Home » Posts tagged 'salvation' (Page 3)
Tag Archives: salvation
Four Views On the Spectrum of Evangelicalism: A Book Review
I recently listened on Audible through the book Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism, contributors Kevin Bauder, R. Albert Mohler Jr., John G. Stackhouse Jr., and Roger E. Olson, series editor Stanley N. Gundry, gen eds. Andrew David Naselli & Collin Hansen (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011). The four views presented are:
Fundamentalism: Kevin Bauder
Confessional Evangelicalism, R. Albert Mohler, Jr.
Generic Evangelicalism, John G. Stackhouse, Jr.
Postconservative Evangelicalism, Roger E. Olson
When I listen through a book on Audible I usually listen through twice, since it is easier to miss things when listening to a book than it is when reading one.
For most of the book, I was cheering for Kevin Bauder, for reasons which will be clear below.
Let the Wolves In!
Roger Olson’s View
Beginning with the bad people who are fine letting the wolves in: Roger Olson argues that “inerrancy cannot be regarded as necessary to being authentically evangelical. It is what theologians call adiaphora–a nonessential belief” (pg. 165). What is more, “open theists [are] not heretical” (pg. 185). Evangelicals do not need to believe in penal substitution: “there is no single evangelical theory of the atonement. While the penal substitution theory (that Christ bore the punishment for sins in the place of sinners) may be normal, it could hardly be said to be normative” (pg. 183). However, fundamentalism is “orthodoxy gone cultic” (pg. 67). Deny Christ died in your place, think God doesn’t know the future perfectly, and think the Bible is full of errors? No problem. Let a Oneness Pentecostal, anti-Trinitarian “church” in to the National Association of Evangelicals (pg. 178)? Great! Be a fundamentalist? Your are cultic.
Summary: While Christ says His sheep hear His voice, and Scripture unambiguously teaches its infallible and inerrant inspiration (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:16-21) as the Word of the God who cannot lie, and penal substitution is at the heart of the gospel, Dr. Olson thinks one can deny these things and not only be a Christian but be an evangelical. Let in the heretics and the wolves!
Let Some of the Wolves In!
John Stackhouse’s View
John G. Stackhouse, Jr. is only slightly more conservative than Dr. Olson. For Dr. Stackhouse, “open theists are, to my knowledge, genuine evangelicals” (pg. 132). No! But at least anti-Trinitarian Oneness Pentecostals who have a false god, a false gospel, and are going to hell are not evangelicals (pg. 204). Does something so obvious even deserve a “Yay”?
What about penal substitution? “substitutionary atonement is a nonnegotiable part of the Christian understanding of salvation, and evangelicals do well to keep teaching it clearly and enthusiastically” (pg. 136). One cheer for Dr. Stackhouse. But then he goes on:
But suppose somebody doesn’t teach it? Does that make him or her not an evangelical? According to the definition I have been using, such a person might well still be an evangelical. Indeed, the discussion in this section takes for granted that some (genuine) evangelicals are uneasy about substitutionary atonement, and a few even hostile to that idea. But they remain evangelicals nonetheless: still putting Christ and the cross in the center, still drawing from Scripture and testing everything by it, still concerned for sound and thorough conversion, still active in working with God in his mission, and still cooperating with evangelicals of other stripes. Evangelicals who diminish or dismiss substitutionary atonement seem to me to be in the same camp as my evangelical brothers and sisters who espouse open theism: truly evangelicals, and truly wrong about something important. (pgs. 136-137)
So the one cheer quickly is replaced by gasps for air and a shocked silence, as the heretics and the wolves come right back in again. Dr. Bauder does a good job responding to and demolishing these justifications of apostasy and false religion.
Write Thoughtful Essays Showing that the Wolves Need Critique, but
Let the World and the Flesh In and Don’t Be A Fundamentalist Separatist:
Al Mohler’s View
R. Albert Mohler, Jr. calls his view “Confessional Evangelicalism,” although he never cites any Baptist or any other confession of faith in his essay. He thinks you do actually need to believe Christ died in your place, open theism is unacceptable, and an inerrant Bible is something worth standing for (1.5 cheers for Dr. Mohler, led by very immodestly dressed Southern Baptist cheerleaders who know that God made them male and female, not trans). However, Dr. Mohler does not believe in anything close to a Biblical doctrine of ecclesiastical separation. His Southern Baptist denomination is full of leaven that is corrupting the whole lump. His ecclesiastical polity is like the Biden administration on the USA’s southern border–claiming that there are a few barriers that keep out people who are trying to creep in unawares while millions of illegals come pouring in with a nod and a wink.
Dr. Bauder makes some legitimate criticisms of Dr. Mohler, while also being much more cozy with him than John the Baptist or the Apostles would have been. Dr. Bauder says that Mohler is “doing a good work, and that work would be hindered if I were to lend credibility to the accusation that he is a fundamentalist” (pg. 97). That is Bauder’s view of the false worship, the huge number of unregenerate church members, the spiritual deadness, the doctrinal confusion, and the gross disobedience in the Southern Baptist Convention. Hurray? Dr. Bauder’s discussion is not how the first century churches would have worked with disboedient brethren (2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14).
Separate From the Wolves, but Not From Disobedient Sheep:
Kevin Bauder’s “Mainstream Fundamentalist” View
Kevin Bauder is a self-identified “historic fundamentalist.” (But what if there never was a unified “historic fundamentalism”?) He is the only one of the four contributors who actually thinks that ecclesiastical separation needs to take place. So two cheers for Dr. Bauder! Bauder argues: “the gospel is the essential ground of all genuinely Christian unity. Where the gospel is denied, no such unity exists” (pg. 23). Therefore, “Profession of the gospel is the minimum requirement for visible Christian fellowship. The gospel is the boundary of Christian fellowship” (pg. 25). Bauder does a good job showing that people must separate from those who deny the gospel, or those who fellowship with those who deny the gospel. Two more cheers for Bauder.
