The Mission of the Christ and of His Church

At a very young age, Jesus had a firm grasp on, a profound clarity around, and an intense focus for doing His Father’s business. And Jesus was relentless in carrying out His mission. Furthermore, there can be no doubt, upon reading the gospel accounts, about the exact nature of the mission of Jesus Christ. First of all, Jesus came because He was sent by the Father. (Jn. 8:42) He did not come of His own initiative but He was sent by God the Father for a very specific purpose. Jesus came to lay His life down for His sheep. (Jn. 10:11) Jesus came to save His people from their sins. (Matt. 1:21) Jesus came in order to explain the Father to us, to reveal God to His elect. (Jn. 1:18) Jesus came to destroy the works of the devil. (1 Jn. 3:8) Jesus came to secure eternal life for those believing in Him by giving His life for them. (Jn. 3:16) Jesus was anointed by the Spirit of the Lord to preach the gospel to the poor, to proclaim release to the captives, to announce recovery of sight to the blind, to set free those who are oppressed and to proclaim the favorable year of the Lord. (Lu. 4:18) The mission of Jesus Christ is obvious from Scripture. There can be no possibility of confusing it without doing tremendous damage to the plain record of Scripture.

When Jesus had accomplished His mission, and set the plans in place for the birth of His Church, He gave plain instructions to His immediate followers. These instructions are impossible to misconstrue when interpreted with the respect they deserve. Jesus left his followers with a simple and clear command: “go and make disciples of all nations, and baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” (Matt. 28:19) In other words, do not limit your work to Israel, but extend your disciple-making enterprise to all people groups without exception. These are the final words of Jesus Christ before He ascended to the Father. Jesus also told his disciples during this time, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.” (Lu. 24:47) The followers of Christ were witnesses of His personal earthly mission and as witnesses they were charged with preaching repentance and forgiveness of sins to all the nations. Hence, we see the mission of the Church: preaching the gospel, which is the good news that repentance and forgiveness of sins is now extended to all the nations.

Since the mission of Christ and the mission of the Church is the supernatural conversion of souls through the gospel of repentance and forgiveness, I thought it would be a good idea to examine how major spiritual leaders in the NT interacted with their respective political system when given the opportunity. We begin with John the Baptist. John the Baptist had an encounter with Herod the tetrarch over his unlawful conduct with Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife. John made no appeal to human law. He never gathered a band of folks together in order to change the civil codes. He appealed to the law of God and called Herod to repentance. John was interested in changing Herod, not the laws governing his culture.

Jesus stood before Herod and Pontius Pilot. Pilot examined Christ and gave Him every opportunity to defend Himself. Jesus never opened His mouth except to inform Pilate that he had no power over Him that had not been given to him by His Heavenly Father. Jesus never sought to change a single civil code. He never told His disciple to attempt to change a single civil code. Jesus called men to repentance toward God and faith in Himself.

Peter and John were called in by the Sanhedrin, and threatened not to preach in the name of Jesus Christ any longer. Peter nor John argued that they ought to be free to practice their religion as they see fit. They did not proceed to start a movement in support of a law making it illegal to persecute Christians. Rather than do these things, the disciples gathered together and corporately petitioned God for even greater boldness to speak out in the name of Christ. Later in Acts 5, the Apostles are once again threatened, imprisoned, and even beaten for preaching the gospel. Yet, their response was not to start a movement for religious freedom, to end religious persecution and suffering or anything like that. Instead, they rejoiced that they were counted worthy to suffer directly for the name of Christ.

Stephen is another example of a NT leader that had the opportunity to engage in the legal authorities in his culture. He stood before them and gave them the gospel and preached repentance. Stephen was unjustly murdered simply for preaching the gospel. No one started a movement to change the civil codes. Immediately after Stephen’s martyr, a great persecution arose against the church in Jerusalem. And they scattered. They got out of dodge. They did not engage in civil disobedience, demanding their right to worship freely without persecution. They did not have the same foolish expectations that modern American Christians have.

Paul was another NT leader that experienced the unpleasant experience of being on the wrong side of the civil authorities. When given the opportunity to make his defense, Paul gave his personal testimony and shared the gospel with Felix. Paul did the exact same thing with Agrippa. It was clear that Paul was interested in converting Felix and Agrippa. He showed not even the slightest interest in changing the civil codes or dictating how the governing authorities ought to govern. He was after their heart!

