This Is How I Taught Inherited Sin Nature - The Pro-Sin Nature Position, and A Commentary Refutation

According to the majority of Christian thought, man has inherited a Sin Nature as a direct result of Adam's fall in the  Garden of Eden. Most readers of this blog understand that I am against the Inherited Sin Nature position, but perhaps most do not know that I used to hold to and teach Inherited Sin Nature during my teaching career. Most of the people who debate against my anti-ISN viewpoint assume that I do not know what the doctrine states, and attempt to educate me regarding this quite old doctrine. That being the case, I'm going to attempt  to prove that I have a handle on the issue by writing this post in defense of Inherited Sin Nature. (I have also decided to include a refutation of each point, as will be noted by comments such as these in red).

Why do men sin? According to Genesis 3, Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden of Eden, and given one command - Do not eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. No one knows how long this couple kept the command, but one day Satan in the form of a serpent enticed Eve to think about eating the fruit of the tree. She knew the command, and refused at first by saying that they weren’t to eat of it, or even touch it lest they die. No matter, Satan then said that God didn’t want the humans to eat of the tree, because they’d become gods. Thoroughly enticed now, Eve eats of the tree. Adam, who according to I Timothy 2 was not deceived by Satan, went along with Eve in eating, and thusly man fell. 

- Adam and Eve were just created by God. They did not have a "sin nature", but were enticed by fleshly desires. Eve was hungry. Adam wanted his wife. Satan used those God-given desires, and tempted man to sin. This pattern is the same today as it was in the Garden. James 1:14-15 illustrates how sin works from temptation to choice of sin to death. Nothing has changed. Further, this does not contradict Romans 5:12, as we shall see below.

God’s voice then comes walking through the Garden, and Adam and Eve hid. Once God uncovers the now sinful humans, He asks a series of questions concerning why Adam and Eve were clothed. “We saw that we were naked”, Adam said. “Who told you that you were naked? Did you eat of the tree?” Immediately Adam blames Eve. God turns to Eve, who then blames the serpent.

God then issues out a series of curses. 1. The serpent is cursed in that he must now slither and eat dust. He is also cursed in that women will hate him, and try to kill him. (There is also a prophetic statement here as well, but it is out of the scope of this article). 2. The woman has to endure greatly increased sorrow in child birth. She also is placed under the husband’s control. 3. The man is cursed in that he must eat of the fruit of the ground in sorrow all the days of his life. Work becomes hard labor. 4. All mankind will taste of physical death, and will return to dust.

- I believe that this is a key moment in the history of man. God punishes Adam and Eve for sin. The key inherited punishment here is death. Romans 5:12 reiterates this point in that Sin entered the world through Adam, because he (Adam and Eve are both called Adam in Genesis 5:2) was the first man to sin. Romans 5:12 then goes on to say that death, not sin as so many read into the verse, passed upon all men because of their sin. Sin being passed down from generation to generation is not mentioned in either Genesis or Romans. Why not? If inherited Sin Nature were part of the Fall and Curse, wouldn't it then be mentioned in Genesis 3?

Adam and Eve then had children. The first two named in the Bible are Cain and Abel. These boys had special talents, one was a shepherd, while the other was a farmer. One day they were to offer a sacrifice to God based upon His specifications. When Cain offered his sacrifice, God was not pleased. Abel’s sacrifice, however please God, which angered Cain tremendously. Hatred filled Cain to the point that he murdered Abel. This action shows a further affect of Adam and Eve’s sin – namely that sin was passed down to their children. The rest of the next 6 chapters in Genesis are filled with sin, such sin that God had to destroy man, because the imaginations of man’s heart were only evil continually (a great illustration of how sin nature had spread throughout mankind).

- It is commonly taught that because Cain did not have to be taught how to murder that this is a representation of Inherited Sin Nature. How did this sin come to pass? God gave a command. Cain transgressed that command, and it displeased God. Abel's sacrifice pleased God, which set the temptation for Cain into motion. He was tempted and acted upon that sin, hatred, which led to the next sin, murder. Before Cain acted upon the temptation, God gave Cain a choice, do well, and please God, or don't do well, and sin will be his desire and ruler. Cain chose sin. It was at Cain's choosing that sin began to rule over Cain, not at his birth. This issue was personal to Cain, and had no further influence upon mankind, except that now God had to create a new law. (More sin, more laws. Notice the pattern throughout scripture. Adam only had one Law, Moses had 430+).  

God did destroy mankind with the flood, but he spared Noah, his wife, and their three sons with their wives in the Ark. Soon after the Ark settled upon Mt. Ararat, however, that ugly sin nature revealed itself again when Canaan made Noah drunk, and looked upon his nakedness. Another curse, one upon Canaan and his descendants, is levied. Noah’s family then spreads throughout the region in accordance to God’s command to be fruitful and multiply.  But eventually, man rebels against God by congregating together in the plains of Shinar. It is there that Noah’s descendants built Babylon and the Tower of Babel. God then punishes man by confusing their language, which forces the inhabitants to spread outward from one another.

- Canaan sinned here. It was premeditated, and had to take some time, because he would have had to grow grapes from the ground up (a very time consuming process), then cultivated them properly, then harvested, and finally brewed them into the alcoholic drink. This would have taken years of growth and experimentation on Canaan's part. After he settled upon the right concoction, Canaan would have then tricked Noah, and then taken liberties with his grandfather. All of this shows premeditation and blatant action on Canaan's part. His uncles, Shem and Japheth, wanted no part of this wickedness. The curse placed upon Canaan fits with Exodus 20:5 in that God promised to punish the third and fourth generations of them that hate me. Canaan and his descendants certainly knew who God was, but chose to sin blatantly and openly against Him. Any summary study concerning the Canaanite civilizations will reveal just how wicked these descendants chose to be. This is why God commanded Israel to destroy them upon their return to the Promised Land.

Using Canaan, however, as an example of sin nature is unequivocal. Canaan's curse was for him and his descendants only. In spite of that fact, Rahab, a Canaanite from Jericho is listed in the line of Christ (Matthew 1:5). As I will note later, if inherited sin nature can be inferred from here, then Rahab's being in the line of Christ would directly imply that Christ would have inherited that very same sin nature.

These men founded societies and cultures across the planet. Their descendants became the Assyrians, Babylonians, Chinese, Incas, Aztecs, Pashtuns, Russians, Jews, Greeks, etc…. All of them had one thing in common, they were all descendants of Adam, and all cursed with a Sin Nature. This is blatantly evident in how idolatrous, murderous, pornographic, and adulterous these many civilizations became. Sin dominated mankind, but God chose to work through one of these nations, Abraham’s nation, the Hebrews (Jews), in order to bring a Savior, Jesus Christ. The remainder of the Old Testament points to the future coming Messiah, while along the way revealing how wicked man is.

- The only things they all had in common was a free will to choose whether or not to honor God, and death. As nations, they all failed. There were, however, individuals who chose to honor God. The Old Testament has examples of non-Jews who turned to God, such as Rahab, Uriah the Hittite, Ruth the Moabitess, Nebuchadnezzar, Assyria during Jonah's ministry, etc... They all had a choice, and at first chose sin. Later, they would choose God. 

Job, a man praised by God, soon reveals that he has sinned. He declares that men born of woman are a few days full of trouble (14:1). They are sinners from birth! David reiterates this point in Psalm 51:5 when he declares that he was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did his mother conceive him.  He further states that the wicked are estranged from the womb, and go astray as soon as they are born speaking lies (Psalm 58:3). All of this further illustrates how sin had passed down from Adam. Moses even weighs in with Exodus 20:5 by saying that He visits inquity upon the fathers of the third and fourth generations of them that hate me. All of this is to say that man sins from birth, because sin was passed down to them by their fathers.

- Tim and I have already covered Job 14, Psalm 51, and Psalm 58:3 but because I'm commenting on the ISN position here, let me make a few remarks.

Job 14 does not say that man is full of trouble from birth. He says that he is a few days, and full of trouble. Time is indicated here, how much time is not known, but it has to be enough time for the issues listed in Job 11-14 to be completed. A baby does not have enough days to fit that list. 

Psalm 51:5, is usually quoted alone, and well out of context, as are the other two passages. In context, Psalm 51 is a deeply sorrowful outpouring of David's sinful acknowledgement and heartfelt repentance. David is saying that he made the choice. He, and he alone, sinned against God. If he were making the claim that he sinned because he was born a sinner, then he'd have to be blaming God or his mother for making him to be a sinner. It is God who creates babies in the womb (Psalm 139:13, Jeremiah 1:5). Those babies are a gift and an heritage from the Lord (Psalm 127:3). David even goes on to say that he is fearfully and wonderfully made by God (Psalm 139:14). The weight of scripture is against David saying that God formed him in sin. Scripture clearly states that God is the one creating babies in the womb, and those babies are His fearful and wonderful creation. 

