Home » Posts tagged 'Jesus' (Page 4)
Tag Archives: Jesus
The Gospel Is the Power of God Unto Salvation, pt. 7
Part One Part Two Part Three Part Four Part Five Part Six
Not long ago in evangelicalism, the terminology “lifestyle evangelism” arose. Early in this series, I wrote that the lifestyle is part of the message, but cannot replace the gospel itself. “The gospel is the power of God unto salvation” (Romans 1:16).
In my encounter with lifestyle evangelism, I found it to mean living a life a Christian should live around an unbeliever. From the unbeliever’s experience with that life, he wants to know what caused it, and asks. Then a Christian can explain in a non-pressure kind of way. I believe the words “lifestyle evangelism” originated in the 1976 book by C. Bill Hogue, titled: Love Leaves No Choice: Lifestyle Evangelism. Many characterize this lifestyle as “nice.” Be nice to people. They want you to be nice to them. Then when they ask what’s different, you connect it to the gospel.
Instead of “Lifestyle Evangelism”
In a technical sense, I do not see lifestyle evangelism in the Bible. The life surely should accompany the gospel. It should not contradict the gospel. Salvation comes through the gospel, which means preaching it. That is what I see in the Bible. Many do not think you are “nice” when you preach the gospel to them.
You want to preach the gospel, because it is the power of God unto salvation. Salvation will not occur without the gospel and it comes through preaching. That does not mean that you keep preaching the gospel to those who refuse to hear it.
Based on Romans 1:16, getting the gospel out to people is getting the power of God unto salvation out to people. What the lost need for their salvation stays away from them, sometimes with the reasoning of lifestyle evangelism. They think they do not want the gospel. Usually they cannot know what they need and that they need the gospel, because they do not have the gospel. The gospel gives the power that begins working toward a desire for salvation.
The Effect of the Knowledge of Romans 1:16
When I get up in the morning, I begin thinking about preaching the gospel. Do I mean going door-to-door? I could mean that. I could ring a doorbell, wait for someone to open the door, and start to try to preach the gospel to someone. What if I do not go door-to-door, does that remove the possibility of preaching it?
I think it is easier to get into the preaching of the gospel by going door-to-door. It ensures I will do that. However, in very cold weather areas or during very cold weather times, not everyone will open the door to listen to you preach. I am not attempting to discourage you from preaching in the Winter in cold weather areas. What if people do not open the door because it is so cold or during a certain time of the year, you will not ring door bells or knock on the door because of the cold?
You have to look for and pray for opportunities to preach the gospel. I call this being aggressive. If I do not go door to door and I want to preach it to someone else, I cannot stay in my house. I have to leave the house to see that happen. I still must go to where people are, and then I give attention to possible opportunities. If it is even possible, I must take that opportunity.
Taking the Opportunity with the Gospel
My wife and I right now are living in a small studio apartment. We have no car, so we walk for what we need. We have a very small refrigerator, so we have to go there more often. As I get old (yes, I’m getting old), I have to stop more often. Sit. Rest. That might mean getting a hot beverage somewhere.
It has been very rainy, cloudy, and dark where my wife and I are. It was sunny yesterday for the first time in I don’t know how long. We both got a coffee and we sat outside of the coffee place in the Winter across from a man, who sat outside. I began talking to him and that turned into a gospel conversation with an explanation of the gospel. Opportunities are there for the one looking for them and taking them. I grabbed it, like reaching for something that I want and taking it off the shelf. I just did it.
When I preached the gospel, it was not forced. It is normal for me to bring the gospel into a conversation. I wasn’t going through the motions, like someone who must just get this done. No, I want to give the gospel, that is, to take opportunities. I do, because the gospel is the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16). I assumed that man across from me was lost and nothing was more important to him than salvation, and so, the gospel.
Know How To Start the Gospel
If you are going to preach the gospel to people, you will need to know how to start. At first, you need to plan that. You prepare for it. You think about that first sentence you will say and the direction you will take. The goal is to get from starting a conversation to preaching the gospel. All of this relates to the gospel being the power of God unto salvation.