Christians in America are suffering from the delusion that the constitution is a document to which Christians ought to appeal to defend themselves. Those who say that Kim Davis ought not resign but instead, resist, do so not from an exegetical standpoint but rather from a political one. The entire argument for Kim Davis’ defense is political at its core, not exegetical. The presupposition is that Christians ought to fight for their constitutional rights! Additionally, there are others that think Christians can be salt and light by changing the civil codes. Such changes are external only and at best provide an outward show of morality. Additionally, there is no hint of this behavior in the New Testament Church. Even though John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, Peter, John, James, Stephen, and Paul all had the chance to speak to the injustice of the civil code in their day, not one of them did so. They had other interests, other priorities. And so too should we. The message that the Church has for America is simple: repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Really Bad Arguments and Some Hypocrisy in Modern American Evangelical Thought

Over the past couple of weeks, I have witnessed extremely poor judgment, hypocritical decision-making, and outright stupidity coming from those who should know better. It is coming from Christian leaders, some of whom I know personally and respect. It seems to me that we have simply parked any and all discernment preferring instead adopt the infamous herd mentality. These arguments and behaviors I have read about range from Christian leaders exposing young children to anti-abortion clinic protests exposing them to the vile pictures of dead babies ripped apart cloaked in the idea that they are teaching their children mercy and justice and showing then what it is like to stand up for the helpless. The Kim Davis story continues to rumble down the tracks gathering bad argument after bad argument as it goes with Mike Huckabee being the most recent one to weigh in on the matter and come to Kim's defense. Then we witness Tullian Tchividjian's moral failure, his resignation, his application for divorce, and within two weeks, his hiring by Willow Creek Church to be their new director of ministry development. And then we discover that R.C. Sproul Jr. gave his email address to Ashley Madison in a moment of weakness. I think any man understands sexual temptation and weakness. It is bit more difficult to understand a website that, if I am correct, caters to the sexual escapades of only people who are married. The sad fact is there will likely be more to come. Indeed, it has been a difficult few weeks. What should we do? What should the churches response be to these things? What should leaders and teachers do to help fellow believers think and speak correctly about these matters?

• For starters, stop lumping Kim Davis into the Christian community. If the reports about her "Christian experience" are correct, she is involved in a heretical sect. Apostolic Pentecostalism has a variety of false doctrines, not the least of which is the outright denial of the Trinity. Just because Kim Davis chose the right side of the gay marriage issue, that does not mean she is a true believer. Pastors and teachers need to STOP teaching us that it ok to rally together around issues...like homosexuality, abortion, religious freedom, etc. The Church rallies around the truth, and Jesus Christ is the truth, His Word is the Truth. The unifying principle of Christianity is the Christ we know and nothing more.

• I wish we could oppose abortion without exposing young children to such obscene imagery. I wish we would be more discerning to be careful not to allow the methods we use to distract from the message we bring. I wish abortion protesters would stop blaming abortion on the rest of us. Stop judging your brother sinfully by accusing him of being complacent because he does not oppose abortion the way YOU think he should. Stop judging pastors who don't preach against abortion as often or how YOU think they should.

• I wish the Church would do the right thing when it comes to men like Tchividjian. He and his wife cheated on each other, refuse to forgive each other, are petitioning for a divorce, and somehow, in the middle of all this, he is deemed fit to lead ministry development at Willow Creek Church. What does the world see when they see this? For starters, these matters ought to be kept private. How can we allow divorce within our own community to reign as freely as we have, all the while arguing against gay marriage because it violates God's law? Well, divorce for any reason violates God's law and the Church has tolerated it with little more than a wink. The issue here is that some of us hate homosexual sin more than we do the sin of illicit divorce and so we elevate it to a place of higher importance. The truth is that this points out serious hypocrisy in our thinking and we must work hard to correct it. It is embarrassing and shameful that we should ignore God's design for marriage where divorce is concerned WITHIN our own communities and then wag our fingers at the world because they want to ignore God's design for marriage differently. The situation as I see it is absurdly hypocritical.