Further, if David were blaming someone or something else for his sin, then repentance would be stopped, because he'd have been making an excuse, other than his own willful choosing to sin, as to why he sinned. This is exactly what Adam and Eve did in the Garden of Eden. God did not hear their excuses, nor does he hear any man's excuses. He only hears the broken and contrite heart. David's heart was truly broken and contrite, as seen here and Psalm 38. Bottom line, it was David's fault for sin, and he acknowledged that beautifully.

Finally on Psalm 51, it is dangerous to create doctrines based upon figurative, poetic language. If this passage were entirely literal, then a cure for sin is purging with hyssop, as David asks God to do in verse 7. 

Psalm 58:3 - Once again, be careful of figurative/poetic language and context. David is only talking about the wicked in the passage, as opposed the righteous mentioned in the chapter's ending. To paint his picture, David uses figurative language throughout - poison of a serpent, deaf adder, lion's teeth, etc... Zeroing in on verse 3, David does not say that from birth the wicked are sinful. Babies don't talk (notice the figurative language), they don't have teeth, let alone lion's teeth, they're not full of snake poison. David does not want all babies to melt away and destroyed in order for him to walk in their pools of blood. The passage has even less to do with why men sin. 

Because of Adam, we need a savior. Romans 5:12 declares that we all sinned in Adam. Furthermore Romans 5:19 states that by one man we all became sinners. We are without hope, totally incapable, and lost in sins because of Adam’s choice in the Garden.

- Romans 5:12 says that sin entered the world through Adam, but Death, not Sin, passed upon all men, because all have sinned. Romans 5:19 does say that many were made sinners by one man (Adam). It says many, not all. The second half of the verse goes on to say that many were made righteous by one man (Christ). If many means all in the first part of the verse, then just a few words later in the second part, many has to also mean all. It's not the case, however, that all were made righteous by Christ. That being made righteous hinges upon man choosing Christ, which not all men have done. What is being highlighted here in Romans 5 is that man has a choice, and the greatest choice is Christ. Contextually, as a whole, this passage taught as a support for ISN could only lead to a series of unscriptural doctrines, but that's not within the scope of this article. 

Paul famously illustrates how the flesh wars against the spirit in Romans 7. He shows the saved that though they’re born again, they still have to fight that sin nature until they die, and receive their glorified bodies. He continues in Romans 8 by revealing that the Christian can either be in the Spirit or in the Flesh. Because of this, he must war against the flesh daily. This is one reason (the other two are the world and the Devil) why we need the whole armor of God as listed in Ephesians 6. We need it and Christ in order to fight against the works of the flesh listed in Galatians 5. It is against such sin/carnal/fleshly nature that we must fight in order to please God and fully enjoy the Fruit of the Spirit.

- Mike Miller wrote a series of three articles (here, here, and here) that summarize how Roman's 7 is not supporting inherited sin nature. Please, read those if you've struggled with Romans 7 and this topic. 

Briefly, however, Romans 7 fits in with Romans 1-8 as a whole dialogue. Specifically, Romans 5:12-Romans 8 are to be taken contextually together. Romans 6 talks about sin's being crucified, nailed to the cross, killed, destroyed, etc.... If this be the case, then how could a supposedly born again man be struggling with the dead corpse of sin in Romans 7, while also living a victorious, Spirit-filled Christian life in Romans 8? How could sin abide in a person's life, while Christ also abides? How can one be filled with the Spirit and sin concurrently? Or are we talking about losing salvation and regaining it over and over and over until we, hopefully, die in Christ? Where is the victory promised in Romans 7:25 and the Spirit-filled life of Romans 8? 

Bluntly, if Romans 7 is about the daily struggle of a born-again man, then Romans 8:1 is a lie. We'd all still be condemned, even in the Spirit. None of it could make any sense, unless, the traditional view of Romans 7 is incorrect. Romans 7 does teach about a struggle with sin, while under the Law, that is as an un-repentant, lost man. Paul is not saying that while he was unsaved while writing the passage. He's illustrating what his struggle was like as an unsaved, though religious person, long before he wrote the passage. Under the Law he had no victory. Under Grace his life is victorious. He, and those in Christ, are more than conquerors!

This is what Adam’s choice did for all mankind. We need a new Adam. We need Christ, without whom we’d remain dead in our trespasses and sins. We needed Him to redeem us, and declare wicked sinners righteous, even though we don’t deserve such favor. Though He did all of that, we will still have to struggle against sin for the rest of our lives, because of what Adam’s choice brought to mankind. But we will be freed from sin’s power, once we enter glory and receive our glorified bodies. Oh what a day that will be!

- We certainly do still fight a battle. We do have to fight the world, the flesh, and the devil. The world is Satan's structured system. It comprises anything and everything he can use to make a believer stumble, or keep a lost in darkness. The flesh, though not inherently wicked, is weak. It has limitations. It needs food, sleep, drink, and sex, or the human race would cease to exist. All of those desires were present in the Garden of Eden before death, or Satan would have had no way to tempt man. Those desires are God-created and God-given. Our flesh is also God-given, and he expects us to yield our members unto righteousness. 

Simply put, our bodies are tools for his service. In Christ, our bodies become His holy temples on earth (I Corinthians 6:19 and Ephesians 2:21). Essentially, we are not our bodies. Our bodies are where our soul dwells on earth, and we communicate with one another through our bodies. When our bodies cease to exist, we, our soul as Ezekiel 18:20 for example defines our being, continue, either unto life with Christ, or unto death in Hell. 

A tool can be used in any number of ways. A knife can be used to cut meat, or it can be used to kill. The knife is not evil, it had no choice in the matter. It was controlled by the user. Our bodies, likewise, can be used for good, if we choose it, or evil, if we choose it. The flesh isn't evil or good either way. The flesh can only be defined by what we make it. An adulteress has an adulteress body, because she chooses adultery, and so on and so forth. She's yielded her members to unrighteousness, and in so doing is in sin's control and bondage. 

Satan does not want us to use our bodies for Christ, and he actively uses all he can to hinder our yielding to Christ's service. We, spiritually speaking, have to put on the whole armor of God to stand against Satan. What good would protecting our flesh be, if it's our flesh that is the problem? No, the problem is from without, and what we choose to do with the problem is up to us. Choosing righteousness through Christ yields life eternal. Choosing sin brings death. It is up to you to make the decision either way. Once yielded to Christ, He promises victory, fruit, and life eternal, because He crucified sin, and the grave has lost her victory (I Corinthians 15).

(Ok, I don’t think I missed anything here. Granted it is a very brief summary, but that is how Sin Nature was taught to me in Bible College and Seminary, as well as growing up in a Christian home, attending  Christian Schools, hearing thousands of sermons, reading many tracts, witnessing to the lost, and studying the issue extensively from Augustine to Calvin to today’s theologians. It is how I taught it to my students. If I missed anything, please comment below, and let me know). 

The "Done with Church" Crowd - A Response to Aaron Carpenter

For whatever reason a series of articles concerning church attendance surfaced this week. I posted one of them on my Facebook page, and a small  and enjoyable discussion unfolded. I did not know who would respond, nor did I know how anyone would comment. Normally, at least based upon my experience discussing this topic, I receive comments from pastors or longtime church attendees. Normally, those comments run the typical religious gamut of irate irrationality. This time was different… so far. A (former) pastor did respond. To me, not just any pastor, a pretty good friend of mine from college/seminary. He stunned me. He did not support the church, he left it all behind. It’s not so stunning that people leave their churches, it happens all of the time. Pastors on the other hand, they seem to leave only amidst public scandal (eg. Jack Schaap et. al). To say the least, I was intrigued. Others were as well, namely another friend of mine and the former pastor, Aaron Carpenter. Aaron was a pastor (still is), who is now attempting to reach the Seattle area. Aaron weighed in on the side of not leaving church, but understands some of the issues plaguing churches today. He decided to use my discussion as a jumping off point for a blog article. He raises a few questions therein, I’ll attempt to address them all.

Aaron leads off with the main questions at hand, “What is church? Who knows anymore?” I’m not so sure about his answer, however. He assumes that everyone knows it’s not the building, but the people, even if we admit that the term is most often used to refer to a building. I don’t want to pass on this point. Though it’s true most do pay lip-service to the belief that the church is the people, they do not practice that belief. The majority of those in the “church” crowd, both pastors and members, spend a great deal of time telling people that they need to be in church, attend church, go to church or some other form of be in church when the doors are open exhortation. If there is a problem in someone’s life, quite often the comment, “If they were in church this wouldn’t have happened”, is stated. Bottom line, church attendance is primetime preaching. One simply has to attend during the set time, for the set period, at the set place, or he’s not in church. I’m glad that many understand, in word, that the church is not the building, but that’s not what they practice. In this case, actions speak louder than words.

Aaron admits something that people rarely admit, that many are leaving the church. In fact, the exodus is so large that the brand Aaron and I would most closely resemble, Fundamental Baptist, seems set to vanish with our generation. Be honest pastors and church goers. There is an enormous age gap in your congregation. There are those who are 50+, very few 20-50 year olds, and children. I don’t care much for “studies” or “statistics”, but in this case, no matter the philosophical or theological bent, there is near total agreement that once children become 18 year olds they are out of their childhood churches. More damning for the system, is that those people rarely come back, hence the current discussion. A recent article done by shock-columnist Matt Walsh, a Catholic, illustrates the point. Church is boring. It’s not boring because the service is traditional, as he says contemporary services are also boring. So, don’t focus on how the show is run, the show is boring no matter how it’s acted out. There is a deeper, and stolidly neglected, issue here, but more on that later.