However, Bauder warns about what he calls “hyper-fundamentalism,” which is actually Biblically consistent separatism (and which gets no voice to defend itself in this book). He has strong words for the “hyper-fundamentalists”–stronger than the way he voices his disagreements with Mohler:
One version of fundamentalism goes well beyond the idea that I summarized earlier in this essay. It could be called hyper-fundamentalism. Hyper-fundamentalism exists in a variety of forms. … [H]yper-fundamentalists sometimes adopt a militant stance regarding some extrabiblical or even antibiblical teaching. For example, many professing fundamentalists are committed to a theory of textual preservation and biblical translation that leaves the King James Version as the only acceptable English Bible. When individuals become militant over such nonbiblical teachings, they cross the line into hyper-fundamentalism. … [H]yper-fundamentalists understand separation in terms of guilt by association. To associate with someone who holds any error constitutes an endorsement of that error. Persons who hold error are objects of separation, and so are persons who associate with them. … [H]yper-fundamentalists sometimes turn nonessentials into tests of fundamentalism. For example, some hyper-fundamentalists assume that only Baptists should be recognized as fundamentalists. Others make the same assumption about dispensationalists, defining covenant theologians out of fundamentalism. Others elevate extrabiblical personal practices. One’s fundamentalist standing may be judged by such criteria as hair length, musical preferences, and whether one allows women to wear trousers. … Hyper-fundamentalism takes many forms, including some that I have not listed. Nevertheless, these are the forms that are most frequently encountered. When a version of fundamentalism bears one or more of these marks, it should be viewed as hyper-fundamentalist. It is worth noting that several of these marks can also be found in other versions of evangelicalism.
Hyper-fundamentalism is not fundamentalism. It is as a parasite on the fundamentalist movement. … Mainstream fundamentalists find themselves in a changing situation. One factor is that what was once the mainstream may no longer be the majority within self-identified fundamentalism. A growing proportion is composed of hyper-fundamentalists, who add something to the gospel as the boundary of minimal Christian fellowship. If the idea of fundamentalism is correct, then this error is as bad as dethroning the gospel from its position as the boundary.
Another factor is that some evangelicals have implemented aspects of the idea of fundamentalism, perhaps without realizing it. For example, both Wayne Grudem and Albert Mohler (among others) have authored essays that reverberate with fundamentalist ideas. More than that, they and other conservative evangelicals have put their ideas into action, seeking doctrinal boundaries in the Evangelical Theological Society and purging Southern Baptist institutions.
Mainstream fundamentalists are coming to the conclusion that they must distance themselves from hyper-fundamentalists, and they are displaying a new openness to conversation and even some cooperation with conservative evangelicals. Younger fundamentalists in particular are sensitive to the inconsistency of limiting fellowship to their left but not to their right. (pgs. 43-45)
By Bauder’s definition, the first century churches would have been “hyper-fundamentalist” parasites. (Note that Bauder also makes claims such as: “Some hyper-fundamentalists view education as detrimental to spiritual well-being” [pg. 44]. There is probably a guy named John somewhere in a “hyper-fundamentalist” church that thinks education is a sin, and there is also probably a lady named Mary in a neo-evangelical church who thinks the same thing, and a big burly fellow named Mat in a post-conservative church who agrees with them, but nothing further about these sorts of claims by Bauder needs further comment. So we return to something more serious.) Do you separate over more than just the gospel? Do you, for example, separate over men who refuse to work and care for their families (2 Thess 3:6-14)? You are a parasite, just as bad, if not worse, than people who do not separate at all. Do you separate over false worship (“musical styles” to Bauder), since God burned people up for offering Him strange fire (Lev 10:1ff)? You are bad–very, very bad. Let the strange fire right in to the New Testament holy of holies (1 Corinthians 3:16-17)!–even though God says He will “destroy” those who do such a wicked thing. Do you take a stand for the perfect preservation of Scripture–as did men like George S. Bishop, one of the contributors to The Fundamentals (see, e. g., George S. Bishop, The Fundamentals: “The Testimony of the Scriptures to Themselves,” vol. 2:4 [Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2005], 80ff.)? You King James Only parasite! Do you seek to follow the Apostle Paul and the godly preacher Timothy, and allow “no other doctrine” in the church–not just “no other gospel,” but “no other doctrine” (1 Timothy 1:3)? Do you repudiate Dr. Bauder’s schema of levels of fellowship to seek what Scripture defines as unity: “that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Corinthians 1:10)? You are bad–very, very bad. You should be rejected, and we should join hands, instead, with evangelicals like Mohler who write essays that we “reverberate” with while they work in a Southern Baptist Convention teeming with unregenerate preachers and church members which almost never obeys Matthew 18:15-20 and practices church discipline. If you think Scripture is not kidding when it says men with long hair or women with short hair is a “shame” (1 Corinthians 11:1-16), or you do not want the women in your church to be an “abomination” (Deuteronomy 22:5) by wearing men’s clothing like pants, then you are certainly, certainly beyond the pale. Corruptions in our culture do not matter-let them into what should be Christ’s pure bride! Everyone knows that the loving thing to do is to allow half the congregation to be an abomination so that they can fit in with our worldly, hell-bound culture.
Dr. Bauder at least says one should separate over the gospel, and he does a good job proving that Scripture requires churches to do that. He has numbers of effective critiques of positions to his left. He clearly has studied history and is a thinker. But he does not present a Biblical case for consistent separatism-very possibly because consistent ecclesiastical separation is only possible when one rejects universal “church” ecclesiology for local-only or Landmark Baptist ecclesiology, and views the local assembly as the locus for organizational unity, while Bauder believes in a universal “church” and must somehow accomodate Scripture’s commands for unity in the body of Christ to that non-extant entity. As the book A Pure Church: A Biblical Theology of Ecclesiastical Separation demonstrates, churches must separate from all unrepentant and continuing disobedience, not just separate over the gospel. Dr. Bauder’s view is insufficient. Furthermore, his critique of what he labels “hyper-fundamentalism” is inconsistent. If the “hyper-fundamentalists” do things like separate too much and take stands for pure worship, are they thereby denying the gospel? If not, why does Bauder think they should be repudiated and separated from?
