|
WAS JESUS A FUNDAMENTALIST? - Glenn Armstrong
I. INTRODUCTION TO FUNDAMENTALISM
When it is said that it does not make any difference what we believe as long as one believes Jesus Saves, it shows a major misunderstanding of the Christian faith. When doctrine is downgraded, it will always pollute the very foundations of Christianity and most certainly move the church away from the beliefs and teachings of Jesus – who is the cornerstone from which all Christianity is committed to comply. Christian doctrine is systematic and mutually interdependent.
Maybe, just maybe, it is time to measure the Christian church in its relationship to the beliefs of Christ, instead of looking to see what is drawing the bigger crowds. We should take a long look back to see if we are even within the same arena of faith in which Jesus and the Apostles fought the good fight of their faith. They all died rather than deviate! Where do we stand when it comes to such beliefs as the Scriptures, Christ's Virgin Birth, Vicarious Atonement for Sin, Miracles and Supernatural Acts, Separation, Resurrection, and the Imminent Return of Christ is a vital matter? If you wonder why this question is being posed, you should know that these seven doctrines, of the many that are in the Word of God, are the irreducible minimum doctrines that one must believe to be called a Christian from a strict scriptural standpoint. They also separate fundamentalists from the liberal Christianity that has taken hold of the twenty-first century church.
Christianity has always faced a great deal of opposition, doubt, and criticism to its biblically based doctrines. These have always been successfully met and the church continues beyond the lifetimes of those who predicted its demise. An overview of the various denominations shows Fundamental Christianity often at odds with the generic Christianity, Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, some Baptists, and a host of others that are categorized as Christian religions, yet there are extreme doctrinal differences. People who attend such churches are convinced they can ritualize, appease, or do good works to obtain their way to heaven. These so-called Christian churches are presented in the guise of another viewpoint of Christianity.
In this myriad of Christian denominations, what is to be considered fundamental Christianity if all these denominations feel theirs is true? The debate over Biblical doctrine that occurred between 1875 and 1930 produced two excellent definitions concerning fundamentalism: 1) "We suggest those who still cling to the great fundamentals of the faith and who mean to do battle royal for the fundamentals should be called 'fundamentalist'."
2) ".. a fundamentalist is one who believes in the 'fundamentals' of the Christian faith as set forth in the Scriptures. Down through the years the church has held to these great fundamentals which include the full inspiration of the Scriptures, the deity of Christ, and the resurrection and return of Christ."
Today many are compromising and changing the message of the Word of God to make it appeal to the masses under the contention that there is no "wrong" religion. The basis of this argument is the existence of the many denominations that have strayed from or enhanced the Word of God in the last 2,000 years. The God of today is made to appear unknowable either because of His greatness or current detachment from his creation. Jesus, the very basis of Christianity, is made into a great teacher, the most perfect man, or one who walked closest to God; and we are to strive to be like this man.
This is a far-cry from John 1:14, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God ... And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." Just as this statement cannot be compromised, neither can Hebrews 1:1, "God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by prophets".
God can make himself known to man and has done so through the early prophets and leaders of Israel. They received not only revelation but also inspiration "... not in old time by the will of man: but ... as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." (II Peter 1:21). Man moved the pen but God provided the words.
The vast chasm of doctrinal differences within Christianity is the result of interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. Interpretation implies knowing the mind of God, and while we may come to know the will of God we can never come to know the mind of God. What is taught in fundamental Christianity is not, nor should ever be confused with, interpretation. Biblical Christianity is really the presentation and declaration of Holy Scriptures as truth.
Fundamentalism should not be confused with fanaticism. Unfortunately there is a great deal of misuse of the term fundamentalism through the media (i.e. Shiite fundamentalist terrorists). Because of this the word "fundamentalist" has derived a negative connotation. The fundamentalists do not feel, as many of the liberal factions of Christianity do, that the Bible is a collection of myths. We believe it to be the very true Word of God.
The era around the turn of this century saw a lot of infighting over the changes in doctrine. This actually resulted in the defining of the word "fundamentalism". The issues centered in two groups, the Northern Baptist Convention and the Presbyterian Church. The longtime internal structures of these two groups resulted in the formation of new schools and seminaries since the older institutions were already in the control of liberal leaders and beyond restoring back to the fundamental beliefs of Holy Scriptures. The diverging denominations changed the message, meaning, methods, and motives of basic Christianity. The fundamentalist held basic doctrines to be true and absolutely essential for human salvation. This position is still against the grain of movements that support the "social" gospel."