I can wholeheartedly understand where Aaron is coming from in his Full Disclosure section. I was there. I was a teacher, coach, youth director, visitation leader… in a church-school. By worldly standards, I was somewhat successful too. One can find my name in the Who’s Who registry twice for my work as an educator. I won two state soccer championships as a coach. I was involved in a vibrant visitation program that, by faulty doctrinal standards, boasted 500+ saved. The youth group I worked in boasted numbers greater than most of the churches still in existence across America. I was set in the Fundamental Baptist Circle. That’s what I knew, it’s how I was raised, it’s who educated me.

Oddly enough, some of the constant praise that is heaped upon Christian educators/leaders goes something like this, “We/They could be doing this somewhere else, for much more money, but chose to serve for much less.” For a while I believed this. I’m sure many others did and do. Aaron alludes to the same thought when he commented about an increase in pay. It’s frankly not true. This is not intended to sound bitter, please do not take it that way. Our education, our work, our life within that circle is only useful within that circle.  When I came to that realization, I was petrified. I knew I had to leave, but fear kept me in the wrong place for at least a year and a half too long. My fears were justified when I resigned my position, took an office job at a startup company that folded two months after I moved to upstate NY , was unemployed for four months, and found a part-time job at Best Buy. After that I moved back home to Virginia to try to reset and start over.

The reality is that all of my education, my BA, my MA, my previous positions did not mean much outside of the circle. If people were honest, they’d admit this too. In fact, Fundamental Baptist schools do realize this, and are now caving under pressure to accredit themselves. It’s an admission of this reality. (See more about what accreditation actually entails here and here). This opens up an entirely different discussion which cannot be handled in this article.

Aaron is to be praised at least for admitting that a “leaving the church as he sees it” viewpoint threatens his work. It is his self-proclaimed vocation. But therein lies the main crux of the institutional church argument. As he says, he’s spent 11 years working for a church, and he’s been paid based upon the premise of I Timothy 5:17. Aaron rightly concludes that according to the “Done” viewpoint his position as a salaried pastor would be abolished. That’s a scary proposition, as I detailed above. He’d have to restart his life in his 30’s, but this time with a family to clothe, feed, and shelter. I appreciate his honesty. I have no other reason but to believe he’s being honest when he says that he shares some of the same concerns offered by the “Done” crowd, even if he finds some of it frustrating (or scary).

Now for the meat. His questions.

How do you practice Ephesians 4:11-16 in your Christian Life? Perhaps I’m not fully following Aaron’s line of thought. Is he saying that Ephesians 4:11-16 can only be accomplished within a local church’s four walls? I’m really not sure. If so, then how much of what is listed in the passage is being done by one man in the institution setting? It seems that Ephesians 4, as well as other passages throughout the New Testament illustrate many people, who all have functions within the church. For instance, the Holy Grail of the “Go To Church” crowd, Hebrews 10:25, states one another. Institutional churches just don’t reach the standard of one another doing the ministry. How does the terrible cliché go? 90% of the work is done by 10% of the people. Isn’t that an illustration of how Ephesians 4 is not being done properly in the institutional setting?

Since the question was, “How does the ‘Done’ crowd do Ephesians 4, I should illustrate how we do it. We do it by actively evangelizing the lost, we do it by actively discipling one another, we do it by actively fellowshipping together. All aspects of Ephesians 4 are covered therein.  The key is that we are all involved, instead of just one of us talking to all of the others. It’s not too hard actually. In fact, it’s only possible in a smaller setting. I used to think that the fact that institutional church failure to do this passage was winked at by God under the “There’s no such thing as a perfect church” comment. The problem is that mindset is damning in that it cheapens Christ’s commands for what the church is and is to be doing. (I use the term church here in the purest Biblical sense of the word, as a body of individual believers serving Christ in communities all over the world).

I must admit that I have no idea where Aaron is coming from by referencing Hebrews 3-4 in a church context. In context the passage is referring to lost Jews, who need to enter into the rest of Christ. It’s all about turning from sin and accepting their Messiah. Forgive my ignorance, Aaron, if you read this, please enlighten me as to why you included this passage.

As for I Corinthians 14, I agree, it is about corporate, mutual member ministry. Again, one another as mentioned in Hebrews 10, which you also reference. I Corinthians 14 can only be done well in smaller settings. Once a certain group size has been exceeded, doing the commands within the group become strained at best. I’ve never seen an institutional church of any size, and I’ve been in both small and mega churches, properly carry out I Corinthians 14 or Hebrews 10.

As for Hebrews 10, I mentioned in my comment thread that this passage has nothing to do with going to church. In context this is part of a whole. It is a message to the Jews (Hence the name of the book), about their need to accept Christ. Church is just not part of the subject matter at all. Hebrews 10 is even less so. Look at how the chapter starts and finishes. It starts with a discussion about the Law, continues with comments about paying for sin, then it goes into an evangelism call in verses 24-25. It is a call for saved Jews to not forsake unsaved Jews, but to compel them to repent and trust in Christ. It is of necessity not a church passage, but a salvation passage. The chapter finishes by strongly encouraging those who know the Bible (Old Testament) to see how Christ fulfills all of those promises, and believe on Him.

Either way, let’s play the Hebrews 10:24-25 game for a second. The passage states –

And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

Does everyone in your church exhort each other? It’s not just the pastor’s responsibility. It’s everyone’s responsibility. The modern pulpit/pew system does not allow for one another exhortation. It’s not a command to go to church at all, even out of context. It’s a command on how to be around other believers, once again, out of context. Most churches are filled with gossip, bitterness, and hatred, let alone pride and apathy. In that setting how do those churches fulfill Hebrews 10 or I Corinthians 14? Love? Good Works?

Aaron’s next question is about who does the shepherding for the Done crowd. He cites Acts 20:28-29 and I Peter 5:1-4 as support. Both passages are fun for me.

Acts 20 is Paul’s final words of sorts to the elders at Ephesus, as noted in v. 17.  I Peter also seems to be final words of sorts, for the book at least. The comments are also addressed to elders. Now, the question is, who are the elders? Are they pastors? Let’s use the passage that Aaron cited in I Timothy 5. In context, the passage is written by Paul, an apostle, not a pastor, to Timothy, a pastor, about how to treat Elders within his body of believers. Did you get all of that? According to Aaron’s, and other pastors’, viewpoint, I Timothy 5 is about how pastors should receive double honor (that is a salary in most cases). It’s also about how they, the pastor/elder, should be respected as an authority. But Timothy was the pastor, not an elder. The elders were those within Timothy’s group, both men and women as the passage talks about both genders, who deserved double honor because of the godly lives they lived. (a side note, if elders are pastors, then women pastors are supported by this passage).

One other thing to mention from Acts 20, Paul sets up the way that a ministry worker should support himself in vss. 33-35. He should work. Paul worked, he was a tentmaker, as we know. This exhortation, however, is quite practical in that a ministry worker who takes no money cannot be compromised by making a living by serving Christ. Note Paul’s further comments about work in II Thessalonians 3 as well as how Paul said that his taking money would hinder the gospel’s sake in I Corinthians 9:12. So that leaves me begging the question, why do Pastors take a salary?

I Peter 5 is a bad passage for Aaron to use in terms of vocation, that is, being in the ministry and receiving a paycheck (v2). But let’s put that aside for a second. Peter was an elder, but we never see him as a pastor as such. He is an apostle and certainly an evangelist. He claims to be an elder here as well, and I’m sure that by the time this was written, he was an elder. I say all of that to illustrate that this passage is to older/wiser in Christ people of the church. This is a how to act as an elder exhortation, not a call for pastors to some sort of spiritual authority.

On the same topic of authority Aaron references Hebrews 13:7 and 17. Again, this book is written to the Hebrews, and so much of this chapter is full of Jewish comments. Priests are mentioned, sacrifices are mentioned, the Law in various forms is mentioned. What is not mentioned are pastors. I do understand the idea that the pastor as a ruler seems to fit in here, but it does not anywhere else in the New Testament. That makes me wonder if there is another way that this passage must be viewed. The biggest question for me is that before Christ’s throne is my pastor going to be standing next to me? That’s how some pastors view it, not necessarily Aaron mind you.  The reality is that we will all stand alone before Christ to give an account, so please, don’t think that you and your church will be behind your pastor, who then gives an account. That’s, quite bluntly, nonsense.

Ultimately, and I don’t mean to sound too pious, we all give an account to Christ for what we choose to do for Him. We are guided by the Holy Spirit, as Christ said in John, and as John further expounded upon in I John 2:20 and 27. I don’t need a man to “shepherd” me. That sounds to me like a curiously Catholic trap. Whether or not it was intended to be stated as such.

