A Biblical Defence Of The 5 Pillars (Part 1)

In my previous series, "The Anatomy of the Gospel", I broke down the Gospel message into five basic components (as an attempt at constructing a helpful witnessing framework) and called them the "Five Pillars of the Gospel". I have recently received correspondence concerning this series of posts questioning what basis I have for defining the Gospel message as something that should contain:

PILLAR 1 – THE HOLINESS OF GOD
PILLAR 2 – THE DEPRAVITY OF MAN
PILLAR 3 – THE NECESSITY OF JUDGMENT
PILLAR 4 – THE WORK OF CHRIST
PILLAR 5 – THE RESPONSE IT DEMANDS

I can only commend people for being Bereans and testing what I have to say. "The Bottom Line" is a blog which regularly puts "Christian teaching" under the blowtorch scrutiny of Scripture. Therefore it would be inconsistent, were I not willing to subject myself to the same scrutiny. So what follows is my biblical defence of the use of these five pillars as the critical core elements of Gospel proclamation.

First up consider these two important passages of Scripture:

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you--unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:1-4).

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8-9)

It is important to remember that 1 Corinthians 15 is meant as a defence of the resurrection, hence it has a major emphasis on the resurrection of Jesus Christ and briefly deals with the other issues when defining the Gospel. Nonetheless I can still make my case for defending my "five pillars" from 1 Corinthians 15. Additionally, it is worth paying close attention to Galatians 1:8-9. It is here that Paul goes on to say that there is only one Gospel, it is the Gospel that Paul preached, and preaching any other gospel is a damnable offence. Purity is, quite clearly, extremely important with the Gospel - it is life or death, heaven or hell! We must get it right.

We must also remember this simple rule of hermeneutics:
Scripture cannot contradict itself - therefore in understanding 1 Corinthians 15 rightly, it must harmonize with the rest of Scripture.

DEFENDING PILLAR 1 – THE HOLINESS OF GOD

In 1 Corinthians 15:3 we see the two characters of pillars 1 (The Holiness Of God)and 2 (The Depravity Of Man) - God (as Christ) and man (our sins) are presented in the roles of redeemer and criminal respectively. We also see that this message submits to "accordance with the Scriptures". In other words, Paul's terms of reference ("Christ" and "our sins") can be safely defined within the entire counsel of Scripture. We can know that God's Holiness, His character, and His nature, must be understood rightly because 1 John 2:22-23 teaches:

Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also (1 John 2:22-23).

This stresses the importance of knowing God rightly and defining Him rightly. That is why we call Mormonism a cult - because even though they name the name of Jesus, they define Him not as fully God but as a brother of Satan (among other things). So the God Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians 15 must be understood and presented rightly (as Scripture does) in order for a sinner to be rightly saved. I am not suggesting that to be saved you must understand and know every attribute of God - we cannot do that. After all, who can fathom the Trinity? But conversely, it is damnable to consciously deny God as He is presented in Scripture - which Bishop TD Jakes does, for example, when he denies the three distinct Persons of the Trinity by describing them as three manifestations (http://www.thepottershouse.org/v2/content/view/18/32/). This is a heresy that was denounced in the fourth century AD by the Athanasian Creed (http://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html). TD Jakes' modalist presentation of God is clearly not the God of Scripture and therefore an idol.

The Christ Who dies for our sins in 1 Corinthians 15 is God incarnate, "the Holy one of God" (John 6:69). The God of the Bible is Holy and unlike anything in the universe. He is the creator and sustainer of all things (John 1:3). He is so powerful that He spoke the universe into existence (Genesis 1). He is so huge that he measures the entire universe with the span of His Hand (Isaiah 40:12). He is so detailed that he numbers the hairs on our head (Luke 12:7). He is so just and righteous that He must punish all sin against Him (Genesis 18:25, Isaiah 13:11). He is so loving and merciful that He withholds his judgment giving us time to repent (2 Peter 3:9). Many people and religions use the Name of God, but in defining Him differently they commit the sin of idolatry.

On Friday I will continue with a biblical defence of PILLAR 2 – THE DEPRAVITY OF MAN.

Go On To Part 2
Go To "The Anatomy Of The Gospel" Series

No More Sissy Boy Christmas Sermons!!!

Last sunday at my wife's behest I attended a Christmas service at a nearby Pentecostal church. Tongues issues aside, most Christians would concede that, historically, a hallmark of the Pentecostal movement has been passionate holiness preaching. It is for this reason that I am staggered at the continuous stream of sissy boy therapeutic preaching emmanating from many modern Pentecostal pulpits. It pains me to say that our local branch is no exception to this modern trend. And tragically, rather than setting them apart it is actually bringing them into line with much of modern evangelicalisms "40 Days of your Best Prayer of Jabez Now".

It is also worth bearing in mind that Christmas services are usually times where unchurched people attend. Preachers are simply derelict in their duty when they fail to faithfully proclaim the one true Gospel in this setting. The preacher in this particular case is someone who vehemently rejects even the slightest suggestion that his preaching might be "seeker sensitive" or watered down. Well - you be the judge! The entire substance of the message I heard last Sunday was that Christmas was about God sending his Son with a message of joy to all people. Reader, this is a message that a Mormon or a universalist could proclaim. There was nothing to distinguish it as Christian let alone address the Gospel. I shudder to think at what a complete pagan would think after hearing that message. He would certainly walk out with the same ignorance but perhaps slightly more comforted about his lifestyle of rebellion.

