Category Archives: The Gospel

For this Christ Came. . .Part 3

Posted by Dan C. on

In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. – 1 John 4:10

The word propitiation carries the basic idea of appeasement, or satisfaction, specifically towards God. Propitiation is a two-part act that involves appeasing the wrath of an offended person and being reconciled to him.

The word propitiation is used in several key verses to explain what Jesus accomplished through His death on the cross. For example, in Romans 3:24-25 we see that believers in Christ have been “justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed.” These verses are a key point in Paul’s argument in the Book of Romans and are really at the heart of the Gospel message.

In the first three chapters of Romans, Paul has made the argument that everybody, both Jew and Gentile alike, is under the condemnation of God and deserving of His wrath (Romans 1:18). Everyone has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). All of us deserve His wrath and punishment. God in His infinite grace and mercy has provided a way that His wrath can be appeased and we can be reconciled to Him. That way is through the sacrificial death of His Son, Jesus Christ, as the atonement or payment for sins. It is through faith in Jesus Christ as God’s perfect sacrifice, foretold in the Old Testament and fulfilled in the New Testament, that we can be reconciled to God. It is only because of Christ’s perfect life, His death on the cross, and His resurrection on the third day that a lost sinner deserving of hell can be reconciled to a Holy God. The wonderful truth of the Gospel message is that Christians are saved from God’s wrath and reconciled to God not because “we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 4:10).

Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6). The only way for God’s wrath against sinful man to be appeased and for us to be reconciled to God is through Jesus Christ. There is no other way. This truth is also communicated in 1 John 2:2; “And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.” An important part of Christ’s saving work includes deliverance from God’s wrath that the unbelieving sinner is under, because Jesus’ atonement on the cross is the only thing that can turn away God’s divine wrath. Those that reject Christ as their Savior and refuse to believe in Him have no hope of salvation. They can only look forward to facing the wrath of God that they have stored up for the coming day of judgment (Romans 2:5). There is no other propitiation or sacrifice that can be made for their sins.

Recommended Resource: Seeing and Savoring Jesus Christ by John Piper.

Mary Did You Know?

Posted by Dan C. on

Mary knew she was blessed among women, Joseph knew she would give birth to the One who would save His people from their sins. The disciples were told, but did not really understand until it was Finished and the Holy Spirit was given.

The Father knew.   He was sending His Son to earth for the Cross. ‘Christmas’ from the Father’s view. . .

Conversation with Paul Washer

Posted by Dan C. on

Just listened to this and needed to share it.  The same themes that are central to Paul Washer’s preaching are contained in this short video clip, albeit on a softer, but not less passionate, note.

The comments he shared concerning the impact of personally searching the scriptures is especially poignant. I am hard pressed to find a difference between previously believed things about God, Christ, and the Gospel and what I believe today that have not been the result of reading the Bible and receiving, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the truth presented plainly within its inspired text.

"Unconditional Acceptance" – Evangelicalism’s Deadly Addiction

Posted by Dan C. on

Dr. Paul Brownback, in his Evangelical Reformation blog, offered these words in a blogpost found here:

“. . .it seems that every society adopts its own gods. The Canaanites chose Baal, the Europeans, after rejecting Christianity, opted for philosophy. Americans, in our post-Christian pagan state have deified psychology.

As Isaiah demonstrates so graphically, idolatry is idiotic, making fools out of its followers. Philosophy has made fools out of intellectual Europeans. Psychology is doing likewise for Americans.

(Carl) Rogers taught that we optimize ourselves as human beings by accepting ourselves unconditionally, i.e. feeling good about ourselves regardless of how bad we live. A bad self-image is the ultimate disease and unconditional self-acceptance is the cure.

However, we can only accept ourselves unconditionally if significant others accept us unconditionally. This means that allowing our kids to do their own thing will not turn them into unbridled hedonists, but will make them into psychological saints—wholesome, actualized individuals.

This belief that unconditional acceptance fixes broken people and makes them into the persons they were meant to be dovetails beautifully with the gospel denuded of repentance, described in the past two postings.