• Finally, godly men visiting adultery sites. While this story is upsetting and disturbing, it is also one that demonstrates what justice, mercy, and grace look like. R.C. Sproul Jr. was fired by his father's own ministry. Sproul Jr. had a moment of weakness. We are all sinners. We all have moments of weakness. I would NEVER point my finger at Sproul Jr. I love and respect him. Should we consider the fact that he lost his wife? Yes we should. Should we consider that he is a sinner just like the rest of us? We most certainly should. Sproul Jr. made no excuses. He took full responsibility. He lost his post. He is being shamed for all of us to see which I think is unbiblical. It should have remained private. Did he confess that he had sinned to anyone else? A fellow disciple or accountability partner? We don't know. Would he have ever confessed? Only God knows. But God has a way of bring his discipline to bear on each of us and so it is with Sproul Jr. He is a good man with a lot to offer and I pray that after a period of counsel, prayer, and healing, he is fully restored to serve the body. For he is indeed a strong servant with a lot to offer the body of Christ.

By now it should be obvious to us that the Church is infected with worldliness. Our passions rest in places other than the gospel. The gospel is often used as a device used for political expediency. We want particular practices to end or to begin or to continue. And we pour nearly all our energies into making sure our desires are realized. We want homosexual marriage to once again be illegal. We want the murder of innocent babies to cease. We insist that American Christians retain their religious freedoms so that they can avoid persecution which is unlike their fellow Christians across the globe and precisely contrary to what the New Testament says about what we should expect when it comes to this issue. Preach Christ! Condemn godless living but do it within the context of the gospel, not Americanism. Condemn the murdering of innocent babies but not in the context of making abortion illegal. Do it within the context that it is something God hates. God hates hands that shed innocent blood. Repent and believe the gospel. Homosexual marriage is not a concept Christians can accept. We must oppose it in our teachings, our thinking, and in our personal conversations. But we do so within the context of the gospel, not within the context of making it illegal again or using our Christianity as an excuse to engage in civil disobedience.

Something Else You Should Know Before Defending Kim Davis As An Orthodox Christian

In Sunday School this morning, someone sent up a request for prayer for Kim Davis, the Clerk of Court in Kentucky who refuses to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. In my last post, I pointed out what I consider to be some grievous errors in our thinking on this matter and in this post, I want follow that up with a short and direct response to those that are holding Davis out to be a Christian martyr. Before I say more, I agree with Kim Davis that same-sex marriage is immoral and not sanction by God, and therefore it is impossible, civil license or not. Only God can sanction marriage.

Now, before you run to Kim's defense, not only should you consider my last post, you should also consider this one. First of all, I do not accept the argument that Christians ought to bother themselves with the issue of religious freedom. It is NOT our duty to stand up and fight for our right to practice our religion freely. The NT says just the opposite. We can expect the culture and God-less civil authorities to persecute Christian belief because those institutions are guided and controlled by men who are hostile to God. Why we find this shocking is, well, shocking to me. Why would God-hating civil authorities want to submit to Christian principles? Truly Christian principles for Christian reasons? They don't and where it appears they do, the explanation is all too easy to understand. The order they know society requires to function without deteriorating into chaos can only be had by those innate principles that humanity shares, like the idea of morality, etc. But make no mistake about it, the embracing of these values is as superficial and hypocritical as it can be. America has been one of the biggest hypocrites as a nation in the history of nations. She has given little more than lip-service to Christ all the while increasing her level of immorality with each passing year. And she has been doing this from her very beginning. We are strangers in this world, aliens, citizens of a heavenly kingdom with a responsibility to our reigning King, whose kingdom is and is yet to come. It is the Church, the body of Christ that concerns us. As for the world, the civil government, our duty to them is to love them, to show them what godly love is by loving one another, and by giving them the truth. If we teach them to adopt Christian principles externally only, we do nothing more than create a bunch of self-righteous hypocrites. Regrettably, that is what America has been mostly made of for centuries now. So lets make sure that when it comes to this issue, our loyalty is to God and His Church more than it is to some misplaced idea about an American revival, or about changing the civil codes so that we feel like we are doing something.

