Somewhere in the history of Protestant evangelicalism, an ‘IF’ was inserted into the message of the gospel that we can’t find in biblical examples of evangelism. We tell people that God has done certain things toward the salvation of men. God sent His Son to die for the sins of His people. God ‘draws’ men to Christ. Then we tell them that God has done these things, now it’s up to them. God did his part, now they must do their part. Well, in terms of ‘human’ wisdom and logic, it makes perfect sense.

This post asks the question, “Where do we find our IF language in the text of Scripture; in anything Jesus said, or in any evangelistic encounter in the NT? 

In the following passages we have God doing ‘something’, or the gospel being presented, followed by a consequence or result. Please read them with that thought in mind, at the same time looking for our IF language.

“All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.” – John 6:37 

“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.” – John 6:44

And he (Jesus) said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by tJohn 6:65 he Father.” –

And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed (by God) to eternal life believed. – Acts 13:48 

One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. 15 And after she was baptized. . . – Acts 16:14

Where’s the IF ’language’ that places the hearers of our message ultimately in charge of their own salvation?

One other question:

If the language that essential tells people that they save themselves is not in the Bible, WHY do we use it?

Well folks, that’s it for this one. Just questions and food for thought……..

Let’s consider for a moment three concepts; relativism, empiricism and laws of logic, in the light of two worldviews; secular and Christian. We will us use three short exchanges between a person who holds to a secular worldview (SW), and a person with a Christian (CW). Watch what happens.

Relativism

SW: “There are no absolutes.”

CW: “Are you absolutely sure?”

SW: “Yes.”

CW: “You just told me that you are absolutely sure that there are no absolutes. That’s an absolute, and therefore false.”

KABOOM!!!!

Empiricism

SW: “All truth claims can be proved by empirical observation.”

CW: “How do you know that – empirical observation?”

SW: “That’s what I said.”

CW: “How exactly do you ‘observe’ a truth claim?”

KABOOM!!!!

Laws of Logic

SW: “Human beings are the product of evolution.”

CW: “Is that your ‘logical’ conclusion, according to available evidence?”

SW: “It certainly is!”

CW: “Did you use universal laws of logic to figure that out?”

SW: “Of course I did, silly. Laws of logic govern how we all think.”

CW: “Where do you get universal laws of logic in a ‘chance’ universe? Who decides which of the millions of available thoughts right and which ones are wrong?”

KABOOM!!!!

A Christian worldview provides a consistent set of absolutes, unchanging standards for truth, and rules for ‘how’ to think about things. A secular worldview blows itself up.

NOTE: All of the above – a consistent set of absolutes, unchanging standards for truth, and rules for ‘how’ to think about things – are all contained in the Bible, and found in God.

That’s a truth claim. If you want to ‘prove’ or ‘disprove’ it, find a Bible, read it, and see for yourself.

‘

There are many arenas of cultural and intellectual conflict in the world today, but one of the most controversial of these arenas has disappeared. There is now no conflict between spirituality and science. The war is over, the combatants have gone home, and lilies of peace now decorate the landscape where conflict once raged. Science and spirituality are now at total unperturbed peace.

That paragraph is meaningless, of course, which is entirely the point. Monday’s edition of USA Today features an opinion column by Chris Mooney, author of Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future. Mooney sets out to argue that spirituality can serve as a bridge across the science-religion divide.

Mooney is alarmed by the pervasiveness of what he defines as scientific illiteracy among the American public. In his published writings, he associates this “illiteracy” with a “war on science” being fought by anti-evolutionists, those opposed to human embryonic stem cell research, critics of climate change, and assorted others identified as obstacles to scientific advance. Of course, the fact that a large majority of Americans reject evolution only adds fuel to his fire when he cries in his milk over what he can only describe as “illiteracy.”

But, if Mooney sees conservative Christians as a serious problem, he sees the so-called “New Atheists” as similarly vexing. It is not that those figures are characterized by scientific illiteracy, but rather that their strident atheism, once associated with science, becomes a further impediment to the public acceptance of evolution and other scientific claims.

In Unscientific America, Mooney castigates the New Atheists for their strident atheism — not because he would have them to believe in God, but because he knows that their stridency alienates the public. “The American scientific community gains nothing from the condescending rhetoric of the New Atheists,” he argues, “and neither does the stature of science in our culture.”

The stridency of their atheism — a hallmark of the New Atheism — alarms the public. “Abrasive atheism can only exacerbate this anxiety and reinforce the misimpression that scientific inquiry leads inevitably to the erosion of religion and values,” he writes.