Before you ever get to how you start a conversation that leads to the gospel, you must think about how you will encounter people. You will not preach to anyone if you do not see anyone. You have to leave the house to do that. Before you plan on how you begin a gospel conversation, you plan on where you will go to see people.
You may see people all the time. People have many different realms in which they meet people. How do they bring Jesus into those contacts? Very often it starts with the trouble for everyone without the gospel. People know they’re in trouble, which is how Paul begins the gospel in the book of Romans.
The gospel conversation could start earlier than the trouble of the lost person. It could begin with the true nature of mankind. He is not an accident. God made him for a purpose.
I like to say to someone, “When Darwin looked at a cell, he saw a blob.” Today when we look at a cell, we see irreducible complexity. Even on a cellular level, life did not arise from an accident.
More to Come
The Significance of Mediation in Reconciliation and Relationship, pt. 5
Part One Part Two Part Three Part Four
Evangelism itself is a form of mediation, what the Apostle Paul calls “the ministry of reconciliation.” An evangelist mediates between God and a lost soul toward salvation. The sin of a soul offends God, one estranged from Him, and the evangelist mediates with the gospel. When I write that, I do not mean that an evangelist is a mediator, like 1 Timothy 2:5 says that Jesus is. No man comes to the Father except by Jesus Christ (John 14:6).
Ambassadorship Mediation
2 Corinthians 5:18 gives the sense of mediation in evangelism, when it says God “reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ.” Then it follows, “and hath given unto us the ministry of reconciliation.” Jesus Christ reconciles to God as the Mediator. Still, however, God also gives believers the ministry of reconciliation. In the next verse, “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself,” but he has “committed unto us the word of reconciliation.” The mediation believers do is by “word.” We talk to people.
Verse 20 says that we are “ambassadors for Christ,” so this is like diplomacy. Ambassadors represent one nation to another nation. “We are ambassadors” is the Greek presbeuo, used only here and in Ephesians 6:20. Presbeuo is “to be a representative for someone” (BDAG). The way we participate in this mediation is through word, and the message of words that we speak as ambassadors Paul writes in verse 21:
For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
That one sentence encapsulates the gospel. It’s something believers can speak as diplomats for God with total authority from Him. The goal is to bring someone in the kingdom of this world or the kingdom of Satan into the kingdom of God.
God then wants unity between those in His kingdom. The New Testament shows that to be in a true church. It also reveals that churches should want unity with each other too. These realities I wrote about earlier in this series.
Mediating Harry and William as an Example
The Situation
True reconciliation necessitates God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, each of the members of the Trinity. No true peace will come without the Lord. He provides the basis of peace, first getting right with God through Jesus Christ. Harry and William won’t have that without humble submission to God’s Word.
Much of the world knows about the rift now between the two brothers, sons of King Charles of England, William, the heir to throne, and Harry. Harry came out this weekend in anticipation of his published autobiography and said he wants his father and brother back. Is this to say, he wants reconciliation and mediation?
In accordance with true reconciliation, Harry cannot have it on his terms alone. He announced to the world that the relationship between him and his dad and brother did not have to be this way. On the other hand, Charles and William view the relationship a different way. If they were talking, I think they might say the same: “It didn’t have to be this way.” What would it take to restore a relationship, so it is no longer ‘this way’?
Mediating The Conflict
I use Harry and William as an example because they are a prominent conflicting relationship with an obvious barrier between them. Anyone can see both what the discord or dispute between them is and how reconciliation and mediation could occur.
Harry might not take take reconciliation or mediation. He receives his greatest income by telling family secrets. In mediation, if that could occur, I would confront both sides about keeping internal family disputes secret. They settle them in private only. If Harry chooses to leave his royal duties, he must give up his titles. Any money he makes must exclude public ties to the monarchy.