It has been reported that Kim Davis is a member of an Apostolic Pentecostal church. Those churches are not uncommon in that part of the country. I grew up in West Virginia, just 15 minutes from the Kentucky border. I knew people from those churches and at one time, as a teenager, was invited to speak at one. My familiarity with Apostolic Pentecostal churches is based on several years of experience. These churches would be classified more as a cult than anything else. They are clearly not part of historic Christian orthodoxy. The website for Apostolic Churches beliefs can be viewed here.  For starters, Apostolic Pentecostal churches deny the doctrine of the trinity, holding firmly to the heresy of modalism. This alone places them outside the Christian community. The Apostolic Pentecostal churches also believe that faith and repentance along with water baptism only in the name of Jesus Christ, and the modern tongue-speaking phenomenon are all required to be saved. The churches that I knew believed that women had to wear dresses, some of them held that those dresses had to be ankle length with sleeves going all the way down to their wrists or they were committing an abomination. The churches were legalistic in the extreme.

Clearly, the Apostolic Pentecostal churches are an aberration of biblical Christianity. It is a legalistic sect rejecting historic Christian teaching, a movement entirely in rebellion of apostolic teaching not unlike the one John dealt with in his letter. Ironic I think, but damning at the same time. Kim Davis is said to be part of this community for over four years now. If this is in fact true, it means that Kim Davis is a member in pseudo-Christian community, a group that is in rebellion against Christ and His teachings. So here are the final issues as I see them.

1. Kim could issue marriage licenses without sinning in my opinion.2. Kim should resign if she cannot issue these licenses in good conscience.3. We cannot truly claim that Kim is being persecuted in Christ's name because she is not in jail for preaching Christ.4. Kim is in jail for refusing to carry out her civil duties as clerk of court, not because she loves Christ.5. Kim quite probably belongs to a cult, not a true Christian community and as such, she should not be supported by the Church. If she accepts the teachings of the Apostolic Pentecostal church, she must be marked as a heretic and given the gospel of faith and repentance in Christ.

What bothers me the most about this issue is the outrage I see from my fellow brothers and sisters. These are the same people who will give illicit divorce in the Christian community a wink and nothing more. Professing Christians can divorce for unbiblical reasons and these people just "mind their own business." But on this sin, a sin they hate more than the sin of illicit divorce, they get all worked up. I, for one, have to wonder if they are getting worked up because this sin is wicked in the eyes of God or because this sin is one of the ones they hate the most. If we are not going to tolerate gay marriage, then neither can we tolerate illicit divorce among Christians. In fact, we should not tolerate it among the world either. But we do don't we. Why is that? This hypocrisy is no different than a Christian bed and breakfast owner not inquiring as to the marital status of a man and woman renting a room while rejecting the gay couple a room claiming it injures his conscience. Either we are stupid or we have an obvious double standard. At this point I am not sure which one it is. But I am sure of this: Willow Creek has hired Tullian Tchividjian just two weeks after he filed for divorce. How can a man who has admitted to adultery recently and who is filing for divorce be in a position to be the director of ministry? And there is no outrage at all that I can tell. The bottom line is that the Church has to clean up its own back yard before and then some. 

A Christian Perspective on Jailed Kentucky Clerk, Kim Davis

Consistency is not such an easy thing to maintain unless that thing that informs your thinking sets the standard for consistency as well as rational thought. And even then, my sin nature constantly gets in the way. But I will do my best to share a different perspective than the one most Christians are writing about when it comes to Kim Davis, the county clerk in Ky. that refuses to sign marriage licenses for homosexual and lesbian couples.

First, we must ask the question about the nature of the clerk's signature. Does signing the license equal an endorsement or approval of gay marriage? Some would say yes while others would say not. But there is a deeper problem here that most Christians fail to realize. I will come back to this later. Jesus Christ Himself informs us that all sin originates in the heart. I am not convinced that a Christian Clerk, in the course of doing their job cannot issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples if they do so under objection to the concept that same-sex couples can have legitimate marriages. I am not talking about Ms. Davis' conscience just yet. I am talking about the simple question regarding a piece of paper. The fact is that she is under compulsion by nature of her position in the civil system to do that very thing which her conscience will not allow her to do. She can either change her conscience, ignore her conscience, resign from the position, or refuse to do her job. It is a very complicated matter. It is far more complicated than most people talking about it realize.

