It is widely recognized that the narrative of the last few days of the life of Jesus was the earliest part of the Gospel story to take shape as a connected whole. There were many reasons why this should be so. For one thing, the events of those days must have been indelibly impressed on the memory of those men and women who spent them in Jesus’ company. When they came together for fellowship and worship they would recall the days that led up to the crucifixion, and the days that followed it; and others who had not been present at the time would be eager to hear the details. This was especially true of those occasions when Christians took the bread and wine of thanksgiving as their Master’s memorial: “as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup”, said Paul, “you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (1 Cor. xi. 26)―words which appear to mean not simply that participation in the Lord’s Supper was in itself an acted proclamation of His death, but that every such participation was regularly accompanied by a repetition of the passion narrative. In this way even recent converts to the new faith must soon have become tolerably word-perfect in their ability to tell the story.

Nor was it only at Christian meetings for worship that the story was repeated; it was told time and again as an essential part of the apostles’ preaching. Paul reminds his Galatian converts how before their very eyes “Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified” (Gal. iii. 1)―so vividly, we may gather, did he describe the crucifixion as he preached the gospel to them. In like vein he reminds the Corinthian Christians how, when first he visited their city with the gospel, he “decided to know nothing” among them “except Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Cor. ii. 2). And when, later in the same epistle, he reminds them of the terms in which he preached the Gospel to them, he says that he delivered to them “as of first importance” what he himself had received―to begin with, “that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures” (1 Cor. xv. 3).

Continue Reading

He that wishes to attain right views about Christian holiness, must begin by examining the vast and solemn subject of sin. He must dig down very low if he would build high. A mistake here is most mischievous. Wrong views about holiness are generally traceable to wrong views about human corruption. I make no apology for beginning this volume of papers about holiness by making some plain statements

about sin.

The plain truth is that a right knowledge of sin lies at the root of all saving Christianity. Without it such doctrines as justification, conversion, sanctification, are “words and names” which convey no meaning to the mind. The first thing, therefore, that God does when He makes anyone a new creature in Christ, is to send light into his heart, and show him that he is a guilty sinner. The material creation in Genesis began with “light,” and so also does the spiritual creation. God “shines into our hearts” by the work of the Holy Ghost, and then spiritual life begins. (2 Cor. iv. 6.) - Dim or indistinct views of sin are the origin of most of the errors, heresies, and false doctrines of the present day. If a man does not realize the dangerous nature of his soul’s disease, you cannot wonder if he is content with false or imperfect remedies. I believe that one of the chief wants of the Church in the nineteenth century has been, and is, clearer, fuller teaching about sin.

(1) I shall begin the subject by supplying some definition of sin. We are all of course familiar with the terms “sin” and “sinners.” We talk frequently of “sin” being in the world, and of men committing “sins.” But what do we mean by these terms and phrases? Do we really know? I fear there is much mental confusion and haziness on this point. Let me try, as briefly as possible, to supply an answer. I say, then, that “sin,” speaking generally, is, as the Ninth Article of our Church declares, “the fault and corruption of the nature of every man that is naturally engendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone (quam longissime is the Latin) from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth alway against the spirit; and, therefore, in every person born into the world, it deserveth God’s wrath and damnation.” Sin, in short, is that vast moral disease which affects the whole human race, of every rank, and class, and name, and nation, and people, and tongue; a disease from which there never was but one born of woman that was free. Need I say that One was Christ

Jesus the Lord?

Continue Reading

The question of what the biblical gospel is must be especially important to ‘evangelicals’, whose very label includes the word ‘evangel’, the English transliteration of the Greek word for ‘gospel’ (euangelion). Historically, evangelicals have been concerned to preserve and promulgate the gospel. But precisely what is this gospel? All sides recognize that it is ‘good news’ in some sense. But what is the content of this good news?

Although it is worth saying something about the ‘gospel’ words in the NT, the issue cannot be answered by mere word studies. Some NT books, eg John’s Gospel, never use the word ‘gospel’, even though from a thematic perspective they obviously have as much ‘good news’ to tell as books that abound in the ‘gospel’ word-group. In the pages that follow, therefore, after some observations on the relevant words, I outline some of the broader considerations that must be taken on board if we are to grasp what the biblical gospel is. And, finally, I outline the primacy of the gospel in all Christian thought and mission over against competitors and wouldbe usurpers.

Gospel words

In non-biblical sources before the NT period, euangelion customarily referred to the reward given a messenger who brought good news—of military victory, perhaps, or of escape from danger. By an obvious transfer, it came to refer to the good news itself. Modern discussions of ‘gospel’ commonly cite the enthronement inscription, dated 9 BC, from Priene in Asia Minor. In this inscription the birthday of the emperor Augustus is hailed as ‘the beginning of the joyful news (euangelia) for the world’. The noun occurs once in the LXX with the meaning ‘reward’ (2 Samuel 4:10), and five times referring to military ‘good news’ (2 Samuel 18:20, 22, 25, 27; 2 Kings 7:9). On the other hand, the cognate verb, euangelizomai (‘I announce or proclaim good news’, sometimes parallel to kēryssō, ‘I preach’, ‘I proclaim’) is found more frequently. But clearly it is the NT that repeatedly invests euangelion with the meaning ‘good news’, just as it is the NT that must establish what the good news is.