One other important point: some of those who would repudiate Dr. Bauder’s view as too weak are themselves to his left, not his right. For example, the King James Bible Research Council and the Dean Burgon Society, prominent King James Only advocacy organizations that would claim to be militant fundamentalists, are willing to fellowship with anti-repentance, anti-Lordship, anti-Christ (for does not “Christ” mean “the Messiah, the King, the Lord”?) advocates of heresy on the gospel as advocated by Jack Hyles, Curtis Hudson and the Sword of the Lord, and the so-called “free grace” movement of Zane Hodges. Fundamentalist schools that stand for gender-distinction and conservative worship, such as Baptist College of Ministry in Menomonee Falls, WI, are willing to fellowship with people who believe the truth on repentance and the gospel as well as with anti-repentance heretics at Hyles Anderson College and First Baptist (?) Church (?) of Hammond, Indiana like John Wilkerson. If you think Kevin Bauder’s Central Baptist Seminary is too weak, but you yourself do not separate even over the gospel, but tolerate false views of repentance or other heresies on the gospel that Paul would not have tolerated for one hour (Galatians 1:6-9, 2:5), you need to reconsider your position.
Take a stand–follow God. Allow “no other doctrine” (1 Timothy 1:3). Separate not just on the gospel, but from all unfruitful works of darkness (Ephesians 5:11). You may be excluded from the book Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism, with its more liberal contributors viewing you as “cultic” and the most conservative contributor viewing you as a “parasite” and a “hyper-fundamentalist,” but that is fine-God your adopted Father, Christ your gracious Redeemer, and the blessed Holy Spirit, who has made your body and your congregation into His holy temple, will be pleased. The needy sheep in your flock who had a faithful pastor will embrace you and thank you as they shine like the sun in the coming glorious kingdom, as you led them to faithfulness to Christ and a full reward, instead of compromise. If Christ does not return first, your church may, by God’s grace, continue to pass on the truth and to multiply other true churches for centuries, instead of falling into apostasy because of a sinful failure to consistently practice Biblical separation.
Get off the spectrum of evangelicalism entirely and follow Scripture alone for the glory of God alone in a separatist, Bible-believing and practicing Baptist church. You will be opposed now, but God will be glorified, and it will be worth it all, when we see Jesus.
–TDR
Note: Links to Amazon are affiliate links.
Peter Ruckman, KJV Only Blasphemer
Peter Ruckman, the notorious King James Only advocate, is a blasphemer.
Why do I say this? I have never read a book by Peter Ruckman from cover to cover. I tried reading one years ago but it was too vitriolic for me; I felt defiled reading it, so I stopped. Now recently I had the privilege of debating evangelical apologist James White on the topic of whether the King James Version and the Textus Receptus are superior to the Legacy Standard Bible and the Textus Rejectus. In James White’s King James Only Controversy he painted the moderate mainstream of KJV-Onlyism with such astonishing inaccuracy. James White makes arguments such as (speaking about the translation Lucifer for Satan in Isaiah 14:12): “The term Lucifer, which came into the biblical tradition through the translation of Jerome’s Vulgate, has become … entrenched … [y]et a person who stops for a moment of calm reflection might ask, ‘Why should I believe Jerome was inspired to insert this term at this point? Do I have a good reason for believing this?’”[1] Dr. White argues: “Anyone who believes the TR to be infallible must believe that Erasmus, and the other men who later edited the same text in their own editions (Stephanus and Beza), were somehow ‘inspired.’”[2] Of course, White provides no sources at all for any King James Only advocate who has ever claimed that Jerome, Stephanus, Beza, or Erasmus were inspired, since no such sources exist. As I pointed out in the debate, Dr. White makes bonkers claims like that KJV-only people think Abraham and Moses actually spoke English (again, of course, totally without any documentation of such people even existing).
Thus, James White’s astonishing inaccuracies made me wonder if he is even representing Peter Ruckman accurately. I have no sympathy for Peter Ruckman’s peculiar doctrines—as the godly, non-nutty, serious thinker and KJV Only advocate David Cloud has explained in his good book What About Ruckman?, Peter Ruckman is a heretic. I am 100% opposed to Ruckman’s heretical, gospel-corrupting teaching that salvation was by works in the Old Testament and will be by works in the Millennium. It makes me wonder if Ruckman was truly converted, or if he was an example of what was often warned about in the First Great Awakening by George Whitfield and others, namely, “The Dangers of an Unconverted Ministry.” I am 100% opposed to Ruckman’s disgraceful lifestyle that led him to be disqualified to pastor. I am 100% opposed to his ungodly language, to his wicked racism, to his wacky conspiracy theories, and to his unbiblical extremism on the English of the KJV. At the same time, however opposed I am to him, as a Christian I am still duty-bound to attempt to represent his position accurately. The way Dr. White badly misrepresented the large moderate majority of KJV-Onlyism made me wonder if James also misrepresented Dr. Ruckman.
As a result, I acquired a copy of Ruckman’s response to James White’s King James Only Controversy, a book called The Scholarship Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Professional Liars? (Pensacola, FL: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 2000). The title page claims: “This book exposes the most cockeyed piece of amateur scholarship that ever came out of Howash University.” Based on the title, it was already evident that I would be in for a quite painful and dreary time going through the book, but God is a God of truth, and nobody, not even Peter Ruckman, should be misrepresented by a Christian. Christians must be truthful like their God, who cannot lie (Titus 1:2).
While Christians should not misrepresent anyone, I found it hard to cut through the slander and hyperbole and bloviations in Ruckman’s book as I attempted to get to something substantial. Ruckman can say things such as: “Irenaeus quotes the AV one time and the NASV one time. … Eusebius (later) quotes the King James Bible four times and the NASV once” (pg. 117). Peter Ruckman has an earned Ph. D. from Bob Jones University. He knows that the NASV and the KJV/AV did not exist when Irenaeus and Eusebius lived. He knows that the English language did not yet exist. (I wonder if James White’s completely undocumented affirmation in his King James Only Controversy—which he also declined to prove any support for at all in our debate—that some KJV-only advocates believe that Abraham and Moses spoke English derives from a misunderstanding some Nestle-Aland advocate had with a Ruckmanite who followed his leader in making outlandish verbal statements, and those outlandish verbal statements became, in James White’s mind, a real group of people who actually thought that the Old Testament prophets spoke English, although he has no evidence such a group ever existed, somewhat comparable to Ruckman saying that Irenaeus and Eusebius quoted the Authorized Version and the New American Standard Version.) Of course, at this point I am speculating on something that I should not have to speculate upon, since James White has had decades to provide real documentation of these KJV-only groups who allegedly think English was the language spoken in ancient Israel, but he has not done so.