I would take Charles, William, and Harry through their grievances. Each would confess what I knew, what is proven, to be true. Both must repent, and then forgive. Each party must keep all listed ground rules for the future. As a result, both sides have their brother, their sons, and their father again.
Realities of Mediation
When I write about mediation, I am not writing about compromise, the wrong idea that two sides get together and come to some middle ground. It may seem like that, because the mediator listens to both sides. They both may have different versions of the same event. Both parties also might have their own set of grievances against the other party. When the mediator listens to one side and agrees with that side, the other side might view that as compromise, when it isn’t.
Sometimes what one side sees as a violation the mediator says is Christian liberty. He may identify it as a doubtful disputation. One side may think something is what it thinks it is, but a mediator says, “No, it isn’t.” Coming to some of those types of decisions is why two sides get a mediator. In general, a party does not want to see it a different way than what he or it sees it. He very often won’t. If he agrees to a mediator, he might have to do that. This is mediation.
A mediator very often sees what two conflicting parties do not or cannot see. He can point out inconsistencies on either side. If he does his job, he wants true, legitimate reconciliation between the parties, that is, biblical peace.
If a party only wants to hear its side, what some may portray as its echo chamber, it can choose to do that. It is choosing then not to reconcile. Mediation reveals or tests the desire for reconciliation. It provides that last plank or marker toward reconciliation. It follows the model of the Lord Jesus Christ and the example of the apostles.
The Significance of Mediation in Reconciliation and Relationship, pt. 4
The Superior Mediation of Jesus
Moses and the priests of the Lord mediated the Old Covenant, a revelation of God’s usage of mediation. Even though they were mediators God used, the author of Hebrews describes their inferiority to Jesus as a mediator. Jesus was better than Moses and the priests (Hebrews 4:14-10:18). However, He was still a mediator.
The author of Hebrews argues for the New Covenant because of Jesus’ superior mediation. In so doing, he explains why Jesus was better as a mediator. First, God uses mediation. Second, Jesus is the best. Third, Jesus is a model then for mediation. Hebrews then also gives qualities that hurt or harm mediation.
You want a mediator like Jesus. Look for the qualities of Jesus in a mediator of relationships. Hebrews manifests Jesus as identifying with those He represents in mediation. Jesus became like men. Mediators do not sit above the two parties. They identify with both parties. Mediation probably will not occur when one party sits above the other and dictates the terms.
The Qualities of Jesus’ Mediation
A mediator does not elevate himself above and talk down to either party in a dispute, and especially only one. He sympathizes with both. The goal isn’t a comeuppance for one party. He wants reconciliation between the two and a restored relationship.
The Lord Jesus Christ came to earth as a man to reconcile man to God. He loves both the Father and men. Jesus shows compassion to men. Hebrews shows Him as an approachable high priest (Hebrews 4:6). 1 John portrays him as an advocate. In Luke 15, Jesus is the good shepherd, who goes out searching for the lost sheep.
In the relationship between man and God, man repents and confesses to God. Man alone offended God, not vice versa. God has nothing to confess. God also has nothing for man to forgive. He forgives the repentant sinner.
Between Man and Man
Between man and man, very often both parties require repentance, confession, and forgiveness. It may be that only one side sees himself as the aggrieved and offended one. If both parties offended the other, reconciliation might not occur unless both sides will agree to have done that. The neutral mediator expedites a hearing from and for both sides.
Sometimes the process of reconciliation starts with only one party admitting wrong. The other takes the role of sitting in judgment and above the other person. Reconciliation most often will not occur when one side holds on to resentment with the other. He cannot admit wrong, because none of it was his fault.
One party may see forgiveness as a way to avoid accountability. The only terms for reconciliation are his terms. A mediator can and should bridge that gap. Maybe only one side really did offend the other. That would be like God and man. The mediator still helps the two sides come together. Philemon offended Onesimus and Paul initiated the path back for Philemon.