For a while, fundamentalists appeared to be fading away while the liberalized Christianity continued to expand. That trend has now reversed itself in the 1940's as the liberally minded ministries began to decline--victims of their own preaching, that mocked the fundamentals of God's Word. Their compromised message changed the gospel from personal salvation to social redemption. The liberal leaders found themselves looking to man and organizations for survival while God continued to bless those who ministered in harmony with the Word of God and did so for the glory of God.
The evolution of the Christian Church in its move away from the true gospel was so slow and so subtle that it has gone somewhat unnoticed by the people in the pews. Four ecclesiastical groups developed in all denominations within the church in the United States. These groups moved believers from a biblical separatist standpoint to worldly theological liberalism. These movements are: 1) theological liberalism, 2) new orthodoxy, 3) new evangelicalism, and 4) inclusive evangelicalism. LIBERALISM - A CHANGE IN MESSAGE
The Liberals started out by changing the message from personal salvation to a gospel of social redemption. In doing so, they rejected God's Holy Scriptures as inspired by God and truth free from fiction. To them the Bible was making a statement that the world was getting better and society as a whole was going to be redeemed and produce a kingdom of peace among nations. The fundamentalists were providing a "now & how" gospel of personal forgiveness and a gracious gift of eternal spiritual life while liberals were presenting a lie of social evolution into a harmonious existence into an eternity of world prosperity. While this ministry was good for those who had a life yet to live, it didn't really help those who were a few moments away from death such as those on the battlefield during WW I and WW II as well as all following wars. The need for immediate help from God for those about to die brought a change in theological liberalism. It brought in the formation of New Orthodoxy.
NEW ORTHODOXY: A CHANGE IN MEANING
Actually, the development of New Orthodoxy was not really a change at all. It only changed the meaning of terms. The preaching and teaching of New Orthodoxy still sounded like that old-time religion Christianity, but the terms had been re-interpreted and still contained the message of liberalism. You could still be born again, but it wasn't the spiritual rebirth achieved by placing faith in the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. It was accepting Jesus as the best example of Godly living. After all, to the New Orthodox preacher, Christ's death was physical and his resurrection was only spiritual not a miraculous physical resurrection. This made Him nothing more than a man and a pattern for peace. NEW EVANGELICALISM: A CHANGE IN METHODS The next change was into New Evangelicalism. This changed the methods of the ministry from one of separation from liberalism to that of co-operative evangelicalism. This change merged those who rejected the truth of the scriptures and even the rejection of the Godhood of Jesus with people who based their faith on an infallible Bible and personal conversion. It stated that you could be biblical people and just work in harmony with people who believed anything they wanted about basic doctrines of the Christian faith. For instance, Christ could have been an illegitimate child born to Mary and only a martyr for a cause rather than creator/savior. The Bible could be a collection of myths and legends. Eternal life could be achieved through good works and ritual redemption provided by churches, etc., rather than the conversion of non-believers. The real error of New Evangelicalism was the teaching that salvation could come from a diversity of doctrinal differences. It had major changing power both because the attempt was to share the gospel and those who gave leadership to this movement were often very respected individuals.
EVANGELICALISM: A CHANGE IN MOTIVES
From New Evangelicalism sprang Evangelicalism that changed the motive from separation to infiltration. This stated that it was possible to work in harmony with various other beliefs and do so in harmony. It accepted a system of ritual redemption and allowed anyone to believe whatever they wanted. A, " no religion is a wrong religion", philosophy replaced Biblical truth. Evangelicalism presently encompasses everything from the historic Catholic and Protestant Christianity to Indian Mysticism to Islamic leaders and is a melting pot for any kind of spiritism. As an example of how far away from the fundamental beliefs evangelicalism has gone is stated in a recent textbook on missions teaching missionaries that they will often find the term Allah to be close enough to Christ to consider it to be sufficient for the gospel. What makes the errors of evangelism difficult to report is the number of well-known religious leaders who not only support this position; but, in reality, brought it into existence and continue to lend their name to errors it presents.
It is hard to imagine non-fundamental Christianity getting any farther away from the basic doctrines of the Holy Scriptures than when well known leaders defend a plurality of salvation positions in addition to the redemption offered by God through Christ at Calvary. This divergence from Fundamentalism is quite a serious matter. It causes a departure from the life and teachings of Jesus and denies the doctrines of the Apostles. It also discounts the sufferings of our forefathers and most importantly, it is destroying the Christian religious system of theology.
What does the Bible say Christ believed about the several irreducible doctrines of Christianity? Was Jesus a fundamentalist? If Jesus was a Fundamentalist so should we be! If so we are all right; if He wasn't, we are all wrong.
