The names have been changed to comfort the guilty. . .

Posted by Dan C. on

Some of us old geezers remember the popular television series “Dragnet”, especially the lead-in phrase that the upcoming story was true, but the names had been changed to protect the innocent. There’s a twist to that theme that is extremely popular in evangelical (I use the term loosely) circles these days. It’s not about changing the names of people, however, but changing the names of essential elements of the Biblical Gospel message for which we are accountable, and that we are charged to faithfully proclaim.

If you haven’t yet figured out what ‘names’ I’m talking about yet, they are repent (in all it’s forms), and sin (and all direct references to it). When Jesus announced that the Kingdom was near, He told his listeners to ‘repent and believe’ (Mark 1:15). When the Apostle Paul found it necessary to remind believers in Corinth of the contents of the Gospel message, he told them that the Gospel IS that Christ died for our sins, and was raised, according to scripture (1 Cor 15:1-4). He also reminded believers in Galatia that different messages than that were ‘another gospel’ (Gal 1:8-9).

We don’t use those terms very much these days. We tell folks Jesus died for their pain, broken heart, in order to have an abundant life, and a number of other reasons, but we don’t lay the cards on the table and tell them that Christ died for their sins. We have all sorts of ways to ‘soften’ the message and ‘short-sheet’ the Holy Spirit.

We don’t tell them they need to repent and believe the Gospel, we tell them they can come to Jesus for spiritual Band-Aids to smooth out the raw ‘stuff’ of life. If we did use the ‘R’ word as we ought, we would have to explain why repentance was necessary and that would necessitate using the dreaded ‘S’ word.

People can’t/don’t ‘repent’ from a broken heart, painful experiences, or lives that aren’t as abundant as they would like them to be. Those are all things that can be understood as outside of oneself, and there is no need repent of that which you are not personally accountable. If we are somehow responsible for anything it’s a poor decision, bad judgment call, or personal misstep, but never in any way the result of ‘sin’. We don’t like to use that word.

So I have to ask myself – Why don’t we tell it like it is, – define the issue using scriptural terms and definitions? Here’s my short list of why we don’t use the ‘S’ word.

  1. It makes people feel uncomfortable in our ‘seeker friendly’ service.
  2. People know they are sinners already, so there’s no need.
  3. If I use the ‘S’ word he/she won’t like me any more.
  4. If he/she/they like me/our church service they will naturally like Jesus.
  5. People who feel guilty when they hear the ‘S’ word won’t drop a check in the offering plate or donate to our ministry.
  6. Talking about ‘sin’ would hinder the warm ‘relationship building’ phase of my evangelism technique/method, without which I’ll never have a chance to share Christ.
  7. Broken hearts, and all the other painful ‘stuff’ of life, resulted from the Adam’s sin (the Fall) so we can just talk about those things and see even more ‘decisions’ for Christ than making folks feel bad.
  8. We can always talk about sin after they have made a decision/prayed the prayer/said the right words and are already saved.
  9. We can just talk about sin being separated from God because of what Satan did in the Garden. We humans are just victims here.
  10. We’re ashamed of the Gospel.

As for me, I think the first 9 are the ways we soften/disguise the real reason, #10.

Your comments, additions, deletions, and whatever else you want to throw at me, even the occasional rotten egg or tomato. I can take it!

Trouble in River City

Posted by Dan C. on

“Most of those who are disturbed about same-sex marriage are not as exercised about preserving heterosexual marriage. That’s because it doesn’t raise money and won’t get them on TV. Some preachers would rather demonize gays than oppose heterosexuals who violate their vows by divorcing, often causing harm to their children. That’s because so many in their congregations have been divorced and preaching against divorce might cause some to leave and take their contributions with them.”

Read more here. . .

Heavy Sigh. . .

Posted by Dan C. on

Yesterday I read a blog article that said  Jesus went to the cross for our ‘broken hearts’ as part of the article lead-in (since it was Easter), and then went on to talk about the tragedy of people having broken hearts, and asking why so many miss the point of Jesus’ crucifixion, ‘healing broken hearts’. That, I think, demonstrates an ‘incomplete at best’ understanding/explanation of the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of our Savior – according to scripture at least.

While it is true that when we genuinely believe in and trust in Jesus as the substitute for our sins – as having died in our place – that we can endure the pain and suffering in this life, his death was a substitutionary atonement for sin, not broken hearts, or any other temporal malady. The main, and according to the Apostle Paul, ‘of FIRST importance’ thing, was Christ’s death and resurrection for sin. (1 Cor 15:1-4)

So why the overwhelming emphasis on by-products of the greatest act of love in human history these days, instead of the ‘main thing’? Are we so entrenched in a false humanistic form of Christianity, in which God exists mainly to serve us, that we are blind to the words on the pages of scripture? Or is the opinion that a strictly human decision cast the final vote for a person’s salvation (thus robbing God of His sovereignty over the souls of men) the culprit?

I am at a loss to explain it, but these days I hear every reason except OUR SIN being the reason Christ went to the Cross and was raised up – and I don’t go ‘heresy hunting’. there are a few stalwarts who keep the ‘main thing’ the main thing, but just a few.

Why? Have I missed the point?

The Importance of the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus

Posted by Dan C. on

According to the Apostle Paul, two facts of the Gospel of Jesus Christ are 1) His death for our sins and 2) His bodily resurrection from the dead.

“For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter,b and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.” (1 Cor 15:3-8)

If we claim to be Christians and have ‘accepted’ Jesus Christ for some other reason than His death for our sins, and in our place, we have reason to question our very salvation. This is the first point of the precious Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Paul further asserts in the same chapter in 1 Corinthians that if Christ’s bodily resurrection from the dead is not true, our very faith, individually and corporately, is a sham.

