Category Archives: Truth

TRUTH DECAY

Posted by Dan C. on

This an article found at Probe Ministries, written by National Director Kerby Anderson. It’s a bit lengthy, but well well worth the read.

Three Views of Truth

We live in a world that has dramatically changed its view of truth, and thus have inherited an ethical system that denies the existence of truth. The worldview of the twenty-first century is postmodernism, and the dominant ethical system of the last two centuries has been relativism.

To understand this changed view of truth, we need to consider the story of three baseball umpires.{1} One said, “There’s balls and there’s strikes, and I call ‘em the way they are.” Another said, “There’s balls and there’s strikes, and I call ‘em the way I see ‘em.” And the third umpire said, “There’s balls and there’s strikes, and they ain’t nothing until I call them.”

Their three different views of balls and strikes correspond with three different views of truth. The first is what we might call premodernism. This is a God-centered view of the universe that believes in divine revelation. Most of the ancient world had this view of true and believed that truth is absolute (“I call ‘em the way they are”). By the time of the Enlightenment, Western culture was moving into a time of modernism. This view was influenced by the scientific revolution, and began to reject a belief in God. In this period, truth is relative (“I call ‘em the way I see ‘em”). Today we live in what many call postmodernism. In this view, there is a complete loss of hope for truth. Truth is not discovered; truth is created (“they ain’t nothing until I call them”).

Postmodernism is built upon the belief that truth doesn’t exist except as the individual wants it to exist. Truth isn’t objective or absolute. Truth is personal and relative. Postmodernism isn’t really a set of doctrines or truth claims. It is a completely new way of dealing with the world of ideas. It has had a profound influence in nearly every academic area: literature, history, politics, education, law, sociology, linguistics, even the sciences.

Postmodernism, however, is based upon a set of self-defeating propositions. What is a self-defeating proposition? If I said that my brother is an only child, you would say that my statement is self-refuting. An only child would not have a brother. Likewise, postmodernism is self-refuting.

Postmodernists assert that all worldviews have an equal claim to the truth. In other words, they deny absolute truth. But the denial of absolute truth is self-defeating. The claim that all worldviews are relative is true for everyone, everywhere, at all times. But that claim itself is an absolute truth.

It’s like the student who said there was no absolute truth. When asked if his statement was an absolute truth. He said, “Absolutely.” So he essentially said that he absolutely believed there was no absolute truth, except the absolute truth that there is no absolute truth!

Postmodernism

Postmodernism may seem tolerant, but in many ways it is not. For example, postmodernists tend to be skeptical of people (e.g., Christians) who claim to know truth. Now that doesn’t mean that it is hostile to religion or spirituality. Postmodernists have no problem with religion unless it makes certain claims about its religion.

Postmodernists tolerate religion as long is it makes no claim to universal truth and has no authority. But they are very critical of those who believe there is one truth or an absolute truth. They are also critical of Christian missionaries because they believe they are “destroyers of culture.” This is reminiscent of the TV show “Star Trek” that had “The Prime Directive” which prohibited those on the star ship from interfering with any culture. The assumption was that each culture must decide what is true for itself.

Related to this idea of cultural relativism is the belief in religious pluralism. This is the belief that every religion is true. While it is proper to show respect for people of different religious faiths, it is incorrect to assume that all religions are true.

Various religions and religious groups make competing truth claims, so they cannot all be true. For example, God is either personal or God is impersonal. If God is personal then Judaism, Christianity, and Islam could be true. But the eastern religions (Hinduism and Buddhism) are false. Either Jesus is the Messiah or He is not. If He is the Messiah then Christianity is true, and Judaism is false.

Religious pluralism essentially violates the “Law of Non-contradiction.” This law states that A and the opposite of A cannot both be true (at the same time in the same way). You cannot have square circles. And you cannot have competing and contradictory religious truth claims all be true at the same time.

Jesus made this very clear in John 14:6 when He said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.” Jesus taught that salvation was through Him and no one else. This contradicts other religions.

Postmodernism has also changed the highest value in society. We used to live in a society that believed in “Truth” (with a capital T). This has now been replaced by a new word with a capital T. And that is the word “Tolerance.” We are told to tolerate every view and value. Essentially, all moral questions can be summed up with the phrase: Who are you to say?