I did discover something that made me wonder if the statement White quotes about Ruckman and advanced revelation in English were similar exaggerations. Note the following from Ruckman’s book, on the first two pages:
“Scholarship Onlyism” is much easier to define than the mysterious “King James Onlyism.” For example, while “using” (a standard Alexandrian cliche) the Authorized Version (1611), I recommend Tyndale’s version (1534), The Great Bible (1539), The Geneva Bible (1560), Valera’s Spanish version (1596), Martin Luther’s German version (1534), and a number of others. Here at Pensacola Bible Institute, our students “use” (the old Alexandrian cliche) from twenty-eight to thirty- two English versions, including the RV, RSV, NRSV, ASV, NASV, Today’s English Version [TEV], New English Bible [NEB], New World Translation, [NWT], NIV, and NKJV. Our brand of “King James Onlyism” is not the kind that it is reported to be. We believe that the Authorized Version of the English Protestant Reformation is the “Scriptures” in English, and as such, it is inerrant until the alleged “errors” in it have been proved “beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt” to be errors. Until such a time, we assume that it is a perfect translation. No sane person, who was not criminally minded, would take any other position. In a court of law, the “accused” is “innocent until proven guilty” (i.e., O. J. Simpson) … Since not one apostate Fundamentalist (or Conservative) in one hundred and fifty years has yet been able to prove one error in the Book we hold in our hands (which happens to be written in the universal language of the end time), we assume it is the last Bible God intends to give mankind before the Second Advent. God has graciously preserved its authority and infallibility in spite of “godly, qualified, recognized scholars” in the Laodicean period of apostasy (1900-1990), so we consider it to be the final authority in “all matters of faith and practice.” We go a little beyond this, and believe it to be the final authority in all matters of Scholarship. That is what “bugs the tar” (Koine, American) and “beats the fire” (Koine, American) out of the Scholarship Only advocates who are in love with their own intellects.[3]
Notice that Ruckman himself “recommends” Bibles other than the KJV, such as the Tyndale, Geneva, and Textus Receptus based foreign language Bibles. At least in this quotation, he does not say God re-inspired the Bible in 1611, but he says that the translation should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, as is proper in a court of law. That is a much more moderate position than James White attributes to him.
So is it possible that the extreme statements James White quotes on pg. 27 of The King James Only Controversy are hyperbole on Ruckman’s part? (Ruckman has plenty of hyperbole—even in the quotation above, I cut out a weird statement he made about David Koresh.) I cannot prove that James White was deliberately misrepresenting Ruckman—Ruckman’s style is too bizarre for one to easily determine what he actually means (another of many, many reasons why I cannot and do not recommend that you read any of his books). However, from this statement we can see that if one wishes to prove that Ruckman actually believes something it is important to be very careful, as he not only makes large numbers of uncharitable and nutty attacks on others, but many hyperbolic statements.
Unfortunately, as years ago I was not able to finish a Ruckman book because it was bursting with carnality, so this time I was not able to finish Ruckman’s critique of James White’s King James Only Controversy because it was not just carnal, but blasphemous. On page 81 Ruckman takes God’s name in vain, reprinting the common curse phrase “Oh my G—” in his book. A search of its electronic text uncovers that Ruckman blasphemes again on page 269, 308, 312, 452 & 460. He could do so elsewhere as well, but those statements are enough, and I am not excited about searching for and discovering blasphemy. The Bible says: “I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate the work of them that turn aside; it shall not cleave to me. A froward heart shall depart from me: I will not know a wicked person.” (Psalm 101:3-4). If we were living in the Old Testament theocracy, Peter Ruckman would be stoned to death for blasphemy. We are not in the Old Testament theocracy, but His blasphemous language is still disgusting, abominable, and wicked in the sight of the holy God. That someone who claimed to be a Christian preacher would write such wickedness is even more disgusting. Ruckman was a “Baptist” the way Judas or Diotrephes or Jezebel was a Baptist. He would be subject to church discipline if he snuck in unawares and became a member of our church.
So did James White misrepresent Peter Ruckman? White’s representation of the non-wacko large majority of KJV-onlyism was far from accurate, so I wondered if he even got Ruckman right. From what I read of Ruckman’s book before Ruckman started to blaspheme, I thought it was possible that James White did not even get Ruckman right, although with Ruckman’s pages bursting with carnality and total weirdness I could see why getting Ruckman wrong would be easy to do. I am unable to determine definitively one way or the other whether James White was accurate on Peter Ruckman’s position (or if Ruckman himself was even consistent in explaining himself) since I am not going to read a book by someone who breaks the Third Commandment while claiming to be a Baptist preacher. That is disgusting to me, and ineffably more disgusting to the holy, holy, holy God. Ruckman’s critique of James White’s book deserves to go in the trash, where its filthy language belongs.
I do not recommend James White’s King James Only Controversy because it does not base itself on God’s revealed promises of preservation and because of its many inaccuracies. I do not recommend Peter Ruckman’s critique of James White’s King James Only Controvesy because it is not only weird and carnal, but repeatedly blasphemous. Certainly for a new Christian, and possibly for a mature one, the recycle bin could well be the best place for both volumes.
–TDR
[1] James R. White, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2009), 180–181.
[2] James R. White, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2009), 96.
[3] Peter Ruckman, The Scholarship Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Professional Liars? (Pensacola, FL: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 2000), 1-2.
God’s Purpose to Redeem Men from All Nations
Jehovah, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, had a purpose to redeem sinners from all nations from eternity past, in the Old Testament, and in the New Testament. I have had the privilege of preaching the Missions Conference at West Coast Baptist Church in Oceanside, California this week. They are a church that seeks to glorify God and follow His Word, and I thank the Lord for their faithfulness to Him and their hospitality to us.
We (often, and properly) emphasize that the Great Commission teaches that the churches must go into all the world and make disciples of men from all nations. However, God has had a purpose to reach all peoples on the earth in every dispensation, both in those in the past and those that are upcoming. In the conference we looked at God’s purpose to reach all nations in those other dispensations that, at times, we do not think about as much, before we began to analyze the Great Commission for this period of time. So if you have never thought much about Jehovah’s heart to save sinners from all nations in all periods of time, and how that works out, perhaps the messages below from their missions conference may be a blessing. In their weekday services there are two preachers; the other preacher’s message from the Monday, Pastor David Sutton, certainly preached a great message well worth listening to, but it does not as directly relate to the theme of this blog post. After listening to these messages, be encouraged to participate in a greater way in the Great Commission yourself, and start doing more to contribute to God’s eternal purpose that “every creature” hear the gospel and that people from “all nations” give Him eternal praise.