The Bible requires forgiveness for repentance. It is as serious in scripture not to forgive as it is not to repent. Except a man repents, he will perish (Luke 13:3, 5). Except a man forgives, he will perish (Matthew 18:21-35). In many places, forgiveness of man is a prerequisite for forgiveness from God (Matthew 6:12, 14-15, Mark 11:25-26, Luke 6:37).
The willingness to forgive is forbearance. Before that, I believe it is true that a willingness for mediation is forbearance. He so wants reconciliation that he will submit to the judgment of someone other than himself.
We Can’t Solve Every Problem
Early in my adult life, I thought I could solve every problem. I had God. I had the Bible. It did not take too long for me to understand that I could not do it on my own. I needed someone else to intervene.
Matthew 18:15-20, the church discipline passage, like others in the New Testament, works with a baseball analogy. Strike three and you are out. You tried three times to have a conversation for the purpose of reconciliation. With every conversation, the situation escalated. The two parties cannot talk without mediation.
Sometimes one of the sides will not submit to mediation. You might not be able to resolve that relationship. A believer can pray that God will work. He will. God will work, but a person still must acquiesce to the work of God in his life. Some will not.
I am less surprised now that men reject mediation. People you think would accept mediation very often will not. I want to mediate between two parties who want reconciliation. I am thankful for other men who will do the same. Blessed are the peacemakers.
More to Come
The Significance of Mediation in Reconciliation and Relationship, pt. 2
Sin separates man from God and the only way back to regain that relationship comes through mediation. Man cannot get back to God on his own. He needs a mediator. You know that is Jesus, about whom the Apostle Paul writes in 1 Timothy 2:5, “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”
Reconciliation brings together two opposing or warring parties. A barrier separates them. Perhaps the two can reconcile without mediation. When it comes to God and man, the separation requires mediation for reconciliation to occur. Very often for two people to reconcile, mediation is also necessary.
Mediation is a means of reconciliation. Mediation must occur between man and God for reconciliation to succeed. Reconciliation very often requires mediation in order to succeed between other opposing parties: nations, tribes, families, and people. A rift can exist between two people impossible for them alone to eliminate. They need help.
The book of Philemon presents mediation by the Apostle Paul between Philemon and Onesimus. In so doing, it reveals many important components to successful mediation. Paul gives a master class on mediation between two conflicting people. It also provides the authority for the act of mediation. Mediation is scriptural.
Two churches, Jerusalem and Antioch, the first two churches in the world, came to a division between each other. They had to sort it out with one another in Acts 15. They were able to do so. In 1 Corinthians 11:18-19, Paul says that divisions will need to occur and for several reasons. Despite those, the divided sides should strive for unity.
Mediation and Neutrality
I like the way Thayer puts it in his lexicon: “one who intervenes between two, either in order to make or restore peace and friendship, or to form a compact, or for ratifying a covenant.” Friberg lexicon says, “basically, a neutral and trusted person in the middle (Gk, mesos). He continues, “one who works to remove disagreement, mediator, go-between, reconciler.”
When Moses called for witnesses (Ex 21:22-25, Dt 17:6-7), referenced by Jesus (Mt 18:16) and Paul (1 Tim 5:19), that meant neutral ones. Neutral ones stand under cross examination. Just because someone has two or three people who testify does not constitute biblical witness.
A legal component exists in mediation. The mediator, like a judge, ensures fairness in the process of reconciliation. He witnesses and weighs the speech and behavior between the two sides. Scripture illustrates this role in 1 Kings 3 with Solomon’s judgment of two women fighting for the same baby.
Real Desire for Reconciliation Wants Mediation Too
Both women claimed the same child as her own. Solomon said he would divide the child in two and give one half to each. The true mother deferred. She wanted the child to live. She would lose her own child to the other woman. Solomon knew the deferential mother was the true one. Her response to mediation told a tale, as it most often does in conflicts. The one who desires the relationship, really wants it, not just posing like the imposter mother did, also wants mediation.