Moral Relativism

The worldview of postmodernism provides the foundation for moral relativism. Although a view of ethics as relative began in the era of modernism, it has reached full bloom in the era of postmodernism. If there is no absolute truth, then there is no absolute standard for ethical behavior. And if truth is merely personal preference, then certainly ethics is personal and situational.

Moral relativism is the belief that morality is relative to the person. In other words, there is no set of rules that universally applies to everyone. In a sense, moral relativism can be summed up with the phrase: “It all depends.” Is murder always wrong? Relativists would say, “It depends on the circumstances.” Is adultery wrong? They would say, “It just depends on whether you are caught.”

Moral relativism is also self-defeating. People who say they believe in relativism cannot live consistently within their ethical system. Moral relativists make moral judgments all the time. They speak out against racism, exploitation, genocide, and much more. Christians have a consistent foundation to speak out against these social evils based upon God’s revelation. Moral relativists do not.

There are two other problems with moral relativism. First, one cannot critique morality from the outside. In my book Christian Ethics in Plain Language, I point out the problem with cultural relativism.{2} If ethics are relative to each culture, then anyone outside the culture loses the right to critique it. Essentially that was the argument of the Nazi leaders during the Nuremberg Trials. What right do you have to criticize what we did within Nazi Germany? We had our own system of morality. Fortunately, the judges and Western society rejected such a notion.

Second, one cannot critique morality from the inside. Cultural relativism leaves no place for social reformers. The abolition movement, the suffrage movement, and the civil rights movement are all examples of social movements that ran counter to the social circumstances of the culture. Reformers like William Wilberforce or Martin Luther King Jr. stood up in the midst of society and pointed out immoral practices and called society to a moral solution. Abolishing slavery and fighting for civil rights were good things even if they were opposed by many people within society.

Not only is moral relativism self-defeating; it is dangerous. Moral relativism leads to moral anarchy. It is based upon the assumption that every person should be allowed to live according to his or her own moral standards. Consider how dangerous that would be in a society with such vastly different moral standards.

Some people think stealing is perfectly moral, at least in certain circumstances. Some people think murder can be justified. Society simply cannot allow everyone to do what they think is right in their own eyes.

Obviously, society allows a certain amount of moral anarchy when there is no threat to life, liberty, or property. Each year when I go to the state fair, I see lots of anarchy when I watch the people using the bumper cars. In that situation, we allow people to “do their own thing.” But if those same people started acting like that on the highway, we simply could not allow them to “do their own thing.” There is a threat to life, liberty, and property.

Moral relativism may sound nice and tolerant and liberating. But if ever implemented at a societal level, it would be dangerous. We simply cannot allow total moral anarchy without reverting to barbarism. That is the consequence of living in a world that has changed its view of truth and established an ethical system that denies the existence of truth.

Impact of Truth Decay

What has been the impact of a loss of truth in society? There are many ways to measure this, and many ministries and organizations have done just that.

Each year the Nehemiah Institute gives the PEERS test to thousands of teenagers and adults. They have administered this test since 1988. The PEERS test measures understanding in five categories: Politics, Economics, Education, Religion, and Social Issues.{3} It consists of a series of statements carefully structured to identify a person’s worldview in those five categories.

Based upon the answers, the respondent is then classified under one of four major worldview categories: Christian Theism, Moderate Christian, Secular Humanism, or Socialism. In the mid-1980s, it was common for Christian youth to score in the Moderate Christian worldview category. Not anymore.

Currently, Christian students at public schools score in the lower half of secular humanism, headed toward a socialistic worldview. And seventy-five percent of students in Christian schools score as secular humanists.

Take this question from the PEERS test as an example: “Moral values are subjective and personal. They are the right of each individual. Individuals should be allowed to conduct life as they choose as long as it does not interfere with the lives of others.” The Nehemiah Institute found that seventy-five percent of youth agreed with this statement.

Let’s also consider the work of George Barna. He conducted a national survey of adults and concluded that only four percent of adults have a biblical worldview as the basis of their decision-making. The survey also discovered that nine percent of born again Christians have such a perspective on life.{4} And when you look at the questions, you can see that what is defined as a biblical worldview is really just basic Christian doctrine.

