapter 7 and verse 14, “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign.  Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”  Certainly it is enough for God to promise something one time, but we can see that He has promised the coming Messiah over and over again, and we have hardly even touched upon these promises here.

                As we can see, time and again, the promise is not for a baby to be born and laid in a manger in Bethlehem, although that is prophesied as well, the promise is for a redeemer who would bear the penalty due to us for our sin.  The Christmas narrative is the means by which God brought about the fulfillment of His promise.  Jesus was born in Bethlehem, he did grow into manhood, living a perfectly sinless and righteous life, which is credited to us, while our sins were charged to His account, and He paid the price in full.  We must not miss the fact that this was not a surprise to God, he did not make attempts and fail, the Gospel was the plan all along, and Christmas is a piece in that plan.  So as we celebrate the birth of our Lord this Christmas, let us not forget that He was born into this world for the purpose of fulfilling all righteousness and dying on the cross, and bearing the wrath of God in our place.

 

 

 



The Christian Gospel

The Christian Gospel

By Matt Wiser

                What is the Gospel?  This might seem like an odd question to some, especially for a Church newsletter.  Surely everyone knows what the Gospel is, don’t they?  It is, after all, the central message of the Christian Faith.

                Sadly, there is a great deal of confusion surrounding even this most basic and critical Christian tenant.  Across much of the visible Church today you will hear phrases such as, “live the Gospel,” or “be the Gospel.”  But as it turns out, these phrases don’t make any sense, in fact, when the Gospel of Jesus Christ is correctly understood these phrases, popular as they may be, are meaningless collections of words. 

                The Gospel is good news, indeed that is what the word means.  It is a proclamation.  It is not something that can be lived, and it is not something that we can be.  It is a message, it is information, it is a truth claim about something that has been done, not something that we can do.  Let me explain.

                The Gospel begins with our sinfulness.  Why is the Gospel a necessary message?  It is because of sin.  Our own sinfulness must be understood in order for us to understand why the Gospel is good news.  A proclamation of the Gospel to someone who has no awareness of their own sin seems like irrelevant crazy talk.  Think of it this way, it’s the middle of the night, your house is on fire, and you don’t know it.  Some helpful, good hearted passerby sees that your house is on fire and runs up and starts pounding on your front door.  You get out of bed and answer the door, and immediately the person begins raving frantically that they are there to rescue you and that you must get out of the house right away.  Are you not going to think that this person is a lunatic?  Will you not be more likely to slam and lock the door and call the police rather than follow them?  But what if instead the first words they say are, “your house is on fire!” and then they tell you to leave it?  Now you know the problem, and you can see why a rescue was necessary in the first place.

                It is true of all of us that we are sinners.  The Bible says this in Romans 3:10-18, “as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God.  All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”  “Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive.’” “The venom of asps is under their lips.” “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.” “Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known.” “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”” And Isaiah 53:6a says, “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way;”  And lest we be tempted to think that this is only true for some other people, but not for us, let us look at Ephesians 2:1-3, “And you were dead in the trespasses and sins  in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.” 

                And what does sinfulness and unrighteousness earn for us?  The wrath of God, but don’t take my word for it.  Romans 1:18 says, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.”  Moreover Romans 2:5 tells us, “But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed.”

                If we were to end there, the news is devastating.  In fact it is meant to be.  This is far more serious than a knock on the door to tell you that the house is on fire.  This is the truth of God that demolishes all of our perceived self-righteousness.  We have been informed of the sinful condition of all of mankind, there is not a single one of us that escapes this condemnation.