In the absence of repentance, the gospel is reduced to unconditional acceptance. Though this is an unbiblical message, in our culture shaped by the psychology of Carl Rogers it feels right.

Rogers taught us that unconditional acceptance provides the power to change and grow. The gospel stripped of repentance seems to be saying the God agrees. It seems the grace is synonymous with is unconditional acceptance. Salvation comes through a realization that God accepts me “just as I am.”

Change comes, not from repentance, but from this realization that God accepts me apart from any intent to change—even though I am living with my girlfriend, watching pornography, and smoking pot. As I experience God’s grace, His unconditional acceptance, I change will come spontaneously.

This is a life-changing gospel in the sense that it gives people freedom from guilt without change of lifestyle—sort of like spiritual Paxil offered free at your church pharmacy. This is not a biblical gospel and, as George Barna has demonstrated, the promised change in behavior is not occurring.

However, evangelicals are hooked on the message because it is extremely comfortable, fits well with secular culture, and sells well.”

Some time ago I was involved in a small group bible study and actually ended up the study facilitator. The material provided was from a leading evangelical ‘apologist who is know for his work with teenagers and young adults. I found myself dealing with the philosophy of “unconditional acceptance” as the core of the author’s “relational apologetic”. I became concerned when I couldn’t find the concept of “unconditional acceptance” in scripture and decided to research it’s origin. What I found was exactly what Dr. Brownback expressed in his blogpost – that it was developed and articulated in the field of human psychology and became enormously popularity thanks to Carl Rogers in the mid 50s. The study became an excellent opportunity for critical analysis in light of scripture and proved to be very profitable for the members of the group.

God’ “unconditional acceptance” has become so entrenched in today’s evangelicalism that there are many professing believers that have never heard anything other than the lie that God accepts us just the way we are. Not only has believing the lie resulted in countless false conversions, it has resulted in a disdain for critical thinking and the labeling of believers who would dare challenge scripturally unsound teaching or opinions, as legalistic Pharisees. The ever self-congratulatory “what does this verse mean to you” bible scholars don’t allow that which is not intentionally uplifting and encouraging. That which is critical of, or that might challenge another person’s “insight” or faulty interpretation of biblical text, is deemed unkind and “unaccepting” – contrary to God’s very character!

There is a cure for the “addiction”. Wherever pop-psychology has supplanted sound doctrine, get rid of the junk and embrace scriptural truth. How do we do that? For the believer it begins with personally reading a sound interpretation of the Bible. The indwelling Holy Spirit, our ‘instructor in residence’ will take care of the rest.

Should You Invite Jesus Into Your Heart?

Posted by Dan C. on

An article by By Jim Eliff

Is it useful to critique any person’s or ministry’s method of evangelism? For one thing, there are not enough people calling on others to follow Christ. Should I attempt to cripple their efforts in the slightest way, even for the few who might listen to me? I hope I will not. I would rather think that I’m improving our evangelism. And it does need improving. 

The apparent results of the method of evangelistic appeal built upon the verse in question (John 1:12, along with Rev. 3:20) surely cannot be argued with. I think I could say with ease that almost all the evangelistic results coming out of America are rooted in a method that emerges from the problematic view of John 1:12 which I will unfold. One campus organization whose workers almost always use this verse, with what I believe is an errant understanding of it, claims that tens of thousands are won to Christ each year through their multiple worldwide ministries. I’ve known many involved in this ministry, and can attest to the sincerity of these workers, and their willingness to be bold for Christ. Surely the majority of evangelistic workers cannot be wrong. Surely pastors who have taught this particular view cannot be in error.  At least from the ad hominem side of the argument, I’m going to look pretty silly if I’m opposing such faithful people and am in error myself. So, I’ll tread gently. I’m talking to friends who care as strongly as I do about good evangelism.