You want a mediator to be just. He cannot judge in a biased way. Like Friberg said above, he must be a neutral party. Fair mediation requires equal justice. If you went for mediation and you found the mediator on the payroll of the other party, you might think him biased. Just courts prohibit this in their judges and juries because of potential prejudice.
Someone really wanting reconciliation will accept mediation. When a person does not want reconciliation, neither does he want mediation. He doesn’t want neutrality. He wants his way and a stamp of approval. This is not mediation. It is not even a witness in the arbitration of an event.
Pitfalls to Mediation
What happens in a broken relationship with friends, institutions, or family members and one side calls for mediation? The other party rejects. Maybe you reader too reject mediation. Think about it.
People very often want vengeance in an issue. Maybe they have a grudge. They coddle and nurture wrath. They prefer a biased judge with a biased handpicked jury, who will give them the decision they want. This is the government of North Korea. At a trial, you receive only the will the authoritarian leader. Mediation will require humility.
Judges cloister juries against corrupting outside influences. Information from outside the courtroom does not face cross-examination. Personal feelings and gossip shape opinions.
During the Cold War, what deterred two warring nations was called “mutually deterred destruction.” With the advent of nuclear weapons, nations would use their threat to take over as many other nations as they could. The United States needed nuclear weapons to deter such actions. Ronald Reagan called this “peace through strength.” Military power aided negotiations with a threatening enemy. Both sides need similar strength for fair judgment.
More to Come, Lord-willing
Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte by Richard Whately & Skepticism
Have you ever read Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte by ? (view the book online for free here or here; a version you can cut and paste into a document so you can listen to it is here), or get a physical copy:
David Hume, the famous skeptic, employed a variety of skeptical arguments against the Bible, the Lord Jesus Christ, and against the possibility of miracles and the rationality of believing in them in Section 10, “Of Miracles,” of Hume’s Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Whately, an Anglican who believed in the Bible, in miracles, and in Christ and His resurrection, turned Hume’s skeptical arguments against themselves. Whately’s “satiric Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Bonaparte (1819), … show[ed] that the same methods used to cast doubt on [Biblical] miracles would also leave the existence of Napoleon open to question.” Whately’s book is a short and humerous demonstration that Hume’s hyper-skepticism would not only “prove” that Christ did not do any miracles or rise from the dead, but that Napoleon, who was still alive at the time, did not exist or engage in the Napoleonic wars. Hume’s argument against miracles is still extremely influential–indeed, as the teaching sessions mentioned in my last Friday’s post indicated, the main argument today against the resurrection of Christ is not a specific alternative theory such as the stolen-body, hallucination, or swoon theory, but the argument that miracles are impossible, so, therefore, Christ did not rise–Hume’s argument lives on, although it does not deserve to do so, as the critiques of Hume’s argument on my website demonstrate. For these reasons, the quick and fun read Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte is well worth a read. (As a side note, the spelling “Buonaparte” by the author, instead of Bonaparte, is deliberate–the British “used the foreign sounding ‘Buonaparte’ to undermine his legitimacy as a French ruler. … On St Helena, when the British refused to acknowledge the defeated Emperor’s imperial rights, they insisted everyone call him ‘General Buonaparte.'”
Contemporary Significance
Part of the contemporary significance of Richard Whately’s Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte relates to how we evaluate historical data. We should avoid both the undue skepticism of David Hume and also undue credulity. Whatever God revealed in His Word can, and must, be accepted without question. But outside of Scripture, when evaluating historical arguments, we should employ Biblical principles such as the following:
Have the best arguments both for and against the matter in question been carefully examined?
Is the argument logical?
Are there conflicts of interest in those promoting the argument?
Does the argument produce extraordinary evidence for its extraordinary claims?
Does the argument require me to think more highly of myself than I ought to think?
Is looking into the argument redeeming the time?
Are Biblical patterns of authority followed by those spreading the argument?
(principles are reproduced from my website here, and are also discussed here.)