                But praise be to God, the story doesn’t end there.  Enter the Gospel.  To put it as concisely as I know how, the Gospel is this:  Jesus Christ, God the Son, entered humanity, took on flesh, lived a perfectly sinless life, fulfilling all righteousness, all the demands of the law, and died upon a Roman cross, bearing our sins, and enduring the just wrath of God against those sins so that, for those who are in Him, there is no punishment left to be poured out upon us.  (Romans 8:1 “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.”) 2 Corinthians 5:21 “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”  So, on account of Christ, and His completed work, when God looks at me He does not see the wretched sinner that I truly am.  Instead, my guilt, my shame, the wicked and evil thoughts, whatever they be, were placed upon Christ, and He was punished for them all, and treated as if He, and not I, were guilty of each and every one of them.  I deserve eternal damnation for these sins, but Christ, upon the cross, bore the weight of that eternal hell in my behalf.  Now, I am treated by God as if I had lived Christ’s own perfectly sinless life, having fulfilled all righteousness, every demand of the law.  All who reach out to Him with the empty hand of Faith will find Him to be a perfect Savior.

                Having seen our condemned state in Ephesians 2:1-3 (quoted above), we see the wonderful truth of the Gospel, beginning in verse 4 and following, “But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us,  even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—  and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,  so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.  For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.  For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.”

                And finally, Isaiah 53:4-6 “Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.  But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed.   All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.”

The Days Of Creation

^{Genesis 2:2-31 [ESV]
2} The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

³ And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. ⁴ And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. ⁵ God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

⁶ And God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." ⁷ And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. ⁸ And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

⁹ And God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so. ¹⁰ God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

¹¹ And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth." And it was so. ¹² The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. ¹³ And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.

¹⁴ And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, ¹⁵ and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so. ¹⁶ And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. ¹⁷ And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, ¹⁸ to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. ¹⁹ And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.

²⁰ And God said, "Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens." ²¹ So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. ²² And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth." ²³ And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.

²⁴ And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so. ²⁵ And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

²⁶ Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
²⁷ So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

²⁸ And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth." ²⁹ And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. ³⁰ And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so. ³¹ And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day."

Here we have God's account of how He made everything that exists, both on the Earth, and throughout the expanse of the entire universe. Here God is telling us again that He made everything, and He is telling us that He did so in six days.

While a simple reading of these verses from Genesis 1 will tell you in a very straightforward manner that these are six normal days, that is roughly 24 hours in length, what we would consider to be actual days, there has arisen an idea that when the word "day" is used in Genesis 1, it might mean something other than a normal day. The idea is that the Hebrew word for day, just as the English word day, doesn't always mean a normal day. That is true as far as it goes. We can even give examples of this, if I say, "I remember the day my Dad died." I would be referring to one specific normal day. On the other hand, if I say, "I remember back in the day when I was working at Burger King with my future wife and had no idea," in that instance I am referring to a non-specific time frame at some point in the past, but not a normal day. I could also say, "I have to do yard work during the day because it's too dark to do it at night," and in that case, I'm talking about the daylight portion of a day, and not any specific normal day.

To further the example, just to make it clear, day isn't the only word that this happens with, I could say, I left the picnic early and went back home because my back was hurting. Even though I used the word "back" twice in that sentence, we all know that it had two distinctly different meanings. So, as I said before, we understand the fact that the word day doesn't always mean a normal day, but the question isn't, could it mean something else, the question is, does it mean something else?

In order to know when the word day might mean something other than a normal day, we should know when it does mean a normal day. In the old Testament, and indeed in all ancient Hebrew writings as far as I am aware, every time the word day is used with a number, it means a normal day, and every time it appears with the words "morning and evening" it means a normal day. So, it would seem that by using the phrase "there was morning and there was evening, the first day (second day, third day, etc)" God is intent on driving it through our thick skulls that He created in 6 normal days.

What happened to set people off on the wrong course on this issue is very sad indeed. Often we seem led to believe that it was Charles Darwin who came up with the theory of Evolution, but this is not true. Various theories of Evolution had been around for many, many years (maybe even thousands of years) before Darwin came along. Darwin, however, got lucky, where others did not. What Darwin actually did was to popularize one particular version of evolutionary theory (which has been totally debunked by the way) and he lucked out on his timing. You see, while scientists could not really agree on the age of the Earth in that day, none of the ages that were being thrown around were anywhere near long enough to support any of the various evolutionary ideas, and so none of them had been able to gain traction generally. Enter Charles Lyell. Lyell was a geologist who came up with the idea of uniformitarianism, that is, the idea that the Earth was formed by slow geological processes that are still in action today, and by advancing this (deeply flawed) theory Lyell was able to give the Earth an age in the billions of years. If you think about it, you will see that even billions of years would not buy the time needed for Darwin's evolutionary processes to do what they are claimed to have done, but they are long enough so that people are able to accept the idea.