Since I have, in the past, made much use of John 1:12 with what I consider a wrong interpretation of it, I think I have the right to speak openly about how I see it now. I have watched as scores of people have responded positively to my wrong use of this verse over several years of my earlier ministry. There is something haunting about that. I asked them to do what I assumed this verse was calling for, and they did it. In earlier days, one motivation for abandoning this concept had to do with observing that so many of my converts coming through the wrong use of John 1:12 appeared to be false converts. I could not live comfortably with that.

I hope you understand me when I say that I also “miss” this verse as a mainstay evangelistic tool. The old way was easier, produced what appeared to be more instant results, received the approbation of almost all my friends, and called forth many colorful illustrations to support it. As soon as I understood the verse in another light, I lost my main conceptual weapon. It took some time to work out how I was going to present the gospel from then on.

A Look at the Verse in Context

I haven’t told you the concept many wrongly derive from this verse. I’ll do so after I quote the verse in its context (1:11-13).

He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

What is the wrong use of John 1:12 that I’ve been alluding to? It has to do with the use of the word “receive” which is taken to mean that an unconverted person is to “ask Jesus into his heart” as the invitation of the gospel. The wrong use of this word, in tandem with Revelation 3:20 (“Behold I stand at the door and knock. If any man opens the door . . .”) has shaped Western evangelism (and beyond), making our evangelism look a lot different than the apostles.

What then is this verse, with its surrounding context, actually saying?

1. First, it declares that the world, and Jews in particular, were blind to Jesus. They did not understand who He was. They did not know Him even though He created them all. On their own, they were incapable of perceiving who Christ was. They did not “receive” or “welcome” or “accept” or “properly acknowledge” Him. Although a full blown doctrine of depravity is not taught here, it is implied because of the universality of their rejection of Christ apart from the special case John will mention.

2. Second, it teaches us that some people, regardless of the general blindness, do have the power (or actual right) to become children of God. It is those who receive Him. That is, it is those who welcome, accept, or favorably acknowledge Him. So, in the midst of general rejection there are some who receive. This word “receive” does not mean “those who invite Christ into their hearts” but rather those who welcome Him for who He is, truly God. A simple comparison with the word “receive” in verse 11 and in verse 12 will yield that this word could not possibly have the meaning of inviting Christ in, as is commonly used by Western evangelism. Here is the error that has spawned much confusion in evangelism.

3. Third, it teaches that reception of Jesus must be qualified further. In other words, not mere welcoming of Christ is enough, but those who receive must believe, “even to those who believe in His name.” There are two ways to take this. John might mean that this “receiving” is the same as “believing.” In other words, the two words could be used interchangeably. Or, John may be saying that reception of Christ must include faith. It would be as if John is saying, “Those who receive him have the right to become his children, but I mean receiving plus true believing or faith.” Either nuance leads us ultimately to faith. We know that faith is more than the mere reception of Christ in truth, or as He is actually. That is its beginning. But it is more. It is reliance upon the Christ who came into the world on His intended mission, to die for us. Those who believe (which starts with their welcoming of Him) have the right of sonship.

4. Fourth, the child of God experiences something beyond (and I contend, before) his faith. God, in other words, is doing something to make him a child of His that could not be done simply on man’s initiative. In fact, these people’s sonship has nothing to do with bloodline, human decision, or the will of others on his behalf. When John says that a person must receive and believe, yet his birth into the family has nothing to do with blood, human decision or the will of another, then he is acknowledging something mysterious and profound. Salvation, as much as we would like to say otherwise, cannot be ultimately attributed to man in any way even in his believing, but is an act of God first of all.

Verse 13 may convey the idea that the order for attaining sonship begins with the birth (“who were born,” emphasis mine) which results in the faith that is said to be necessary for sonship. (“those who believe in His name, who were born . . . of God”). If this order is correct, we can say that regeneration, at least in a kind of philosophical order, precedes faith. If we do not say this, we would have to say John is teaching that it is at least concurrent to a man’s faith. While the man is believing, he is being born; while he is being born, he is believing. But since John asserts that “human decision” could not initiate this birth necessary to be a child, it appears that placing it before the exercise of the will in belief is the right way to view the chronology.

Where Does This Leave Us?