George Barna has also found that a minority of born again adults (forty-four percent) and an even smaller proportion of born again teenagers (nine percent) are certain of the existence of absolute moral truth.{5}

By a three-to-one margin, adults say truth is always relative to the person and their situation. This perspective is even more lopsided among teenagers who overwhelmingly believe moral truth depends on the circumstances.{6}

Back in 1994, the Barna Research Group conducted a survey of churched youth for Josh McDowell. Now remember, we are talking about young people who regularly attend church. They found that of these churched youth, fifty-seven percent could not say that an objective standard of truth exists. They also found that eighty-five percent of these same churched youth reason that “just because it’s wrong for you doesn’t mean its wrong for me.”

George Barna says that the younger generation tends to be composed of non-linear thinkers. In other words, they often cut and paste their beliefs and values from a variety of sources, even if they are contradictory.

More to the point, they hold these contradictory ideas because they do not have a firm belief in absolute truth. If truth is personal and not objective, then there is no right decision and each person should do what is right for him or her.

Biblical Perspective

What is a biblical perspective on postmodernism? One of the problems with the postmodern worldview is that it affects the way we read the Bible.

Because of the popularity of postmodernism, people are reading literature (including the Bible) differently than before. Literary interpretation uses what is called “postmodern deconstruction.” Not only is this used in English classes on high school and college campuses, it is being applied to biblical interpretation.

Many Christians no longer interpret the Bible by what it says. Instead, they interpret the Bible by asking what the passage means to them. While biblical application is important, we must first begin by understanding the intent of the author. Once that principle goes out the window, proper biblical interpretation is in jeopardy.

So what should we do? First we must be prepared for the intellectual and philosophical battle we face in the twenty-first century. Colossians 2:8 says, “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.”

We must also be studying the Scriptures on a daily basis. Paul says the Bereans were “noble-minded” because “they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11).

Studies of born again Christians say that they are not reading their Bibles on a regular basis. An important antidote to postmodernism and relativism is daily Scripture study so that we make sure that we are not being conformed to the culture (Romans 12:2).

We should also develop discernment, especially when we are considering the worldviews that are promoted in the media. Philippians 4:8 says, “Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things.”

The average student in America watches 22,000 hours of television before graduation. That same student also listens to 11,000 hours of music during their teenage years. Add to this time spent on a computer, on the Internet, and absorbing the culture through books and magazines.

Postmodernism is having a profound impact on our society. This erosion of truth is affecting the way we view the world. And the rejection of absolutes leads naturally to a rejection of absolute moral standards and the promotion of moral relativism.

Christians must wisely discern these trends and apply proper biblical instruction to combat these views.

Notes

1. Richard Middleton and Brian Walsh, Truth Is Stranger Than It Used to Be: Biblical Faith in a Postmodern Age (Downers Grove, IL.: InterVarsity Press, 1995), 31.
2. Kerby Anderson, Christian Ethics in Plain Language (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2005), 11-15.
3. www.nehemiahinstitute.com/peers.php.
4. “A Biblical Worldview Has a Radical Effect on a Person’s Life,” The Barna Update (Ventura, CA), 1 Dec. 2003.
5. “The Year’s Most Intriguing Findings, From Barna Research Studies,” The Barna Update (Ventura, CA), 12 Dec. 2000.
6. “Americans Are Most Likely to Base Truth on Feelings,” The Barna Update (Ventura, CA), 12 Feb. 2002.

Sugggested Reading:

Francis Beckwith and Gregory Koukl, Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998).

God’s Wrath Against Unrighteousness

Posted by Dan C. on

God gave them up. . .

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

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

The wrath of God isn’t reserved solely for the second coming of Christ, or the final judgment when those who rejected The Son will be cast into outer darkness. God’s wrath against sin is also demonstrated right now, right here, on planet earth, in our country, in your city, on your street, perhaps even in your home.

We are told the reason for God’s wrath being revealed right here, right now, is the failure to acknowledge God; the general knowledge of God that is in the heart of every man. This would apply not only to the professed atheist, but all those for whom there is a god, but whose god is not the sovereign God who created the universe and everything in it,

We are then given three ways that those that fail to acknowledge God are ‘given over’. The word translated “gave them over” or “gave them up” is a word that basically means “to give into the hands of another, to give over into one’s power, or to deliver one up to the custody of another.” In other words, God removes His restraining hand, that bit of moral conscience that we all seem to have because of that inner knowledge of God, and men are completely controlled by their own sinful natures, seemingly without any remorse or sense of conscience concerning their deeds.