Should Ms. Davis issue the marriage license against her conscience? Romans 14:23 informs the Christian, But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin. If we look at the principle given by Scripture, we would have to conclude that if Ms. Davis' conscience will not allow her to issue the license, then she cannot, as a Christian, issue the license. In other words, if she thinks she is sinning and still issues the license, this places her in the position of believing that she is knowingly and willingly sinning. Hence, she must refrain from issuing the license so long as her conscience is where it is on the matter. From this we rule out one of the four options: Ms. Davis cannot ignore her conscience.

Should Ms. Davis refuse to do her job? Ms. Davis is a county clerk. This is not an insignificant position. The clerk is the most important administrative position in the county. Business can be extremely difficult if not impossible to carry one. I question whether or not a Christian clerk is wise to allow their personal objections to something life gay marriage get in the way of doing the business that the people of the county desperately need. I cannot help but wonder if such a scenario as we see being played out before us is a gospel issue or a gospel distraction. Does it promote the gospel, publish the gospel, defend the gospel or does it distract from the gospel? Is this the light that Jesus was talking about? From my point of view, I do not think it is. There are some jobs that some Christians simply cannot perform in good conscience. We all know that this is clearly the case. Could a Christian take a job where the twisting of the truth is a core part of that job? We all know the answer to that question. And I think you know that I have tipped my hat as to the direction of this post. Ms. Davis should not refuse to do her job as county clerk. This are other options.

Ms. Davis could resign from the clerk's position if the legal system in Ky. will not give her the exemption she is looking for. She could take the opportunity to give the gospel and respectfully object to the fact that immorality is being celebrated openly in her community and inform the community that she cannot participate due to her Christian faith. This option would protect her conscience and the county business. It should condemn gay marriage and elevate the gospel, calling the people to repentance. I think this is a perfectly acceptable option and is in keeping with Christian principles.

Finally, Ms. Davis could scrutinize her ground for objecting to the process. In Paul's day, some Christians thought that eating meat from an animal that had been sacrificed to an idol constituted worshipping a false god. As these Christians grew in their faith, they scrutinized their conscience and realized that there was nothing wrong with the practice. Sin proceeds from wickedness conceived in the heart, not the external process of a government policy. I realize that many will disagree with this position. And I admit that I could be wrong in my point of view. I am more than willing to examine my position and adjust it if indeed I become convinced that a better, more faithful point of view exists. So we have a good example I think for an application of Romans 14 principles. Dogmatism at this point seems highly inappropriate. But I have one more important point that I need to raise.

The unavoidable hypocrisy of the situation is my final point. I have said elsewhere that the Church lost her moral authority to oppose gay marriage in the culture long ago when she adopted her lenient views of divorce. Women and men who are active members in supposedly Bible-believing churches divorce and remarry as a matter of routine. And in a large percentage of those cases, the person seeking the divorce had no biblical right to do so. And the reaction of the churches has been lethargic and complacent at best. Does such behavior display a high view for God's view of marriage? It does not in any way whatsoever. The final question for this situation is this: do county clerks investigate every marriage license to ensure that the union is not guilty of adultery according to the commands of Christ because the previous marriage was ended for biblically illegitimate reasons? Christians oppose the remarriage of persons who divorced their spouse for any reason other than adultery or abandonment. Those marriages are just as sinful as homosexual marriage, constructed on a foundation of rebellion.