Mooney knows and documents that scientists are far more secular than the general public, and he is well aware that this poses a huge challenge to the public acceptance of their ideas and theories. The New Atheists, including Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens, just add fuel to the fire. “If the goal is to create an America more friendly toward science and reason, the combativeness of the New Atheists is strongly counterproductive,” he laments.

Why? “America is a very religious nation,” he explains, “and if forced to choose between faith and science, vast numbers of Americans will choose the former.” He is undoubtedly correct on that score.

But all this brings us to today’s column in USA Today. Give the strident atheism a rest, he demands, and adopt the language of spirituality. As he tells the atheists, the language of spirituality is utterly compatible with atheism, but it will not scare the public.

In his words:

Across the Western world — including the United States — traditional religion is in decline, even as there has been a surge of interest in “spirituality.” What’s more, the latter concept is increasingly being redefined in our culture so that it refers to something very much separable from, and potentially broader than, religious faith.

Spirituality can have little or even nothing to do with belief in God, Mooney affirms. “Spirituality is something everyone can have — even atheists.” He explains: “In its most expansive sense, it could simply be taken to refer to any individual’s particular quest to discover that which is held sacred.”

Spirituality is completely compatible with atheism, he asserts. It requires no belief in God or the supernatural in any form. As a matter of fact, spirituality requires no beliefs at all. Mooney quotes the French sociologist Emile Durkheim: “By sacred things one must not understand simply those personal beings which are called Gods or spirits; a rock, a tree, a spring, a pebble, a piece of wood, a house, in a word, anything can be sacred.”

Thus, he argues that spirituality “might be the route to finally healing one of the most divisive rifts in Western society — over the relationship between science and religion.”

In its own way, Mooney’s column serves to illustrate the vacuity that marks modern spirituality. There is nothing to it — no beliefs, no God, no morality, no doctrine, no discipleship.

Spirituality in this sense is what is left when Christianity disappears and dissipates. It is the perfect religious mode for the postmodern mind. It requires nothing and promises nothing, but it serves as a substitute for authentic beliefs.

Clearly, Chris Mooney sees spirituality as a potential public relations strategy for the advancement of secular science and the naturalistic worldview. He needs prominent scientists like Dawkins and Dennett, along with others like Stephen Hawking, to shut up about atheism and just use the language of spirituality. They can retain their atheism, but they should not sound like atheists to the public.

My guess is that Dawkins, Dennett, and Hawking will ignore Mooney’s advice. After all, they have made atheism into a cottage industry, and their books are bestsellers. They are likely to see Mooney’s advice as quaint and unnecessary, because they feel that they own the future anyway.

The real question posed by Mooney’s USA Today column is whether Christians possess the discernment to recognize this postmodern mode of spirituality for what it is — unbelief wearing the language of a bland faith.

Chris Mooney might be on to something here. The American public just might be confused enough to fall for this spirituality ploy. Will Christians do the same?

_____________________________________________________

Albert Mohler is an Author, Speaker, and President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

I recently read, at a forum titled “What is the Gospel?”, the following:

“To focus too much on sin can lead to a legalistic, pharisaical, condemning message.”

I find that an interesting expression, especially in light of every ‘evangelistic’ encounter recorded in the book of Acts. The focus of every one of those encounters centers on the sinfulness of man, the righteousness of God, and impending judgment. If it is not explicitly stated, it is undeniably implied by the very definition of gospel presented by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 (and elsewhere). You will not find in any of those encounters the ever popular witnessing lead-in of  “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life.”

Does that mean that those involved in those evangelistic encounters in the New Testament failed to achieve the proper balance between the topics of ‘sin’ and ‘love’ in the content of their message?

If I am of the opinion that salvation is the work of man (ala Charles Finney) it might indeed be true that ‘God loves you’ needs to be spoken ‘X’ numbers of times in order for anyone to ‘accept’ Jesus. In that evangelistic paradigm (Pelagian in that it denies original sin), men have the ability to persuade other men to accept Christ, without the aid of anything outside of themselves, and in fact must ‘attract’ sinners to Christ with whatever method works best.

If I am of the opinion that “Salvation is of the Lord!”, as was Jonah, men who focus on the ‘sin’ issue can trust God to do a supernatural work in the heart of the hearer so powerful that he not only realizes his helpless, hopeless condition as an deserving object of God’s just wrath, he also realizes the tremendous love of God in Christ Jesus’ substitutionary death for his sin, and so runs willingly and happily to the foot of the Cross!