II. WHAT DID JESUS BELIEVE ABOUT THE INERRANCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES?
The Bible is held by fundamentalists to be the word of God and true without mixture of error. In fact the Old Testament Scriptures claim 3,808 times to be the very word of God ("Thus saith the Lord"). Because of its nature, the Bible must be all true or all wrong. Christ could not have used a book of lies to substantiate his claim to be the Son of God. Yet he taught the Bible as truth. When, in the course of temptation by Satan, He claimed its words proceeded from the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4), He was pointing out the trustworthiness of the Scriptures. And while many Pharisees, Sadducees, Priests and the like were claiming he was blaspheming and out to destroy the Law, Christ was proclaiming He came to fulfill, not destroy the Law. In fact he claimed every jot (the smallest letter) and tittle (smallest part of a letter) was from God and will come to pass (Matthew 5:18).
Whenever people wish to discount the Bible, they usually bring up the creation account, the universal flood, or the story of Jonah. Yet the Gospels show that Jesus very much believed in them as truth, not fables. When the Pharisees tried to corner Christ on the issue of divorce, he responded with "Have ye not read that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female?" (Matthew 19:4). As an example of his being a sign to his generation, Christ used the illustration of Jonah being a sign to the Ninevites (Luke 11:30). Critics feel that Christ believed these because he was limited in his deity because of his humanity and that he believed only because he was limited by the information that was available to him at the time. This implies that Jesus would not believe in these subjects if he lived centuries later, as we do. However, when Christ spoke of his belief in the universal flood (Luke 17:27), he was not "limited by his humanity" because he taught this in his post-resurrected form!
The religious setting that existed in the time of Christ was so far removed from God's intent that the very Mosaic Law the Pharisees and Sadducees followed became more important than the God of their fathers. Yet when Christ began His ministry, it wasn't the law he decried, but rather what the Law had become. In fact He revealed that the Law, prophets, Psalms, and the entire body of Holy Scriptures were all written concerning Him (Luke 24:44) and as a testimony of his life. (John 5:39).
Christ also declared the truth of the Bible in its entirety and that its words must be used as a whole body of revealed information (John 10:35). Fragmenting the Bible and using portions out of context to justify erroneous belief is still being practiced today as well as by Jewish sect in Jesus’ day. In doing so, belief in the Bible as truth is weakened. Because of its significance, the Bible must be all true or all wrong. It cannot be a mixture of truth and error and still be from an infallible God. It is because of its truth that it has continued to exist these many thousands of years. Jesus believed that "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my [Christ's] words shall not pass away" (Matt 24:35).
In addition to teaching about the Old Testament being the very Word of God, Christ used the Holy Scriptures frequently in his ministry. The first recorded use by Christ is when he was twelve years old. Even as a youth the ability with which he was able to grasp the meaning of the scriptures was astounding even to the Jewish elders (Luke 2:42). When he faced the temptation of Satan, Christ used the Word to overcome Satan's lies (Mark 1:3-13). Christ's teachings to the masses and responses to his accusers are based on the word of God. The titles of Son of God and Son of Man are also drawn from the ancient scriptures. Just prior to his ascension into Heaven, Christ expounded to his disciples the totality of the scriptures from Moses and the prophets (Luke 24:27,44, 46). If the scriptures did not fit Christ's purposes, he would have discarded or modified them, as has been done over the centuries, to suit his needs. Instead, he came not to dispense the Law, but to fulfill it.
Just as important as Christ's attitude towards the Old Testament is his teachings about the New Testament Scriptures. Christ, knowing his words would be forever, in instruction to his disciples, provided the promise that the Holy Spirit would teach them in all things (John 14:26). The message could then be factually passed down to all generations. The Spirit of Truth would guide them into all truth and show them of things to come (John 16:12-13). The Apostle Peter wrote that we have a more sure word of prophecy by inspiration than if we had heard God speak and saw Him when He spoke (II Peter 1:16-21).
It is interesting that there are more holes in any one of the many theories trying to destroy the validity of the Bible than there are in both the Old and New Testaments combined. One current seminary professor stated that, "We are at the mercy of how well the New Testament writers remembered the sayings and doings of Jesus." Many literary critics developed the idea that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were based on writings of Mark and an unidentified, "Q" document. If either of these attacks were true then we would logically be able to find many errors and contradictions in the New Testament books where even one cannot even be found.
"For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven" (Psalm 119:89). Forever does not mean until German High Criticism tries to dismantle Truth or to it modified to fit humanistic behavior. God's Word is infallible, inerrant, unchangeable, absolute, truth without error, and completely trustworthy for salvation, forgiveness, present living, and eternal life. Because we can trust it to be all these things, we can also trust it for our problems in life. We cannot take God at His Word if we allow it to be manipulated, dissected, and misconstrued.