Message #1: God’s Purpose to Redeem Sinners From All Nations–from Creation and into Israel’s History
Message #2: God’s Purpose to Redeem Sinners From All Nations–from Israel’s History through the New Testament Dispensation into the Future Tribulation, Millennium, and Eternal State:
Message #3: God’s Purpose to Redeem Sinners From All Nations Settled in Eternity Past:
–TDR
Done. Yes, But….
REVIEW OF BOOK BY CARY SCHMIDT
Many times through my life, someone said, “Christianity is a ‘done’ religion, not a ‘do’ one.” Or something very close to that. I gravitate toward that message; done, not do. Sounds right. It is, insofar you treat “done” right.
Many who write “done” don’t give it the right definition. Let me explain.
Cary Schmidt and Done.
Cary Schmidt came from Hyles-Anderson in the Hyles days. He went to Lancaster Baptist Church, which is also West Coast Baptist College. Then he left there to Newington, Connecticut, where he still is. He wrote the booklet, “Done,” which many churches hand to the lost in evangelistic packets and to new converts. Many, many. Hundreds of churches hand out thousands of this book. It’s a tiny little book. It’s short, small, and easy to read.
I have never joined the West Coast and Lancaster, spiritual leadership and striving together, orbit. I’ve explained why here in the past. It relates to doctrine, the gospel, and ministry philosophy. I would not send anyone else into that sphere of influence either. If someone was in it, I would encourage him to get out. This does relate to the book, “done,” among many other things.
Before I talk about the problems of a false view of “done,” what is right about it?
What Is Right about Done.
Nothing is wrong with the general idea or concept of Done. It’s good. Jesus said on the cross, “It is finished” (tetelestai, perfect passive). Jesus did everything on the cross for any person’s salvation. He completed the work of salvation. It’s results are ongoing (perfect tense).
Hebrews 10:12 says about the Lord Jesus Christ: “But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God.” Four times the book of Hebrews records that Jesus sat down (Hebrews 1:3, 13; 10:2; 12:2). He sat down because His work on the cross paid the penalty for sin. He sat down too because of His burial, bodily resurrection, and ascension, all included and necessary for “done.” The gospel includes the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-3).
No doubt, Jesus did everything. We needed what He finished. Religions and people in those religions, which teach and preach salvation by works, need to hear this “done” message. They say “do” instead of “done.”
So, what’s wrong? What’s wrong with “Done”? Nothing is wrong with the word “done.” We like it. Does Schmidt represent it properly though? He does not.
What Is Wrong
A False Presentation
One, what does it mean to believe in Jesus Christ? Jesus did everything, but how do we access what He did? Schmidt in his little booklet says you’ve got to take the gift Jesus gave like opening a gift on Christmas morning. He makes the reception of the gift then, a two step process (p. 83): (1) Believe the gift is free, that it doesn’t cost you anything. (2) Receive the gift.
The way Schmidt describes it, the gift is under the tree, there wrapped and ready to take. People do not get the gift because they won’t believe that gift is free and then because they think they might have to pay, they don’t take it. Children know their gifts are free under the tree. People in evangelism, however, according to Schmidt can’t or don’t believe salvation is free.
The way you get the gift, Schmidt says, is ask for the gift. You believe that the gift is free. That is believing. Jesus paid for the gift, you don’t have to do that. It is done. Then you’ve got to receive the gift. Schmidt makes those the two steps for receiving the free gift of salvation. That is false. This is the major way that “done” fails. It is a big falsehood. There really is very little different between what he says and 1-2-3, pray with me. It’s a lengthier presentation of 1-2-3, pray-with-me.
Misuse or Perverting of Scripture
To make his completely false assertion about the gospel and salvation, Schmidt misuses verses of scripture: Romans 10:9, 13, Acts 16:31, and John 3:16. He leaves out important exposition of those verses. He makes them mean something other than what they mean. As a result, he twists all of the gospels and their presentation of Jesus Christ. I would call it a very carefully crafted falsehood.
The deceit of the “done” message comes from getting one portion of the message of salvation right and twisting another vital part of it. Many false religions do that, present some truth with error. People understandably love the “done” part of the gospel.
If you ask almost anyone in the United States, “Did Jesus die for you?” He will answer, “Yes.” In all my years of evangelism, almost everyone believes Jesus died for them. Schmidt leaves out the part of the plan of salvation that is the biggest stumblingblock to the lost, the most offensive part. He eliminates the hard part, maybe on purpose or maybe because people deceived him in the past (perhaps Hyles and Lancaster?).
Head Knowledge/Heart Knowledge?
Schmidt (pp. 86-87) says the problem for people is that they get the ticket of salvation (head knowledge) but they won’t get on the plane (heart knowledge). This is a false dichotomy about head knowledge and heart knowledge. It’s useful to make it sound right, even though it isn’t.
Schmidt is right that some people think they need to earn their salvation. They add works to grace. That is not the difference between head knowledge and heart knowledge though. They will not acknowledge ( in their heads) that Jesus paid it all, because their religion says they must contribute to what Jesus did. However, that is not the biggest stumbling block today for English speaking people.
At the end of his book, Schmidt challenges the reader to become “done” instead of “do” by praying a prayer, which he records at the end to pray. He might argue, “I argue that someone who prays that prayer, the way he receives the gift, he will become a new creature.” When you read that short chapter, you find out that you become a new creature in that God takes your sins away as you pray that prayer. You are new now. You are forgiven, because you have prayed that prayer. The change is a removal of sin. Then you will grow as a Christian, whatever that means.
No Repentance or Lordship
“Done” says absolutely nothing about repentance. Schmidt excludes repentance from the presentation. When he quotes Romans 10:9, which says, “confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus,” he says nothing about the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Christ will do everything for you. You just need to pray that prayer. That is the way you receive the free gift after believing it is free. Heaven is free for you, just pray the prayer.