As for evangelism and further fellowship thereafter. The current church model is horrifically broken, let’s be honest. A typical visitation program has well less than 10% of its members attend. Out those who do attend, they may seek one on one conversations with strangers, but more than likely the idea is to visit those who visited the church service. In so doing a paltry number of people may be reached at all. Of those who “get saved” very few ever attend that church. Even fewer than that are ever “discipled” in any Biblically meaningful way. Witnessing should be one on one, and discipling should also be one on one. We do that. It helps to create very strong ties and much deeper fellowship.

Baptism and “Communion” as you term it are extremely simple. We baptize after we see fruits meet for repentance. Communion for us is so much easier than for those within the institutional setting. We do not fellowship with (knowingly) lost people. We do our best to not invite lost people to fellowship with us at all, based entirely upon the many exhortations to not have fellowship with unfruitful works of darkness, cast out the leaven, etc. that you well know. So, when we partake of Lord’s Supper, it’s a joyous occasion much unlike the somber dirges found within the organ-plagued institutional church.

Those with spiritual gifts are to use them. I’ve touched upon “one another” more than enough already. How do your churches handle them? Do others get to lead the Sunday service, or preach, or teach on Wednesday night?

I confess that I do not understand the point of the “that was then” comments in Aaron’s article. Most often when I hear that comment it is, well that was then in the New Testament, we aren’t in a nation which persecutes Christians anymore, so we can meet freely, openly. Warning! Christians are to be salt and light. They’ve never been accepted by the world. If you feel that we’re free and open to serve Christ, then you’ve never boldly proclaimed the gospel for any meaningful period. Christ promised His followers in John 15 that they SHALL suffer persecution. This illustrates the point that modern American Christianity, which suffers little or no persecution, has lost its savor. That, or Christ is a liar. You choose.

What did weddings and funerals in the Bible look like? Is this even a Biblical argument? Come on now. The lost get married and have funerals in churches all of the time. Cultural norms do not equal Biblical practices. Besides, weddings and funerals within churches as we know them today, though not necessarily evil, is a hold-over from the Catholic Church, who used to institute those things for monetary purposes. (Check Charlemagne and William the Conqueror, both tools of the Papacy, out for something of an idea here).

Mathew 18 and 1 Corinthians 5!? If churches practiced this today, then no church would have more than 15 people therein. I mean, really, truthfully practiced this. Which sins, what level of sin, what excuses for sinning, are given in practicing or not practicing discipline? Let’s be honest, church discipline in the institutional setting is near impossible, which is why it is rarely, if ever done. Don’t kid me, I was a Navy brat, so I’ve been to many churches, north, south, east, and west.  I’ve seen it all, and the exception does not disprove the reality that discipline, if it happens at all, only happens for the “Big” sins, whatever that means. Those sins may go punished, meanwhile all the other “little” sins go unpunished or unnoticed. It’s so easy to hide in the institutional church, that’s why.

Finally, missions is questioned. I don’t want to fellowship with people who don’t have the same zeal for reaching the lost as I do. We seek out places where the lost are – hint, that’s anywhere, and, yes, sometimes we do what Paul did, which is, visit religious establishments to pull some out. It’s not hard to find lost people, which really makes me wonder why Aaron asks the question in the first place. What’s hard, is finding people who are truly saved with whom to fellowship.

Aaron, this is to you directly now. I’m glad that you’re angered with the things you mentioned in the end of your article. I’m more hopeful that your church does not experience those things. I can understand why you’re not “done yet.” I believe I’ve answered most of your questions, and perhaps raised a few more. I think you’ll honestly consider them, research them, and pray to God for wisdom.  You asked at the end, “what are you prepared to do to help the rest of us?” Well, for one, I opened up the conversation. I raised the issues, answered your questions, illustrated what I perceive to be flaws (if my narrow viewpoint is worth anything), and tried to illustrate a better way to do all the things you mentioned.  My question for you is can you honestly, biblically support church as it is being done now? I fear you may not, because you have a lot to lose. I no longer have anything to lose, it has already all been lost. That has allowed me much greater freedom to serve Christ.

Shia LaBeouf and Spiritual Warfare

On October 29, 2014 I decided, perhaps somewhat foolishly, to smack a hornet’s nest. There’s, for whatever reason, a little boy inside most men, and that little boy loves to tempt fate. He loves to say, “Hey, I wonder how far I can go before the danger hits, and the pain arrives.” That was me after my wife informed me about an apparently newsworthy article proclaimed that Hollywood actor Shia LaBeouf had become a Christian was excitedly posted on former evangelist, now pastor, Greg Locke’s Facebook page. Let me first say, before I go any further, that I’d be included with the most excited if Shia indeed did repent and accept Christ. My concern, however, is that he is just one of an incredibly long line of imposters, who have fooled many for a very long time. Other such notables from this long list of supposed Christians include big names such as Constantine the Great, Napoleon, Beyonce, Barack Obama, Eminem, and whatever celebrity who has just won a shiny award. Again, I would love it if all on this list were truly born again, but when they’re lined up against God’s standards in the Old Testament, as well as Christ’s standards in the New Testament they’re found lacking. That should be apparent, but the truly depressing thing is that those professing Christ as well as following in His sound doctrine, cannot tell when someone is still lost in sin.

So, I smacked the hornet’s nest with these thoughts in mind. I knew what the outcome would be. Pain. What I’ve learned, through my own foolishness, is that slowly smacking a hornet’s nest brings about greater pain. The best way to smack a nest is to quickly, purposefully, with utmost intent do the intended action. Be bold, one will still receive pain, but it won’t be as great as if done slowly. This seems to hold as true with hornets as it does with people. This is why at times a full frontal assault into enemy lines is the best course of action. It will hurt, but in the end the job will have successfully been done. Maybe the Holy Spirit had this in mind when He had Paul write these words in II Timothy 2 –

1Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.

2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

3 Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ.

4 No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.

5 And if a man also strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned, except he strive lawfully.

6 The husbandman that laboureth must be first partaker of the fruits.

Being nice in a battle can, and often does, get one killed. It’s been my experience that when dealing with a religious crowd, both saved and lost, that being “nice” when exposing issues of doctrinal error or sin leads to much the same outcome figuratively. It does no good to dance around the serious issues of life/death, heaven/hell, sin/repentance. Such a weak approach allows the person in question to take charge of the conversation and steer it away from the issues at hand. The lost always bring up non-issues once they’ve been convicted of sin. The religious lost do so too, but add venom to their statements. (If you don’t believe me, fine. But I’d challenge you, reader, to go find a religious group that disagrees with you, and show them from the Bible that they’re one heartbeat from Hell. Let me know how it goes. If you don’t want to do that, repent of your fear of man, and go. If you still refuse, then at least look at how the religious crowds in the Bible treated Christ and His followers). It is a battle. A violent battle.

In warfare the side who has the best reconnaissance can plan the most decisive and devastating attacks. Once a soldier knows who the enemy is, and how to defeat him, the soldier can accomplish his mission with aggressive celerity. On the other hand, if the soldier knows his mission, but does not know who his enemy is or how to handle him, he’ll be doublemined and cower. On the battlefield, doublemindedness will render a soldier inept at best, and dead at least. With that in mind it is of the utmost importance to know who is in your army. He must be identifiable. If he’s not, then either you or the soldier next to you could suffer serious casualties. God knows this, which is why He not only gave the marching orders, but also gave a clear description of who the enemy is. Further, because He knew that communication is of the greatest importance in a battle, He repeated His orders and His details many times. Consider the orders found in just a few places – Matthew 28:19-20, Mark 16:15, Luke 24:44-47, John 20:21-23, Acts 1:8. Then who consider we’re fighting – Ephesians 6:12, 2 Corinthians 11:14-15, 1 Peter 5:8 – just to name a few. Finally, what characteristics illustrate those on the enemy’s team – Romans 1:18-32, Galatians 5:19-21, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 John – again, just to name a few passages. God never sent us into a battle unprepared. He does expect us to know the difference between saved and lost (eg. Matthew 13, Sheep/Goats, Wheat/Tares; John 3 Light/Darkness). We should not be ashamed of knowing this truth. (Romans 1:16).

Yet Satan has a goal, he wants to keep the lost lost. Knowing this plan, we, as ordered soldiers of Christ, must move boldly and swiftly to defeat Satan’s plan by definitively convicting the lost of transgressing God’s Law, and encouraging them to repent and put faith in Christ to save from sin. Those are clear marching orders. The problem that so often occurs is that Satan tries to play with the communications delivered from above. He and his followers attempt to operate as double agents, and infiltrate in such a way that they’re often undetected by the soldier who has not clearly understood or heard the God-given orders and descriptions. Those who are found to be double agents are swiftly, and boldly handled (Matthew 18, 1 Corinthians 5, 2 Thessalonians 3). Having such a person remain in your camp will destroy it from the inside out. This is why such actions are to be taken seriously, and done swiftly, as commanded in Scripture. (Do note that anyone can be fooled, and can be fooled for some time, for instance Paul with Demas). Once that person has been revealed; however, he must be boldly, and often emphatically handled, such as how Paul handled Alexander the Coppersmith, or how John called out Diotrephes. Was it pretty? Was it nice? Conversely this is why it appears that Christians were so cautious in the New Testament. They understood that if one were truly born again then the fruits of the Spirit would be genuine proof of conversion. Further, did they hate sin the same way God does. Did they desire fellowship with the brethren? Did they desire the things of God? Did they remain entangled with the things of the world? Did they desire to spread the warning of sin/judgment and the Gospel? If no to these things, then the Christian knew that true conversion did not take place. Satan wants to frustrate this, but in the end, he cannot replicate a truly converted person. He can only blur the lines to knowing who is truly converted. He’s been blurring those lines for quite some time now, and sadly, with success.