GAA/2/2007 (f)
WAS JESUS A THEOLOGICAL FUNDAMENTALIST?- Glenn Armstrong
III. WHAT DID JESUS BELIEVE ABOUT THE VICARIOUS ATONEMENT FOR SIN?
A. INTRODUCTION
What God has done to provide for eternity is the most important aspect of our life. Since we are created as eternal beings, it is far more important than what we do with our lives while on earth. Our standing before God has been altered by sin. Sin has offended our eternal relationship to God. In order to stand before a most high and holy God and to inhabit a place that is perfect, we must be pure and perfect ourselves—a human impossibility. Our sin nature makes us imperfect, and we have nothing to offer God in exchange for our lostness. There is no hope for eternal salvation without a vicarious (substitutionary) act apart from us and yet in our behalf.
Atonement in the Old Testament sense was, “to cover from view of God”, (to be forgotten by God, not hidden from Him). It was, “a satisfactory reparation offered in return for injury.” This covering of sin was in obedience to God and was an earthly evidence of one’s belief in God’s promise to eventually provide payment for sin. In the New Testament sense atonement is used to make reference that our sins had been paid solely through the finished work at Calvary. The Old Testament people’s sacrifices were offered in a prophetic anticipation of payment. The faith exercised by Old Testament saints relied on a futuristic redemption.
Today we have the advantage of having our sins atoned for in an historical reality, and perpetual offerings would be an offensive attempt to duplicate what was sufficient at Calvary. Christ committed the sacrificial act of being a substitute payment for sin in obedience to the Father. We are the beneficiaries of His love and grace. His death was a vicarious payment not only for our sins, but for the whole subject of sin itself. Hebrews 4:15 states that Christ, in human form was sinless and acted as our priest in presenting the sacrifice of Himself to God. According to I Peter 2:22-24, Christ who was sinless, bore our sins so we might be both dead to the claim of sin and also alive to righteousness.
B. ERRONEOUS VIEWS OF CHRIST’S DEATH
The closely held belief in Christ's vicarious atonement for sin, like many other principles, has its detractors not only in the secular world, but also in many of the liberal Christian churches. The liberals shift the focus of salvation from being God centered to man centered. Some of the erroneous positions taught in liberal circles are listed below.
1. CHRIST’S DEATH WAS ACCIDENTAL DEATH
There are those who hold that Christ's death was an accident. This teaching holds that He was just a man, a good man who was killed as the result of public rejection.
2. CHRIST’S DEATH WAS A MARTYR’S DEATH
Along the same lines as the accidental death belief is the teaching that Christ was a martyr. Those who hold to this theory report that He was killed because he was faithful to His high principles of life. Being a Christian to this group is to follow the example set by Jesus as the most perfect man ever committed to God. His death was not for atonement for sin; but rather to reveal God's love. Truth and fidelity to a just cause is what is needed to equal salvation. One is a Christian by being faithful to basic principles of life just as Christ lived in fidelity of whatever He understood to be truth. (Jesus taught that He was truth itself and as such all that is true has its source in Him.)
3. CHRIST’S DEATH WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF MORAL INFLUENCE
A third position is that of Moral Influence. This position teaches that His death was a natural consequence of the desire of God to show His love in fleshly form. Jesus suffered and died as mankind dies and nothing more should be made of His death. Because of Christ's unique role in humanity, he was picked by God to show His love. The clear emphasis of this teaching is to demonstrate that Jesus was always loving under all situations. This does not explain such incidents as the clearing of the Temple or many other passages of scripture which teach that God hates some things as well as loves others.
4. CHRIST’S DEATH WAS TO DEMONSTRATE GOD’S GOVERNMENTAL ORDER
The final position is that Christ's death was Governmental. It showed that sin is offensive to God and the church's job is to maintain social structure. God loves law and order and Christ came to teach law and order. If a person keeps the law, then they are a Christian, the only problem being that laws are man generated and laws can offend God as well. These positions of His death as an accident, martyrdom, because of His moral influence, or God's love of law and order still fall short of the types of changes that are occurring in people's lives.
The same people who hold the above ideas also imply those who hold and defend fundamentalist doctrine are out of step with reality. However, the theology and definition presented in John 1 shows that we are not out of step with reality. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." The Word is the messenger and, as shown in John 1:14 the messenger was Jesus Christ- "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father) full of grace and truth." The purpose of the messenger was to provide an acceptable sacrifice to a holy God for all man's sin. This salvation, as unmistakably pointed out in John 1:13 cannot emanate from man because salvation:
a) is not a physical act -- "not blood of man" b) is not an intellectual act -- not an urge to know God c) is not will of the flesh, an emotional act -- not a feeling for God, something that we trump up from inside
C. WHAT JESUS TAUGHT ABOUT THE VICARIOUS ATONEMENT FOR SIN The vicarious atonement for sin is the doctrine teaching that Christ’s death has a value in our behalf as its purpose.