Both Jesus and John the Baptist preached, “Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” To receive the kingdom of heaven, someone needed to receive Jesus Christ as King, which is to receive Jesus Christ. They needed to relinquish their own kingdom for His. This is not like asking for and receiving a gift. The kingdom of heaven is a gift, but it requires repentance. Where is that in this presentation? It isn’t there.
What About Believing in and Receiving Jesus Christ?
“Done” leaves out receiving Jesus Christ for who He is. “Done” leaves out a presentation of the Person of Jesus Christ. Nothing then is done, because someone does not know who Jesus is or receive Him.
Schmidt makes “done” about receiving the gift. No. Absolutely not. “Done” is about receiving Jesus Christ. John 1:12 says, “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.” John 3:16 and Acts 16:31 both say, “believe in Jesus Christ.” Schmidt leaves that out. He quotes the two verses and says they mean, “Pray a prayer.”
Like John says at the end of his gospel, ‘believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ To get into the kingdom, you must receive the King. You are not in charge anymore, Jesus is. Schmidt leaves all that out, which is the biggest difficulty that people have with the gospel.
By doing what he did, Schmidt deceives his reader on the gospel. Most people reading what he wrote will not know what salvation is. He perverts the gospel of Christ by leaving out what scripture says about believing in and receiving Jesus Christ.
More to Come (I will deal with problem number two of “Done”)
The Servant Song of Isaiah 53 (Isaiah 52:13-53:12)
How is your grasp of the glorious servant song of Isaiah 53 (specifically Isaiah 52:13-53:12)? As part of the series on how to teach an evangelistic Bible study, I have taught through the passage verse-by-verse. Knowledge of Isaiah 53 is not only edifying, but it is helpful for Jews, for Muslims (who say Christ never died a substitutionary death and rose again, but this was added into the New Testament–so why is it in the Old Testament?), for atheists and agnostics who deny the reality of predictive prophecy in the Bible, and for anyone else who simply needs the truth in this passage, the “Gospel according to Isaiah.” The series through Isaiah 53 is now complete. If you would like to listen to the series–or watch the entire series on how to teach an evangelistic Bible study here–see an example of how to lead these here and get copies of the studies here (or get a Word doc here to personalize for use in your church), please watch the embedded videos below or click on the link here. If they are edifying, please “like” the videos and feel free to share a comment.
Note–the first video completes the discussion of a different topic before getting into Isaiah 52:13-53:12.
Video #1:
Video #2:
Video #3:
Video #4:
Video #5:
Video #6:
Video #7:
Video #8:
Video #9:
Video #10:
Video #11:
–TDR
The Gospel Is the Power of God Unto Salvation, pt. 5
Part One Part Two Part Three Part Four
In my own experience, people don’t use the word “salvation” much. Over time it became a distinctly religious or theological term. With a deathly illness, can a doctor save his patient? When he does, he saved his life. For a time, he saved him from physical death. He will still die later. A doctor saved him with a medication or a surgery. He still dies though, just later.
THE IMPORTANCE OF SALVATION
When Paul says “salvation” in Romans 1:16, he means eternal salvation. It is salvation from physical death, because of bodily resurrection. However, most of all it is salvation from sin, from spiritual death, and from eternal death. We can hardly fathom the immensity of trouble, pain, and loss of eternal death. Therefore, we can’t fully understand the full significance of the salvation that is eternal life.
People place temporal worldly gains above eternal heavenly ones. The Lord Jesus addresses this reality with His statements in the gospels about gaining the whole world but losing your own soul. Nothing is even close to as bad, including physical death, to eternal death. No loss is even close to as catastrophic as losing the eternal soul.
Men look to solve the problems they deem most serious. That’s where they spend their time, energy, effort, and money. The latter gives evidence of the former.
When men elevate to the most serious problems much lesser problems they take away the importance of what is really serious. Nothing is more serious than eternal death. The gospel is the only solution to that problem. If the gospel is the power of God unto salvation, and salvation is salvation from eternal death, then the gospel is the most important solution to mankind.
THE PRIORITY OF PREACHING THE GOSPEL
I write all of the above because of the priority of preaching the gospel. Only the gospel alleviates the worst to bring the best. When I say worst, I mean worst. This is no exaggeration. It isn’t close. And so when I say best, whatever you might think is best, this is far better.
People receive renown on earth for “saving” people from far less than what the salvation of Romans 1:16 saves them from. What they get in their temporal salvation doesn’t last. What someone gets from eternal salvation lasts through all eternity. Yet still, people, even Christians, elevate these lesser savings or salvations to greater than the eternal salvation of Romans 1:16.
Salvation of Romans 1:16 also means salvation from a wasted life and salvation from unfulfilled purpose for life. Man can’t glorify God or please God without the salvation of Romans 1:16. He may please himself and others, but not God.
The gospel brings the outstanding accomplishment of eternal salvation. God uses the person preaching the gospel to attain this greatest achievement. The world, however, touts and will laud the short term attainments. Someone donates for new uniforms. A wealthy man pays for a new wing at the hospital. A celebrity buys and then serves turkeys at Thanksgiving or Christmas time.
THE REWARDS FOR SALVATION
A war hero visits the White House for the Congressional medal of honor. Hollywood produces a film about a man who saved dozens from a concentration camp. The NFL honors a football player with a statue in the Hall of Fame. The NBA pays a star player 50 million dollars for one year. Biographies are written about leaders of human empires. Men build a museum to an inventor. Heaven though rejoices over the salvation of a single lost soul (Luke 15:7).
The gospel is the power of God unto the salvation over which heaven rejoices. The New Testament calls the presentation of the gospel, preaching. When someone preaches the gospel that saves, the one hearing often cringes or scowls. I saw that all the time in my life. Your reward for preaching the gospel is a cringe or scowl or worse. Many times someone yelled at me for showing up to preach the gospel to him. More than once someone said he would call the police if I didn’t walk away from his house, when there preaching the gospel.
Believers do not look for temporal rewards. They want the eternal ones. Few would even offer a temporal reward for preaching the gospel. Churches might pay a pastor, who does the work of the evangelist and equips his church for preaching the gospel. They might support a missionary to go and preach where they can’t or won’t preach the gospel. This aligns with the rejoicing and purpose of heaven.