Then there is the matter of being under condemnation by our very nature because of our unbelief, having been ‘born on death row’ so to speak, because of Adam’s sin imputed to the whole human race. If that is the case, then there needs to be an element of judgment and condemnation in our gospel message for true salvation to take place. It is only when the full weight of what scripture says about the fallen condition of man really sinks in, that the sinner being drawn to the Cross can fully comprehend the length and breadth of God’s love!

The boundless love that would have an all powerful and sovereign God send His own Son to die for the sins of the elect overwhelmingly eclipses the love expressed with words concerning the temporal blessings we receive once we are His true children. Mere words are somehow inadequate, and totally unneeded, when the truth of God’s vast love and boundless mercy dawns upon the ‘God-opened’ heart!

Having said that, I still find is somewhat puzzling when my well intentioned brothers in Christ ‘counsel’ me for not balancing the message of sin and impending judgment (with it’s unspoken, inherent, and transcendent love), with a lot of love ‘language’ in the presentation of the gospel.

What would be the measuring rod of a ‘balanced’ gospel presentation anyway? Word count? And if it could be measured, exactly how is the standard applied? Do we need to ‘can’ our gospel presentations to ensure balance, or are we supposed to intuitively recognize, in the middle of the conversation, that we tipped the scale in the wrong direction? Perhaps some enterprising soul will come up with a digital monitoring system, with voice recognition software, to vibrate in our pocket or something, so we wouldn’t appear to be faking the whole thing.

“But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth”

2 Thessalonians 2:13

“There are three things here which deserve special attention. First, the fact that we are expressly told that God’s elect are “chosen to salvation”: Language could not be more explicit. How summarily do these words dispose of the sophistries and equivocations of all who would make election refer to nothing but external privileges or rank in service! It is to “salvation” itself that God has chosen us. Second, we are warned here that election unto salvation does not disregard the use of appropriate means: salvation is reached through “sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth” It is not true that because God has chosen a certain one to salvation that he will be saved willy-nilly, whether he believes or not: nowhere do the Scriptures so represent it. The same God who “chose unto salvation”, decreed that His purpose should be realized through the work of the spirit and belief of the truth. Third, that God has chosen us unto salvation is a profound cause for fervent praise. Note how strongly the apostle express this – “we are bound to give thanks always to God for you. brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation”, etc. Instead of shrinking back in horror from the doctrine of predestination, the believer, when he sees this blessed truth as it is unfolded in the Word, discovers a ground for gratitude and thanksgiving such as nothing else affords, save the unspeakable gift of the Redeemer Himself.”

The Apostle Paul had some harsh words to the church in Galatia for those who would turn away from the Gospel of grace and return to trusting in human works for salvation: 

“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.” – Gal 1:8-9

Paul clearly defined the message of the gospel to the church in Corinth with these words:

“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 Cor 15:1-4

Long before Paul was converted and began to preach the gospel and establish churches, John the Baptist laid the groundwork for the coming of Christ:

“In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” ” Matt 3:1-2

Jesus began his earthly ministry with these words:

“From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” ” – Matt 4:17

“Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.” “- Mark 1:14-15

When Jesus appeared to His disciples after the resurrection, he commissioned them with these words:

“Then he (Jesus) opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.” “- Luke 24:45-47

Well, so what?

Here’s ‘what’:

Who am I, who are we, who name the Name of Christ, to change the message, or omit what Scripture tells us is the core and heart of the gospel message?

How dare we presume that a ‘changed life’ is the Gospel?

How dare we presume that making Jesus ‘attractive’, as the one who merely solves all of life’s little problems, is spreading the gospel that saves a person from Hell?

How dare we presume that love, love, love, without including the issue of sin and repentance, IS even love at all?

Who am I if I presume any of the above? Who am I if I don’t hold as paramount, and address as of ‘first importance’, that Jesus died for our SIN, and if I don’t speak of the need to REPENT from SIN?

I’ll tell you who I am – I am a spiritual coward, a disgrace to evangelism, and a traitor to the One who saved me!

And at the end of the day, I am still a sinner – a sinner saved by the amazing grace of a sovereign God!

The recent ‘Restoring Honor’ rally at the Lincoln Center brought mixed reactions across the entire demographic spectrum of America. Certainly the patriotic spirit of the event was laudable. America needs more than a little restoration.