1. ATONEMENT IS NOT A RESULT OF RELIGIOUS RITUALS
Jesus taught us that salvation is not earned by religious ritualistic actions or human activity (Romans 9:16).
2. ATONEMENT IS A RESULT OF A SPIRITUAL BIRTH
What is required is a spiritual rebirth that makes us sons of God. This does not make us gods, but as one adopted in title and relationship to God. We cannot contribute anything to our salvation because we have nothing to contribute; that is why we need a vicarious sacrifice.
3. ATONEMENT IS BY SATISFYING GOD’S JUSTICE,
There is no third party satisfying God's justice, but God Himself. If there were a third party involved even the most sinful atheist would be entitled to heaven after his death.
4. ATONEMENT REQUIRES A RANSOM PAYMENT In Mark 10:45 we find that Christ came to give the ransom paid to God, not Satan as if to buy us back from Satan's control. The Greek translation puts this price as one paid to set a slave free. Because the blood ransom was paid to God the Father by God the Son, he sets the conditions of salvation. We are lost in our relationship to God unless we meet Christ's conditions, namely to have faith and believe in Him.
5. ATONEMENT INVOLVES A SUBSTITUTIONARY PAYMENT
In John 10:10-11, Jesus states that he gave his life for sheep that they may live. This offer is open to everyone, but not everyone has eternal life unless they ask Christ to make their payment for them.
The relationship of Christ to His followers is not totalitarian but rather that of a servant. In fact God has decreed that the only way to find satisfaction is as a servant. Christ came not to minister but minister to. The highest role He obtained was that of a servant which pleased the Father. In turn our serving Christ through faith also pleases God. John 6:51 states that Christ gave his flesh to bring life forever, which was the purpose of Calvary. This could not have been accomplished if Christ had not assumed the role of the servant carrying out his Father's will. Communion which represents this sacrifice became a new covenant in Christ's blood that no animal could atone (Lk 22:20).
In being the sacrificial lamb of God, Jesus also became the Good Shepherd. The passage in John 10:15-28 reflects the importance of this action. In verse 15 Christ says He will lay his life down; verse 16 even those who are not His sheep (the Gentiles) will hear and follow His voice, and be one with the shepherd. The love of the Father is revealed in the substitutional death (v.17) and by His willingness to lay down His life and the power to take it up again (v.18). Through this we are given eternal life (v.28).
6. ATONEMENT REQUIRES A PAYMENT EQUAL TO THE CONDEMNATION OF DEATH
Christ is saying we have eternal life through His substitutionary death for sin. He is talking about a right relationship with God that insures an eternal life in Heaven and not in Hell. Salvation is only on the terms of vicarious atonement. Eternal life is not earned as a wage, not merited as a reward, nor won as a prize. It only comes as a gift to be received without merit!
7. ATONEMENT AS TAUGHT BY JESUS IN THE THIRD CHAPTER OF JOHN
A. THE PREMISE: No one is naturally equipped for spiritual life, 3:3
B. THE PARTICULAR: Only born again people can experience spiritual life, 3:3
C. THE PROBLEM: Religion tends to replace redemption 3:1-10
1. As a Pharisee 2. As one who was religious ruler 3. As one who acknowledged Jesus as a master teacher 4. As one who acknowledged Jesus as a miracle worker 5. As one who acknowledged Jesus as a man from God 6. As one who acknowledged Jesus had God in Him 7. As one who himself was a master religious teacher 8. As one who was monotheistic in his theology 9. As one who was socially acceptable 10. As one who was seeking salvation
D. THE PROCEDURE: Both the physical and spiritual planes of life are the result of a birth, 3:4-7
E. THE PRINCIPLE: Spiritual life is produced by the Holy Spirit, 3:8-13 F. THE PRICE: Atonement is paid for by a substitutionary sacrifice, 3:14
G. THE PERSONALIZATION: Whosoever involves everyone, 3:15
The paradox of the gospel is that it is both exclusive and inclusive. It is exclusive in the sense that anyone who trusts anything in addition to Christ’s death for redemption will be rejected. It is inclusive in the sense that the offer for forgiveness is universal. Jesus explained this simply by saying “ whosoever” comes to Calvary may be forgiven of sin and receive a gracious redemption and spiritual life. The “new birth” is not an outdated theological concept. It never will be. It remains the only possible program offered by God for individual redemption.