Sadly now, many Christians who are also scientists (and I mean PH D's and such) have bought into Lyell's notion of billions of years, and have decided that while Genesis 1 is true, that God must have meant something different by day than a normal day. So they claim that each day actually represents a long age. Of course, as I understand it, when you go to Hebrew, if the word day is used for multiple lengths of time, in the same passage, and especially if they are sequential, each of them must be speaking of the same length of time. Of course, that would not fit into any of those theories, so they say that the days are not listed in any particular sequence, and must overlap with each other, and sometimes even correspond with each other, and aren't of equal durations. This, of course, removes all meaning from the Genesis 1 creation account, and relegates it to a general statement that God created, which they affirm, while denying the how that is clearly stated.

The fact of the matter is that God did create, and that He has given us an account of how He went about this. For a very nice explanation of the science behind all of this, I would invite anyone who is interested to go to www.answersingenesis.org and read up on whatever particular questions you may have.

While those scientists who want to reinterpret Genesis are still true Christians, and you can be truly redeemed even if you are wrong on this issue, it is still of great importance. You see, if God cannot be trusted in Genesis, then He can't be trusted anywhere else in the Bible either.

To Start At The Begining

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." [ESV]

As I go through this series of posts, and at present I have no idea how long the series will be, I will do something that is all too uncommon these days, I will explain whenever there is a falsification point in Christianity. The falsification principle is that for something to be true, there will be points that, if false, would prove the entire enterprise to be false. A falsification point is one of those places where, if that point were false, then all of what is being proposed based upon it is also false. Saying that Christianity has falsification points is not at all to say that it is false, but rather to say that there are key points upon which it rests, and if those key points were false, then the rest of it would naturally fall apart. I know that this makes some people uncomfortable, but I can't run from it, because it is so important to understand that these key points must be defended. They cannot simply be tossed by the wayside so that we can go on with other portions of Christianity, because if they are not true, then Christianity would also not be true. And isn't that the salient point? I mean, the really big question is this, "Is Christianity true?" That is what I hope to show, because that is was really matters.

What I am saying is that it is not really important, at least not central, how any belief system makes you feel, or what you think it might do for you, or whatever, what really matters is very simply, is it true? Or, what is true? If it turns out that Christianity is indeed true, which it is my contention that it is, then believing what it teaches is absolutely critical, but if it's not true, then there is no point in embracing any of it at all.

It is interesting that we begin the very first day looking at a falsification point in Christianity. Right off the bat, the very first verse in the entire Bible states it very explicitly, "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth." That's the first thing, it goes before everything else. God created. And what did He create? The Heavens and the Earth. That doesn't mean our solar system, or even just our galaxy. At this point it is important to remember that Genesis, like most of the Old Testament (nearly all in fact) was written in Hebrew, and in ancient Hebrew the term "The Heavens and the Earth" is a phrase which means, all that exists. They didn't have a single word for "Universe" like we do today, but that is what this term refers to. This is fleshed out a little in John 1:3 "All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made." [ESV] So, all that exists was created by God.

This is a critical fact, if it is true, then we can go forward, but if you reject this, you have no basis to believe anything else that the Bible proclaims.

I'm not going to get into the particulars of Creation today, I just want to point out that it is absolutely critical to the Christian faith. All to often you hear people say that it really doesn't matter if you believe that God created, as long as you believe in Jesus, and while it is certainly possible that someone might never have heard of Creation, or have any understanding of it, but may have had the Gospel explained to them and repented and turned to Christ, without an understanding of Creation, it seems to me that it would be, at best, very difficult for someone to reject that God created, but still embrace Christ. I'm not saying that it's impossible, but it certainly doesn't go naturally together.