Modern evangelism almost never recognizes verse 11 and verse 13 of the passage, and therefore uses verse 12 persistently and wrongly. By not recognizing verse 11, it fails to understand “receive” correctly, leading to all kinds of problems. Because modern evangelism fails to think of verse 13, we see less than adequate dependence on God and acknowledgment of God as the author of salvation. That may explain, in part, why so much pride can be found in evangelism.

The idea that receiving means “inviting Christ into the heart” causes huge problems for us. It is an easy concept to convey, granted. I used to say that I would never talk to people about believing in Christ, which has difficulties in explanation because of varied levels of meaning, but would only use the idea of “inviting Christ in.” Even a child can get that. But, when the Scriptures as a whole do not support this idea, am I free to make my wrong concept the centerpiece of the response to the gospel? Other than Revelation 3:20, also misunderstood, no place in the Bible appears to promote this idea of “inviting Christ into the heart.” Over 500 times the idea of belief in Christ is expressed, but no mention is made of “inviting Christ in.” Ninety-eight times “belief” and its various forms are used in the evangelistic book of John. We grant that many times the idea of faith is spoken of in the light of the Christian’s walk, but many other times faith is discussed in terms of the initial entrance into God’s family.

When we use the concept of “inviting Christ into the heart” we are robbing faith of its richness. Salvation is reduced to an act more than a life. There is no formulaic prayer (“I now invite you into my heart”) that automatically saves. A man can only be saved through faith. Though we talk about something called “the sinner’s prayer,” it is not found in the Bible. You will have to go to the booklets that promote the idea of “inviting Christ in” to find such a prayer. Think of how much evangelism you have been exposed to rests on the idea that such a prayer be prayed before a person could be saved.

When the Bible speaks of calling on the name of the Lord, it might mean something like evoking Christ’s name in order to be received by God—a sound concept. But regardless what you might think about the wisdom of using a prayer for becoming a child of God, it could not be ultimately necessary. It is certainly only ancillary at best. It is “belief in Christ” that is held out to be the link between the lost man and Christ as seen in so many commands and experiences in the Bible. Paul and Peter did not say, “repeat this prayer after me” at the end of their messages. Rather, people heard and believed, most often during their preaching of the gospel. Granted, some may have prayed as a way to express their faith (though we don’t have records of such outside of Luke 18:13, a prayer unlike the typical “sinner’s prayer”), but such a prayer could not be said to be required by the apostles or God.

Some who doubt their salvation have stated (I have heard this many times myself) that they must surely not be a true Christian because “I did not ask Jesus into my heart.” They would do far better by examining the faith they say they have. They would do better than that by examining for the evidence of life within the soul; and perhaps better than that by looking away from themselves to Christ first, then figuring out when they first believed.

Here is what we should do:

1. We should forever bury the idea of “inviting Christ into the life.” Even if two verses could be interpreted to say that this is a possibility, the sheer number of other verses plainly stating that belief in Christ is the gospel invitation, should lead us to abandon the concept in almost every case. I know that Christ is in the believer, but the believer is also in Christ. The second concept may be mentioned in the New Testament more than the first, but we don’t have people pray to get in Christ? No, we must tell them to believe. We mean a repenting belief and a belief that affects our life from then on.

2. We should abandon the “praying the prayer” method for our appeal. You may pray for people, and even with people, but do not even intimate that praying a certain prayer saves. It does not. No prayer automatically forces God to receive a sinner. God is personal and is sought and talked to, I grant. But when we are asked what He expects, it is to be stated that God demands that we believe. “Do so and live!” Again, by “believe” we are meaning more than just acknowledgment of Christ; no, we mean trust in Christ and what He has done for sinners, a transfer of trust that affects our lives and behavior forever.

3. We should use the biblical terminology of “belief” in Christ. There are other ways of expressing this found in the NT, but “belief” is consistently displayed as the essence of our response. I will not list verses here, but nothing could be easier to find in the New Testament. Read John to see this repeated scores of times. Or read through Acts with this in mind. Ask, “What did the apostles expect people to do in response to their message?” Remember that the booklets give you verse after verse about belief, and then, at the end of the presentation, make a bee-line to John 1:12 and Revelation 3:20, wrongly interpreted. They finalize the deal with a formulaic prayer. Don’t follow that pattern any longer. It is enough to instruct people to believe in Christ, with a sound repenting faith.