GAA/March, 2007 (f)
Sermon Supplement, Lord’s Day, March 4, 2007 Kihei Baptist, Kihei, Maui, Hawaii DID JESUS BELIEVE IN MIRACLES, Part Two Glenn Armstrong, D.D., Pastor _____________________________________________________________________________________
EXPOSITION OF THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 9:10-30 - THE WHAT AND HOW OF MIRACLES Glenn Armstrong, Pastor ________________________________________________________________________ INTRODUCTION:
Six questions were asked by people who observed the miracles of Jesus when he opened the eyes of a man who was born blind. Each question assists in the definition of a miracle of nature. It demonstrates the difference from the daily work of God in our lives as believers. It could be said that every time God works from heaven into an open universe it is a miracle. However, with so many personalities using and misusing the scriptures by claiming they perform miracles, it is well to look into the scripture for understanding on this subject. Doctrine is defined by revelational information, and while human experience is often very interesting, it contributes nothing to Bible doctrine. The six questions asked when Jesus opened the eyes of a congenitally blind man were: 1. How were his eyes opened? - 9;10-14 2. How did he receive sight? - 9:15-16 3. What do you think of the one who opened your eyes? 9:17-18 4. How do you see? - 9:19-23 5. How could Jesus do this miracles? - 9:24-25 6. What did Jesus do to your eyes? - 9:26
I. THE WHAT AND HOW OF BIBLE MIRACLES, JOHN 9:10-30
A. A miracle is an event without natural explanations, but clearly observable, 9:10-14 B. A miracle is an event without a power source that operates within the normal laws of nature, 9:15-16 C. A miracle is an event which has evidence of supernatural interaction, 9:17-18 D. A miracle is an event which has positive proof of an unexplainable change in conditions, 9:19-23 E. A miracle is an event which has factual evidence which cannot be changed with additional information, 9:24,25 F. A miracle is an event which if accepted will testify to the presence of God in Christ, 9:26-30
II. THE VARIED RESPONSES TO BIBLICAL MIRACLES, JOHN 9:30-41
A. A BIASED RESPONSE RESULTING FROM SPIRITUAL IGNORANCE, 9:30-32
1. Ignorance of God’s existence 2. Ignorance of God’s creative capacities 3. Ignorance of God’s incarnation in Christ 4. Various levels of thought
a. Level 4 - Theological thought - answers to the question of “Who?” Who supplies the power and intelligence behind a miracle? b. Level 3 - Philosophical thought - answers to the question of “Why?” Why is this considered a miracle and why is it part of the human experience? c. Level 2 - Empirical science - answers to the question of “How?” How is a miracle explained, can it be deduced, documented, or duplicated? d. Level 1 - Mathematics - answers to the question of “What?” What are the probabilities and plausibility of this occurring with natural explanations? III. A BLATANT REJECTION OF AN OBVIOUSLY TRUE EXPERIENCE, 9:33,34
A. Ignorance gives way to prejudiced opinions. B. Prejudice gives way to anger. C. Anger rejects both the truth of an event, as well as the person involved.
IV. A BELIEF RESULTING IN A SPIRITUAL EXPERIENCE, 9:35-38
A. God expects a confident, affirmative belief in Himself, and all his actions. Seeking natural explanation for what the scriptures teach as miracles is now a part of evangelicalism as it used to be part of theological liberalism. B. Whole schools have changed faculties in order to change theological positions on Biblical miracles. Some of these schools have closed. C. Finding qualified professors in the science fields who believe in a supernatural explanation for existence, order, and temporary rearrangements of natural laws, (miracles) has proven to be a major reason for institutions changing theological positions. Institutions, leaders, and writings are the position of an organization. D. Knowing the Savior should be all that is needed to believe in His miracles. E. Can Jesus heal without a person’s faith being involved? He did here. The blind man did not know who Jesus was until after the miracle. “Healers” often explain their failures by implying the person who wanted to be healed, or their family, did not have enough faith. Nothing could be more cruel! F. Be careful of the “name it and claim it” style of preaching. No one can force God to do a miracle. The heresy is very deceptive, and places the results on an individual’s faith, or lack of it, making a miracle the (man centric) when they are always revealed as (Theo centric) and (Christocentric).
V. BLINDNESS RESULTING FROM A SINFUL NATURE, 9: 39-41
A. The judgment of verse 39 is “krima”, separation, rather than “krisis” condemnation. Jesus came into the world, in part, to cause a separation of believers from unbelievers. B. It makes no sense to endeavor to put together what God wants separated. Current church programming, at times, is little more than an attempt to make the church acceptable to the world of unbelievers with the excuse of reaching the lost. Clearly, this was not the ministry demonstrated by Jesus. C. Christ’s presence in the world constituted a separation of believers from unbelievers, which should also be the case today. If unbelievers want to be part of Christ, they need to become ‘believers’, rather than the church becoming more like the ‘unbelievers’. D. Mixing truth with error will always destroy truth, and will never improve error. Sin is willful rejection and disobedience of truth as known in God’s inspired scriptures, which are not negotiable! E. Doctrine should, and does divide. What value is it to be the Light of the World to a blind person? By opening the eyes of the blind physically, Jesus demonstrated His ability to also open the eyes and minds of those spiritually blinded by sin and Satan.