Men are ‘given over’ to the impurity of their hearts, to dishonorable passions, and to debased minds. And while we tend to focus on sins of homosexuality, Paul also gives us a ‘vice list’ that covers ‘all manner of unrighteousness’ not necessarily specific to sexual sin! Paul is telling us when we at refuse to acknowledge God as He is revealed in His creation, that there exists a very slippery slope that hits bottom with God removing his restraining hand (moral conscience) from our lives and with us being ‘given over, given up, released to our sinful nature, and possibly abandoned by God.

My friend, dear reader, if that’s true, it has to be the worst possible state any living person could be in – abandoned by God, and without hope!

Our prayer this morning is that if you are reading this, God is still speaking to you and you are listening.

If you are reading this and think it nonsense – that God is not angry at your sin and even now He is not revealing His Holy wrath against it – perhaps that God doesn’t even exist, think again. You are in grave danger, and as an earlier passage in the same chapter of Romans tells us – you stand without excuse , without any reasonable defense), before the holy, perfect, and just judge of His entire universe!

_____________

“God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” John 3:16

What about my friends?

Posted by Dan C. on

That’s a question all believers face at some point, and it comes in many forms:

  • “Now that I believe in Christ, will I lose my friends, some of whom think Christianity is a joke?”
  • “Will I make new friends if I lose the old ones?
  • “Should I tell my friends about what just happened to me?
  • “How do I tell my friends I now believe in Christ as my Savior?”
  • “What will my friends think of me?”
  • “Do I have to walk away from my ‘worldly’ friends? Will they dump me?

And the list goes on. . .

The founder of The Navigators is said to have answered the “How long should I wait before telling my friends……..” question with something like “Do you want that in minutes or seconds?”

Well. my son Dan (also and mostly known as Hauss) told me this last Father’s Day how and why he handled the situation, and probably addressed the above list and most of the other questions that could be added to the list.

Hauss had already been sharing with me over the last year or so how he had been finding out, while ‘hanging out’ with the same crowd, that he no longer felt comfortable engaging in some of the activities involved, and was even developing a distaste for what he had previously enjoyed or thought perfectly normal behavior. The changes he was experiencing were not unnoticed by his friends, and he has been sometimes asked what happened, to which he would reply “I got saved.”, after which he would talk about it. No beating around the bush there!

At some point he decided to just write a letter to everyone on his ‘close friend’ list and tell them all about it. The reason he gave me was basically that it was the right and fair thing to do. They are close friends and close friends don’t keep secrets from each other – he needed to just be up front and honest with them. There was nothing overtly ‘evangelistic’ – no motives other than honesty and integrity. What a concept!

Naturally I was pleased, but not terribly surprised, because I have listened to him share his testimony of having confronted sin, repented of it and trusting in Christ. I have no doubts concerning the genuineness of his confession of faith. What did come to mind however, was something I can’t remember ever having thought a lot about in the context of this scenario – sharing one’s faith with those who are close to us.

Hauss, with his letter, had not only answered a lot of questions faced by a ‘young’ believer, he had avoided the pain of being the one to initiate the severing of a close relationship, should that be the best course of action in the fuure. That ‘ball’ was no longer in his court! Since he had simply been open, honest, and caring, it was now on the shoulders of the receivers of the letter to respond. They would either :

  • Choose to remain friends, either dismissing Hauss’ testimony as only a temporary phase, or with a genuine interest/curiosity, possibly due to an ‘awakening’ in their own hearts, or
  • Sever the friendship at some point or other because they ‘couldn’t handle the truth’ presented, because they had not yet been awakened by the Holy Spirit to hear and receive the gospel message in Hauss’ testimony.

If they hung around hoping for a ‘phase, they would come to another decision point  whether to stick around any longer or just write Hauss off as a ‘lost cause’.

Interesting thing though. I don’t think for a second that Hauss has experienced much of the personal stress this whole scenario invites. He just did what came naturally. That’s just the way he is. Or should I say ‘new’ naturally!

If you are reading this and think writing a letter might not be for you, you could be right. Perhaps God will plant some other way to tell the ones, who are often the hardest to tell, about your salvation, The important thing is to face the question(s) head on, continue to read your Bible, pray about it and, like a famous commercial: “Just do it!”