A failure to properly employ consistent criteria to the evaluation of evidence undermines the case for Scripture. For example, Assyrian records provide as strong a confirmation as one could expect for Hezekiah’s miraculous deliverance from the hand of Assyria by Jehovah’s slaying 185,000 Assyrian soldiers (2 Kings 19). However, Assyrian annals are extremely biased ancient propaganda. Those today who claim that any source showing bias (say, against former President Trump, or against conservative Republicans–of which there are many) should be automatically rejected out of hand would have to deny, if they were consistent, that Assyrian records provide a glorious confirmation of the Biblical miracle. Likewise, Matthew records that the guards at Christ’s tomb claimed that the Lord’s body was stolen as they slept (Matthew 28). Matthew, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, intends the reader to be able to see through this biased and false argument to recognize the fact that non-Christians were making it actually provides confirmation for the resurrection of Christ. (If you do not see how it confirms the resurrection, think about it for a while.)
Many claims made today, whether that the population of the USA would catastrophically decline as tens of millions would die from the COVID vaccine, that Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams had her election win in Georgia stolen by Republicans, that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump had his 2020 election win in Georgia stolen by Democrats, that 9/11 was perpetrated by US intelligence agencies, that Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 presidential election, that the miracle cure for cancer has been discovered but is being suppressed by Big Pharma, and many other such claims are rarely advanced by those who follow the Biblical principles listed above for evaluating information. Furthermore, the (dubious) method of argumentation for such claims, if applied to the very strong archaeological evidence for the Bible, would very frequently undermine it, or, indeed, frequently undermine the possibility of any historical investigation at all and destroy the field of historical research.
In conclusion, I would encourage you to read Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte, and, as you read it, think about what Scripture teaches about how one evaluates historical information.
–TDR
-The Amazon link above is an affiliate link. Please visit here to learn about how one can donate to charity at no additional cost when purchasing products at Amazon and here to learn how to save on Internet purchases in general.
Could There Be Practical Reasons Why Some Evangelists See More or Better Results than Others? Pt. 3
Every time I begin to consider the problems in this country and then the world, I go back to the gospel. Whatever path you ponder, it comes back to necessary conversion. Someone can make moves that might postpone the inevitable, but the actual solution is the gospel. Everything else is “peace, peace, when there is no peace.”
Last Monday I wrote two reasons and Wednesday a third on why some evangelists see more or better results than others. Here’s a fourth.
4. A Difference in Diligent Work
Scripture emphasizes work in evangelism, diligence, as if it would make a difference in the salvation in men’s souls. Jesus said in John 9:4: “I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.” Even Jesus saw the need for urgency in getting something done sooner than later. This was an example from which the lyrics to a song come (here verse 2):
Work, for the night is coming: Work through the sunny noon; Fill brightest hours with labor: Rest comes sure and soon. Give every flying minute Something to keep in store; Work, for the night is coming, When man works no more.
The Apostle Paul also talked about the diligence to his work. He explains in what I call his “how-to book for the ministry” in 1 Thessalonians 2:9: “For ye remember, brethren, our labour and travail: for labouring night and day, because we would not be chargeable unto any of you, we preached unto you the gospel of God.” You read there, “our labour and travail: for labouring night and day.” Paul connected this to his success.
Even as I wrote about Paul, I thought about Philip the evangelist, when he evangelized the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8. This is one of the most well-known, famous evangelism stories in all of scripture. Here are the last two verses in the chapter:
39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing. 40 But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached in all the cities, till he came to Caesarea.
Almost anyone else would have gone back to his lazy-boy and had an iced tea. He put in his 1.5 hours of evangelism for the week, time to head home. Not Philip. After the Ethiopian eunuch was saved, a great evangelistic moment in history, Philip “preached in all the cities” from Azotus to Caesarea.
What I’m describing is related at least to love. The 1.5 hour person is the one who is the legalist. Don’t get me wrong. I do think that having a habit, temperance of a fashion, putting it on the schedule, is and can be good. It’s not enough when it’s love. It isn’t laboring for the night cometh when no man can work. It isn’t labor and travail, laboring night and day. It isn’t preaching in all the cities. Everyone has other things to do. I agree things need to be done.