With this understanding in mind I stood against the assertion that Shia LaBeouf is a genuine convert. I’d love to be wrong, believe me. Alas, it appears that he fails the tests above. Let me explain it another  way, those who are doing the things of God “shall suffer persecution” John 15. Christ promised that. Granted Americans don’t suffer Roman-style persecution, let alone Soviet, Nazi, or other Religious persecution that many others do, and are suffering. But Americans do not tolerate, even if they don’t feed Christians to the lions, Christ’s message of sin-death-Hell unless one repents. If Shia were truly born again, we’ll see this happen to him very soon. We’ll also see the 9 fruits of the Spirit evidenced in his life very soon, as well as the other things listed above. I honestly, and wholeheartedly, pray we do see this. If not, proclaiming that he’s saved, and never dealing with the very real and serious issues of sin-death-Hell and repentance, then we’re only creating a very staunchly religious lost person. He still goes to Hell. Such action is equivalent of treason in the spiritual sense. In warfare, treason is punishable by death. As such, God pronounced a curse against those who preach another Gospel (Galatians 1:8). These matters are to be taken with utmost gravity. When someone deviates from the marching orders, serious rebukes must be given in order to save the life of the soldier, as well as those with whom the soldier may come into contact. Ask a soldier who has been rebuked if his punishment was nice. If the punishment was not well received, an even harsher punishment could be given. If still not received, the soldier may be subject to court-martial or shot in a time of war. In spiritual terms, that person is to no longer be fellowshipped with. He may well have been a transformed angel of light wreaking havoc within the body of Christ.

I sincerely hope that those offended at my rebuke do not fall in the latter camp. My fear is that they are not enduring sound doctrine, and are not receiving sound rebuke – as evidenced by their name-calling after my sharp rebuke. That’s what the religious crowds did to Christ before Christ lambasted them with a bombastic reply in Matthew 23. That’s what Paul endured in Acts. All of those crowds thought that they were doing God’s service, but they had no scriptural backing for support. My greatest fear, however, is that this crowd has been duped by an infiltrator, and are in fact marching under a different flag. If this be the case, please, examine yourselves whether ye be in the faith. (2 Corinthians 13:5) There’s no time to lose.

As for Shia LaBeouf. He had this to say about his apparent conversion. Maybe Greg Locke others did not see it. Maybe they did, and are holding out hope. That’s fine. If you want to hold out hope, great, but do so based upon Biblical lines. I said what I did, the way I did it, because a lost life is a serious thing, and bad doctrine keeps people lost. One may take offense at how I said it, fine. But no one on that thread attempted to answer my comments with scripture. That being the case, I infer that the issue with my comments was not one of scripture or doctrine, but one of feeling or emotion. If that be true, then repentance of pride is necessary, and a steady searching of the scriptures like the Bereans in Acts 17 is absolutely needed in order to not be counted as the Laodiceans in Revelation 3. I earnestly pray I’m wrong.

So, I hit the nest. The hornets are now buzzing about. Now I know who are hornets, and who are not. I did not want to offend, but felt it necessary in order to help maybe just one save some eternal pain. 

*Nota Bene: Greg Locke has blocked my from his page and unfriended me since this encounter. I cannot see any new comments that have been posted to the thread.

Dr. Dave's "Would You Pass a Basic Bible Quiz?" from www.truthreallymatters.com

4. Would you pass a basic Bible quiz?
July 8, 2013

Christian . . . Are you growing in knowledge of God’s word? Paul wrote to the Philippians (1:9), “And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment.” Love among and for the brethren must be grounded in truth, in the knowledge of God’s word. You are no help to your hurting brother in Christ if you offer him warm, fuzzy psycho-babble. Love him by sharing Biblical truth that can strengthen, encourage, and direct. Paul desires the believers to grow “in all judgment” – discernment. The Christian that falls for the next spiritual fad is of no use in God’s work . . . especially in evangelism. If you love the lost, you had better be able to show him his errors in reasoning so that you can show him his sins and his need for the Savior.

So I offer a basic Bible quiz, especially for adults who have been believers for several (or many) years. I promise that this quiz is ‘basic’ – elementary. I have resisted what might be considered advanced topics. I have also avoided what some could term ‘trivia’ . . . for example, how did Balaam finally assist Balak to get the Israelites cursed? Even though such topics are not ‘trivia’ at all. We should be familiar with the historical accounts which God has provided for our instruction – Romans 15:4.

Since this is an elementary quiz, a qualifying test for basic Bible knowledge, a passing grade would mean at least 90% of questions answered thoroughly. I’m not trying to stump anyone. You really should know this stuff!

Is this quiz thoroughly comprehensive on THE MOST VITAL questions on THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL truths? No, of course not. Consider it to be a ‘typical’ basic quiz. Teachers: if you decide to actually test your students, and you don’t like this quiz, then construct one at an equivalent level. For example, replace the question about Jeremiah with one about Isaiah.

Regarding pastors / elders . . . the test is not meant for you to take. It should be embarrassing if you have any trouble with it. Rather, you can use this test to evaluate whether you have fulfilled your responsibilities. If the people you teach fail to pass, then you fail. Something needs to change . . . don’t just preach louder!

So, before we begin . . . Don’t get nervous! . . . be assured that if you fail you can recover and re-qualify. I’ll have some comments at the end to suggest how to correct whatever deficiencies you uncover – in your own knowledge or as you re-embrace your responsibility to others.

Section #1: Closed Bible questions . . . you are allowed only pencil and paper.
Time limit: 2 hours

Q1: List all 10 of the 10 commandments. (See, I told you this test would be easy!)

Q2: Explain how the Lord Jesus, in His earthly ministry, taught the moral law. Did He affirm it, diminish it, or amplify it? Give some specific examples from His teaching.

Q3: Why did the nation of Israel split? Which tribes split? Describe the spiritual development of both parts of the nation until the Babylonian captivity. Give several specific examples to illustrate this development.

Q4: Which Old Testament prophet is most despised by modernists, because of his detailed prophecies concerning the centuries to follow? Give a couple of examples of his prophecies which were fulfilled before the 1st coming of Christ.

Q5: What was the historical context surrounding Jeremiah’s ministry – namely, what was the big problem? What was his bad news? What wonderful hope did he offer?

Q6: Which of the 4 Gospel accounts is ‘different’ from the other 3? Explain how.

Q7: Describe 3 Old Testament ‘types’ fulfilled in the New Testament. (For example, the Passover lamb, without blemish, was slain and its blood used to deliver anyone who applied it properly – to the doorposts. The fulfillment is the sinless Lamb of God, Jesus Christ, whose blood cleanses from sin anyone who repents and believes . . . thus, the Passover Lamb is a deliberate God-given ‘type’ to point to Christ . . . now, describe 3 other types.)

Q8: What was the main problem that Paul addressed in his letter to the churches of Galatia and what was his argument to correct the problem?

Q9: Name at least 5 of the 7 churches listed in Revelation chapters 2 and 3. Summarize the messages given to 2 of them.

Q10: Quote from memory 5 verses from the OT and 5 verses from the NT. Quote them perfectly.

Section #2: Open Bible questions . . . you are allowed pencil, paper, and a plain Bible with no commentary notes, cross references, or appendices.
Time limit: 2 hours

Q1: Use Scripture to support the doctrines of the Trinity and the Deity of Christ.

Q2: Find passages from 3 different OT books that prophesy the 1st coming of Christ. Explain their significance (namely, don’t just list the verses).

Q3: Find passages from 3 different OT and 3 different NT books that prophesy the 2nd coming of Christ.

Q4: Some people assert that Paul and James contradict each other regarding the relationship among faith, works, and salvation. Use Scripture and explain how these two NT writers are in perfect accord.

Q5: Use several OT and NT passages to demonstrate the ‘young earth creationist’ position.

Q6: Use the Bible to show that a believer immediately goes to Heaven when he dies, and that an unbeliever goes to Hell. (Not talking about final judgment . . . but in this present age.)

Q7: Use Scripture to identify at least 15 characteristics of a growing, sanctified follower of Christ.

Q8: Use Scripture to identify at least 15 characteristics of lost people.

Q9: Use at least 3 different books of the Bible to show that Scripture commands us to identify and separate from false teachers.

Q10: Show from the Bible that tithing is God’s method to support the NT churches in order for them to build costly facilities and to pay salaried clergy / staff who must graduate from Bible colleges and be ordained by others who have also done so. (Good luck with this one!!)