God will take care of the results, whatever they me be, ‘positive’ or ‘negative’. Not only that, the peace you will find is beyond words, at least any words I have at my disposal – and I am a ‘wordy’ guy at times.

What ABOUT your friends?

"What are we to do about it?"

Posted by Dan C. on

All religions can be examined in light of scripture, can they not?  The ‘acid’ test is almost always the gospel of Jesus Christ; how are men saved, by faith alone or by faith plus works. ‘Faith plus works’ (all religions except Christianity, and some ‘called’ Christian) is a sure sign of a false religion or apostate Christianity.

Yes, there are subtle forms of false teaching and clever ‘wolves in sheep’s clothing out there’ when all the right words are used and things seem on the up and up, and error is more difficult to spot. However when the clear light of scripture reveals an unbiblical gospel message concerning hoe God saves men, the matter should be closed, leaving the question, “What are we to do about it?”

When a loved one, friend, acquaintance (someone in our area of influence) is following what is false, with eternal consequences looming, we are to lovingly, compassionately, communicate what is true and what is false, with Bible in hand (opinions don’t count), and with much prayer. There are times when the most loving and compassionate thing we can do is issue a strong warning/apostasy alert.

At times, when the one with whom we are dealing resists scriptural truth to the “leave me alone” point, we need to stop talking but continue to pray fervently; for our friend/loved one, and our ‘delivery’.

Then there are the times when we need to shake the dust from our feet and move on, a decision point also needing prayer cover. It is not always easy and often is painful to make that decision.

Remember, scripture – the Bible –  is the standard, the measuring rod, the lamp of truth under which everything must be examined. That means everything!

To the Praise of His Glorious Grace – D. A. Carson

Posted by Dan C. on

To the Praise of His Glorious Grace

What astonishing mercy and power:
In accord with his pleasure and will
He created each planet, each flower,
Every galaxy, microbe, and hill.
He suspended the planet in space
To the praise of his glorious grace.

With despicable self-love and rage,
We rebelled and fell under the curse.
Yet God did not rip out the page
And destroy all who love the perverse.
No, he chose us to make a new race,
To the praise of his glorious grace.

Providentially ruling all things
To conform to the end he designed,
He mysteriously governs, and brings
His eternal wise plans into time.
He works out every step, every trace,
To the praise of his glorious grace.

Long before the creation began,
He foreknew those he’d ransom in Christ;
Long before time’s cold hour-glass ran,
He ordained the supreme sacrifice.
In the cross he removed our disgrace,
To the praise of his glorious grace.

We were blessed in the heavenly realms
Long before being included in Christ.
Since we heard the good news, overwhelmed,
We reach forward to seize Paradise.
We shall see him ourselves, face to face,
To the praise of his glorious grace.

Harry Emerson Fosdick and the Emerging Theology of Early Liberalism

Posted by Dan C. on
Romans 11:22, Job 28:28
Code: A173

By John MacArthur

In the early part of the 20th century liberalism took mainline Protestant churches by storm.

In fact, it might be argued that the first half of the century ushered in the most serious spiritual decline since the Protestant Reformation. Historic evangelicalism,1 which had dominated Protestant America since the days of the founding fathers, was virtually driven out of denominational schools and churches.

In a few decades, liberalism virtually destroyed the largest Protestant denominations in America and Europe.

Evangelicalism managed to survive and even seemed to thrive for awhile outside the denominations. But it never regained its influence in the mainline groups. Instead it flourished chiefly in relatively small denominations and non-denominational churches.

Sadly, the broad movement that encompassed evangelicalism in the 20th century now seems poised to follow the very same path that led the mainline churches to disaster a century ago.