Somewhat troubling however was the number of professing Christian evangelicals who spoke at the rally and seemed to embrace Mr. Beck’s leadership in restoring honor to America, as if Beck’s Mormon religion is ‘as Christian’ as theirs. While it is not surprising that many, if not most, average Christians might not find Mormonism ‘troubling’ as best, that evangelical leaders embrace it on equal ground is more than a little troubling!

The sole purpose of this post is to address the question of Mormonism as authentically ‘Christian’. the material below, provided by Michael Davis, Ph. D., a former Mormon, and is available on the Internet under the title ‘Is Mormonism Christian?’. This article is an introduction to the religion of Mormonism and addresses the issue from meticulously cited Mormon sources, fully cited and contains numerous links those reference sources. Here’s the article:

Is Mormonism Christian?

Michael Davis, Ph D

The question above actually can be phrased in several ways:

1. ‘Is the Mormon church a Christian denomination?‘ NO. Mormonism is not Christian because it denies some of the essential doctrines of Christianity, including: 1) the deity of Christ, 2) salvation by grace, and 3) the bodily resurrection of Christ. Furthermore, Mormon doctrine contradicts the Christian teaching of monotheism and undermines the authority and reliability of the Bible. The evidence for these statements is documented in section 3 below.
2. ‘Are Mormons Christians?‘ LIKELY NOT, if they believe the major doctrines of their church.
3. ‘Can a Mormon be a Christian?‘. POSSIBLY. Only God knows what each person believes (and why) regarding His Son, Jesus Christ. But as a person stays in the Mormon church, absorbs and accepts Mormon teaching, doctrine and ‘latter-day revelation’, the chances of answering the question in the affirmative approach zero. The key question Mormons must answer is ‘WHO is the Jesus they believe in‘?

In the New Testament book of 2 Corinthians, the apostle Paul warns of “another Jesus whom we have not preached… a different spirit which you have not received… a different gospel which you have not accepted” (2 Cor. 11:4).

In the New Testament book of Galatians, Paul again warns: “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!” (Gal. 1:8).

Ironically, this latter warning is a nearly exact description of how the Mormon church was founded:

• In 1820, Joseph Smith Jr., age 14, went into the woods near Palmyra, New York to pray concerning the different denominations of Christianity. Allegedly, God the Father and Jesus appeared to him and told him not to join any of those churches. Three years later an angel named Moroni, the son of the leader of a people called the Nephites who had lived in the Americas around 400 AD, appeared to Smith and told him that Smith had been chosen to translate a book written on golden plates by Moroni’s father. Smith claimed to receive the plates along with instructions to begin the translation, which was published in 1830 as the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is supposedly the account of an ancient people who came from the Middle-East to the Americas. Smith claimed that during the translation process, John the Baptist appeared to him and ordained him to accomplish the divine work of restoring the true church by preaching the true gospel which, allegedly, had been lost from the earth. From 1833-1835, a collection of additional ‘revelations from God’ to Joseph Smith were published by the LDS church as the ‘Doctrine and Covenants‘. In 1880 another work, the ‘Pearl of Great Price‘, was also added to the Mormon body of ‘scripture’.
• The Mormon view of the Bible is summed up in a statement by the most famous Mormon apologist: “The Bible of the Old World has come to us from the manuscripts of antiquity – manuscripts which passed through the hands of uninspired men who changed many parts to suit their own doctrinal ideas. Deletions were common, and, as it now stands, many plain and precious portions and many covenants of the Lord have been lost. As a consequence, those who rely upon it alone [the Bible] stumble and are confused” (Bruce McConkie, in The Ensign, December 1985, p 55).

In the material below, I examine the major doctrines of the Mormon church and compare them to those taught by orthodox Christianity. The reader can judge whether or not Mormon teachings describe a “different Jesus” and a “different gospel”.

1. A Word to Mormons. If you are a Mormon, please read the material in section 1 before you proceed.

2. Claims Made by the Mormon Church. Section 2 gives background information on the LDS (Mormon) church, their statements regarding other churches, and their claims about what constitutes ‘scripture’.

• claims to be Christian
• claims to be the only true Church
• the truth of the Mormon church should be confirmed by an inner feeling
• only Mormon scriptures are considered reliable, not the Bible
• claims to receive modern-day revelation that supercedes Biblical teaching

3. Mormon Doctrine Compared to Biblical Doctrine. Section 3 is the largest section of the material (>50 pages). It is intended to focus on Mormon teaching about 4 essential subjects. The approach taken throughout is to simply quote original sources, both Biblical and Mormon, with minimal commentary. The reader can decide if there is a conflict between the two and is encouraged to look up the original materials. Each of the four sections is indexed to a summary table comparing Mormon with Biblical beliefs.