Certainly this is not the entirety of my case, but I want to build the argument as I proceed through this series, if at any point I am unclear, or anyone needs more information, or are having trouble understanding what I'm talking about, please leave a comment and I will do my best to answer where I can.

Some Thoughts

Lately I have been spending some time thinking about what might be helpful and useful for me to post on my blog. While it has taken me some time to get my thoughts together, and I have not posted in some time, I do still think that there are some topics that I could cover in such as way as to be helpful to those who might read them. I hope that this is true, and I do intend to start keeping my blog updated better than I have been doing recently, but I guess time will tell.

I hope to spend some time in the near future laying out some of the basics of the Christian faith, in an understandable and unvarnished way. That is to say, I intend to share the true teaching of the Bible and not the human teachings that have crept in over the years, and especially the uniquely American perversions that are so rank in so much Bible teaching today. It is my hope that in so doing I might help some people who think that they have rejected Christianity to see that it is not Christianity that they have rejected, but the perversions that I too would soundly reject. And for those who continue to reject, at least they may more fully understand what it is that they are rejecting.

I pray that God may grant that I might be able to lay things out in a clear and pure manner, and cast off the shackles of human influence that so corrupts the understanding of Biblical truth in the minds of far too many people today.

Discernment Part 3 (Conclusion)

The answer then is to know the truth. You must become so familiar with the Truth that you immediately know when you are being exposed to a lie. Any lie.

This is an old illustration that has been used in Sermons for many years, and as it turns out, it’s actually true. Did you know that when Government agents (in the US it’s the Secret Service) are being taught to recognize counterfeit money, they do not study counterfeit money to learn what is wrong with it. Rather, they study, and are taught, all about real money, and how to recognize that, so that when they are presented with counterfeit money, they know it immediately. Recognizing that money is fake becomes easy, not because they know everything about fake money, or how fake money is made, but because they know real money so well that they simply cannot be fooled. That is the key for us regarding truth as well. We do not need to understand everything about false teachings, we simply need to know the Truth.

I’m not saying that it’s wrong to ever know anything about a false teaching, certainly it’s somewhat helpful to know something about the most commonly taught errors. Also, God may call you to minister among a certain group of people (ie. Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Muslims etc.) and knowing what they believe could be helpful in your ministry, but in general, it is knowing the Truth that will make all the difference.

Discernment Part 2

The dangers of buying into false teachings are many and diverse. I can lead to everything from simple misunderstandings, to an unfulfilling Christian life, to false “gospels” which do not lead to Salvation.

So what do we do to keep from falling into these errors? How do we stop ourselves from buying into false teachings? The answer is quite simple.

First, however, let me start with what the answer is not. The answer is not that we must know every false teaching, that would be totally impossible. There are simply too many for us to be able to know them all. You could quite literally study these false teachings morning, noon and night for an entire lifetime and never cover all of them, much less learn all of their weaknesses and why it is that they are wrong. Since the fact of the matter is that anything that is not the Truth of God is a lie, the lies abound to a nearly unimaginable extent.

Discernment Part 1

As I look around me I notice huge problem in our Churches. I see a lot of very passionate people, with good hearts, wanting to do the right thing, and with absolutely no discernment whatsoever.

Discernment is defined as; “Keenness of insight and judgment.” [Discernment. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved April 26, 2010, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discernment]
Yes, it is critical for us to be discerning, to judge what we hear, and what we are taught, so that we may be sure that what we are holding fast to is the truth of God, and not the unholy musings of fallen men.