One of the most popular spokesmen for liberal Christianity in its heyday was Harry Emerson Fosdick, pastor of the Riverside Church in New York City. Fosdick, while remaining strongly committed to liberal theology, nevertheless acknowledged that the new theology was undermining the concept of a holy God. Contrasting his age with that of Jonathan Edwards, Fosdick wrote,

Jonathan Edwards’ Enfield sermon [“Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”] pictured sinners held over the blazing abyss of hell in the hands of a wrathful deity who at any moment was likely to let go, and so terrific was that discourse in its delivery that women fainted and strong men clung in agony to the pillars of the church. Obviously, we do not believe in that kind of God any more, and as always in reaction we swing to the opposite extreme, so in the theology of these recent years we have taught a very mild, benignant sort of deity . . .. Indeed, the god of the new theology has not seemed to care acutely, about sin; certainly he has not been warranted to punish heavily; he has been an indulgent parent and when we have sinned, a polite “Excuse me” has seemed more than adequate to make amends.2

Fosdick was never so right. He correctly saw that liberalism had led to a warped and imbalanced concept of God. He could even see far enough ahead to realize that liberalism was taking society into a dangerous wasteland of amorality, where “man’s sin, his greed, his selfishness, his rapacity roll up across the years an accumulating mass of consequence until at last in a mad collapse the whole earth crashes into ruin.”3

Writing in the wake of World War I, Fosdick suggested that “the moral order of the world has been dipping us in hell.”4

Despite all that, Fosdick ultimately would not acknowledge the literal reality of God’s wrath toward impenitent sinners. To him, “the wrath of God” was nothing more than a metaphor for the natural consequences of wrongdoing. His theology would not tolerate a personal God whose righteous anger burns against sin. To Fosdick, the threat of hell fire was only a relic of a barbaric age. “Obviously, we do not believe in that kind of God any more.”

Fosdick wrote those words almost ninety years ago. Sadly, what was true of liberalism then is all too true in the so-called “evangelical movement” today. “Evangelicals” have to a very large degree rejected the reality of God’s wrath. They have disregarded His hatred for sin. The god most evangelicals now describe is completely benevolent and not the least bit angry.

Post-modern “evangelicals” have forgotten (or simply refused to believe) that “It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Heb. 10:31). These days, they are the ones saying, “We do not believe in that kind of God any more.”5

“Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God” (Rom. 11:22).

Ironically, an overemphasis on divine beneficence actually works against a sound understanding of God’s love. It has given multitudes the disastrous impression that God is kindly but feeble, or aloof, or simply unconcerned about human wickedness. Is it any wonder that people with a such a concept of God defy His holiness, take His love for granted, and presume on His grace and mercy? Certainly no one would fear a deity like that.

Yet Scripture tells us repeatedly that fear of God is the very foundation of true wisdom (Job 28:28; Ps. 111:10; Prov. 1:7; 9:10; 15:33; Mic. 6:9). People often try to explain away the sense of those verses by saying that the “fear” called for is nothing more than a devout sense of awe and reverence. Certainly the fear of God includes awe and reverence, but it does not exclude literal holy terror. “It is the Lord of hosts whom you should regard as holy. And He shall be your fear, and He shall be your dread” (Isa. 8:13).

We must recapture some of the holy terror that comes with a right understanding of God’s righteous anger. We need to remember that God’s wrath does burn against impenitent sinners (Ps. 38:1-3). That reality is the very thing that makes His love so wonderful. We must therefore proclaim these truths with the same sense of conviction and fervency we employ when we declare the love of God. It is only against the backdrop of divine wrath that the full significance of God’s love can be truly understood. That is precisely the message of the cross of Jesus Christ. After all, it was on the cross that God’s love and His wrath converged in all their majestic fullness.

Only those who see themselves as sinners in the hands of an angry God can fully appreciate the magnitude and wonder of His love. In this regard our generation is surely at a greater disadvantage than any previous age. We have been force-fed the doctrines of self-esteem for so long that most people don’t really view themselves as sinners worthy of divine wrath. On top of that, religious liberalism, humanism, evangelical compromise, and ignorance of the Scriptures have all worked against a right understanding of who God is. Ironically, in an age that conceives of God as wholly loving, altogether devoid of wrath, most people are tragically ill-equipped to understand what God’s love is all about!

The simple fact is that we cannot appreciate God’s love until we have learned to fear Him. We cannot know His love apart from some knowledge of His wrath. We cannot study the kindness of God without also encountering His severity. And if the church of our generation does not regain a healthy balance soon, the rich biblical truth of divine love is likely to be obscured behind what is essentially a liberal, humanistic concept.

1. From the time of the Protestant Reformation until fairly recently, the expression evangelical has referred to those who believe that the Bible is inspired and absolutely authoritative, and who therefore understand that salvation from sin is available through faith in Christ alone, not by any works or sacraments. When I speak of “historic evangelicalism,” I’m using the term in that specific and technical sense, minus all the contemporary baggage the word evangelical seems to have acquired.