More to Come
The Gospel Is the Power of God Unto Salvation, pt. 4
Scripture evinces a tendency to distrust the gospel. This reveals itself in trying other means than the gospel for salvations or increased numbers of conversions. When Paul writes, “the gospel is the power of God unto salvation,” he says that it is only the gospel that is the power of God unto salvation. No human instrument helps the gospel.
I explained the harmony of the working of the Holy Spirit with the gospel, their being the same. Love, compassion, and all of that, which accompany the gospel, are not accomplished by human means. They are God working “in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure” (Philip 2:13). God uses believers as instruments. As before mentioned, they are messengers (cf. Malachi 3:1). He uses hard or blessed providences to prepare men’s hearts.
Jesus said, “Blessed are the poor in spirit” (Matt 5:3). The infliction of hard providences conditions hearts for reception. As Jesus said (Matt 9:12), “They that be whole need not a physician.” In Mark 2:17, He portrays the same truth: “They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” We know that hard, worldly, and superficial heartedness affects reception of the gospel seed (Matthew 13:1-23). None of these truths detract from the truth of “the gospel is the power of God unto salvation.
Many different ways professing believers or perhaps non-believers show their unbelief in the gospel as the power of God unto salvation, represented by various categories of manifestations of their unbelief.
Human Means or Methods Better Than the Gospel
For many and from a human perspective, the gospel is ineffective. It doesn’t work. Paul pointed out this error in 1 Corinthians 1-2. To the lost, he says “the preaching of the cross,” the gospel, “is foolishness” (1 Cor 1:18). They want either something more clever, inventive, or scholarly, what Paul calls “wisdom” (1:18-21), a human type, or a kind of ecstatic experience, quasi supernatural, that would indicate divine power, what Paul calls “signs” or “might” (1 Cor 1:19-27). The gospel doesn’t fit either demand of the world for persuasion.
The gospel is the prescribed method of God for salvation because it gives glory to God. Its inexplicability leaves God only as the source of its work and effects. Then “no flesh should glory in his presence” (1 Cor 1:29). “He that glorieth. . . glorie(s) in the Lord” (1 Cor 1:31).
Part of the wisdom of man, his personal nobility, manifests itself in impressive rhetorical flourish or “excellency of speech or of wisdom” (1 Cor 2:1). The speech is the style and the wisdom is the superior intellect. The gospel is not an exercise in amazing speech and human ingenuity. It is a fulfillment of faithfulness, the one rowing in the galley of the ship (cf. 1 Cor 4:1-2), keeping his hands on the oar. It isn’t beyond a believer to do.
God gifts some more to do it (gifts of prophecy and teaching, verbal gifts, 1 Cor 12, Rom 12, 1 Pet 4), but everyone can do it because it requires only faithfulness. This may and does include studying scripture to the extent that he shows himself a “workman that needeth not to be ashamed” (2 Timothy 2:15).
Playing Along with Unbelievers
Using other means than the gospel plays along with unbelievers, accrediting their rejection of or indifference to it. The world wants something smart and something amazing to it. A professing believer or just an unbeliever, who claims to be a believer, thinks or says:
The world likes this. It likes this when I do it. The world then responds to this. My group gets bigger because of this. It’s smart and amazing. The world recognizes this. This is what I should.
This too is human wisdom and seeking after signs, when no one is getting signs. It glorifies the one who came up with the acceptable idea, going along with the world liking what it accepts. This doesn’t glorify the Lord though and it doesn’t even work, even though it looks like it’s working, part of its deceit.
What really works makes someone the offscouring of the world and hated, as Christ talked about to begin the Sermon on the Mount (1 Cor 4:13, Matt 5:10-12). Depending on God for His work gets a reaction like someone in the world would never want to have. He knows he will get it, so he moves a different direction, the broad road, to avoid it. Becoming hated doesn’t seem like an effective method. Being liked looks more like what will work, so instead of faithful service, professing believers and probably unbelievers signal their own virtue with their methods.
More to Come
35th Anniversary of the Church I Planted in California, pt. 7
Part One Part Two Part Three Part Four Part Five Part Six
Going door-to-door the first year, I met Geri Singleton, a black woman about 45-50 years old. I preached the gospel to her. She received it. I came back. She still showed interest. She came to church, not faithfully at first. We baptized her and her teenaged son the same night as Art Anabo. Geri grew and grew. She became a faithful member. She is still one, and since that beginning, she taught Sunday School and discipled several women in our church.
After a year and a half, I informed all of the churches that supported us, we were self-supporting. This was in the Spring of 1989. Even though we had buildings, were still a new church plant. We barely had enough in expensive California to support a pastor and only one who lived in a tiny apartment with a wife and no children. Bridget also continued working at the bank.
While evangelizing in Hercules that first year, I talked to a man, who said he bought his house after selling his mobile home. I came home that day and told my wife the story. That very night we drove to a mobile home park and found a single wide, just for sale that very day. The owner died and left the home to her brother, who was eager to sell fast, and offered it for 10,000 dollars. We bought it and moved in.
The San Francisco Bay Area had Fleet Week every year because of the Alameda Naval Air Station, which closed in the early nineties during the Clinton Presidency. In the early days we had up to five families attend our church from the Naval base, and one faithful family in particular, the Ruckels, bought us carpet for our new tiny mobile home. The same year we bought it, the park voted to become 55 or older and we were now the only twenty somethings there. The timing was perfect. A few years later we sold the mobile home for 19,000 as a down payment for a two bedroom condominium.
Evangelizing door-to-door in Pinole, I met Brenda Rose. She came to a service. She was saved. Shortly thereafter she met a Navy man, who grew up in Arkansas in the Church of Christ. I met with both and Doug Stracener was saved. The two went to Bible college, trained, and then went back to Arkansas. There Doug discipled dozens of people using a thirty week discipleship I wrote and our church used.
I was never a carpenter, but suddenly with new buildings and no construction types in our church, repairing and maintaining the buildings was difficult. We had a tiny nursery spot right next to the meeting room and the babies were loud. We decided to split our only other large room into a nursery and a classroom, which required building a wall. About that time, a homeless man knocked on the door and asked if he could do any work. He said he didn’t want money, just a place to sleep and milk and cookies.