4. We should also spend far more time talking about the awfulness of sin and the work of Christ for sinners. Our main work is not so much to explain the sinner’s response to Christ (that is important mainly for pretending believers), but to labor on the gospel itself. When we are brutally honest with people about their sin, and lucid about the only answer being in Christ, His death and resurrection, then we have preached the gospel. We have done what is necessary to cooperate with the Spirit in their conversion. We will actually work against the Spirit when we get caught up in a formulaic approach to the gospel as opposed to a content-filled proclamation. Get the message right and depend on God to convict and convert. You will know someone is saved, not when they “pray the prayer,” but when they repent and believe in Christ, with the evidence of truly following Him. Ask, “Do you believe?”

If We Continue

If we continue with the current pattern of evangelism, we will persist in seeing the results that such a pattern automatically brings. That is, we will see people who sincerely pray a little prayer who have, for the most part, not really believed in Christ. Now, we will always experience fallout on some level even if we are true to the biblical words, for even Jesus had his false converts, as did Paul and the others. This explains why so often the New Testament says, “Do not be deceived.” Yet, when we promote the idea that praying a pray, inviting Christ in, or receiving Christ, is what God requires, we augment the problem, producing massive numbers of unbelieving “believers.” We will continue to have far more tares than wheat. Who would not want to change that sad reality?

I’m embarrassed at my paltry manner of explaining what I’m trying to help us see. But perhaps you will be able to take these concepts further. At a minimum, I’m calling for a purer evangelism, regulated by the Bible and not by ease or history or practicality. Do not back down in your fervor, but use the right method. It stands to reason, even if numbers are smaller, that more true converts will come from good methodology. I know that God ultimately saves, and that He can use anything He wishes to do, but surely we are right to continually purify our evangelism for His glory.

Distributed by www.ChristianWorldviewNetwork.com

_____________________

Comments, anyone?

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Posted by Dan C. on

This isn’t really about eggs and chickens, but you probably already figured that out. Rather, it concerns a similar question: What happens first, our choosing to follow Christ or regeneration by the Holy Spirit? Does God respond to a decision we make and as a result of our choosing Christ, or must we be regenerated by the Holy Spirit before we even sincerely choose Christ. By ‘sincerely’ choose Christ we mean that we have honestly face our sinful condition, recognize God’s solution, repent of our sin and trust in Christ.

Anyone who has read this blog already knows this writer’s personal opinion on the matter, but it’s an issue worth revisiting on occasion. The occasion that prompted these remarks was a comment on another blog post that was addressed to a fellow who admittedly has not trusted Christ. the comment read:  “…faith comes when we take the first step, not before.”  In other words, the writer of that comment was asserting that in response to our ‘first step’ toward God, we are given faith to believe.

The sequence of ‘events’ in this important issue has been termed ‘the order of salvation’, or the Ordo Salutis, found in Romans 8:29-30. The question concerning the ‘when’ of regeneration was asked at Reformation Theology and received a well thought out and excellent response:

Visitor: I have a question regarding the order of salvation. I realize that you have to be regenerated before you can believe, so the question I am asking is regeneration the same as being born again? If so were does repentance fall into place? Before or after justification, then what about sanctification and so on? I have read some articles on the site and have probably missed it, so I will appreciate you taking the time to write me back.

Response: Thanks for your great question. Jesus Christ is the source of all redemptive blessings, including regeneration, justification, sanctification (1 Cor 1:30). Regeneration is the fountain, and sanctification the river. In other words, when one is united to Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit, our hearts of stone are made flesh, our blind eyes now see and our deaf ears now hear. All things, obedience, repentance, faith spring forth from the regenerating work of the Spirit within us. They all happen simultaneously once God breathes new life into us.