Section #3: History of God’s people since the 1st century . . . you are allowed only pencil and paper.
Time limit: 2 hours

Q1: Pick any 5 historical ‘good guys’ out of the following list and describe the significance of their work.

- John Wycliffe
- Erasmus
- William Tyndale
- John Wesley
- Shubal Stearns
- Hudson Taylor or Adoniram Judson
- Charles Spurgeon

Q2: Pick any 4 historical ‘bad guys’ out of the following list and describe the trouble they caused.

- Origen
- Augustine
- Ignatius of Loyola
- B. F. Westcott and/or F. J. A. Hort
- Rick Warren
- Rob Bell or Brian McLaren

Q3: Christian authors . . . Pick either John Bunyan or Henry Morris and describe his principal work and its significance.

Q4: Explain in a few paragraphs how God has preserved His inerrant word and propagated independent local churches since the 1st century . . . apart from and despite the efforts of the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant churches that came out of the Reformation. Mention at least 2 groups of believers that thrived under persecution during the Middle Ages.

Section 4: Practicum . . . Open Bible – you may use a cross-referenced study Bible, plus pen and paper.
Time limit: 2 hours

Q1: You are with an elderly, life-long committed Roman Catholic man who is on his deathbed . . . He has about 10 minutes to live. He insists that he believes in Jesus as his Savior. Show him from the Bible what his fatal errors are and what he must do.

Q2: You share lunch with a young, college-educated Muslim. Start on common ground – the law of Moses – and explain to him the differences between God and Allah, the Gospel and the Muslim’s hope for Paradise, and what he must do to be saved.

Q3: Use your Bible to refute the false Calvinist doctrines of Total Depravity and Unconditional Election. Explain how these doctrines, when embraced in youth, can prevent someone from understanding the Biblical Gospel and becoming a born again believer.

Q4: An atheist insists that he will not listen to your Bible quotes, since he doesn’t believe the Bible to be true. You must first convince him that God might exist. Give him at least 3 affirmative arguments for God being real, and then at least 3 arguments from your general knowledge of basic science to show that evolution is obviously false.

Q5: Give 3 examples where Jesus tried to reach an individual lost soul in the Gospel accounts. Explain His methodology in each case.

Q6: Explain briefly the major differences between Peter’s open-air argument in Acts 2 and Paul’s corresponding message on Mars Hill. How can you apply these principles to your own personal evangelism?

Q7: Do you have at least 100 verses in your current memory bank? Answer simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’.

Q8: If you have been a believer for several years, have you read the Bible through several times? If many years . . . many times? Answer simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’.

Q9: In the last month, have you ‘practiced’ your responsibility in evangelism by sharing the Gospel with at least 5 lost people – who were strangers to you? ‘Sharing the Gospel’ must include pointing out that their sins will bring judgment and Hell, and that they must repent – forsake their sins, and trust Christ . . . which will be demonstrated by a new birth and a changed life; ie., you didn’t take shortcuts. Answer simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’.

Q10: In the last month have you prayed in tears for the burden of another believer. Answer simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. (Do you know why this question is both relevant and important?)

- end of exam – Whew! Tired? Oh, sorry, too long? Have you ever taken the SAT or ACT? How about the GRE (Graduate Record Exam)? Were they too long? How about all of those Finals Weeks in college? Oh, but those were to test important skills, you say. Why would anyone be bothered with testing Bible knowledge?

Isn’t it interesting how ‘discipleship’ – in practice – seems to consist of about 2 or 3 hours per week of sitting under Sunday School lessons and pulpit sermons . . . for decades . . . with no accountability, no exams, no apparent care whether anyone learns anything! The secular world does far better than that. Engineers are not merely lectured to for a few years and then unleashed to build bridges and computers. Pediatricians in training do more than watch Power Point shows before you entrust them with your sick child. Lawyers must repeatedly demonstrate knowledge and skills in rhetoric and writing before they will be licensed by the state.

But the greatest work in God’s universe – making and developing disciples of Jesus Christ – involves no real training, no testing, no care whether anyone ‘gets it’ or not. The few young folks who develop any noticeable zeal are sent off to ‘Bible College’ and become hirelings to some other congregation. Now they are the ones in the pulpit conducting 2-hour per week ‘discipleship’ lectures for the ‘laity’ in the pews. (See my article, “Don’t go to Bible college.”)

Did you pass the exam? Great! Get ready for more advanced study! Those questions were really just elementary . . . surely, you agree. Any 16-year-old raised in a Christian family should pass easily. You wouldn’t send your children out into the pagan / apostate / humanistic world without knowing at least this much, would you?!?

Did you fail? Ok, don’t get discouraged. Do something about it! If your ‘discipleship’ training has been via the traditional failed system described above, then figure out the NT model for yourself . . . described in several articles in the Discipleship section of this site. Man up! You are going to stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ – the ultimate test!!! – and give an account for your own life, and for the discipleship responsibilities you have for your wife, your children, and other believers around you.

Don’t just drift along in the system. I’m hoping that for someone out there that this little quiz might be a wakeup call.

There is a spiritual war on and you need some armor and some weapons!!! 
It’s your job . . . your pulpit-pew system is blocking your growth. It’s not helping . . . at least be honest with yourself.

Feel free to correspond if you like. I’m not trying to convince paid clergy – they are committed to their facilities and salaries and . . . they fear for their paychecks, which depend on an unbiblical distinction between clergy and laity. (See 1 Peter 2:9 and Rev 1:6). But you know that you should invest in the gifts God has given you. And follow His way toward spiritual growth and usefulness in the greatest calling of all – The Great Commission.

- drdave@truthreallymatters.com

Dr. Dave's "Honest Skeptic or Stubborn Scoffer? — Analysis of the Resurrection" (From TruthReallyMatters.com)

Honest Skeptic or Stubborn Scoffer? — Analysis of the Resurrection

Are you an honest skeptic or a stubborn scoffer?

– A historical analysis of the resurrection of Jesus Christ

The resurrection of Jesus Christ was either the greatest event in human history or else a cruel hoax. Where do you stand? As the apostle Paul wrote (1 Cor 15:14): “And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.” But if he is risen . . . well, that changes everything, if you have the sense to think it through.

Let’s stipulate that Biblical Christianity rises and falls on the historical truth of the resurrection. That’s what this booklet is about: to help you get over whatever intellectual barriers you have so you can come face to face with the Lord Jesus Christ — your Creator, your Judge, and hopefully (if you choose) your Saviour. You may have additional “intellectual” barriers associated with evolution, the origin of evil in the world, what happens to people who never hear the Gospel, etc. Those are easily answered, but outside the scope of this short booklet.

The discussion below is from the following viewpoint: Take the presupposition that the New Testament record is the inerrant, inspired word of God. And then observe whether all the evidence conforms to this foundation, or doesn’t. (It does.) Is this record internally consistent? Does the behavior of the parties involved conform to common sense and human experience? How do the Gospels, the eyewitness testimonies of the four evangelists, serve as a foundation for the early history of Christianity — namely, could the historical events pertaining to the early churches in the first two centuries have any other explanation but that the New Testament record is true? And, not least, do the sum of the parts, and the whole itself, have the “ring of truth” that would serve to transform the life of an individual in the 21st century, as we read of the lives revolutionized in the 1st?

This tract is written for the reader who is seeking truth, and not for a determined scoffer. If you care about the meaning of your life and the certainty of your death and judgment to come, then begin by investing some time in reading the accounts of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth as found in the last few chapters of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John — 4 eyewitness accounts that transformed the world. Then read a few chapters of Luke’s account of the history of the early churches in the New Testament book of Acts.

By the way, the “textbook” for this mini-course is the King James Bible. Don’t be satisfied with watered down, error-ridden modern translations. The KJB is the only English translation you can trust. We could prove that to you, but that’s another course!

If you’re still a scorner at heart, I don’t expect you’ve read even this far. Until you open your mind a bit, there is no hope, as the Bible repeatedly attests. “A scorner seeketh wisdom and findeth it not: but knowledge is easy unto him that understandeth.” (Prov 14:6) It is the Lord that “giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding.” (Prov 2:6) The promise is made to all persons of all ages: “Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near.” (Is 55:6) The Lord himself implored, “Seek, and ye shall find.” (Matt 7:7) If the Bible is not true and there is no Saviour, then there is no hope for anyone and life itself is short, mean, and pointless.

But what if God’s word is true? What if there is, indeed, “technology” to overcome death? What if the exclusive license for that technology is in the hands of Jesus, God manifest in the flesh. Is it not worth a few hours of your time to explore and see if there is a God who will keep his promise — namely, that if you seek him, you will find him? At the end of this booklet we will explain to you what you must do if you come to believe in the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is not enough, of course, just to believe in the manner of intellectual assent. If Christ is risen, that must change everything. And you have a decision to make. But first let us turn to various evidences for the resurrection and objections raised by scoffers.