GAA/ March/2007 (f)
Sermon Supplement, Lord’s Day, March 11,2007 Kihei Baptist, Kihei, Maui, Hawaii, Morning Worship Services Glenn Armstrong D.D. Pastor ____________________________________________________________________________ DID JESUS BELIEVE IN SEPARATION OF TRUTH FROM ERROR?
Truth must be eternally, always true, at all times, in all situations and in all cultures, for everyone everywhere. Truth must be absolute not relative, correspond to reality, both inside and outside the universe. While truth may be newly known, it is still new knowledge of old (eternal) truth. Truth is dogmatic and not falsifiable nor contradictory. Truth is absolute even when our understanding of it is not. It can never change to fit our limited understanding. The Apostle John used the word Truth 27 times in his gospel and 20 times in his epistles. By the time John wrote, truth, life, light, way, etc., were code words used by the Gnostics to discount the deity of Jesus. They taught they were the “way”, they had the “light” and alone had “truth” which was mystically revealed only to them. They taught they alone had spiritual and thus eternal life. John recorded the words of Jesus that refuted the philosophical and theological error of the assumed superiority of the Gnostics.
Jesus separated Himself from error by teaching that truth is best known through revelation and inspiration and that error is information contrary to the scriptures. Because the Sadducees did not know scriptural truth, they also lacked an understanding of the power of God, Matthew 22:29 Mark 12: 24.
WHAT JESUS BELIEVED ABOUT TRUTH
I. JESUS BELIEVED THAT TRUTH IS ETERNAL, FIXED, FINAL AND NEVER IN FLUX, John 1:14, 17. A. He came to reveal eternal truth as from God the Father. B. He came to display truth in the form of grace. C. He came to personalize truth in Himself.
II. JESUS BELIEVED THAT TRUTH IN WORSHIP IS BOTH KNOWABLE AND DOABLE AND NEVER DECEPTIONAL, John 4:22-24.
A. Truth In worship is not natural, 4:22. B. Truth in worship is not mechanical, 4:23. C. Truth in worship is not fallacious, 4:24.
III. JESUS BELIEVED THAT TRUTH IN BOTH THE RESURRECTION AND REVELATION IS SUPPORTABLE, John 5:33-39.
A. Truth is capable of predicting the future resurrection of everyone, 5:28-29. B. Truth is dependable because of: 1. The witness of John the Baptist 2. The works of Himself 3. The words of God the Father 4. The writings of Holy Scripture
IV. JESUS BELIEVED THAT TRUTH IS ESSENTIAL FOR FREEDOM FROM SIN, John 8:32 . A. Jesus believed that sin was serious. B. Jesus believed that sin was forgivable. C. Jesus believed He was the sole source of forgiveness. D. Jesus believed as truth, He could set people free from sin.
V. JESUS BELIEVED THAT TRUTH HAS A SOURCE IN A PERSON AND NOT A SYSTEM OF PRECEPTS, John 14:1-6.
A. A person not precepts provides a solution to personal problems, 14:1. B. A person not precepts provides a prepared place in heaven, 14:2,3. C. A person not precepts provides a promise of Christ’s return, 14:3. D. A person not precepts provides the way to travel in life, 14:6. E. A person not precepts provides the way to know truth, 14:6. F. A person not precepts provides life to live, 14:6. G. A person not precepts proved fellowship with the Father, 14:6.
VI. JESUS BELIEVED THAT TRUTH IS SPIRITUALLY DIMENSIONAL AND IS UNKNOWABLE AND UNOBTAINABLE WITHOUT THE HOLY SPIRIT, 14:16,17.