Why do Christians expect the culture to embrace or even tolerate their moral code? There was no hint of such an expectation in the ancient church. The church called the world to repentance and faith. The church informed the world that she was under the judgment and condemnation of God. The church published the good news that faith in Christ saves and it saves magnificently above all that we are able to comprehend. The ancient church was interested in the gospel and nothing but the gospel. She did not meddle in civil affairs. When she encountered civil authorities, she confronted them, not with the idea that they had bad laws, but with the life-transforming gospel. However, for some reason, Christians in America expect America to stand up and pay attention to them. We seem to expect America to honor our "rights" as Christians. We are very concerned with our "right" NOT to be persecuted. We ought to be free to impose our Christian morality on the unregenerate civil authorities. We don't want to have to go underground, to lose our privileges, to lose our rights. But the New Testament story and teachings both tell us about a far different situation. That text provides more than ample warning about what happens to Christians in God-hating cultures and we would do well to remind ourselves of this daily. As for Kim Davis, I respect her objection to issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. But I question her wisdom for how that objection is playing out on the world stage. Christians do not have the right to be a county clerk and expect the county to accommodate them because they are a Christian and have certain rights. If holding a certain job means you must violate your conscience, the answer is to resign, not make a public spectacle out of it. I recognize the world will disagree even with my point of view and I expect as much. Christians have to do a better job being wise as serpents and harmless as doves. We have to do a better job understanding when we are being persecuted for Christ or prosecuted for breaking the law. The two are not always synonymous. Why can't the church just focus on preaching the gospel? Why can't we trust God to save those whom He has elected to Himself?

My advice to Kim would be to resign the position or revisit your convictions. You may discover there is another way.

A Logical Defense of Eternal Security (aka Perseverance of the Saints)

Just yesterday my wife was confronted with the notion that Christians could genuinely lose their salvation. Having been indoctrinated in solid biblical teachings for a few years now, and having spent most of her time around reformed folk, she was aghast. In order to help her better interact with that question the next time it comes up, I took about 30 seconds and asked her two questions. This post, albeit very short, is designed to provide a logical rather than an exegetical challenge to anyone you may encounter that believes that true Christians who have been born again can actually lose their salvation. That is to say that Christ paid for all their sin but somehow He did not pay for all their sin are both true statements that can be uttered at the same time regarding the same person. Here are the two questions and syllogism that follows it.

1. Can a born again person ever go to hell?

2. Can a born again person ever become un-born again?

I have never had anyone answer these two questions in the affirmative until they feel the force of the argument by way of its conclusion. And by then, it is too late.

1. A born again person cannot go to hell.
2. A born again person cannot become un-born again.
3. Therefore, no person who has ever been born again can go to hell.

It is a simple method with a simple argument and it is designed to get people to stop and think about their claim that Christians can lose their salvation. The argument progresses by defending the major and minor premises by way of biblical exegesis. This argument is both valid in that the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. It is sound in that both premises are true.

What usually happens in response to this argument? Generally, people will back up and try to claim that a born again person can actually go to hell even though they may not be able to ever become un-born again. If the discussion moves in that direction, you need to prepare yourself to explain what the Bible teaches about being regenerated and what the biblical doctrine of justification actually affirms. But at a minimum, this will cause the errant person to pause and think about what they are claiming. As a young Christian I used to think this way as well. I moved from pentecostal theology as a young teenager, to a hybrid pentecostal as a young man, to a more traditional view, and finally to a confessing reformed covenantal baptist view which is where I am today. Christians who are earnestly interested in knowing Christ and who are willing to put in some energy will benefit a great deal from this method. I did. As for apathy in the others, they have much bigger problems than fine-tuning the doctrine of eternal security.

Making (Mis)Use of the Bible

The Bible has a lot of things to say about a lot of different subjects. The sacred book has something to say about how every thing we see around us all began, and one day, how it will all end. And the Bible has a lot to say about a bunch of things that happened and should happen in between the beginning and the end of all things as we know it. And since the Bible has so much to say about so many things, it isn’t surprising to see so many people use the Bible to do and say so many things themselves. People sure do put the Bible to work to do a lot. And the sad reality is that a lot people treat the Bible, especially in our culture, as if it is there to do their bidding, to fight their war, to improve their life, to propel them to loftier places, and much more. For many Christians, the Bible isn’t a book that is there to shape their life, but instead, they shape the Bible in such a way as to make it seem that God has spoken on matters for them specifically that God has indeed not had anything at all to say.