1. Did the disciples steal the body?

This objection was dutifully recorded in Matthew’s Gospel, that the idea of a theft was “commonly reported among the Jews.” The absurdity begins with the picture of a band of terrified disciples, having lost their leader (Jesus) to the public horror and humiliation of Roman crucifixion, quickly regrouping and creating a deception to convince the world that Jesus was risen. After scattering in fright the night before the cross, they now somehow sneak past a band of soldiers to roll (noisily) aside a huge tombstone, and steal away the body.

The practical difficulties are not the main issue, although they should suffice to discredit this charge. The truly unbelievable part of this scenario is the moral character on display throughout the New Testament, in the actions and writings of the very disciples who allegedly create a new cult based on a lie. These men condemned deceit and created a church culture of utter selflessness and honesty. Honesty to the point of yielding their own lives to torture and murder in the years following. Men do not die for something they know to be a lie. Men will indeed die for a lie, such as Islamic suicide bombers. But for the disciples (not just the eleven, but the hundreds who claimed to see the resurrected Christ), to avoid martyrdom, all they had to do was admit that they had been lying. They had every motivation to recant their claims, including loss of family, friends, livelihood, home, health, and life. And no credible motivation to persevere unto death, since they knew whether Christ was truly risen or not. These circumstances are unprecedented in history.

Ultimately, the character of the disciples was just an imperfect reflection of their Master, who walked with them for three years. Jesus affirmed to them repeatedly that He and the Father were one. The Jewish leaders understood that Jesus claimed deity. They tried to kill him several times before he willingly yielded to the cross. Importantly, Jesus told his disciples that he would rise from the dead. This was the preeminent sign that he attached to his life on earth. If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, his entire life’s testimony would be negated, and it is incredible that his followers would create a new cult from the ashes of a false teacher.

In short, without a resurrection, there would have been no Christianity, no New Testament, no Bible, and the last two thousand years of world history would have been entirely different.

2. Did the Jewish or Roman leaders steal the body?

Let’s dispense with this one quickly. To destroy the credibility of Peter, James, John, and the rest of the disciples, and to squash the new movement at its start, Jewish or Roman leaders had merely to produce the body or circulate the facts of its relocation. By the way, the historical record is vacant of any objections to the fact of the empty tomb. The problem is in the disposition of the body. That leads us to point 3.

3. Why was Jerusalem the focal point of this new religion?

Why not in the friendly neighborhood of Galilee — the spiritual home base of the Lord and his disciples? If the resurrection were a scam, nothing would be harder than to make the case publicly and at the risk of liberty and life in Jerusalem, within a tee shot of the garden tomb. And what of that tomb . . .

4. If the resurrection was bogus, why wasn’t Christianity split?

In the three plus years that Jesus preached in Israel, there were many thousands that followed him from venue to venue and loved his teaching. Multitudes would have been grateful for his healings and compassion. Even if you discount the healings, it is undisputed by historians of all stripes that Jesus had enormous impact on the minds and hearts of the people of Israel. So then . . . if a small cabal formed to claim that a resurrected Christ was behind their leadership, would not many — probably a majority of those thousands mentioned above — have continued to love the memory of Jesus and his teachings, while simply disbelieving the claims of Peter, etc.? The garden tomb would doubtless have enjoyed many pilgrimages to commemorate the life and unfortunate death of Jesus. Rumors of alternative burial sites would have abounded. But there is no record in history of any such splits among the early Christians. The testimonies of the resurrected Christ were evidently so powerful that they overwhelmed any possibility of an alternative faith based on the life of Jesus. In fact, we find the miraculous events recorded in the book of Acts to represent stamps of God’s approval on the testimonies of the apostles.

It was only in the centuries to follow, right on up to modern times, from the gnostics of the 2nd century to the denominational modernists of the last few centuries, that we see splits over the virgin birth, deity, and resurrection of Christ. In the times of the eyewitnesses, church faith, doctrine, and polity were unified on the simplicity of the Biblical record.

5. Maybe Jesus didn’t die on the cross.

No serious student of history and of Roman crucifixion takes the so-called “swoon” fantasy seriously. The scourging that Jesus suffered before he was forced to carry his own cross was sufficient to have killed most men outright. The prophet Isaiah reports that “his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men.” The beatings, the scourging, the crown of thorns, climaxed by the bloody horror of crucifixion — it is simply not credible that Jesus survived the cross. The Romans were indeed experts in meting out death. Please re-read the Gospel accounts. The spear in the Lord’s side produced water and blood. The heart’s sack was already distended with water, a clear indication of death before the soldier thrust his spear.

Admittedly, Pilate was a touch surprised that Jesus had died as soon as he did. Crucifixion was intended to be drawn out as miserably long as possible. But it was Jesus who “gave up the ghost.” He laid down his life when the sacrifice (for you, for me, for the world) was “finished.” The Roman soldiers broke the legs of the two thieves crucified that day to accelerate asphyxiation and death. They merely used the spear to doublecheck in the case of Jesus. If this band of soldiers was somehow incompetent up to that point, the spear settled the issue.

A Biblical aside . . . Note that there were three hours of darkness before the final moments of life. That period was doubtless when Jesus became sin itself, and the wrath of God was visited upon him. The darkness is a kindly veil over what was truly the most horrific period in the universe’s history — when the eternal Son of God suffered hell on the cross for the sins of those who put him there: you and me.

But back to the physical. Suppose that somehow he survived all that no man could survive. How did he recuperate from such deadly wounds to unwrap himself from many yards of tightly bound cloth, head to foot, and escape from the sealed tomb? And in such a pitiable state, how did he fool his followers into thinking that he was resurrected, when he would have required help beyond any conceivable medical technology to recover his strength? And then what — did he hide out until he died, while his disciples risked their lives to spread the lie that he ascended bodily to heaven?

6. Were the disciples a likely group to overturn the world?

Note first that the eleven were unanimous in their testimony. Considering the danger (remember that their leader had just been crucified), isn’t it interesting that there were no defections? (Judas Iscariot was out before the crucifixion.) And then quickly a band of 120 were in fervent prayer together. And then 3000 converts in a day, and then thousands more, to spread, as Frank Morrison termed it: “Only from an intensely heated center of burning zeal could this vast field of lava have been thrown out from a tiny country like Palestine to the limits of the Roman world.”

What a motley band, including simple fishermen, a tax collector, and women of various reputations. We know these people better than we know anyone in ancient history, including kings. These lives were utterly transformed, as were the lives of those who believed their testimony in the years ahead. Over the next three centuries the Romans instigated ten distinct decades-long periods of intense persecution, while the churches grew stronger and stronger. The first major Roman persecution, under Nero and just three decades after the resurrection, was launched not because of threatened Christian insurrection, but because of mere refusal to worship the emperor as a god. Persecutions were systematic and widespread, attesting the pervasive spread of the Gospel. Yet ancient writings (by enemies of the Christians!) admit that the believers were loyal citizens, honest, monogamous, and kind to one another.

The New Testament doctrines center on the love of God manifested through the cross of Jesus Christ, the victorious resurrection, the preaching of this Gospel, and the love of the brethren for each other and for their neighbors. Christianity did not spread through the sword, as Islam did centuries later, and continues to do so today. The Gospel has always spread through the love of God shone through the lives of the followers of the carpenter born in Bethlehem.

The character of the apostles is reinforced by the bald openness of the New Testament accounts. We see the lives of these men displayed warts and all: Peter’s impetuousness, anger, and actions provoking rebuke from the Lord; Thomas’ embarrassing doubts; the cowardly flight of the eleven upon the Lord’s arrest; and the painful details of Peter’s three denials. James, the Lord’s half-brother, was once one of the skeptical siblings of Jesus. But after the resurrection, we see him born again and taking the principal leadership of the church at Jerusalem. If the Bible were merely of man, the flaws of the founders would be covered up or at least “spun”! Compare the revisionist histories associated with the founders of Mormonism, the so-called Jehovah’s Witnesses, and especially Islam.

Christianity did not suffer significant weakening or corruption until Constantine married it to paganism and established it as the state church. That produced far more trouble over the centuries to follow as the Roman Catholic Church came into existence in the 4th and 5th centuries, and in turn began to persecute the true Bible-believing local churches. By the way, the crusades launched by the pagan Roman Catholic Church against Islam (and vice-versa) were fully matched in intensity by the persecutions of the RCC against true Christians for the next 1500 years after Constantine. But back to our main topic . . .

7. Perhaps it was a small plot and the rest can be explained by emotionalism.

Please take the time to study the book of Acts carefully, especially chapters 2 and 17. An emotional following might have been more credible with a launching point in Galilee, as already suggested. But the Jewish center of the universe, Jerusalem, demanded much reasoning and, dare we say it, proof, to create converts. Peter’s sermon in chapter 2, of which we most certainly have the barest outline, is a reasoned argument based on Jewish history and Scripture. Furthermore, if there was any doubt about the tomb being empty, or any serious challenge to the credibility of the disciples, the results would have been failure at best, or imprisonment and death at worst.