2. Harry Emerson Fosdick, Christianity and Progress (New York: Revell, 1922), 173-74 (emphasis added).

3. Ibid., 174.

4. Ibid (emphasis added).

5. See Robert Brow, “Evangelical Megashift,” Christianity Today (February 19, 1990), pp. 12-14.

WHY does anyone choose Christ. . .

Posted by Dan C. on

. . .and why is it important as long as we choose?

These days, if you even ask the first part of that, you might be told that it’s not important or that you are just being divisive. The only thing that matters is that a ‘decision’ was made. Some of those who do not think it’s an important question might accuse you of being divisive and maybe even being ‘lost’ and not saved at all! You’re just all into theology and book learning, and since you didn’t provide a testimony with the ‘theology’, about how you went downtown to feed the homeless, you’re just not saved!

My friend, I am here to tell you this morning, as God is my witness, that the answer to that question is of critical importance, and has eternal consequences! It’s the difference between eternal life in the presence of God and an eternity in the everlasting torments of hell!

IF you came to Christ for any other reason than because you realized your desperate straights apart from the saving grace of Jesus Christ, that you are a spiritually dead and lost sinner; and realized that God sent His beloved son to die in your place – to suffer the just wrath due your sin; and based upon that realization, you believed in Christ, it is entirely possible that you believed in vain and are as destined for hell this morning  as before you walked an aisle, signed a decision card, or said a special prayer!

Many, if not most invitations to Christ that are offered these days from the stages of alleged ‘churches’ these days are all about having lives ‘fixed in’ one way or another, and never bring up the sin issue, the central and perhaps only issue of biblical evangelism! .

To omit the single most important issue of the gospel message, is to have NO gospel message! To leave out the issue of sin is to be a fraud and a charlatan – a spiritual ‘snake oil’ salesman. To save the sin issue for later (after they like you a lot) and invite people to Christ to have their lives ‘fixed’, is a spiritual ‘bait and switch’ con game.

So this old man is going to continue to ask the question. Eternal lives are at stake!

I am saved because GOD SAVED ME! He gave life to a dead man and opened his ears to hear the gospel and his eyes to see Christ. And when he saw Christ, he desired Him so strongly that there was no way he would not end up at the foot of the Cross. It was ALL God.

Friend, examine your heart this morning. WHY did you choose Christ? IF it was for some other reason, any other reason than for the forgiveness of your sin, you have cause to be concerned about your eternal destiny. Search your soul, search scripture, asking God why He sent His Son to die or you.

This is my plea.

 

‘

life and death

Truth by Consensus?

Posted by Dan C. on

Found on a professing Christian’s blog:

“Scripture is written word. It doesn’t become truth until it is read and interpreted. That interpretation is a personal opinion. To think that there is some sort of “universal” interpretation that does not rely on individual interpretation is naive. We only get close to that when the interpretations of many individuals all agree; then we can be fairly certain that we’ve hit upon a real truth. So, when I ask for your position, I’m asking for your interpretation of the Bible in order to see if it matches up with my interpretation. If we can agree on our interpretations, we’re closer to discovering the truth.”

When I first read that, I thought that perhaps by ‘truth’ the author was referring to our application of the truth already in scripture rather than ‘truth’ itself, as the words express. After explaining to the author that truth is already contained in scripture and interpretation is mostly about discovering the inherent truth, I received a distinct affirmation of the ridiculous assertion that God’s truth is indeed about our consensus of what we think it means, and that scripture is not truth until we decide what that truth is, and the larger the consensus the better.

This is not to say that every passage of scripture is perfectly clear to our human minds. We do need to study a bit – the context, other passages that speak about a topic/subject, and even consult outside research tools that aid in obtaining a more complete understanding of what we read. Indeed, as the author of the above quotation rightly asserts, we do need to be involved in reading and interpreting scripture.  Even when we are so involved, we need the Holy Spirit (our embedded instructor) to illuminate the inherent truth of scripture to our minds and hearts.

The matter at hand, is not whether scripture interpretation is needed, but whether or not the written word, the words in the Book, contain truth. 