Certainly we know that the Pastors and Teachers in our Churches should be on the lookout for such things, but all the more committed to teaching the truth to the people of God so that they will know the truth and not be led astray by false teachers. In Ephesians 4:11-16 Paul says, “And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.” [ESV]

However, the responsibility does not fall to them alone; we all share together in the responsibility to study God’s Word and to know the truth so that we are not “carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.” There are a few reasons for this. One is that our teachers simply cannot teach us everything, and especially not all at once. That kind of instruction takes time, especially when getting to the real depth of truth that is revealed to us in the Bible. Another reason is that these people are human, and no matter how careful they are, there is still the possibility of error, no matter how hard they try, it is possible for them to teach something wrong. Further, there are some who really have no care for the truth, but are themselves pushing “human cunning” rather than the truth of the Word of God.

This is something that scripture does warn us about (see Jude, 2nd Timothy 2) and instructs us that we must be on guard against such things.

The ESV MacArthur Study Bible

I am very excited to report that I have learned that the MacArthur Study Bible with the text of the English Standard Version [ESV] will be released on August 31st of 2010.

John MacArthur has been the Senior Pastor of Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California for over 40 years. He can be heard daily on his radio program, Grace to you (www.gty.org), all over the world. Some years ago now he brought his decades of Bible study, Pastoral Ministry, and all of the books that he has written to The MacArthur Study Bible. Up until now it has been available with the text of the New King James Version or the New American Standard Bible, both of which are excellent. With around 25,000 footnotes explaining virtually every passage of Scripture, The MacArthur Study Bible has been a treasure and a big help to many people.

In 2001 Crossway books introduced the English Standard Version of the Holy Bible. You can read the translation philosophy and some explanation at www.esv.org but in short it is an essentially literal translation of the Bible, highly accurate and trustworthy, yet also readable and accessible to common people.

A couple of years ago (more or less) while listening to the Grace To You radio program I heard John MacArthur say that he was planning to put out the MacArthur Study Bible in ESV, and I was very excited to hear it. Sadly, that was the last I had heard of it until I stumbled across the news on Facebook, of all places, just the other night.

Wonderfully, the excellent text of the English Standard Version is finally meeting up with MacArthur's decades of in depth Bible Study and teaching. This is a must have for all Christians who long to understand the Bible in a deeper way.

Context, Context, Context Part 4 (conclusion)

The fact is that these errors in Bible study are very commonplace, and very damaging. While understanding the Bible in its’ fullness and richness can take quite a bit of time and hard work, but the results of such study are very well worth the effort.

I will leave you with this example of a horrendous false teaching that comes out of committing all three of these errors at one time. Let’s look at Deuteronomy 6:10a&c-11a, which is a favorite (out of context) segment of Preachers of the Health, Wealth, and Prosperity movement and says, “And the Lord God…” will “…give you… great and good cities that you did not build, and houses full of all good things that you did not fill…” [ESV] They like to use this to say that God wants to give us all of this today, but they have taken it out of context in all three ways, first, they have picked and chosen snippets out of a much larger passage so that they could twist them to fit their intentions, second, they say them as if they were written to people living today, instead of the Children of Israel who they actually were written to, and they were promises under the old (Mosaic) covenant, and not the new covenant (I know that gets complicated, and I don’t want to delve into it right now). By twisting this all up they ignore the true meaning of the text and claim that if you will just send them some money, then this text (ripped out of context as it is) will become true in your life, which of course, it will not.

It is critical that we take the time to get this right.

Context, Context, Context Part 3

The third context error is in reading things outside of the overall context of the entire Bible. This is most clearly seen in the telling of “Bible stories.” Any of us who grew up in Church and Sunday School, and Church Youth Group and such would be very familiar with this phenomenon. We would well remember all of the flannel graphs (and don’t think I’m attacking flannel graphs, I love them, I miss them… but I digress) and story books, and rote telling of stories. Rarely, if ever, were these “stories” actually read to us out of the Bible, and virtually never was it explained to us how these accounts fit into the overall context of the Scripture. This was especially true of lessons from the Old Testament.