Scott had been a successful general contractor, who became disabled in a work accident and he wasn’t covered by insurance. He couldn’t do most of the work to build a new nursery, but he could tell me what to do. I would preach to him while I worked and every day bring him milk and cookies. He slept in the nursery.
In October 17, 1989, one day before our second anniversary of the church, I sat in front of the mobile home after supper with my wife in our running Subaru, talking before I went to work at the church building. That year the Oakland A’s played the San Francisco Giants in the World Series. Most people were already at home to watch the Bay Bridge Series.
Someone, I thought, as a practical joke began to jump up and down on the bumper of our car. As our car rocked violently, I saw the road in the mobile home park like a ribbon rolling in front of me. It threw our neighbors cat way up in the air and it shrieked as it flew in the sky. What was happening? It was the biggest earthquake in the San Francisco Bay Area since the early twentieth century San Francisco Quake. They called it the Loma Prieta quake.
I had never experienced an earthquake before, except for the typical minor tremors anyone will feel in the Bay Area from time to time. This was a Big One, albeit not The big one. I left my wife at the mobile home, not really knowing how serious this was. My first stop at a hardware store to pick up some things revealed the extent. Almost everything on the shelves was now on the floor. The rolling quake scattered nuts, screws, paint, glass, and bolts all over the store. After seeing that, I drove to the church building to see.
Everything at church was fine. I could only imagine how much the building moved. Our mobile home rode the wave, but up on stilts it was in a better position than some houses. It was the only moment I remember wishing I was in the air rather than on the ground. It was not terra firma that October evening.
What I found was that a church member was stuck on the Bay Bridge because part of it collapsed. He couldn’t get home that night. Over a hundred died on Highway 880 near Oakland, only ten minutes from us, when the top deck collapsed on to the bottom. Many across the country saw Candlestick Park swaying on national television right before the Series game began. The timing saved hundreds from death, as the highways were half as crowded as normal, fans from both side of the Bay already sitting on their couch to watch.
Anyone could wish that an earthquake would grab the attention of the lost. I can report that it did little to nothing for constructive introspection. More than anything, people in the Bay were, one, angry, and, two, determined to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.
To Be Continued
Could There Be Practical Reasons Why Some Evangelists See More or Better Results than Others?
When I say, “evangelist,” for purposes of this discussion, I mean men preaching the gospel, perhaps in missionary status but also men preaching in their own churches. Over my thirty plus years in full time preaching, I have won many to Christ, saw them baptized into the church, and then discipled. I did this without a smidgin of pragmatism or gimmicks. It was pure preaching, dependence on the gospel.
On the other hand, I saw men who rarely saw results. They still do not see very many results. They go years, even decades without discipling one person. Some see many. Some see very few to none. Could there be practical reasons why this occurs? I believe so. I want to enumerate reasons not necessarily in order.
1. A Difference in Love
Some men are faithful to do evangelism. They do it all the time. These men have knocked on many doors. They do what God wants in that way. In one sense, you could say that they are loving God in that they are keeping His commandments on evangelism.
At the end of Jude, Jude talks about having compassion, making a difference. Jesus very often in the gospels is said to looking at the people with compassion, connecting His success to that attribute. Paul mentioned how much he cared again and again.
I’ve noticed that men treat people like they are objects of their preaching. They very often go about the task like they are putting in the time, and the sheer time-spent counts as loving faithfulness.
It’s important to be faithful. It is very good to persevere. I’m thankful for those who will do this. However, you’ve got to love the people for whom you are reaching. This includes wanting them to be saved, not just limiting yourself to accomplishing the task. People know when you care about them. They can tell when you are going through the motions with them.
Some love people enough that they take record of those with whom they’ve talked. They remember their names. These unique individuals will pray for those they evangelize. They go back and visit them.
Have you ever had someone talk to you, and it seemed like it was an exercise in hearing their own voice? I know a few pastors this way. You exist for them to preach to. You’re there for them to supply their pearls of wisdom. When you talk to them, you’re not sure if they are listening. When they talk, it is not personable. It sounds like a speech written off of a script. They don’t make a connection in a relationship because they don’t show that they care.
Compassion makes a difference in the results of evangelism. I know some reading here think they love people. They’ve convinced themselves. They rarely see anyone come to Christ, baptized, join the church, and made disciples. Perhaps you should consider that you don’t care enough. That’s the reason why.
Both of the churches I started, what I’m writing made a huge difference. Those people knew that I loved them. They still do. Some missionaries act in many ways as pure place setters because they lack the love they need to see more occur than they already do.
2. A Difference in Spirit-Filled Boldness
Many men are easily turned away. A person shows resistance and they move on. This is related to number one. They can’t get through those situations because maybe they don’t care enough. They don’t love enough. They give up on the person very quickly.
Sometimes men will dance around what needs to be said. They don’t get to the crucial point toward salvation, the particular stronghold, because they don’t want to say it. They are either too fearful or they don’t want to look bad. Both of those are similar but slightly different.
The Apostle Paul in Ephesians 6 and Colossians 4 asks the churches to pray for his boldness. That is an important evangelism prayer. When the Holy Spirit fills someone, Acts 4 says that they preach the Word of God with boldness. This is a significant manifestation of Holy Spirit filling.
Having or not having boldness might mean speaking or not speaking. Some don’t get to the evangelism because they don’t have boldness. They don’t have boldness because they are not filled with the Spirit, that is, controlled with the Spirit. They also might not be praying for boldness. Boldness relates to results someone will see.
Many, many times I have gone out with someone else evangelizing. He talks and he’s done with a person. He doesn’t get to the gospel. I pick up the conversation where he left off and I get through the whole gospel and with great conviction on the person. Boldness is the difference in these situations.
When I write this, I’m as far away as 1-2-3 pray-with-me as a person can get. This is not manipulation. I’m writing about practical, biblical differences that result in someone seeing more or less results. I’m not guaranteeing results, but there are scriptural reasons some will see more than others, even why someone will never see any results and he should check his heart because of it.
Obviously the two, love and boldness, relate with one another. Love is fruit of the Spirit. When the Holy Spirit fills someone, he speaks with boldness. When I preach boldly, the Spirit bears witness with my spirit that I am a child of God.
To Be Continued
Recent Comments