A. The Holy Spirit can abide in believers,14:16. B. The Holy Spirit is available to help teach believers,14:28. C. The Holy Spirit is unknown to all unregenerate people,14:17. D. The Holy Spirit is by definition “the Spirit of Truth”,14:17
GAA/3/2007 (f)
Sermon supplement: Lord’s Day, March 18, 2007 Morning Worship Services; 8:00 and 10:00 AM Kihei Baptist, Kihei, Maui, Hawaii Glenn Armstrong D.D. Pastor __________________________________________________________________________________
Message Series: Was Jesus a Theological Fundamentalist? Part Five: WHAT DID JESUS BELIEVE ABOUT HIS VIRGIN BIRTH? John 8:12-44 ______________________________________________________________
HISTORICAL SETTING:
In this passage John records the contest between Jesus, the Sanhedrin, the Pharisees and the scribes. The powerful people controlled the people. They were always in opposition to Jesus and most often against each other. They had already decided that Jesus would die. They joined together to confront Jesus regarding a death sentence against a woman they had contrived to appear guilty of immorality. There is no information to believe the charge against her was true. In fact, the trap was that if Jesus would have condemned her to death, as the law required, by the same sentencing they would have to apply the death penalty to Jesus' own mother. The leaders never accepted the virgin birth of Jesus in spite of all the Old Testament scriptures detailing the event.
The trap was set and the victims were to be both Jesus and Mary. The strongest words Jesus spoke are in this text as He defended His virgin birth! Jesus did not condemn the lady, but rather used that situation to identify Himself as the "Light of the World." WHAT DID JESUS BELIEVE ABOUT HIS VIRGIN BIRTH?
I. JESUS BELIEVED THE VIRGIN BIRTH WAS INSEPARABLY CONNECTED TO THE CONVERSION OF PEOPLE , 8:12. A. Jesus moved to the Court of the Women section of the temple area where the four large golden candelabras and the four charitable chests of money were kept. B. Jesus identified Himself as the Light of the World. As such He could give the light of spiritual life to all that followed Him. Those who refused Him would remain in eternal darkness.
II. JESUS BELIEVED THE VIRGIN BIRTH WAS INSEPARABLY CONNECTED TO HIS SINLESS CHARACTER, 8:13-18. A. The Pharasees invoked a Rabbinical code that no man can give witness to himself. Jesus’ response was that He came from eternity and could speak as God's equal. In addition God the Father had already spoken for Him, John1:33. B. Because of the sinless character of Christ and God the Father, neither needed supportive testimony.
III. JESUS BELIEVED THE VIRGIN BIRTH WAS INSEPARABLY CONNECTED TO THE DOCTRINE OF THE UNI-PLURALITY OF GOD, 8:19-21. A. Jesus defended that truth that He was the total representation of the Father. B. In an attempt to discredit Christ, they asked a scornful question, "where is your Father?" Later they accused Jesus as having an adulterous mother and father, 8:41. IV. JESUS BELIEVED THE VIRGIN BIRTH WAS INSEPARABLY CONNECTED TO THE ETERNAL CONDEMNATION OF THE LOST, 8:21-24. A. The unbelieving religious leaders were to, "die in their sins", are from this world and belong to the Satanic underworld. B. All are lost who reject the eternal deity of Jesus.
V. JESUS BELIEVED THE VIRGIN BIRTH WAS INSEPARABLY CONNECTED TO THE SPIRITUAL GROWTH OF BELIEVERS, 8:25-32. A. In contradiction to the unbelieving, those who believed in Him as the God/Savior had eternal life and could follow Him by continuing in His word. B. Freedom from sin is the result of Jesus being received as Truth.
VI. JESUS BELIEVED THE VIRGIN BIRTH WAS INSEPARABLY CONNECTED TO THE DELIVERANCE FROM SIN, 8:33-36. A. Truth and freedom when forfeited makes one the servant of sin. B. Sin can only be forgiven by the power of an eternal God through an eternal Son. A forgiven person is "free indeed" through Christ.
VII. JESUS BELIEVED THE VIRGIN BIRTH WAS INSEPARABLY CONNECTED TO THE CLASSIFICATION OF PEOPLE, 8:37-44 A. The accusers of Jesus are those born naturally, but not born again. B. The accusers are people who believe that Jesus was born through fornication. These religious leaders are still very much in existence! C. Jesus' strongest words are reserved for those who discredit His mother by rejecting His virgin birth. Jesus said they are the sons of Satan.
GAA/March 2007 (f)
Sermon Supplement, Lord’s Day, March 25, 2007 Kihei Baptist, Morning Worship Services, Kihei, Maui, Hawaii, Series: Was Jesus a Theological Fundamentalist? Part Six: Did Jesus Believe He Would Come to Earth Again? Glenn Armstrong, D.D. Pastor
DID JESUS BELIEVE HE WOULD COME TO EARTH AGAIN? John 14:1-6
INTRODUCTION: There should be no need to defend what Jesus believed about His promised return to earth. He made it so clearly recorded in the scriptures. God the Father added His testimony to this event, and the return of Christ was the very first subject the apostle wrote about. Added to this, the Holy Spirit closed the sacred scriptures with the return of Christ being the last pr | 