Every little bit helps. I’m happy when someone at least does evangelize. I’m writing about how some see more than others and in a legitimate way, true evangelism. Diligent labor is another difference.
Objections to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ: Are there answers?
The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ is at the core of the Christian faith. Without the resurrection, the gospel is not “good news,” but absurd deceit. As 1 Corinthians 15 explains:
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. … 12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: 14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. 16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: 17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. 18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. 20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
What are the Major Objections to Christ’s Resurrection?
How would you respond to someone who denies the resurrection of Christ, making one or more of the following arguments:
1.) “The disciples stole Christ’s body.”
2.) “Christ did not die, but only swooned/passed out on the cross and appeared to be dead. Then He came out of the grave after the cool tomb revived Him, and so appeared to have risen from the dead, when in fact He never died.”
3.) “The post-resurrection appearances of Christ were just hallucinations or visions.”
4.) “Christ did not rise from the dead because it is a miracle. ANY explanation is more likely than a miracle, because David Hume has proven miracles are impossible when he wrote:
A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined.… Nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it ever happen in the common course of nature.… [I]t is a miracle, that a dead man should come to life; because that has never been observed, in any age or country. There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation. And as a uniform experience amounts to a proof, there is here a direct and full proof, from the nature of the fact, against the existence of any miracle; nor can such a proof be destroyed, or the miracle rendered credible, but by an opposite proof, which is superior. (David Hume, Of Miracles)
A version of argument number four came up in my PATAS debate with the president of the Philippines ATheist/Agnosticism, and Secularism organization in the Philippines (also on Rumble here).
The atheist argued that aliens stole the body of Christ and made it look like Christ really rose from the dead. His point was that anything is more likely than a miracle–making David Hume’s argument above, albeit in a less sophisticated and even more problematic way than Hume made it. (We posted about the PATAS debate on the blog here, while Shabir Ally also attacked the gospel accounts as discussed here.)
How would you answer these objections?
In my series on how to teach an evangelistic Bible study, we discuss these objections in the class sessions starting with 4.8, the eighth study on how to teach Bible study #4, on the gospel–the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. So if you would like answers, please click here to check out the teaching sessions starting with section 4.8. Written material dealing with the resurrection can also be found here.
Christ’s Human Nature From His Mother Mary: Menno Simons was wrong
Christ received His human nature from His human mother, Mary (contrary to the teaching of Menno Simons).
God did not create a new human nature in Mary’s womb that was unconnected with Mary’s humanity, so that she was simply a pipe or conduit through which an unrelated human nature came into existence. Luke 1:35 states:
And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
The Son was conceived through the working of the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35) in the womb of a virgin named Mary, who was engaged to a man named Joseph.
Similarly, Galatians 4:4 reads:
Gal. 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman [γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός], made under the law,
Christ’s human nature became or came into existence, was made, from, of, or out of His human mother, Mary.
The Lord Jesus was the “fruit” of Mary’s “womb”:
Luke 1:42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
And her actual Son:
Luke 2:7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.
He was a literal descendent of David, both through His adopted human father Joseph and through His literal mother, Mary:
Romans 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
If you have taught (likely without thinking it through and with no bad intentions) that Christ’s human nature was not connected to Mary’s humanity through a miraculous work that resulted in Christ’s sinless humanity, despite Mary’s being a sinner, and instead taught that God just created a human nature in the womb of Mary, based on the verses above, you need to change. Stop teaching that. Such a teaching undermines Christ’s true human nature and thus attacks the salvation He wrought for us as the God-Man.
I am thankful for the history of Anabaptist martyrs in the book The Martyr’s Mirror, it is definitely worth reading, and as a history of martyrs in immersions assemblies, has a great deal to commend it above Foxe’s much more well known book of martyrs.