Continue Reading

This is sermon #18 in the Hebrews series. In this sermon on Hebrews 6:13-20, I preach on the promises of God and assurance.

 

Subscription Links

If you have enjoyed this podcast, please subscribe:

 iTunes

 RSS

Your Feedback

Also, if you enjoyed the show, please rate it on iTunes and write a brief review. That would help tremendously in getting the word out! Thanks.

This is sermon #17 in the Hebrews series. In this sermon on Hebrews 6:9-12, I preach on the promises of God and assurance.

Subscription Links

If you have enjoyed this podcast, please subscribe:

 iTunes

 RSS

Your Feedback

Also, if you enjoyed the show, please rate it on iTunes and write a brief review. That would help tremendously in getting the word out! Thanks.

This is sermon #16 in the Hebrews series. In this sermon on Hebrews 6:4-8, I preach on assurance, the perseverance of the saints, and apostasy.

Subscription Links

If you have enjoyed this podcast, please subscribe:

 iTunes

 RSS

Your Feedback

Also, if you enjoyed the show, please rate it on iTunes and write a brief review. That would help tremendously in getting the word out! Thanks.

This is sermon #15 in the Hebrews series. In this sermon on Hebrews 6:1-3, I preach on repentance, faith, conversion, the resurrection of the dead, eternal judgment and growing in spiritual maturity

 

Subscription Links

If you have enjoyed this sermon, please subscribe:

 iTunes

 RSS

Your Feedback

Also, if you enjoyed the show, please rate it on iTunes and write a brief review. That would help tremendously in getting the word out! Thanks.

This is sermon #14 in the Hebrews series. In this sermon on Hebrews 5:11-14, I preach on biblical and gospel illiteracy, spiritual maturity, reading and studying the bible, and hearing and receiving the Word of God.

 

This is sermon #12 in the Hebrews series. In this sermon, I preach on the humanity and deity of Jesus, the sinlessness of Jesus, overcoming temptation, fear of failure, perseverance in the Christian life and coming before the throne of God’s grace in prayer.

Subscription Links

If you have enjoyed this podcast, please subscribe:

iTunes

RSS

Your Feedback

Also, if you enjoyed the show, please rate it on iTunes and write a brief review.  That would help tremendously in getting the word out! Thanks.

J. P. Moreland, in an article he wrote in 2005 titled, "Truth, Contemporary Philosophy, and the Postmodern Turn," argues that postmodernism "is an immoral, coward's way out that is not worthy of a movement born out of the martyrs' blood.”  You can find Moreland's full article here.  I've included a summary of the article below, followed by my response.

J. P. Moreland is the Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, Biola University in La Mirada, California. He has four earned degrees: a B.S. in chemistry from the University of Missouri, a Th.M. in theology from Dallas Theological Seminary, an M. A. in philosophy from the University of California-Riverside, and a Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Southern California.

Moreland, J. P. “Truth, Contemporary Philosophy, and the Postmodern Turn.”  Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 48, no. 1 (2005), 77-88.

Postmodernism has changed previous “self-evident truths” to “socially constructed truths within a linguistic community.”  Postmodernists have rejected that human knowledge can correspond with creation.  J. P. Moreland, on the other hand, believes man’s interpretation of the world is accurate concerning how the world really is.  The purpose of this article is to present the correspondence theory and the postmodern rejection, and then to identify five confusions of which Moreland believes postmodern revisionists are guilty.

The correspondence theory of truth basically argues that truth is obtained when a truth bearer stands in appropriate correspondence relation to a truth maker.  Furthermore, propositions are either true or false, and are expressed in sentence(s).  Facts inform these truth claims.  Facts, that is, relevant facts, make propositions true.  Thus, correspondence is a two-placed relation between a proposition and a relevant fact that matches, conforms to, and corresponds with the proposition.  As individuals are placed within this correspondence relationship, they experience truth.

Postmodernism, on the other hand, argues for cultural relativism concerning reality, truth, reason, value, linguistic meaning, the self, etc.  Everything that each human “knows” is a result of his or her social constructions instead of due to objective truth.  The postmodern concern is that those who claim to have objective truth victimize those who do not have this objective truth.

Moreland believes there are five confusions that plague postmodernism.  First, correspondence theory is a realist metaphysical thesis, not a result of Cartesian anxiety and the pursuit of absolute truth, as purported by Postmodernists. Truth only needs as much epistemic strength as the subject matter demands.  Second, there are two forms of objectivity: psychological objectivity and rational objectivity.  With psychological objectivity, neutrality is possible; while with rational objectivity, neutrality is impossible, but one can still make a rational decision based on reasonable evidence.  Third, most postmodernists do not consider modest foundationalism—the dominant foundationalist position today—when critiqu...