I am so mad about this. God has given us a beautiful Gospel to deliver to sinful men. The joy the aforementioned preacher spoke of is something that can only be rightly understood in the light of God's Holiness, man's sinfulness, and Christ's redemptive work on the cross to bridge that infinite gulf. It is a message that can be preached lovingly without resorting to pathetic sissy boy therapy. Preacher, man up this Christmas and do not withold the full counsel of God concerning the salvation of damned souls. We are in the business of life and death, not trying to compete with Oprah.

Tomorrow will be the start of an "8 Days of Christmas" series where I will attempt to lovingly proclaim the Gospel by dissecting a famous Christmas carol. It is an attempt to give an example of preaching that is loving in tone without shying away from the offense of the cross . . . all the while remembering that it is an offense to those who are perishing regardless of how nice we are.

Starting tomorrow - 8 Days of Christmas on The Bottom Line

Sacred Cow Saturday - Episode 9 - Religion and Politics

Last saturday I wrapped up my posts on Rick Warren discussing his invitation of rabid pro abortionist Barack Obama to speak at his AIDS conference held annually at Saddleback church. This event serves as a great snapshot of the lies, deceit, and hypocrisy going on by the false teachers otherwise known as "emergents", "red letter Christians", and "progressive Christians".

I have stayed silent about this for a long time. I have listened patiently to the "voices of reason" lecturing me on how the "religious right" is too political, that there are more issues than abortion and same-sex marriage, and that we, as Christians, should lean neither to the right or left.

As an aside I am well aware of the shortcomings of the "religious right" but they were not those identified by these naysayers. The "religious right" were right about the issues they fought for and probably saw many unborn lives saved in the process as well as significantly delaying the homosexual agenda. Their problem was that they failed to understand that you cannot legislate morality and the political sphere is not how to grow God's Kingdom. His Kingdom is not of this world nor is it grown by Christian government. God's chosen method has always been preaching. The heart of the human problem is the problem of the human heart and unless a person is born again they will not change where it matters. No amount of political clout can regenerate a human being. I think it is fair to say, generally speaking, that the preaching and purity of the Gospel took a back seat during the heyday of the religious right. And now, it seems, we are paying a price for it.

Well I can no longer remain silent because the current farce by so called Christians who have been pontificating their political neutrality and slamming the religious right for years are now revealing their true colors and true agenda that they had all along. I'm really mad about this and a lot of people are practicing little or no discernment.

Outwardly the emergent movement disdains the seeker sensitive approach, but in reality they have a lot to thank them for. If it was the church growth/seeker sensitive proponents that played a large role in dumbing down biblical literacy of congregations around America, they also paved the way for church goers to be deceived by false teaching that never would have gained acceptance 30 years ago.

Some people will question why I am becoming politically involved. The truth is this has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with theology and exercising a biblical worldview because that should affect everything we do. Take Mitt Romney for example when he was in the running. I would not interfere with someone voting for Mitt because they believe he is the best candidate. Where I would have taken issue is if someone was to vote for Mitt because they thought he was a Christian. In that case I would be compelled to point out that Mitt Romney is a mormon and mormons are not even remotely Christian. I am not opposed to Barack Obama because he is a democrat. I vehemently oppose his support of murdering the unborn and the truth should be told about that. My concern is for the Christian voters ability to exercise a biblical worldview and use it when making decisions. That is why I will attempt to shed some light on the political deception going on among these "politically neutral" left leaning "Christian voices".

Go On To Part 10
Go Back To Part 8
Go Back To Part 1

Amusing Grace

When was the last time you sang "Amazing Grace"? What were you thinking as you uttered those words "that saved a wretch like me"? Did those words ring true or just roll off the tongue never to be pondered.

It's a popular catchphrase in our modern church culture to throw the word grace around like the fifth ammendment. If a sermon didn't seem very nice then someone will be prone to say that it lacked grace. But what does it mean? Is it something other than a warm fuzzy feeling? I can recall recently hearing an hour long sermon about grace without the word ever being defined during the whole message.

We need to be sharp in our witness and how we define what we say. The mormon also says that he is "saved by grace". It is only when you press the mormon on his understanding of "grace" that his works righteous religion is revealed. This issue might confuse the pastor of the "largest church in America" but it need not confuse us. According to websters dictionary "grace" means undeserved favour. This raises the question why is God's grace undeserved - I'm glad you asked.

Last sunday I spoke with a man who is an old work acquaintence of a friend of mine called Rene (yes,I have a friend). They both worked together as teachers at a Christian school and would sometimes preach in their chapel services. I asked the man what he thought about Rene's preaching. The conversation went something like this:

Man: the problem with Rene was that he didn't preach grace.

Cameron: could you elaborate on that?

M: He sometimes talked about sin, hell, judgment and that people needed to repent.

C: Did he ever talk about Christ's work on the cross and the blood He shed for human sin?

M: Yes he talked about that a lot.

C: Do you know what "grace" means?

M: (long pause) . . . . . . .

C: It actually means undeserved favor. Do you know why we don't deserve God's favor?

M: Because of sin??

C: So how is it possible to preach grace without talking about sin?

M: I see your point.

A failure to talk about sin, righteousness, and judgment robs grace of it's meaning. Grace is only ever amusing when we fail to see our guilt. Next time you find yourself singing Amazing Grace, examine yourself in the light of God's moral law and look to the cross and marvel at how a good God would be willing to save a wretch like you.

Tomorrow - Why the Law Must Thunder From the Pulpit