I would suspect, however, that if we are to use logic, faith must come before repentance, for how can you repent if you don’t know what you are repenting of. Yet these are all so close that it would be difficult to say. The Spirit, in working faith in us also reveals our spiritual bankruptcy and a repentance of all trust in our own self-sufficiency. In order to have genuine faith anyone who believe must recognize that we justly deserve the wrath of God save for Christ’s mercy alone. We abandon all confidence in self and repent of all trust in our own works, good and bad. Neither are our savior. Christ alone is sufficient to save. So ultimately you could say that genuine faith is a repentant faith. Hope this helps.

Scripture is clear on the matter. Our salvation is a work of God, from beginning to end:

Rom 8:29  For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. (ESV)

Even our future glorification was determined in eternity past. You can surmise that regeneration and the expression of genuine faith in Christ are integral in the ‘calling’. As Ephesians 2 tells us, we who now claim Christ were one spiritually DEAD in sin. Dead is dead. In order for us to take any sort of step toward God, we had to be ‘raised’ from the dead. That regeneration comes before our choosing should, in terms of simple logic, be crystal clear.

The Main Thing is STILL the MAIN THING

Posted by Dan C. on

“Now I want to make clear for you, brothers and sisters, the gospel that I preached to you, that you received and on which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message I preached to you – unless you believed in vain.  For I passed on to you as of first importance  what I also received – that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures,  and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures,” – 1 Cor 15:1-4

From a blog post at Pyromaniacs called The Christian’s Priority and Presence: Things We Agree On:

  • Among other things, the Christian is the person who boasts only in the Cross; to whom the world has been crucified, and he to the world (Galatians 6:14).
  • The sole unique possession that every Christian has, that all his neighbors most desperately need, is the Gospel (Romans 1:16).
  • The Gospel is itself not actions nor outreaches nor programs; the Gospel is a message, communicated in words that express propositional truths (Romans 10:14-17).
  • While what we do may at best adorn the Gospel, it must never supplant or eclipse the Gospel (cf. 1 Timothy 2:10; Titus 2:10).
  • The message and aim of the gospel is redemption (Galatians 4:5; Titus 2:14) not merely reform.
  • The gospel itself is the only instrument of redemption; it “is the power of God unto salvation” (Romans 1:16).

The life of the believer in Christ begins at, and ought to revolve around the Cross of Christ, His death and resurrection. Too many times we remember that our lives began at the Cross, but in the conduct of our lives, and in the sharing of our lives and testimony with others we seem to go right back to focusing on ourselves. Instead of dying to ‘self’ as Jesus and the Apostles taught, we get wrapped up in ourselves in more subtle ways. Sure we talk about Christ, but mostly with terms and in ways that seem to include a lot of personal pronouns, betraying who is REALLY at the center of our lives. I call it the tyranny of self and I suffer from it as much as anyone else.

In our Bible studies, wherever and however they are conducted, we get wrapped up in ‘our’ insights, whether they be in the text or not, even patting ourselves and each other on the back for being so ‘deep’. In our conversations with those who do not yet know Christ, we are apt to spend a lot of time ‘proving our spiritual points’ and omit the very message of the Cross that we are to convey (1 Cor 15:1-4). Or, we present our ‘transformed lives’ as proof of the power of the Gospel, but fail to share the message itself!

Interestingly enough, I don’t see much of the ‘us’ described above, in the pages of the New Testament. The Apostle Paul, with the equivalent of several post-graduate degrees, refused to draw on his own intellectual prowess and preached the simple message of the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ (1 Corinthians 2:1-5). When conversing with the intellectuals of his day, he (Paul) unashamedly brought the discourse to the foot of the Cross and the power of the Resurrection (Acts 17).

Should we who profess Christ act otherwise?

Have a blessed weekend,

Dan

Blasphemy, anyone?