A good example of this is the account of Daniel in the lions’ den, as we commonly know it. We are told this story without ever being told really who Daniel was, why he was in a foreign capital city (if we are even brought to understand that much) or what his life had consisted of. The fact of the matter is that it was quite recently that I even came to understand that this even in the life of Daniel happens toward the end of his life, when he was an old man, in his eighties! This might not seem like a really big deal, but over the course of years of instruction it adds up, and you can easily end up seeing all of the things that you’ve been taught as nothing more that disjointed stories, and you might even come to see them as mythical, and not even real, which becomes a really big problem. But even more than that, it causes a failure to understand the absolutely terrific context of the whole of Scripture.

Context, Context, Context Part 2

The second way in which the context error shows up is in forgetting who a particular book or passage was written to, or what exactly it was written to address. This is very common in the teaching of the New Testament epistles. You have probably even heard it in Sunday sermons, though it is certainly not limited to that, I mention it only to show how pervasive it tends to be. How often do we sit in Church and hear a passage read from one of these letters as if it were written directly to us in the twenty-first century? Certainly it was given, at least in part, for us, but it was not written directly to us, and if we are to understand it correctly, we must first understand who it was written to, that is the cultural context.

A good example of this is to be found in Ephesians 5:18 which states, “And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit,” [ESV] Again, this is part of a larger portion of Scripture, so it could be used as an example of the first problem, but it also works well to show the second one, so I’m going to use it for that. Clearly this is a true statement and a good rule to follow, and you would not be wrong to say that we can take this as a command to not get drunk, but if that is all that we take away from this, we are missing a lot. Often, we don’t even see the second half of the verse, which says to be filled with the Spirit. This gives us a clue as to what the passage is talking about. While “don’t get drunk” is good instruction, the fact is that Paul is here addressing the fact that Pagan “worship” rituals of that time included getting drunk as a means of communing with the false gods of their false religions, and as many of those in the Church had been saved out of such practices and either were starting to fall back into them, or at least Paul had cause for concern that they might fall back into them, and was here giving instruction to the Christians so that they might avoid such things as they learned to walk with God. Hence he does not command them to simply not get drunk, but wants them to know that if they want to be close to God and commune with Him, they need to be filled with the Holy Spirit. By missing the cultural context of the passage, we miss out on its’ richness and simply walk away with rules that we may, or may not, understand. We may also walk away from some passages with terrible false ideas because we did not take the time to study the text in its’ original meaning. A good thing to remember to help to avoid this error is this; a text cannot mean what it has not meant. That is to say, it still means what it meant when it was written, the only thing that will be different is how it applies to us, since we live in a very different world, but the meaning of it is the same.

Context, Context, Context Part 1

When reading or teaching the Bible, there is an issue that has become very significant in our time. That is the issue of taking the text out of context. Now, I know some people will see that and agree, but mostly are only thinking of one way in which this is done. I intend to show that there are three ways in which this is commonly done.

The first way, which is most familiar to us, is to take a piece of a passage, a single verse, a phrase, or, in extreme examples, even a few words out of the text and teaching them as if they are totally self contained, and unrelated to the surrounding material. It is well known to most serious students of scripture that this can lead to many misunderstandings and even full blown false teachings.

A simple example of this first problem can be seen in the very common usage of Romans 8:28, which is as follows; “And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.” [ESV] The common usage of this verse actually tends to commit this error twice. First of all, this verse is one very small part of a fairly long teaching passage, although it does contain some truth that is able to be understood even apart from the rest of the passage, however, it is understood in a much more complete and full sense when it is understood in context. The gross error that sometimes tends to arise from the misuse of this verse however, and is very common, is people simply saying that, it’s all good, remember in Romans 8:28, it says that all things work together for good. But the fact is that it really doesn’t simply state that. The verse itself is very clear that the working together of all things for good applies only to “those who love God… those who are called according to his purpose.” That is to say that all things work together for the ultimate good of God’s elect, that is Christians (in the true sense—the Born Again). For any and all who are not Born Again the fact is that absolutely nothing works together for good, because those who die in an unredeemed condition will be cast into eternal hell. This is hardly the definition of things working out for good.

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.

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.

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."

Paul Washer - Total Depravity/Gospel Sermon Jam

TRUTH About Speaking In Tongues