However, Menno Simons, the Reformation Anabaptist leader, denied the Scriptural and traditional Christian view that Christ took His human nature from Mary for the heretical position that His human nature was created in the womb of Mary. Unfortunately, some of the later individuals mentioned in The Martyr’s Mirror follow Menno’s false doctrine in this matter. Thankfully, Menno’s error did not make it into any Baptist confessions; it is more of an idiosyncratic view that he held personally. One may think of Jack Hyles’ similar idiosyncratic heresy that Jesus Christ was human even before His incarnation. Nor does Menno’s heretical view on Christ’s incarnation appear in J. Newton Brown’s edifying book Memorial of Baptist Martyrs.
The Divine Person of Christ was “sent forth” from the Father, but His human nature was “made of a woman” in the virgin conception and birth (Galatians 4:4). Mary was not a surrogate mother, which Christ’s humanity simply passing through her in a manner comparable to the position of the ancient Gnostic heretic Valentinus:
Menno’s own view of the incarnation, however, became a source of controversy among the Anabaptists. It was never accepted by the Swiss Brethren. His view was similar to that of Hofmann. The crux of the problem to him was the origin of Christ’s physical nature. He held that it was a new creation of the Holy Spirit within the body of Mary. Menno’s position differed from the historic view in denying that Christ received his human body from Mary. He replaced the orthodox view, “per Spiritum Sanctum ex Maria virginenatus,” with “per Spiritum Sanctum in Maria virgine conceptus, factus et natus.”[1]
There is some historical evidence that Anabaptists who practiced believer’s immersion rejected Menno’s heretical view on Christ’s humanity with greater consistency than did those who were open to believer’s pouring for “baptism.” This may account for why, as already indicated, no evidence for Menno’s view appears in Brown’s book Memorial of Baptist Martyrs.
I am thankful for Menno Simon’s many stands for truth in a very hostile environment, and look forward to meeting those who trusted in Christ alone and submitted to believer’s immersion in heaven, including those who did not think through the implications of Menno’s view on Christ’s incarnation but adopted Menno’s error from him. I am also thankful for The Martyr’s Mirror and the edifying narratives of Christian martyrs it contains. But on the subject of the incarnation Menno was wrong, and the Baptists and other Anabaptist churches that rejected his heresy were correct, following the teaching of Scripture.
–TDR
[1] William R. Estep, The Anabaptist Story: An Introduction to Sixteenth-Century Anabaptism, 3rd ed., rev. and enl. (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996), 172.
Links to Amazon are affiliate links. Learn about how you can support righteous causes with Amazon purchases here.
Evangelistic / Apologetic Pamphlet for Buddhists on Buddhism
Since there are many Buddhists in the San Francisco Bay Area, and not a great deal of literature available to reach them with the gospel of Jesus Christ, I have written an evangelistic pamphlet for Buddhists. You can view it at the link below:
The Buddha and the Christ:
Their Teachings Compared
Because Buddhism does not consider the sovereign, Almighty God important for its religious system, the presentation of the gospel is designed to be especially God-centered, explaining the work of the Trinity to reconcile sinners. It also seeks to assume that someone has no preexisting knowledge of the BIble or of Christianity, as is the case with great numbers of Buddhists.
Both the persons of Buddha and of the Lord Jesus Christ and their respective teachings are compared. The evidence overwhelmingly favors Christ, to the detriment of Buddhism.
If your church does not already have something to evangelize Buddhists, let me encourage you to add it to the resources available on your tract or pamphlet rack. An easy link to keep in mind with many different resources for the various world religions and groups in Christianity is also available here.
Learn when Buddha lived; how much we know about what he did and taught; the evidence, or lack thereof, for the truth of Buddhist Scriptures; the preservation, or lack thereof, of Buddhist Scriptures; the evidence, or lack thereof, for the many teachings of Buddhism; and how these compare to the evidence for the Bible and for the Lord Jesus Christ as the crucified and risen Lord.
–TDR
Recent Comments