Posted by Dan C. on

This picture reminds me of the crowd outside of Lot’s door . . .

gayrally2

At this rally, the Mayor of Sacramento suggested Jesus would allow same-sex marriage. I suppose he believes the sin in the encounter at Lot’s home was merely “inhospitality”. Consider this:

The basis for this (inhospitably) argument is that the men of the city asked “to know” (KJV) the angels in the sense of “to get aquainted” with them. The Hebrew word word translated “to know” is yada and is the common word for “to know.” In the average context, it does have this basic meaning. However, the Bible often used the term “to know” as a euphemism for carnal knowledge, or sexual relations. It is used this way first when Adam “knew” his wife Eve and she conceived and bare him a son (Gen. 4:1). It is also used this way in the following passages: Gen. 4:17, 25; 38:26; Judg. 19:25; 1 Sam 1:19; 1 Kings 1:4 and even in the New Testament in Matt. 1:25 and Luke 1:34. Most translations favor this meaning for Genesis 19:5 as well. Notice how this is brought out in the following translations:

“They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them” (NIV), “that we may have relations with them” (NASB), “that we may know them carnally” (NKJV), “that we may have intimacies with them” (NAB), “so we can have sex with them” (NLT), “so that we can have intercourse with them” (NJB).

The point is that this is the preferred meaning of scholars and translators. The only way you would arrive at the meaning of “get aquainted with” in Genesis 19:5 is to approach it with a bias in favor of homosexuality. The idea that God would destroy a city merely because of a lack of hospitality is unthinkable. And all the men of the city would not surround Lot’s house and beat down his door merely to “get aquanited” with these men. Lot would not have begged them “Please, my brothers . . . don’t do such a wicked thing” (verse 7, NLT) if that was all that they wanted. When he offered his two daughters to them instead and said that they “have not known a man” (verse 8), it is obvious that he did not mean that they had never been aquanited with anybody so you guys can go ahead and get aquanited with them. This is further emphasized when he says “do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men” (verse 8). This indicates that the men of the city wanted to do something more than merely meet these men. It can also be seen in their response, since they told Lot “now we will treat you worse than them” (verse 9). Finally, Jude 7 specifically states that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was sexual immorality (see also 2 Peter 2:6-10). – Source.

At least in the Genesis account, there was no pretense on the part of the men of the city who lusted after Lot’s visitors that God somehow approved of their immorality.

And don’t even think about playing the “Why do you Christians single out homosexuality?” card. If you are engaged in homosexual activity, or a proponent of “gay” marriage and reading this, remember that you brought this to our door and made it an issue, with all of your recent ‘activity’.

Yes, ALL sin is SIN. It is SIN that sends men to Hell, regardless of what it looks like. There is good news however:

“Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you— unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,” – 1 Corinthians 15:1-4

If you are reading this and know not Christ, know that in your unbelief you stand condemned already (John 3:18) may God open your eyes and ears to see and hear His gospel, so that you would recognize your wretched condition, and by His grace repent, turn to Him, and LIVE! (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Has the Holy Spirit Left the Building?

Posted by Dan C. on

You probably think that’s a silly question. I mean it in all seriousness, so I guess I need to explain why I ask it. We need only look to a short passage in the Gospel of John for a clue to the answer.

“Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged. – John 16:7-11 (ESV)

The context of this passage is the conversation Jesus had with His disciples after they had supped for the last time and before His betrayal and arrest that were soon to follow. Jesus is preparing the disciples for His departure and comforting them with the promise of the Helper to come, the Holy Spirit. For some, the Holy Spirit would be ‘another comforter’ in Jesus absence (John, Ch 14). For others, the Holy Spirit would be the One who would ‘convict’ of sin, righteousness, and judgment. It is to the matter of the conviction concerning sin, that we now turn.

First, who is it that would be convicted? The passage tells us ‘the world’, the kosmos, and that paints a broad picture. We can say with certainty that ‘the world’ must include those in it that have an issue with sin. We can further propose that the sin of which Jesus speaks is the sin of ‘unbelief’ that He spoke of repeatedly in John’s Gospel; that He was indeed the One sent by God to ‘save His people from their sins’. The ‘world’ refers at least to all those remain in unbelief and stand condemned from birth (John 3:18).