• Mormon teachings about God
• Mormon teachings about Jesus
• Mormon teachings about salvation
• Mormon teachings about man

4. Mormon Literature and Leaders. This reference section gives more information on source materials plus brief descriptions of the people and books quoted in sections 2 and 3. It is important to know the background because many of the Mormon authors spoke in an official capacity or claimed to have direct revelation from God. If Mormons argue that their prophets weren’t speaking authoritatively, they haven’t read the original quotations of their leaders.

5. Unique Mormon Definitions. Mormons, especially LDS missionaries, use many of the same Biblical terms familiar to Christians. Yet most of these terms carry different meanings, making it critically important to define those terms.

6. Other Serious Problems with Mormonism. Major doctrinal issues are covered above, but there are many other difficulties and inconsistencies with Mormonism. In this section, I’ve made a partial list of these and given some useful starting points for further investigation. The serious truth-seeker should examine each of these topics.

7. Topical Index to this site. A different way to access most of this material.

Depending on the translation you are reading, The phrase “It is written. . .” appears nearly 100 times in Scripture, almost 30 of which are in the Old Testament and the remainder in the New Testament.

It was spoken by prophets in the OT to remind God’s people of what was written in the Law of Moses, and served as a reminder of God’s complete sovereignty over His creation.

In the NT we find it used again as a reminder of what had been written in the Law, but even more to demonstrate that Jesus was the long awaited Messiah.

It was used by Jewish leaders a few times to try and trap Christ, and by Satan to to tempt the Lord to sin, thereby ruining God’s perfect plan of redemption..

Jesus used the phrase close to 20 times, to emphasize that He fulfilled messianic prophesy, as well as to turn the tables on the Jewish religious leaders who tried to use the Law to trap Him! Additionally, the Son of God, who had power over Satan in His divinity, replied to Satan three times with ‘”it is written” when tempted in the desert, demonstrating the greatest weapon we mortals have against the enemy of our souls!

The importance of that which has been written, revealed to us by God Himself through divinely inspired writers, cannot be overstated. “It is written”, when used in scripture, equates to “thus saith the Lord’ and should be responded to with the same attitude and respect that would be afforded God Himself if he appeared and spoke face to face, and nothing less.

Then we have the Apostle Paul cautioning believers in Corinth not to exceed what is written:

“I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.” – 1 Cor 4:6

The specific context concerns ‘personality cults’ that had developed in the young Corinthian church, but anyone paying minimal attention to today’s evangelical landscape can see a striking resemblance to current events.

Revelation, the last Book of the Bible begins with a blessing pronounced on those who read and heed the ‘words of the prophecy’ (Rev 1:3), and ends with stark warnings to those who would add to it or take anything away from it in the very last chapter. It has been debated whether the warning pertains to just the Revelation of John or the entire Bible. Nevertheless, for the wise Christian, the warning should apply to both contexts – to all that has been “written” to us.

What has already been written trumps every teaching or doctrine of mere men. If you want to find out if the preaching and teaching you are receiving is right and true, lay it alongside what has been written and you will soon find out, and no teacher or preacher should feel insulted if you do.

You can trace nearly every unorthodox teaching, ‘interesting’ but not quite right doctrine, ‘out there’ Christian cult, apostasy, or downright heresy in the entire history of the church, to the misuse of, adding to, or taking away, from ‘what is written’.

Food for thought. . .

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Jer. 31:18-19, “Turn thou me, and I shall be turned; Thou art the Lord my God. Surely after that I was turned, I repented; and after that I was instructed, I smote upon my thigh”

“You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you – Acts 7:51 …This passage, which is often used in an attempt to refute the biblical doctrine of irresistible grace, actually supports it. Notice the condition of the persons who are doing the resisting: their hearts and ears are uncircumcised, which is the Bible’s way of saying they are unregenerate. A person in this condition will always resist the outward call of the gospel. The Holy Spirit may convict them of sin and work to show them their need to Christ, but as long as they remain unregenerate, their hearts will remain closed to Christ. Only the Spirit can circumcise their heart that we might be willing to believe and obey: “And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live. (Deut 30:6) Irresistible grace does not mean that whenever the Spirit works He is irresistible. Rather, it means that while His promtings are always resisted by the dead in sin, He can make the gospel irresistible when He opens their spiritually blind eyes, when he opens their deaf ears and turns their heart of stone to a heart of flesh. (Monergism.com)