“If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.(1 Cor 15:13-19).

Some would tell you, that by all the tests of the actual historicity of any event in human history, the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ stands far above anything else accepted both popularly and scientifically, as historical fact.

Food for thought….. 

Evangelical Golden Calves

Posted by Dan C. on

There is a bit of a buzz in Blogland these days that seems to have begun over a post that took issue with discernment/apologetics Web sites. Amidst the discussion, Phil Johnson over at Pyromaniacs had this to say:

“The overwhelming majority of today’s evangelical sophisticates would clearly prefer it if no one ever criticized evangelical Golden Calves. Rampant error doesn’t unsettle them in the least. They are quite happy to live with it and even actively make peace with it.”

This post is not continuing that particular discussion, but it addresses “evangelical Golden Calves”, of which there are many. Be that as it may, on this day, celebrated as Good Friday, the day Christ died for our sins, of chief concern is the unscriptural notion that God “accepts” us “just as we are”.

The reason God sent His Son to earth with the specific mission to die for OUR sins is because a Holy, Perfect and Just God CANNOT and WILL NOT “accept” us “just as we are”! It’s the theme of the entire Canon of Scripture! If God could, or would, accept us “with” our sin, Christ died in vain!

Somewhere in the history of evangelicalism, the very scriptural idea that Christ bids us “come as you are” to the Cross of Calvary, believe in and receive Christ as Savior and confess Him as Lord, morphed into God “accepts” you just as you are.

The result of that notion might be auditoriums with stadium seats filled with the legions of the falsely converted (and thus unconverted), with a few scattered genuine believers who confronted the Cross of Christ and their sin, realized their desperate condition, and dealt with their sin by repenting and believing in the One God sentenced to death because He could NOT “accept” them WITH their sin.

We hate con-artists who prey on the unsuspecting, who offer false promises and steal their hard earned savings, yet many of us (evangelicals) flock to the spiritual con-artists “selling” a false gospel!

Yes, “come” as you are to the Cross of Calvary; and standing, kneeling, or prostrate at the foot of the Cross, face your sin, and heed the words of Your Savior: “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!” (Mark 1:15)

In the words of the time honored hymn:

“Just as I am, without one plea
But that thy blood was shed for me
And that thou bidd’st me come to thee
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.”

__________________________________________________________________________________

Error Intolerant – John MacArthur

Posted by Dan C. on

From Pulpit Magazine, 7 April 2009

As Christians we must understand that whatever opposes God’s Word or departs from it in any way is a danger to the very cause of truth. Passivity toward known error is not an option for the Christian. Staunch intolerance of error is built into the very fabric of Scripture. And tolerance of known error is anything but a virtue.

Jesus clearly and unashamedly affirmed the utter exclusivity of Christianity. He said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6). “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). Obviously, that sort of exclusivity is fundamentally incompatible with post-modern tolerance.

Truth and error cannot be combined to yield something beneficial. Truth and error are as incompatible as light and darkness. “What fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement has the temple of God with idols?” (2 Corinthians 6:14-16).

We can’t tell the world, “This is truth, but whatever you want to believe is fine, too. It’s not fine. Scripture commands us to be intolerant of any idea that denies the truth.

Lest anyone misunderstand, I’m not defending dogmatism on any and every theological issue. Some things in Scripture are not perfectly clear. But the central teachings of Scripture (in particular, those things related to the way of salvation) are so simple and so clear that even a child can understand.

Those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them. (Westminster Confession, 1:7).

All the truth that is necessary for our salvation can be easily understood in a true way by anyone who applies common sense and due diligence in seeking to understand what the Bible teaches. And that truth — the core message of Scripture — is incompatible with every other system of belief. We ought to be dogmatic about it.

No wonder post-modernism, which prides itself on being tolerant of every competing world-view, is nonetheless hostile to biblical Christianity. Even the most determined post-modernist recognizes that biblical Christianity by its very nature is totally incompatible with a position of uncritical broad-mindedness. If we accept the fact that Scripture is the objective, authoritative truth of God, we are bound to see that every other view is not equally or potentially valid.

There is no need to seek middle ground through dialogue with proponents of anti-Christian world-views, as if the truth could be refined by the dialectical method. It is folly to think truth given by divine revelation needs any refining or updating. Nor should we imagine that we can meet opposing world-views on some philosophically neutral ground. The ground between us is not neutral. If we really believe the Word of God is true, we know that everything opposing it is error. And we are to yield no ground whatsoever to error.

Prime Products and By-products. . .

Posted by Dan C. on

“For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,” (1 Corinthians 15:3-4)

Christ’s death for our sins was the reason He came to earth, the purpose of His life, and the reason He went to the Cross. Just yesterday I read yet  another article that discussed the death of Christ without the use of the “S” word being applied to people. I suspect that when we call sin everything but sin (pick your own term here), we don’t feel so bad about ourselves.

Instead of confronting us with our spiritually dead condition, much of modern evangelical Christianity talks about how Christ died so we can have better lives, or find our ‘special purpose’, or have peace in the middle of life’s storms.

No where in scripture are we told that Christ died for any other reason than to save His people from their sins. The angel who visited Mary named the Son she would bear and gave her that specific message (Matthew 1:21).

That we can experience better earthly lives, endure adversity, and are partakers of heavenly blessings (Ephesians 1:3) are by-products of Christ’s death for our sin, not the main reason He suffered and died 2,000 years ago.

Food for thought  before the annual celebration of His resurrection. . .