What about our question, then? To what does it refer?  Allow me to explain in terms of ‘modern’ evangelistic practices. To a great extent, “today’s church believes it must win the lost to Christ by winning their favor, it no longer teaches the biblical doctrines of sin, hell, repentance, or the cross because those would offend the lost or make them feel uncomfortable,” (John MacArthur). The gospel according to the ‘Beatles’ has replaced the Gospel according to inspired Scripture. “Love, love, love” is the drawing card, instead of confronting sinners with their perilous condition of being DEAD in sin (Eph 2), and allowing the Holy Spirit to convict of sin ‘draw’ sinners to the Cross.

Are people saved if a sinless gospel is preached? I would say yes, but IN SPITE OF a powerless message, NOT because of it!

So, since people ARE saved when a sinless gospel is preached, HAS the Holy Spirit left the building?  “Technically’, NO. Without the presence of the Holy Spirit regenerating and drawing lost souls to Christ, no person would EVER be saved.

I propose that there is something far more serious taking place wherever and whenever a ‘sinless’ gospel is preached,  You see, it takes intentionality to preach the gospel without mentioning sin, the need for repentance, and judgment, unless the preacher/messenger is so ignorant that he/she doesn’t know that SIN is in fact the central issue. There was a time when I would never have dreamed such ignorance exists, but I fear that in today’s evangelical climate, that which was once unimaginable is now common place.

Well, if the Holy Spirit has not left the building (technically), what’s the issue? The issue is simply this:

Although the Holy Spirit is still in the building, regenerating and drawing to the Cross those whom God has mercifully elected for salvation, the Holy Spirit has actually been asked to leave!  Hear me out. Any church, or any person, who would dare claim to present the Gospel of Jesus Christ without addressing the very issues the Holy Spirit came to address – sin, righteousness, and judgment – has in effect pointed to the ‘front door’ and said “Leave the building, we don’t need you!”

What we are left with, no matter how many or how few people attend a particular church, are pews and/or stadium seats filled with a lot of ‘tares’ with a few stalks of ‘wheat’ scattered here and there, hungry for doctrine and ‘hard’ truth they may never be served.

Think about it. . .

________________

Relevant and scripturally supported comments are encouraged, whether you agree or disagree.

The Father’s Bargain

Posted by Dan C. on

An excerpt from the sermon The Covenant of Redemption between the Father and the Redeemer, John Flavel ,1671

“How reasonable it is that believers should embrace the hardest terms of obedience unto Christ, who complied with such hard terms for their salvation: they were hard and difficult terms indeed, on which Christ received you from the Father’s hand: it was, as you have heard, to pour out his soul unto death, or not to enjoy a soul of you. Here you may suppose the Father to say, when driving his bargain with Christ for you:

Father: My son, here is a company of poor miserable souls, that have utterly undone themselves, and now lie open to my justice! Justice demands satisfaction for them, or will satisfy itself in the eternal ruin of them: What shall be done for these souls And thus Christ returns.

Son: O my Father, such is my love to, and pity for them, that rather than they shall perish eternally, I will be responsible for them as their Surety; bring in all your bills, that I may see what they owe you; Lord, bring them all in, that there may be no after-reckonings with them; at my hand shall you require it. I will rather choose to suffer your wrath than they should suffer it: upon me, my Father, upon me be all their debt.

Father: But, my Son, if you undertake for them, you must reckon to pay the last mite, expect no abatements; if I spare them, I will not spare you.

Son: Content, Father, let it be so; charge it all upon me, I am able to discharge it: and though it prove a kind of undoing to me, though it impoverish all my riches, empty all my treasures, (for so indeed it did, 2 Cor. 8:9. “Though he was rich, yet for our sakes he became poor”) yet I am content to undertake it.

Blush, ungrateful believers, O let shame cover your faces; judge in yourselves now, has Christ deserved that you should stand with him for trifles, that you should shrink at a few petty difficulties, and complain, this is hard, and that is harsh? O if you knew the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ in this his wonderful condescension for you, you could not do it.”