I give you the words of Jesus shortly before his crucifixion:

“For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me.  .  .  .  I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. .  .  .  Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.” – John 17:8, 14, 17

Who among us believers would deny that Jesus spoke the very word of God to His followers? (I hope that’s a rhetorical question.) Assuming a resounding YES, the only question left is whether or not God’s word (truth) made it into written form. Paul told young Timothy:

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

Did God ensure, by divine inspiration, that what was written would actually contain truth? Paul certainly thought so. It takes a very low opinion of God to believe that He was unable to make that happen!

Perhaps my young friend will discuss the matter further here, but I doubt it. I am confident he will be reading this (he knows where I live in Blogland), but since I’ve been asked to just ‘go away’ for being a trouble maker, I somehow doubt it. Maybe what he said at his place about wanting to discover truth was well, just ‘words’.

Two Questions

Posted by Dan C. on

If I am looking for a doctrinally sound church to attend, I would ask:

“What is the Gospel that is preached?”

Considering all that is passed off as gospel by spiritual ‘con-men’, that is not the Gospel of Christ as declared in Scripture, this question is critical.

_________

The second question is for the person I have recently met who professes Christ:

“What is the Gospel that you believed?”

Considering the multiple thousands of people who attend counterfeit ‘churches’ where the pure Gospel of Christ is not preached, and where thousands ‘accept’ Christ for all the wrong reasons, this is also an important question.

_________

“Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 1Co 15:2  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

Trojan Horses

Posted by Dan C. on

Even if you haven’t read much classic literature, you probably know the story of the destruction of the city of Troy. they have made several movies, one in the not too distant past. Christianity has had it’s own Trojan Horses throughout history, and like the original, great destruction has resulted, inside the walls of Christianity.

The early Romans were polytheists. They had a god for hunting, they had a god for buying, they had a god for selling, they had a god to protect them on a journey. They had all these gods. Well once Christianity was declared the religion of the Roman Empire, it was necessary to dispense with all of this in some way but rather than take a strong stand against idolatry and such superstition, the church simply assigned those responsibilities that once belonged to Roman deities to dead saints. For example, instead of a god to protect you on journeys, St. Christopher took over that responsibility. And you had the merging of Roman pagan superstitious idolatry with Christianity. The Trojan horse of Roman religion was allowed to remain inside the walls, as it were, of Christianity, it infiltrated and destroyed the Christian faith.

In the eighteenth century rationalism came to Europe. During the time of rationalism, which is also known as the enlightenment, coming out of the Dark Ages man believed that he could solve all problems with his own mind. He began to worship his mind. He felt that he had the mental capacity to understand everything and solve all problems. God, it was believed, didn’t interfere in the affairs of men when men were so supremely intelligent they could handle their own affairs. At best, God created the world and just let it go. And now it was up to man. And so they decided that since the mind of man was ultimate, anything that the mind of man could not conceive or understand wasn’t true. And so they went to the Bible and anything that didn’t seem rational, reasonable, logical, intellectual was eliminated and thus all the miracles in the Bible were denied. And then they began to deny the great supernatural spiritual truths about God and Christ and the Holy Spirit and theological liberalism was the product. What happened, the church opened the doors and pulled in the Trojan horse of rationalism, intellectualism and the enlightenment and they came out, opened the gates and the place was flooded until the church lost its faith totally and European Protestantism became liberal and dead.

Today the church is still opening the gates and pulling in more Trojan horses filled with deceitful and devastating enemies. And the world is seeping into the church in myriads of ways. We could mention the erosion of moral values, the acceptance of the break up of the family and divorce as normal, the selfish pursuit of money and status even now has a gospel identified with it, the prosperity gospel. We could mention the Trojan horse of pragmatism or psychology. We could mention the Trojan horse of mysticism, intuitive pursuits of truth. The church has pulled in a myriad of Trojan horses and they are letting the armies of enemies in to run rampant in the church.

There is a tolerance today for every kind of aberration in the church and it is therefore full of Trojan horses, letting the invading armies in to confuse and destroy. The only way to defeat a Trojan Horse is to recognize it early and not let it inside the walls. That’s called discernment. Discernment is separating Divine truth from lies and half truths. It’s not open lies that destroy from within, it’s half truths – the lies that roll through the gates of the city inside the Trojan Horse.

____________________

NOTE: Above adapted from the sermon series A Call to Discernment by John MacArthur.