Turning to Paul in Acts 17:22-31, we see him making a case for God — the one and only Creator — to a mix of atheists/evolutionists and multi-theistic pagans. Throughout Paul’s ministry we see him reasoning and disputing, working to turn the minds of intelligent men and women to the true God. (Acts 18:4, 17:16-17)

8. Just who was Paul, once Saul of Tarsus?

Glad you asked. As you read the book of Acts and the letters of Paul in the New Testament, you’ll see a highly educated Roman citizen, and yet a zealous Pharisee, of the strictest Jewish sect, a hater and persecuter of the Christians, and a murderer by his own admission. His confrontation with the resurrected Jesus Christ, as recorded in Acts 9 and amplified in chapters 22 and 26, produces a 180 degree turnaround. Paul becomes the lead missionary for the western world, suffering repeated persecution and ultimately giving his life for the testimony of the resurrection. Paul’s conversion must be explained by the skeptic. His legacy is merely the rapid growth of the Christian churches in Asia Minor and Europe during the 1st century.

Two young, well-connected British philosophers of the early 18th century determined to attack the foundations of Christianity, specifically the resurrection of Christ and the miraculous conversion of Paul. Gilbert West committed to undermine the resurrection through extensive historical analysis and Lord Lyttleton explored the case of Paul. Meeting after some time had passed, they sheepishly (and disturbingly) admitted to each other that they had come to conclusions opposite to their presumptions. In 1747 West published the book Observations on the History and Evidences of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. On the flyleaf he quoted “Blame not before thou hast examined the truth.”

9. Isn’t it “unscientific” to believe in the resurrection?

It is true that medical science has no means of reviving a body dead for three days. And that no one outside of the records of Scripture has seen someone so revived. Science is the application of known physical laws to observations in the present. Science involves hypothesis, experimentation, modeling, and synthesis to establish theories and laws that allow us to make sense of this present world. Operational science, however, does not claim to embrace all truth for all time. There are no laboratory instruments, for example, to measure truth, beauty, morality, and all those qualities that make human life meaningful. More importantly, man’s operational science says nothing about the Creator God who made this universe. If you have a fundamental difficulty in believing the resurrection, you likely disbelieve Genesis 1:1 . . . “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” Given Genesis 1:1, why is it so inconceivable that God could raise the dead? And given the reality of God as presented in the Bible, why imagine that God has no purpose in his creation? In fact, God invested you as a living soul, made in His image, so that you might live with him in fellowship and glory forever. If you choose.

By the way, arrogance is inbred in the scientific community. The simplest of all physical systems is the hydrogen atom — one proton and one electron. Yet there is no scientist, no PhD, no Nobel prize winner who can tell you just what that electron is doing in that atom. Quantum theory gives us a probabilistic method to make some useful predictions, but the theory is certifiably incapable of specifying what is really going on between the two particles. At the other end of the complexity scale, consider human consciousness. After over a century of intense research, no one has a clue how interactions of neurons, synapses, and the configuration of the brain relates to the “blueness” you perceive when you look at the sky. Or worse, your awareness that you enjoy the blue sky. Could it be that mind — and by extension soul and spirit — go beyond the pitiful limits of human science?

10. Is the resurrection credible to intelligent, well-educated people?

The resurrection of Jesus Christ, not to mention the rest of his life, is the most vigorously investigated topic of ancient history. The greatest of scholars have examined it and many have been converted from skepticism to an active faith in the risen Lord.

Simon Greenleaf, the distinguished professor who put Harvard law school on the map in the 19th century, has been called the greatest authority on legal evidences in the history of the world. When he tackled the case of the resurrection, he concluded without reservation that the event was historical and the Gospel accounts utterly reliable.

Frank Morrison was a British lawyer who set out to write a book repudiating the resurrection. During his research, he became a born again believer, and published the book Who Moved the Stone? to recount his personal transformation and the evidence that convinced him. Lew Wallace similarly intended to write a book to deny the deity of Christ and eventually published the novel Ben Hur, defending the Biblical accounts.

In recent times, Lee Strobel, a skeptical and cynical investigative reporter, was challenged by his newly converted wife to apply his talents to see whether the Bible stands up to reason and criticism. Strobel was first impressed by the awesome changes (for the better) that came over his wife through her conversion. That prompted him to follow the same path that Morrison, Wallace, and many others have taken through history. Strobel became a Christian and has published several books in defense of the faith once delivered to the saints.

This author, too, was once an atheist, a determined skeptic, certain that the Bible was fantasy and that life was to be lived only for self-gratification. When challenged as a young man with the transformed lives of a Christian family who befriended him, he was open to explore the foundations of Biblical belief. He became a Christian whose faith has only been strengthened as he eventually acquired five academic degrees, including a Ph.D. in engineering, and enjoyed a long and successful career in scientific research.

11. Finally, is the resurrection relevant to you?

Perhaps at this point you are willing to believe “the facts” of the resurrection, and the truth of the New Testament record itself. Is that enough? No — intellectual assent just adds to your accountability before God. You see, if you truly believe, your life will change. If you believed that your house was on fire, you would flee. Now, if you truly believe that you are a sinner, one heartbeat from hell, you will do whatever you need to do to escape.

Consider this — in the next 24 hours, your heart will beat about 100,000 times. You don’t control one of those heartbeats. When you die . . . and that’s guaranteed . . . where will you be? Heaven? Hell? Or are you foolish enough to think that you (mind/soul/consciousness) have no reality apart from your present flesh? If you “believe” that, you enter into a contradiction immediately: the atoms of your brain have no capacity to reason. How is it even possible for you to decide between truth and error, logic and illogic, right and wrong? Let’s at least assume that there is a YOU, and you can find out what the truth is about the greatest question facing any man, woman, or child: What lies beyond your death?

What are the facts of your case?

You are a sinner in rebellion against the God of the universe. God is holy, just, and righteous, and must punish sin. Does a good judge let a convicted murderer go free just because the murderer asks sweetly? A good judge must deliver judgment. Read the sermon on the mount (Matthew chapters 5-7) to see whether you stand innocent or guilty in God’s courtroom. Have you been angry without cause or called someone a fool? Jesus pronounces you a murderer at heart. Guilty multiple times? Then you are a serial murderer on God’s books. Murderers are condemned to hell.

Ever tell a lie? Liars will have their part in the lake of fire (Rev 21:8). Ever look on a woman with lust? Pornography is included. Jesus calls that adultery. Adulterers will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9-11).

Face it: You have broken God’s laws thousands of times and you deserve hell. You might say, “Hell — that’s pretty severe, isn’t it? It doesn’t sound reasonable.” God didn’t create hell for you and me, but for the devil and the angels that rebelled against him (Matt 25:41). Satan’s sin was simply rebellion — wanting to “do his own thing.” When you sin against God, thousands and thousands of times, you are in the same rebellion. If you die in your sins, you share the devil’s eventual fate. Why should you get any other consideration? God holds together the very atoms of your body (Col 1:17) while you use those atoms to sin against him.

Here is some good news, the very Gospel itself: God loves you so much that Jesus died for your sins, becoming sin itself on the cross. He paid the penalty for your crimes, satisfying fully the infinite justice of God himself. Jesus was buried, then three days later rose from the dead, proving that he is the very source of life, and has power over death.

Your only way out is to humble yourself, confess your sins to God, repent (turn from your sins, seeing them as rebellion against God), and trust in the shed blood of Jesus Christ. If you repent and believe, God will save your soul, give you the gift of everlasting life, and write your name in his book of life. Your sins will be cast into the depths of the sea, to be remembered no more. You will begin to live a life in service to Jesus Christ, a life that shows the fruit of the Holy Spirit of God, who will take residence in your body. This fruit includes love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and temperance. When you die, you are assured an instantaneous trip to heaven, to the very presence of the Lord. You will escape the fires of hell, your only alternative.

Are you willing to let Jesus be Saviour and Lord? It’s a package deal. There is no “fire escape” without a change of heart. Repentance includes a willingness to let God begin to change your mind and heart. You see, we have no strength in our flesh to put away the sin out of our lives and live righteously in a wicked world. We need the power of God to change our desires, give up our addictions and fleshly desires, and add good things to our daily lives. Does salvation end temptation and make you perfect? No, in this flesh we will always battle temptation. But salvation puts you on a different road, one that leads to life. Right now, you are on the broad road that leads to eternal destruction.

What is it going to be? “Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near: Let the wicked forsake his way and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.” (Is 55:6-7)

Please contact us if we can be of help to you. Not one of us came to the Lord without someone sharing the good news of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That’s just what we want to do with you. Jesus wants you to be “born again” into his family. Once you are, he will never leave you nor forsake you. If you come to Christ, we want to meet you and befriend you as the brother or sister you are to us, once you too, are part of the family of God.

Bibliography

1. King James version of the Bible
2. Frank Morrison, Who Moved the Stone, reprint of the 1930 edition, Faber & Faber, London, 1971.
3. Josh McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Thomas Nelson, Nashville, 1999.
4. Simon Greenleaf, The Testimony of the Evangelists, Kregel Classics, Grand Rapids, 1995, originally published J.C. & Co., New York, 1874.
5. Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1998.
6. D. James Kennedy, Why I Believe, Word Books, Waco, 1980.

- Dr. Dave