The study of Scripture is a spiritual act. It is a spiritual discipline. There is nothing that is more important to the Christian than Scripture. Scripture informs us, cleanses us, renovates our minds, renews our hearts, transforms our lives! Scripture tells us who Jesus is. Scripture brings us the gospel. Scripture brings us life! Eternal life! Scripture ensures that we will never be deceived. How? Scripture is the truth. So long as we have the truth, we can never be deceived. Is it any wonder that Scripture is at the very core of the non-Christian attacks against the Christian movement? The record of the OT is used to indict the kind of God it portraits, and therefore, undermines itself according to the opponents of Christ. Every Christian must know the Scripture, must know it’s history, must know something about its transmission, must surely know its content, and must know how to let Scripture defend itself. I cannot think of anything more important in the life of the Christian than Scripture. We know nothing about the Christian faith, the Christ who redeems, the Spirit who fills us apart from Scripture.

John MacArthur tells us, “if you are one of those who questions whether truth is really important, please don’t call your belief system Christianity, because that is not what it is.” [The Truth War] Jesus said that God’s Word is truth. For the truth believer there is very little as important as studying God’s Word seriously. [The Hermeneutical Spiral] Calvin said, “At any rate, there is no doubt that firm certainty of doctrine was engraved in their hearts, so that they were convinced and understood that what they had learned proceeded from God. For by His Word, God rendered faith unambiguous forever, a faith that should be superior to all opinion.” [Institutes] Michael Kruger in his excellent work Canon Revisited writes, “What is needed, then, is a canonical model that does not ground the New Testament canon in an external authority, but seeks to ground the canon in the only place it could be grounded, its own authority.” [Canon Revisited] Clearly, the Bible has a place of prominence in the life of the Christian. And with the recent trends in certain cultures, especially Europe and America, it should be obvious to any intelligent Christian that a proper understanding and use of Scripture is as important today as it was in the time of the Apostles. So much for the great downgrade of the significance of theology, the languages, and doctrine in our churches. Any discerning Christian ought to be able to figure out that God was serious when He spoke to us in Scripture. And if we are serious about God, about our relationship with Christ, we will take more than just a passing interest in what God has to say.

Yet, many Christians seem to be almost entirely uninterested in respecting the Scripture’s message and record, willing to take the Bible as a tool to defend their own attitudes, philosophies, and behaviors. Prov. 29:18 is one example. The KJV renders this text, “Where there is no vision the people perish.” More than a few Christians have used this verse to support the idea that we have to “cast a vision” for the mission of our local church, various ministries, and even your own personal career. A text actually means, as the NASB tenders it, “Where there is no vision, the people are unrestrained.” The idea is where there is no “prophetic word” immorality dominates, and this to the destruction of people’s souls. In other words, where God’s Word is not proclaimed to the community, there is little to no moral restraint. Yet we use it to support our own modern motivational talks. Such recklessness should produce embarrassment and shame.

Sadly, some Christians are far more interested in having God speak to them outside of Scripture than they are in attempting to understand what God is speaking to them in Scripture. These Christians have no clue that God does not speak to men outside of Scripture. This is why Scripture is called the Word of God. If you want to know God’s will for your life, read the Bible with as much energy as you can muster and pray for enlightenment. If we want to know what God wants our church involved in, we can know that by reading Scripture. Other Christians just want to use the Bible for their owner personal agendas, whatever they might be. Perhaps I want to feel better about myself, be a better parent, excel at work and so forth. All these modern, psychological approaches to Scripture rest on a faulty presupposition that the Bible was given to me so that I could use it to become a better me according to what I think a better me is. Scripture was given to make us holy, to shape us into the image of Christ, to transform and renovate our minds so that we have the mind of Christ.

Scripture is the standard by which all men will be measured. Scripture informs us of our sin, our guilt, and our condemnation. For this reason, men want to destroy it, to rip it to shreds, to reduce its credibility. They do not want Scripture to be accurate when it condemns their adultery, their homosexuality, their treachery, their lies, their greed, their idolatry, and their murderous ways. So they attack it on every level and those attacks are relentless. But Scripture also brings glad tidings of good news. Through Jesus Christ, and through Him alone, there is light, life, and eternal peace. Scripture alone brings the knowledge by which we know the truth light, the true life, the true Redeemer of the world.

If you know nothing else, know Scripture. If you can talk about nothing else, be able to talk about Scripture. If your apologetic is weak anywhere, let it be weak anywhere else but in defending Scripture. The entire Christian walk centers around the Jesus Christ who reveals Himself in Scripture. Ignorance of Scripture equals ignorance of Christ!